Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Balanced Budget? Not on MY Watch

▼

Balanced Budget? Not on MY Watch

from JoeUser Forums

See, this is what hacks me about the "big two" parties (dem & rep).

I remember, when Clinton was president, the "balanced budget" was a HUGE priority. The Democrats were the big, bad guys because they couldn't muster a budget that reduced deficit spending. The Republicans ran in 1994 with fanfare and a "Contract with America" that proposed, among other things, just that. It was a PR coup for the GOP. The government shut down over the differences between the Democrat and the Congressional Budget, and the GOP shouted that a balanced budget was a priority for America.

My how times have changed.

Trusting in the amnesiac tendencies that Americans tend to have as regards to politics, the GOP continues to increase their deficit spending further and further. The $2.57 TRILLION (that's TRILLION, as in $2,570,000,000,000) budget does not even include expenditures for the war in Iraq, guaranteed to be quite costly to say the least. And that's just one year's budget.

To put it in terms the average American can understand, the $2.57 trillion proposed budget equals:

  • $8,566.67 for every man, woman and child in America (giving a family of four an average liability of over $34,000...past the median income for said family)
  • 50 times Bill Gates' net worth.

The end result of such excessive spending is simply: bankruptcy. We cannot maintain current spending levels without DRASTICALLY increasing taxes on Americans. As the dollar continues to fall on the international market, the crisis intensifies even further. We need to return to our call for fiscal responsibility and press for the President and Congress to commit to a budget that RESPONSIBLY manages our money in as efficient a manner as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

politics
8,776 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shades, you need to work on your reading. No where in drguy's post does he even suggest that whoman does not pay an exhorbitant amount of taxes. He statement was that whoman could pay more if he wished. And the second part was NOT directed to you either.


drmiler--my reading comprehension is just find, thank you. Dr. Guy's "put your money where you mouth is" suggested that he didn't believe that whoman was financially invested enough to have a valid opinion. I did make a leap in thinking that the reason Dr. Guy didn't think whoman was financially invested enough was because whoman is a liberal.

There is a reoccuring theme around here that liberals are leaches who suck the system dry and offer little--I was simply arguing that it was not the case.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Iraq War was the result of both parties but the Republicans made the arguements and twisted the Intel.


Twisted the intel? Col Gene, are you going to sit there and lie through your teeth at us? You know full well that neither Congress, the UN, nor anyone else in government is stuck with relying solely on the White House for intel. We rarely agree, but I figured that at least you could make your points without lying.

That sir, is beneath you... or at least should be.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush had choosen to attack Iraq before 9/11. There were many who warned Bush not to get us into a war in Iraq including his own father. He is the one that told us about the mushroom cloud when the intelligence clearly showed Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Cheney and Powell went before the world telling them that we were in danger from this evil dictator Saddam Hussein which simply was not borne out by the facts. It was Bush who ignored the warnings of August prior to 9/11 that indicated bin Laden intended to attack the United States.

Bush twisted the data and the arguments to make it appear as if Iraq was linked to 9/11 and was a real danger to the United States. These issues were lies. The United States had no business taking upon itself the responsibility to enforce UN resolutions, remove evil dictators, spread democracy, or anything like it. We have created an atmosphere in the Muslim world whereby we are now the evil ones. Why George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq will probably never know with certainty. But it was not because we were in danger from Iraq and therefore there is simply no justification to put at risk American lives and to expand hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
and twisted the Intel.


So according to you the republicans twisted intel for the whole world? What utter BS. It documented fact that *every* intel agency in the world said the same thing.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

No, that is why most other nations did not agree with Bush. Even the people in the countries who's leaders supported Bush did not agree with Bush or their leaders. We went in on this on alone (except for the British government) and are paying the price in troops killed, injured and in the financial cost. Today Bush asked for another $80 Billion which will bring the cost to 300 billion. I hope you think that is money and lives well spent. I DO NOT!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
r

No, that is why most other nations did not agree with Bush. Even the people in the countries who's leaders supported Bush did not agree with Bush or their leaders. We went in on this on alone (except for the British government) and are paying the price in troops killed, injured and in the financial cost. Today Bush asked for another $80 Billion which will bring the cost to 300 billion. I hope you think that is money and lives well spent. I DO NOT!


See this is EXACTLY what I was talking about on a different thread. *Your* ALWAYS right and we're always wrong. Start reading and learn differently.

Link


Link


Link


Link
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bottom line, there was no WMD in IRAQ. There was no connection to 9/11. There was no threat to the Unioted States. Even if Saddam had WMD he would not have been any more of a threat than 20 other countries that do have WMD. Iraq would never have attacked the United States and Saddam did not allow the the terrorist groups that are responsible for 9/11 to operate in Iraq. Bush wanted to attack Iraq before he bacame president and it did not matter that they were no danger to us.

Congress screwed up by giving him the option to go to war. I hope we have learned why the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress not the President.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bottom line, there was no WMD in IRAQ. There was no connection to 9/11. There was no threat to the Unioted States. Even if Saddam had WMD he would not have been any more of a threat than 20 other countries that do have WMD. Iraq would never have attacked the United States and Saddam did not allow the the terrorist groups that are responsible for 9/11 to operate in Iraq. Bush wanted to attack Iraq before he bacame president and it did not matter that they were no danger to us.

Congress screwed up by giving him the option to go to war. I hope we have learned why the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress not the President.


Bottom line my butt! Once again you have side-stepped what was posted. Care to try again? The post pertained to other countries intelligence agencies and Saddams WMDs.