Whenever criticism is leveled at Hillary's promised spending libs cite Bush's spending on the war, saying it is wrong.
Does the war spending make Hillary's promised spending "right"? Or, are libs just ducking a legitimate debate?
2007-10-09 08:47:22 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Geeeesh.. I just posted this very question. Should be showing up now. Almost identical to this one. Great minds, eh?
The answer is no.
2007-10-09 08:55:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
How can we have a legitimate debate without being prepared to call a spade a spade, regardless of which side of the political aisle it's on. You have Hilary trying to promise the moon and stars, which is wrong. But you also have Bush spending $10,000,000,000 per month on this war but not really a war in Iraq. I'll happily say Hillary is wrong if I can get anyone at all to look at Bush's spending and say, this isn't right.
2007-10-09 17:04:54 · answer #2 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First of all, you can't put the blame solely on Bush. Congress must approve all expenditures of Federal funds. Bush has simply aceded to Congress' wishes regarding how it wishes to spend Federal tax dollars.
Blame Congress. (Oh wait, that's too hard. You have to remember all those names, don't you).
The money we are spending on the war is a good investment if it spreads democracy through the Middle East. No two democracies have EVER gone to war against one another. Think about it.
The money expended in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq is peanuts compared to what would happen if a second "9-11" were ever successful. The war is keeping the terrorists on the run so they have been reduced to crappy little stunts like blowing up buses two blocks from where they live.
The money we spend on the war doesn't continue in perpetuity. In stark contrast, Hillary's bloated government pig trough of socialist programs could last indefinitely... and will just get bigger and bigger every year.
2007-10-09 16:27:02 · answer #3 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, two wrongs do not make a right. Libs are just ducking a legitimate debate, they know they have a do nothing Congress. Congress has spent more time conducting witch hunts and sneaking in pork than they have worked for the people to put them in office.
Like the latest war funding bill!! The hate crime bill is included in this latest war funding. See why so many think that the war has cost so much, it is all that pork being sneaked in , and pork cost millions and millions too.
2007-10-09 16:23:42 · answer #4 · answered by lilly4 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have a valid point, however at least Hillary has a plan to pay for her spending vs. Bush plan to defer payment of the Iraq War.
2007-10-09 16:49:02 · answer #5 · answered by labken1817 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is just pointing out conservative hypocrisy. They complain about Hillary wanting to spend money on programs that will actually make the lives of man Americans better, while not mentioning all the money that the current administration was wasted on this pointless destructive war. So we're not saying it's OK for us to spend because you're spending, we're saying that you really shouldn't complain about anyone spending considering what you're doing.
2007-10-09 15:53:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
And your question is the reason that the Libs & Cons. basically have the same phylosophy.
They don't mind spending money , they just want to spend it on things they like/want!!
So when either complain about the spending of the other , its all just BS!
2007-10-09 15:55:02 · answer #7 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Almost every lib who answered did the EXACT same thing you were trying to point out!!!!
They CANNOT face the issue at hand. They are for the most part intellectually dishonest and have no issues of their own so all they have is the condemnation of others.
2007-10-09 16:05:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, but three lefts do.
I don't like Bush's spending habits, and the fact he is now trying to look fiscally conservative. But I also think Hillary is proposing way too much that she has no way to pay for it other than raising taxes not only on the rich, but on the middle class also.
2007-10-09 15:50:42 · answer #9 · answered by Mutt 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
The democrats always bring up the war spending as a comparison to make the spending easier to understand.
The SCHIP funding, for example, supposedly costs some $40-$50 Billion. This doesn't resonate with most folks when stated like that but when they say the SCHIP costs the same as one month of the Iraq war, then it is easy to understand and compare.
2007-10-09 15:55:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Are you saying that if they do two wrong things , they will be just like the "right?"
or" if the Republicans do two right things they will be like the left?"
This is some mixed-up politics if you ask me.
2007-10-09 23:04:53 · answer #11 · answered by Michael M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋