Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Pay upfront

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    I love the comment from SEY - let's be 'fair' and also pay for ALL welfare programs up front too. Somehow I doubt liberals will go for that one. Also what is this idea that only the wealthy benefit from using troups in the middle east. So if ISIS continues to build in power and American homeland is hit with another 911 type attack ...or bigger this time ... I would argue that ALL classes of Americans - especially the poor - will be hurt and likewise by eliminating evil before it can strike all classes of Americans benefit. This rich vs poor nonsense from the left has to stop. It is time for all of us to try to just be 'Americans' again. I realize that by having a president who seems to create more polarizing and dividing tone each and every year it is hard but hang in there people for two more years and maybe we can learn from our mistake of the 2008 presidential election and right the wrong this time around in 2016.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    Hank Pym
    SLC, UT
    per airnaut...

    "I still see evidence of Latter-Day Gadiantons in everything we are doing right now in America..."

    Would these LDG's have Ivy League degrees?

    11:16 a.m. Sept. 3, 2014

    =======

    Ivy League degrees,
    Skull & Bones members,
    it's all a matter of who you know, not what you know.

    $$$

    Master Mahon,
    keepers of the great secret.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    per airnaut...

    "I still see evidence of Latter-Day Gadiantons in everything we are doing right now in America..."

    Would these LDG's have Ivy League degrees?

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    to airnaut (1st pg)

    If we rectify things as you suggest; How then will Mitt's 47% contribute/pay their 'fair' share?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 3, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" actually Bush did include war costs in the Federal Budget. He was constantly short and had to get more, but he did include in the budget most of the expenses for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As others have pointed out, why should this only apply to war. Why not apply that same idea to all of the social welfare projects out there? Could you imagine what the welfare office would be like if the federal government had to set the budget at the beginning of the year and couldn't adjust it at all?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 3, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    Lew Elton Jeppson
    Salt Lake City, UT
    For the record I'm calling for the establishment of a funding mechanism to pay for an increasingly likely ground offensive. I still think such is a mistake, but with the second beheading it is going to be hard to stop. And that funding mechanism should appropriately call for the super wealthy to pay their fair share as per the World War II paradigm - top tax bracket at 91%. It's only fair.

    7:19 a.m. Sept. 3, 2014

    =========

    Agreed.
    and why not?

    They [the rich] WAR profiteered $3 trillion from the LAST time we put troops on the ground....

    I still see evidence of Latter-Day Gadiantons in everything we are doing right now in America...

  • Lew Elton Jeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    For the record I'm calling for the establishment of a funding mechanism to pay for an increasingly likely ground offensive. I still think such is a mistake, but with the second beheading it is going to be hard to stop. And that funding mechanism should appropriately call for the super wealthy to pay their fair share as per the World War II paradigm - top tax bracket at 91%. It's only fair.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 3, 2014 5:54 a.m.

    Hey 2 bits -

    "IMO our President NEEDED to respond after 9/11"

    OBVIOUSLY, he "NEEDED to respond after 9/11"

    . . . But NOT by attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 911.

    That's just stupid.

    That would be like the U.S. attacking Australia in revenge for the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

    It makes NO sense.

    Not only did GW attack a country for NO legitimate reason, he also removed the most ruthless and effective opponent to Islamic extremism in the Middle East by killing Sadaam.

    GW Bush helped create ISIS.

    Gee, thanks GW.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Sept. 2, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    Send your suggestion to Obama! He could use it more than anyone since he has doubled the national debt!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    @ redshirt

    "To "Lew" but we do put up the money up front. Each year congress is supposed to set the budget for the US. Are you saying that Congress should establish a budget well in advance?"

    Did you know that from 2000-08 your president refused to include the cost of his wars in the budget? Why do you think he did that?

    It would be nice to pass a budget. But the problem is, we only include the true costs of war when a democrat is president. When a republican is president, he hides the cost of war and republicans, like you, give them a free pass to wage war and blow up our deficit. If you and your ilk were so concerned about the deficit, why weren't you protesting Bush's outrageous spending in the wars? Why weren't you demanding that we pay first for our wars instead of handing out tax cuts for the rich?

    Did you know that we've never before given a tax cut while waging 2 wars before until your Bush did it?

    Where were you then?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    How can we defeat terrorism? People who say we can defeat terrorism are naive. Do terrorist wear uniforms?

    People who advocate more wars in the Middle East should really learn why these types of groups hate us and it has nothing to do with them hating freedom

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    What a fantastic letter.

  • Emerger Magna, Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Let's stop all this nonsense about how and when to pay for war. Instead, let's start pursuing a national foreign policy of peace for once. Not one war in which the U.S. has been engaged since WWII has been justified, and there is still valid questions about justification of that terrible war. It is far past time that we stop using war as a justification to solve our self-inflicted, so-called problems. War should be an absolute last resort after all other efforts have totally failed, not a first resort as it has been for the past many decades.

    It is time we stopped trying to police the world and being minding our out business. Unless and until the American people stop listening to our lying, secretive government, wars will continue to shed the precious blood or our young, and draining our national treasure. Let's stop listening to our power-hungry politicians and bring this horrible nonsense to a stop once and for all!

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Sept. 2, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    @2 bits:
    WWII (i.e., Pearl Harbor) – American soil (yeah I know some prefer to pretend Hawaii, the state where our President was born isn’t American soil). American Civil War – American soil. American Revolution – American soil.

    I can probably buy into a 9/11 justification of going to war in Afghanistan.
    Tell me again what our interest in Iraq and the countless other war torn countries might be?

    If it isn’t response to war against Americans, then yes, it needs to be fully paid for in advance. If it is a response to an attack on our soil or direct threat of attack against our citizens then we need to raise taxes or issue war bonds to pay for it. Also, it needs to be authorized by congress in advance.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    @Confused
    I think(and please correct me if i'm wrong) that what Supernova and a couple other commenters are saying is that if the public finds a war to be justified, they won't rebel against a draft. For the most part, WWI and WWI didn't have significant protests against the draft. Because in those situations the public agreed that those wars were necessary to preserve the country. Vietnam on the other hand.........a large portion of the population didn't agree that we should go to war there. I don't think there comment is so much that rich people are treated better once they are in the military, but more that the rich and political elites don't normally have their kids join the military, but they more often than not start wars, where poor and middle class kids go and fight. A draft on the other hand forces people in all walks of life to really consider if the war makes sense or not, since it's entirely possible that their son, grandson, daughter or granddaughter might be sent to war.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @Confused

    I am in no way diminishing any one's sacrifice. As a former Soldier myself, I know the term and have used the term. I wish to thank you for your sons' sacrifices, as well as express my deepest condolences and sincerest gratitude for the one who had to pay the deepest price. As a father, I would much rather go, then ask my son to pay that price, and I know in a heartbeat you would do the same without even the slightest of hesitations. Thank you. If I were to ever meet you, I would shake your hand, look you in the eye and say the exact same words.

    My argument was not intended to be political; my hope is to rid society of that terrible cliche. Every reporter I listen to on a radio always uses the term "to use a cliche" and you can hear the smirk. No, those are not "boots" they are sons and daughters of America. In a very literal way @Confused they are YOUR sons.

    If my words came across as a political rant, I apologize, it was not at all my intent.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    Joe Blow,
    was that they did not listen to their Military Leaders.."

    Just like the solution from the NRA is always more guns, military leaders typically see war as the answer.

    Actually Joe, the Military leaders are the ones that are least likely to want to go to war, because most of them have seen it up close and personal.

    It is usually those political leaders who lead from behind....

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    SuperNova..

    Sent three boys to IRAQ/Afghanistan, two came back.... So I KNOW what the "boots on the ground" is...

    For your information, "Boots on the ground" is a military slang that will need to have troop on location of the conflict.

    The Military leaders values EVERY solider life, whether they be from the poor neighborhoods or the rich ones.

    EVERY Solider is told before they sign on the dotted line that their life may be required to serve their country. These brave men and women, sign knowing full well that they may have to go into battle and even sacrifice their lives.

    Please do not diminish their sacrifice, by being political about "boots on the ground".

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    "Social Programs" eat up 2/3rds of the Federal budget. Why don't "liberals" demand that those programs be paid in full before being implemented? Of course doing that would destroy their chances if being re-elected, so they complain about the 1/3rd of the budget that is authorized by the Constitution but ignore the 2/3rds of the budget that is not authorized by the Constitution.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    @SEY

    Did Bush and Cheney start a draft???? Nope.

    The examples I gave were wars where there was a draft. No draft needed for Afghanistan OR Iraq.

    Go back and read my post. I said, "Which side seems to starts a war, AND THEN START THE DRAFT".... We didn't have a draft for Afghanistan and Iraq. Didn't need one. We did have Conscription for Vietnam, WWII and WWI (all these hostilities started when Progressives were President).

    Google "Conscription in the United States - Wikipedia"...

    ================

    But I agree it's naive to pretend that no battles are worth fighting. And I agree we need to pick our battles wisely.

    IMO our President NEEDED to respond after 9/11.

    I also think if we hadn't done something in Iraq... things would be even WORSE than they are in Iraq today. I suspect Israel would not exist today, and terrorists would have the weapons the UN and the US forced him to dispose of. But that's just my opinion (nobody knows for sure).

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    @JoeCapitalist

    You see, there are two sides to this story. Quit pretending there is only one.

    -----------------

    I know fully well there are two sides. I was a Soldier, and did my time in the desert.

    I am not saying we should never use our Military for defense, but we should be willing to cross that threshold of saying "Son, I need you to go to Iraq and be willing to die for our Freedom." "Private Smith, I love ya, but I need you to go to Iraq" or better yet, "I need to go to Iraq and stop this myself."

    It's too easy to say "Boots on Ground" when you don't know who is wearing them. We just need to keep the human aspect in it.

    Mash said it best with War is worse than Hell. Everyone in Hell deserves to be there, but those in war didn't ask for the depravity that comes with it. People well above their pay grade and not in those trenches did.

    All I am asking is let's save our beating on the drums of war for when you are willing to go yourself, or send your son.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 2, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    Pay upfront huh? That's a good idea.

    We should immediately implement a high tax on Republicans, and just keep it in a separate account . . . You know . . . buy US bonds with it, and just cash them in when we need the money.

    Face it "Conservatives" deserve to be taxed much more than everyone else anyway . . . just to pay for some of the tremendous damage they have already done to this nation.

    And then when some Republican leader convinces the American Right Wing rabble that starting a war is in our best interest, we'll just use the money from that fund to pay for it.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    SuperNova:

    War is heck (edited). Always has been. No one wants to see any of our soldiers die.

    But to assume that there are not even greater consequences to pacifism in the face of a real threat, is to put your head in the sand. 9-11 proved that.

    Are you equally willing to be a part of a notification team that tells the parents of some innocent child that their loved ones were blown up in a terrorist attack because we refused to bomb a training camp?

    Are you fine with having every American at home or travelling abroad to have a target on their back because we refuse to fight the war on terror head on? It is naive to assume that if we are just nice to terrorists they will stop hating us.

    You see, there are two sides to this story. Quit pretending there is only one.

    We need to pick our battles wisely, but it is unwise to pretend that no battles are worth fighting.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    2 bits: where did you learn your history? Wilson started WWI? FDR started WW2? JFK started the Vietnam War? Now, if you were to say that George W. Bush (aka Dick Cheney) started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd agree with you. Were they progressives?

    You seem to imply that you disagree with Wilson, FDR and JFK when they joined (not started) those wars. Is that correct?

    With regard to the draft after 9/11, it's true we didn't "need" it. But those guys sure could've used it instead of having to go on multiple combat tours. I assume you know what would happen if a draft were instituted. There would be a serious rebellion. THAT'S WHY there's no draft!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    @JoeBlow,

    You seem to have a very selective view of reality. Many conservatives volunteered for the military after 9/11. We didn't NEED a draft. The majority in the military have always self-identified as "Conservative".

    ==========

    Something to think about...

    Which side seems to start the wars, and then start the draft to man their wars....?

    EVERY time we've started a draft in recent history... the war and the draft was started by a Progressive...

    Vietnam (JFK) conscription finally ended under Nixon.

    WWII (Roosevelt)

    WWI (Wilson)

    ALL Progressives... doesn't anybody else see that???

    And yet... they point the finger at Conservatives...

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 2, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    "was that they did not listen to their Military Leaders.."

    Just like the solution from the NRA is always more guns, military leaders typically see war as the answer.

    Yes, many wars are justified. But not all. When in doubt, war should not be the answer.

    We need leaders that see war as a last option. And it must be directly related to our national security.

    Party leaders like McCain and Graham scare me. They see military involvement as the answer to any and every world situation.

    Can you imagine how many places we would have combat troops actively engaged in war had McCain won in 2008?

    Yes, every war may have been unfunded to begin with, but the truly necessary wars had Americans gladly sacrificing for the war effort. And they were happy to do so.

    How many Americans, including those on the right, would have supported the war if they personally had to make a sacrifice? Higher taxes? a Draft?

    I am guessing very few.

  • Dragline Orem, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    I'm with SuperNova. Let's re-institute the draft, select birthdays in a lottery, and make sure everyone has the opportunity to serve in any new wars. If we are going to war we all need to have skin in the game...both physically and financially.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    @JoeCaptitalist

    Do we want to wait until ISIS gets a few million followers, nuclear weapons, and initiates terrorists attacks here before we respond?

    -------------------------

    When you are ready and willing to go over yourself, or send your son over, and do something about it then you can talk about "responding"

    When you are ready and willing to go on a "Notification Team" and tell Ms. Smith that her husband died and her children won't see their Dad again, you can talk about "responding"

    It's too easy to say "We need boots on ground" until you know someone to whom two of those boots belong to.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    Great idea! We don't need to fund school lunches until it's paid for. Most government agencies can just close, until their operations are paid for. No disaster relief, foreign or domestic, until it's paid for. All welfare payment cease until they are paid for. Fair is fair. Better yet, lets just have a check off system, where we each individually only pay taxes into the budget areas that we choose. That way, our terrorist loving, pacifist neighbors would not pay for defense, but we could require them to put a big red bullseye on their property, so that the terrorists would know who to bomb first, when they attack.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Every War since this country has been founded, as been "Unfunded", it is the nature of the beast when going to war...

    First you have to decide if the threat is real, ie. Hitler in WWII doing a lot before England decided to stop him.

    second, you need to make sure your Military can do the job and has the resources it needs to do the job.

    third, you need to have a clear picture of what you want accomplished...

    fourth CONGRESS and The President needs to let those who have the knowledge to do their job and NOT TRY to run the war from the back of the car.

    Every war that the US has failed (Vietnam is prime example) is because Congress thought they knew more the leaders in the Military. They interfered and it cost lives.

    The issue in both IRAQ and Afghanistan that happened both under Bush and Obama, was that they did not listen to their Military Leaders..

    If Bush listened in IRAQ, and did the surge... we could have ended the war earlier.
    If Obama had listened in Afghanistan to this Military leaders, they would not have had as many of our soldiers killed.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    @ Lost in DC
    Conservatives always seem to rewrite history when the actual events don't fit the fantasy world in which they live. Iraq and the middle east was more stable before our illegal, immoral invasion. We created a black hole and to think we can stay their long term is a pipe dream. I have no problem with acknowledging the threat, as it is real but using fear and fallacy as a basis for bad foreign policy is a mistake. Those that don't learn from history, will repeat it. And I have no problem telling that to the face of Diane Feinstein or any other liberal.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    Some on this forum seem to think that war is never justified and anything we spend on the military is complete waste of money. Some wars are definitely more justified than others, and a few were flat-out wrong. But what happens when evil aggression goes unchecked and the threat grows until armed confict is not only inevitable, but far more costly in both blood and treasure. Do we want to wait until ISIS gets a few million followers, nuclear weapons, and initiates terrorists attacks here before we respond?

    I think it would be wise to pay for wars as they happen (just like I think the government should pay for everything as it goes). This would make everyone think twice before getting into a conflict that is not a good one to be involved with. The electorate would likely hold its elected officials more accountable if everyone got a direct bill every month for all the waste and mismanagement our government dishes out on a daily basis.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    To "Lew" but we do put up the money up front. Each year congress is supposed to set the budget for the US. Are you saying that Congress should establish a budget well in advance?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Lew,
    The freelance journalist they beheaded was not rich; people like him and other common folk benefit most from national security, the wealthy can hire their own.

    You say those who benefit the most should pay up front, sounds like you want to increase taxes on the middle and lower classes.

    If BO had not projected an image of indifference and weakness, these guys never would have developed a foothold and we wouldn’t have this problem, so by your logic everyone who voted for BO pay for this mess and let the rest of us off.

    airnaut,
    NO ONE’s kid HAS to go, rich or POOR since the draft was eliminated.

    The rich pay the bulk of income taxes, it is THEIR money that already goes – why the lie that their money does not go?

    FT,
    house and senate intelligence committee dems are neo-cons? They are beating the war drums as much as anyone. BO’s man, Axelrod, said “never let a good crisis go to waste”

    To listen to anyone who says we can contain the threat is “listening to fools”

    What we DID succeed at was thrown away by BO’s disinterest.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    @SEY,

    RE: Your "pay-as-you-go" fantasy.... That may make sense in the political-rhetoric obsessed mind... but it shows how little you actually understand (or care) about reality...

    1. Not being committed to finance till the end... would be the BIGGEST MISTAKE you could make. You name it, WWII, Desert Storm, even the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War)... Just quitting because you ran out of money... would leave America and EVERYBODY involved in a bigger mess (and more deaths) than what LEAD to the war! Your "Solution" would make everything WORSE!

    Imagine the civilian deaths world-wide if in the middle of WWII America said, "ran out of money... we're done"... do you think Hitler would have just retired???

    2. Sometimes you have to respond (whether you have the money or not). Sometimes you are attacked and can't just say "we don't have money", (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc).

    3. Some causes are worth ANY cost (WWII, American Revolution, American Civil War, etc).

    ==========

    In these wars... HOW would America (or the world) be better off... if we got half way in and then quit because you ran out of money?...

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    Uh, Thid Barker, the topic isn't about who pays the most taxes. The problem is that NO ONE is paying for these military adventures! Well, right now, anyway. We're piling up debt faster than it can be paid for. The Fed and the Treasury combine to create money out of thin air which goes to pay for most of the wars as of late, and it all results in enormous debt! The writer is suggesting that current taxpayers foot the bill, not our children or children's children.

  • The Educator South Jordan , UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    If we paid for all the conservative wars and foreign aid then Americans would demand that they stop making wars.

    Bush and Cheney lied about the war and purposely kept the price tag off the national budget. Gee, I wonder why they did that? Could it be that they didn't want Americans to know the true cost of their war?

    I demand that the GOP use their own money to invade countries. They want Iran and Iraq and Russia so bad? Go ahead, fight with your own kids and money. Stop sending my children and grandchildren while placing trillions of debt onto their backs.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    "As a corollary, I propose we should pay for all welfare programs upfront. Fair enough?"

    Fair enough. I assume that you equate Medicare and SS as welfare programs? Because those, along with the military are by far the biggest budget items.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    I agree whole-heartedly but it would be a better thing that we stay out. Every crisis overseas we've had since WWII is a result of our meddling and greed. We are mistaken that our might can solve anything.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    I agree, and have said it before. If we want a war, occupation, or whatever someone wants to call it, then it should be a line item on our annual tax return. And we should as a nation be provided budget summaries of the exercise no less frequently than quarterly.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    2 bits: I believe the writer should have said "pay as you go" rather than up front. That IS a possibility, at least theoretically. It will never actually happen because citizens will likely rebel at the very thought of it.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Bush/Chenney's approach to terrorism and war was a mistake and most Americans know it. You hear the neo-cons banging the war drums once again selling fear and hoping to capitlize on any good crisis with a little more power. They don't want to send their children or their money but will criticize anyone who is prudent and patient before making a decision. ISIS and radical muslims are a threat, and will always be a threat. We can contain the threat through a long term strategy of containment and working with our allies. To listen to the same fools who pushed us to an illegal and immoral war 10 years ago would be a mistake. They put us more at risk and borrowed billions of dollars and suceeded at little.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Well said. This is very important to the tea party. Cash on the barrelhead, reduce social security if necessary so we can win quickly.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    As a corollary, I propose we should pay for all welfare programs upfront. Fair enough?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    If any President or administration could tell you what a war will cost up-front, or tell you when it will end (before it starts).... we would do that. But you can't!

    Every war is preceded by the minority party asking the administration WHEN it will end, and how much it will cost. These are mostly rhetorical questions they KNOW nobody has the ansers too... It happens every time.

    You can't predict what a war will cost... or when it will end.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 2, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    The "rich" did away with the draft, so THEIR kids won't go.
    then,
    The "rich" did away with the taxes, so THEIR money didn't have to go.

    It's time to set things right...

    Time to buck up or shut-up.

  • SuperNova Eagle, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    Next time someone says "Boots on ground" I want them to say the name of a Soldier they know. "We need PFC Smith to go to Iraq." Then that person needs to call PFC Smith, or better yet, look him in the eye and say "I think we need you to go to Iraq"

    We have dehumanized the American military to the point were we can't even say "We need to send troops" (Troops are people) but rather now we say we need their boots over there.

    I would also be in favor of re-instating the draft; just to re-humanize this War Machine. How many warmongers have their sons in the military? How many of those who vote on declarations of war have their sons in the military?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    This would make many in Washington think especially hard about waging war. A little more thought and discussion about why and our motivations would be most appropriate.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 2, 2014 5:35 a.m.

    But Lew...

    We really want to flex our military muscle to the world. We spend so much on it, we need to show it off.

    Along with that, we want, er MUST have lower taxes. Oh, and lower deficits.

    It is quite the dilemma.

    I really wonder how many of the war hawks would be so "hawkish" if they had to pay for it TODAY.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 5:28 a.m.

    What an excellent idea.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 5:27 a.m.

    Excellent letter! Letter of the year! Couldn't agree more!

    Thank you so very much!