Thanks, Dubya. $1,600,000,000,000



Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
Whatever happened to the real Republicans who claim to believe in smaller government and lower taxes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.
 

sogood

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,148
0
36
Just think what that amount of money could achieve in the education or health system... But no, it's for acquisition of oil resources to keep the country guzzling away. :eek:
 

9202

New Member
May 14, 2007
130
0
0
sogood said:
Just think what that amount of money could achieve in the education or health system... But no, it's for acquisition of oil resources to keep the country guzzling away. :eek:

This has to be one of dumbest most ignorant comments I have heard. I an not a Bush fan, nor am I a Republican, but let's get real as the sound bites go nowhere and make us liberal or moderate dems look ignorant.

Actually, I am pretty embarassed to say that most of what I hear coming out of the Democratic Party these days is off the wall. It makes us look amazingly ignorant and out of touch.

We need to stop with the MoveOn.Org activism and get back to grass roots democratic principals.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
sogood said:
Just think what that amount of money could achieve in the education or health system... But no, it's for acquisition of oil resources to keep the country guzzling away. :eek:
You know the country is fucked up when $60B is spent on education and $200B is spent on useless wars and nearly $500B on non-war military expenses.

The neocons are going down the same road the Soviets went down. They are so intent on funding the military and expanding their empire that they are slowing overall economic growth and letting the country's infrastructure decay. One day they will wake up and realize that Asia has passed them by.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
9202 said:
This has to be one of dumbest most ignorant comments I have heard. I an not a Bush fan, nor am I a Republican, but let's get real as the sound bites go nowhere and make us liberal or moderate dems look ignorant.
How so? It is a simple truth. The country has limited resources and we have to decide how to spend them. Dubya and his supporters would rather pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the Iraqi desert than spend the money on services or capital investment that would improve the lives of the Americans.

9202 said:
We need to stop with the MoveOn.Org activism and get back to grass roots democratic principals.
What are those principles? Electing someone from the leftwing fringe who is masquerading as a moderate and has the sole accomplishment of being married to an ex-president?
 

9202

New Member
May 14, 2007
130
0
0
Bro Deal said:
You know the country is fucked up when $60B is spent on education and $200B is spent on useless wars and nearly $500B on non-war military expenses.

The neocons are going down the same road the Soviets went down. They are so intent on funding the military and expanding their empire that they are slowing overall economic growth and letting the country's infrastructure decay. One day they will wake up and realize that Asia has passed them by.

Sorry dude, but it is my democratic brothers in Congress and the Senate that are doing the destructive bidding. I voted for a change, we put dems in the government and they have let us down. I am sick and tired of both parties, they lie, cheat and steal.

More whining rhetoric will not change things. We need solutions and real folks rather than politicians like Nancy Pelosi. As yourself, what has Nancy done for you?
 

Gus Riley

New Member
Jan 12, 2004
58
1
0
9202 said:
Sorry dude, but it is my democratic brothers in Congress and the Senate that are doing the destructive bidding. I voted for a change, we put dems in the government and they have let us down. I am sick and tired of both parties, they lie, cheat and steal.

More whining rhetoric will not change things. We need solutions and real folks rather than politicians like Nancy Pelosi. As yourself, what has Nancy done for you?

For the most part I have to agree. With nearly 75% of the American public NOT voting, our politicians on both sides have no reason to fear us. All Americans who want to make a difference should "Walk the Walk" and get out and VOTE.

Those who say it makes no differerence are the part of the idiot silent majority of millions and millions who could make a difference if their vast numbers would simply use the power of their vote. It wouldn't take long for our politicians to sit up and take notice when many of them were forced to leave due to an awakened giant... the American Silent Majority.

As far as the DEMs not making progress...this is true in large part to a stubborn Lame Duck President with an effective if not reasonable veto power.

Just my opinion I could be wrong (JMOICBW)
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
Gus Riley said:
For the most part I have to agree. With nearly 75% of the American public NOT voting, our politicians on both sides have no reason to fear us. All Americans who want to make a difference should "Walk the Walk" and get out and VOTE.

Those who say it makes no differerence are the part of the idiot silent majority of millions and millions who could make a difference if their vast numbers would simply use the power of their vote. It wouldn't take long for our politicians to sit up and take notice when many of them were forced to leave due to an awakened giant... the American Silent Majority.
Any democratic system where 97% of incumbents get reelected is sham. Encouraging people who don't follow the news and have no clue what is going on to vote will not improve things. It will make them worse. They will end up being more grist for the parties' propaganda mills.
 

sogood

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,148
0
36
Bro Deal said:
Any democratic system where 97% of incumbents get reelected is sham.
Without knowing the factualness of that number, it's an interesting point.

One style of corporate management requires a 10% annual churn of staff to keep the organization performing at its peak. It's quite a contrast to 3% churn every 3-4 years. I would have thought that death, illness and intern affairs was at a much higher percentage. ;)
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
sogood said:
Without knowing the factualness of that number, it's an interesting point.

One style of corporate management requires a 10% annual churn of staff to keep the organization performing at its peak. It's quite a contrast to 3% churn every 3-4 years. I would have thought that death, illness and intern affairs was at a much higher percentage. ;)
In the 2000 Congressional election, 98% of incumbents were reelected. That is a typical figure for Congress. It does not include open seats due to death or retirement, obviously, because there is no incumbent to reelect. Basically, if you get elected you can keep your job until you decide to retire, you die, or you get caught in a corruption scandal.

It would not surprise me if single party communist systems have lower reelection rates than the U.S.
 

9202

New Member
May 14, 2007
130
0
0
Bro Deal said:
What are those principles? Electing someone from the leftwing fringe who is masquerading as a moderate and has the sole accomplishment of being married to an ex-president?

Absolutely not, and that is my point. The left wing fringe is very loud and vocal. They are making the rest of us more centrist moderates look as foolish as they do.

What the Democratic Party needs are real, concerned, centrist/moderate and intelligent candidates. And I have to say, that Hillary Clinton does not fit the bill. We have real problems in the US that need fresh new solutions from candidates who are not affraid to do what is right rather than get relected. Hillary's only goal seems to gain power.

Unfortunately, the next election may be no different then the rest. If Hullary wins the Democratic nomination and goes up against Rudy, I think we will again see a Republican president, although Rudy is a lot more moderate and centrist then the current administration.

My only hope is for the Democratic Party to take the party back from the likes of John Edwards and the other left oriented politicians and remember that most of us in the US play football between the 35 yard lines.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
2
0
9202 said:
Absolutely not, and that is my point. The left wing fringe is very loud and vocal. They are making the rest of us more centrist moderates look as foolish as they do.

What the Democratic Party needs are real, concerned, centrist/moderate and intelligent candidates. And I have to say, that Hillary Clinton does not fit the bill. We have real problems in the US that need fresh new solutions from candidates who are not affraid to do what is right rather than get relected. Hillary's only goal seems to gain power.
Good luck on that.

The Dems should have had a sure thing for 2008. All they had to do was nominate a centrist who was charismatic and did not have much of record that could be attacked. Instead they are going to nominate the polar opposite. Hillary won't even be able to attack the Repubs on corruption because it will be thrown right back in her face. Wait until the Repubs start hitting her on Marc Rich and the gift list she passed around after Bill left office.
 

9202

New Member
May 14, 2007
130
0
0
Bro Deal said:
Good luck on that.

The Dems should have had a sure thing for 2008. All they had to do was nominate a centrist who was charismatic and did not have much of record that could be attacked. Instead they are going to nominate the polar opposite. Hillary won't even be able to attack the Repubs on corruption because it will be thrown right back in her face. Wait until the Repubs start hitting her on Marc Rich and the gift list she passed around after Bill left office.

Oye, something to look forward to......can't wait!
 

sogood

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,148
0
36
9202 said:
Oye, something to look forward to......can't wait!
Right on. Can't wait till the day when neocons would get out and stop their meddling in foreign countries. The rest of the world doesn't care about the US Govt wasting their tax payers' money, but screwing up the rest of the world at the same time is another matter.
 

9202

New Member
May 14, 2007
130
0
0
sogood said:
Right on. Can't wait till the day when neocons would get out and stop their meddling in foreign countries. The rest of the world doesn't care about the US Govt wasting their tax payers' money, but screwing up the rest of the world at the same time is another matter.
Ya know, in one sense I agree, in another......well time will tell.
The world is a very screwed up and dangerous place right now. I wish as a Democrat I could blame the Replublicans in the US as seems to be the flavor of the day. But to tell you the truth, I think that is a convenient cop out.

We (the world) has always been crewed up and I don't have a lot of faith that this will ever change.
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
Bro Deal said:
Whatever happened to the real Republicans who claim to believe in smaller government and lower taxes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.


Ouch.


The total cost to the US for WW11 in todays valuation is : $4.9 trillion.
Seems that Bush is trying to beat that particular record.

I saw a very good feature on your CBS last night (the BBC shows your 7.00pm
newsbulletin).
The rate of suicides among US vets is rocketing according to CBS.
Age 20- 24 carries the highest rate of suicide for the period 1995 - 2007
Official figures show a much lower rate.
CBS has uncovered information showing that rates are actually far higher than official figures.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml
 

ndbiker

New Member
Feb 9, 2006
60
0
0
limerickman said:
Ouch.


The total cost to the US for WW11 in todays valuation is : $4.9 trillion.
Seems that Bush is trying to beat that particular record.

I saw a very good feature on your CBS last night (the BBC shows your 7.00pm
newsbulletin).
The rate of suicides among US vets is rocketing according to CBS.
Age 20- 24 carries the highest rate of suicide for the period 1995 - 2007
Official figures show a much lower rate.
CBS has uncovered information showing that rates are actually far higher than official figures.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml
WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

I believe your comparing apples to oranges. The above quote is including the opportunity costs of the war. I believe the costs you mentioned for WWII were actual costs. What one cannot calculate is the cost of inaction. How much misery could have been prevented if the Allied countries had stood up to Hitler in 1938 before he was able to completely remilitarize (Germany was not supposed to have a standing army after WWI)? I don't believe this is about oil. We (in the US) get nearly all of our oil from North American sources and only about 10% from the Middle East. I personally felt we (meaning the multinational force) should have gone back in in 1998 when Sadam kicked out the inspectors. We had the right according to the 1991 ceasefire, the means and it would not have given Iraq, Iran, Syria or anyone else five years and the opportunity to develop a nuclear campaign. If those in the middle east had seen that the alliance was serious about what it said to Sadam then they might take us more seriously when we say "NO nuclear weapons" to Iran now. This puts us in a much more dangerous position.

I have yet to meet someone who felt the world more secure with Sadam in power but I can understand the logic of those who feel we should not have gone to war when we did. I will also note that few of those who oppose our war in Iraq oppose our efforts in Aphganistan. I guess a question to be answered by each of us is are we more or less secure with the US having the military might it does?
 

limerickman

Moderator
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
115
63
ndbiker said:
WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

I believe your comparing apples to oranges. The above quote is including the opportunity costs of the war. I believe the costs you mentioned for WWII were actual costs.


WW11 costs were actual costs.



ndbiker said:
I don't believe this is about oil. We (in the US) get nearly all of our oil from North American sources and only about 10% from the Middle East. I personally felt we (meaning the multinational force) should have gone back in in 1998 when Sadam kicked out the inspectors. We had the right according to the 1991 ceasefire, the means and it would not have given Iraq, Iran, Syria or anyone else five years and the opportunity to develop a nuclear campaign. If those in the middle east had seen that the alliance was serious about what it said to Sadam then they might take us more seriously when we say "NO nuclear weapons" to Iran now. This puts us in a much more dangerous position.

It might well have been a good idea if your country had not decided to meddle with politics throughout the Middle East from 1946 onwards.

ndbiker said:
I have yet to meet someone who felt the world more secure with Sadam in power but I can understand the logic of those who feel we should not have gone to war when we did.


Iraq, under Saddam, was not a worldwide threat - Iraq wasn't even a regional threat.

USA gave Saddam military support, financial support, political support between 1979 -1991.


ndbiker said:
I guess a question to be answered by each of us is are we more or less secure with the US having the military might it does?

You country only goes to war, when it's in it's financial interest to do so.
 

Colorado Ryder

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,245
0
0
limerickman said:
It might well have been a good idea if your country had not decided to meddle with politics throughout the Middle East from 1946 onwards./QUOTE]

It would have been a good idea if many western and eastern bloc nations not meddled in middle east affairs. Seems that the British, French, Soviets all meddled as well. The British and French were meddling way before 1946.
 

ndbiker

New Member
Feb 9, 2006
60
0
0
limerickman said:
WW11 costs were actual costs.





It might well have been a good idea if your country had not decided to meddle with politics throughout the Middle East from 1946 onwards.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the meddling in the middle east was taking place long before the US got involved. We were part of the alliance which created Isreal.



Iraq, under Saddam, was not a worldwide threat - Iraq wasn't even a regional threat.

Not a regional threat? Tell that to Kuwait.

USA gave Saddam military support, financial support, political support between 1979 -1991.

I agree we enabled Sadam. At the time we were paying much more attention to the Soviets and the conflagration with Iran (who had taken US hostages in 1979).



You country only goes to war, when it's in it's financial interest to do so.
We put the majority of our gross national product to bare in WWII for mere financial gain? We developed the defeated countries and those of our allies after the war for mere financial gain? We spent trillions in the cold war for mere financial gain? We spent billions and thousands of lost lives in Korea for mere financial gain? I have to respectfully disagree with your statement.