And don't forget about the lib National Healthcare plan as well & bailing out Social Security. Those two alone cost twice as much as paying for the Iraq war.
2007-06-18 14:48:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
what they always do, is merely inflate the currency
go way into debt, then inflate the currency, so theat the debt isnt so high
it's what they did in the 1970s
and they're doing it again
it's why the dollar has lost 90+ percent of it's value since the creation of the fed reserve in 1913
2007-06-18 14:52:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
i'm not a Reagan worshiper yet I do agree that he became very stable. you assert he ran up the deficit and he did yet he additionally took workplace in the time of the worst economic device because of the fact the super melancholy (even worse than immediately's) and controlled to get the unemployment value down from over 20% to single digits (numbers could be slightly off because of the fact i'm pulling from concepts of two many years in the past). FDR became a blended bag yet he did do a stable activity of uniting the country. His economic rules have been poor yet he did take care of WWII very nicely. He does not have been reelected for his final term if not for the promise to maintain u . s . a . out of the conflict that ended the melancholy. IF he had stored his promise he could have been on the ten worst checklist. GWB would be vindicated quicker or later. he will maximum possibly not smash into the best 10 yet he will come out of the backside 10 to fall interior the midst of the %.. Lincolin freed the slaves, a super accomplishment, yet once you opt for a guy by utilizing his intentions he does not have ranked very especially. He became against slavery yet not so set against it that he could have went to conflict to end it. If the South had not attacked citadel Sumter then Lincoln could have caught to his plan to sidestep conflict whether it meant that the slaves remained as such. Even after the conflict he did not supply rights to the freedman because of the fact he did not prefer to lose the help of the moderates interior the South. Nixon became between the final on welfare reform. He did not have faith interior the unfastened handouts. If there had not been a Watergate he could have ranked exceedingly intense. different than Nixon the backside 10 seem exceedingly stable.
2016-10-17 23:29:39 · answer #2 · answered by bruinius 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Those two alone" will not cost more than the war in Iraq. Social Security does not need bailing out. That was a lie Bush told in an attempt to get the public to agree to privatize it. Look up the facts. A national health care plan would certainly be cheaper than what we now have. Look at how much more we spend for less care in the USA. Somebody will have to pay for the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Bush has left that to another president and congress to solve. It will be hard for everyone, but the war should be paid for sooner rather than later. It is not fair for our grand children and their grand children to pay for it.
2007-06-18 14:56:28 · answer #3 · answered by toetagme 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If the US paid for National Healthcare, it could not afford to throw money at two-bit wars like Iraq.
2007-06-18 14:52:31 · answer #4 · answered by flushles 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
estimates are running at quadrupling taxes to pay for the Democrat Health care..... so as business close and more disposable income of the poor is paid out so we can all wait six hours for "lowest Bidder" government health care on a doubling population that grows each year, will make the whiners about war fund look pale as the years go by...
Oh by the way will Hillary Clinton go to the same government health care you will be doled out by the left.....doubt it.
2007-06-18 15:07:03 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd rather see my taxes being spend on kids with no insurance then on missiles and wooden boxes. Just today I watched how many kids are with out insurance and cant afford surgeries and medications that they need. Pay for someones pills with my taxes but not on a long distance missile and couple wooden boxes.
Spend the money where it needs to be spend. I'm not saying "don't help anyone else" but keep in mind you have your own people to take care of. I'm not an American but I still think we need to spend more money home rather then in Iraq or any other country.
2007-06-18 15:00:46 · answer #6 · answered by Crazy 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The president does not have the power to raise taxes, only the Congress. Its in the Constitution.
2007-06-18 14:54:32 · answer #7 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Wait. How can the Iraq war be costing money? They're pumping oil now, and the Democrats said this war was all about stealing their oil.
2007-06-18 14:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Civics 101 Congress is the one who can raise or lower taxes
2007-06-18 14:54:38 · answer #9 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Finally! Someone who sees the big picture!
Bush's dad said, "Read my lips; no new taxes."
The Cons are constantly harping that the Democrats will raise taxes when they come to power.
However, how are we to reduce the Bush administration's multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising taxes?
No National Health care system.
No social sexurity benefits.
No new schools.
No repair of roads.
Thank you, Dark Side of the Force!
2007-06-18 14:54:16 · answer #10 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋