Veto it again

[Nilsen]

This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..

42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare

[Odee]

Originally posted by Nilsen
This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..

42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare

It really isn't all that much.... considering we print it too.  Special interest needs around the world?  Why the USA will just write y'all a blank check for it.

Sometimes I think the Government uses money like a g'damned bandaid.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Odee
It really isn't all that much.... considering we print it too.  Special interest needs around the world?  Why the USA will just write y'all a blank check for it.

Sometimes I think the Government uses money like a g'damned bandaid.

Yep...we're overspending like no democrat admin has ever before. I do believe the Republicans are really screwed up with all the spending.

[Charon]

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and leaves them to their own devices, and if it all blows up (which is quite possible, on several fronts) and spills over into the neighboring countries, or just general retaliation against western interests by any factor (including OPEC) in the region = oil prices spike. As the Middle East is so contentious, I'd expect a very significant, economy busting, recession driving oil price spike in that event.  

After which, you could expect a downturn in the economies of exporter China and insourcing India, leading to a reduction in demand among developing nations, perhaps a world-wide recession, and much lower oil prices. Hell of a way to get there though.

Charon

[Sandman]

Originally posted by john9001
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.


there you go again Moriarty, always with the negative.

Negatives are abundant WRT Iraq.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Charon
After which, you could expect a downturn in the economies of exporter China and insourcing India, leading to a reduction in demand among developing nations, perhaps a world-wide recession, and much lower oil prices. Hell of a way to get there though.

Charon

Don't hold your breath. By this time next year, gasoline will be over $4.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Nilsen
This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..

42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare

Every good capitalist society has money to burn!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070510/federal_budget.html?.v=10

Revenue Collections Hit Record High in April, Improve Budget Deficit

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.
So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline.

For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.

The difference in the growth of tax collections and spending is the reason for the narrowing deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office said that it now expects the deficit for all of 2007 to total between $150 billion and $200 billion. That would be a significant improvement from last year's deficit of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest imbalance in four years.

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush's tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

 Notice the twit who wrote the article doesn't/won't make the connection between easing the tax burden and the economy picking up, which is the REASON we have more revenues

White House Budget Director Rob Portman said the surge in tax revenues over the past two years was directly related to the economic rebound spurred by the Bush tax cuts. He said Congress should reject efforts to roll back the tax relief.

"With strong economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to reduce budget deficits and balance the budget as the president has proposed," Portman said in a statement.

For April, revenue receipts totaled $383.64 billion while spending totaled $205.97 billion, leaving a surplus for the month of $177.7 billion.

[indy007]

OMG! CUT & RUN! CUT & RUN!

both sides are full of it.

We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so.

Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."

During last week's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Rudy Giuliani cited the 40th president as a model of fortitude in dealing with enemies. Among "the things that Ronald Reagan taught us," he declared, is that "we should never retreat in the face of terrorism."

No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out.

Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run.

At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.

Both times, the Republicans favoring withdrawal had the right idea. In neither case was our intervention justified, and nothing at stake in Lebanon or Somalia was worth the cost in American lives.

They also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans.

Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged Clinton to "admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? No Retreat, No Surrender.

The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final, humiliating American evacuation.

In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes, you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.

What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today. They act as though slogans are a substitute for strategy. What they claim as steadfast resolve looks more like blind obstinacy.

It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way, and if they had been right, the phrase "Mission Accomplished" wouldn't be a national joke.

Maybe at last they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.

[Charon]

Don't hold your breath. By this time next year, gasoline will be over $4.

I've been surprised before, but unless there is something really significant happening on the international stage I would doubt it as much as I would doubt gasoline prices dropping below $2 per gallon.

Charon

[Sting138]

Originally posted by Sandman
Seems to me that the Congress is expressing the will of the people.

From what I've seen in the news these past few days, the draw down is inevitable. From what I gather, the army is preparing to be out of Iraq in 36 months.

No it seems to me that congress is expressing the will of themselves and not the will of the public.

I fully support our troops and the war in Iraq. Let our troops kick bellybutton and take names. This is exactly the same kind of crap that happened in the Viet Nam war. Politicians are always putting their 2 cents in when they should be concentrating on other matters. Politics and Military are like oil and water.... THEY DONT MIX!

I say let our congressmen and women as well as those in the house and senate go to the front lines in Iraq and let them fight the war and see what goes on first hand. It might cause them to have a drastic change of mind.

This is what happens when you get a bunch of numbskull demoCRAPS in office.

[Sandman]

Who do you think put the Democrats in control of the House and Senate?

You're in the minority.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[indy007]

Where's the AP poll though?

The new one that shows congress's approval rating @ 35%?

You think it would take effort to suck as bad as Bush, but I guess not. All you have to do is make promises, get elected, watch some football, work 3 days a week, and do a whole lot of nothing.

[Sandman]

The AP poll is not much of a surprise. The Democratic Congress has been in office for months and they have done NOTHING about Iraq.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Sandman
The AP poll is not much of a surprise. The Democratic Congress has been in office for months and they have done NOTHING about Iraq.

I do not think they have done anything but witch hunt for their latest agenda - to be determined of course as soon as one of their witch hunts turns up something that sticks for more than one newscast against a member of this admin (does not matter who)

oh wait they raise wages - LOL

[Sandman]

Only the Republicans can run a proper witch hunt.