He stopped including war costs in his fiscal budget to claim defecits were going down. Not only did they go down when he stopped including the costs of the war in Iraq, but they went down further as he dipped into the social security trust fund to pay for tax cuts.
Here is a press release from 12/21/06 where Republican Senator Judd Gregg (current chairmen of the CBO) and others, ask Bush to be up front about the costs of war in Iraq. And this is off the Republican portion of the official CBO website.
http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2006-12-21warcostsconradgreggspratt.pdf
I asked this question yesterday, not surprisingly, no Republicans had any sort of answers.
2006-12-30 07:29:08 · 14 answers · asked by Jordan H 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Is it dishonest for you to exclude costs for your $75,000 Corvette from your household budget?
Yep, but you're only lying to yourself and your family.
He's lying to us all.
2006-12-30 07:31:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is dishonest - but both parties have been guilty of this sort of thing. - And regarding borrowing from the Social Security Trust, (every penny of which came form SS taxes on the wages of working people) - President Bush has at least been up front when he says that there will be a problem paying the money back. (His solution is to "reform" social security - rather than the rest of goverment - because he wants debt relief so he can preserve his tax cuts for the rich. Democrats have not done a very good job at framing the real problem - which is massive deficit spending.
2006-12-30 19:42:10 · answer #2 · answered by Franklin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Super Question! The sad thing about the war is that the number of dead will not impact us nearly as much as the incredibly huge budget deficits Bush will run for the last 7 years of his reign. We'll be trying to pay them off for the rest of my life, I'm sure. China may call the debt and want payment at any time. Then the government will come for your home and your property to pay off the staggering debt -- they will have no choice at that point.
Just remember, that Bush's tax cuts were really "time deferred tax increases".
What's interesting is that the kings from the middle ages are usually judged to be good or bad kings by whether they built up the nations's treasury or whether they looted it. I imagine they same standards of judgement will apply to presidents in the future.
2006-12-30 07:39:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He has spent more than 350 billion on this war. I am a republican or should say was up until now. What he has done is against Republicans and Democrats in short, against the American people. What does he care? He just wants to hire cheap labor from Mexico, while he sells out Legal Americans.
2006-12-30 07:36:03 · answer #4 · answered by jackie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes! I cannot understand why people are able to ignore this. I fear the economic future of the US.
It's really simple. A consumer-the US has some credit card debt(US Treasuries it sells, largely to foreign countries these days). Well, it used up the credit available but he has a good income, so he gets another credit card-and another. Then he loses his job-and can only get one at half the pay of the other-but he can still get credit-he has great credit! He's fine with credit-it's good for the GDP. But then the creditors start calling their debt(they sell their US Treasuries). No problem, he borrows from someone else to pay it. But then, his other creditors call his debt. And other creditors(countries) decide they just don't want to do business with him anymore.
2006-12-30 07:43:21 · answer #5 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually hiding the cost of the military started with the Johnson administration. It has gotten progressively more and more sophisticated with each administration but it is nothing new.
Yes the expense should be included in the budget. And yes we should pay as we go, and yes we should not borrow to pay for tax cuts.
2006-12-30 07:33:31 · answer #6 · answered by r1b1c* 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
he's being actual dishonest in except for something in any respect from the Federal funds. he's likewise being very dishonest about such as any area of the Social protection funds into the Federal funds because SS isn't funded from accepted fund taxes. it truly is funded entirely from particular rates withheld from earnings for the particular objective of funding SS & Medicare.
2016-12-01 08:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, it's okay, since the Chinese are paying for our war in Iraq. Bush can leave that part out of the fiscal budget.
2006-12-30 08:12:35 · answer #8 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is. I think it is immoral as well, particularly if he is suggesting further tax cuts in a time of war. As a president he is asking future generations to pay for his tax cuts and his war. He asks nothing of his supporters, but only tries to deliver pork.
2006-12-30 07:31:32 · answer #9 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's just another lie that Republicans approve of, like the lies about the war. But whatever you do, don't lie about sex. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bush needs to know that a half truth is still a full lie.
another example of where the right is wrong.
2006-12-30 07:35:01 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
And the fiscal cost of the war, per MSNBC is $10,000,000/minute.
2006-12-30 07:32:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋