Because for one, they are not "total wars" - like the World Wars were.
A good quick definition of Total War : "Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance."

The two wars were not initiated on the basis of being wars of that magnitude, and yes wars have magnitude. They were also not sold to Congress and authorized as such.

Comparing our interventions in these states to the World Wars is not compelling. And even if it were necessary to raise taxes for the prosecution of said wars, the main topic of debate is necessity and morality of taking productivity forcibly from one citizen and bequething it to another, due to a percieved need on behalf - and to what degree that is both sustainable, and acceptable.

Mind you, I am not and have not argued in favor of total and immediate abolition of all aspects of the welfare state. However, I think what so many have lost sight of - is that there are reasonable limits to how much can be done before you start doing irreperable harm not only to the overall economy, but to society itself.

Justifying aspects of the welfare state as needed expediencies is one thing, justifying a full welfare state philosophically as something that someone should have a "right" to, is something completely different.

In the name of rational expediency, you can create perfectly rational arguments as to how some degree of social safety nets, however unsavory in concept, can reduce the burden of other institutions and also create a better environment for those who are stuck footing the bill.

However, as resources are not unlimited, you can quickly reach a point at which such services are un-sustainable. We have now passed that point. Had the Left been content to leave the level of services where they were under Clinton, there would be no problem. I think things were likely sustainable.

There is also now the question of Self-empowerment vs Micromanagement by the State. Things like making business file with the IRS for EVERY purchase over 600$, FORCING individuals to buy health care ( a CONSUMER PRODUCT) and many other issues that venture far from normal bounds regarding the balance between power of the individual and business, and govt control.

More is not always better. Right now, so many people seem to think there is always room for more. That there will never be enough.

Tell me Jet, where do you think the line lies between enough, and not enough? When would we finally be able to say " ok THIS is the LINE we will never cross, enough is enough "

Also keep in mind, that bureaucrats are seldom less self-serving than corporations. But that is another line of attack against big govt entirely, and out of the scope of this discussion for now.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)