Rupublicans do not show up to review budget

[SMM]

$2,400,000,000,000.00 (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/24/2400000000000/) - That is right, 2.4 Trillion Dollars for the cost of the Iraqi 'Occupancy. , 26% of the National debt. And, the republicans do not even make an appearance. All of you fiscal Republicans, please explain this.

[Thomas Veil]

I can think of several words to describe the Republicans: irresponsible, disgraceful, cowardly....

[Swarmlord]

Who said that there were any fiscal conservatives in Congress?

[leekohler]

Of course, that's your defense. :rolleyes:

[killerrobot]

$2,400,000,000,000.00 - That is right, 2.4 Trillion Dollars

Glad you said 2.4 trillion. I can't count that many zeros.

Also, why would they show up? It's not like it's money out of their pockets or money out of their wealthy friends pockets, so why should they care?

[Badandy]

Of course, that's your defense. :rolleyes:

Ummm, it is. There are no fiscal republicans in congress. They are all religious nuts who spend as much or more than the democrats.

[solvs]

Who said that there were any fiscal conservatives in Congress?

Ummm, it is. There are no fiscal republicans in congress. They are all religious nuts who spend as much or more than the democrats.

Then why do you people still keep voting for them?

"I'd be a Republican if only they would" - Bill Maher.

[Badandy]

Then why do you people still keep voting for them?

"I'd be a Republican if only they would" - Bill Maher.

Lesser of two evils, solvs. However that's not becoming a reason anymore, as both parties to me are absolutely dismal performers fiscally.

EDIT: From your original source it says that $2.4 trillion is enough to "Provide health care coverage to every American for one year". I suspect a lot of the people complaining about how much $2.4 dollars is are also in support of universal health care. While their estimate was probably not exact, you think we're spending a lot of money now?

[Swarmlord]

Then why do you people still keep voting for them?

"I'd be a Republican if only they would" - Bill Maher.

Unless there's an independant, there's only two people running for a given position in the full election. I have to vote for the person that is less likely to spend money and will be more likely to stimulate the economy, lower my taxes and reduce the size of the government. Sometimes it doesn't work out as well as you might want.

[SMM]

Unless there's an independant, there's only two people running for a given position in the full election. I have to vote for the person that is less likely to spend money and will be more likely to stimulate the economy, lower my taxes and reduce the size of the government. Sometimes it doesn't work out as well as you might want.

The key is electing leadership which will seek out the great managers to run the Country. Many people fail to recognize how vitally important a good cabinet is. Some presidents fill it with political hacks, who are mainly there to receive their reward for 'service rendered'. These people often do not have a clue about management. Their goal is to promote the administration's agenda. Good presidents attract the 'best and the brightest' to come in and make a difference.

An couple examples are from the Clinton administration. William Perry became Secretary of Defense. His team found over 30,000 items which could be purchased 'over the counter'. There was no justification for buying a special Mil Spec variety. He saved taxpayers $3.5 Billion annually.

He kept Alan Greenspan, even though AG was a staunch conservative. He then appointed Robert Rubin, Lloyd Bentsen and Lawrence Summers as Secretary of the Treasury. The net result was a very close-knit group managing the nations finances.

[solvs]

Lesser of two evils, solvs. However that's not becoming a reason anymore, as both parties to me are absolutely dismal performers fiscally.

Unless there's an independant, there's only two people running for a given position in the full election. I have to vote for the person that is less likely to spend money and will be more likely to stimulate the economy, lower my taxes and reduce the size of the government. Sometimes it doesn't work out as well as you might want.
The last couple of years would disagree with the whole "less likely to spend money and will be more likely to stimulate the economy, lower my taxes and reduce the size of the government". True, some people's taxes may have gone down, haven't really noticed mine go down that much, but with the debt going the way it is, they're going to have to eventually raise them anyway. The size of the gov has gone up as well.

I was no fan of Slick Willy, but at least he could balance the budget.