View article at its original site
Showing comments 1—5 of 5
Posted 11/24/09 11:19 AM Pegasus Wenatchee, WA | Really no different than paying for the war through inflation, but at least now maybe more people will realize what a waste it is if they have to pay for it directly. |
Posted 11/24/09 3:39 PM Glenn Cumming, GA | $1,000,000 to fund one soldier per year.
What's the cost per "bad guy" eliminated? What's the cost per innocent murdered? What are the products and services not provided because of this use of capital? So those engaged in a federally-privileged activity that produces income above the exemption amount now will know explicity that they are funding empire, torture, and murder. Be nice to throw that in their face. |
Posted 11/24/09 4:21 PM Red in Blue State Watsontown, PA | The real question is how many new taxes on the same groups can they propose before we get the Galt effect? There comes a time when people (me included) get sick of funding this orgy of government spending. I'm still a fan of only allowing people that actually pay taxes (pay in more than they receive) voting, but SCOTUS has called that an illegal poll tax. |
Posted 11/24/09 5:53 PM retornado30 Roosevelt, UT | Barney Frank - “It’s conditional, but if we’re going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are,”...“It’s important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits.”
WE don't WANT you to add any more troops! WE already KNOW how wars are adding to the deficit! You punks were supposed to stop the wars for crying out loud! Don't you have a majority in congress and the presidency? "Peace-loving" democrats my eye! What hypocritical backstabbing scum! If I were a swearing man...AGHH! |
Posted 11/24/09 8:20 PM LizLiz Brooklyn(or Cresco,PA!) , NY | Ugh.. where does this nightmare train stop so I can get off? |
You must be a member to post comments. [Become a member]
