Bush needs to go

[tpahl]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese118.html

Far from being the conservative he claims to be, President Bush has allowed discretionary spending to increase at a far greater rate than it did during the Clinton years. Bush has abandoned the pay-as-you-go principle and chosen to combine drastic tax cuts with fighting two wars. Lyndon Johnson tried the guns-and-butter route during the Vietnam War, and we paid for it with double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates, followed by a severe recession. Bush is going the guns, butter and cream route, and the consequences will be bad, very bad.

 

[nakedemperor]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese118.html

Far from being the conservative he claims to be, President Bush has allowed discretionary spending to increase at a far greater rate than it did during the Clinton years. Bush has abandoned the pay-as-you-go principle and chosen to combine drastic tax cuts with fighting two wars. Lyndon Johnson tried the guns-and-butter route during the Vietnam War, and we paid for it with double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates, followed by a severe recession. Bush is going the guns, butter and cream route, and the consequences will be bad, very bad.

And people wonder why Kerry voted against paying the $89 billion with borrowed money. Eesh.

 

[Avatar4321]

And people wonder why Kerry voted against paying the $89 billion with borrowed money. Eesh.

No we dont really wonder about it. Kerry's vote tells more than enough to explain it. Senator Kerry thinks raising taxes is more important than supplying our troops with body armor. Not very difficult to understand at all.

The question people are asking, and rightly so, is was his judgement sound in doing so? Is it more important that we have a balanced budget or that human lives are spared. If he was really concerned about paying for it he could have proposed some cuts in wasteful spending rather than increasing taxes. What would be the point of increasing taxes and stiffling the economic recovery? how would that bring more revenue into the coffers?

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Yeah we know what you message is already, vote Badnarik! No Chance, you need to go!

who's Badnarik?

 

[5stringJeff]

who's Badnarik?

Some dude running for President with absolutely zero chance of winning - or beating Ralph Nader, for that matter.

 

[Annie]

Yeah we know what you message is already, vote Badnarik! No Chance, you need to go!

Yes, I second that! I thought you weren't coming back here, tpahl.

 

[CSM]

Yes, I second that! I thought you weren't coming back here, tpahl.

Obviously tpahl couldn't resist the allure of your overwhelming charisma and scintillating personality.

Or maybe he just wanted to troll a bit.

 

[Annie]

Obviously tpahl couldn't resist the allure of your overwhelming charisma and scintillating personality.

Or maybe he just wanted to troll a bit.

Hmmm, I think he just wanted to work on his comedy routine! So engaging!

 

[Zhukov]

Far from .....

Hey Tpahl, you're back! Here you go.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

who's Badnarik?

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!

Heheheh.

 

[tpahl]

Some dude running for President with absolutely zero chance of winning - or beating Ralph Nader, for that matter.

http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=1231&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Badnarik is a coprophagic pedophile. :funnyface

 

[Merlin1047]

http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=1231&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

"Based on the 2000 total of all votes cast, this means Nader should pull 1,475,671 votes and Badnarik 1,264,861 votes."

I think that's about right. Isn't that approximately the number of glassy-eyed, slack-jawed half-wits who screwed up their ballots in FL during the last election?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And people wonder why Kerry voted against paying the $89 billion with borrowed money. Eesh.

I don't. He did it to appease his idiotic left wing lunatic fringe voters.

It's a joke to imply John Kerry is concerned about fiscal responsibility. You're funny.

 

[dmp]

And people wonder why Kerry voted against paying the $89 billion with borrowed money. Eesh.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the Army gets $200B per year, to support and train it's troops. Each 'base' is allocated, say, $50B of that. That money is tagged as 'Continuous Operations' money for each base to pay, feed, equip, train, maintain, etc, their troops and equipment.

Suddenly, the base gets orders to go fight in Kissmyassistan. Since the troops will no longer BE at said base, that money - a percentage (50%, for the sake of argument) goes BACK to the Army purse-string holders. All the money returned from all the bases is now safely back to The Army. The President says 'Okay, we need to spend $100B on a war - gimme da munny!'.

The $89B - or a (large) portion of that figure was already 'spent' prior to the war; it (or a portion) would have been spent ANYWAY, just under a different name.




Help u$ gop_jeff...you're our only hope! $hed $ome light here? You're the re$ident Expert.

 

[5stringJeff]

I know nothing...

Actually, Darin is partially right. A lot of the money that would have been spent on home station training/sustainment got pulled to pay for the WOT. But not all of the WOT funding is from this source; some of it is spending above and beyond what would have been spent. I don't know what percentage is new spending - but seeing as how we are in the middle of a war, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect higher military spending.

 

[CSM]

I know nothing...

Actually, Darin is partially right. A lot of the money that would have been spent on home station training/sustainment got pulled to pay for the WOT. But not all of the WOT funding is from this source; some of it is spending above and beyond what would have been spent. I don't know what percentage is new spending - but seeing as how we are in the middle of a war, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect higher military spending.

Obviously an Army at war uses a lot more resources such as gasoline, bullets, clothing, food, and water. An Army at war requires much more medical care and other life sustainment assets down even to simple thinks like morale and welfare supplies. Most of the funding allocated for everyday support is done a few years out from the actual date of use.