Printable View
no loan provisions (the president threatened to veto it if it were anything but a giveaway), passed by voice vote (5 in favor, 1 against, 94 abstaining), and most of it will be spent on iraq (although $500 million, less than 1%, will be given to southern california for fire relief).
any thoughts?
here's my thought, to get the thread rolling: daaaaaaaaaamn, that's a lotta money.
Iraq....where Congress has no control over how its spent...
:rolleyes: :-"
a little more food for thought.
Source.Quote:
In The Washington Post on Tuesday, reporter Jonathan Weisman compared the cost of the latest request to other government spending, noting that the $87 billion request is nearly triple the amount the federal government plans to spend on elementary and secondary education this year, and more than twice as much as the budget for homeland security.
Weisman, using Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus as a source, also noted that the $166 billion that has been spent or requested exceeds "the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War combined" and "approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I."
What's the saying? 'charity begins at home' I bet the Californians,are wondering why the hairy arsed iraqi's are getting it and they arn't, let's hope they rememberQuote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@7 November 2003 - 00:02
no loan provisions (the president threatened to veto it if it were anything but a giveaway), passed by voice vote (5 in favor, 1 against, 94 abstaining), and most of it will be spent on iraq (although $500 million, less than 1%, will be given to southern california for fire relief).
any thoughts?
here's my thought, to get the thread rolling: daaaaaaaaaamn, that's a lotta money.
when it's election time <_< or is the American poltical scene like the british
'they all piss in the same pot. :(
wait, didn't he just ask for 81 billion $ recently?
bush fucked up. now we have to pay.
btw, now there are new dire al-qaeda threats. i thought this war was to stop those?
bush is taking this too far
he's using american lives and americans money to deal with his feud with Saddam.
war in the name of justice, how lame
for all i care i'd trade him to the al-qaeda for a lil peace and quiet.
Al gore for president next year :P
Al gore rules. :D
al-qaeda has nothing to do with iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@9 November 2003 - 23:06
wait, didn't he just ask for 81 billion $ recently?
bush fucked up. now we have to pay.
btw, now there are new dire al-qaeda threats. i thought this war was to stop those?
al-qaeda has nothing to do with iraq. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by k-liteuserintheworld+9 November 2003 - 23:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (k-liteuserintheworld @ 9 November 2003 - 23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kAb@9 November 2003 - 23:06
wait, didn't he just ask for 81 billion $ recently?
bush fucked up. now we have to pay.
btw, now there are new dire al-qaeda threats. i thought this war was to stop those?
True, in the sense they had nothing to do with Hussain. But the Allied invasion of Iraq has angered many people in that area of the world, including Al-Qu'ida activists.
Part of that 87 billion will be used "stealthily" to fund Bush's re-election campaign.
LOL when the media was asking questions to george bush i was hoping one would say "How about instead of giving 87-billion tax dollars to iraq, how about taking the money out of your campaign fund instead?"Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@9 November 2003 - 17:32
Part of that 87 billion will be used "stealthily" to fund Bush's re-election campaign.