English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

It feels fine. If that much is approved, it will bring military spending to 4.2% of GDP, compared to 4.7% under Carter and 6.2% under Reagan.

Seems like we may be doing fine there, but thanks for playing.

Its funny that I get any thumbs down for stating facts.

2007-02-06 00:09:32 · answer #1 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 5 2

Norway is going to spend 650 Billion money on Iraq? i did not even understand they were over in Iraq? you ought to were relating the U. S. funds. so some distance because the U. S. is going 650 Billion isn't even 25% of the proposed funds. I say proposed because Congress really instruments the funds. The President merely proposes it. The funds for 2008 is proposed to be 2.9Trillion, as such the determination you heard would not equate to twenty-5%. the envisioned rate for Iraq AND Afghanistan is about 250 Billion. Iraq money owed for roughly 2 hundred Billion. and that i agree it could be more effective spent. it could be more effective spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. yet you be conscious there are those those who do no longer favor regulation and order. and they shop making the U. S. and GB spend the money in different techniques. so some distance because the divide the country is going. you be conscious how nicely that has worked in Palestine and Israel. favor I say extra? i will besides. You split the country with assistance from ethnicity and also you've were given Shiites contained in the south with oil, Kurds contained in the north with oil, and the Sunnis contained in the middle with next to no longer something. you actually imagine they are going to bypass for that?

2016-11-02 11:33:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How does it feel to still have troops in Kosovo? Come on they were coming home by Christmas according to Clinton. Then his wife claims that Bush should make sure to bring the troops home from Iraq before he leaves office. Did her Husband bring home all the troops he sent out? Well clearly no since he didn't bring them back from Kosovo. I'm not big on spending so much on Iraq. On the other hand I guess we don't have much choice. I just hope the money is going to be spent wisely.

2007-02-06 00:15:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

We're spending $750 billion on the war in Iraq? That's news to me. Either your info is dead wrong or your math sucks!

2007-02-06 02:27:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The incompetently-conducted war in Iraq has become a criminal waste of American blood and treasure, not to mention the unspeakable price being exacted from the poor Iraqis.

That said, the expenditure of a quarter of the federal budget (and about 3-4 pct of GDP) on defense/military matters is not inappropriate per se. The fundamental role of a government is to ensure the physical safety of its citizens, and spending the biggest chunk of the budget on defense makes sense. It's certainly better than wasting it on No Child Left Behind or farm subsidies.

2007-02-06 00:23:01 · answer #5 · answered by Bethesdan 2 · 0 4

I don't think your numbers are correct. There's no way in hell we're spending over $600 B on Iraq next year.

Try again. And try using facts.

2007-02-06 00:26:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

About the same as spending 40% of yearly budget on welfare programs, social security, and every other tax increase that will be caused by the Democrats.

2007-02-06 01:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

In your opinion, I guess you believe it would be better to leave Iraq and give al-Qadea a forward base to launch attacks on the US.

2007-02-06 01:03:50 · answer #8 · answered by Damn Good Dawg 3 · 1 0

What is worse then that is to cut funding for the poor and elder in the population to pay for it. This is a shame that needs to be corrected and if the democrats in congress have any scones they will stand up to this evil president and not allow him to do it, and as a matter of fact they need to cut funding so he has no chance to follow his agenda of being the president to start W.W. l l l.

2007-02-06 00:11:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

It's a shame we have too. War is expensive. It takes years to recuperate financially from it. Too bad we just can't have peace then we would have less worries. I know... easier said than done. Ok, so I'm a dreamer.

2007-02-06 00:10:12 · answer #10 · answered by Vida 6 · 3 1

Terrible.

2007-02-06 00:07:10 · answer #11 · answered by Lynnemarie 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers