Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kadath
Shakran, let me head off the Republican onslaught by saying Clinton's war was much smaller than Bush's war, which might explain why Bush has spent so much more. Note I said explain, not justify. Otherwise, you are on target. Keep it up.
|
Correct on both counts - it does explain it, and it does not justify it. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. The economic impact is about number 5 on my list of why we shouldn't have gone there - that list being topped by the number of soldiers who have died and been maimed for nothing.
Quote:
|
sob: "Government spends less" is a great idea. Let's start with not hurling great wads of cash down the hole of an unwinnable war. Then let's augment that plan with "Government earns more" by raising taxes, particularly on those who can most afford to help the country.
|
And let's not forget the tax breaks for corporations who export jobs overseas. That's a double impact because not only is the government losing tax revenue, but it's also removing jobs. Of course, this administration cares not a whit for that because the jobs that are being lost belong to the poor and middle class, and killing their jobs is OK because it will further enrich their already filthy rich base.
Add that to the fact that this "boom" is simply not sustainable over the long term and you have a recipe for disaster that Bush is greedily baking in his kitchen of delusion. (how's that for a cheesy metaphor?
)
Quote:
|
I'd honestly be pleasantly surprised to see the Republican economic plan to actually work, but I really can't see how it will.
|
Likewise, but you're right. As I said before, they had 12 years to try it, and it not only didn't work, but it failed spectacularly. You would think they would learn from the past, but then you look at this war and realize that if Vietnam is already forgotten, what's a little deficit?