Do you realize that $72 billion?

Question

per year will be the interest payments on the 2.4 trillion borrowed to finance this war, thats if the interest is at only 3%....... Is this being fiscally conservative?

Voiceof liberty....exactly when was it that Iraq attacked the U.S.?

koalatcomics.....How does the war in Iraq tie into our airliners being hi-jacked...those people are ion pakistan as we speak

Answer 1

Awesome, that means we really can end welfare to pay the interest and still be ok.

Cool thanks for the info. I was getting worried.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, the phrase "fiscal conservative" has become an oxymoron thanks to W, who is a genuine moron.

Over the last couple of decades the Republican party has more or less abandoned any attempt to reign in spending. They used to call Democrats the "tax and spend" party, but now they have become the "spend and spend" party. Sad.

In fact, although there are still a few Republican lawmakers who claim to be fiscal conservatives, it's strange how little fuss they've raised over the runaway spending by Bush and Bush and Reagan.

But the bottom line is that fiscal conservatism within the Republican party is dead, even though it might take awhile for idiotic Republican voters to take notice.

Answer 3

Keep it up Ohio, I like how you continue to hammer these [freedom is not free] types...even though they still don't seem to know that Iraq never "attacked" us in the first place! And after all those $BILLIONS$ we still don't have a safe road in Baghdad.

You are fighting a loosing battle with 'em, but I'll help when I can!

Answer 4

The 72 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the total of 2.4 trillion. Bush is clearly insane.

Answer 5

we still have money? who is going to lend it to us? by the way can I have just one percent for my savings account?....this is the reason I dont live in the US anymore....its all about spenders and no pride and saving...my fellow germans will have a $hit fit when they see this tomorrow, I can already hear it......blah blah bush, ,,,americans and their money....I say america goes on strike for three weeks and it will save enough money to support the trillions....everyone stays home with no electricity, or driving of cars....just the sun and the moon and cooking on a wood stove.....this would pay for the war and lower those darn gas prices by two fold........WHO'S WITH ME?

Answer 6

The war hasn't cost $2.4 trillion. The full price tag for everything spent, including future spending authorized, is around $700 Billion.

So, who feeds you these bogus numbers, and why don't you question them for accuracy? Or do you just blindly believe and repeat what others say? Do your homework!

Answer 7

Doesn't sound very fiscally conservative to me. I've yet to hear how the US is going to pay for this war.

Answer 8

lol and even more interesting fact....it would only take around half that to globablly end hunger for one YEAR!

Answer 9

If that money was being spent on curing children, bush would have a hissy fit and start pulling the plugs on them.

Answer 10

What do you suggest? Are you saying it is too expensive to fight the enemies which have reigned terror against U.S. citizens both domestically and abroad?

What then is the cap on the cost of security?

I'm glad it didn't get too expensive fighting Hitler or Imperial Japan. We'd be in deep sh**!

Answer 11

do you realize that elminating the threat of al qaeda so that our airliners arent bombed and we can travel without fear of death is worth the price. do you also realize that the surge is working despite the best attempts at whining by the pelosi/reid regime. i dont look at affordability when dealing with monsters. i look at eliminating them, not cowardice. so to directly answer your question. yes i realize it and also reaize the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. a concept liberals will never understand.