Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

EScroogeJr (< 20)

Lost another $153

Recs

6

October 23, 2007 – Comments (7)

Now, that's 46 bln divided by 300 mln people. $153 is my share.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_war_spending;_ylt=AtzB9Sksx.Rr4UPZRFssyNas0NUE 

WASHINGTON - President Bush asked Congress for $46 billion more to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and said he wants the money approved by Christmas. The fighting in Iraq, in its fifth year, already has cost more than $455 billion.

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 23, 2007 at 8:59 AM, devoish (98.58) wrote:

Um...  no. The 46b is above and beyond what the Pentagon requested bringing this years total request for the "war on terror" for this years budget up to 196b.  $653.00 is your share. But don't worry. Tax cuts are the absolute best way to make sure this money comes from nowhere.

Report this comment
#2) On October 23, 2007 at 9:51 AM, floridabuilder2 (99.33) wrote:

i never liked bush... he is a neo-conservative.... he is so lucky the dem's can never mount a good candidate...

Report this comment
#3) On October 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM, Zanibel17 (97.43) wrote:

You guys are all smart so you all probably know this, but I'll say it anyway:

Ron Paul is the Republican who will end the war in Iraq.  He's also the most fiscally conservative candidate running for President in '08.  And, despite what the corporate-controlled media would like you to believe, he is not an isolationist.

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the NAU Superhighway is not free trade, it's mercantilism and it sucks.

RON PAUL 2008

Report this comment
#4) On October 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM, leohaas (32.24) wrote:

Ron Paul stands no chance of winning the Republican primary. He should run as a Libertarian. And as a Libertarian, he stands no chance of winning the election...

Report this comment
#5) On October 23, 2007 at 12:18 PM, Zanibel17 (97.43) wrote:

Why all the hate leohaas?  Unless you've got a crystal ball, you've got no way of knowing who's going to win the primary.  After the way the Fred and Mitt and Rudy and McCain went after each other last Sunday at the debates, all Ron Paul has to do is sit back and let the so-called 'top-tier' cannibalize themselves.  He'll be the only one left standing (who's got any money to spend, that is).

As far as him being libertarian, the way I see it, Ron Paul has been more conservative for much longer than any of the top-tier have ever been, particularly on abortion.  And no one has addressed fiscal responsibility, the decline of the dollar and the Federal Reserve the way RP has.

People who would sacrifice all their other principles just to support a pro-Iraq War candidate, might as well support Hillary.

Your friend and Ron Paul Supporter,

Zanibel

Report this comment
#6) On October 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

I did not mean to provoke a political discussion. The Gulf war concerns me only as an economic disaster. I don't care which politician gets into the White House as the result. That is not to say that I don't have any opinions about the coming election, but I will not express them on an internet resource devoted to economics.

Report this comment
#7) On October 24, 2007 at 4:10 PM, Imperial1964 (97.77) wrote:

Politics and economics are sometimes very intertwined.  Investors should be aware of the economic impacts of fiscal policy.

For instance, if you look at the GDP breakdown during the last recession, corporate capital spending declined, and that was offset mainly by massive government spending and partially by increased consumer spending (Bush tax cuts).  Basically, irresponsible fiscal policy drastically shortened the last recession.  Although government spending is a smaller portion of GDP than consumer spending, it is much more volatile and has more affect on GDP than most realize.

And, of course, fiscal policy and new legislation also impact individual industries.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement