First of all, it obviously isn't. Second, perhaps you don't realize that most spending doesn't benefit primarily (much less exclusively) the poor, or isn't “regressive” (with respect to incomes) in nature.

No, Kathy, but rather incredibly obvious. Anyone who knows reality (and understands English) knows this already, too, and doesn't feel the need to reject reality and question it or reject it or disparage it.

You should also not be “surprised” (and I'll be disappointed to encounter any expression of surprise, later, by you, were we subjected to it) to see the surtax threshold and definition of “wealthy” (in this case, as is customary, actually meaning a high income) begin to be reduced, broadening the tax base (once it is again “discovered” tardily and reluctantly that there aren't enough “rich” otherwise to tax to raise the desired revenue).

Also, don't be surprised, or disparage, that the sun will appear to move from east to west tomorrow in the sky.

It is so incredibly revealing that a surtax on wealthy Americans to pay for continuing a war that has gone on for eight years now would be considered “typical class warfare,” but cutting domestic spending to pay for the war would not be considered “typical class warfare” at all.

Afghanistan, at least the initial phases, we were going after the 9/11 perpetrators.

Of course, I don't know this, albeit I am sure we can find out.

But I am willing to bet that the costs will pale when compared to the costs of one of our “wars of choice,” and I am not even talking about the human toll.

And, I believe, we had the draft until 1973, so the draft does not cure everything, and certainly not “those who start and advance these wars”.
BTW: Since we can just print more money, how much does it cost to set a draft up?

We will then find out how few are willing to pay for it.

Sadly, because such an answer is not acceptable to most of those who start and advance these wars, I realize we will not see such an answer.

Then again, if you need the government to tell you what you should do, you're in a bit more of a quandry. I recall this same surtax being proposed by this same Dem rep in the same Dem majority House 2 years ago.

If the Dems didn't have the chutzpah to raise it as a protest against George Bush, are you telling me they will now have the chutzpah to foist it upon dear leader, who already has a plurality against him for his handling of Afghanistan.

Oh yes, for the record, I am not in favor of the troop surge since the liberals will be sure to be writing articles about how the fiscal conservatives don't want to spend on healthcare, yet want to spend on Afghanistan. Sorry to disappoint.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=593X1004&url=http%…

The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a “low-risk option” that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a “high-risk” approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a “medium-risk” option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.