I thought conservatives didn't like to spend money.. Am I wrong here?
check the link.. http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
2007-09-30 17:19:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
G-Man-- Liberals don't run on "conserving" money.. Can you say Hypocrite???
2007-09-30 17:26:13 · update #1
Too bad that your graph is not showing the cost in TODAYS money, I also notice that it biased so as to show only the last two democrat presidents. The Vietnam War cost over$650 billion in todays money. How much did it cost to buy a house in 1960, when Kennedy came into office? where I live it was about $12,000 today that same house would cost a minimum of $625,000. In 1966 when I joined the Army my pay was $88 per month today when a soldier joins the Army that pay is $1180 per month, a 1966 Ford Mustang cost $2395 a 2007 Mustang costs $21,000 (or more)
If you adjust the figures the increases do not look as bad as what you are trying to show, leaving out the Vietnam war is also deceiving anyone that looks at it.
The Regan era had Hurricane Hugo, the 1989 earthquake in California, and several other hurricanes. Bush had Katrina, the WTC, the war, the tsunami in Thailand that we responded the failure of the E-35 bridge and many others.
What did Carter have to put up with, What did Clinton have to put up with? Why did the Clinton administration sell half of the government oil reserves (Elk Hills) to Occidental petroleum? Because Al Gore's father was a Vice President at Occidental Petroleum?
Your charts only prove political bias, nothing more.
2007-09-30 17:51:16 · answer #1 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Instead of taking a picture of yourself try to think There is a war, there was 9/11, and several devestating hurricanes. These things cost money
2007-09-30 17:23:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay. And of course we know that liberals don't like to spend money or aren't bad for this country. How does Kucinich and Pelosi going to Syria and blasting the US sound to you.
2007-09-30 17:24:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"no, fag liberals are."
the point i am saying is, you cant single people out of the U.S. because conservatives are a large amount of the population, and that would be as wrong as saying "should we get rid of homosexuals in America?"
2007-09-30 17:34:52 · answer #4 · answered by Felepe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every party, unfortunately, is a necessity
You gotta keep your balance
2007-09-30 17:26:08 · answer #5 · answered by Trash 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
now compare that debt with the overall GDP and make a nice new picture, and apologize
2007-09-30 17:23:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
politicians in their current state are bad for the US,lib or con don't matter.
2007-09-30 17:22:09 · answer #7 · answered by here to help 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This neo-con owned party is extremely bad for the nation and the world at large.
2007-09-30 17:22:11 · answer #8 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
And you know who we owe??? China!--the country that has so many of our manufacturing jobs!!!!!
2007-09-30 17:24:09 · answer #9 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if they support invading the wrong country then yes.
2007-09-30 17:21:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋