Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
From where do you derive that assumption? The same mythical place from which people support the current spending? Just because you justify a "War on Terror" as the intellectual benefit of financial idiocy doesn't mean everyone does.
|
I don't want to get into a discussion about the Iraq war or the war on terror. I can not add anything new to that topic.
Quote:
|
I'm not trying to attack you, but the difference in budgetary balance between Clinton and Bush makes me irate when I consider how much of my money was wasted.
|
I thinke there is a big difference between government deficit spending and wasteful government spending. I do not think wasteful spending is new - and that it did not occur during the Clinton years. Given the size of our economy and our normal economic cycles, I am not sure an annual measurment of the effeciency of government spending in terms of deficits is reasonable. I would perfer 5 or 10 year measuring periods. Given that - I don't think most Presidents will see the impact of their policies until their terms in office are over.
I do not give Clinton full credit for the economic boom during the 90's, nor should Bush get the blame for the economic slow down during his first term in office. I believe we will see budget surpluses again, and then after that we will see deficits again.
I do agree our federal government wastes a heck of a lot of money.
Quote:
|
Even if I operated under the assumption that everyone supported our financial waste in Iraq and Afgahnistan, that wouldn't in any way defeat the argument that there are more cost-effective ways to destroy countries and take their oil.
|
We don't take oil nor destroy countries. I don't understand this point.