How will McCain pay for all the war he's promising?

[Johnny_Crab]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh-T2iGkLJY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3oj_YtY-EZQ



Which one?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

[NeonVomit]

What does a cultural/religious issue like roses and Valentine's Day have to do with their stability? Are you implying that we should not respect their diversity?

 

 

No, I provided an example saying it's an oppressive, medieval regime which has a casual disregard for human rights bordering on the insane. I spent the first nine years of my life there and looking back, it really was quite shocking. You know, public beheadings, severe religious intolerance (we'd have to celebrate Easter in secret, since we were technically breaking the law, and once one of my dad's co workers was actually arrested at the airport for wearing a crucifix around his neck) opressed women, all that. Remember the case of the woman who was raped, and then she was punished for it?

 

But it's all good, since they're an important ally, right!

 

There is an absolute monarchy in any case, so if one was expecting Iraq to end up as 'stable' as Saudi Arabia (which is actually not really that stable, most religious extremists come from there, especially high profile ones like the 9/11 hijackers... hmm, coincidence?) they're already going down the wrong path with an elected government.

 

Showing Saudi Arabia as a favourable comparison for anything just feels very, very wrong.

[Brother Mango]

My favorite part of this whole debate is that among the presidents since I was 10 years old, the republicans (reagan, bush 1, bush 2) have been the ones to spend huge amounts and create massive deficits, which the democrat (clinton) has run balanced budgets...yet, people still have the impression of democrats being the big spenders... mccain will pay for it like all republicans have...by making the kids pay for it...later, when hes dead

No. No.
Our grandkids pay the $$. Our kids make sure that undertakers have plenty of work.


That's probably what Iraq is really about: GWB is really deep in the pocket of the undertakers' lobbyists.

[BassMaster General]

We will all just get drunk.

You mean drunk-er. And stoned-er too I guess:D

[lug]

Vote McCain and pray the Dems keep congress ? hold me.

No way the Dems lose Congress. That's why the Health Care issue is so huge. With a Dem Congress, some form of it will be passed and I'm certainly not convinced the Government should start taking over 15% more of the economy with the record they alraedy have. We argue over the cost of the Iraq war endlessly but it's only 3% of the national budget. Health care is already 20% before we enact any new legislation any the gov currently covers something like 40%. It has the potential to consume vast chunks of the national budget. Not saying it's good or bad, but it wil be the largest shift in Fed spending in our lifetime.

[jackcheez]

No way the Dems lose Congress. That's why the Health Care issue is so huge. With a Dem Congress, some form of it will be passed and I'm certainly not convinced the Government should start taking over 15% more of the economy with the record they alraedy have. We argue over the cost of the Iraq war endlessly but it's only 3% of the national budget. Health care is already 20% before we enact any new legislation any the gov currently covers something like 40%. It has the potential to consume vast chunks of the national budget. Not saying it's good or bad, but it wil be the largest shift in Fed spending in our lifetime.

When you say 3% of the budget, is that before or after the supplemental spending ? That isn't counted in the "budget".



While we're all talking about budgets and stuff...

Tuesday February 12, 2:57 PM EST WASHINGTON (AP)

[lug]

When you say 3% of the budget, is that before or after the supplemental spending ? That isn't counted in the "budget". While we're all talking about budgets and stuff... http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8uovle82&

Federal budget is about 3 trillion dollars (2.9 Tril last year, proposed 3.1 Tril this year). Iraq war is about 100 billion dollars a year. Thats around 3.3 %.

[Emprov]

With that whopping 22% approval, they can HAVE congress.

 

That high??? Last I saw it was like 17%, if that. I seem to remember 11% too.

[Psilocybin]

It will be funded with the souls of fallen Iraqi citizens.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

No, I provided an example saying it's an oppressive, medieval regime which has a casual disregard for human rights bordering on the insane. I spent the first nine years of my life there and looking back, it really was quite shocking. You know, public beheadings, severe religious intolerance (we'd have to celebrate Easter in secret, since we were technically breaking the law, and once one of my dad's co workers was actually arrested at the airport for wearing a crucifix around his neck) opressed women, all that. Remember the case of the woman who was raped, and then she was punished for it? But it's all good, since they're an important ally, right! There is an absolute monarchy in any case, so if one was expecting Iraq to end up as 'stable' as Saudi Arabia (which is actually not really that stable, most religious extremists come from there, especially high profile ones like the 9/11 hijackers... hmm, coincidence?) they're already going down the wrong path with an elected government. Showing Saudi Arabia as a favourable comparison for anything just feels very, very wrong.

 

 

You've made no argument for instability. I'm not saying their 'ways' are my cup of tea, far from it. But breeding terrorists doesn't seem to undermine their country. And not allowing roses or Easter or Valentine's doesn't either. I'm still not being shown evidence of instability.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Damn Craig, step away from the right wing kool-aid. Bush and a republican controlled house and senate had the opportunity to cut spending and streamline govt. They didn't even come close. The usual pork suspects are still getting ramrodded through every year, i.e. Trans and Ag bills. Bush said he would not support the campaign finance reform bill, he did. The only conservative thing he and the republican controlled house and senate did was cut taxes. This gave him a slight boost because it resulted in more income to the gov't due to a stimulated economy. Albeit an artificially stimulated economy resulting in a devalued dollar and record setting foreclosure rate. Honestly, why should anyone who believes in fiscal conservatism vote for any republican who has voted for all all of this crap?

 

 

And what has the liberal majority Congress done in the past 2 years? Anything?

 

It's a problem.

 

For which your solution is an unelectable candidate. I keep tellin' ya, but you just aren't listening....until you get people who don't come across like nutcases, you'll keep seeing this from both sides of the aisle.

 

Edit: And WTF have I written that's "right wing"?

[Craig Vecchione]

If it's a stank budget deal, make 'em override it. Just funny how Bush never used it once during the greatest debt run up in history.

 

Is there a "make 'em" provision in the provisions for how Congress handles a bill????

 

Funny how? Did you expect him to veto what he supports?

 

FYI I'm not supporting Bush or the Republican Congress or the Democratic Congress....I think they all suck. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In other words, nobody makes me happy.

[burdizzos]

 

And what has the liberal majority Congress done in the past 2 years? Anything? It's a problem. For which your solution is an unelectable candidate. I keep tellin' ya, but you just aren't listening....until you get people who don't come across like nutcases, you'll keep seeing this from both sides of the aisle. Edit: And WTF have I written that's "right wing"?

 

 

You've defended the worthless so called conservatives at every turn.

 

Your fall back is always to point out that the dems aren't any better.

 

Even if a Libertarian who was charismatic ran for the white house, he'd still come off as a nutcase because he'd be suggesting that we should actually cut the federal budget.

 

People love gov't handouts, it's a bell that cannot be unrung. so we will just continue down this path toward the nanny state.

 

Like I've said before, I honestly don't give a {censored}. I'll be fine, but please don't refer to modern day republicans as conservatives. They may be socially conservative to a fault, but where conservatism actually matters, they are no better than the demonized liberals.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

You've defended the worthless so called conservatives at every turn. Your fall back is always to point out that the dems aren't any better. Even if a Libertarian who was charismatic ran for the white house, he'd still come off as a nutcase because he'd be suggesting that we should actually cut the federal budget. People love gov't handouts, it's a bell that cannot be unrung. so we will just continue down this path toward the nanny state. Like I've said before, I honestly don't give a {censored}. I'll be fine, but please don't refer to modern day republicans as conservatives. They may be socially conservative to a fault, but where conservatism actually matters, they are no better than the demonized liberals.

 

 

Is there an oath of conservative purity that I wasn't told about? "where conservatism actually matters" ??? To you. Your views are not the same as these people you're attacking. So be it.

 

I also don't recall defending "worthless so-called conservatives" anywhere in this thread. But feel free to post where you think I'm doing this. I don't need a "fallback" since I'm not defending anyone, only pointing out what I believe are fallacies in some of the posts I've responded to. I'm not sure why you're attacking my posts; we agree on most political viewpoints.

 

What really distresses me is the utter hatred expressed here and in so many of the political threads. It's as if politics is the Great Safety Valve for letting off all the repressed non-PC feelings everyone has. How people can get so worked up over a bunch of mostly lawyers lying to us for votes is amazing. News flash: Yeah, the Democrats *are* no better. Neither are the Libertarians, or the Workers Socialist Party or the Green Party or any others I've left out. They all suck.

[ec437]

What do you base this on? Almost everyone on the front lines now say it is. Certainly not a lock but things are MUCH better since the surge, so much so that they have anounced a reduction in troops. If the military thinks a reduction is call for, thing are definately getting better. Almost all the stats bear this out as well.

QUIET, you dirty deficit running republican hooligan. No one wants to hear your "facts" 'round these parts.





:poke:

[lug]

QUIET, you dirty deficit running republican hooligan. No one wants to hear your "facts" 'round these parts. :poke:

Hangs head in shame whilst eating a modest meal of baby seal with a side of snail darter, all the while planning on the best way to deny the poor heating oil.

[Dave Campbell]

We argue over the cost of the Iraq war endlessly but it's only 3% of the national budget.

 

 

ONLY 3% of the budget. 100 Billion dollars a year. That is still a {censored}load of money.

And then Israel gets $3 Billion a year, Pakistan got $10 Billion. Where does this {censored} end?

 

You know who's cleaning up with those funds? The defense contractors.

And that's pretty much the only manufacturing left on US soil these days.

 

It blows my mind to hear ONLY a hundred billion dollars.

[NeonVomit]

You've made no argument for instability. I'm not saying their 'ways' are my cup of tea, far from it. But breeding terrorists doesn't seem to undermine their country. And not allowing roses or Easter or Valentine's doesn't either. I'm still not being shown evidence of instability.

No no, I'm not saying Saudi Arabia is really that unstable. There are indeed severe social problems involving extremism caused by a young population that essentially sits around not doing anything and I do see the whole country turning into a bigger, nastier version of Iran sometime in the next 20 years if they don't watch it.

But what I'm trying to say is that for Iraq to be 'stable' in the same way Saudi Arabia is, they would need a dicatorship. The absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia has complete control. Sure, they held municipal elections a couple of years back (of course, only men were allowed to vote) but the king has the power to overturn any result he doesn't approve of. So really, it's not much of a democracy. And that is why the country is stable, for the time being... absolute power held by the royal family. I offered the whole Valentine's ban to highlight the religious intolerance and generally what a crappy place it is and not a nice example, as well as being topical

Iraq was given the complete opposite, full-blown democracy and it's struggling. But I'd rather see a stable Iraq with a democracy than another dictatorship, even if it means another 20 years.

Anyway, Iraq will eventually quieten down, but I don't see real prosperity for a long while yet. The years under Saddam, the sanctions, the war... I mean, Vietnam is still recovering from their wars. I think Iraq follow a similar path, but China won't be invading this time. US forces need to stay there to prevent Iran from moving in (which is what they really want, the whole nuclear thing is just a smokescreen). As well as help with the reconstruction effort.

[NeonVomit]

Woman sentenced to death for witchcraft. Yup.