U.S. Budget Deficit Hits Record $374.2B.... Bush pussywhipped by his Mom (pic) - GoFuckYourself.com

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 02:36 PM

Our deficit is not the highest it's EVER BEEN IN HISTORY... when was the second highest deficit? When BUSH SR. was in office.... go figure! Two articles here.. the first about the deficite.. the second of Bushes Mom visiting the White House and Bush being pussywhipped by here.. and what is her statement you ask "Barbara Bush Calls Democrat Line-Up a 'Sorry Group'" You would think she'd be talking about her own son!! The HIGHEST deficite in HISTORY!!!

Oct 20, 2:03 PM (ET)

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal budget deficit hit a record $374.2 billion in 2003, the administration reported Monday, as the costs of the war in Iraq, a new round of tax cuts and economic weakness pushed the government's red ink to the highest level in history.

Providing a final accounting of the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the administration said that the 2003 deficit was more than double last year's imbalance of $157.8 billion.

In dollar terms, the 2003 figure easily surpassed the old record of $290.4 billion set in 1992 when President Bush's father was president.

FULL STORY

Barbara Bush Calls Democrat Line-Up a 'Sorry Group'
Mon October 20, 2003 10:15 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former first lady Barbara Bush and mother of President Bush described Democrats trying to unseat her son in the White House as a "sorry group" of politicians.
"So far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion," said Mrs. Bush in an interview aired on Monday by NBC's "Today" show, when asked about the Democratic line-up for the 2004 presidential election.

"This is the world according to Barbara Bush, not George, not George H.W., not anybody" she added.

FULL STORY

Eric · 10-20-2003, 02:40 PM

Has she looked at herself in the mirror lately? Good LORD... Someone give her a job at Disneylands Haunted House.

hyatla · 10-20-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric_aka_RedEyes
Has she looked at herself in the mirror lately? Good LORD... Someone give her a job at Disneylands Haunted House.

we will all get old someday.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric_aka_RedEyes
Has she looked at herself in the mirror lately? Good LORD... Someone give her a job at Disneylands Haunted House.

Walking bag of bones and fat!!

Do you see Bushes face here? He is SO pusswhipped by his Mom... look at him.. like a little puppydog!!! My God.. and he represents us all.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hyatla

we will all get old someday.

The lucky ones will get old some day.. or maybe not so lucky ones? Depends on how old.. like old enough to get around on your own and not have someone wipe your ass.. that's a good old. Bad old is someone washing for you, feeding you, turning you over in bed.. YUCK!

Has anyone seen pics of the Pope recently??

Hunched over, can't hold his head up? Someone is controlng the old bloke.. so sad. No dignity. I want to go with dignity.

FATPad · 10-20-2003, 02:54 PM

VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Rinaldo · 10-20-2003, 02:57 PM

we owed more than 378 billion... it was a lot lot worse when Clinton took over, and thats money that we owe ourselves... not other countries

Sleazylee · 10-20-2003, 03:00 PM

Would help if our retarded system didn't decide to spend like $400 million dollars advertsiing a new $20 dollar bill...irony is a bitch.

crockett · 10-20-2003, 03:02 PM

how come every pic you see of Bush he looks like he just shit his pants...

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rinaldo
we owed more than 378 billion... it was a lot lot worse when Clinton took over, and thats money that we owe ourselves... not other countries

What are you talking about? Bush has just BROKEN THE RECORD for the biggest deficit in U.S. history and you are saying it was worse when Clinton was president????

Clinton ELIMINATED the deficit that Bush SR. left (the second highest in U.S. history) When Clinton was in office the U.S.D got almost $2 Australian.. now it gets $1.43 Since being in Australia I've seen the value of my U.S. Dollar plumet.

But it was worse when Clinton was in office?

Give me some links to back up your statements.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sleazylee
Would help if our retarded system didn't decide to spend like $400 million dollars advertsiing a new $20 dollar bill...irony is a bitch.

he he he .. yeah.. like you have to ADVERTISE money? WTF... what a joke huh?

It's pretty simple.... you spend a few million to get the word out.. the IDIOTS who don't know the bill has changed will through it away or something stupid. There loss.. NOT the taxpayers!!

I agree. retarded to advertise a $20 dollar bill change to the tune of almost 1/2 a billions dollars.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
how come every pic you see of Bush he looks like he just shit his pants...

I always think of it like he has 1 brain cell.. and he thinks so hard to get information from it that one little brain cell that he has that strained dumb look on his face. Probably all that coke he did way back when. What a joker!

explicite · 10-20-2003, 03:32 PM

who wants to pay $20 for this to be entered into the Guiness Book of Records ?

rooster · 10-20-2003, 03:35 PM

Now for an alternative viewpoint.....

Now how was that Clinton economy built. Internet boom. Such great business models as pets.com furniture.com and a million other failed ideas that money was invested into overvalued stocks.

And dont forget all the accounting scandals such as Worldcom were going on.

Millitary, cia, fbi were slashed and a total hands off approach was taken to foreign policy to save $$$ and to not risk doing anything that might hurt in the popularity polls. That approach works, right?? Well lets see, african embasy bombings, bombing of uss cole, first trade center bombing, planning of 911.

Now, what about the Clinton economy do you want back?

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by explicite
who wants to pay $20 for this to be entered into the Guiness Book of Records ?

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
Now for an alternative viewpoint.....

Now how was that Clinton economy built. Internet boom. Such great business models as pets.com furniture.com and a million other failed ideas that money was invested into overvalued stocks.

And dont forget all the accounting scandals such as Worldcom were going on.

Millitary, cia, fbi were slashed and a total hands off approach was taken to foreign policy to save $$$ and to not risk doing anything that might hurt in the popularity polls. That approach works, right?? Well lets see, african embasy bombings, bombing of uss cole, first trade center bombing, planning of 911.

Now, what about the Clinton economy do you want back?

ummm rooster..... I respect your differing opinion but you cannot argue with numbers. If you are saying the world is a better place with Bush Jr. in office.. you are wrong. If you are saying the world was a better place with Bush Sr. in office , you are wrong. If the world is a better place now, and Americans are happier, healthier and more prosperous now then they were with Clinton in office.. please provide proof...... I'm anxously awaiting those golden links you have to support your viewpoint.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

ummm rooster..... I respect your differing opinion but you cannot argue with numbers. If you are saying the world is a better place with Bush Jr. in office.. you are wrong. If you are saying the world was a better place with Bush Sr. in office , you are wrong. If the world is a better place now, and Americans are happier, healthier and more prosperous now then they were with Clinton in office.. please provide proof...... I'm anxously awaiting those golden links you have to support your viewpoint.

AND in the eight years Clinton was in office he undid EVERYTHING that Bush Sr. screwed up.. so saying that Clinton benefited from Bush Sr.'s efforts isn't valid as he left Clinton with the (what was at the time) nations largest deficit in history. If your argument is based solely on the internet working miracles you are misinformed. The Bushes have a history of steering our nation in down a dangerious path... Both have caused world turmoil and both have a veratious appetite for spending money.

Some would say that Bush wasn't even elected by the people. Stranger things have happened.

Webby · 10-20-2003, 03:51 PM

rooster:

Quote:

Now, what about the Clinton economy do you want back?

Nothing to do with politics - that went out the window a good while back - but is there anything "good" that is of substance in the current scenario??

There was a boom while Clinton was in the Whitehouse and this helped a lot.

There also was a fiscal policy which is now non existant. "Terrorism" had it's price on the US economy, however that went into "paranoid mode" and billions have been dumped into this (forgetting Bush's "wars"). The truth is it takes less than $50K to cause havoc - why spend billions attempting to "protect"? There is little defence against "terrorism" and there are now more "terrorists" heading for the US than there are profitable companies there.

It's all a balancing game.. does not matter about Clinton/Bush - and in the end, whoever it is, is "supposed" to be representing the US people and doing some "serving" of the people, - that includes "money management".

rooster · 10-20-2003, 04:02 PM

my point is this. Slashing military, taking a total hands off approach to foreign policy, and pumping a bunch of money into socialist programs and the creation of 6 dollar an hour jobs, is doing nothing but creating a mirage.

The Clinton economy completely collapsed once the books couldnt be cooked any more.

And what Im saying is, why would we want to go back to an economy that was completely phantom and built on fraud.

Pretty much everything you say is exactly what was said about Reagan. Those views were misguided then and misguided now.

Mr.Fiction · 10-20-2003, 04:09 PM

Rooster, do you give Carter credit for all the good things that happened under Reagan, just like you blame Clinton for all of Bush's fuck ups?

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
my point is this. Slashing military, taking a total hands off approach to foreign policy, and pumping a bunch of money into socialist programs and the creation of 6 dollar an hour jobs, is doing nothing but creating a mirage.

The Clinton economy completely collapsed once the books couldnt be cooked any more.

And what Im saying is, why would we want to go back to an economy that was completely phantom and built on fraud.

Pretty much everything you say is exactly what was said about Reagan. Those views were misguided then and misguided now.

Rooster.. thank you for your input. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Clinton worked hard and succeeded in making making things better and cutting the debt incurred by Bush Sr.

Cutting military is a GOOD THING for a peaceful nation.. and guess what.. it worked! All of those military bases shut down are not missed.. even in times of war like now. They weren't needed and Clinton saved us billions in that move alone.

The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony. They believe keeping Americans in a constant state of alert and fear is a way to get what you want.. it only works for so long and people are starting to wake up.

I want the best for my country. I don't care if it's a democrat or republican.. I want the best. Whoever performs best will get my vote for a second term.. like Clinton did.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Rooster, do you give Carter credit for all the good things that happened under Reagan, just like you blame Clinton for all of Bush's fuck ups?

It's a typical cop out. If the guy before screwed things up blame the current president.. If he made things better.. give him all the credit.. of course this all depends on the parties in office and the strategy is switched up for the opposing party.

Crazy.. I say give credit where credit is due. If Clinton was "cooking the books" believe me it would have come out by now. Funny the only thing they EVER got on Clinton was Monica.... and THEY TRIED TO IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE OF IT!

Yet Bush has lied and manipulated the WHOLE TIME he's been in office and no movement to impeach. Which is worse... getting blown by a secretary or leading a country to war under false pretenses.. killing thousands by doing it and creating the nations largest deficit in history?? Answer seems pretty simple to me.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Webby
rooster:

Nothing to do with politics - that went out the window a good while back - but is there anything "good" that is of substance in the current scenario??

There was a boom while Clinton was in the Whitehouse and this helped a lot.

There also was a fiscal policy which is now non existant. "Terrorism" had it's price on the US economy, however that went into "paranoid mode" and billions have been dumped into this (forgetting Bush's "wars"). The truth is it takes less than $50K to cause havoc - why spend billions attempting to "protect"? There is little defence against "terrorism" and there are now more "terrorists" heading for the US than there are profitable companies there.

It's all a balancing game.. does not matter about Clinton/Bush - and in the end, whoever it is, is "supposed" to be representing the US people and doing some "serving" of the people, - that includes "money management".

Yes it is all about balance. Bush has seemed to fuck up the scales tremendously.. EVERYTHING is off balance.... quality of life is down, Americans are under constant terror alerts... etc etc. The value of the U.S. Dollar has plumeted.. it's unfortunate.

Martin · 10-20-2003, 04:16 PM

Looks like she's grabbing his dong.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin
Looks like she's grabbing his dong.

theking · 10-20-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

Rooster.. thank you for your input. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Clinton worked hard and succeeded in making making things better and cutting the debt incurred by Bush Sr.

Cutting military is a GOOD THING for a peaceful nation.. and guess what.. it worked! All of those military bases shut down are not missed.. even in times of war like now. They weren't needed and Clinton saved us billions in that move alone.

The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony. They believe keeping Americans in a constant state of alert and fear is a way to get what you want.. it only works for so long and people are starting to wake up.

I want the best for my country. I don't care if it's a democrat or republican.. I want the best. Whoever performs best will get my vote for a second term.. like Clinton did.

President Bush Sr. was in office when the shut down of military bases began as well as the reduction of the military force size began. When President Clinton was in office...it was just a continuation of policy that had been established under President Bush Sr. I was opposed to the force reduction and it is at this very moment haunting us.

In addition every single President since Roosevelt has engaged our military...so why contribute the "war machine" to the "Bushes" as being a "method of economics"?

theking · 10-20-2003, 06:00 PM

Further more...

Prepared Statement For the House Budget Committee on the FY 2004 Defense Budget Request

This FY 2004 defense budget is indeed large and it will grow larger, even without factoring in likely costs for continuing the war on terrorism. But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War. Moreover, this is a wartime defense budget needed to help us wage the global war against terror. FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...ecdef0044.html

theking · 10-20-2003, 06:11 PM

Spending less on the defense budget (in relationship to GDP) than was spent by previous Presidents...Democrat and Republican...since the end of the Second World War...kind of puts the mis-information to the statement below...

"The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony."

now doesn't it?

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Spending less on the defense budget (in relationship to GDP) than was spent by previous Presidents...Democrat and Republican...since the end of the Second World War...kind of puts the mis-information to the statement below...

"The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony."

now doesn't it?

I'm sorry ... I forgot to mention the separate $80 Billion requested by Bush.... I will come back to this in more detail... I have exams in a couple hours. BTW... comparing the cold war to the Iraq fiasco is comparing apples to oranges, we didn't commit to rebuilding Russia, nor did we occupy it now did we? The "war on terror" has just begun and we're sinking fast. Comparing the monetary loss of a war that has just begun to a war that has finished isn't logical and presents a false argument on your behalf.

Try again.

BTW... I respect your opinion and thank you for your post.. I'm being short winded so I can get back to study.. if I come across as rude I don't mean to be.

theking · 10-20-2003, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

I'm sorry ... I forgot to mention the separate $80 Billion requested by Bush.... I will come back to this in more detail... I have exams in a couple hours. BTW... comparing the cold war to the Iraq fiasco is comparing apples to oranges, we didn't commit to rebuilding Russia, nor did we occupy it now did we? The "war on terror" has just begun and we're sinking fast. Comparing the monetary loss of a war that has just begun to a war that has finished isn't logical and presents a false argument on your behalf.

Try again.

BTW... I respect your opinion and thank you for your post.. I'm being short winded so I can get back to study.. if I come across as rude I don't mean to be.

I do not have to try again...as my points were made...

The closing of military bases and force reduction began under Presdient Bush Sr...and this policy was continued under President Clinton.

Every President since the Second World War has engaged our military.

Under President Bush Defense spending (even with the war) is less than it was (in relationship to the GDP) under every President since the Second Word War...even though we are currently engaged in a conflict...

Thus the statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." is...simply put...not a correct statement of fact.

spamofon · 10-20-2003, 06:39 PM

I WOULD HIT THAT!!!!!!!

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I do not have to try again...as my points were made...

The closing of military bases and force reduction began under Presdient Bush Sr...and this policy was continued under President Clinton.

Every President since the Second World War has engaged our military.

Under President Bush Defense spending (even with the war) is less than it was (in relationship to the GDP) under every President since the Second Word War...even though we are currently engaged in a conflict...

Thus the statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." is...simply put...not a correct statement of fact.

Did you not read the statement you quoted? "This FY 2004 defense budget is indeed large and it will grow larger, even without factoring in likely costs for continuing the war on terrorism. "

The budget isn't even complete, will grow larger AND DOESN'T INCLUDE the cost of the war on terror. So basically they are saying this budget is NOT the complete picture, it will get bigger, and doesn't encompass everything involved.

You are not proving a point by the link you provided for the reasons I give above.. that is why I said try again.

Interesting that they DON'T include the war on terror in Defense spending isn't it? The $80 billion Bush requested isn't included.. not to mention countless billions already spent in the name of the "war on terror". It hasn't been included in their figures and the likely cost of continuing the "war on terror" will not be included.

There is no defending what Bush has done, and continues to do. Though past presidents have engaged our military how many have not only engaged the military, but occupied the country, and promised to stay until it was rebuilt? Bush has! Bush has done more than engage the military here.

Again you are comaring apples to oranges. The post cold war figures with those of a war that has just begun. Engaging military vs engaging military, occupying a country, then PROMISING to rebuild.

Bladewire · 10-20-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spamofon
I WOULD HIT THAT!!!!!!!

theking · 10-20-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

Did you not read the statement you quoted? "This FY 2004 defense budget is indeed large and it will grow larger, even without factoring in likely costs for continuing the war on terrorism. "

The budget isn't even complete, will grow larger AND DOESN'T INCLUDE the cost of the war on terror. So basically they are saying this budget is NOT the complete picture, it will get bigger, and doesn't encompass everything involved.

You are not proving a point by the link you provided for the reasons I give above.. that is why I said try again.

Interesting that they DON'T include the war on terror in Defense spending isn't it? The $80 billion Bush requested isn't included.. not to mention countless billions already spent in the name of the "war on terror". It hasn't been included in their figures and the likely cost of continuing the "war on terror" will not be included.

There is no defending what Bush has done, and continues to do. Though past presidents have engaged our military how many have not only engaged the military, but occupied the country, and promised to stay until it was rebuilt? Bush has! Bush has done more than engage the military here.

Again you are comaring apples to oranges. The post cold war figures with those of a war that has just begun. Engaging military vs engaging military, occupying a country, then PROMISING to rebuild.

Did you bother to read?

"But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War."

"FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR."

So there appears to be room for major increases in defense spending...since current spending (even with the current conflict) is "well below" levels at any time during the cold war...which of course includes two major conflicts...Korea and Vietnam.

Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect.

FYI...defense budgets are never complete and the DOD on many, many occasions have had to go to congress and ask for supplements. Nothing new about that.

theking · 10-20-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

There is no defending what Bush has done, and continues to do. Though past presidents have engaged our military how many have not only engaged the military, but occupied the country, and promised to stay until it was rebuilt? Bush has! Bush has done more than engage the military here.

What "Bush has done"? The President does not act in a vacuum...he had almost 70% of the American people supporting the invasion of Iraq...he had the overwhelming majority of Congress vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq. So why do you lay it at the feet of the President...and not lay the responsibility of him acting to invade where the power really lies...with the Congress and ultimately with the people?

crockett · 10-20-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

What "Bush has done"? The President does not act in a vacuum...he had almost 70% of the American people supporting the invasion of Iraq...he had the overwhelming majority of Congress vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq. So why do you lay it at the feet of the President...and not lay the responsibility of him acting to invade where the power really lies...with the Congress and ultimately with the people?

Why do we lay it at his feet? simple if you remember it took quite abit to convence the American public to support this war... Then when he finally pulled it off, and the majorty supported Bush and his war.. Then we find out he lied to us...

theking · 10-20-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett

Why do we lay it at his feet? simple if you remember it took quite abit to convence the American public to support this war... Then when he finally pulled it off, and the majorty supported Bush and his war.. Then we find out he lied to us...

No I do not recall that it took alot to "convince the American public to support the war" and it took even less to convince the two houses of Congress.

Why do you say that the President lied to "us"? Do you have access to the 14 different intel agencies and the intel that was supplied to the President by those intel agencies...as well as intel that was supplied by many countries around the world. The UN Security Counsel in 1441 voted 15-0...demanding that Iraq produce their remaining WMD's for destruction...or an explanation as to what they had done with them...and they failed to do this. Do you have access to their intel agencies?

FYI this matter is under investigation by the Select Intel Committees of congress and has been for several months. They will be the determiners of whether or not the Presidents was provided with bad intel...or if the intel provided was exaggerated by the administration.

Furious_Female · 10-20-2003, 10:29 PM

Some people need to stop reading Doonesbury comics and start looking at facts instead of biased propaganda. Talk about the extreme left... damn.

Morgan · 10-20-2003, 11:16 PM

Nima · 10-21-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ganjasaurus

scary

Bladewire · 10-21-2003, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Did you bother to read?

"But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War."

"FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR."

So there appears to be room for major increases in defense spending...since current spending (even with the current conflict) is "well below" levels at any time during the cold war...which of course includes two major conflicts...Korea and Vietnam.

Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect.

FYI...defense budgets are never complete and the DOD on many, many occasions have had to go to congress and ask for supplements. Nothing new about that.

Listen I know you just want to argue for arguments sake but I don't. You're not reading the very quotes you're posting and it's getting irritating. "..less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War" Again.. you cannot equate our current war, occupation, and reconstruction efforts with the cold war wich is already done and over with. The quotes you pasted said specifically that billioins for the terror fight were not inculded and will not be included. They also said the price will go up. Bush has created the nations LARGES DEFICIT IN HISTORY. Those are the facts, both from YOUR OWN QUOTES and the news article my original post references.

My thoughts about the Bush war machine are proven in the actions of BOTH Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. There are better ways to stimulate the economy other than the gold old Republican standby of war.

Again.. try again with fresh definitive facts and links to those facts. One report that says IN THE REPORT that it's not complete is not sufficient evidence to prove your case.. or lack thereof.

Bladewire · 10-21-2003, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ganjasaurus

Bladewire · 10-21-2003, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Did you bother to read?

"But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War."

"FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR."

So there appears to be room for major increases in defense spending...since current spending (even with the current conflict) is "well below" levels at any time during the cold war...which of course includes two major conflicts...Korea and Vietnam.

Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect.

FYI...defense budgets are never complete and the DOD on many, many occasions have had to go to congress and ask for supplements. Nothing new about that.

AND your statement "Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect." is incorrect.

IF the report you referenced was solid and complete it STILL does not prove that Bush did NOT goto war for economical reasons... IF is was complete, which it isnt, it would only prove that SO FAR we've spent less money in the Iraq war then throughout the ENTIRE cold war. AND it doesn't take into accout the BILLIONS requested by Bush for the war on terror. So you have proven nothing.

Unfortunate. You seem like a bright guy. I'm not going into this specific issue anymore as you aren't looking at your own facts and what they say. No offense.. agree to disagree on this one.

Bladewire · 10-21-2003, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett

Why do we lay it at his feet? simple if you remember it took quite abit to convence the American public to support this war... Then when he finally pulled it off, and the majorty supported Bush and his war.. Then we find out he lied to us...

You're right. Bush told Americans there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq... the main reason we went. Only to find none to date. I would not be surprised if some are planted in the future. This administration has bullied the press, outed a special agent that spoke against the war , etc. etc. All in the name of "the fight against terror" using key terms like "evildoers" and "access of evil".

I feel betrayed by my government and living overseas I find it very difficult to justify what's been done and our occupation of Iraq, not to mention seeing the U.S.Dollar plumet in value. Living overseas I've lost 30% of my income due to week conversion rates because of Bushes policies and the current war.

Aussie Rebel · 10-21-2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

He looks like he just farted and shit himself

Bladewire · 10-21-2003, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Rebel

He looks like he just farted and shit himself

You know what I think you've got it! That really is the look he has.... He thought it was a fart.. pushed.. only to find he squeezed diarrhea in his pants! Finally an answer that makes sense!

theking · 10-21-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squirtit

AND your statement "Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect." is incorrect.

IF the report you referenced was solid and complete it STILL does not prove that Bush did NOT goto war for economical reasons... IF is was complete, which it isnt, it would only prove that SO FAR we've spent less money in the Iraq war then throughout the ENTIRE cold war. AND it doesn't take into accout the BILLIONS requested by Bush for the war on terror. So you have proven nothing.

Unfortunate. You seem like a bright guy. I'm not going into this specific issue anymore as you aren't looking at your own facts and what they say. No offense.. agree to disagree on this one.

I presented the facts...and you choose to deny the facts...so be it.

10-20-2003, 02:36 PM	#1
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	U.S. Budget Deficit Hits Record $374.2B.... Bush pussywhipped by his Mom (pic) Our deficit is not the highest it's EVER BEEN IN HISTORY... when was the second highest deficit? When BUSH SR. was in office.... go figure! Two articles here.. the first about the deficite.. the second of Bushes Mom visiting the White House and Bush being pussywhipped by here.. and what is her statement you ask "Barbara Bush Calls Democrat Line-Up a 'Sorry Group'" You would think she'd be talking about her own son!! The HIGHEST deficite in HISTORY!!! Oct 20, 2:03 PM (ET) By MARTIN CRUTSINGER WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal budget deficit hit a record $374.2 billion in 2003, the administration reported Monday, as the costs of the war in Iraq, a new round of tax cuts and economic weakness pushed the government's red ink to the highest level in history. Providing a final accounting of the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the administration said that the 2003 deficit was more than double last year's imbalance of $157.8 billion. In dollar terms, the 2003 figure easily surpassed the old record of $290.4 billion set in 1992 when President Bush's father was president. FULL STORY Barbara Bush Calls Democrat Line-Up a 'Sorry Group' Mon October 20, 2003 10:15 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former first lady Barbara Bush and mother of President Bush described Democrats trying to unseat her son in the White House as a "sorry group" of politicians. "So far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion," said Mrs. Bush in an interview aired on Monday by NBC's "Today" show, when asked about the Democratic line-up for the 2004 presidential election. "This is the world according to Barbara Bush, not George, not George H.W., not anybody" she added. FULL STORY __________________ Skype: CallTomNow

10-20-2003, 02:40 PM	#2
Eric Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Helm! Posts: 8,818	Has she looked at herself in the mirror lately? Good LORD... Someone give her a job at Disneylands Haunted House. __________________ No One

10-20-2003, 02:54 PM	#6
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	VOTE LIBERTARIAN! __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

10-20-2003, 03:02 PM	#9
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	how come every pic you see of Bush he looks like he just shit his pants... __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

10-20-2003, 04:16 PM	#24
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	Looks like she's grabbing his dong. __________________

10-20-2003, 02:57 PM	#7
Rinaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: South Florida Posts: 5,086	we owed more than 378 billion... it was a lot lot worse when Clinton took over, and thats money that we owe ourselves... not other countries

10-20-2003, 03:00 PM	#8
Sleazylee Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 208	Would help if our retarded system didn't decide to spend like $400 million dollars advertsiing a new $20 dollar bill...irony is a bitch.

10-20-2003, 03:32 PM	#13
explicite Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Paris, France Posts: 148	who wants to pay $20 for this to be entered into the Guiness Book of Records ?

10-20-2003, 03:35 PM	#14
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	Now for an alternative viewpoint..... Now how was that Clinton economy built. Internet boom. Such great business models as pets.com furniture.com and a million other failed ideas that money was invested into overvalued stocks. And dont forget all the accounting scandals such as Worldcom were going on. Millitary, cia, fbi were slashed and a total hands off approach was taken to foreign policy to save $$$ and to not risk doing anything that might hurt in the popularity polls. That approach works, right?? Well lets see, african embasy bombings, bombing of uss cole, first trade center bombing, planning of 911. Now, what about the Clinton economy do you want back?

10-20-2003, 04:02 PM	#19
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	my point is this. Slashing military, taking a total hands off approach to foreign policy, and pumping a bunch of money into socialist programs and the creation of 6 dollar an hour jobs, is doing nothing but creating a mirage. The Clinton economy completely collapsed once the books couldnt be cooked any more. And what Im saying is, why would we want to go back to an economy that was completely phantom and built on fraud. Pretty much everything you say is exactly what was said about Reagan. Those views were misguided then and misguided now.

10-20-2003, 04:09 PM	#20
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Rooster, do you give Carter credit for all the good things that happened under Reagan, just like you blame Clinton for all of Bush's fuck ups?

10-20-2003, 06:00 PM	#27
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Further more... Prepared Statement For the House Budget Committee on the FY 2004 Defense Budget Request This FY 2004 defense budget is indeed large and it will grow larger, even without factoring in likely costs for continuing the war on terrorism. But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War. Moreover, this is a wartime defense budget needed to help us wage the global war against terror. FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR. http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...ecdef0044.html __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

10-20-2003, 06:11 PM	#28
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Spending less on the defense budget (in relationship to GDP) than was spent by previous Presidents...Democrat and Republican...since the end of the Second World War...kind of puts the mis-information to the statement below... "The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." now doesn't it? __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

10-20-2003, 06:39 PM	#31
spamofon Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,999	I WOULD HIT THAT!!!!!!!

10-20-2003, 10:29 PM	#38
Furious_Female Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Upstate, New York Posts: 8,187	Some people need to stop reading Doonesbury comics and start looking at facts instead of biased propaganda. Talk about the extreme left... damn. __________________ Skype: j3nn.com ICQ 160370494 My current favorite high-converting sponsor: CrakRevenue

10-20-2003, 11:16 PM	#39
Morgan Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Corona Del Mar, CA Posts: 10,520	__________________ PornstarPlatinum.com \| TransErotica.com