So, how does Obama's war get paid for? Can we have an special tax on the wealthiest? Can

[grahamhgreen]

we guarantee that no cuts will happen to any social programs because of it?

Can we enact something like the:

War Profiteering Act of 2007

Similar to the goals of the renegotiation acts to control excessive war profits, the War Profiteering Act of 2007 (“WPA”) seeks to amend the federal criminal code to prohibit profiteering and fraud by levying more stringent penalties on such illegal actions. The WPA provides in relevant parts that it shall be a violation of law for any person involved in the performance of a contract “in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities within the jurisdiction of the United States Government,” who “ knowingly and willfully” defrauds or attempts to defraud the government or “materially overvalues any good or service with the specific intent to defraud and excessively profit from the war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.”38 A contractor found to have overcharged the government may be fined the greater of $100,000 or not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds derived from the overvaluation.39 In addition, such parties may also be subject to imprisonment for up to not more than ten years.

What is the cost of this war?

Why is Obama not representing the American people?

What about the deficit that everyone screams about?

Why was chained CPI on the table, but war is not?

Etc, etc, etc....


I could not be more dissatisfied with my representation in the White House.

[leftstreet]

1. Cue the Catfood Commission

They'll probably have some ideas

DURec

[KoKo]

2. You know it's coming out of our drained pockets...don't you?

More SEQUESTER...while Military Stand Off because of another "Pending Attack" eats up our resources and causes even more pain and hardship for Troops/Families/Workers and the rest of us who aren't seeing our incomes rise for over a Decade and working more jobs and harder...so that there's not much time left for "Civic Participation."

We've been SCREWED....

[kardonb]

27. war

What the hell " Obama's war " are you talking about ? There is no such war going on at all ! Quit your useless blathering , and using conjecture instead of proven FACTS !

[KoKo]

43. I think you meant to post to the OP and not me...because

my post says nothing about "Obama's War."

So please delete your post and reply to the OP.

Thanks!

[DJ13]

3. Money is never a problem unless its being spent on those who cant fund reelection campaigns

That would be us, the 99%.

(Especially the bottom 47%...)

[Demo_Chris]

4. We will borrow it and stick our kids with the bill...

They can pay it off while working at McDonald's.

[DirkGently]

5. A war tax would eliminate 100% of support for intervention in Syria.

Maybe 110%.

Love the premise that "only America can stop WMD, because all our weapons and monies."

But of all "wealthy" countries, we have the worst, costliest healthcare, least viable mass transit and infrastructure, least investment in renewable energy and education, and constant screams for aggressive cuts to our last vestiges of social safety nets.

Which is it? Are we broke, or are the only ones who can "afford" to charge into to every conflict in the Middle East to (make sure it comes out to our advantage) prevent "moral obscenity?"

Enough of this bullshit. We are not in charge of the Middle East. We cannot be engaged in a constant state of war in the Middle East because of its perceived strategic importance, while squeezing more blood out of the people who actually live here.

[KoKo]

44. +1

[Tx4obama]

6. My guess is that it is already paid for

The Navy etc are getting paid today and will be paid next week next month etc whether we fire the missiles or not.
It's not like new folks are going to be hired.

The missiles are already built and paid for. Missiles have an expiration date - so if they are used or not used they are replaced with new ones eventually.

I heard on the news that there will probably be three to five missiles shot at each of the approximately 50 targets.

So, if that is true - I don't see what 'new' expense there would be.

[grahamhgreen]

7. So war is free, now. Cool.

[Tx4obama]

8. I did not say 'free' - I said that most every thing is already paid for.

The same folks on the ships etc will be paid as they currently are.

The ships, missiles, etc are already built and paid for.

Etc.

I thought that my previous comment was pretty clear.



p.s. Of course the cost of the missiles, man hours, etc will be added up but it will not be a 'new' expense.

[HumansAndResources]

64. Raytheon Will Replace the Missiles Fired For Big Bucks - A "New" Expense

And besides, "our" (sic) forces should not be there At All. Let the Transnationals pay for the defense of their stolen resources and pipeline routes.

Better still, return the resources and land to the people, so there is nothing to fight over anywhere, anymore.

Edit: Just read your post below about the 'expiration date' on the missiles. I wasn't aware they worked planned-obsolescence into those, though I'm not surprised. More MicTrickery in play. Does that mean they must be "thrown away" after x-months? Please link-me on this, I'd like to read about this particular MicScam.

[Tx4obama]

65. They ARE constantly being replaced all the time even when not used...

... they have expiration dates.

Missiles last only so many years and they are constantly being retired and replaced.

In the long term it will cost the same.

[grasswire]

9. that is one of the more disgusting posts I have e.ver read on DU

[Tx4obama]

10. I do not see why. A question was asked about 'the cost' and I gave my opinion.

Perhaps you'd like to list out what costs you believe there will be.

I am all ears.

[grahamhgreen]

14. I don't know, maybe they percieve your statement as absurd, here's an estimate:

A limited military response could end with just one series of attacks. But what then, if more force is needed? One option would be to establish a "no-fly zone" over Syria, preventing the Bashar Assad government from using its air power against rebel forces.


But in a letter last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, estimated it would cost $500 million to initially set up a no-fly zone, followed by expenses "averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year."


Establishing a buffer zone to protect civilian populations in Syria could be even more expensive, according to the general, requiring a limited no-fly zone as well as U.S. ground forces. That would push the costs to over $1 billion per month. Other options, he said, are just as costly.


Clearly, none of this is cheap, even in a best-case scenario. In 2011, the Pentagon estimated the first few weeks of its operations in the multinational military intervention in Libya cost around $608 million. More than half of those costs went toward replacing weapons like the Raytheon (RTN -0.36%) Tomahawk missiles and Boeing's (BA -0.96%) Joint Direct Attack Munitions, the JDAM smart bombs, according to DefenseNews.com.


The 78-day air campaign in Kosovo, by contrast, cost the U.S. about $5 billion, although that amount also included peacekeeping and refugee assistance funds.

http://money.msn.com/now/post--what-would-a-strike-against-syria-cost

Note the original estimate for Iraq was 80 billion.

Estimates are now from 1.7 to 6 trillion.

So if we call it 3 trillion for Iraq based on an initial estimate of 80b.

And the estimate for Syria is 1 billion a month, but really it's 37.5 times that, and it lasts just 5 years.... let's just say this could cost us 2.250 trillion in the long term, assuming it doesn't devolve into WWIII.....

[Tx4obama]

16. Syria will be short-term and no boots on the ground and Obama is not going to do..

not going to do a 'no-fly zone'.

Comparing Syria to Iraq is misleading.

Syria would be more like Libya but less since there will not be a 'no-fly zone'.

[grahamhgreen]

17. And Iraq will only cost 80 billion.... ;)

[Tx4obama]

18. Maybe you should reread your excerpt regarding Libya.

Half of the cost was the missiles - which I've already stated are replaced anyway when the hit the expiration date.

And those missiles are built and paid for continually if they are used or not.

The cost of Libya was high due to the 'no-fly zone' etc.

Syria will not be like Libya.

Comparing apples to oranges does not work.

[grahamhgreen]

25. Syria might be like Granada, or Libya, or Iraq, or Vietnam.... which is why we should not start,

in my view.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Iraq was supposed to be a few weeks.

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Yeah, a (yellow-)cakewalk

[CakeGrrl]

38. This b.s. comparing Iraq to Syria is a false comparison

Unless you firmly believe Obama is truly a clueless, reactionary warmonger like Bush.

There is no room for thought here, or the consideration that one circumstance may actually DIFFER from another for clear reasons.

[HooptieWagon]

56. When you stand alone...

...in opposition to the entire world...one is either a brilliant visionary who doubts himself, or an arrogant fool who is certain of his wisdom.

[CakeGrrl]

66. He's not as "alone" as you believe, or whoever's telling you that

Apparently people don't care to understand how this president works, as evidenced by equating him to Bush. He's consistently thought further ahead of the reactionaries who shout and cry at every move he makes. He's always on the verge, if you swallow MSM spin, of having his 'Waterloo' or suffering severe damage to his presidency, or at some other make-or-break moment.

And what has happened all those other times? (Rhetorical.)

Meanwhile, France and Germany's intelligence communities are compiling evidence that Assad is behind the illegal attacks that the likes of Elizabeth Warren acknowledged.

And the G20 is approaching. I suspect there will be quite a bit going on beyond the scope of this forum to want to deal with.

[grahamhgreen]

57. No, it's exactly the same. WMD and all.

[CakeGrrl]

67. So you believe they're making all this up? No actual dead people?

OK. We'll see as the investigations continue.

[grahamhgreen]

71. Not sure. But I don't trust liars. Same causus belli. Same drumbeat.

Part of the neocon master plan.

High probability of a con job.

And then, I don't care about the gas. Prosecute the known torturers here, then get back to me. Prosecute the banksters, then tell me about injustices afar.

[CakeGrrl]

39. Your mistake here, Tx, is

assuming that people actually LISTEN to what the President is trying to say.

Apparently NOTHING that comes from the government or its representatives is to be trusted - except for Warren, Sanders, Grayson or Kucinich.

Therefore, when the President says "No boots on the ground", is is obviously lying because he's too clueless to actually understand what he's saying.

Good luck trying to make any point with nuance.

[grahamhgreen]

59. Von Clauswitz called it "The Fog of War" ie, no one knows what will happen...

The nature of the ambiguity described as the fog of war varies according to the level at which participants are engaged.

Grand strategic

Ambiguity is related to the political intent, capabilities, and logistical strengths of an adversary. Sources of information include diplomatic intelligence, secret (or special) intelligence, strategic modeling, and data derived from open-source intelligence. Affected participants seek to understand intent of and political motivations. Outcomes at this level may encompass military action but are more concerned with sociopolitical and economic outcomes from which it might cascade if left unattended.


Military strategic

Militarily, the ambiguity experienced at this level relates to the structure, strength, capability, and disposition of own and adversary offensive and defensive assets. Own-force ambiguity can be caused by failure to report material deficiencies or an unwillingness to escalate concerns, leading to an optimistic view of own capabilities. Adversary ambiguity may be a result of inaccurate intelligence, sources being subverted or deceived, or adversary intelligence presenting a superior picture allowing one's decision cycle to be compromised. In addition, if unanticipated situations occur they can hamper the execution of long term planning.


Operational

Within the operational theatre the commander undertakes tasks as directed by the Military Strategic level, ambiguity continues to relate to adversary capability and intent but is coupled with own directive ambiguity, the commander not having the full sight of the strategic imperative. As operational tempo increases at this level the ambiguity experienced by the commander is susceptible to delays in communication of the tactical situation and the ebb and flow of own force, and adversary force interaction. The commander seeks to penetrate the fog of war through significant use of reconnaissance assets and a comprehensive Joint Operational Picture.


Tactical

Ambiguity stems from several factors at the tactical level, both by deliberate means by the enemy (including active deception and/or electronic attack on communications and sensors) as well as factors inherent to battle resulting in lack of comprehension by commanders as to the tactical environment, the logistic status of their own units, how they are interacting with each other, or their intentions. This lack of comprehension can stem from many factors, individually or in combination, such as poor reconnaissance; inaccurate intelligence; or faulty communication. The tempo of decision making at the tactical level is much greater than at other levels, increasing the risk of escalating ambiguity as assumptions build and resources are allocated based on those assumptions.

[brentspeak]

12. "Missiles have an expiration date"

Yeah, hurry-up and get those missiles launched -- "use them or lose them". Don't want to waste perfectly good missiles.

Thanks for Dumb Post of the Day.

[Tx4obama]

15. I did not say 'hurry up and use them'. On the news during the Libya intervention...

... they said that 'missiles have an expiration date' and that they are replaced with newer ones when they expire.

My point was that the taxpayers are paying for them all the time even when they are not being used.

And my point was that there are not going to be new missiles made just for Syria - the ones that are already made and paid for will be used.

The USA has stockpiles of missiles - I thought everyone knew that.

I can't believe that folks are getting upset about 'the facts'.

[PoliticAverse]

24. It was good that you put 'the facts' in quotes... n/t

[HumansAndResources]

68. Remember: "Air Force Running Out of Cruise Missiles"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html

So, I guess those stockpiles are limited. Or maybe this story was "MicPlanted" to drive up the price of certain stocks before the next quarterly reporting period.

Prisons and MIC - the biggest "growth industries" left in the USA.

[totodeinhere]

21. The missiles that are fired will have to be replaced. The war profiteers are already salivating I'm

sure. It will cost millions of not billions and the MIC will be pleased.

[rhett o rick]

28. Three missiles at 50 targets equals 150. That time $1 million apiece equals one hell of a lot of

money that could be better spent. Syria is not a direct threat to the USofA.

Spend the $150 million on infrastructure improvements.

My guess is that your guess that it's already paid for is bogus.

If we are in direct danger, then the President can call for immediate action. If he wants to punish someone, he needs Congressional approval.

[curlyred]

41. Deficit spending?

And we of course would not replace any or it.

[angry citizen]

76. bring in the "job creators"

Just give generous tax breaks to the wealthy and that will create a trickle down of wealth and multiply the governments revenues. It worked for Iraq.

[curlyred]

42. Yeah! Just like Iraq!

The Army was gonna get paid. The Marines were gonna paid. All the armaments were paid for...gosh, what's the big fucking deal? Lets blow everyone the hell up!

[Tx4obama]

45. Why are you comparing Bush's Iraq to Syria - instead of comparing Syria to how Obama handled Libya?

In my opinion, I think all of the talk about Iraq on this thread is ridiculous.

[curlyred]

46. I think your statement is ridiculous

Why? Because we are doomed to repeat the mistakes from which we do not learn - Iraq, Afghanistan, and I pray not Syria.

[Tx4obama]

48. I think some of us learned a lot about Pres Obama by what he did regarding LIBYA.

What Bush did regarding Iraq and Afghanistan has absolutely NOTHING do with the issue of Obama and Syria.

Comparing Bush to Obama is totally ridiculous.

Obama HAS a past history of how he handles things differently - if you want to speculate what Obama will do in the case of Syria then it needs to be compared to how he handled the situation in Libya during the 'no fly zone' and strategic missiles - not the shit Bush did.

[HumansAndResources]

69. Libya: Formerly the Highest Standard of Living in the Region

Free Universal Health Care, Zero-interest business loans. A water-pipeline almost-completed, built with Libyan foundries (no outsourcing) that could have fed millions of Africans (who depend on US-Aid and must comply with us Or Else status-quo). Yeah, that Gadaffi-guy and his secular-regime had to go and be replaced with Al Qaeda (pronounced "Al-CIA-duh&quot Wahabbis.

Some victory. But, yeah, the "regime change" to hell was carried out "very efficiently."

[curlyred]

47. And your signature line is also ridiculous in light of your remarks

[Tx4obama]

49. My sig line is NOT ridiculous. Going to help prevent more people from being gassed is NOT a dumb war

... image if someone in our government were to gas over 1,400 of us here in The USA - everyone would be hollering for other countries to come and help us.

[curlyred]

51. But we can bomb 1400 people and that is fine and dandy!

Death is death and war is war. It is ALL bad.

[Tx4obama]

52. Going in and bombing military stockpiles and aircraft is NOT bombing 1400 people.

Sitting back and allowing Assad to continue killing Syrians is NOT acceptable.

Over 100,000 people are already dead.

What number should we wait for? A million?

[curlyred]

58. You said 1400 people gassed

You can change the terms but the point remains. Dead is dead,

[Tx4obama]

60. Huh? You are the one that said go in and bomb 1400 people.

If we go in and hit the stockpiles, etc - we will NOT be killing 1400 people.

And yes 1400+ people were gassed (over 400 were children),
total that have died in Syria is over 100,000 (gas and conventional weapons).

Have a great week.

[curlyred]

63. Here is your post, unabridged

... image if someone in our government were to gas over 1,400 of us here in The USA - everyone would be hollering for other countries to come and help us.

[HumansAndResources]

70. Oh, kinda like WACO

Burning Tear-Gas turns to cyanide - why the children's skeletons were in distorted positions - every muscle contracts to the point of breaking bones - then you die. It could never happen here.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Yeah, and those soldiers were gonna die anyway, after all, everybody does!

[Autumn]

11. There are plenty of programs that can be cut to pay for this.

Unfortunately the programs they will target to cut are lifelines for the vulnerable among us. But who gives a shit, they are all takers and leeches.


for the "But who gives a shit, they are all takers and leeches." the rest is sadly enough, not sarcasm. Because that's coming.

[FirstLight]

13. great point!

Aren't we still functioning under the Sequester?

But there's ALWAYS money for War, it seems...


total bullshit...

[DeSwiss]

20. I think this one's......

...our great-great-grandchildren's bill.

- But by then everything will be dystopian again and no one will care......

K&R

[valerief]

22. Don't be silly. Not when they can slash funding for the 99%. nt

[Cryptoad]

23. Who has said anyting about a War? nt

[idwiyo]

29. I am sure there are some food stamps left that are ripe for cutting.

[silvershadow]

30. No. It will be paid for out of your earned pension, earned benefits, etc. The rich

can't afford to pay for it, they're too busy creating jobs to mess with a war.

[jaysunb]

31. War ????? What war are you talking about ?

link please....don't know how I could missed something that important.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. You hadn't heard that Obama wants to shoot cruise missiles at Syria?

That's the war being referenced.

[jaysunb]

36. Oh, I see...

The OP made it seem as if a war was already under way. Kinda figured that would be hard to miss....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. Well he did stae his intention toward Syria, and he said he wants war.

We talked in the lead-up to Iraq (even though we were ignored). We're going to talk about this one before it happens too, all objections to talking notwithstanding.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Shared sacrifice?

Actually, not funny at all, since we know the one-percenters won't be made to sacrifice anything.

[RoccoR5955]

33. They should bring back the draft while they're at it...

This way we wouldn't have to hire expensive "consultants" to do tasks like KP, and driving convoys.

[JohnnyRingo]

35. How much is this action going to cost?

It apparently matters.

If you saw information that led you to believe Obama is planning a protracted military engagement, the cost in fortune and blood could be astronomical, but if it's a few million dollar cruise missiles, that may be paid by change found down in the East Wing couch cushions. The pentagon probably spends more than that on printer cartridges.

For many here, it's a moral decision, but in your post you're clearly concerned with only the dollars and cents. Is that really why you "could not be more dissatisfied" with this administration?

[grahamhgreen]

61. The immorality of the President's intended action becomes even more

poignant when when we compare the costs, in real terms, as to the suffering that will be brought here at home from cuts to social welfare programs, food for grannies, and an increase burden on the middle and lower classes who will be forced to pay for this boondoggle.

In the end, it becomes a way of funneling money from the lower classes to the higher classes involved in military profiteering.

This is just yet another, in a long ongoing continuation of the neocon policies of the Bush administration. That is why I am disappointed. Would it be so bad for the President to actually represent the will of the majority in this case, as he failed to do with health care, prosecution of war crimes, prosecution of banksters, chained-cpi, extension of the Bush tax cuts, failure to prosecute BP, etc?

If the money can be found so easily, then let the hoarding class pay with a special tax.

[gopiscrap]

40. I agree tax the fucking rich even if we don't attack Syria

[GeorgeGist]

50. Easy ...

[neverforget]

53. There's always money for war

I posted this yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023577675

[mick063]

54. So I read a few posts above me explaining that this military adventure was practically paid for.

I'll give a couple answers to this nonsense.

1) If it is already paid for, then we can raise taxes on the wealthiest earners with no foreseeable added expense to them. If this is a cheap affair, it wouldn't hurt them at all to pick up the entire tab.

2) We spend more on our defense than the next ten countries combined. Further, this doesn't account for an additional federal bureaucracy added under Bush to militarize our local police. If our military adventurism is prepaid, then we are undoubtedly spending way too much on defense as we are going beyond defense and funding adventurism.


Given points 1&2, the people that are defending the cutting of Social Security, SNAPS, and federal pensions to fund this adventurism can shove it up their ass. Their priorities are all fucked up. Being a "team player" has warped their minds beyond comprehension. They have coopted the Democratic party and dare us to elect Rand Paul daily. Such arrogance will not be forgotten.

The answer, of course, isn't Rand Paul.

The ballot is filled with candidates. You know what I am getting at.

Vote, work, and donate your conscious. Just do it!

[EVDebs]

55. JFK's tax cut ended up as LBJ's war surtax

1962 tax cut ended up as LBJ's war surtax to pay for Vietnam war. History repeats.

[JoePhilly]

72. Why does Obama hate America!!!!???!!!! etc etc etc ...

[grahamhgreen]

73. Wrong question. Why doesn't he represent the will of the majority?

[JoePhilly]

74. I struggle to recall a time when we wanted a President to govern

based on polls. And of course that not how a President obtains direct access to "the will of the people".

I'll come back to that point in a second.

I get the sense that there are a lot of folks here who are very upset that its taking Obama so long to bomb Syria. They were so sure it was going to happen at any second. Now the waiting is driving them crazy.

DU common wisdom was that Obama was in a big rush, he was going to bomb Syria Thursday, not wait for UN report, not consult with congress.

Then, when that didn't happen ... it was definitely going to be part of the Friday afternoon news dump. Didn't happen then either.

Then, it was DEFINITELY going to happen over the long weekend when no one was paying attention. That had to be Obama's evil plan.

DU common wisdom, wrong again.

The President is forcing Congress to take a position. If he said he was not going to attack, Congress could avoid playing any role in this rather complex situation. Now, they have to stand up and take an official position. They're almost as angry.

And of course, DU's Combustible Hair Club was sure Obama wanted war. They were sure some one else was pulling the strings.

But now ... he's asked YOUR elected officials to take an official position ... returning to the point ... that is how a President obtains direct access to "the will of the people" ... he goes to the people YOU elected, and he gets them to vote on it.

And having done this ... some on DU seem very upset.

Upset that he didn't bomb Syria last week as predicted ... and now he's making our representatives take an official position.

Clearly, he hates America.

[grahamhgreen]

75. So, why doesn't he represent the will of the majority? Thinks he knows better?

If it's about outrage against a dictator, how bout taking an admitted bunch of torturers to court - from the Bush administration?

[JoePhilly]

77. The will of the majority is reflected in who you elected.

I'm not sure what part of that is confusing you. We told President Obama that we think he knows better when we elected him to be our leader. And, we also elected representatives to Congress. That's how it works.

The other problem that you, and some others seem to have on this, is the inability to focus.

Bush should be in jail for war crimes ... blah, blah, blah.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

It does not help your argument to bounce from topic to topic.