OT: 87 Billion and No Accountability

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]A little reality check here folks. First off, it has been a huge deal for the democratic senators to find out where the money is going. A large number of democratic senators spend every waking minute screaming about the sweetheart deals that companies like Haliburton have gotten. The suggestion was not about if the money is well spent, Johnny posted 87 Billion with no accountability and that is flat wrong. There is more than adequate accountability for where the money is being spent. Changing to subject to Haliburton makes very little sense. The question was accountability. Another thing you all need to check into is the amount of money past conflicts have cost us. As a percentage of GDP, this conflict is one of the cheapest in history. Another question you need to ask is how much the 9/11 attacks cost our economy. The estimates are over 300 Billion dollars. As a percentage of that figure, 87 Billion is not a lot of money compared to the cost of doing nothing and risking another attack. 87 Billion is not a lot compared to our GDP. There is money for every silly government program in the universe and the 87 Billion would not go to feeding the homeless anyway. Don't ask me why.. If you must complain about wasted dollars, check out the "Big Dig" and other government pork projects that have cost way over the 87 Billion you are complaining about. If you are angry at companies like Haliburton, check into the unions and companies that got the sweetheart deals in the Big Dig. Graft and fraud are not exclusive to the current administration. Do some reading on government funded light rail if you really want to get pissed. I realize it doesn't fit Johnny's hate envelope, but a reality check is in order.[/b][/quote]You have an interesting definition of "accountability", Mark. Bush's administration has totally refused to break down these dollar figures for his Congress - under guise of "national security". Telling me that $67B goes to the military and $20B goes to the rebuilding process is not accounting. The reports about gross overcharging are [b]not[/b] coming from the Administration, they're coming from locals on the ground in Iraq. Of course, you don't believe those reports, because you think any newspaper/tv station/radio station that criticizes Bush or reports on his blunders is "liberally biased". I suppose the rapidly organizing Textile industry CEOs down South are "liberally biased" for openly criticizing George on his total lack of attention to trade abuses by Chinese textile manufacturers. Except one problem - the vast majority of them supported him in the last election. Too bad he turned his back on them. Too bad Republican Congresspeople are hurrying to align themselves against him as well because they fear the wrath of their constituents. Howard Dean may not win in 2004, but it doesn't look like G Dubya will, either.

[Saint Johnny B]

Ok, let's get our facts straight. Sadamm and Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. The 87 billion flowing out of the American Taxpayers pocket has zero to do with 9/11. Iraq had no cabability to threaten the USA with its military because it had no nukes or long range missles. Bush and Cheney lied to unilaterally attack Iraq, with no provocation and no justification that would sell to the public, hence, Bush and Cheney's lies. The normal allies of the USA knew this was all a bunch of lies, thus, they refused to back up Bush and Cheney. Sadamm personally tried to make a deal shorty before Bush and Cheney went wild with the bombs, there was no deal to avoid the killing and destruction because Bush and Cheney had a master plan. It all translates to: Grab as much power, oil, and money as possible. This is the way all crooks and criminals do things and this is what motivates all crooks and criminals like Bush and Cheney. Innocent people got killied, including women and children. Much destruction was inflicted on an entire country that had almost no ability to fight back. Bush and Cheney therefore acted like bullies. Now, the world hates the Bush and Cheney Regime. Cheney made sure that his coporation, Halliburton, got sure-thing, no-bid contracts worth billions. Cheney still gets at least a million dollars a year from Halliburton. The 87 Billion of the American Taxpayers money sailing out of the country will not be adequately accounted for. So, the American Taxpayers do not know how Bush and Cheney are spending their 87 Billion. Secret offshore bank accounts? Bush and Cheney are the biggest criminals in the world, and criminals like them belong in prison. ----------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Griffinator: Bush's administration has totally refused to break down these dollar figures for his Congress - under guise of "national security". Telling me that $67B goes to the military and $20B goes to the rebuilding process is not accounting.[/b] Griff, I did not mean to say I was going to give Johnny a complete accounting of where the money is going. I was unclear. My point is that if some gnat like Johnny is yelling "no accountability", the top democratic senators are not just yelling, but were holding their votes until they knew where the money was going. There was either an accounting of where the money was going or a whole bunch of liberal democratic senators sold out their party. The fact is, we the American public, are not privy to the actual facts regarding what our strategy is in Iraq. We only have the media reports. I honestly don't trust any media outlet to give me the truth..I know better. [b]I suppose the rapidly organizing Textile industry CEOs down South are "liberally biased" for openly criticizing George on his total lack of attention to trade abuses by Chinese textile manufacturers.[/b] Nice change of subject. I fully believe NAFTA and many other trade agreements were signed and negotiated in bad taste and were not in the country's best interests. Clinton, Bush Sr. etc. all have contributed to the huge trade imbalance and to the loss of jobs to offshore countries. [b]Except one problem - the vast majority of them supported him in the last election. Too bad he turned his back on them. Too bad Republican Congresspeople are hurrying to align themselves against him as well because they fear the wrath of their constituents.[/b] You may be right. However, I think the truth about who was responsible for the offshore job loss, the trade defecit, etc. will keep this from being much of an issue. The democratic record is just as shameful as the republican record. [b]Howard Dean may not win in 2004, but it doesn't look like G Dubya will, either.[/b] I wish I had your crystal ball. A lot can happen in a year. A lot of the wind has already been taken out of the extreme liberal left agenda. Howard Dean will not win. He is simply too angry and offers no solutions. Kerry, Gephard, even Lieberman are all much more even tempered and better qualified to be president than Dean. America will never elect a partisan pit bull as president.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Iraq had no cabability to threaten the USA [/quote]I dont know much about politics and world events, but saddam had anthrax(confirmed by the UN). So, YES Iraq DID have the ability to threaten ANYONE they wanted. You make saddam seem like mother teresa. Do you think he should have stayed in power? If your answer is no, then STOP BITCHING. If your answer is yes, then you need yo head checked. :wave:

[Guruman]

A few notes about the numerical comparisons stated above: [quote]Another thing you all need to check into is the amount of money past conflicts have cost us. As a percentage of GDP, this conflict is one of the cheapest in history. [/quote]The thing to keep in perspective here is that this war is not being paid for by the numbers that make up the GDP, so to derive a percentage of it as an illustration is irrelevant. The war is being paid for by US tax dollars. According the [url=http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=97168,00.html]IRS[/url] the US govt collected about $480B in the first quarter of this year. 87 divided by 480 is a little over 18% of gross tax collections of the first quarter 2003. [quote]Another question you need to ask is how much the 9/11 attacks cost our economy. The estimates are over 300 Billion dollars. As a percentage of that figure, 87 Billion is not a lot of money compared to the cost of doing nothing and risking another attack. 87 Billion is not a lot compared to our GDP. [/quote]Again, it is irrelevant to compare government expenditures to the GDP since the numbers that make up the GDP are not the ones that the gov't uses to spend money. The only relevant percentage comparison is against gross govt revenues. A further illustration - if 9/11 cost the US 300B, then as a percentage of the US [url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/61/15360253.PDF]GDP[/url] it cost about 3%

[YYZ]

Postedby Jackson: "It's nearly impossible for anyone to imagine just how much money 87 billion dollars are." Well, it's only 1 million dollars a year for 87 thousand years... Bill Gates fortune @ 46 billionis once again only 1 million dollars a year for 46 thousand years... I hope he's got enough to retire! Jean Claude

[pseudonym]

Thats a good one YYZ, puts it into perspective quite well. I know that when I was a kid back in the 60's may dad showed me his paycheck for $250 dollars and I thought it as such a great amount of money that when he handed it to me, I used the greatest amount of care I could so as not to damage such an amount of money. That may seem childish in this day and age, but was he an honest hard working man and was proud of his accomplishments. It seems like today, the average US citizen doesn't think to much about whipping out the credit card for that kind of scratch, but way back then it payed for a-lot more than it does today. I think my point is, it's not such a pathetic thing to not value whats behind the wealth, and usually it's a lot of hard work, so why can't we ask our reps. to do some too, at least read the memo's :rolleyes:

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Guruman: A few notes about the numerical comparisons stated above: The thing to keep in perspective here is that this war is not being paid for by the numbers that make up the GDP, so to derive a percentage of it as an illustration is irrelevant. The war is being paid for by US tax dollars.[/b] I guess I do not understand. I thought every government expense was paid by tax dollars. I thought the American tax payer paid for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Somalia, etc.. Yes? The use of GDP numbers is simply for illustration to quiet those who are complaining about the "huge cost" of the war in Iraq. It makes a good indicator when used against the cost vs GDP of other conflicts. Do you have a better indicator we can use to show the "actual" cost of the Iraq war vs Vietnam, Kosovo, WWII, etc? I just thought it was an interesting example to use GDP. [b]The only relevant percentage comparison is against gross govt revenues.[/b] Can you find those comparison numbers for WWII, Vietnam, etc? Do you know the percentage of gross government revenue to expense for Vietnam? I don't, but the numbers must be out there. It would be interesting to see how this "huge" expenditure stacks up against the cost of other conflicts.. {b}A further illustration - if 9/11 cost the US 300B, then as a percentage of the US GDP it cost about 3%[/b] Which was my point. If 300 Billion is 3% GDP, 87 Billion is less than 1% GDP and those numbers show two things.. the huge cost of doing nothing and being a target, and the much lower cost to fight the fight. I do like your comparison to gross revenue. Can you find the gross revenue numbers (not just a quarterly number) for this year and maybe for a year during Vietnam..say 1970? It would be an interesting comparison to see if the GDP or Gross revenue numbers as a percentage against cost of the two wars change.. Maybe this war is actually a huge expense compared to other wars..?

[pseudonym]

Just saw in the Sunday paper that to rebuild Europe, Marshall wanted 28bn, Congress gave him 13bn. Thats for "all" of Europe, especially to the larger states of Britian, France, Italy, and West Germany. Approx. about 80bn. in today's dollars. There must have been "some" debate, because the original sum was not allocated,the last I heard half of "our" reps haven't even read the Patriot Act. For what it's worth. :bor:

[Johnny Bitch]

% of the GDP is the best way to compare this war to prior conflicts. There are other ways, but % against the GDP is the best way I have heard of.

[pseudonym]

That is probably cool if you also figure in the 200bn it cost to invade and the cost of military equipment used and all the other infrastructure that has been built-up. I don't have an exact figure on what the total cost would be to defend US interest in the oil "rich" mid-east, but I have heard estimates that it makes the cost of a gallon of gasoline about 7-8 dollars. That could easily make alternative energy sources a good investment. Bush did commit 1bn. for fuel cell technology this year, but that pales in comparison to everything else. If Reagan wouldn't have taken away the solar tax credit in the 80's, which collapsed the development of that industry before it really got going, we'd be well ahead of the "game" by now, I hope..........

[Johnny Bitch]

Changing America fuel consumption habits will take 30 years no matter what. Have you thought of the logistics of having everyone change over to a different fuel?

[marsmgr1]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]But doesn't it bother any of you that it is costing the American taxpayers at least 87 billion dollars? Worse, there's no accounting for where the money will be going![/b][/quote]Read [url=http://www.house.gov/blackburn/press/nov_04_03.shtml]this[/url] and then tell me whether we've done the right thing...As far as I can tell, WWII proved that we have to stop tyranny, in any form, before it gets out of hand... I totally agree that "war" is horrible, but I'm also aware that there are times when it's necessary...So you wanna "jail Bush"...What if Bush had been replaced by a "Hitler" or "Hussein"? Would you still be spouting off?? :confused:

[Chuck Moore]

A powerfull atricle by Representative Blackburn. I have had the pleasure of voting for her as a state senator and standing with her at the tax protests here before she went to congress. She is indeed a woman of strong conviction and not someone who simply tows a "party line". It was , after all, a Republican Governor here that we demonstrated against when he went back on his word on the tax issue. Her writings on her trip to Iraq and her first hand accounts of the REAL conditions there are must-reads if you want to know what this is is really all about.

[alcohol_]

I just went to her website and read her account of her trip to Iraq. It really isn't much of a report. She informs us about thousands of Iraqi's being trained for this or that, but there's no report on her leaving the arranged presentations and getting word from the street. Charles, she's a member of the party that sold this war on the basis of WMD. A little skepticism is required. After all, we never really needed to go to war with Iraq in the first place.

[Chuck Moore]

Which is why I refferenced her previous willingness to go against fellow republicans when she felt them to be doing wrong. Seems nearly everyone who actually VISITS Iraq tells a similar tale, no matter which party they belong to.

[alcohol_]

Chuck, News reported on tv, radio and print journals are not backing up your claim that things are going well in Iraq.: For example, from Time magazine: By Michael Elliott [Time] - Ever since America's decisive military victory, Iraq has been nothing but trouble. we report on the errors and bad guesses, before and after the war, that got the Bush Administration into this spot. On May 1, off the coast of California, president George W. Bush landed in flying gear on the deck of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln—which sported a banner reading mission accomplished—and said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The war, said Bush, had been carried out "with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before." But the mission wasn't accomplished then, and it still is not. The reconstruction of Iraq has proved far more difficult than any official assumed it would be." http://edstrong.blog-city.com/read/246857.htm

[Chuck Moore]

You make my point for me. People who have actually been there tell a much different story than the one painted by the media. "Mision acomplished" reffered to the unprecidented military victory accomplished by our troops over the Iraqi army. The phase of the conflict involving major confrontations with a sizable military force was indeed over at that point. We resoundingly defeated them with an astoundingly speedy advance and an equally astoundingly LOW number of casualties. Yes the reconstruction is proving difficult, but surely you don't believe we should get out at this point just because it isn't as proving as easy a victory as we would like.

[GZsound]

Chuck you are correct. And please don't think Alchohol is being negative because he quotes Time or Newsweek, he is just being skeptical. I recently have learned that and it makes it easier to understand his negativi....skepticism. I have also heard interviews from democratic senators and congressmen who have visited Iraq and they all have made comments to the fact it is not as bad as the media is reporting. Of course they also make the party line claims we didn't have an exit strategy, we were not prepared to wage peace, etc. but they do agree 85% of Iraq is stable. One interesting point is that some in the democratic party are still saying we should get more help from other countries. They appear to not know that there are now more American trained Iraqi military and police forces in Iraq than there are American military. 150,000 trained Iraqi forces so far and more every day. I wonder why we don't hear these facts in the major media? I know that Joe Scarborough on MSNBC does a regular report on the good news from Iraq, and Fox News will report on the progress from time to time, but I can't find any good news reports on CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. And especially in Time or Newsweek. The last estimates I have heard from our military on the ground in Iraq is that there are around 200 terrorists committing the bombings and grenade attacks. A small force that will be defeated.

[Dan South]

I see that this thread has been hijacked by the John Birch society and the Unenlightened Americans for Head-in-the-Sand Foreign Policy. Ooh! Iraq has lady police officers now! Whoopie! Iraq also has large Shiite and Kurd and Sunni population, all of which want to EXTERMINATE each other. Iraq also has no BORDER PATROL, which means that every murderous ne'er-do-well in the Middle East - which amounts to a LOT of whackos - can enter the country at will with the express purpose of killing Americans and "collaborators." I'm sick and tired of seeing nineteen year old kids sent home in body bags. For WHAT? For a democratic Iraq? Get a freaking clue. Iraq will NEVER survive as a democracy. NEVER. Or did those kids die so that we'd be safe from Saddam's mythical weapons of mass destruction? Maybe we'd better launch a full-scale attack against the bogey man, because he's just as real as Saddam's WMD's. But, surely I jest. We all know that those kids aren't over there to establish a faux democracy in a country destined to implode. Nor are they there to sift through the sand for WMD's that Bush fabricated for political gain. Nope, our boys and girls are dying to protect the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton oil cartel's "investment" opportunities. The rich get richer. The poor and the middle class get killed. Just like in the pre-union mills and mines of the Industrial Revolution. Just like the serfs in feudal Europe. Just like the slaves on those plantations. "Yes, Massuh! I be mo than happy ta die fuh yo OIL, Massuh! Sho do wants you ta gits yo OIL, Massuh! Sho nuff!" STOP BUSH BEFORE HE KILLS AGAIN!

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]The last estimates I have heard from our military on the ground in Iraq is that there are around 200 terrorists committing the bombings and grenade attacks. A small force that will be defeated.[/b][/quote](a) The military has underestimated these guys before. (b) With no border patrol, the door is open, and more terrorists are arriving daily. (c) Two-hundred is a LOT. Look at the damage that only nineteen were able to do on 9/11.

[alcohol_]

There were estimates that this war campaign in Iraq would last weeks instead of months by Dick Cheney. Now the President is talking years. When the officials have had a track record of consistently being wrong, why would you take them at their word. The Bush administration and the Republican Party have demonstrated over and over again that they give out disinformation regarding Iraq. I think they even have a disinformation policy.GZ you yourself have even said that Americans are too stupid to know the truth. How do I know that you're not practicing what you preach -deceive Americans so that you can accomplish what you believe are important goals. Chuck, the pictures, reports and interviews that journalists are making are being made by people who are in Iraq. Why would someone need to say they were not reporting from Iraq?

[Guruman]

GZ: [quote]The use of GDP numbers is simply for illustration to quiet those who are complaining about the "huge cost" of the war in Iraq. It makes a good indicator when used against the cost vs GDP of other conflicts. [/quote]The problem that I have with using the GDP is that directly links to unrelated numbers in order to create an artificially small percentage. It's like me trying to justify an expense to my wife by showing her the expense as a percentage of my employing company's gross revenue as opposed to my personal net income. While the money does initally come from company revenue, the only relevant percentage would come from the cut that I take home. Based on your response you obviously get that already, I just put that out there as an illustration. [quote] Can you find those comparison numbers for WWII, Vietnam, etc? Do you know the percentage of gross government revenue to expense for Vietnam? I don't, but the numbers must be out there. It would be interesting to see how this "huge" expenditure stacks up against the cost of other conflicts.. [/quote]If I get a chance in the next few days I'll give it a looksee. I'm sure the links that I provided on pg 1 would be a good starting point.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by Dan South: I see that this thread has been hijacked by the John Birch society and the Unenlightened Americans for Head-in-the-Sand Foreign Policy. Ooh! Iraq has lady police officers now! Whoopie! Iraq also has large Shiite and Kurd and Sunni population, all of which want to EXTERMINATE each other.[b] Dan, you seem to be getting farther and farther into a partisan hate fest. I did not mention lady soldiers in Iraq, however, I have heard pretty good things about the female troops in Israel. They pretty much kick butt if the reports are correct. But other than that..what's your point? 85% of Iraq is peaceful right now. Over 70% of the Iraqi citizens are glad we are there. Certainly there are groups in Iraq that do not get along, but what you are saying is they just started not getting along recently? They were not living together peacefully under Saddam? They cannot live together peacefully in a democratic Iraq? It must be nice to have all the answers..although I think you are wrong. [b]Iraq also has no BORDER PATROL, which means that every murderous ne'er-do-well in the Middle East - which amounts to a LOT of whackos - can enter the country at will with the express purpose of killing Americans and "collaborators."[/b] Not sure where you are getting your information there is no border patrol. I just saw a program on the FLIR and night vision equipment used by the troops that are guarding the border. Maybe the producers forgot to check in with you first. [b]I'm sick and tired of seeing nineteen year old kids sent home in body bags. For WHAT? For a democratic Iraq? Get a freaking clue. Iraq will NEVER survive as a democracy. NEVER. Or did those kids die so that we'd be safe from Saddam's mythical weapons of mass destruction? Maybe we'd better launch a full-scale attack against the bogey man, because he's just as real as Saddam's WMD's.[/b] This is getting silly. You should know better. Mythical weapons? You missed the video of the dead Kurds? You missed the UN reports? You missed the Clinton breifings? Where do you get your information? Aren't you in the same group of folks that blame us for giving Saddam Chicken Pox and Anthrax virus for research? And now those supplies are Mythical? wow.. [b]But, surely I jest. We all know that those kids aren't over there to establish a faux democracy in a country destined to implode. Nor are they there to sift through the sand for WMD's that Bush fabricated for political gain. Nope, our boys and girls are dying to protect the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton oil cartel's "investment" opportunities. The rich get richer. The poor and the middle class get killed. Just like in the pre-union mills and mines of the Industrial Revolution. Just like the serfs in feudal Europe. Just like the slaves on those plantations. "Yes, Massuh! I be mo than happy ta die fuh yo OIL, Massuh! Sho do wants you ta gits yo OIL, Massuh! Sho nuff!" STOP BUSH BEFORE HE KILLS AGAIN![/b] I think you need to take some kind of chill pill, the rhetoric is getting bottomless. So you feel qualified to question the intelligence and motives of everybody that has volunteered to fight in our military? You are qualified to call them puppets of a greedy administration? What an insult to our fellow patriotic citizens. Shame on you. Why is it that we are not currently taking profit from the millions of gallons of oil currently being pumped out of Iraq? Why did the administration flat refuse to "loan" Iraq money for rebuilding because it would have required us to take oil and oil profits? These repeated partisan rants are certainly getting tiresome. But I do understand the "head in the sand" analogy..

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Why did the administration flat refuse to "loan" Iraq money for rebuilding because it would have required us to take oil and oil profits? [/quote]When you are laundering money you'd be well advised to keep a low profile. Since that money is not really going to Iraq, but is coming back to this country under several no-bid contracts, it would seem silly to ask Iraq to pay back something they are not getting in the first place.

[Saint Johnny B]

Criminals like Bush and Cheney lied to con the public out of their rights and their money. If you want to say Bush and Cheney made an honest, if stupid, mistake, then Bush and Cheney should personally pay out of their own personal funds for the destruction these two inflicted. They should pay the 87 billion out of their own pockets. [b]The only thing we have to fear, is Bush and Cheney themselves.[/b] Give 'em the hook and get 'em off the stage, their act stinks. --------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[Johnny Bitch]

BLA BLA BUSH SUCKS BLA BLA RAMBLE BLA COCKSUCKER BLA BLA BLA RAMBLE BLA. :wave:

[Peake]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22we+know+where+they+are%22+rumsfeld&btnG=Google+Search

[Chuck Moore]

hmmmmm now lemme see if i got this straight, I'm kinda slow yaknow. We shouldn't go to Iraq, They never had bio and chem, all those Kurds musta caught the flu, the mass graves and torture rooms are OK by us, Funding terrorists and letting them operate freely there is no big deal, not worth our time, besides if Sadamm sells them bio, they would NEVER bring it to New York. The UN was doing a fine job keeping Sadamm in line, he was quaking in his boots at the thought of Hans Blix and his merry band of inspectors. Everything would have been just fine if all those GREEDY CORRUPT WAR MONGERING REPUBLICANS hadn't attacked, completely unprovoked. Sadamm shoulda been left alone, Bush should be locked up. Is that it? ...... OK I think i get it now

[Peake]

Didn't more people die in the Towers than in the initial attack on Pearl Harbor? And how would people have felt then, if the president [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=14&u=/nm/20031030/ts_nm/iraq_contracts_dc]appeased campaign contributors[/url] with no-bid contracts before addressing the issue of the Japanese attack? Or if he'd ignored the Japanese and attacked another nation which might have dangerous weapons that they might use someday?