Is ignoring costs of why their states remain in such poverty?
2007-06-22 16:05:06 · 19 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush wastes $500 billion on Iraq yet the neo-cons cry about paying for the very war they support, with their words only.
2007-06-22 16:08:51 · update #1
Neo-cons want the war, as long as they don't have to give up a single thing to wage it. Well, they did spend $1.00 on a ribbon...
2007-06-22 16:11:28 · update #2
Actually, you may remember that during the 2004 election, Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq would pay for it with their oil.
Don't believe it for a second. Our Children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for it.
2007-06-22 16:09:27 · answer #1 · answered by Rosebee 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I am not a neo-con but I am an old school conservative. You have some of your facts a bit mixed up, sir. Firstly, congress does the spending not the President. Both branches of government are a part of the defect problem; the congress for passing such expensive budgets and the President for not vetoing them.
Another mis-statement you made is implying that the President sent the military into Iraq. In reality, America sent the military into Iraq. Every American citizen was represented when the vote was taken to resume hostilities with Iraq.
Would you please let me know what States are in poverty? The economy is growing, we have full employment and home ownership is at an all time high. That is not poverty. You will have to visit other countries to see real poverty.
As far as republicans supporting the war, are you aware that republicans outnumber democrats in the military nearly 10 to 1?
.
2007-06-22 23:29:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They don't intend on paying a thing. It'll take forever to
amend the tax breaks they gave to the wealthy, so they &
their next generation have nothing to worry about.
The middle class will economically suffer for their greed
for decades to come & the next elected officials will
have to deal with the consequences for being "after Bush".
Don't pay attention to Angel - Bush is the one who is
"pro outsourching" & it seems like our celebrities are truly,
the only one's bringing other nations poverty into the light.
Like she's really black - give me a break!
2007-06-22 23:23:14 · answer #3 · answered by Calee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shut the F*Ck up you big retard..
Since you seem to know everything and youre totally right maybe you should solve all of the worlds issues starting with USA not getting everything made in China, then go onto world hunger then world peace. Old Wise One
2007-06-22 23:35:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iraq could pay us back for liberating them with free oil
2007-06-22 23:22:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They need to pay for it all...the people who disagree with the war should not have to pay for the bad judgement of our president...but the supporters should
2007-06-22 23:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They're going to cut taxes. In their mind that is what works and abolish other programs.
2007-06-22 23:27:24 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i belive the plan is for the next 2 generations to deal with it.
2007-06-22 23:16:35 · answer #8 · answered by ὀκτάπους 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They'll cut taxes into prosperity.
2007-06-22 23:11:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
that's what's so great about deficit spending, you just wait for the next guy to take care of it
2007-06-22 23:08:33 · answer #10 · answered by Nick F 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋