Bush is asking for an additional $42 Billion. Would he sign a bill authorizing this expenditure if it a tax hike was attached to the bill?
2007-10-23 03:41:45 · 16 answers · asked by Richard P 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you have a claim about tax revenue increasing or decreasing please include a link to your data. I am interested in seeing it.
2007-10-23 03:57:34 · update #1
Yes. Bush was going to have this war, come hell or high water.
So how is the US going to pay for this war? Can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone. I guess it's ok to let our children and grandchildren pay for mr. bush's fiasco.
2007-10-23 03:47:20 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No they wouldnt be....Americans are very happy to "support their troops" as long as it requires no personal sacrifice on their parts....As far as the claims that revenues have increased with the tax cut?.....if you look at federal revenue since 2000, revenues were down for 6 straight years from 2000 to 2006, while revenues have been climbing they just recently eclipsed the revenue brought in 7 yrs ago.
2007-10-23 03:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even an fool is accustomed to that in case you spend greater suitable than you're making ultimately you will bypass bankrupt. and that's precisely the place those stupid rat-bastard politicians are taking the rustic. you will lose all your money and the taxpayers pays and pay perpetually, with maximum of it buying no longer something different than paying the interest on the national debt. in spite of all this, the goddammed politicians think of this is okay to waste billions as no remember if it somewhat is pocket replace. one thousand million here, one thousand million there, incredibly quickly you're speaking approximately actual money.
2016-10-04 10:27:48 · answer #3 · answered by newborn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will eventually be funded with a tax hike some where down the road by the Democrats. And the Republicans will raise holy hell about it.
2007-10-23 03:49:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yep. Since it wasn't about the money, it was about saving American lives. But fortunately it doesn't have to be paid for by a tax hike since the budget deficit is declining as a result of revenues above spending thanks to Bush's efforts to bring America out of Clinton's recession.
2007-10-23 03:49:55 · answer #5 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The war in Iraq is now being paid for by credit! Yikes!
2007-10-23 05:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war represents less than 2% of the budget. What you should be asking is would lazy people be granted so many entitlements from the government if they had to be paid for with tax hikes.
2007-10-23 03:46:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No, the only good wars are the ones that involve tax cuts. What are you trying to get us to do? Sacrifice?
2007-10-23 03:46:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. And this is America's war not Bush's war.
Congress voted to send in those troops and they can cut the funding if they really wish to. Despite the lip service, they do not.
.
2007-10-23 03:48:26 · answer #9 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The President lied to us about the cost of the war and fired those who tried to tell us the truth. It is the highest Presidential crime in U.S. history.
2007-10-23 03:50:31 · answer #10 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋