Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
Where were the GOP objections over all of this waste? A waste of money, in the midst of profligate deficit spending, that could have worked wonders at home? Heck, money that, if re-directed to tax relief, could have really brought down some tax rates?
|
I think plenty of people (especially JIMG) could have told you that they were there. I live in Georgia and the venom that started to develop around the administration for its bumbling in Iraq was pretty damned big.
Quote:
|
That's not the point. The GOP felt it was A-OK to continue to shovel money into Iraq in an unaccounted-for fashion in some nebulous hope that it would make things all better. Then they turn around and vote against a rigidly defined and accounted-for plan to shovel money into their own country. How, exactly, is this anything but a complete about-face on principles?
|
They think confronting terrorism or rebuilding a state to prevent a terrorist state from developing, and shoveling money in to make that happen, is more important than wasteful domestic spending, which has the end result to increase the size of government (and make more socialistic) in a country they live in.
After all, if they fuck up spending in Iraq, well, it's Iraq. If their government isn't ideal as a result, well, at least it isn't the US they messed up. If they fuck up spending in the US... they just messed up their own country. So, the conclusion can be reached that Democrats think that it may be ok to mess up the US with expansionist government spending but not Iraq
.
To be serious... the US economy will comeback. Some of these super dire projections I think are a bit over the top. It's a very, very tough situation, and the government needs to get involved, but we aren't talking dark ages here. If Al Queda takes over (or took over) Iraq, the world would be in a world of trouble. Wasteful spending sucks and is horrible regardless, but an aggressive terrorist government in a state the size of Iraq... Holy shit.