and other BIG lies

The usually-a-republican-tool John Stossel admitted tonight that federal government spending has grown under every GOP president in the last 75 years in spite of their campaign lies about smaller government.

I don't have a 75 year graph, but since modern deficits dwarf those earlier in the century, it would not make much difference

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

It is obvious that Reagan-Bush have wreaked the greatest damage to the treasury and it is ironic that the Bushevicks heap the most vindictive denigration on the only administration to post a surplus to the budget.

What's great about this criticism is that were the Republicans ever to cut spending in an effort to eleviate the deficit, they'd get complaints for "cutting essential programs" from the very people who make the deficit complaints in the first place.

I suppose it's hard to listen to criticism soberly when every possible action is wrong.

The budget grows under every President of either party. This isn't news.

We have a growing population and tax base, and inflation robs the dollar of it's value. Every family in America has to spend more an more every year for the most part, because the cost of living is always on the rise.

If anyone even dares to try and curb the rate of spending growth by even a fraction of a percentage point, they're accused of making "cuts". The budget is never cut. It only grows year after year.

When GWB proposed the partial privitization of Social security, the idea was painted as a disater, even though many countries have done it quite successfully, and recipients are earning a much bettr rate of return, as oppsed to our lousy 1% rate, which leaves an overwhelming majority of retirees in poverty, after working for 40 or 50 years.

Republicans can do no right in the eyes of many. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Yet when Clinton signed what was touted as a balanced budget (which he himself never submitted in 8 years), he was given credit for it by the left. Never mind the fact that he fought it every step of the way, and it was based on phony projections which never happened to begin with. Clinton knew full well that it would never come to pass. It was a Republican budget, but the left used it to score political points for their guy at the time. That's okay, either party would have done the same under similiar circumstances. That's politics.

We've grown from a 500 billion dollar budget to around three trillion since 1980, and members of both parties are guilty of overspending and overborrowing. They will continue to do so, regardless of who is in power. The last time this country was debt free was when Andrew Jackson was president.

When the federal reserve and the income tax became our new policies in 1913, we sealed our fate. We created inflation, outlawed real ownership of anything, started buying money from a private corporation at a premium, and set ourselves up for massive debt and perpetual deficits.

After the JFK asassination, we did away with our silver coins and certificates (which Johnson publicly stated would never happen), and Nixon, the most liberal Republican president in history, finalized the deal by completely doing away with the gold standard by the stroke of a pen.

Massive debt and deficits were predicted, and they have come to pass. Our monetary system is so screwed up it's hard to comprehend. Even now, less than 3% of American dollars are in actual cash. The other 97% is nothing more than electronic credits and debits, based on nothing more than the future productivity of the American worker. That's what the full faith and credit of the government really is. It's simply a fancy way of saying taxes.

When the FDIC and federal government paid off the savings and loan debacle, it was simply paid in tax revenues. The problem will get worse, and the debt will never be repaid. It may be monetized at some future point, or our currency may be completely devalued, but that debt is way too big. There aren't enough dollars to pay it off, and it's growing at over 10,000 dollars per SECOND.

But as long as Americans continue to produce, and continue our innovative way of life, people around the world will still believe in our money. If they stop believing in it, it will become instantly worthless, and we'll all be broke. The party will be over and we'll have to go back to a currency based on some tangible, hard asset. That could be almost anything, as long as whatever it is, is kept off of the open market in any real quantity.

For now, we'll just keep borrowing and spending, transferring money from producers to non producers, and whine and cry about the deficit and the debt. If someone comes along and attempts to actually decrease, or at least freeze the budget, they will most likely be unsuccessful, due to the need for politicians to spend, in order to win reelection. If we did a simple freeze plus 2% for 10 or 15 years, we would have a surplus in real dollars. Unfortunately, niether party has the political will or the guts to do it.

What's great about this criticism is that were the Republicans ever to cut spending in an effort to eleviate the deficit, they'd get complaints for "cutting essential programs" from the very people who make the deficit complaints in the first place.

I suppose it's hard to listen to criticism soberly when every possible action is wrong.

They could have saved $300,000,000,000 dollars by not attacking Iraq.

They could have saved $300,000,000,000 dollars by not attacking Iraq.

In the long term, if the Iraq operation is successful, the government could actually realize a net gain. It's entirely possible, but only time will tell. We actually made money after the first gulf war. We would have made even more if the coalition members who pledged money had actually paid up what they had promised.

If American corporations remain in Iraq, and earn substantial profits, they could produce tax revenue for years to come, and completely pay off the cost of the war.

If we're not successful, we'll lose every penny, and probably end up having to spend a great deal more in many different areas.

Either way, the people behind the plan to attack Iraq made a fortune off of it. This was the biggest heist in American history, and half the country feels "patriotic" for bending over and taking it up the poop-shooter.

We'll be paying off the cost of this massive power and cash grab for decades.

Who are "the people behind the plan to attack..." and how big was the "fortune?"

Who are "the people behind the plan to attack..." and how big was the "fortune?"

In 2001 and 2002 alone, companies with representatives on the Defense Policy Board made over 75 billion in taxpayer dollars from this administration. People like Perle, Feith, and Cheney either work for, lobby for, or are closely affiliated with companies that make the most from our military policy. Companies like Bechtel and Haliburton, with close relationships to the Bush Administration are making billions and billions on it.

You can't tell me that you were unaware that this administration and it's closest supporters are military and oil/energy companies that are making a lot of money on Iraq.

Where is Big Media on this subject? If you know this much about all the connections/relationships, why have they not reported on it?

Where is Big Media on this subject? If you know this much about all the connections/relationships, why have they not reported on it?

If you limit yourself to GOPravada on Fox, then you're never going to hear anythign that doesn't flatter the GOP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/iraq/main580998.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3231345.stm

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/10/30/build/nation/28-bushiraq.inc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-30-iraq-bush-donations_x.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Just off of a quick google. If you pay attention to current events, and don't rely on party propaganda from Republican "News" organizations, then you should already know that major donors to the Bush Administration have been making a fortune off of it, and that the companies making the most are closely involved in Iraq, and were advisors during the time that the decision was made.

Republicans are. Republican politicians are not.

Republicans are. Republican politicians are not.

Who's casting all those ballots?

Major donors to both Repubican and Democrat parties.... Given the reps "control" of congress, it would be sane to assume more money would go to reps.

Where are the FRONT PAGE stories, headline news, Dems, etc., on this assertion? If this was TRUE, I would think there would be NO OTHER news.

It sounds to me like you actually believe the decision to fight terrorism in Iraq via removing the regime and promoting the installation of a democracy is about BA & Company making a profit. Of course, I could be wrong.

Robert Taft Republicanism is dead. There is no conservative party in Washington. There is a Democratic Party of tax-and-spend, and a Republican Party of guns and butter and tax cuts, too. Washington is all accelerator, the brakes are gone.

They could have saved $300,000,000,000 dollars by not attacking Iraq.

Or, as the Democrats might have viewed it, spent $300 billion on pork. :p

It sounds to me like you actually believe the decision to fight terrorism in Iraq via removing the regime and promoting the installation of a democracy is about BA & Company making a profit. Of course, I could be wrong.

Why not?


Where are the FRONT PAGE stories, headline news, Dems, etc., on this assertion?


You asked for main stream news stories. You got them. If that's not what you wanted, why did you ask?

U.S debt is the glue of the world economy.

This only shows that our major parties have divisions to blurry for simple things like "republicans are against spending and big government".

Since there are only two main parties, there can't be more than one issue for which party affiliation without exception could tell you someone's stance, I doubt there's even that one. Our parties are without strong principles of any kind.

Besides, in general people who fear government control cease to do so once they possess it.

Have to agree with you here java_man.

The Republican congress and White House have not lived up to that reputation.

and that is the issue that the Democrats can really exploit in 2006.

Unfortunately the myopic left will continue to bounce from one issue to the other.

If they provided a united front and actually campaigned on the issue of fiscal responsibility it might bring them the Congressional majority. However, the Dems are not fiscally responsible.

What this shows me is that the "will of the people" is pretty weak in the face of government taxing and spending. People like the government spending just a little bit more than they hate the taxing. So, we have the current result.

In the long term, if the Iraq operation is successful, the government could actually realize a net gain. It's entirely possible, but only time will tell. We actually made money after the first gulf war. We would have made even more if the coalition members who pledged money had actually paid up what they had promised.

If American corporations remain in Iraq, and earn substantial profits, they could produce tax revenue for years to come, and completely pay off the cost of the war.

If we're not successful, we'll lose every penny, and probably end up having to spend a great deal more in many different areas.

WHOA! .... I almost missed this one ...

TOO many IFs and the math does not work at all

IF the war and insurgency ends ... no one is going to put assets at risk in the current environment

IF American corporations remain ... the only resource that could even remotely produce this kind of revenue is oil exports ... this oil belongs to Iraq so what we are talking about is tax revenue from construction and service contracts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071526/

EVEN IF the war ended tomorrow ... the amount of earnings would have to be astronomical ... due to numerous tax breaks, oil companies historically have only paid about a 12% tax rate on their profits ... and if we assume these companies earn 15% profit, then they would need to have over $16 TRILLION in revenue to pay-back the 300 Billion in war costs.

The known reserves of Iraq oil are worth about $7 trillion ... and they own the oil ... not the americans

There is no way on gods green earth the treasury will EVER yield a profit from Bush's misadventure

Heres an idea ... lets get Ahmed Chalibi to pay the treasury back ... It looks like the BA paid and fought-for the lying spy to have his own oil-rich country

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10650675/

No Republican can talk about fiscal responsibility without getting laughed off the podium.

Betrade, are we talking about a war of principle, a war of self defense, or a war of mercenary conquest? Or is it all three, somehow?

If I was a soldier all starry-eyed with patriotism I'd hate to learn I got my leg blown off for a profit.

Or worse.

Here lies Private John Doe, he made us $50,000.

In the long term, if the Iraq operation is successful, the government could actually realize a net gain. It's entirely possible, but only time will tell. We actually made money after the first gulf war....
Which should be a shame to you! Making money from war, is morally equivalent to looting and pillaging.

WHOA! .... I almost missed this one ...

TOO many IFs and the math does not work at all

IF the war and insurgency ends ... no one is going to put assets at risk in the current environment

IF American corporations remain ... the only resource that could even remotely produce this kind of revenue is oil exports ... this oil belongs to Iraq so what we are talking about is tax revenue from construction and service contracts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071526/

EVEN IF the war ended tomorrow ... the amount of earnings would have to be astronomical ... due to numerous tax breaks, oil companies historically have only paid about a 12% tax rate on their profits ... and if we assume these companies earn 15% profit, then they would need to have over $16 TRILLION in revenue to pay-back the 300 Billion in war costs.

The known reserves of Iraq oil are worth about $7 trillion ... and they own the oil ... not the americans

There is no way on gods green earth the treasury will EVER yield a profit from Bush's misadventure
Absolutely correct, Java_man. :nice:

There was some discussion in the FYI thread about how many fewer people were being killed in Iraq now vs Saddam's regime

One figure of 20,000 per year was quoted (under Saddam) ... And some web searching brought up various estimates in the 15 - 25,000 per year range.

Today, it is estimated that 27 - 30,000 civilians have died since the invasion, which happened in March '03 ... 33 months ago ... so there are about 880 deaths per month now, vs 1,666 during Saddam, 786 less on average

We spend $6 billion per month on the war now, so this works out to $7,600,000 per saved life.

If Iraq is a humanitarian mission, it is the most expensive one in the history of the world, you could graduate 76 doctors for $7.6 million, or outfit a hospital, or vaccinate tens of thousands, or build a large water treatment plant for the cost of a single saved life

Which should be a shame to you! Making money from war, is morally equivalent to looting and pillaging.


Absolutely correct, Java_man. :nice:

I never said I thought it was a a good way to earn money, I just floated the idea out ther that it's possible, in response to another post. I also said it's possible that we can lose in a big way. No one knows how it's going to turn out in the end. They can only specualte.

And I'm not "ashamed" either. Someone always benefits from war in one way or another, and it's usually the winner. I didn't create this fact, but history shows that it's true. There's no point pretending they don't, or that wars are always fought for honorable reasons. Hitler started the worst war in history trying to reclaim the "honor" of his "fatherland", and we all know what happened.

I never said I thought it was a a good way to earn money, I just floated the idea out ther that it's possible, in response to another post. I also said it's possible that we can lose in a big way. No one knows how it's going to turn out in the end. They can only specualte.

I think it's obvious to all but the most dedicated Republican, that you're going to lose big time!

As Java Man points out, it's a very expensive way to 'save lives', which assumes that the 25K figure (of those killed by the 'régime' is anywhere near correct. AFAIK, such figures came from the discredited Mr Chalabi anyway..)

If American corporations remain in Iraq, and earn substantial profits, they could produce tax revenue for years to come, and completely pay off the cost of the war.
Please explain how you came to this conclusion. Please note the following in your defense of this statement:

According to the [url=http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0]Congressional Budget Office], corporate income taxes in the United States amounted to $189.4 billion in 2004.
USA has GDP of 12 to 13 trillion dollars.
Iraq has a GDP of about $60 billion.
You're full of sh't.