Deficits and terrotists

Isn't it interesting that the AP couples the budget estimates with a request for more funding for Iraq:



WASHINGTON Jan 25, 2005 — The Congressional Budget Office is predicting the government will go another $855 billion into debt over the next decade, excluding the costs of President Bush's Social Security plan and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report, described by a congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity, was being released Tuesday, the same day administration officials were expected to describe President Bush's request for fresh $80 billion request to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.



What will the dovish, blowhards say of this? They want Pres. Bush to fight a war on terror with no lack of supplies, no loss of American life, and no cost to American taxpayers. If we are going to win in Iraq, shouldn't we provide all the means necessary? What dollar value can we place on our natinal security?

Concerning the predictions, the budget estimates are not worth the paper they are printed on. I can't understand why people get in an uproar over a "projection." The projections are getting smaller, which means our economy is getting better. The growth of our economy flucuates. It seems impossible to make an accurate projection without knowing what will happen to the economy in the future.

The liberals and the legacy media should have a heyday with this.