Federal Spending Was on ‘Starvation Diet’ During Bush Years, Says Democratic Senator

[Auburn85 438]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=43227

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said yesterday that some of the spending in the $819-billion stimulus passed by the House of Representatives last week represented important federal spending priorities needed to “make-up for a starvation diet under the Bush Administration.”

McCaskill indicated that the question wasn’t whether all the money approved in the House bill should be spent but whether it should be included in the stimulus bill that Congress is rushing through this month in an effort to spur the struggling economy or in regular appropriations bills that will be approved later in the year.

The so-called stimulus bill that was drafted over the weekend in the Senate is reported by the Associated Press to contemplate spending $827 billion--or about $8 billion more than the $819 billion stimulus bill that was approved by the House. The $827-billion Senate bill reportedly has the support of all 58 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 3 Republicans—Senators Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), Olympia Snowe (R.-Me.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.)--giving it more than the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster.

“Senator, you said about the House bill that in fact they did bloat it up with some spending, and they provided ammunition to Republicans to shoot this thing down and take over some of the political argument. Is that still what you believe?” David Gregory, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” asked McCaskill.

“I do think that there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party; frankly, of the American people,” said McCaskill. “And the question is does it belong in the stimulus bill or does it belong in the appropriations bill? I think some of the money that we cut in the compromise to get the votes that we, that we have was, in fact, spending that more appropriately should go in an appropriations bill.”

In 2000, the year before President George W. Bush took office, total federal expenditures were $1.78 trillion, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. This year, the last budget approved under Bush--total federal expenditures are expected to be $3.1 trillion—not counting whatever amount the Congress approves for a stimulus package.

Under the “starvation diet” imposed by the Bush Administration, the annual federal budget grew by 1.32 trillion.

In 1989, when President Reagan left office, according to the OMB, all federal expenditures equaled only $1.14 trillion.

[RunInRed 19,639]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

[CCTAU 3,872]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

[Auburn85 438]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ng-inside_x.htm

How federal spending has climbed since 2001

Updated 4/3/2006

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased spending substantially since Bush took office in 2001 (Story, 1A). In those five years, spending has risen faster than at any time since the Vietnam War. Here are eight of the ways that happened:

Pumping up the Pentagon

"We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge." — President Bush, Jan. 20, 2001

The president came to office pledging to bolster the nation's defenses, and he has kept his word. Spending on defense has risen an average of 8% a year, far surpassing President Reagan's buildup after adjusting for inflation. Most of that money has little to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conservatives such as Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, defend the spending as needed after years of budget cuts under President Clinton. Others say Congress should take a closer look at such large increases. "One wonders what that's used for, if it's not for fighting the war," says Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Leaving no child behind

"We're going to spend more on our schools, and we're going to spend it more wisely." — President Bush upon signing the No Child Left Behind law Jan. 8, 2002

For the past five years, Republicans have increased K-12 education spending by an average of 7% annually. The increase was greatest early in the administration and has declined every year since.

Conservatives, who recall the days when Republicans threatened to abolish the Education Department, decry the new spending. "If Republicans stand for anything, if they stand for limited government at all, they should stand against programs like this," says Cato Institute budget expert Stephen Slivinski. The White House argues it has reduced funding since 2002, and education interest groups agree. "It's like a ski slope — downhill," says Edward Kealy of the Committee for Education Funding.

Protecting the homeland

"My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security."— President Bush, Jan. 29, 2002

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government spent slightly more than $20 billion annually on homeland security. Since then, the figure has soared to about $50 billion.

"We've increased our security appropriations funding at a truly incredible rate these past few years," says House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa. "And I'd imagine if we had to do it all again, we would."

Many conservatives say homeland security budgets have been bloated by spreading money to small communities that are unlikely terrorist targets and by unrelated projects. Veronique de Rugy, a budget expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, refers to that as "congressional hornswoggling."

Helping recession's victims

"For so many in our country — the homeless and the fatherless, the addicted — the need is great."— President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

In June of 2003, the nation's unemployment rate hit 6.3%, its highest level during Bush's presidency. The impact of the recession on millions of Americans caused anti-poverty spending to increase, as did outreach efforts and program expansions. Over five years, spending on food stamps has risen 84% and Medicaid 49%.

Pence says that type of spending causes constituents to say, " 'What are you guys doing? You guys are outspending Democrats!' "

This year, Congress trimmed $39 billion over five years from benefit programs. The White House wants to go further "to prevent severe economic and fiscal consequences for our children and grandchildren," says Scott Milburn of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW PRESIDENTS COMPARE ON SPENDING

Average annual change in spending for each category. All figures have been adjusted for inflation:

Overall federal spending On defense On K-12 education

Johnson 6% 5% 31%

Nixon-Ford 3% -6% 3%

Carter 4% 3% 1%

Reagan 3% 4% 0%

G.H.W. Bush 2% -4% 5%

Clinton 2% -2% 3%

G.W. Bush 5% 8% 7%

Source: Office of Management and Budget

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fighting two wars

"Today, I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion, to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror."— President Bush, March 25, 2003

The initial investment for the Iraq war has since grown to nearly $400 billion, though not all that money has been spent. The money has been approved in "supplemental" budgets — without offsetting taxes or spending cuts — and added to the federal deficit.

"We're in a war, and that's expensive," Gregg says. De Rugy says Bush should have made tradeoffs. "He wanted to fight a war, but he wasn't willing to offset the cost of the war by cutting somewhere else," she says.

Creating a drug benefit

"Medicare will pay for prescription drugs, so that fewer seniors will get sick in the first place."— President Bush, Dec. 8, 2003

The new Medicare drug benefit, passed in 2003 and implemented this year, will cost about $797 billion over 10 years. Proponents of the law include fiscal conservatives such as Nussle, who says it "finally updated Medicare to include prescription drugs."

Critics contend it will saddle taxpayers with an additional $8 trillion in unfunded IOUs over 75 years. "As bad as the last five years have been, it's going to get even worse the next five years," says Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Serving the nation's veterans

"We have increased funding for our veterans more in four years than the previous administration did in eight years."— President Bush, Aug. 16, 2004

Spending on veterans has increased faster under President Bush than at any time since the Vietnam War. Like homeland security, it is strongly supported by Democrats as well as Republicans.

Among the reasons for the increase: The veterans health care system is adding hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who came from the National Guard and Reserves are eligible for two years of health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That system was opened up several years ago to veterans with higher incomes whose illnesses or injuries did not stem from their military service. Greater numbers of veterans from prior conflicts have signed up for disability and pension benefits.

Bailing out the Gulf Coast

"Yesterday I signed a $10.5 billion emergency aid package to fund our ongoing relief efforts. This is a down payment on what will be a sustained federal commitment to our fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast."— President Bush, Sept. 3, 2005

The costs of hurricanes Katrina and Rita have reached about $100 billion and are being added to the deficit. Calls from conservatives for spending reductions elsewhere have gone largely unheeded.

"It's our moral obligation to assist our fellow Americans," Milburn says. Former House majority leader Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative interest group FreedomWorks, says such emergency appropriations "become handy little excuses" for the rise in federal spending.

[Tigermike 4,246]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

[RunInRed 19,639]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

[TitanTiger 22,249]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

I do.

[Tigermike 4,246]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

And Obama is spending more in his first month than Iraq and Afghanistan combined have cost.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Over the past four years or so you have railed against Bush for deficit spending but now that your Messiah is in office you think it's the grandest thing to ever come down the road.

Hypocrite thy name is runinred63

[RunInRed 19,639]

And Obama is spending more in his first month than Iraq and Afghanistan combined have cost.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Over the past four years or so you have railed against Bush for deficit spending but now that your Messiah is in office you think it's the grandest thing to ever come down the road.

Hypocrite thy name is runinred63

An $800+ Billion Recover package does not equal total spending on Iraq. Even when you throw in the second half of TARP you are shy of Iraq + Afghanistan. So what are you talking about? Facts please.

Obama inherited this economic situation. So what do you propose he do TM? Are you in the do nothing crowd? What is your proposed solution?

[CCTAU 3,872]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

I do.

It's all wasted money till someone gets their A$$ blown off. Then it's "Why didn't we spend more to stop the terrorists?"

If it hadn't got spent in Iraq, it would have been spent in Afghanistan and we would still have Sadaam to worry about.

[bigsixfive 341]

Anyone catch this? She blatantly said the bill was looking out for the interests of the Democrats.

“I do think that there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party; frankly, of the American people,” said McCaskill. “

United we stand, and all.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

I do.

It's all wasted money till someone gets their A$$ blown off. Then it's "Why didn't we spend more to stop the terrorists?"

If it hadn't got spent in Iraq, it would have been spent in Afghanistan and we would still have Sadaam to worry about.

It should have been spent in Afghanistan. Maybe then it wouldn't be the complete cluster**** it is now. Might have even captured Bin Laden. Saddam was contained and we had no business going in there and distracting us from the primary mission that should have been Afghanistan. And we likely wouldn't have needed nearly as much money to do the job in Afghanistan had we not gotten sidetracked. Plus we had the full support of the international community for our efforts there and likely could have handed it off by a coalition of countries by now instead of bearing the brunt ourselves.

We're just damn lucky someone else didn't decide to take advantage of how far we stretched ourselves and launch a viable third front.

And I'll give you the same speech I gave runinred: our choices regarding prevention of terrorism were not:

1. Invade Iraq

-OR-

2. Do nothing and wait to get blown up.

Not to mention, people's asses have been blown off...the asses of our soldiers fighting a war admirably, but one they never should have been asked to fight.

[CCTAU 3,872]

IT was a home or away choice. I for one am glad it was fought away.

People thought good ole Hitler was contained too.

Was it done right? Some yes, some no. But it went down the way it did because of 9/11. Everything was screaming at the time. The rest of the world shut up and sat down. Sadaam stood up. Just the way it is in times like those.

And to talk about the asses of soldiers in comparison to civilians is just stupid...even for you.

So you speech and your two choices are opinion. We could just as easily have done it your way and be in a world war right now. None of us really know. But I am damn glad my family has not had to dodge the rubble here.

[DKW 86 8,215]

[Tigermike 4,246]

And Obama is spending more in his first month than Iraq and Afghanistan combined have cost.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Over the past four years or so you have railed against Bush for deficit spending but now that your Messiah is in office you think it's the grandest thing to ever come down the road.

Hypocrite thy name is runinred63

An $800+ Billion Recover package does not equal total spending on Iraq. Even when you throw in the second half of TARP you are shy of Iraq + Afghanistan. So what are you talking about? Facts please.

Obama inherited this economic situation. So what do you propose he do TM? Are you in the do nothing crowd? What is your proposed solution? (I have always been in the cut spending crowd. That hasn't changed. You on the other hand have for the past 2 - 3 years screamed about all the money being spent in the WOT. Screamed about fisical irresponsibility. Now Obama wants to spend and you are all for it. Hypocrite thy name is runinred63)

$1.2 Trillion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

$3 Trillion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030702846.html

That’s “trillion” with a capital “T“. And that’s the amount of money being spent by Congress

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailout Programs (Update1)

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month. (Again, that’s “trillion” with a “T”. In order to grasp the magnitude of that much spending, understand that you can reasonably round the number to $10 Trillion and thereby assume an extra $300 Billion, which is about the amount of TARP funds already pushed out the front doors of Congress. It’s also about one third of the amount being debated in Congress right now. In other words, the stimulus funds are pennies compared to amount of money already spent and/or promised.)

Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”

Financial Rescue

The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps.

Federal Reserve lending to banks peaked at a record $2.3 trillion in December, dropping to $1.83 trillion by last week. The Fed balance sheet is still more than double the $880 billion it was in the week before Sept. 17 when it agreed to accept lower-quality collateral.

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world’s companies since Sept. 15; brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; and led to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

‘All the Stops’

“The Fed, Treasury and FDIC are pulling out all the stops to stop any widespread systemic damage to the economy,” said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Inc. in Dallas and a former senior economist at the central bank. “The federal government is on the hook for an awful lot of money but I think it’s needed to help the financial system recover.”

Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and FDIC and interviewed regulators, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

Commitments may expand again soon. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner postponed until tomorrow an announcement that may invite private investment as a way to clear toxic debt from bank balance sheets. Measures that have been settled include a new round of injections of taxpayer funds into banks, targeted at those identified by regulators as most in need of additional capital, people briefed on the matter said.

Program Delay

The government is already backing $301 billion of Citigroup Inc. securities and another $118 billion from Bank of America. The government hasn’t yet paid out on any of the guarantees.

The Fed said Friday that it is delaying the start a $200 billion program called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, to revive the market for securities based on consumer loans such as credit-card, auto and student borrowings.

Most of the spending programs are run out of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Geithner served as president. He was sworn in as Treasury secretary on Jan. 26.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. The Federal Reserve so far is refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return. Collateral is an asset pledged by a borrower in the event a loan payment isn’t made.

Fed Sued

Bloomberg requested details of Fed lending under the Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral. Arguments in the suit may be heard as soon as this month, according to the court docket. Bloomberg asked the Treasury in an FOIA request Jan. 28 for a detailed list of the securities it planned to guarantee for Citigroup and Bank of America. Bloomberg hasn’t received a response to the request.

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

For Related News and Information:

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net; Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 9, 2009 12:43 EST

Bloomberg

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56261

[TitanTiger 22,249]

IT was a home or away choice. I for one am glad it was fought away.

Again with the false dichotomy. The choice wasn't here or in Iraq. We could have fought this battle in Afghanistan. You know, that place where the terrorists actually ran rampant. And still do.

People thought good ole Hitler was contained too.

Except Saddam was no where near as powerful militarily as Hitler because of the very containment in place...sanctions, no fly zones, etc. False comparison.

Was it done right? Some yes, some no.

Anyone who says it was done right is pounding qualudes with a side of LSD and a cocaine chaser.

But it went down the way it did because of 9/11. Everything was screaming at the time. The rest of the world shut up and sat down. Sadaam stood up. Just the way it is in times like those.

Saddam did nothing that he hadn't done the exact same way for over 15 years. Iraq was not and never should have been sold as the lynchpin in the War on Terror. That was Bush Administration bull****. Anyone giving an honest attempt at objectivity knows this.

Look, I love America as much as anyone here but sometimes we screw up and do the wrong thing. This was one of those times.

And to talk about the asses of soldiers in comparison to civilians is just stupid...even for you.

You threw out the imagery. I just pointed out that it has cost lives already. And when you lose soldiers because of a conflict that was completely unnecessary for us to start, the civilian comparison is pretty apt.

So you speech and your two choices are opinion. We could just as easily have done it your way and be in a world war right now. None of us really know. But I am damn glad my family has not had to dodge the rubble here.

Me too. I just don't favor starting idiotic wars in the guise of protecting the homeland. There was nothing going on in Iraq that necessitated us being there. There was PLENTY going on in Afghanistan that necessitated us being there and doing things right and we squandered it for this wild goose chase Bush sent us on. If I'm going to have our soldiers out there dodging bullets and IEDs, I damn sure want it to be where we're supposed to be and not on a diversion. Iraq was a diversion from the main issue. And I don't apologize for saying so.

You don't have to have blind hatred for Bush to see the damn handwriting on the wall on this issue.

[Justin5 20]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

No, I think thats exactly what she meant to say. Regulatory agencies were the ones on a starvation diet. Properly authorized spending was not all that bad, however discretionary spending was WAY out of control.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

I do.

It's all wasted money till someone gets their A$$ blown off. Then it's "Why didn't we spend more to stop the terrorists?"

If it hadn't got spent in Iraq, it would have been spent in Afghanistan and we would still have Sadaam to worry about.

Why would we worry about him. There were times when we supprted him.

[arnaldoabru 11]

IT was a home or away choice. I for one am glad it was fought away.

People thought good ole Hitler was contained too.

Was it done right? Some yes, some no. But it went down the way it did because of 9/11. Everything was screaming at the time. The rest of the world shut up and sat down. Sadaam stood up. Just the way it is in times like those.

And to talk about the asses of soldiers in comparison to civilians is just stupid...even for you.

So you speech and your two choices are opinion. We could just as easily have done it your way and be in a world war right now. None of us really know. But I am damn glad my family has not had to dodge the rubble here.

Comparing Hitler to Saddam is , well, stupid.

[DKW 86 8,215]

IT was a home or away choice. I for one am glad it was fought away.

Again with the false dichotomy. The choice wasn't here or in Iraq. We could have fought this battle in Afghanistan. You know, that place where the terrorists actually ran rampant. And still do.

People thought good ole Hitler was contained too.

Except Saddam was no where near as powerful militarily as Hitler because of the very containment in place...sanctions, no fly zones, etc. False comparison.

Was it done right? Some yes, some no.

Anyone who says it was done right is pounding qualudes with a side of LSD and a cocaine chaser.

But it went down the way it did because of 9/11. Everything was screaming at the time. The rest of the world shut up and sat down. Sadaam stood up. Just the way it is in times like those.

Saddam did nothing that he hadn't done the exact same way for over 15 years. Iraq was not and never should have been sold as the lynchpin in the War on Terror. That was Bush Administration bull****. Anyone giving an honest attempt at objectivity knows this.

Look, I love America as much as anyone here but sometimes we screw up and do the wrong thing. This was one of those times.

And to talk about the asses of soldiers in comparison to civilians is just stupid...even for you.

You threw out the imagery. I just pointed out that it has cost lives already. And when you lose soldiers because of a conflict that was completely unnecessary for us to start, the civilian comparison is pretty apt.

So you speech and your two choices are opinion. We could just as easily have done it your way and be in a world war right now. None of us really know. But I am damn glad my family has not had to dodge the rubble here.

Me too. I just don't favor starting idiotic wars in the guise of protecting the homeland. There was nothing going on in Iraq that necessitated us being there. There was PLENTY going on in Afghanistan that necessitated us being there and doing things right and we squandered it for this wild goose chase Bush sent us on. If I'm going to have our soldiers out there dodging bullets and IEDs, I damn sure want it to be where we're supposed to be and not on a diversion. Iraq was a diversion from the main issue. And I don't apologize for saying so.

You don't have to have blind hatred for Bush to see the damn handwriting on the wall on this issue.

Titan...I am actually very proud of that post. There comes a time in a man's life when you realize that those you like and support can be just plain wrong about some things. I too, see the obvious. Iraq, almost wonder if Bush43 wasnt trying to finish the job Bush41 would not complete. Was Saddam a nut? Yes. Were the reports about WMD bad? Yes. Did we need to go into Iraq? Probably not. Have we helped the people of Iraq? Yes, but at what price to us monetarily and at what cost politically here in the US?

We have just about bankrupted this country fighting a war that is gonna last us another 5-8 years of aid and blood. Hope we never do this again.

[CCTAU 3,872]

It wasn't too long ago that you non-dims were touting the positives that have come from this war. Many dictators shut down their rhetoric and even gave up their arms due to the fact that the US wasn't lying down anymore. And now a few years later, it's all bad.

I don;t like the fact that we went into Iraq, but I do think with what we thought we knew at the time, we had to. Sadaam was giving the impression that he was entering the WMD race. He had went against every UN sanction there was. There was every reason to believe he was dangerous. What about the funding of terrorism in Israel? I am damn glad he is gone. The war on terror expanded at that time to include Iraq. No there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, but there was a link between Iraq and terrorism. And when you have a country linked to terrorism and linked to WMDs, that puts that country on the short list.

Iran should be on the short list today. But now we are too pussified politically to even challenge them. They will obtain nukes in the near future and this country won't do a damn thing about it until we are attacked again. Even then, we'll have dhimmis running around capitulating.

Ther is no way the world's terrorists would have run to Afghanistan to attack us like they did in Iraq. We have just about crippled the world terror organizations by using Iraq as a battleground. The terrorists in Pakistan are not the same guys that were in Iraq. Many of the ones being killed are Pakistani army that are fighting with the Taliban. They are not flocking in from around the world like they did in Iraq.

So Iraq was a front on the WOT. WE are lucky that there are only 2 fronts. But the cocaine analogy you guys are using is hilarious. Any time someone doesn't buy into your almighty vision, they must be on drugs. I've been around here long enough to know that your opinions aren't any more valid than mine. We see things in a different manner. I feel that my family's safety does not have a price on it. I feel that GWB did his job from that standpoint. Whether or not the war in Iraq is considered good or bad by you or anyone else, I know that I so not see any more non-combatants in my country getting blown up. If it took a trillion dollars, so be it.

As far as the Hitler/Sadaam comparison, they both had no qualms in killing their own people and if Sadaam did gain nuclear weapons, I have no doubt more jews would have died. So to compare the two is not a far stretch. Hell there are even comparison between Sadaam and the Kenyan Jesus from an economic standpoint. So no comparison is "stupid" if there are valid pints.

But then again, whatever. All anyone that disagrees with you guys ever has is a "false dichotomy".

[TitanTiger 22,249]

It wasn't too long ago that you non-dims were touting the positives that have come from this war. Many dictators shut down their rhetoric and even gave up their arms due to the fact that the US wasn't lying down anymore. And now a few years later, it's all bad.

Because at one time I believed what I was being told in terms of the reasons we were there. Then I woke up and saw things in the light of day and realized it I was sold a bill of goods.

A lot of bad things in this world can still have some good side effects, but it doesn't make doing those things right.

I don;t like the fact that we went into Iraq, but I do think with what we thought we knew at the time, we had to. Sadaam was giving the impression that he was entering the WMD race. He had went against every UN sanction there was. There was every reason to believe he was dangerous. What about the funding of terrorism in Israel? I am damn glad he is gone. The war on terror expanded at that time to include Iraq. No there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, but there was a link between Iraq and terrorism. And when you have a country linked to terrorism and linked to WMDs, that puts that country on the short list.

Iran should be on the short list today. But now we are too pussified politically to even challenge them. They will obtain nukes in the near future and this country won't do a damn thing about it until we are attacked again. Even then, we'll have dhimmis running around capitulating.

We either have the worst intelligence apparatus in modern history or we went in their for reasons other than the ones given. Iraq never should have been on the short list. Iran, yes. North Korea, yes. Iraq? They were a fly on a dung heap by comparison.

Ther is no way the world's terrorists would have run to Afghanistan to attack us like they did in Iraq. We have just about crippled the world terror organizations by using Iraq as a battleground. The terrorists in Pakistan are not the same guys that were in Iraq. Many of the ones being killed are Pakistani army that are fighting with the Taliban. They are not flocking in from around the world like they did in Iraq.

So Iraq was a front on the WOT. WE are lucky that there are only 2 fronts.

Damn lucky. And again, despite the possible goods that came from this, ends don't justify means. This is especially so coming from a Christian perspective.

But the cocaine analogy you guys are using is hilarious. Any time someone doesn't buy into your almighty vision, they must be on drugs.

That was in reference to your remark that "some people don't think Iraq was handled right." Iraq until the last 18 months or so was a complete and utter cluster**** other than the initial invasion and capture of Saddam. The administration totally misread the situation on the ground and had zero plan for what to do after we toppled Saddam. It was pathetic.

So yeah, anyone who thinks Iraq was handled the right way is knocking down a doozy of a cocktail.

I've been around here long enough to know that your opinions aren't any more valid than mine. We see things in a different manner. I feel that my family's safety does not have a price on it. I feel that GWB did his job from that standpoint. Whether or not the war in Iraq is considered good or bad by you or anyone else, I know that I so not see any more non-combatants in my country getting blown up. If it took a trillion dollars, so be it.

It's not just the money, but that was obscene too. Not just because it wasn't a just war, but because it was completely unnecessary to protect us.

As far as the Hitler/Sadaam comparison, they both had no qualms in killing their own people and if Sadaam did gain nuclear weapons, I have no doubt more jews would have died. So to compare the two is not a far stretch. Hell there are even comparison between Sadaam and the Kenyan Jesus from an economic standpoint. So no comparison is "stupid" if there are valid pints.

He was no where near having nukes and if we hadn't been so hellbent on invading we could have figured that out and handled our business in Afghanistan at the same time. And no, the Hitler comparison is a massive stretch. Saddam was no threat to take over the region. He was contained. Hitler built a massive military machine that had the power to almost take over most of Europe. Hitler was a real threat that was ignored. Saddam was a paper tiger that was being watched like a hawk. Saddam couldn't hold Hitler's jock in terms of being a real threat.

But then again, whatever. All anyone that disagrees with you guys ever has is a "false dichotomy".

If you really believe that, you likely don't understand the phrase.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It wasn't too long ago that you non-dims were touting the positives that have come from this war. Many dictators shut down their rhetoric and even gave up their arms due to the fact that the US wasn't lying down anymore. And now a few years later, it's all bad.

I don;t like the fact that we went into Iraq, but I do think with what we thought we knew at the time, we had to. Sadaam was giving the impression that he was entering the WMD race. He had went against every UN sanction there was. There was every reason to believe he was dangerous. What about the funding of terrorism in Israel? I am damn glad he is gone. The war on terror expanded at that time to include Iraq. No there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, but there was a link between Iraq and terrorism. And when you have a country linked to terrorism and linked to WMDs, that puts that country on the short list.

Iran should be on the short list today. But now we are too pussified politically to even challenge them. They will obtain nukes in the near future and this country won't do a damn thing about it until we are attacked again. Even then, we'll have dhimmis running around capitulating.

Ther is no way the world's terrorists would have run to Afghanistan to attack us like they did in Iraq. We have just about crippled the world terror organizations by using Iraq as a battleground. The terrorists in Pakistan are not the same guys that were in Iraq. Many of the ones being killed are Pakistani army that are fighting with the Taliban. They are not flocking in from around the world like they did in Iraq.

So Iraq was a front on the WOT. WE are lucky that there are only 2 fronts. But the cocaine analogy you guys are using is hilarious. Any time someone doesn't buy into your almighty vision, they must be on drugs. I've been around here long enough to know that your opinions aren't any more valid than mine. We see things in a different manner. I feel that my family's safety does not have a price on it. I feel that GWB did his job from that standpoint. Whether or not the war in Iraq is considered good or bad by you or anyone else, I know that I so not see any more non-combatants in my country getting blown up. If it took a trillion dollars, so be it.

As far as the Hitler/Sadaam comparison, they both had no qualms in killing their own people and if Sadaam did gain nuclear weapons, I have no doubt more jews would have died. So to compare the two is not a far stretch. Hell there are even comparison between Sadaam and the Kenyan Jesus from an economic standpoint. So no comparison is "stupid" if there are valid pints.

But then again, whatever. All anyone that disagrees with you guys ever has is a "false dichotomy".

Which dictators?

[autigeremt 7,543]

I think she did a poor job of articulating her point. Surely even she realized spending ballooned under Bush. What she failed to say is that a good bit of this spending was on Defense.

So the point I believe she was trying to make is that spending on infrastructure and other like investments were not adequate.

I don't think that's what she meant to say. Dims think you can never spend enough money. More programs of waste were created in the last 8 years than you can shake a stick at The problem is that the dims don't see those programs as theirs. Therefore we were on dim starvation diet.

Can we count the 1 Trillion in Iraq as part of that waste?

Sure.....just don't tell my brothers and sisters who paid the ultimate price to "waste" for others. That 1 trillion will reap itself worthy if things continue to progress over there.

usual spin