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.
Here is an interesting new proposal to pay for the military. The suggestion from a top ranking Senator is that troops in Afganistan should be paid for by those making over $200,000 per year since "they have done well".
Here is an interesting new proposal to pay for the military. The suggestion from a top ranking Senator is that troops in Afganistan should be paid for by those making over $200,000 per year since "they have done well".
What thinkest you? Should national defense be funded only by certain segments of the population?
No, Carl Levin is an idiot and some people who think "the rich" are the only ones who should be hosed, I can't wait to see what they have to say about "the rich" paying more in taxes when that $200,000 number drops to a lower threshhold.
I also find it quite humorous that in liberal cities, where a person earns more money for the same jobs done in other states for less pay, you're the ones that are going to be hosed first. Is it that uncommon, in NYC or San Francisco, for example, for a person to earn $150,000 and their spouse to earn $100,000 for jobs that in the southeast, for example, might pay $100,000 and $50,000? I don't think that $250,000 couple feels rich based on how expensive it is to live in NYC or SF but they'll be hosed by taxes, first, based on income. The tax tables don't care where you live.
What are you going to do when "the rich" becomes $150,000? $100,000? Why even bother going to college to get a better paying job?
It just amazes me to no end that the solution to US debt is taxing individuals but not reigning in government spending. Have people been so bamboozled that they can't see the obvious?
Here is an interesting new proposal to pay for the military. The suggestion from a top ranking Senator is that troops in Afganistan should be paid for by those making over $200,000 per year since "they have done well".
What thinkest you? Should national defense be funded only by certain segments of the population?
I think they are already paying for all the military,all of it. but also they are paying for all the lazy people who are getting a welfare check rather then to go out and work.maybe those lazy people should be enlisted in the military.this will cut the cost of the military.every american should do their part, so obamba saids. and this is a good way
Wow..it's so good to hear that "the rich" will be taxed to solve all our debt problems and fund all our social welfare problems. What happens when they are taxed so much that they are not rich anymore ?
Here is an interesting new proposal to pay for the military. The suggestion from a top ranking Senator is that troops in Afganistan should be paid for by those making over $200,000 per year since "they have done well".
Here is an interesting new proposal to pay for the military. The suggestion from a top ranking Senator is that troops in Afganistan should be paid for by those making over $200,000 per year since "they have done well".
What thinkest you? Should national defense be funded only by certain segments of the population?
Sure. And while we're at it all the social programs can be funded by those making less than 50K a yr. Both make about as much sense.
Dano
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.
