The US government needs to borrow only $781 billion a year to keep itself running. That's only about $2,600 for every man, women, and child in the country. Clearly, it's time for the Bush gang to push form more tax cuts, especially those that mostly benefit the wealthy.
Eh? Why do that, when we can just borrow the money and let future generations pay for our high-flying lifestyles? It's not like children have a say in this - they can't vote. ROFL. We won, get over it. ROFLMAO. I'm a right-winger now. Fuck the future. I'm buyin' me an SUV.
Only people of means think it's wrong to steal from future generations? Only people of means think that they should pay their bills?
"Regular" people, people who want lots of things that they can't afford, think it's okay to "borrow" money with no intention of ever paying it back? (Sadly, this seems to be the case, with Americans of all classes.)
I've only seen that happen once and it was only from one source. The institution wanted the borrower to request more than what he had in the bank already. As far as calling me a troll, why are you anti-social?? mark_
It is not a BALD face lie, but that OK Dizzy AKA Idiot, Troll, Stupid, Moron etc we know you like to comment of subjects of which you have little or no knowledge so we did not expect you to know 60 votes are need to 'control' the US Senate. There are only 55 Republican Senators. The Dims have consistently undermined any efforts to reduce government spending.
The 60% rule is of limited value and has not been used in spending debates. With arm-twisting and favors, the Republicans should be able to get their own way on spending in the Senate. This rule hsa never been a factor in previous budget battles, no matter what party had the majority.
Spending and taxation bills originate in the House, where there is no
60% rule and the Republicans are firmly in control and have been diligently packing spending bills with pork. The bills the House have been sending to the Senate are massive increases in spending.
Dubya hasn't vetoed a single bill to attempt to rein in spending. Clinton was willing to go to the mat and let government shut down to control spending. Dubya doesn't have the stones for it.
Dubya's budgets (the pre-pork suggestions his branch provides) all represented increases.
The White House originally forecast the cost of the war at billion. It's now at 0billion and it's not over and my deep suspicion is that some of the cost has been hidden (for instance, almost all NG units have been stripped of their vehicles - has their replacement been included in the cost?).
Now, compare Dubya's pathetic performance to, say, Nixon's. Nixon had his faults, true, and he deserved impeachment for interfering with the election but look up Nixon and "sequestered" and see how a real Republican manages the budget his way against an opposing-party Congress. Unless one counts the Dixiecrats as Republicans. One could make a case for that.
Or compare to Clinton's. Clinton managed two surpluses. That speaks for itself.
Oh, and if you're bitching about bald-faced lie vs, perhaps, bold-faced lie, "bald" is the correct term. You can look it up or, perhaps, consult a high school English teacher in a good school district. You might just check in with the History department for a little remedial work in that subject, too. You need it.
wrote
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ****** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.