I especially like the part stating something to the effect of "...if the democrats win control of congress they will raise your taxes by $2.6 T to pay for their reckless spending.." That is absolutely laughable. I am fairly certain that some of the most voluminous and reckless spending in US history is currently taking place courtesy of a republican president and (formerly) republican controlled congress. Today's republican party is anything but "conservative" when it comes to spending, or many other things for that matter. What happened to the days of fiscal responsibility? If any private citizen or business was run like our federal government, they would have been bankrupt long ago. In summation, touting tax cuts while simultaneously spending record amounts of money is an insane ploy, and I can't believe people fall for it. Someone WILL pay for the war eventually. I don't like taxes anymore than anyone else, but the fact of the matter is, you can't (shouldn't) spend money you don't have.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Jan 22 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]379250[/snapback]</div> Well, I was just going to say the same thing. My sentiments exactly.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Jan 22 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]379250[/snapback]</div> And the Democrats will still be blamed for it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Jan 22 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]379250[/snapback]</div> Ummmm, no. The oil in Iraq will pay for the war. Weren't you paying attention to dickhead cheney?
Yep. Those Democratic taxes will be to pay off Republican debt, incurred to pay for an illegal and counter-productive war. I don't like the Dems any more than the Repubs, but on this one, the video (though indeed amusing) is off-target. But the Dems never spoke up against the fiscal irresponsibility of the war. So in the end, I blame both parties.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 22 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]379279[/snapback]</div> In "theory", I like the Repubs more than the Dems - but hey - I gotta call this one as I see it. Sure, both parties share some blame, but the Iraq gig is a Republican deal and that's where 90% of the blame should fall. I actually like the "pay as you go" thinking the Dems are proposing, the elimination of earmarks, etc. But I would also like to see a line item veto though - something the Dems have not supported in the past. Anyway, Dems and Repubs - something for everyone to hate, as I see it.
I agree with most of the sentiments here - reckless spending is getting ourselves in a horrible, counterproductive situation in Iraq with no thought to the cost or no-bid contracts (actually, there probably was some thought to those...) that just run up the American debt and the load on the tax payer. Anyways, the Repubs take most of the blame for getting us into the war and the mess that occurred while they controlled congress... however, the Dems weren't too willing to stand up and fight, so they get a bit of the blame too... we'll see what they do this year with their control of congress.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 23 2007, 09:09 AM) [snapback]379476[/snapback]</div> Interesting graph... While i don't have any proof one way or the other, i find it rather odd that it projects to 2009 - 3 years in the future - as improving conditions... whats that based on? However, it does show that during Bush 1, the deficit increased, during Clinton it decreased until we got a surplus, then during bush 2 it became a deficit again, even worse than before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 23 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]379479[/snapback]</div> The graph is from http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/T...tionalDebt.html . I think the future numbers are government projections. Sources are given on the page. Worth a read if you have the time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 22 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]379267[/snapback]</div> Yeppers! :lol:
Thanks for the link, interesting read... however, it should be noted that 2004 onward was projected, so it doesn't even have the past two years "correct"... i'm sure that the cost of the war was much more over the past two years than was initially projected...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 23 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]379514[/snapback]</div> Good point. I came across that and thought it was relatively unbiased, well researched, and readable, not something you always get on the internet. It gives an idea of the trends, and should help to deal with the myth of big spending democrats. Look at the Reagan and Bush I years, or Bush II when the Iraq war costs come home.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 22 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]379406[/snapback]</div> The reason for opposing a line-item veto is that it undermines the process of compromise: Legislators make deals in which each side agrees to put in something the other side wants, in return for stuff it wants. A line-item veto allows the president to whack the compromise, keeping only his own side's stuff, while killing the other half of the compromise. That said, I believe bills should be strictly limited in size and scope. But that limit should be statutory, and implemented at the legislative level, and not imposed arbitrarily, with political motives, by the executive at the moment of signing the bill.
