why are politicians NEVER concerned about paying for wars, even if they are unnecessary wars

[spanone]

but social programs.........'we can't afford that'

[mucifer]

1. social programs can't usually donate much funds the politicians campaigns.

Corporations can donate lots and lots and lots.

[villager]

2. exactly -- it's all based on who their real employers are...

n/t

[ipaint]

3. Politicians are by and large from the top 1%

or they will be when they move into lobbying. Anything that benefits the rich isn't a problem. Wars, bailouts, for profit health care, privatized school system, etc., etc.

As long as taxpayer wealth can continue to be siphoned off and hoarded at the top, any policy which serves that end is good to go.

[teknomanzer]

4. This sounds like a rhetorical question...

but people don't make posts if they don't want responses...

Whether a war is necessary depends on who you ask. I am sure the folks at Unocal believe that it is vital to thier interests to make sure they can lay down a pipeline in Afganistan. I am sure that the rest of the oil giants that were in Dick Cheney's energy meeting are quite sure that the invasion of Iraq was absolutely crucial to their interests as well.

Our political leaders are able to find the money for war because that is currently the purpose of this government, to serve corporate interests. The people only get something if they make a big stink and even then its crumbs - trickle down and all that. Maintaining an empire is expensive and social programs at home don't impact the corporate bottom line. So we can have universal healthcare or we can have a military presence in every part of the world. Most of these polititians know where their bread is buttered and the people don't have the cash to buy legislation.

[CrispyQ]

5. War is the easiest way to siphon off the Treasury to the elite.

It's a mindset. War is patriotic, don't ya know. We're defending our way of life, :eyes: even as more & more of us no longer have that way of life. Even the teabaggers don't complain about taxes to pay for never-ending-war.

[nuxvomica]

6. I think the larger question is why are wars so easy to support?

It's still mysterious to me that so many ordinary citizens scream about spending an extra dollar on education, even though they are likely to enjoy more than a dollar's worth of benefits from that spending, but they don't bat an eye over a million-dollar bomb that returns no value beyond the limited economic impact of its manufacture. I suspect that there is something related to "Stockholm Syndrome" -- identification with the aggressor -- in this dynamic. It may just be part of our instinctive behavior to be less questioning of aggressive behavior by our leaders. I've been thinking about this issue in regards to Obama's dealing with Congressional Repubs. I think the more aggressive he gets with them, the less flack he will take for it.

[dragonlady]

7. Wars drive up the deficit so that when it's time to vote on social programs

they can say, "Sorry, we'd like to support that but we just can't afford it any more." It's supposed to be a better excuse than some others they could use.