Politics > Politics-USA > Right-winger sez it's "only" $87 billion and better than giving it to "non-poor" seniors.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2003 04:40:04 PM |
| Object: |
Right-winger sez it's "only" $87 billion and better than giving it to "non-poor" seniors. |
From The National Review, 9/15/03:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary091503.asp
SEP. 15, 2003: WEEKEND REPORT
War and Taxes
By David Frum
President Bush’s request for $87 billion for reconstruction in Iraq
and Afghanistan has convinced a lot of people who hated his tax cut
that they really, really hate his tax cut.
Here for example is Steve Mufson of the Washington Post in yesterday’s
"Outlook" section:
"[T]he request, which could push the federal budget deficit to more
than $500 billion during the next fiscal year, should make people stop
and wonder whether President Bush's 2001 and 2002 tax cuts
significantly compromised America's ability to respond vigorously to
problems at home and abroad in the future."
Really?
The U.S. government spends some $2 trillion a year.
President Bush’s $87 billion request for reconstruction aid amounts to
less than 5% of the total.
Why should this one-time investment in a more secure Middle East raise
more questions than, say, a huge and ever-expanding federal commitment
to pay for the prescription drugs of non-poor senior citizens?
The United States can effortlessly afford the war on terror.
_______________________________________________________
Wonder what the kid means by "non-poor senior citizens"
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Tabernacle" |
|
| Title: Re: Right-winger sez it's "only" $87 billion and better than giving it to "non-poor" seniors. |
15 Sep 2003 09:33:30 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<1dccmv87e9j5si62i6m2legemarrtj6ccu@4ax.com>...
From The National Review, 9/15/03:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary091503.asp
SEP. 15, 2003: WEEKEND REPORT
War and Taxes
By David Frum
President Bush?s request for $87 billion for reconstruction in Iraq
and Afghanistan has convinced a lot of people who hated his tax cut
that they really, really hate his tax cut.
Here for example is Steve Mufson of the Washington Post in yesterday?s
"Outlook" section:
"[T]he request, which could push the federal budget deficit to more
than $500 billion during the next fiscal year, should make people stop
and wonder whether President Bush's 2001 and 2002 tax cuts
significantly compromised America's ability to respond vigorously to
problems at home and abroad in the future."
Really?
The U.S. government spends some $2 trillion a year.
President Bush?s $87 billion request for reconstruction aid amounts to
less than 5% of the total.
Why should this one-time investment in a more secure Middle East raise
more questions than, say, a huge and ever-expanding federal commitment
to pay for the prescription drugs of non-poor senior citizens?
The United States can effortlessly afford the war on terror.
_______________________________________________________
Wonder what the kid means by "non-poor senior citizens"
Harry
Most likely the few (and I mean VERY FEW) who can still afford to heat
their homes and buy enough food to last out the month after they get
done paying for their drugs!
And BTW Even Bigtime ***** admitted that this 87 Billion is likely not
going to be the end of it, and so I say you all should look for
another 60/70/90 Billion to be pissed away sometime in June or July!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
