Refresh my memory, what were those levels vs now?

 

I'm glad you don't worry about it.

 

 

What difference does it make what the levels were then vs. now? My point is that I predicted an astronomical cost associated with going into Iraq that would be far-reaching. I was told, in no uncertain terms btw, that I was exaggerating and blowing it out of proportion. My point is that I wasn't, and since most of the people in this forum were unconcerned about the costs associated with destabilizing a third world country, and in fact felt it would be completely justifiable, I refuse to get up in arms about adding more now.

 

It doesn't matter to me if it was $1 then and $Gazaillion now. Doesn't make one iota of difference to me. I'm sick of hearing the same people who weren't concerned at all then bemoan, wail and gnash teeth about spending now.

It will get better!!! For BHO...Look back at the last several Presidents...

 

GWB a year before the election there appeared no way he would get re-elected (Dems run a dead guy, John Kerry) Bush re-elected

Bill Clinton 2 years in was neck deep in white water and many other growing scandals (GOP runs dead guy, Bob Dole) Clinton Re-elected

GHW Bush riding high on success of Desert Storm...Beat by Clinton

Reagan got drug through the mud daily by press and Hollywood ....won 48 states on way to re-election

Jimmy Carter..early on was a well liked and respected President...two years later beat handily by Reagan.

 

I said all of that to get to this.....you can never look at the first two years of a presidency to determine the next election. It comes down to who is running, how the economy is, and which candidate can American's relate to the most.

What difference does it make what the levels were then vs. now? My point is that I predicted an astronomical cost associated with going into Iraq that would be far-reaching. I was told, in no uncertain terms btw, that I was exaggerating and blowing it out of proportion. My point is that I wasn't, and since most of the people in this forum were unconcerned about the costs associated with destabilizing a third world country, and in fact felt it would be completely justifiable, I refuse to get up in arms about adding more now.

 

It doesn't matter to me if it was $1 then and $Gazaillion now. Doesn't make one iota of difference to me. I'm sick of hearing the same people who weren't concerned at all then bemoan, wail and gnash teeth about spending now.

 

Levels don't matter?

 

Wow, don't know what to say to that.

 

How do you feel about the people that bemoaned, wailed and gnashed their teeth then but aren't concerned at all now that it's their boy spending, and at rates to make the previous administration look like pikers?

Levels don't matter?

 

Wow, don't know what to say to that.

 

How do you feel about the people that bemoaned, wailed and gnashed their teeth then but aren't concerned at all now that it's their boy spending, and at rates to make the previous administration look like pikers?

 

How is this true? One time spending on TARP at this point. Actually putting the cost of the two wars in the budget makes it look higher, but I have hard time jiving that the previous administration looks like pikers.

To me this is solely due to his Mormon faith. Way too many conseratives will flat-out refuse to elect a Mormon to the Presidency.

 

I think there is a lot of truth to this statement.

Good question about the spending. I saw a report this week that said the deficit is now projected to decrease this year.

 

I wonder if this will change when all of the new stimulus spending packages will have to be passed this summer or all of those one-year jobs that were created in the first spending package are now gone.

 

I know in education a BUNCH of teachers are about to lose their jobs and send unemployment rates up some more because their jobs came from the first spending package and that money is gone.

 

I believe the police/fire forces might be in a similar position.