2006-12-25 10:07:14 · 10 answers · asked by Kate the Saint 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no! trying telling that to the retardos that still think bush is a conservative!
2006-12-25 10:08:20 · answer #1 · answered by janet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe there is a general misconception about a 'smaller government'. When the government claims that is wants to be smaller does not mean that it wishes to collect less taxes from its people, it is simply saying that the government wishes to relieve itself of the accountability, and responsibility to its people.
In fact it collects a higher percentage in taxes than ever before, yet it wishes to not be responsible for safeguarding people from possible danger. Billions of tax dollars are not only gone, but wasted. This has been going on for many years. The deficit usually goes to new heights when Republicans are in the majority.
2006-12-25 23:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by Schona 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
according to Newsweek. America spent 399 billion dollars on its military, while the next 20 most advanced countries spent 396 billion all together. it would sound like America is a little to focused on its military but the numbers don't tell the whole story. On average the next 20 most advanced countries spent between 13- 15% of the GDP on their military, while America spent about 3%. The bottom line is that the military isn't what puts us into debt, it's our social programs. And if something isn't done about our SS program America will be falling into another great depression because of it.
2006-12-25 18:17:25 · answer #3 · answered by wonder 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe small goverment beats a large government anyday. Small government equals less laws maybe. Would rather spend tax dollars fighting terror in terror's backyard, and not my backyard.
2006-12-25 18:12:56 · answer #4 · answered by LuckyChucky 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. bush don't believe in small government. any war on an idea has made the goverment bigger.
damon. iraq is a social program. we are handing them money.
2006-12-25 18:41:12 · answer #5 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
would it make a difference if liberals were in the white house,we just wouldnt know how much money was gone
2006-12-25 18:12:19 · answer #6 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
war in Iraq needed to be done, unless you think Saddam Hussein could have been reasoned with....I don't think so....
2006-12-25 18:09:44 · answer #7 · answered by bipolargandolf 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't take you seriously with such a girly-girl avatar, and no it does not make sense.
2006-12-25 18:10:10 · answer #8 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!and i dont think our prime minister in australia should be bushs puppet!
2006-12-25 18:11:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in short... no
2006-12-25 18:09:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋