PDA

View Full Version : With election won, Bush's first move is to increase the debt ceiling...


Taco John
11-03-2004, 06:38 PM
Wow... Exactly the reason I feared a second term, and with the election freshly over, Bush is already reaching into our children's wallets...





White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

Wed Nov 3,12:54 PM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.



Treasury Department (news - web sites) officials announced that they will be able to conduct a scheduled series of debt auctions next week to raise $51 billion. However, an auction of four-week Treasury bills due to be completed on Nov. 18 will have to be postponed unless Congress acts before then to raise the debt ceiling.


"Due to debt limit constraints, we currently do not have the capacity to settle our four-week bill auction scheduled to settle on Nov. 18," Timothy Bitsberger, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets, said in a statement.


Congress is scheduled to return for a lame-duck session beginning on Nov. 16 to deal with the debt ceiling, an omnibus spending plan for the rest of this budget year and other matters.


The Republican-controlled Congress put off dealing with the debt ceiling before adjourning in October, preferring not to force members to vote on the politically sensitive issue of adding to the national debt before the November elections.


The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling. But Treasury Secretary John Snow has warned that those special measures would last only until mid-November.


The Treasury Department's actions have included reducing the amount of debt in government trust funds to free up room for further borrowing from the public. The nonpublic debt is then replaced in the trust funds once the debt ceiling is increased along with any lost interest payments.


Republicans have proposed that the debt ceiling be raised by $690 billion to $8.074 trillion, an amount that would get the government through next September, when the 2005 budget year ends.


The need to raise the debt ceiling reflects the record budget deficits of the past two years. The deficit for the 2004 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was an all-time high of $413 billion, surpassing the old mark, in dollar terms, of $377 billion in 2003.


Democrats blame the surging deficits on Bush's tax cuts, while the administration contends the tax cuts provided critical economic stimulus to help lift the economy out of the 2001 recession.


The administration says the president has a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2009, but critics contend that the real problems will come in later years as retiring baby boomers put unprecedented strains on Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare.


In its announcement Wednesday, Treasury said it will sell $51 billion in new securities next week including $22 billion in three-year notes on Monday, $15 billion in five-year notes on Tuesday and $14 billion in 10-year bonds on Wednesday.

Braincase
11-03-2004, 06:47 PM
Any word on new tax cuts yet?

stevieray
11-03-2004, 07:13 PM
our kids? you don't have children, do you?

and you have no clue what things will be like when you finally decide to have them.

more fear. I reallly feel for people who constantly try to sell misery when they have no clue what it reallly means.

Braincase
11-03-2004, 07:16 PM
our kids? you don't have children, do you?

and you have no clue what things will be like when you finally decide to have them.

more fear. I reallly feel for people who constantly try to sell misery when they have no clue what it reallly means.

I have three. I am planning accordingly.

chiefs4me
11-03-2004, 07:22 PM
Wow... Exactly the reason I feared a second term, and with the election freshly over, Bush is already reaching into our children's wallets...





White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

Wed Nov 3,12:54 PM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.



Treasury Department (news - web sites) officials announced that they will be able to conduct a scheduled series of debt auctions next week to raise $51 billion. However, an auction of four-week Treasury bills due to be completed on Nov. 18 will have to be postponed unless Congress acts before then to raise the debt ceiling.


"Due to debt limit constraints, we currently do not have the capacity to settle our four-week bill auction scheduled to settle on Nov. 18," Timothy Bitsberger, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets, said in a statement.


Congress is scheduled to return for a lame-duck session beginning on Nov. 16 to deal with the debt ceiling, an omnibus spending plan for the rest of this budget year and other matters.


The Republican-controlled Congress put off dealing with the debt ceiling before adjourning in October, preferring not to force members to vote on the politically sensitive issue of adding to the national debt before the November elections.


The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling. But Treasury Secretary John Snow has warned that those special measures would last only until mid-November.


The Treasury Department's actions have included reducing the amount of debt in government trust funds to free up room for further borrowing from the public. The nonpublic debt is then replaced in the trust funds once the debt ceiling is increased along with any lost interest payments.


Republicans have proposed that the debt ceiling be raised by $690 billion to $8.074 trillion, an amount that would get the government through next September, when the 2005 budget year ends.


The need to raise the debt ceiling reflects the record budget deficits of the past two years. The deficit for the 2004 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was an all-time high of $413 billion, surpassing the old mark, in dollar terms, of $377 billion in 2003.


Democrats blame the surging deficits on Bush's tax cuts, while the administration contends the tax cuts provided critical economic stimulus to help lift the economy out of the 2001 recession.


The administration says the president has a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2009, but critics contend that the real problems will come in later years as retiring baby boomers put unprecedented strains on Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare.


In its announcement Wednesday, Treasury said it will sell $51 billion in new securities next week including $22 billion in three-year notes on Monday, $15 billion in five-year notes on Tuesday and $14 billion in 10-year bonds on Wednesday.



:banghead:

memyselfI
11-03-2004, 08:47 PM
Wait, I thought it was going to be 75 more billion for Iraq.

http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/webtv/manual/advanced-projects/closed_captioning/cash-register.gif

Rausch
11-03-2004, 08:54 PM
DAMNIT CARL!!!

B2chiefsfan
11-03-2004, 08:57 PM
I have three. I am planning accordingly.


As should everyone.


I have three myself.

B2chiefsfan
11-03-2004, 08:58 PM
DAMNIT CARL!!!Totally classic

ROFL

wazu
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM
We have a debt ceiling?

Taco John
11-03-2004, 09:07 PM
our kids? you don't have children, do you?

and you have no clue what things will be like when you finally decide to have them.

more fear. I reallly feel for people who constantly try to sell misery when they have no clue what it reallly means.



We have decided to have them. We're crossing our fingers now.

And I know what this means. You can f*ck off with your entire attitude. I know EXACTLY what this means, and your response is nothing more than another bleat from the "conservative" side who don't GAF how much money this president spends, just so long as he pretends to share your values.

Pants
11-03-2004, 09:08 PM
We have a debt ceiling?

Not for long.

Ari Chi3fs
11-03-2004, 09:14 PM
i wonder why this wasnt mentioned on the election campaign?

stevieray
11-03-2004, 09:30 PM
We have decided to have them. We're crossing our fingers now.

And I know what this means. You can f*ck off with your entire attitude. I know EXACTLY what this means, and your response is nothing more than another bleat from the "conservative" side who don't GAF how much money this president spends, just so long as he pretends to share your values.

Wrong, as usual. I think you have unhealthy tendacy to pin any mistake you can find on a man whose power mainly comes and goes through Congress.

Telling me to f*ck off doesn't change that. stop crying about how horrible things are when your standard of living is greater than most of the world, provided by generations breaking their backs and giving their lives so you can try to win endless pissing matches on this board by incessantly trying to kick the gift horse in the mouth.

I understand though, as much smack as you talked about this election, I'd be hidng my embarassment behind more of the same character asissination.

Good luck with the "family", I think you'll find that just like every other family out there( for centuries), you'll be doing you're best with what you have.

Taco John
11-03-2004, 09:42 PM
Wrong, as usual. I think you have unhealthy tendacy to pin any mistake you can find on a man whose power mainly comes and goes through Congress.

Uh huh... I'm sure this is exactly the kind of leeway you were advocating for Clinton back in the day. Don't even pretend to own the high ground here.



Telling me to f*ck off doesn't change that. stop crying about how horrible things are when your standard of living is greater than most of the world, provided by generations breaking their backs and giving their lives so you can try to win endless pissing matches on this board by incessantly trying to kick the gift horse in the mouth.

You know what? I don't give a damn about the rest of the world. If my standard of living is greater than theirs, then so be it. God bless America. I still am not going to sit with a sock in my mouth as this Adminstration squanders our national wealth. Kicking a gift horse in the mouth is cutting taxes and raising the debt ceiling. Cutting taxes while raising debt is damned foolish, and is the epitomy of pissing on the generations who have provided what we have to date.

Telling you to f*ck off isn't going to change it, but it sure is going to let you know that I thought you were WAY out of line with your worthless diatribe. I'm all for a conversation, but if you're going to sit on your short-sighted, "you don't even have kids yet" high horse, you can f*ck off.


I understand though, as much smack as you talked about this election, I'd be hidng my embarassment behind more of the same character asissination.


Character assasination!?

Again. F*ck off. I'm one of the few people on this board that stuck 95% to policy and fact-based observations, rarely digging down to the depths of slander that most people on this board engaged in. And again, this discussion is about policy. Not character. Your ad hominem is hardly accurate.

You don't know me. You only *think* you do.

Michael Michigan
11-03-2004, 09:57 PM
God bless America. I still am not going to sit with a sock in my mouth as this Adminstration squanders our national wealth.




Did you say the same thing in the 80's?

Taco John
11-03-2004, 11:01 PM
Did you say the same thing in the 80's?



Before or after I put down the Weekly Reader?

stevieray
11-03-2004, 11:04 PM
Uh huh... I'm sure this is exactly the kind of leeway you were advocating for Clinton back in the day. Don't even pretend to own the high ground here.
________________

High ground? What does clinton have to do with this? Deflecting? clinton never went on the offensive after numerous attacks. i would back any President that went on the offensive against alquaeda...again, you try to make this a us against them mantra.

_______________

You know what? I don't give a damn about the rest of the world. If my standard of living is greater than theirs, then so be it. God bless America. I still am not going to sit with a sock in my mouth as this Adminstration squanders our national wealth. Kicking a gift horse in the mouth is cutting taxes and raising the debt ceiling. Cutting taxes while raising debt is damned foolish, and is the epitomy of pissing on the generations who have provided what we have to date.
___________________

I'm sure you don't give damn about the world, but the world gives a damn about us, whether good or bad. The rest is just opinion and fear, the same thing you've been selling for the last few months.


Telling you to f*ck off isn't going to change it, but it sure is going to let you know that I thought you were WAY out of line with your worthless diatribe. I'm all for a conversation, but if you're going to sit on your short-sighted, "you don't even have kids yet" high horse, you can f*ck off.
___________

All projection.

_____________




Character assasination!?

Again. F*ck off. I'm one of the few people on this board that stuck 95% to policy and fact-based observations, rarely digging down to the depths of slander that most people on this board engaged in. And again, this discussion is about policy. Not character. Your ad hominem is hardly accurate.
________________

Yup, you sure treated pows and wounded vets with total respect.
________________
You don't know me. You only *think* you do.

Never claimed to "know" you.

Taco John
11-03-2004, 11:29 PM
Yup, you sure treated pows and wounded vets with total respect..



I treated the ones who deserved respect with complete respect. And I treated the liars with respect until I could clearly see they were liars.

What do the swift liars have anything to do with your charge that I was attacking Bush's character? Deflecting?


Bottom line is, tax cuts without spending cuts is foolhardy.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-03-2004, 11:51 PM
GW was arrested for and convicted of a DUI in 1976 (1). He was also arrested twice before that (2). For a fourth and separate offense, a family friend said he served a year of community service for cocaine possession (3). In 1972 he went AWOL (no charges or conviction) (4). Like Martha Stewart, Bush was investigated by the SEC for insider trading (no charges or conviction) (5). For years, Corporate President Bush was a good friend of Ken Lay, ex-chairman of Enron (6).

To be fair, that was years ago, and people can change.

Since becoming president, GW has earned the title "Flip-Flopper in Chief" (7). He illegally imprisoned hundreds of people--including US citizens--for years (8). He spent the budget surplus and bankrupted the treasury in record-setting fashion (9). He's the first president in 72 years to have a net loss of jobs (10).

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

I guess that what you'd expect from a rich kid with a rap sheet. GW's character has been consistent throughout his life. Ya think he'll change in the next four years?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." –Mark Twain



SOURCES

(1) BUSH'S DUI IN 1976
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
b. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

(2) BUSH'S 2 OTHER ARRESTS
a. Kristof, Nicholas D. "THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's" The New York Times 19 Jun. 2000, late ed. (National Desk): A1. Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html

(3) BUSH ALLEGEDLY BUSTED FOR COCAINE USE IN 1972
a. Kranish, Michael. "Bush denies allegation of '72 drug arrest in book" Boston Globe 20 Oct. 1999, city ed.: A10 Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/232407p-199614c.html
c. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
d. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3352.shtml

(4) BUSH WAS PAID FOR ONLY 6 DAYS OF SERVICE BETWEEN APRIL 17 AND DEC. 31, 1972. AWOL?
a. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-records_x.htm
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-alabama_x.htm

(5) BUSH INVESTIGATED BY THE SEC
a. Behr, Peter. “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post 1 Nov. 2002

(6) BUSH'S GOOD FRIEND KEN LAY
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.lay/
b. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/08/MNGHK7HVO317.DTL
c. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html

(7) EXAMPLES OF BUSH FLIP-FLOPPING
a. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
b. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/{65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63}/gwb.pdf
c. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/
d. http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/09/con04380.html
e. http://www.jamesglaser.org/2004/p20040406.html

(8) BUSH ILLEGALLY DETAINED HUNDREDS
a. http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-07-detainee-tribunals_x.htm
c. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/opinion/courtwatch/main626507.shtml
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/politics/28CND-SCOT.html?ex=1097899200&en=57df0b9f3dbec6ea&ei=5070&hp
e. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/29/1904880

(9) BUSH'S RECORD DEFICIT
a. http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/9914143.htm
b. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
c. http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/13/news/economy/election_debates/

(10) BUSH'S JOB DESTRUCTION
a. http://slate.msn.com/id/2082321/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-28-herbert-hoover_x.htm
c. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38172

(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL

(15) US CASUALTIES IN IRAQ
a. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/041012-casualty.pdf
b. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
c. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/national/09deaths.html?ex=1097812800&en=64efea2052a0ae9e&ei=5070&oref=login

(16) COST OF WAR IN IRAQ
a. http://www.costofwar.com/
b. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253
c. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
d. http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/100billion.htm
e. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/111120.htm

(17) CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ
a. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
b. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html

KCWolfman
11-03-2004, 11:53 PM
GW was arrested for and convicted of a DUI in 1976 (1). He was also arrested twice before that (2). For a fourth and separate offense, a family friend said he served a year of community service for

Stop spamming. You already posted your rhetoric on another thread. This has nothing to do with this post, you are just looking for another soap box since you were knocked off the first one.

Long winded posts do nothing but serve your little ego. This is your warning.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 12:01 AM
Stop spamming. You already posted your rhetoric on another thread. This has nothing to do with this post, you are just looking for another soap box since you were knocked off the first one.

Long winded posts do nothing but serve your little ego. This is your warning.


Knock that SOB out of here, if for nothing else but for his/her user name. It serves no purpose anymore but to divide.

alanm
11-04-2004, 12:20 AM
Taco, There's always Canada. British Columbia isn't that far away.:thumb:

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-04-2004, 12:25 AM
This has nothing to do with this post....

Long winded posts do nothing but serve your little ego. This is your warning.
Or what--you'll try to censor users and keep this information from getting out?

As for my "little ego" why don't you stick to the discussion and keep it non-personal.

This thread is about how Bush's first act was to perpetuate his delinquent spending habits--how he won't change. My post was about Bush's wreckless lifelong behavior--how he won't change.

Sorry if I sound condescending, but you couldn't see the parallels.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-04-2004, 12:26 AM
Knock that SOB out of here, if for nothing else but for his/her user name. It serves no purpose anymore but to divide.
Kicking users out based on handle--how noble. Actually, the handle serves to inform, and my guess is you need a lot of it.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 12:28 AM
Or what--you'll try to censor users and keep this information from getting out?

This thread is about how Bush's first act was to perpetuate his delinquent spending habits--how he won't change. My post was about Bush's wreckless lifelong behavior--how he won't change.

Sorry if I sound condescending, but you couldn't see the parallels.


Another weak voice from a small box. Step back please, we'll handle this. Nothing to see here.

Michael Michigan
11-04-2004, 12:55 AM
Before or after I put down the Weekly Reader?

Even better.

Your generation was predicted to "pay off Reagan's massive deficits he ran up in defeating the Soviet Union."

Did you notice it?

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 12:59 AM
Even better.

Your generation was predicted to "pay off Reagan's massive deficits he ran up in defeating the Soviet Union."

Did you notice it?


Hell no, Rea.............I mean Cliton fixed it for them.

Michael Michigan
11-04-2004, 01:04 AM
Hell no, Rea.............I mean Cliton fixed it for them.

:toast:

Painless.

History is a really cool thing.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 01:08 AM
:toast:

Painless.

History is a really cool thing.

I'm pretty sure Hillery can come in and fix it all for us again :)

Pants
11-04-2004, 01:09 AM
Kicking users out based on handle--how noble. Actually, the handle serves to inform, and my guess is you need a lot of it.

Are you new here? LMAO, that's all they do. KCW is the one who usually argues to prove his point, the majority rest revert to insulting and bringing in some stupid unrelated shit.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 01:13 AM
Are you new here? LMAO, that's all they do. KCW is the one who usually argues to prove his point, the majority rest revert to insulting and bringing in some stupid unrelated shit.


refer to thread starter

Michael Michigan
11-04-2004, 01:13 AM
I'm pretty sure Hillery can come in and fix it all for us again :)

Sure would save TJ's kids a bunch of cash.

;)

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 01:18 AM
Sure would save TJ's kids a bunch of cash.

;)

Not if I can help it, I want TJ's kids to feel the same fear he's felt over the past 4 years. :shake:

MadProphetMargin
11-04-2004, 01:52 AM
Not if I can help it, I want TJ's kids to feel the same fear he's felt over the past 4 years. :shake:

Don't worry...there will be plenty of fear to go around.

We might be nearly bankrupt, but we have fear, in abundance.

Taco John
11-04-2004, 02:25 AM
Not if I can help it, I want TJ's kids to feel the same fear he's felt over the past 4 years. :shake:



That's a pretty odd thing for a person to say.



/turd in a punchbowl.

Pants
11-04-2004, 02:25 AM
refer to thread starter

No, unlike a lot of people here, TJ argues first, insults last, usually to counter.

BigMeatballDave
11-04-2004, 03:40 AM
GW was arrested for and convicted of a DUI in 1976 (1). He was also arrested twice before that (2). For a fourth and separate offense, a family friend said he served a year of community service for cocaine possession (3). In 1972 he went AWOL (no charges or conviction) (4). Like Martha Stewart, Bush was investigated by the SEC for insider trading (no charges or conviction) (5). For years, Corporate President Bush was a good friend of Ken Lay, ex-chairman of Enron (6).

To be fair, that was years ago, and people can change.

Since becoming president, GW has earned the title "Flip-Flopper in Chief" (7). He illegally imprisoned hundreds of people--including US citizens--for years (8). He spent the budget surplus and bankrupted the treasury in record-setting fashion (9). He's the first president in 72 years to have a net loss of jobs (10).

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

I guess that what you'd expect from a rich kid with a rap sheet. GW's character has been consistent throughout his life. Ya think he'll change in the next four years?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." –Mark Twain



SOURCES

(1) BUSH'S DUI IN 1976
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
b. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

(2) BUSH'S 2 OTHER ARRESTS
a. Kristof, Nicholas D. "THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's" The New York Times 19 Jun. 2000, late ed. (National Desk): A1. Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html

(3) BUSH ALLEGEDLY BUSTED FOR COCAINE USE IN 1972
a. Kranish, Michael. "Bush denies allegation of '72 drug arrest in book" Boston Globe 20 Oct. 1999, city ed.: A10 Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/232407p-199614c.html
c. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
d. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3352.shtml

(4) BUSH WAS PAID FOR ONLY 6 DAYS OF SERVICE BETWEEN APRIL 17 AND DEC. 31, 1972. AWOL?
a. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-records_x.htm
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-alabama_x.htm

(5) BUSH INVESTIGATED BY THE SEC
a. Behr, Peter. “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post 1 Nov. 2002

(6) BUSH'S GOOD FRIEND KEN LAY
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.lay/
b. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/08/MNGHK7HVO317.DTL
c. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html

(7) EXAMPLES OF BUSH FLIP-FLOPPING
a. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
b. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/{65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63}/gwb.pdf
c. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/
d. http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/09/con04380.html
e. http://www.jamesglaser.org/2004/p20040406.html

(8) BUSH ILLEGALLY DETAINED HUNDREDS
a. http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-07-detainee-tribunals_x.htm
c. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/opinion/courtwatch/main626507.shtml
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/politics/28CND-SCOT.html?ex=1097899200&en=57df0b9f3dbec6ea&ei=5070&hp
e. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/29/1904880

(9) BUSH'S RECORD DEFICIT
a. http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/9914143.htm
b. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
c. http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/13/news/economy/election_debates/

(10) BUSH'S JOB DESTRUCTION
a. http://slate.msn.com/id/2082321/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-28-herbert-hoover_x.htm
c. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38172

(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL

(15) US CASUALTIES IN IRAQ
a. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/041012-casualty.pdf
b. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
c. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/national/09deaths.html?ex=1097812800&en=64efea2052a0ae9e&ei=5070&oref=login

(16) COST OF WAR IN IRAQ
a. http://www.costofwar.com/
b. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253
c. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
d. http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/100billion.htm
e. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/111120.htm

(17) CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ
a. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
b. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html
:deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

BigMeatballDave
11-04-2004, 03:42 AM
This is your warning.Oh, Please. Please ban this pole smoker!

BigMeatballDave
11-04-2004, 03:46 AM
Are you new here? LMAO, that's all they do. KCW is the one who usually argues to prove his point, the majority rest revert to insulting and bringing in some stupid unrelated shit.Don't feed the troll...

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-04-2004, 07:22 AM
Are you new here? LMAO, that's all they do. KCW is the one who usually argues to prove his point, the majority rest revert to insulting and bringing in some stupid unrelated shit.
well, I've started a couple threads and from what I've seen, I'd strongly agree. who's KCW?

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 07:34 AM
Are you new here? LMAO, that's all they do. KCW is the one who usually argues to prove his point, the majority rest revert to insulting and bringing in some stupid unrelated shit.

Interesting usage of words...I guess we must now review the following definitions:

Insulting = 'I disagree'
unrelated sh!t = 'Here's evidence to the contrary'

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 08:09 AM
Stop spamming. You already posted your rhetoric on another thread. This has nothing to do with this post, you are just looking for another soap box since you were knocked off the first one.

Long winded posts do nothing but serve your little ego. This is your warning.


So now there is a 'rhetoric' quota? Points viewed as spam now receive a warning...

dang Asscroft would be proud. :thumb:

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 08:11 AM
i wonder why this wasnt mentioned on the election campaign?


It wouldn't have mattered...

the 'holy' rollers who showed up for DUHbya don't have problems with D-U-I-s...

just G-A-Y-s. Afterall, alcoholics weren't burned alive for their 'sins.' :rolleyes:

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:17 AM
You folks shrugging off the burgeoning deficit realize that permanent sustained deficits are a drag on economic growth, right?

I love how people shrug off 8 TRILLION in debt like it's just a grocery bill or something. :shake;

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:21 AM
Im encouraged the left has suddenly become deficit hawks...

NaptownChief
11-04-2004, 08:26 AM
You folks shrugging off the burgeoning deficit realize that permanent sustained deficits are a drag on economic growth, right?




Long term....You also understand that deficit spending is one of the primary principles behind pulling an economy out of a recession, right?

Boozer
11-04-2004, 08:34 AM
Im encouraged the left has suddenly become deficit hawks...

If there's anything the past four years has taught us, it's that we need to be, because the right sure as hell ain't.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:37 AM
Long term....You also understand that deficit spending is one of the primary principles behind pulling an economy out of a recession, right?

SHORT term, yes. I've said before and will say again that I had no problem with tax cuts to help lift us out of the recession of 01, but that's not what Bush's tax cuts were PRIMARILY designed to do. They were more designed to fix what he and his buddies considered to be structural flaws or whatever in the tax code.

The way Bush is going, massive deficits are going to be a long term issue, and a long term drag on the economy.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 08:39 AM
If there's anything the past four years has taught us, it's that we need to be, because the right sure as hell ain't.

Too bad the left will be a non-factor and a weak distant voice for the next four years and beyond. Step aside we will handle this, nothing to see here.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:39 AM
Wait and see what the deficit projections look like when Bush and Co move to make permanent the various tax cuts that have sunset provisions ending in 2009 I think it is. Those numbers will be out of sight.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 08:40 AM
Too bad the left will be a non-factor and a weak distant voice for the next four years and beyond. Step aside we will handle this, nothing to see here.

Dream on McFly. There's more than 41 Democrats in the Senate, so we're not completely irrelevant. We're actually no less relevant than we were the last 2 years, really. Sorry to disappoint you.

I have no doubt that you're "handling" of it will give us back control of one house of Congress in the '06 midterm elections, if things continue as they have been.

OldTownChief
11-04-2004, 08:43 AM
Dream on McFly. There's more than 41 Democrats in the Senate, so we're not completely irrelevant. We're actually no less relevant than we were the last 2 years, really. Sorry to disappoint you.

I have no doubt that you're "handling" of it will give us back control of one house of Congress in the '06 midterm elections, if things continue as they have been.

ah don't be that way, two years is plenty of time to run all the fags out of your neighborhood.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:44 AM
If there's anything the past four years has taught us, it's that we need to be, because the right sure as hell ain't.

Well, Congress did a great job the previous 6-8 years, unfortunately with recession and war, tax receipts went down and spending up respectively. Not a great combination.

I'd love for Congress to cut spending to the point the actual dollars spent by the treasury went below 2T to 1.8 or less...I think they could do this with the left fully on board, however, it's been my experince that when it's attempted the left reverts into the mantra of starving kids, old people eating dogfood and all other shrieks of the sky is falling, that it doesnt get done.