Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.
Dude.... What are you talking about?
Please try Hooked on Phonics and stay on topic to the OP..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.
Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.
You are already paying for everyone's healthcare.
Overpaying as a matter of fact.
Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get healthcare. ANYONE. It does not matter if they can pay or not. And who do you think pays for that healthcare? We all do. WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. An incredibly expensive and inefficient version of it.
So those on the left, which party are you for? You are making the argument that the 'right' has delivered, are you sure you want to go there?
Earmarks account for only $18 billion of the federal budget.
The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion of the federal budget. You do the math.
So why not make it more expensive, worse overall, and take out all opportunity of individual choice when it comes down to our health care?
OMG I agree with Kirk!!!!! Where do I order the tinfoil hat?
Seriously though, W's Medicare Drug program alone is $60 billion.
Also Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security, and other mandatory entitlements combined add up to over $1.4 TRILLION, or 74% of the Fed budget excluding Defense and Interest. Yet neither W or Mac has any plan to make deep cuts to any of these social engineering programs that eat up most of our tax dollars. Therefore, they've resorted to chasing little earmark programs which the Federal Treasury would hardly notice if they were canceled.
So why not make it more expensive, worse overall, and take out all opportunity of individual choice when it comes down to our health care?
No recent president has been more Socialist than Bush. He's increased spending 3 points as a share of GDP over his Democratic predecessor, enacted the biggest move to socialized medicine since LBJ with Medicare Part D, and had a liberal spending agenda ranging on issues from No Child Left Behind to AIDS in Africa.
Only difference with Bush socialism and the Dems is that his will be paid out of future tax increases. I don't like big gov't, but tax-and-spend certainly beats borrow-and-spend.