1
   

Bush's budget allows record deficit

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2003 02:05 pm
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2003 02:32 pm
littlek, I think it important to not only explore, clarify and express one's own position, but also to strive to appreciate and understand the positions of others. Such may resolve few issues, but goes far toward preventing irrelevancies from becoming issues.

It provides focus for both sides, if honestly approached.



timber
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2003 02:33 pm
If only it worked that way all around, Timber. That's what I like to discuss for, to fine tune my stance.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2003 02:38 pm
i think a two-party system is worth a try. maybe if we can get that down we can add others.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2003 02:50 pm
Good point, dyslexia. At present, it seems all too frequently we effectively are offered a choice between the two wings of a single party as opposed to a choice between two contrasting parties.



tomber
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2003 02:20 pm
Amazingly, the imminent invasion of Iraq deserves not even an asterisk in President Bush's 13-pound budget for the next fiscal year.

While the goal, as we all know, is to disarm Saddam Hussein and beat back terrorists, the Pentagon characterizes the fiscal outline as a "peacetime budget." The budget contains no cost estimate of a war in Iraq, nor a request to pay for a military engagement already over a year old: Afghanistan.

It may be unrealistic to expect a budget document to account for a military conflict of unknown length, a war that might yet be avoided. And the White House promises it will act quickly and submit a supplemental budget should it come to combat. It is also waiting to see whether it should wrap in Afghanistan costs with that "supplemental."

Yet the president should have at least noted in his budget forward that a war with Iraq could significantly worsen the federal budget deficit. Unfortunately, this omission points to a worrisome trend of obfuscation about the long-term burden of an Iraqi war, and especially its aftermath.

Bush shouldn't wait until the first bomb drops on Baghdad to lay a fiscal bombshell on taxpayers.

And it's still not clear what the president's goal is for this war. Disarmament only? Or a long-term role in democratizing Iraq? (In postwar Japan, the occupation lasted over six years.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 10:47:05