Financial Shakeup this weekend

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

Phokaioglaukos wrote:

Wellardmac wrote:

I'm with you on this Aaron - the money we have spent on Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere... the problem is that if we were not in Iraq I can pretty much guarantee that that it would not have been spent on the things that you listed, so it was a lose-lose situation.

The money spent on Iraq was borrowed by the government, largely from those outside the US, thereby further weakening the dollar and creating debt for our progeny to repay. And we used to think the Republican party stood for fiscal restraint and a balanced budget!

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. I saw a study a couple of years ago... I'll have to see if I can find it later today. The study basically looked back over the last 100 years at spending in Republican vs Democrat vs split control governments.

The finding was the Republican governments ALWAYS spent more than Democrat administrations who in turn spent more than split control governments. The message was that if you want a big spending government, then vote for the Republicans.

As I said in a previous post Republicans used to have a manifesto of small spending and government. I'm not sure that either has ever happened, but at least they pretended that was the goal. I'm not sure that they even pretend that's the case now.

At this point, it doesn't matter who you vote for, Republican or Democrat) spending will continue to grow. The difference between the two, is how the money is spent.

It would be nice to recover the money we spent in Iraq, by trade for very low cost crude oil for the U.S. Directly imported and refined, distributed, retailed at a very low price and consumed in the U.S. (haliburton should not be involved in any aspect of this)