Interesting that the Fiscally Conservative will always bankrupt you, we have the same problem in Canada, the more they talk about controlling spending the more money they spend,but only on their rich friends wants, go figure.
2006-07-07 01:57:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
"The difference you're missing is that money spent in Iraq is buying us what will be a stable democracy in the middle of the wackiest part of the world, an important Muslim friend to help spread freedom to a repressed part of the world."
so you are saying that throwing money at the problem will solve it? You sound like a liberal. When we pull out of Iraq and the fundamentalists take over, that money we spent will be totally wasted. Unless you think we should stay there forever, which will only hasten the rise of fundamentalism.
I am an isolationist. I don't care about freedom for the rest of the world. I care about America. If you think you can stop fundamentalism with military force, you are completely delusional.
2006-07-07 09:42:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by beren 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The difference you're missing is that money spent in Iraq is buying us what will be a stable democracy in the middle of the wackiest part of the world, an important Muslim friend to help spread freedom to a repressed part of the world.
The money spent on liberal social programs is almost exclusively a complete waste of money. We've spent trillions of dollars over the last several decades and the result is that we're told we need to spend even more. Money spent on social programs apparently didn't work.
2006-07-07 09:09:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd rather send the money to Iraq then give it to lazy Americans that are cheating the system and are not willing to get up and get a damm job. People in America have every opportunity to make something of themselves without getting free government money(that comes out of my paycheck)
The Iraqi's never had the opportunity that we in this country take advantage of, and we are giving it to them. In the process we took down one of the worlds most brutal and dangerous evil dictators. 250 Million a day is well worth it.
2006-07-07 09:00:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mastro 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wait, the social programs that are going bankrupt? Those social programs... the ones that aren't going to exist by 2050?
Thank God almighty above, that the social programs aren't costing us more than 250 million a day or else we would be totally screwed.
Thanks for this valuable insight captain obvious.
2006-07-07 08:57:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by mmenaquale 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The US is already a bankrupt. You're writing cheques that the country can't cash. Iraq, Afghanistan, Illegal Immigrants et al will ensure that the next president will have nothing to work with. What are YOU going to do about this?
2006-07-07 09:02:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by erlish 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am fully aware of that- and I look at it as an insurance policy for my child, my future grandchildren and so on. I think it's a small price to pay to insure that our country still exists in the future. Think about it- if we don't have our freedom, the programs you are referring to are moot subjects.
2006-07-07 08:59:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by tiredofliberals 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
What's your point?
I am against welfare, except for those who truly need it. You know, the people who are disabled? The people who use it as a hand-UP and not a hand-OUT?
As someone said, apples and oranges.
And neocons is a derogatory term.
2006-07-07 09:01:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
apples and oranges. social programs like welfare do nothing except destroy families and people. they lead to even more dependancy. we have spent trillions on welfare and still have about the same% of poor people that we had when we started. they do not work.
2006-07-07 08:58:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by glen t 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I didn't realize the war in Iraq was a social program, thanks.
2006-07-07 09:17:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mr.Wise 6
·
0⤊
0⤋