Doesn't raise taxes to pay for the wars; why is he borrowing money in the form of bonds to pay for the conflicts we are in. I want to know how Republicans feel about the Bush administration borrowing more money (1.05 Trillion) then all other Administrations Washington through Clinton (1.01 Trillion) combined.
2006-06-21
20:44:11
·
11 answers
·
asked by
collegedebt
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Be the Chief Executive of the United States comes at the cost of responsibility to those who you serve. It's not a popularity contest, he has to be fiscally responsible for his actions. If he wants a war he needs to levy taxes to pay for it.
2006-06-21
20:50:26 ·
update #1
Thanks J J for attacking my grammar instead of answering the question; is that because you can't find an excuse to defend the president with?
2006-06-21
20:51:27 ·
update #2
fnkycolmedina my logic is not flaw because:
1.) As Executive President Bush makes the sole decision to go to war, constitutionally he is not required to get congressional approval.
2.) President Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill, although allows bills to pass through lowering taxes.
Do your homework.
2006-06-21
21:08:16 ·
update #3
brainshoveler, you didn't answer the question; I wasn't asking whether or not we should fight the war; I was asking why we don't raise taxes to pay for it.
2006-06-21
21:09:14 ·
update #4
He's the reason we voted (unintentionally) for him.
2006-06-21 20:48:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that it's a great question. I'm going to admit that although I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I certainly believe in fiscal responsibility. The people who voted to invade Iraq and pushed the legislation should first have any capital gain since the war began taxed 80% across the board. The corporations that reported profits in the last 5 years should likewise be taxed and investigated. The citizens of this country are being fleeced by it's own leaders and foreign investors. The very people who stand to gain the most from these conflicts are the same ones who pay the least taxes. And to michinoko2001: We owe the money to Rothchild Bank and it's subsidiaries
2006-06-21 22:34:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by changRdie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
the reason we have to borrow so much money is because we need to eliminate the threat to the united states in the form of extreme militant islamists. these people want to kill us and destroy our way of life. the real question here may be how come no other president, especially in the 8 years of clinton's presidency, did not seriously address this issue before. did you know that the cia had a deal to turn over osama bin laden to the united states long before sept. 11 even happened? do you have any idea what kind off attacks were taking place during clinton's presidency? this is such an important issue not only because of militant islams hate for western culture, but it IS also because of oil. The US has a large dependancy on foreign oil and oil prices, which is obvious, can greatly affect the US economy, which is probably the most important economy in the world, which in turn would affect the entire planet.
2006-06-21 20:53:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You see that source field below where you post your response or question. I suggest you use it. Cite it or bite it.
As for thinking that this is Bush's war and that he's responsible for levying taxes to pay for the war, you are way off base. Congress took a vote to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. That vote passed with a high majority for both. Congress shares just as much of the blame, if "blame" is the side you are on.
Just because Bush presented the case to go to war, that doesn't mean he is ultimately responsible for it. The intelligence that he had access to was also given to all senators before making their vote.
Are you going to tell me also that the 500 WMDs found recently don't account for something? If you want to get back to the money issue, cite your source....
__ Addition __
Your logic is also flawed about the Bush Administration being the ones to blame. Look at the link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11858370/from/RL.1
IT IS CLEAR THAT "CONGRESS" INITIATES THE MOVE
2006-06-21 20:51:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by SirCharles 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
He obviously feels deficits are no big deal. The world's top economists can't agree on whether or not national debt is really important or not(we owe it to ourselves?), so he's entitled to his POV. The Marshall plan took %15 of the US budget in 1946, but no one regrets that now.
2006-06-21 22:12:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by michinoku2001 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
mr. Bush is a coward, a deserter, and the son of a full blown Nazi , his goal is demonic, and he has no feelings for Any Americans fighting his Faux war in Iraq,and he laughs at your beligerence every night before he rocks his satanic *** to sleep! clear your minds maggots the truth is everywhere.
2006-06-21 22:13:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wonder too why we just dont sell the oil to pay for our efforts. Raising taxes is bad, but yes we are not beeing smart about this.
2006-06-21 20:49:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If they raise taxes people will ***** about taxes being too high. If they don't then they have people bitching about putting the country further in debt.
2006-06-21 20:48:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You should have stated, why, (not how come, that is incorrect English),
I know spelling is hard for many of you - practice makes perfect!
2006-06-21 20:49:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by newyorkgal71 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
republician-no tax
democrat-tax
a main difference in the platforms of the two partys is taxation.
2006-06-22 00:20:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by wally l 3
·
0⤊
0⤋