Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] there are no black helicopters...

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

>
> First, Saddam did not have to be removed.  That was Bush's idea and it was
> opposed by most nations.  Containment was the favored strategy.  Why
> bother with more UN resolutions?  It could be the $500 billion in savings,
> the 2000+ US soldiers lives, the 100,000+ Iraqi lives, the lives of other
> allied soldiers, the limbs and brains of our soldiers or maybe our
> international reputation.  What do you think?  Screw all that, full speed
> ahead!
>
It was not just Bush's idea, Clinton had already in the works a plan
to remove Saddam as well. Of course that would have been alright had
Clinton removed Saddam since he was a democrat eh?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/23/saddam.html

Or how about

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/policy020598.htm

Do we have such short memories around here? Why do I bring this up?
Because Mike, many democrats hold Clinton up as such a fine upstanding
President and invariably want to compare Bush to him. Well to perform
a true comparison, lets just see what was going on shall we?

What would Clinton had done to Saddam had 9/11 happened three years
sooner? No one knows.

>
> > No connection to the terrorists?
>
> No connection to 9/11 terrorists.  There are lots of terrorists all over
> the world and we are less able to deal with them because of the Bush
> boodogle in Iraq.
>
Well lets see, we have not had another terrorist attack on American
soil since 9/11 and there has not been a major terrorist attack
anywhere else in the world other than Iraq and maybe Isreal since July
of last year. So are we truly less able to deal with them? Once again
throwing out your opinion Mike. Show some facts here.


> Thank God for the Christian right wing.  Where would we be without them?
> Oh, I know, we'd have much lower national debt, good international
> reputation, reasonable tax policy, low corruption, 2000+ US soldiers
> brought back to life, and a few extra babies aborted, maybe, or maybe not.
>
Whatever are you talking about?
> It should be whatever Bill Clinton says it should be.  He managed to bring
> our deficit into negative numbers.  Check this out:
>
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
>
> Look especially at the blue bar graph midway down the page which I have
> modified here to show who was president during which years:
>
> ht
>
tp://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/national_debt.png> After WWII, the
debt held steady at a just under $2 trillion until the
> great, great and wonderful amazing Ronald Wilson Reagan, our national
> hero, took office in 1/1981.  Then it doubled in 8 years.  He was really
> good, wasn't he -- he gave $2 trillion to his friends and we just loved
> him for it.  Of course, GHW Bush kept it going from 1/1989 to 1/1993.
> But then lying, blowjob-loving, horrible Bill Clinton took office and from
> 1/1993 to 1/2001 the deficit spending got under control and we had a major
> economic boom time.  The bastard!  After Clinton, God's own GW Bush took
> office in 1/2001.  The amazing wonderful and perfect GW Bush was able to
> get the deficit back out of its negative slump and back into the hundreds
> of billions per annum range.  Now the rich were getting more money,
> finally -- it was about time!
>
Well lets look at this Mike. You want to talk about debt, how about
taking a look at where the money was coming from to pay this debt
down.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/budget.html

How about "borrowing" 850 BILLION dollars from the Social Security
trust fund in 1998 in order to get this "surplus"?

There are more examples of this too.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

A really telling line is this:

"Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income.
The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's
appropriations. The total borrowed is nearly $8,000,000,000,000 and
growing. Even when government officials claim to have a surplus, they
still spend more than they get in. We pay interest on that huge debt.
"

I will hand one thing to Clinton, he was able to balance the budget.
Of course it was short lived and he pretty much removed any
possibility of either you or I getting social security when we retire,
but he did balance the budget for two years.

He never really had a surplus, sure he had a surplus based on the
budget, but congress never sticks to a budget.


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion