paying the bills
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: paying the bills

  1. #1
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001

    paying the bills

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents.

    Whoa! Even accounting for a little exaggeration, this sounds expensive to me.
    Can we remain a great power if we spend more money than we make?
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    yeah.. I guess bush is thinking that we'll get that money back after we're in control of the oil. of course that money won't go into "OUR" hands..

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    The $8 trillion difference between those numbers has little precedent in American history. The long-term budget forecast has declined as much in the last two years as the total revenue collected by the United States government from 1789 to 1983.
    Say what ! Declined as much in two years as the total revenue collected in 195 years. I suppose the cost of paying for the power that is demonstrated by the U.S. is an extremly
    costly excercise.

    How much of the
    $4 billion a month
    to stay in Iraq is
    actually used to feed,supply,arm the troops? And how much of this is spent on buying information to be used in this war and the war on terror in general?

    "There's no question that annual federal deficits have been the only effective check on Congressional spending in the modern era"
    Being someone with limited knowledge, if any on American policies, I could only imagine at the amount of money that has
    been spent to enable the U.S. to become the
    great power
    that it is.

    Wheels within wheels and all the double deals.

    I do think that the U.S. has to be seen as the freedom provider for all oppressed and not so
    fortunate people in the world, but it should also maintain a high standard of support and resources for its own people. I also think that without the support of certain countries who
    should be helping, the American people will have to saccrifice certain benifits that they take
    for granted.

    I see it as an investment in the future of the survival of the "free" world, which is why so many
    more countries should get off their asses and chip in instead of being seen as neutral. The sooner France, Germany, Russia, and all the other potential powers contribute to the ongoing
    "war on terror" the sooner things around the world can progress toward a more harmonious
    exsistance. The sooner the powers that be rectify the problems between the Israilies and the
    Palistinions the better off we will all be. It seems that whatever the israilies do it is somehow
    justified. Just another "Munich" list to cross off the names of those written on it. The sooner the U.S. puts pressure on those that can make change there, the better the U.S. will be seen
    as a real and fair leader to those that dispise you now.

    Anyways just my somewhat erratic point of view. TidaL.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    central il
    First relise that if we where not so arrogent t obegin with, and admitied that the world comunity mattered we would have t opay this much, add to the fact that we never needed to invade Iraq in the first place and you can start to see wh yI disaprove of thsi president. I wonder how much of this money is going t ohis friends at halaburtan for their help (at least 8bn). Oh and 87 bn is too low it looks like they will ask for more. Isn't it great taht we have a president whos willing to mortage our childrens future for his own power and greed.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Seems that is o.k. for the U.S. government to pick and choose where it will
    demonstrate and force its will. Not only has it ignored the Palestine and the
    Israil conflict, well it seems like that anyways, it seems to approve of the way
    Israil does its business. Why do these polotitions choose to buy votes locally by
    hugging and kissing babies and promising the world to their constituates while
    disregarding the real votes of the entire world.....? Can the alliance with Israil
    be so important that all else is worth the cost that will be paid.....? Are the "mossad"
    that good at what they do.....? Maybe they have some sort of leveridge used to
    allow their ways. All this is just speculation of course, but what a difference would be
    made with the intervention of the U.S. into this ongoing conflict. And i mean a real and
    neutral intervention to provide an unbiased resolution and ending to the suffering.
    Surely there can be a common ground with which both sides are somewhat satisfied.
    The suicide bombers will be a never ending part of this region until both sides agree
    and draw a border between them. If Israil thinks it can have it's "Munich" list from the
    70's and end this by assasinations it is deluded and way out of date with how human
    society works. Hatred is going to be passed down for eternity (on both sides) and i see
    this as the catalyst for the current problems faced by those involved. I also see that the
    U.S.'s decision to refrain from getting more involved has caused much anger at it and the
    reasons behind terroist attacks can mostly be attributed to this. Would'nt it be worth at
    least attempting to be seen by non-allied countries as being a leader who can see both
    sides of the story and admit and appose to certain acts commited by powers who are allies.?
    How long can the superpower procrastinate and just hope and throw endless amounts of
    money at this problem thinking that it is a solution.....? What a waste of money, how about
    making some tough policy changes instead.
    Anyways this is all irrelevent just practising my typing skills, will be able to type 1000 words
    a minute long before any real change and progress is made on this matter

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    central il
    sorry tidal can't agree with you on that one, localaly is where leaders should and must be picked, I don't see palistine or even new zeland russing t ohelp out the US with its problems.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  7. #7
    The total so far is $166 billion. $166!!!, however that isn't enuff. The president needs another $87 billion for who knows what. Body armor for troops? Upgrade equipment? Foreign troops? Wait, wasn't that what the first $166 billion was for? How the hell dose that kind of money just run out? That brings our total to $253 billion!! What do we have to show for it? Fewer jobs. A weaker economy. More corrosion of the American people's trust. What happened to those WMD? Bin Ladden? Saddam? Why should we pay $253 BILLION dollars to rebuild Iraq? We have controll of the oil but that isn't enuff. They want to controll their entire country. Surely the Iraqi people don't think we're just going to rebuild their country for free. They will have freedom and democracy.. with our exceptions. Instead of blowing all this money on the military the president should be foucusing on what's most important. The citizens of America. So much for balanceing the budget, huh Mr. Bush?
    “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts