a gimmick. No, nobody will vote for it. That's for the best, because supplemental spending is necessary to keep our soldiers safe, nourished and effective. But as an effort to shine a light on budget games and to force Americans to see war spending on par with domestic spending, it's a smart piece of PRBut let's ask ourselves what's actually wrong with these piece of legislation? Would it really make our soldiers "unsafe" or "unfed" as the Atlantic piece suggests? I would think that with $549 BILLION being spent, we can feed the soldiers. As for safety, the only way to keep them safe is bring them home. Would the bill end the 9 year war in Afghanistan or the 7 year war in Iraq? Absolutely not. Sso whether you're pro or anti-war, you should consider supporting this bill. The bill would force the administration to budget their wars within the $549BILLION already given to them (something Obama pledged to do) without using $159Billion in "emergency funding" requests to do so. Given the length of these wars already, you would think the administration and the military could actually figure out how much they need to spend. More importantly, given that $549BILLION has ALREADY been budgeted for these wars, you would think the administration wouldn't have to request billions more in emergency funds-- billions that are funded through growing deficits. What's the emergency? What could possibly be unforeseen at this point? Perhaps the only "surprise" is how many Americans don't get it- don't get that we can't spend all our money on guns and still have any left over for "butter." But if the "War is Making You Poor" bill passed, we'd still have plenty of- actually way too many- guns and a wee bit of butter. Grayson's proposal would make the first $35,000 Americans earn tax free for a year by funneling the $159 BILLION dollars directly back to the people. With most of the supplemental money going to increasing the number of US troops in Afghanistan, despite the fact that there is no real exit strategy and no one in the world, not even our closest allies, believe the war is winnable. And yet American optimism in the war in Afghanistan has jumped in recent months, with nearly half of Americans believing the war in Afghanistan is "going well."
The new poll indicates that 44 percent of the public says things are going well for the U.S. in Afghanistan, with 43 percent saying things are going badly."That's a huge 23-point jump since last November, when two-thirds thought that things were going poorly in the war," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Forty-eight percent of people questioned now support the war, with 49 percent opposed. This is the first time since May of 2009 in CNN polling that opposition has dropped below 50 percent.Odd that American support for the wars seems to have nothing to do with costs- real opportunity costs in terms of what we cannot do for Americans suffering from the economic collapse- and also the real cost of sending young, primarily working class and poor Americans, to die. While the cost of war is being felt by the vast majority of Americans, one way or another, there are a few Americans, like the ones who own Haliburton or General Dynamics, who are able to make record profits while our country goes further and further into debt to finance the dream of "winning" these nightmarish wars. If only we would wake up and demand that a thoroughly sensible bill like "The War is Making You Poor" be passed.