English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Bush is like the deadbeat dad that gambles away the family savings. someone is going to have to pay, and that someone is the American people. i just can't wait for you cons to start squealing about rising taxes....how else is it going to get paid?

2007-10-23 06:41:25 · 19 answers · asked by Free Radical 5 in Politics & Government Politics

sura, for the 99,999,999 time, that is not the question. we have almost 9 trillion that will have to be paid FASTER than current taxation will allow, ergo, the government will HAVE to get more money over the next 5 years to pay the current debt, and that ignores the fact that the debt is going to continue to grow until the very last day of Bush's presidency.

2007-10-23 06:49:45 · update #1

so from what i'm reading here, none of the cons say that they are going to blame dems when taxes go up to pay off the debt that our "conservative" (sic) president has accumulated. we will see.

2007-10-23 06:53:48 · update #2

mahal, do you mind if i cut/paste your answer so that i can publicly ridicule you in 2020? thanks.

2007-10-23 06:55:56 · update #3

19 answers

You know very well that they are going to blame the Democrats when it comes time to pay for Bush’s unnecessary war.

Taxes will go up and the Democrats’ fiscal responsibility will be blasted by the reality-rejecting conservatives.

2007-10-23 06:49:25 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 5 2

You are so right!!!!! He is exactly like a deadbeat dad that has spent the families savings away on gambling and drinking. Look at his past business experience before becoming a president his companies went bankrupt. He has never had to be responsible. His family and buddies have bailed him out. This man probably cannot balance his own checkbook much less the huge deficit he has created. Yes, when the next democratic president comes into office in Jan 2009 they will be blamed because they have to be the "responsible" party taking care of all of Bush's elaborate senseless spending. Also, just like an addict he has alienated most of the countries that we used to have peaceful relations with into being resentful of the US. The new President will have to reestablish our relationships with these countries again. It is absolutely absurd for conservatives to not realize that the trillions of dollars we are spending fighting will not have repercussions on our own wallets.

2007-10-23 15:23:39 · answer #2 · answered by yourmtgbanker 5 · 1 0

When you consider that the total cost of the War on Terror, to date has been about $1/2 trillion dollars, but the increased national debt has been over $4 trillion, then the majority of the debt is because of the entitlement and other not-so-Constitutional spending by the government, which accounts for at least $1.7 trillion of the $2.8 trillion annual budget.

Also, tax receipts would have been down even without the Bush tax cuts. When Bush came into office, the economy was in a recession (look it up) and then came 9/11, which had a quite severe impact on the economy. Whether the economy would have recovered as quickly without the tax cuts is debateable.

So, instead of incorrectly blaming the increased debt on the war, it needs to be correctly placed upon the spending, specifically on the entitlements.

That is, if you care about being intellectually honest.

2007-10-23 06:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

No tax increases is just one way the real costs(lives or money) of the war was kept from the American people. Borrowing billions from foreign nations while keeping those transactions as quiet as possible helped keep the real cost secret. I must give cheney & company a lot of credit. This was well planned. The great giveaway "tax breaks" to the more wealthy people, while giving the working class peanuts, was all part of it. I, personally am very proud of my $100 tax break, just as Mitt Romney is proud of his $1,000,000 tax break.Taxes will rise. Unforunately, only to the working class. The recipients of the greater tax breaks will only have to give a little of it back.Yeh people, go to the mall & spend, for tomorrow you pay. I see more questions being ask about the cost & paying for this war on YA. A good thing.

2016-05-25 04:02:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

sura2verse191 -- "Don't worry spleen, Dad's making 5 dollars more a week now. He'll be able to pay off that maxed out credit card in no time"

Do these "Conservatives" even know how much half a trillion is? -- There are almost 400 million people in the US. 1/2 trillion is more than $1000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

Even if I were to accept the non logic that cutting taxes somehow means more money to the govt, NO TAX CUT COULD DO THAT!

Where do they get these LIES?

Call Me Bwana is so honest not to remember the pork crazy congress before '06.

2007-10-23 06:51:56 · answer #5 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 3 1

All of them, Bush has gotten us so deep in debt raising taxes is the only way to get half way out in 10 years. He is asking for more money for Iraq the people in California and LA. need the money for them to have housing. He will ignore America for his Iraq war that should never have been. He has a half mans body and whole child's brains, he is a very sick mentally disturbed man and his wife is not helping and trying to get him to stop. Old Cheney is telling him what to do and he is following Al Capone's orders. He will be the down fall of America, we need to fire him today both he and Cheney.

2007-10-23 06:52:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

All of them.

Let's see, $1,000,000,000,000 divided by the number of households in America - 100,000,000 = $10,000 per every American household. How will you pay your share?

It blows my mind reading some cons answers. They don't know that the deficit and the national debt are two different things.

2007-10-23 06:48:48 · answer #7 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 5 0

Guaranteed, since the next president will be a Democrat, and everyone will be saddled with an enormous debt to China, the EU and South Korea.

2007-10-23 06:50:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

You have been poorly informed.

"Regime change in Iraq" was a Clinton policy, written in 1998.

WMD's in Iraq was an issue beginning in 1996 when the CIA began investigating Saddam's "duel use" program.

Finally, and this is the really funny one. The Bush tax cuts have produced 1/2 trillion dollars in extra tax revenue per year. Despite increased spending in the federal budget, we're shrinking the budget deficit each year!

So when we've won in Iraq and have resolved the federal budget imbalance, we're going to be laughing at all the stupid liberals who were terrified and emotionally destraught during the Bush years and really just crying like little girls.

And Bush will be remembered as the one who did it.

(In the presidential election in 2020, all of the conservative candidates will be vying to see who is the most like Bush, not like Reagan.)

************************
Yes. All of my answers are the property of Y! and may be published without my permission.

(Good luck with that, by the way!)

2007-10-23 06:50:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 5

I wish it would only take 5 years. It will be at least 10 before we pay China back for buying this stupid war for us.

2007-10-23 06:50:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers