List of Costs under Bush/McCain

The stimulus packages were a bi-partisan effort, were they not?
And though I'm not going to approve of how the country's been run in the past seven years, what would dems do differently?
I'll tell you what. They'd increase domestic spending two or three fold, hike up taxes till your eyes water, yank us herky-jerky out of war (yes, we never should have gone in, but we're there now and have some responsibility to clean up the mess we helped to create), and cut corners on national defense.
I think I'll take McCain's plan, thanks.

 

The "cost of freedom" now includes bailing out investment banks? Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to salute next time I see a copy of the Wall Street Journal.

 

Strength of U.S. Dollar

2001 -- 1.07 Euros per dollar
now -- 0.68 Euros per dollar

Thanks for the memories!

 

I won't lie, I don't agree with that move. But then again, we bail out idiots who took on loans they knew they couldn't afford. We bail out single mothers, who instead of learning their lesson after one child decide the only way to make it is have more kids with different dads so their government-paid income goes up. We bail out people who live below sea level, rebuilding homes that were destroyed due to natural causes and will again be someday because they build right back below sea level again. I guess bailing out a company or people who might actually help the economy grow as opposed to those sucking it dry for selfish and idiotic reasons makes a little more sense.

 

Oh and Michael . . . as much as you may not believe it - I would have no problem paying more taxes to help fund or re-pay the war.

I would have a problem with taxes being raised to support turning this nation into a socialist society with universal everything.
I don't make much money, as I'm sure just about everyone in this business knows, but I am for sure not someone who believes I am entitled to taking anyone else's money. I work for what I have - as little as it is - and I'm damn proud of that.

 

1. Continuation of Iraq War - I'm assuming you are aware that this is a continuation of the Iraq War from 1991. That war never ended and the US had been spending approximately $3 billion per year to maintain the "no-fly zones' over most of Iraq. This discussion doesn't even include the human or environmental costs that need consideration. UNICEF estimated that the UN Sanctions were leading to the deaths of an estimated 60,000 children under 5 were dying every year:

You can be heartless toward the children if you like but if you are an environmentalist - then I can't see how you can be against the invasion of Iraq. The United States is leading perhaps the biggest ecological cleanup in history - literally restoring the Garden of Eden

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998715/

2. Probable Bailout of Financial Institutions - tough to take any estimate from Krugman seriously.

In 1982 Krugman predicted a "inflation time bomb". Yeah great prediction there Paul.

3. Stimulus package - I'm pumped for my $2,400 check. I'll finally get that ivory backscratcher that I've had my eye on.

4. Tax cuts - as Ragu pointed out - this is not a cost. Tax cuts have historically always stimulated the economy. Think JFK talking about a rising tide lifting all boats.

5. Bomb Iran - not sure why people think we will be the country to bomb Iran. The leadership in Iran has talked about wiping Israel off the map. The Israeli air force will act long before we do and with with better intelligence.

 

Welfare queens!
Havin' babies to get more money.
And New Orleans deserved to die.
Stupid people building below sea level.

 

Don't twist my words. I never said they deserved to die!
Funny how you try and make that leap.

All I said was YES - they are not too bright to rebuild in the same place where a natural disaster hit, and could likely hit again.

I'm not sure where it says that they deserved to die.

A little help please . . .

 

Lots of places have natural disasters.
Oklahoma City's downtown caught two tornadoes on back to back days.
Yet the government came in and helped out after.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. The list goes on and in almost every spot in the country.
People aren't stupid for wanting to go home.

 

They are when they are building where they shouldn't be.

 

So I'm guessing you would be okay with the government telling people they couldn't live in a certain spot?
Okay, name a spot in America that hasn't been touched by a natural disaster in the last five years?
And I can only think of one place, where people were told they couldn't rebuild. Even then I think it was by mutual decision. I need some help here, but didn't some underground coal mine fires in Pennsylvania shut a town down?