Increase defence spending.

Only the right believes in appealing to ignorance instead of engendering better solutions at lower cost.

 

Only the left believes you get better solutions at lower cost through government monopoly.

 

who claims that? our supreme law of the land only enumerates sufficient socialism to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare.

 

I am in the UK where the government has a monopoly on heathcare, education and roads. Here the left always says monopoly is bad, until you call them out and say the government has one.

 

If only, we could convince our elected representatives to come up with Pareto Optimal solutions in modern times.

 

I don't think that the US military budget is even an issue and it's not even comparable.
And why would we want to increase our budget just because the US is doing it?

I don't think that having war taxes is a particularly good idea.
Also it wouldn't surprise me if there is a budget review board in the US.

 

Why do you believe wartime tax rates are not a good idea during any alleged time of war? It could be claimed, that if our elected representatives can't justify wartime tax rates, it must not be real times of war.

 

because if you can't give the same amount as the other guy then you're running at a loss and then surprise there's no money to fund the war because too many people have been broke for too long.

That's why we have war bonds because there optional nobody is obliged to buy them and the last time we did that was during the first World War.

 

How do you fund a war, without wartime tax rates and expect to win, even if only by attrition?

In the US, the right only has entry strategies but no exit strategies regarding the general warfare.

 

Military interventionism and imperialism is not defensive in nature.

 

Shouldn't our elected representatives have to justify wartime tax rates for wartime powers?

 

Because it's included in the budget and if more money is needed then the national debt just gets that much bigger.

In the UK you can't just levy specific taxes or hike up the rates without parliamentary approval.

I'm sure but that's not really on the topic though.

 

That is the whole point; how can you expect to win, even if only by attrition without wartime tax rates? Simply increasing spending and lowering taxes, as the right did in the US, only helps the wealthiest ensure greater profits through socialism bailing out capitalism.

 

Somebody please help put this topic back on track again.

This could of been interesting but some people want to talk about US tax policy.

 

Have your alleged conservatives been more fiscally responsible by enacting wartime tax rates for any war even on any abstraction?

 

Here you go: the only positive economic effect from the military sector is Keynesian demand management (i.e. using the military sector as a counter-cyclical device to protect manufacturing through arms production). However, the evidence suggests its less effective in this role as civilian expenditures. Those arguing for higher military spending must therefore be also demanding harm to economic well-being

 

Only the right doesn't believe that nationalized and socialized militiaries are not a well regulated Militia, but they also don't believe it is a form of socialism.

 

Well ok, that's better.

Only in the short term.

Once equipment has been purchased the expenditure goes down and in exchange we get a military that's up to date and capable of meeting our needs for a relatively minor increase in the military budget.

 

If you cannot stick to the topic then please don't bother commenting.

If you need a reminder; this is a topic about the UK not the US nor is it about complaining about right wing politics or even about socialism but it is about the UK's defence budget.

If you continue with this then I'll report you for derailment.

 

Why not simply insist on wartime tax rates to Prosecute any war even on an abstraction such as terror?

 

Because you can't declare war against a concept. War legally exists between states.

 

Not in a country like the UK. There are two possibilities: arms production or simply 'government waste' through military expenditure. With regards arms production, the poor of scientists and engineers is quite small. The crowding-out effects are therefore high as we deny the civilian sector with key resources. With regards military expenditure, we have to factor in the opportunity costs (something the UK should be particularly concerned about, given its lagging in aspects such as health care and education) and the increased inefficiency of government interventionism

 

If you look at the start of this topic you'll find that we are also talking about purchases so you can't just assign money to the military in the form of 'government waste'.

I don't think so. Because private companies build these weapons.

 

'Government waste' is actually a term used in the political economy of military expenditure. Such 'waste' is needed because of the tendency towards market concentration (such that firms with monopoly power will not sufficiently invest). However, I used it because military expenditures are undoubtedly less effective at controlling macroeconomic demand than civilian expenditures.

Using resources which could have been used in civilian endeavour. That there are crowding out effects is undoubtedly true. You can't steal such valuable factors of production and think there isn't a negative spillover

 

I believe American common law may lose a lot in the translation from British English to American English.

Shouldn't a declaration of war precede the general warfare and any common offense even for a war on any given abstraction such as crime, drugs, poverty, or terror? In my opinion, it should be considered fiscally irresponsible to lower taxes or not even have wartime tax rates, even for our wars on those Things our federal, elected representatives may invent through legal forms of fiction, in Congress assembled.