Why does Howard Dean oppose another $87 Billion for Iraq....

[BigBadBrian]

....when $67 Billion is going directly to our troops to buy shit like body armor and other shit the Clinton Administration let lapse? The other $20 Billion would be okay also if it was going through the UN first to help Iraq.

[Sarge]

because we need the money spent mking the US economy more prosperous..

[John Ashcroft]

But you're against tax cuts?

Making the economy is not the job of government. In fact, all government ever does is drain from the economy. The best they can do to boost the economy is drain a little less from time to time (which is done by tax cuts). I only wish the goddamn, mother-fuckin', pansy-assed, big spending Republicans that own the legislative AND executive branches would hold to conservative fiscal ideology. They're just as bad as fucking democrats with this social spending! Oh, and don't give me any shit about democrats not being big spenders Ford, after every bloated social program to come out of the current white house all the democrat peanut gallery can do is mention that it's "a good down-payment". I shudder to think of the burden government would put on our economy if guys like Uncle Teddy Kennedy ran both houses and owned the white house!

I say we shoot them all.

[FORD]

Guess we need a fiscal Conservative who has consistently balanced budgets in the White House, huh ?

[Dr. Love]

I read an article about why republicans should vote in someone that they hate into the presidency, so that they could oppose all his stuff out of prinicipal or spite and no money would get spent due to gridlock.

I was inclined to agree.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I read an article about why republicans should vote in someone that they hate into the presidency, so that they could oppose all his stuff out of prinicipal or spite and no money would get spent due to gridlock.

I was inclined to agree.

Is this their theory of how Clinton balanced the budget, with a Congress who was trying to impeach him?

Oh well, it led to a surplus, right?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
Is this their theory of how Clinton balanced the budget, with a Congress who was trying to impeach him?

Oh well, it led to a surplus, right?

that was congressional republicans that balanced the budget. it's amazing anytime the dems were in charge of congress they sent us into deficits. they continued it the first 2 years under clinton(as well as the whole time they were running them since the 60's) then when the republicans came in and balanced the budget. the next time we went into deficits was ironically the last years the dems controlled the senate fiscal years 2002 and 2003 yet the last time the republicans were in charge fical budget 2001 it was balanced. now it's up to bush to cut it which will be cut by half by 2005. odd isn't it that the dems put us in a deficit everytime their in charge.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But you're against tax cuts?

No I am against the TAx cuts leveled by Bush..
I am also apparently against using a spellchecker because I have been making spelling mistakes all friggin day!
Sarge

[John Ashcroft]

Hey Ford, I still want to know what the federal budget would look like had Hillary-care become law.

What it looks like is we have no more concern with limited government amongst our national parties. Fuckers.

I guess it'll all come down to national defense then. Dubya'll win, deservingly. But I'm really concerned about another threat to our nation now, that is rotting from within. It's how all great societies meet their demise, and I don't know why I thought we'd somehow beat history on this go around. But we can't sustain this level of spending on handouts. It's like a cancer, and Dubya's willingly spreading it. At this rate, expect double digit unemployment in the next 15 to 20 years. That's what it took in Europe. Man I'm depressed.

[Dr. Love]

Only solution is to gridlock the government ... make it where nothing can get through.

[FORD]

Now, to get back to the original topic, Dr. Dean, in fact, did NOT oppose the $87 billion, he just questioned where it would, and should come from.

Here's part of the transcript from a debate in September:

WILLIAMS: Next question will go to, in order, Senator Kerry, Governor Dean and General Clark.

We're going to hear a lot about one figure tonight, that's $87 billion. It's been said it's more or less the down payment on the war with Iraq, the war with Afghanistan, the ongoing war on terrorism. Can we please tonight have your vote, up or down, yes or no? And if yes, how do you pay for $87 billion?

(John Kerry's comments removed to save space)

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: I believe the $87 billion ought to come from the excessive and extraordinary tax cuts that this president foisted upon us, that mainly went to people like Ken Lay who ran Enron.

But I think the test of leadership is not doing what's popular, I think it's doing what's right. I stood up against all the president's tax cuts. And I find it somewhat surprising that some folks are supporting some of the Bush tax cuts.

They are a mistake. The middle class never got a tax cut for us to defend. Their college tuitions went up. Their property taxes went up. Fire and police and first response services are going down and local people are having to pay for that.

So I believe not only should we get rid of the $87 billion worth of tax cuts to pay to support our troops--even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops--I also believe we ought to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut. It is bad for the economy and it has not created one job.

WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?

DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts

Now I know Asscrotch shouldn't have a problem with Dean's answer here. Because rather than spending an additiional $87 billion that wee don't have on Iraq, the money would instead come from the tax cuts to non tax paying billionaires. Kerry's answer, incidentally wasn't that different. Clark didn't address the source of the funds at all.

[John Ashcroft]

Ford, no matter how many times you lefties call them tax cuts for the rich, it won't make it true.

I do believe we should levy a temporary tax on Iraqi oil revenue for repayment to the U.S. tax payer. I understand the merit of a grant, and I'm sure the administration is banking on American companies earning much more than 87 billion out of Iraqi contracts (in the long term). But I don't see a problem with recouping some of our investment right off the bat.

Oh, and there's one condition... So long as a Democrat never manages the tax on Iraqi oil. They'll increase it so much that no one will ever buy Iraqi oil because it'll cost twice the going rate. Yep, gotta be a conservative running this one.

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ford, no matter how many times you lefties call them tax cuts for the rich, it won't make it true.

As Gov Dean said, any "tax cut" the middle class may have gotten was immediately absorbed by rising property taxes, local service taxes, tuition costs, health care, etc. My health care costs have quadrupled in the last three years, and because of the budget crisis in the state, there haven't been cost of living raises to keep up with them. Tax cut? I never got one.

Oh, and there's one condition... So long as a Democrat never manages the tax on Iraqi oil. They'll increase it so much that no one will ever buy Iraqi oil because it'll cost twice the going rate. Yep, gotta be a conservative running this one.

How about the Ayatollah Sistani? He's a religious conservative whose popularity is growing in Iraq

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Now, to get back to the original topic, Dr. Dean, in fact, did NOT oppose the $87 billion, he just questioned where it would, and should come from.

BULLSHIT!!! His current TV ad running here in Virginia says he opposed the $87 Billion. It's an official ad paid for by Dean's campaign. Your serve, Beavis.