This seems to be an act of moral cowardice from a White House obsessed witth taking away our civil rights as well - but this is another topic entirely.
2007-02-18 02:45:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Jazzkidz: Navy, 1969-1972, We had someone named Nixon back in those days. Another unpopular Republican.
2007-02-18 02:54:04 · update #1
Pimp: I totally agree. We need to hold these politicians accountable.
2007-02-18 02:58:06 · update #2
I think its true for most governments (if they are bad ones) they do things which will affect the future of their countries but don't hestitate to do it as they know they will not be the ones who have to clean it up years later.
Just like with climate change, the US churns out a massive amount of carbon emissions but they refused to do anything about it until recently. Its our children who will suffer.
2007-02-18 02:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
a million. Bush saved the wars out of the fee selection, so this explains how the republicans can communicate approximately lots of the low finances deficits that werent relatively so. whilst Obama further the wars into the fee selection it for sure went up, the only differnence is Bush further the wars quickly onto the debt, Obama further them to the deficit that have been given further to the debt 2. Clinton's final finances replaced into 2001, ( Bush's first 12 months) had Bush achieved no longer something.,we would have ended that 12 months with a surplus, yet in Aug of 2001 Bush began mailing tests back and the fed began borrowing money to make up for the gross sales loss
2016-10-02 08:22:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you misunderstand the US Budget. At the end of Clinton's (And Reagan's, etc.) term we were already in major debt. All taxes now pay that debt. Balancing the budget will not pay off the debt, only keep it from getting larger. Future generations will be paying for the paperclips on Capital Hill.
2007-02-18 02:52:25 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it is not. The cost of the Iraq War should have been transparent and accounted for in Bush's budgets and paid for upfront, but this would have upset Bush supporters who want war without personal sacrifice. They truly are fiscal liberals.
2007-02-18 02:51:50 · answer #4 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ask you so called democrat leaders who said yes to war! They knew it costs money to fight a war, and they approved the last funding bill recently to keep paying for it!
2007-02-18 02:54:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This War, is gonna allow Future Generations to be alove and Free. Get the facts. Learning didn't stop wihen you left School.
2007-02-18 02:50:28 · answer #6 · answered by Goggles 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
it is sad but it's true, the DON'T CARE about the future generation. i wonder is it because they hate their own children & grandchildren, or because they are too old ?
IRAQ WAR SURCHARGE is a very good idea !
2007-02-18 03:04:01 · answer #7 · answered by curious_e 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Republicans can careless about the debt burden they leave to future generations.
For the Republican party....it's all about money....and best of all, it's like their personal credit card.
2007-02-18 02:49:37 · answer #8 · answered by Villain 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wasn't it the Democrats who just wasted our tax dollars on a week of non-binding BS???
2007-02-18 02:52:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why not, there going to have to pay for some slimeballs imposed health care someday.
2007-02-18 02:53:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋