"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...
devil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:43 -0500, Gwen Saylor wrote:

=Sara wrote:


Yeah, just as there's no financial situation where the Democrat
doesn't scream for higher spending

Like $87 billion for Iraq and a few billoion more for NASA?
Suuurre. This is one fiscally conservative admin we've got here.

You conveniently forget to recall how many billions and billions
were already spent on Iraq for the 12 years before Bush took office
due to the presence and moves by Hussein. And the $ number was
getting higher and higher with no end in sight due to the failure of
the "containment." . Did you think all of those daily no-fly zone
sorties were free? When Clinton bombed Baghdad in 1998 with more
missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War, did you think that was free?
Or the 1994 bombings? Or the 1996 bombings? Did you think the
constant built up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were free? Did
you think the aircraft carriers that needed to be in the Gulf
constantly were free? Today all of that is changing. And it will
only get better going forward as things wind down in Iraq.

Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has
been borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.

Just how big a drop in the bucket? What is the dollar amount on
all of the above?

Just curious.

Isn't it odd that, when the Democrats run up the deficit, "pay as you go" is the
Republican mantra, but when the Republicans do it, "tax and spend" (a euphemism
for "pay as you go") becomes a terrible policy?

Or is it merely another example of hypocrisy in government?

George Z.