[3143]

The wars we are currently in have not affected me one bit, except perhaps by adjusting prices for various goods by slim amounts that I can afford to ignore. Most people are like me. Saying that wars will affect all of us and our children as well is a huge exaggeration (unless you actually believe the government will attempt to pay down the national debt, which is just preposterous). It doesn't affect most people in any noticeable way, which is verified by how most people don't care.

[dwiel]

If we weren't in all of these wars, we could afford to cut your tax rate in half (and every other federal tax rate) without changing anything else. That's equivalent at least an instant 10% raise, maybe more depending on your tax bracket.

[3143]

If you believe that the US government determines the tax rate based on anything remotely related to the amount that it spends, I just don't know what to say to you. Did your taxes really increase by 11% when the wars started?

[1123581321]

He means that the military engine that keeps us constantly able to fight these wars is expensive. If we did not fight foreign wars, we would have a much smaller military budget. The would mean that federal government spending would be lower, which would reduce the need to revenue. While it is true that the federal government finances part of its huge budget with debt so sudden increases are not immediately felt, they do translate into increased interest payments which must be financed by revenue, and again, there is also the need to pay for the general level of power and readiness to fight between wars.

Now that it's more clear what the poster meant, you should be able to think of something to say.

[3143]

But even eliminating the wars, spending is higher than revenue. And historically, we can see that the government does not finance its spending with revenue, it does so with borrowing, and it pays back its loans with more borrowing. Lower spending does not reduce taxes, nor does increased spending raise them. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.

[1123581321]

Yes, the wars contribute to spending but it's not being argued they are the entirety of excess spending.

We do perpetually borrow but our finance charges steadily increase, and not all of that is able to be deferred. The deferral will eventually have to be repaid or there will be an enormous disaster. It's actually worse in the long run than steady expenses.

To use an everyday example, it is similar to saying a laptop is not expensive because it's on a credit card and the credit card payments are financed with another credit card and so on. The laptop eventually costs more for using such a scheme.

[3143]

Sure, but my point was that in the meantime, payments aren't actually higher, which is what was originally asserted. IOW, the average citizen such as myself isn't materially affected by this ballooning debt.