87 Billion divided by 290 million Americans is... 300 bucks a piece.
If we've already spent about that much, that goes to 600 bucks a person.
I, for one, am absolutely shocked that the government might spend 600 dollars per American to topple a ruthless aggressive dictator, defend American interests in a truly "progressive" Middle East, and liberate millions of people from Tyranny. (And scare the living CRAP out of the Mullahs in Iran, Assad in Syria, and everyone else in the area who should have the crap scared out of them.)
Don't forget that some of that money is money they'd be spending anyway, in places like Saudi Arabia and on paying troops who'd be at home vs. over there.
Mind you, I'd poney up $300 to see all this done. But as the wealthiest taxpayers will be paying most of it, it's hard for me to squeak too loud.
The rich still haven't gotten any tax cut. So there's nothing at the moment to "suspend." What you're proposing is to pay the money out of tax cuts that won't happen for a few more years.
I propose paying for the war effort by cutting wasteful spending elsewhere, so we can continue to give a much-needed stimulus to the economy by encouraging investment with the reasonable and moderate tax cuts that will be phased in over the next few years.
Heh. And, all I have to say is, "sticker shock"?
87 Billion divided by 290 million Americans is... 300 bucks a piece.
If we've already spent about that much, that goes to 600 bucks a person.
I, for one, am absolutely shocked that the government might spend 600 dollars per American to topple a ruthless aggressive dictator, defend American interests in a truly "progressive" Middle East, and liberate millions of people from Tyranny. (And scare the living CRAP out of the Mullahs in Iran, Assad in Syria, and everyone else in the area who should have the crap scared out of them.)
Cheap at twice the price.
And when you figure the richest 1% are footing most of the bill, I think we are getting *quite* the bargain.
Don't forget that some of that money is money they'd be spending anyway, in places like Saudi Arabia and on paying troops who'd be at home vs. over there.
Mind you, I'd poney up $300 to see all this done. But as the wealthiest taxpayers will be paying most of it, it's hard for me to squeak too loud.
stupid hippies ;)
$600? Send back your tax credit, post haste.
Ooops, sorry. You'll be billed for the extra $600 on your next, um, statement.
I'm just saying.
Sorry. What was I thinking? The richest 1% are footing the bill.
Hmmmm..
If that's the case....
...and while we're at it...
...let's make the whole war effort revenue neutral!
How about if we fund that $87 billion by suspending tax cuts for anyone making over $200 thousand a year?
We could pay for the whole thing and balance the budget to boot!
Damn! I forgot about the other $500 billion part of next year's projected deficit.
Uhm, Ara?
The rich still haven't gotten any tax cut. So there's nothing at the moment to "suspend." What you're proposing is to pay the money out of tax cuts that won't happen for a few more years.
I propose paying for the war effort by cutting wasteful spending elsewhere, so we can continue to give a much-needed stimulus to the economy by encouraging investment with the reasonable and moderate tax cuts that will be phased in over the next few years.