No politician, from either party, thinks his own favorite programs are a waste of money.
It would be interesting to apply the same standards of success, or standards of throwing good money after bad, to social programs (The War on Poverty) that Bush's opponents are applying to the war in Iraq.
What defines success in a War on Poverty? What's the "exit strategy?" If it isn't fixed in four months, is it a failure? A year? Thirty years?
For what we spend EACH YEAR in entitlement redistributions, we could fund the Iraq campaign at the $4 billion a month rate for a quarter of a century.
Yet not one politician blinks an eye at this. You see, that's GOOD spending. Of course, to a politician, any spending that buys you a vote is GOOD spending. Not going to see many Iraqis at the polls in 2004, are we? Of course, the deficit doesn't care if the spending is popular or not.
Current Events » in reply to ruinous
re: ruinous
The whole thread (54 posts)
- Old Warhorse's Opinion
- re: Old Warhorse's Opinion
- You mis-state my position
- Uh Mary-Anne The American Justice System Doesn't Have Jurisdiction Over Iraq
- Suspects' rights vs. protecting the innocent
- Speech
- "we're in danger of failing"
- And the answer is
- re: Old Warhorse's Opinion