I've been thinking about this the last few days, and I just don't understand it. Okay, as a country, we're spending more money than we have. That's nothing new, especially under this administration, but even according to them, it's reached excessive levels lately. So they're looking for ways to pay for it. Now, there seem to be a few options:
1) Cut spending on social programs, which are mostly for the poor and middle class
2) Cut spending on the war
3) Raise taxes (by a small percentage amount) on the rich
Well, we know #2 can't happen, at least not quickly enough to account for all the debt - a pull out over the next year or so will still cost billions. So we're left with these options - take money from people who don't have any, or take money from people who have lots. I don't know about you, but that's not even a question - and not from a moral point of view, but a practical one - if I need something, I'm gonna go to the person who has it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would argue that #2 can happen, and happen almost immediately. A phased withdrawl, as proposed by Rep. Murtha would assuredly lower outlays somewhat in the short-term. Now it might take months to get it down to a really big savings over current levels, but every dollar taken out of Iraq saves a dollar elsewhere in the budget.
However, even after saving this money, there STILL needs to be a concerted effort to restore the Pre-NeoCon tax structure. It's criminal to think that cutting the pittance spent on school lunches or guaranteed student loans or WIC will be the ways and means to reduce the deficit.
In some states, ie Virginia, Dems cut health care to help with budgets. Would you like that done? The governor that did it, the stealth liberal rising star, John Warner. The real crime is helping people who really could have helped themselves.
Try exposing pork spending by both parties and embarassing the congress persons and senators spending the money. The president does not spend the money, congress does. I do wish Bush had vetoed some of the pork spent by both parties instead of bridge building with irresponsible spenders.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people think that our enemy in the war on terror has one leader or is in one country. The battlefields in this war range from Europe (remember Spanish collapse of backbone because of train bombs?) to the Philippines. Our part is Iraq, located in the middle of the nastiest low life islamists countries. Would you rather we "trust" the radical muslims?
You know, if Clinton had done his job, maybe the intelligence we got arround 911 would have been better. Maybe if military budgets had not been cut so much during the 90's, we would have enough soldiers so The National Guard could be here taking care of the Mexican border.
Just maybe the reason Bush has had difficulty is because he inherited a recession from Clinton, inherited a military that had been dessiminated from Clinton, and inherited a United Nations full of crooks from the 90's. Hmmmmmmmmm?
Anonymous posters are rich. Your strawmen aren't worth knocking down, but I will laugh at your quaint thought that W inherited a recession from Clinton and that it MIGHT have been a good idea if the FISCAL CONSERVATIVE had JUST ONCE used his veto power. Instead, we're waiting for that FIRST veto to be used to allow for CIA torture.
dessiminated?
Now that's rich.
Post a Comment