Quantcast
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 83

What's really wrong with chickenhawks demand for war on Iran?

According to Huckabee and various other chairborne rangers, Iran now is like Germany in 1938.  Okay, let's take them at their word.  

         25% of our military families have sought food assistance.

Now, I am not going to insist that various sofa samurai or their next of kin, such as John Bolton, Jonah Goldberg, or Ted Cruz join our armed forces.  What I do suggest is that their wallets join the armed forces.

Back in the Second World War, against a real Hitler, tax rates in Britain were hiked to the skies and eventually, all of the vast wealth of the British empire (or at least what was left after the Great War's spectacular blood-letting) was seized by H.M's government and sold to pay for arms.

In the United States, taxes were raised as well, and controls were placed on the salaries that government contractors could their executives.  According to the Economic History Association (link):

The number of Americans required to pay federal taxes rose from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. With such a large pool of taxpayers, the American government took in $45 billion in 1945, an enormous increase over the $8.7 billion collected in 1941 but still far short of the $83 billion spent on the war in 1945. Over that same period, federal tax revenue grew from about 8 percent of GDP to more than 20 percent. Americans who earned as little as $500 per year paid income tax at a 23 percent rate, while those who earned more than $1 million per year paid a 94 percent rate. The average income tax rate peaked in 1944 at 20.9 percent. Meanwhile, only a tiny fraction of our population (1/2 of 1%) actually serves in the military. And of those service personnel, an unknown but apparently substantial number have had to resort to food stamps, now known as SNAP, even though Congress has tried to disguise this via pay supplements.

       What did your wallet do in the Global War on     Terror, Daddy? The present state of our wars (which number five to 134, depending on how you define "war"), well fit Orwell's description of permanent war: The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. This is particular so when the wealthy of this country are not required to pay what they must pay, if indeed this nation is under such a threat as to justify (a) the continuation of the present wars and (b) the initiation of new ones.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 83

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>