Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Next year's budget allocates $159,000,000,000 to "contingency operations," to perpetuate the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s enough money to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American's income each year, and beyond that, leave over $15 billion that would cut the deficit.
Alan Grayson has written a bill that will separate funding from the wars from everyone's first $35,000 ($70,000 for couples) of income.
Do you think this a good bill?
Do you think we should end the wars? Why or why not?
It'll never happen. How are you going to pay a mortgage, that you signed 11 years ago before the wars started, if you lose half of your income?
We need to lower the size of the military, instead of funding the huge, oversized one we have now. (well, only if North Korea doesn't do something else stupid in the next 3 months)
But if North Korea continues to do things, then the WORLD needs to respond, not just the United States. Not the UN, which is 70% US troops and then 10% British, 5% French, and then 15% assorted. It needs to be we contribute about 25% of the overall force, then you put up the rest.
Alan Grayson has written a bill that will separate funding from the wars from everyone's first $35,000 ($70,000 for couples) of income.
Do you think this a good bill?
Do you think we should end the wars? Why or why not?
I love that man, but until there's an honest dialogue about where else we can get oil and what we will sacrifice to get it, I think we're stuck with those wars.
Since his proposal would never pass Im not sure if he's just grandstanding or collecting email addresses or what.
This makes a whole lot of nonsense. Kill funding for an action that involves the life and death of thousands of U.S. troops. Instead of proposing tripe, why doesn't this Grayson mope propose bringing the troops home if he's against the war? What a cowardly proposal!
Here's an idea. Why not take the $300 billion of military spending not related to the war and cut $160 billion out of that? Give us all a tax break by doing that. What a genius!
First of all, i'd be interested in knowing which of the liberals on the forum feel warm and fuzzy inside now that we're no longer in a war, but in a "contingency operation." Can you feel the omnipresent warmth of Barack Obama's Word's of Wisdom flowing through the channels of your conscious? Does it elevate your soul to know that bullets are flying on a contingent basis instead of as a matter of necessity and purpose? Tell me, are you tingly inside?
Surely that tingle will subside long enough for you to come down to earth for a moment and realize that "contingency operations" are paid for from the same pot of money, your wallet, no matter how altogether silly Grayson looks trying to concoct a re-election message.
Alan Grayson has written a bill that will separate funding from the wars from everyone's first $35,000 ($70,000 for couples) of income.
Do you think this a good bill?
Do you think we should end the wars? Why or why not?
Great idea. I doubt it would pass though, and even if it did Obama would veto it.
Grayson's studied his American history quite well, as this seems to be patterned after a bill that Robert Taft wrote that would have defunded the Korean War thereby forcing the US to withdraw. That bill didn't make it through the Senate (and Truman would have definitely vetoed it if it had passed)
First of all, i'd be interested in knowing which of the liberals on the forum feel warm and fuzzy inside now that we're no longer in a war, but in a "contingency operation." Can you feel the omnipresent warmth of Barack Obama's Word's of Wisdom flowing through the channels of your conscious? Does it elevate your soul to know that bullets are flying on a contingent basis instead of as a matter of necessity and purpose? Tell me, are you tingly inside?
Surely that tingle will subside long enough for you to come down to earth for a moment and realize that "contingency operations" are paid for from the same pot of money, your wallet, no matter how altogether silly Grayson looks trying to concoct a re-election message.
You sound like you're unhappy that President Obama is including the war in his budget and running it across the books rather than funding it through supplemental appropriations like his predecessor.
Much of the legislation signed into law by Bush was never funded, or the cost shifted to the states to bear.
I much prefer an open and honest accounting, don't you?
You sound like you're unhappy that President Obama is including the war in his budget and running it across the books rather than funding it through supplemental appropriations like his predecessor.
Much of the legislation signed into law by Bush was never funded, or the cost shifted to the states to bear.
I much prefer an open and honest accounting, don't you?
sort of like all the unfunded pensions that presidents have refused to fund since the feds started giving them out?
if the federal goverment gave out an actual accounting of all items and put it all in their budget, there would be a change of goverment the next day and to one that neither the democrat or republican party would ever like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
