Or will they continue to place their burden on the children?
2007-07-09 13:41:27 · 14 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Doesn't fiscal conservatism supposed to equate to fiscal responsibility?
2007-07-09 13:44:53 · update #1
They don't have to pay because they have a yellow ribbon on their car and a flag in their yard. Everyone else hates America didn't you know?
2007-07-09 13:54:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not a single dime. They'll just let it pass it on to the next generations. Fiscal conservatism is what they preach but not what they practice. Never in our history as a country, has taxes been lowered when we are at war. How the hell are we supposed to pay? That is not being fiscally responsible and in my mind fiscal conservatism equates with fiscal responsibility.
2007-07-09 13:47:22 · answer #2 · answered by cynical 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There's enough money in the military budget to finance the war. They should divert it from other areas. I've got a feeling there is some waste in that military budget. Cut out funding for any new weapons systems until the occupation of Iraq is over. Shut down some military bases. Shut down most of them.
I don't see a big need to raise taxes.
2007-07-10 14:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by sal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
conflict has continuously been costly and the conflict in Iraq is not any diverse. so as to pay the bill for the conflict and to rebuild and occupy Iraq, the government believes we are the two going to run up a checklist federal funds deficit for this year, or we could desire to continuously start up making difficult judgements on new information on the thank you to pay for this vast defense force rate. you be attentive to what meaning genuine? larger taxes and decrease money.
2016-10-01 06:33:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't worry, you will get your 400 billion a year health plan that will not end, but grow beyond any ranting of the Iraq war could ever go..... so you will be able to pay triple the tax's you worry about now real soon for the rest of your life.
2007-07-09 14:11:36 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both houses of congress have no problem tacking 10 to 15 billion dollars of pork onto allocation bills. I'm sure they can find the money to pay for this too.
2007-07-09 14:00:37 · answer #6 · answered by Jester 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing. The premise of the war was that it would pay for itself. Tax cuts have to go through regardless of the cost.
Just one of my complaints about Iraq. It's a war that nobody pays for except the military.
2007-07-09 13:46:52 · answer #7 · answered by Bob G 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You can take exactly as much out of my check as would be going to Social Security. I'd rather pay for the war that might do us some good than a system I'll never see dime one out of. Or will the elderly still place their burden on the children?
2007-07-09 13:45:33 · answer #8 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Lower taxes bring higher yields, JFK.
2007-07-09 13:45:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nice now you hit the nail right on the head i commend your question it is the very best one i have ever heard on here.
2007-07-09 13:45:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋