# How will we pay for the Syria quagmire?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-we-pay-for-the-syria-quagmire/667972>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 4, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-we-pay-for-the-syria-quagmire/667972 "2013-09-04T05:26:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-we-pay-for-the-syria-quagmire/667972/81 "2013-09-07T03:21:58Z")

</div>

> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> Borrow the money: interest rates are low. Also, deficit reduction is counterproductive when the economy is weak.

I wanted to reply to this sooner. Ordinarily I’d agree with you- if the debate were to borrow $1 trillion to repair roads and bridges, update the grid, send kids to college, install solar panels and that sort of thing, then yes it would probably be cost effective to borrow rather than raise tax. However, the economic benefits of war with Syria are dubious at best. Did the Vietnam War stimulate the economy? I don’t think so. Borrowing $1 trillion at a low rate for war is just flushing the money down the toilet- it doesn’t matter if the rate is low, you just went $1 trillion in the hole for probably no gain.

**John Mace** says the whole cost question is a ‘red herring’. I disagree. I think the question of whether we _should_ do this trumps the cost question. If we shouldn’t do it, that’s the end of it. However, if we decide we should, I say we cannot afford to borrow the money. Our debt is too high already, and the point that fresh war debt will lead to cuts in social programs simply isn’t getting any play. If we can’t pay cash, that informs the question of whether we should do this- namely, it says we shouldn’t.

> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> Well, I’d do it a little differently (YMMV). I’d say that if spending crosses the $100 billion threshold, then put in an immediate x% tax in place for Y years. Or something like that. I’d make it a $200 billion threshold for Iraq 2003, since our leaders were claiming that was well beyond what was conceivable. The point is that the threshold and subsequent tax increase would be put in place before the first drone is launched. If all goes according to plan and the cost is moderate, then no tax increase would occur. This creates better incentives.
> 
> I don’t have a problem with making it a progressive tax increase (higher on the wealthy) because that encourages the elites to take a more serious attitude towards wars that their offspring will never ever fight in.
> 
> Since we’re in a lesser depression, the tax could be triggered to start in 2015, say (and still expire after Y years).

I’d do it a little differently- namely a lower threshold- but this generally sounds good. What I want most is language in the bill that spells out specifically how action in Syria will be paid for if the conflict expands beyond ‘limited strikes’. I want that language in there before the first bomb drops. The omission would be so glaring, I’d be suspicious and paranoid for years to come. If we can’t or won’t raise tax to pay for the action, at least until there is broader global support, Syria can rot.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-we-pay-for-the-syria-quagmire/667972.md?page=4)