Posted on 11/12/2006 7:40:13 AM PST by shrinkermd
Tax cuts INCREASED the revenue into the government. Doesn't that mean more money in the coffers?
why wait. To paraphrase a man famous for marrying up: How would you like to be the last man killed in the last war the USA fought before it dissolved into nothingness.
I can forsee the day when the congress will beg, BEG for troops to protect us and no one will answer the call.
Not when you factor in runaway spending, it doesn't.
After he signed off on McCain-Feingold, tossed out Harriet Miers for the SCOTUS, and spent all his political capital pitching amnesty for illegals, I lost all confidence in the man.
But you said the tax cuts produced less revenue and that is why Bush didn't use more troops.
Now you say the tax cuts did produce more money but we spent all of it.
which is it?
If the Congress tries to cut off funding for victory in Iraq, the President should simply ignore them.
What the HELL are you talking about? Where the hell did I say that?
The problem has never been the number of troops - 600,000 troops would have just meant more targets for terrorists post-invasion.
The problem is restrictions on their use. The road home from Iraq runs through Damascus and Tehran.
The consequences of the Democrat sellout during Vietnam lead directly to the War on Terror. I cannot even envision the horrors the almost certain loss in the War on Terror will bring. Thanx America. You were not even in harm's way and you could not bring yourself to support your own troops in Iraq who are. Instead, you chose to stand with a political party with a long history of fecklessness and treachery.
Isn't this part of the "lesson" that the cut and runners told us they were going to teach the Republican Party by staying home and not voting?
Yes even conservatives have feelings.
I am not happy about his immigration policies thats for sure.
But, as for the war I can't just give up on hope for our heroic people serving over there.
They do not deserve to come home defeated.
Getting a little touchy aren't you?
Go and read your post 363.
You clearly implied that the increased revenues were spent.
If you want to get mad get mad at yourself.
A civil war in Iraq and our simultaneous retreat will mean an Iraq dominated by Iran followed by the Persian Gulf. Say hello to $10.00 gasoline. Thus, the consequences of defeat and retreat in Iraq will definately be part of the '08 election and the media will blame it all on Bush, hence, Her Thighness wins.
You said the reason why Bush didn't use more troops was because he cut taxes and that implies the revenue was not there.
Then you said the revenue was there but it was spent elsewhere.
Can't have it both ways.
Unless you are a democrat.
Are you a democrat?
AQ will not takeover Iraq, it will become a client of the mullahs who run Iran. Either scenario is bad.
In what message where?
You have me confused with someone else.
>>Many people outside and inside the US are about to learn some lessons about the US Constitution.<<
Yes, and you, Pollyanna, are about to learn just which branch it is that controls the purse.
I wonder if these idiots run ads in their local papers stating where they live and when they'll be on vacation.
The runaway spending to which I referred was on the prescription drug plan and a host of other socialist programs put forth by our RINO president. What you inferred from my original remark was not only wrong, but patently asinine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.