The United States would begin financing its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan with war bonds under new legislation introduced Tuesday.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) unveiled the “United States War Bonds Act of 2009” early this afternoon, which would authorize the Treasury Department to begin selling bonds to fund the wars.
The bonds, Nelson said, would be purposed with helping to pay for the military efforts, in particular the surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, without having to resort to the “war surtax” that has been discussed by some liberals in the House and Senate.
He really does not understand that all of our debt is structured through bond sales and the like, does he?
If I were a liberal in the Senate, here is what I would do. I would immediately write up a Stupak like amendment to make sure none of the funds raised in the war bonds co-mingles with any of the other funds raised by the sale of other treasury bonds, just to make damned sure no “WAR VICTORY YELLOW RIBBON ON MY CAR BEN NELSON IS A JACKASS BONDS” fund any abortions.
That ought to piss off the poor bastards at the Bureau of the Public Debt. The problem is, Ben Nelson is so goddamned stupid he will probably think it is a good idea.
For double fun, someone could go to the floor and suggestr we keep the proceeds from war bonds in Al Gore’s lockbox.
tamied
Anyone happen to know who could/would run against Ben Nelson, so I can make a donation to his/her campaign?
Military Industrial Complex
Let’s piss off the Pentagon and insist the funding come out of the defense budget. I can dream can’t I?
Notorious P.A.T.
Hey, let’s go place a bet on the financial future of a nation that has abandoned fiscal responsibility!
Comrade Luke
The article quotes Lieberman as saying “I think that’s a great idea”.
Kill me now.
Warren Terra
More evidence the forces of regression are proud of their ignorance. The “war bonds = funding” claim was widely refuted, as they or their staffs must know – but they don’t care: it sounds good.
neff
I think Nelson knows what he’s doing and it’s just a marketing tool to make deficit spending on wars an easier political sell because you can say BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF DUBBAYA DUBBAYA TWO EVERYBODY CONTRIBUTED TO THE WAR EFFORT BUT THOSE AMERICA-HATING APPEASER LIBS DON’T WANT US TO REUSE THE COMMON-SENSE IDEAS OF THOSE DAYS
phantomist
Maybe it’s time for Bernie Sanders to offer to pay for health care reform with some “Health Care Bonds”.
The Moar You Know
This is an awesome idea. Fund the war exclusively off the sale of these bonds.
War will be over in about three seconds, then everyone can come home.
Balconesfault
I say they make the War Bonds zero-interest … Americans should buy them not to make money, but out of patriotism … and see how well the sales go.
funluvn
As part of the 2010 Census, perhaps all households should be asked if they back the war enough to have a 3% tax added to their paychecks to fund it. For those who say Yes, add the tax. For those who say NO, don’t add the tax.
How much you want to bet the current polling number of 51% for and 49% against the war would come down to 20% for and 80% against?
Noonan
You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’ – but only slightly less well-known is this: Never get into a debate of logic with Ben Nelson when policy is on the line.
Midnight Marauder
So this is a real thing I guess, right? This man is actually proposing this “legislation” to be considered by the United States Senate? And he’s also one of many assholes obstructing the progress of HCR as well? Yikes!
Looks like it’s going to be a liquid lunch for me.
Blue Dog Blues
Other obstructionist tactics Blue Dog DINOS may be seen adopting from their G(NO)P pals across the aisle: Holding breath until turning blue. Rolling on floor screaming. Holding hands over ears shouting “La, la, la, la. There will doubtless be even more such creative methods as time goes by like this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/childish-obstruction/
John PM
Wait, wait, I have a better idea. Why don’t we tell China we are not going to pay their bonds, and then use all the money we save from that to fund the war? We get out from under China’s thumb, greatly reduce the deficit and have loads of money to fund the surge in Afghanistan.
flukebucket
Damn son you are smokin’ hot today!
asiangrrlMN
@The Moar You Know: I’m with you. All funding for the war shall come from these bonds being sold.
Wanker is not a strong enough word for Ben Nelson. I am not one to throw people out of the party, but seriously, why is he a democrat at all?
Notorious P.A.T.
@Noonan:
I like it )
arguingwithsignposts
We are all sieves now.
Zifnab
@Noonan: POTD
Congratulations, Ben Nelson. You’ve successfully renamed the national debt. For your next trick, might I suggest renaming all corn subsidies “Victory Garden Rebates”.
Alex S.
Well, the idea itself isn’t bad in my opinion – let those pay for the war who want to. If that was the guiding principle, all wars were over within a year. But in this case, the context is perverse because the already occuring deficit spending will not be averted.
Ecks
Clearly we can’t mix war bonds in with funding from other not-war bonds, so, just to be consistent, we need to apply this retroactively. That is, we need to figure out how much we’ve already spent, then send a free ballpoint pen to a bunch of people already holding T bills, demanding that they write “war bond” on some of the ones they already own. Then we’ll be in tip top shape.
That Nelson, mind like a steel trap, should have been an accountant.
Warren Terra
@Phantomist,#7
Problem is, good health care reform, unlike war, is self-funding (or at least deficit-beneficial over time), so they’re not comparable.
Although, we were told Iraq would fund itself…
Alex S.
Uh…I just edited for the first time, I hope my post above isn’t a complete mess now.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
According to George Bush, US bonds and bills are just “worthless IOU’s” that have no value.
Promises based on the full faith and credit of the United States are just liberal lies, according to our former president.
So why would anyone want to buy these Nelson War Bonds?
SpotWeld
Um.. okay. This is an honest request for education.
Wasn’t the “lockbox” a good idea?
pcbedamned
@Balconesfault:
Same for all those ‘Great Americans‘ who claim that they give more to charity than the DFH’s. Stop giving receipts and let’s see how much ‘giving’ is given…
Xanthippas
Sign me up for one of those!
neff
That said, I’ve met a distressing number of people who think the U.S. deficit comes from the Chinese government’s treasury cutting us a check and asking for interest payments every now and then — or worse, they think it’s “a loan from the World Bank”
A lot of people really do confuse macro with micro and think that the way you borrow money is by getting a loan from a bank or a buddy and they haven’t clue one about the notion of bond sales and institutional investors and such.
Zifnab
@Alex S.:
No. It is bad. And it’s bad for several reasons.
First, assuming this was a serious conflict – say Canada decides to start sending paramilitary troops to raid Montana – you shouldn’t have to go begging to rich investors to pay for basic national security.
Second, they’re bonds, which means they need to be paid back. This isn’t war charity. It’s money on the government credit card.
Third, we aren’t in a mercenary state. If 10% of the country wants to bomb Indonesia, it isn’t just a matter of scrapping up enough money to buy bombs. You don’t get to conduct slaughter with the swipe of a credit card.
And fourth, and finally, we don’t fund anything else this way. The US Government doesn’t take up collections for highways. There is no FDA bake sale fund raiser. We draw revenue from taxes and we spend it via Congressional mandate.
Run the government like a government. Have a fucking plan. These war bonds are just another way for the “fiscally responsible” crowd to kick the can down the road while pretending they’ve done something.
Bobby Thomson
@funluvn: You’re on to something. We could just add a box on everyone’s 1040: “Do you want $1000 of your return to go to fund military actions in Afghanistan?” Let’s let people vote with their pocketbooks.
Waynski
Over at Sully, apparently Sarah Palin thinks this is a good idea:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/on-sacrifice.html
Hard to know which one’s more mentally impaired.
Punchy
Instead of war bonds, how about war bondage?
One spanking for every enemy kill, dildoes and wetsuits for every city US Forces reclaims from the Taliban?
Notorious P.A.T.
I thought so.
Zifnab
@SpotWeld:
Not according to the “fiscally responsible” Republicans and their fellow travelers.
Chad N Freude
@Zifnab: I had a similar reaction, although I did not think of the Victory Garden idea (I wish I had). War Bonds got us through World War II, and here we are fighting another sort-of World War, with nations on both sides, or at least stateless organizations that we treat as states, so War Bonds will work here just as well.
To go along with War Bonds and Victory Gardens, we also need Dollar-A-Year Men (Persons now, I suppose). These were knowledgeable executives who joined the Government to manage various agencies and war-related activities who signed on for a dollar a year salary so that they would be federal employees. Maybe we should pitch this idea to Geithner, Bernanke, and those patriotic Goldman executives.
Zifnab
@Waynski:
Silly Democrats. Don’t you know national security is free? And now you want to charge for it?
Chad N Freude
@Zifnab:
Well, we do hire a lot of would-be Hessians to do stuff for us.
Wankers to Watch
You know, somehow as long as this clown comes back from D.C. with dollars in his pocket, I don’t think his constituency cares too much where they came from. But by all means let’s give them back because they’re evil – NOT!!!
TP: You’re obviously a critic of the stimulus. We listened to your colleague Eric Cantor earlier, who was saying the President needs to focus on jobs. While you were speaking, I looked up Janesville, Wisconsin – which is in your district. It received $4 million in stimulus funding, which has helped repair streets, put jobs back into your district. So I think the question for you is: Are you either willing to acknowledge the stimulus has created jobs and is beneficial or if not, do you want to repeal the stimulus and take money away from your district?
RYAN: Yeah, so, I would prospectively repeal the stimulus and put it toward better policy. I don’t think the Keynesian stimulus has worked very well. Those jobs were occurring anyways – those road jobs, through gas tax funding. … It hasn’t create the jobs. It hasn’t brought us to 8 percent unemployment. More on this “rising star”:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/paul-ryan-stim-repeal/#comments
geg6
Heh. I like your idea there, Mr. Cole.
Much as I liked Senator Boxer’s floating the notion that there should be an amendment to the Stupak amendment that disallows coverage for erect!le dysfunction (I’m afraid of WP here) meds. She said later that she wouldn’t support that just as she’d never support Stupak because both take away a person’s right to self-determination. But perhaps Senator Nelson might like the idea. He apparently doesn’t like female sexuality, so he would have to be fair here and similarly disadvantage male sexuality. Amirite?
Chad N Freude
@Zifnab: I think Palin means we should put security expenses on a MasterCard, because it’s priceless.
ppcli
Time for SAT ANALOGY:
As
You: He really does not understand that all of our debt is structured through bond sales and the like, does he?
is to
Nelson: But these are WAR bonds.
So:
Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
is to:
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Sly
He might. But stupid people who think that one day China is going to “call in” our debt need to be placated somehow, don’t they? And saying Americans own the debt is a lot more palatable to jingoists than a foreign creditor owning it.
The truth, that China needs the interest payments they get far more than we need them as a creditor, certainly doesn’t work. Our debt payments are funding, in large part, their own economic expansion. The notion that China even wanted to do something like that (nevermind the fact that the structure of the bonds prevents it) is absurd.
But it’s a lot easier to make pointless gestures than to engage your constituents in a substantive way.
donovong
“Ben Nelson is so goddamned stupid”
Yep, that pretty well sums it up.
Sentient Puddle
@Waynski: Oh dear lord. This part is too stupid to be real:
HOW THE FUCK ELSE DO YOU PAY FOR WAR?
I really hope Bender, Makewi, and all the other trolls read that quote and explain to me how Palin is in any way, shape or form capable of running anything.
GReynoldsCT00
@geg6:
Works for me
Comrade Dread
War bonds – If you’re worried about the amount of debt you’re carrying on your credit card, just get another one and keep spending.
This message brought to you by the Bankruptcy Lawyers of America and Senator Ben Nelson.
catclub
geg6 @ 38
That train has already left. Boxer is fighting at this point with at least one hand tied behind her.
What she should have done is added a rider to the amendment, that if the amendment passes (which she can still vote against) it gives equal mistreatment to men.
There is some french phrase about staircase thoughts (The perfect retort comes to you only after leaving the scene.)
geg6
@ppcli:
I’m wiping down the monitor.
FTW.
Awesome, just awesome. My favorite movie of all time.
catclub
Sentient Puddle @ 43
And these are the same people who say ( spout)
“Freedom isn’t free!”
Yes, we know. It costs REAL DOLLARS, idjit.
Comrade Kevin
Christopher Hayes from The Nation said this about it on Twitter:
catclub
Bumper sticker:
If freedom isn’t free, why do you want lower taxes?
Stefan
There is some french phrase about staircase thoughts (The perfect retort comes to you only after leaving the scene.)
Esprit d’escalier.
David Hunt
@Noonan:
Well to give JC credit, the “land war in Asia” blunder was already taken…twice.
Waynski
@Zifnab and Sentient Puddle: Shorter Nelson/Palin – I want a war in Afghanistan and a pony.
Alex S.
@Zifnab:
Ok, you convinced me.
johnatparis
More importantly, obviously I should take the Browns with the spread….but am thinking maybe even straight up…it’s a home after all.
A fork in them stick, Yoda would surely say about the Steelers…
stacie
Why do we call them “fiscal conservatives” when all they do is come up with new ways to grow the debt?
geg6
@johnatparis:
That may be (and I won’t argue), but I still wouldn’t bet on the Browns.
Sentient Puddle
@Waynski: To be fair to Nelson, he’s at least pretending to want to fund the war. Palin, on the other hand, seems to think that maintaining a military is free.
BDeevDad
If anyone wonders why the public won’t understand this, here’s why:
MNPundit
Isn’t this specifically limited to 1) the wars and 2) individual persons?
This seems to be directed at rank and file American. I don’t think it’ll make things worse but maybe be slightly better with a target campaign to drum up bond support from the average person so you might get people who hadn’t bought bonds buying them now. For example I’d be willing to buy a bond for Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
catclub
Stefan @ 52
merci
freelancer
I thought freedom costs a buck oh five.
Midnight Marauder
@Alex S.:
Wait.
Did someone just convince someone else of something…ON THE INTERNET?!
Waynski
@Sentient Puddle: Given what a tool Nelson is, I’m not inclined to be fair, but I guess he is trying something even though he doesn’t understand that functionally, he’s doing the same thing Sarah Palin proposes. Whether we sell T-Bills to the Chinese or war bonds to Americans, it’s all still debt. I wonder if he was one of those people who got a credit card in college ’cause he thought it was free money. Is he on the finance committee?
Waynski
@BDeevDad: Wow! Dumbest. Headline. Ever. And a Cavuto mark!
Waynski
@BDeevDad: Also too, did you read the comments section? What a bunch of ignorant cretins.
Rekster
@Zifnab:
I would hope that the Canadians would rethink the invasion of Montana when they consider the fact that they would then have to deal with Max Baucus.
PeakVT
@SpotWeld: I’ll take a stab. Right now, any excess funds that the SSTF takes in are lent to the rest of government, aka the General Fund, which is running a huge deficit. This has been going on since the mid-1980s. However, what the SSTF receives in return are special type non-marketable bond, which right now are considered by many to be different from the Treasuries sold into the markets. (Dean Baker frequently rants about how they are NOT different at his blog.) You can see the amount of “intra-governmental” debt right here. What the lockbox would have done (I think, it always was a bit vague) is end the special issues and have the SSTF buy securities on the open market. But there is nothing safer than Treasuries (allegedly, though I’m inclined to agree for now), and there certainly isn’t any other class of security that could absorb the $100B+ in assets that the SSTF has been taking in. So the SSTF surpluses would have still been lent to the General Fund. In the end, it basically amounted to an accounting gimmick – but an accounting gimmick that would make it harder for the SS haters to achieve their goal, which is to welch on the loans the SSTF has made to the General Fund.
danimal
@SpotWeld:
In a world filled with responsible Republicans and sensible Democrats: Yes. In today’s world, in which the Republicans don’t actually care about debt and deficits outside of a press conference: No.
The lockbox is just a way to account for future social security spending by dedicating funds to a “rainy day” account. Unfortunately, the GOP sees the pile of money accumulating and spends it all on hookers and blow (aka tax cuts and wars).
Shawn in ShowMe
I’ve got no problem with resorting to old marketing gimmicks. The federal government, with the help of the publishing industry and Hollywood, did a hell of a job selling bonds during World War II. But conservatives merrily burned their bridges with Hollywood long ago and would rather ban books today than read them.
So who is Nelson counting on to sell his war bond revival to the masses? As we’ve already seen, allusions to “POW” and Zombie Reagan can only get you so far.
Chad N Freude
@Zifnab: I think Palin means we should put security expenses on a MasterCard, because it’s priceless.@BDeevDad:
This is satire, right?
chuck
Article I, section 7. First sentence.
THE CONSTITUTION, MOTHERFUCKER! CAN YOU READ IT?!
Paris
They should pay all federal income tax refunds with said war bonds. That would make them popular.
Martin
Honestly, this should be a good thing, depending on how it’s written. The difference here is that the bonds can be set up as a separate obligation that is closed-ended. That is, when the bonds mature, the government pays out and that’s that. Of course, the reality is that the government could always borrow in order to pay them off, but the legislation could head that off.
Further, if the bonds are sold to the citizenry, the added savings rate would be good all-around. Consider it an opt-in tax/savings plan, and better we owe our own citizens than the Chinese.
It’s not a plan worth mocking. It’s at worst neutral and at best a net gain.
I disagree with Zifnab that wars shouldn’t require begging for money – in fact, it’s one of the best times to go begging for money. There are few better reasons to go into debt than self-defense. And the bonds are better than general debt for the very reason that nationally we are better off indebted to our own people. If we need to raise taxes in order to pay off the bonds, then it’s just a closed circle. Much better than raising taxes to pay someone overseas.
PeakVT
There are few better reasons to go into debt than self-defense.
Yeah, after marginal rates have been raised to the sky. Otherwise, it’s idiotic.
BDeevDad
@Chad N Freude: What’s nuts is they have nearly 40k followers and I’m so far the only one that questioned their logic. As Waynski said, the comments on the USA Today post are priceless if it were not so sad.
Tony Smit
Won’t work. The Supreme Court long ago said that all monies coming into the federal government were part of general revenue, and so the revenue from bond sales cannot be assigned only to paying for the war. Until the Constitution is changed, we are stuck with that.
That’s why so many people are worried about Social Security; it is not fiscally independent of the rest of the federal government. If it were, Congress would be forced to raise taxes enormously to pay for all of its programs, and the federal largess would halt.