The journey from there to here
Published on February 8, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

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


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 14, 2005
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
on Feb 14, 2005
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.
on Feb 14, 2005
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.
3 Pages1 2 3