Fort Hood

[phil]

We'll see.
There still remain quite a few inconsistencies that have yet to be ironed out. Again.....we'll see.

Back to Acorn. Someone's going to prison for a looong time. I guess he just misses being able to bug the phones legally from the former administration's time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/201...politico/32035

Do we think they were just.....trying to fix the phones for the Senator?

And the Watergate break-in? Some guys just got lost.....really. After 30 years, we finally found out who Deep Throat was.

One more thing: Pro wrestling isn't real. I hope that didn't burst your bubble.

Steady, if you require further explanation about the 10 characteristics below, please PM me and I will provide an explanantion in layman's terms for you.:toung:

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

 

[James48843]

The Man without a Country
http://www.bartelby.com/310/6/1.html

Great read, Buster. thanks.

 

[James48843]

Redirect-
Back on topic:
Ft. Hood heroes to be guests at State of the Union

Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer –
Tue Jan 26, 9:50 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Two police officers credited with stopping last year's shooting rampage at Fort Hood will be guests of the first lady during Wednesday's State of the Union speech.

Sgts. Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd will watch President Barack Obama's address with Michelle Obama in a gallery overlooking the House floor. On Nov. 5, the officers, who were civilian members of the Fort Hood police force, opened fire on Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people in the worst mass murder on a U.S. military base. Munley was wounded in the incident at the Texas base.

An administration official also said Jill Biden, the vice president's wife, invited Julia Frost, a former Marine trumpeter whom Mrs. Biden met when visiting Coastal Carolina Community College. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House had not yet released the full list.

The official also said Mrs. Obama would sit with Trevor Yager, an openly-gay advertising executive from Indianapolis whose agency grew by more than 200 percent and doubled the number of employees. The official says Yager credits Obama's approach to business and the $787 billion economic stimulus measure.

 

[Steadygain]

Steady, if you require further explanation about the 10 characteristics below, please PM me and I will provide an explanantion in layman's terms for you.:toung:

Actually, I think we're making headway !

And I feel pretty good about the outcome.

Phil is stressing the underlying corruption by which many events have transpired ~~ and that is undeniable. He has pointed out how the CIA has most certainly concocked numerious seraniros by manipulating both information and by deliberatly instigating circumstances in order to create a 'believable story'. Often that is their Specific Job and it's what they are trained to do.

In the specific circumstances by which the Vietnam War was carried out and maintained ~~ and all subsequent wars ~~ Phil has more than enough information to PROVE that based on the overwhelming evidence publicly available and all the more with regards to how all other Nations viewed the Situation we should have (and possibly could have) responded in a better way.

Lastly ~ and specifically in regards to the COST of the war ~ he has clearly shown ~~ at least on paper ~~ that given the Debt the USA was in ... it was a bad move.

*********************************************************
I believe most of us could agree with this and there would honestly be no further need to continue this discussion.

************************************************************

America itself is most certainly the Greatest Nation on Earth. There in no other place that has MORE FREEDOM and by far there is no other place by with the STANDARD OF LIVING is more ABUNDANT.

The POLITICAL SYSTEM (as entirely screwed up and corrupt as it has been) is still the highest basis which provides the framework and grounding to ALL we as Americans have known and enjoyed.

The WARS themselves may have been a huge mistake if we look strickly at the obvious Political Reasons and Intentions; and all the more if we look at an outcome by which it would appear 'We have been Victorious'...

BUT -- Right or Wrong -- The Men and Women who dedicated their lives to serve our Country -- even to the point of actively engaging in WAR are by far the GREATEST HEROS we could ever know. They are the PEOPLE who recognize how Great our Country really is and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that the FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE will continue.

It is highly possible that the REST of the WORLD fully recognizes that the USA is most certainly the ONE COUNTRY that will not hesitate to FIGHT to protect itself ~~ and that all WARS may have in some manner more made other NATIONS change their minds in confronting us in a hostile manner.

So, as with the CONSERVATIVES -- I believe all of us could easily conclude that corruption and huge mistakes are frequently transpiring within POLITICS itself.

YET -- The American People at LARGE -- enjoy the greatest FREEDOMS and most certainly enjoy the GREATEST ABUNDANCE. The American People themselves have collectively wonderful hearts and minds, have enormous integrity, are hugely compassionate and caring and have demonstated a 'Generiousity' that makes them Stand out from all the others.

So if we can see Phil's Side -- and accept it for what it is -- then maybe he can see our side and realize America is a wonderful NATION because of the PEOPLE -- not the POLITICS.

 

[Scrappy]

Actually, I think we're making headway !

And I feel pretty good about the outcome.

Phil is stressing the underlying corruption by which many events have transpired ~~ and that is undeniable. He has pointed out how the CIA has most certainly concocked numerious seraniros by manipulating both information and by deliberatly instigating circumstances in order to create a 'believable story'. Often that is their Specific Job and it's what they are trained to do.

In the specific circumstances by which the Vietnam War was carried out and maintained ~~ and all subsequent wars ~~ Phil has more than enough information to PROVE that based on the overwhelming evidence publicly available and all the more with regards to how all other Nations viewed the Situation we should have (and possibly could have) responded in a better way.

Lastly ~ and specifically in regards to the COST of the war ~ he has clearly shown ~~ at least on paper ~~ that given the Debt the USA was in ... it was a bad move.

*********************************************************
I believe most of us could agree with this and there would honestly be no further need to continue this discussion.

************************************************************

America itself is most certainly the Greatest Nation on Earth. There in no other place that has MORE FREEDOM and by far there is no other place by with the STANDARD OF LIVING is more ABUNDANT.

The POLITICAL SYSTEM (as entirely screwed up and corrupt as it has been) is still the highest basis which provides the framework and grounding to ALL we as Americans have known and enjoyed.

The WARS themselves may have been a huge mistake if we look strickly at the obvious Political Reasons and Intentions; and all the more if we look at an outcome by which it would appear 'We have been Victorious'...

BUT -- Right or Wrong -- The Men and Women who dedicated their lives to serve our Country -- even to the point of actively engaging in WAR are by far the GREATEST HEROS we could ever know. They are the PEOPLE who recognize how Great our Country really is and they will do whatever it takes to make sure that the FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE will continue.

It is highly possible that the REST of the WORLD fully recognizes that the USA is most certainly the ONE COUNTRY that will not hesitate to FIGHT to protect itself ~~ and that all WARS may have in some manner more made other NATIONS change their minds in confronting us in a hostile manner.

So, as with the CONSERVATIVES -- I believe all of us could easily conclude that corruption and huge mistakes are frequently transpiring within POLITICS itself.

YET -- The American People at LARGE -- enjoy the greatest FREEDOMS and most certainly enjoy the GREATEST ABUNDANCE. The American People themselves have collectively wonderful hearts and minds, have enormous integrity, are hugely compassionate and caring and have demonstated a 'Generiousity' that makes them Stand out from all the others.

So if we can see Phil's Side -- and accept it for what it is -- then maybe he can see our side and realize America is a wonderful NATION because of the PEOPLE -- not the POLITICS.

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink::toung:

 

[Scrappy]

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink::toung:

Correction: 700 billion dollars.

 

[Steadygain]

I'm sorry my friend but you completely missed the basis of my post.

I am tried of the quabbling -- and bickering -- the endless airing of frustrations and the determination to prove one another wrong.

Have finally decided -- that if one side recognizes some underlying truths -- then all can come to realize that America itself and the people of American are the Best of the BEST. That we are a GREAT NATION and a wonderful people.

So I believe it is best to acknowlege some underlying flaws he has been striving to point out. It only confirms the corruption that has transpired from the Political System -- and most posts reflect this.

There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.

To me these things are essentially meaningless and not worth rehashing.

Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

Strangely -- you are compelled to maintain a rivilary and I believe you are somewhat motivated by the challenge and the belief that you will win the battle.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this.

Am only hoping that Phil and the rest of us can come to an agreement ~~ and that all of us can unanimously see why my later points are so important.

Then all those who committed their lives to SERVICE will get the respect they deserve ... WARS (as bad as they may be) may be seen in a different light -- and all AMERICANS can be viewed as a marvelous and beautiful people.

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling. :blink::toung:

Hmmm ... I'd say it's getting worn out ...

 

[Scrappy]

I'm sorry my friend but you completely missed the basis of my post.
Well I guess so........What was I thinking?
Isn't it the same as everything you post? "I will tell everyone that they are correct to some extent with the hope of all of us getting along?"

I am tried of the quabbling -- and bickering -- the endless airing of frustrations and the determination to prove one another wrong.


Have finally decided -- that if one side recognizes some underlying truths -- then all can come to realize that America itself and the people of American are the Best of the BEST. That we are a GREAT NATION and a wonderful people.


So I believe it is best to acknowlege some underlying flaws he has been striving to point out. It only confirms the corruption that has transpired from the Political System -- and most posts reflect this.



Hmmm ... I'd say it's getting worn out ...

Originally Posted by Scrappy
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.

To me these things are essentially meaningless and not worth rehashing. One man's opinion. To others, two pages of how you would "hypothetically" defend a mass murderer might be essentially meaningless.

Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

Strangely -- you are compelled to maintain a rivilary and I believe you are somewhat motivated by the challenge and the belief that you will win the battle.
Is there ever a winner and a loser in debates of this type? Like Phil, you are clueless as to what makes me tick.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.
Just like your posts?


And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this. Whoops! My bad! Based on your posts, I thought you were into just about everything on this MB.

Am only hoping that Phil and the rest of us can come to an agreement ~~ and that all of us can unanimously see why my later points are so important.

Then all those who committed their lives to SERVICE will get the respect they deserve ... WARS (as bad as they may be) may be seen in a different light -- and all AMERICANS can be viewed as a marvelous and beautiful people. I served my country for 24 years in uniform. As corrupt as it is, I believe America is the greatest country on earth. I stand for all Americans...........what are we supposed to be coming to an agreement on? And a reply is not required or requested.

Here are some lyrics for you...........since you seem to like these kinda things.

And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...Am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/in the silent water
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...

 

[phil]

Originally Posted by Scrappy
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office.
Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse!

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

It's a matter of scale. What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. By the way, Chalabi was also a failure under Clinton. We all understood that. Bay of Goats. If it was a failure then, why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch. Did he just like failure?

Or was there some other reason?

Here's a link to the letter they sent, by the way. All the signatories later became very important people during the Bush administration. Armitage was the only one who understood Chalabi was a charlatan.

http://zfacts.com/p/780.html

 

[Steadygain]

Is there ever a winner and a loser in debates of this type? Like Phil, you are clueless as to what makes me tick....

For who can truely know the heart of man

You're right my friend,
Even if you and I were totally and specifically designed for one another ~~ and we knew this ~~ and we did everything possible to live and work in harmony ....

I would not ever be able to know with certainty what makes you tick

Could only hope my beliefs have some grounding ... but God alone knows what make anyone tick .... the rest are clueless

Thank you for the Song BTW

Well have a great day ....

 

[Steadygain]

One man's opinion. To others, two pages of how you would "hypothetically" defend a mass murderer might be essentially meaningless.

You will not win with this attitude ~~ it will simply go on and on.
Just like your posts?

I really ~~ seriously ~~ am not into this. Whoops! My bad! Based on your posts, I thought you were into just about everything on this MB.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once again we have a perfect example of the Male Wiring and once triggered into action it must exhaust itself through acts of hostility and aggression.

You have seen it from me ~~ numerous times over the years ~~ and I am powerless to overcome it.

This was my mistake !! and I should have realized my post would have been taken as a confrontation ...

...when in reality I was hoping to avoid one

And so it is ... a man will stand his ground ... and not be easily moved ... if ever a hint of challenge is brought forth by another. For this is what we are and our 'Pride' supercedes everything else...

In the long run we may look back and think ... hey I probably shouldn't have said that .... or maybe I over reacted .... but in the moment we are often 'out of control'

That's why we eventually crawl up to Silverbird and try to get a sense of how she feels... and then it honestly doesn't matter cause she can say anything she wants ... even a total random thought and we'll agree with her and walk away satisfied.

Soo that's just the way it is ... we are what we are.

 

[Scrappy]

It's a matter of scale. What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. By the way, Chalabi was also a failure under Clinton. We all understood that. Bay of Goats. If it was a failure then, why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch. Did he just like failure?
How could it be a matter of scale? If Clinton spent ANY money based on erroneous neocon logic, (according to you) why wouldn't you want it all back? That would be like going back to a store that overcharged you for a refund and saying, "you overcharged me $10.00 and I would like a refund but don't worry abou the $.87 tax."

Or was there some other reason? Of course. He was conspiring.

Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

Hey, what do you think about getting back to the Fort Hood subject?



Here's a link to the letter they sent, by the way. All the signatories later became very important people during the Bush administration. Armitage was the only one who understood Chalabi was a charlatan.

http://zfacts.com/p/780.html

Clinton's victory in Iraq

• January 31, 2005 | 1:10 PM ET
I passed a television at the gym yesterday, and it was showing a familiar scene: A crowd of Arabs dancing, chanting, and waving flags for the camera.
Stereotypically, of course, those kinds of Arab crowds are celebrating something awful: A terrorist attack, the downing of a plane, whatever.
But this time, they were celebrating democracy.
And it occurred to me that the "root cause" crowd ought to be celebrating along with them. After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.
That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.
As Al Gore observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.
​

Gore said we need to stand up for democracy. And we have. Only Al Gore isn't saying much now.
What's hard to understand is why so many Democrats -- including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty thinks it's the 2008 primaries already. But I don't think either of these explanations hits the mark.
I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.
The question is whether the Democratic Party -- which ought to be cheering events that vindicate Clinton's policies -- will do itself fatal damage by giving in to envy. Such small-mindedness doesn't suggest a party that's ready to govern.

 

[phil]

http://www.costofwar.com/

This is just direct costs, not what's also being misspent in other areas in this useless and counterproductive war.

Your 2005 quote on Clinton was yet another attempt for the other side to pass the buck......years after they realized that their endeavour was a complete failure.:laugh:

It's typical. Had it been the unqualified success they dreamed of, they would have taken all the credit. Then, they tried to push the "bipartisan" concept of blame. See? It's Clinton's fault. Monica Lewinsky! After a while, the antics just become tiresome. Listening to the neocons, making a political deal with them was the worst thing he could've done. Next time.....we'll know.

Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans.

 

[Scrappy]

http://www.costofwar.com/

This is just direct costs, not what's also being misspent in other areas in this useless and counterproductive war.

Your 2005 quote on Clinton was yet another attempt for the other side to pass the buck......years after they realized that their endeavour was a complete failure.:laugh:

It's typical. Had it been the unqualified success they dreamed of, they would have taken all the credit. Then, they tried to push the "bipartisan" concept of blame. See? It's Clinton's fault. Monica Lewinsky! After a while, the antics just become tiresome. Listening to the neocons, making a political deal with them was the worst thing he could've done. Next time.....we'll know.

Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans.

You mean spending like this right?
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

President Barack Obama making announcement canceling missile defense shield. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”

Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”

Phil, don't runaway now.


Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

 

[phil]

Uh-huh. You need to actually read the Congressional report before you post it, because I will read it. The date was May 2009 and does not include end of 2009 and 2010 funding. You also need to do the same for, as you put it, "welfare spending" for the upcoming years.....that have not yet come. Could you give me the facts and figures on money that has not yet been spent? In the words of your post, these are projections from a right wing think tank, not what has been spent.

Is this another neocon attempt to sell us yet another bizarre idea, where we can spend another trillion on "security" that we don't need. In the words of Ronald Reagan....."There we go again".

Please show me some facts to support your claim. Don't run away now.

With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental/FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and
other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2009 Spring Supplemental which includes war funds to cover the rest of the current fiscal year.
This $864 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs from FY2009 through the first part of FY2009, the current fiscal year. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $642 billion (74%), OEF about $189 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate
(1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of February 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $8.4 billion for Iraq, and $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, a monthly average some $3 billion below last year.
​

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq, $223 billion for Afghanistan, $28 billion for
enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 73% would
be for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. If Congress approves the​

FY2010 war request, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would total over $1 trillion.

 

[Steadygain]

Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans.

You asked for it

And here it is:

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending

$10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs.

These are very HELPFUL to Americans who need help the most

These include:

• cash payments,
• food,
• housing,
• Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans.

I am absolutely THRILLED in knowing my Tax Dollars go for the betterment of the whole. There are many in much worse conditions than me ~~ and I fully believe those of us who can spare what we have should do so and do it with a generous heart and with the right attitude.

This is EXCELENT !!!

One wants to see how the President can spend our money in ways that are USEFUL to Americans

Another steps up and shows how the NEEDS are being met.


Thank you one and all

A very good night to everyone -- God bless America !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scrappy]

Uh-huh. You need to actually read the Congressional report before you post it, because I will read it. The date was May 2009 and does not include end of 2009 and 2010 funding. You also need to do the same for, as you put it, "welfare spending" for the upcoming years.....that have not yet come. Could you give me the facts and figures on money that has not yet been spent? In the words of your post, these are projections from a right wing think tank, not what has been spent.

Is this another neocon attempt to sell us yet another bizarre idea, where we can spend another trillion on "security" that we don't need. In the words of Ronald Reagan....."There we go again".

Please show me some facts to support your claim. Don't run away now.
What claim did I make? NONE! You made the claim and now you won't back it up. *SEE BOTTOM of page.

You said: "Hey, here's a plan: Let's let the current President spend money on things that are actually USEFUL to Americans." And I said "You mean spending like this right?" refering to welfare.

With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental/FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and
other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2009 Spring Supplemental which includes war funds to cover the rest of the current fiscal year.
This $864 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs from FY2009 through the first part of FY2009, the current fiscal year. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $642 billion (74%), OEF about $189 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate
(1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of February 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $8.4 billion for Iraq, and $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, a monthly average some $3 billion below last year.​

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq, $223 billion for Afghanistan, $28 billion for
enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 73% would
be for Iraq, 24% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. If Congress approves the​

FY2010 war request, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would total over $1 trillion.

PHil, what does this information you posted have to do with the question I have asked twice now without an answer?

*You said:
"What we spent for 8 years under Clinton was 1% of what we spent under Bush. ...., why would Bush decide to spend 100 times the money on his watch."
For the third time: Please show me some facts to support your claim that Bush spent 100 times more money.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

 

[phil]

I assumed you read your own posts and sources. By the way, it is not 7 billion in Iraq, it's almost 700 billion. Try to get the facts right. Okay?

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/iraqis-ask-us-to-do-more-to-oust-saddam.html?pagewanted=1

Shows that President Clinton was authorized by Congress to spend a total of 97 million dollars.....only to oust Saddam Hussein. So, on Iraq spending, Congress authorized only 1/7000th of the total to spend on the Iraq issue, which he didn't spend.

Here's one reason why. By the way, I STILL think they're right.

http://conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

From YOUR source:

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

The 684 billion also does not include other incidentals in support of GWOT, not covered directly in Iraq.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they made.

Now, show me the total expenditures of the current administration on your so called welfare programs to date, not some silly speculation from the Heritage Foundation about "what we think he might spend". By the way, you should read some of their articles. I think "separating fact from fiction" may be a direct challenge.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Yeah.

Hint: the actual source documents are located at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf which also give projections.

 

[Scrappy]

I assumed you read your own posts and sources. By the way, it is not 7 billion in Iraq, it's almost 700 billion. Try to get the facts right. Okay?
Phil, looks like you are so caught up in yourself and quick to judge that you overlooked this post by me immediately following the one you are referencing from yesterday about 7 billion:

Re: Fort Hood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy
There are a lot of people, I am not one of them, that believe that Clinton initiated the law and bombing airstrikes etc. to remove saddam from power as a diversionary tactic in regard to his "interaction" with Monica. Clintons actions were the basis for and culminated in a war that cost billions before Bush was even in office. Strangely, Phil won't even acknowledge anything about that $$$ other than to repeatedly say that Clinton got suckered by the neocons. What a pitiful excuse! And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

Well, you make a few good points.......as I would have expected from you but I am still a little disappointed that you didn't address "the body slam" Phil hit me with about Pro Wrestling.

Correction: 700 billion dollars.


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/iraqis-ask-us-to-do-more-to-oust-saddam.html?pagewanted=1

Shows that President Clinton was authorized by Congress to spend a total of 97 million dollars.....only to oust Saddam Hussein. So, on Iraq spending, Congress authorized only 1/7000th of the total to spend on the Iraq issue, which he didn't spend.

Phil, come on. I know I joke around and get sarcastic a bit but seriously. I really want to know how much was spent on sadam and Iraq during the 8 years of Clinton. Besides being 100% lame information that tells me nothing that supports your claim, you give me quotes from your bible and then say this:
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Here's one reason why. By the way, I STILL think they're right.

http://conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

From YOUR source:

If the Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental request is enacted, total war-related funding would
reach $941 billion, including $684 billion for Iraq.

And as proof for what I just said, how come you have never heard Phil in one of his multitude of repeats on wanting his 7 billion dollars back ever once mention the billions spent before Bush?

The 684 billion also does not include other incidentals in support of GWOT, not covered directly in Iraq.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they made.

Now, show me the total expenditures of the current administration on your so called welfare programs to date, not some silly speculation from the Heritage Foundation. By the way, you should read some of their articles. I think "separating fact from fiction" may be a direct challenge.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Yeah.

I am still patiently waiting and in the meantime what about tallying up the $ here like you do when you are talking about this subject in relation Bush?

CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA​

"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat — and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. that's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day...."​

CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS​

"Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles — fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
"That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox...."

And about my other unanswered question: Do you think we should get back on the original topic of this thread or at least continue this on a new one for the sake of other people?​

 

[burrocrat]

get ready folks, the talking heads are about to come on tv and dazzle us with backpeddaling, mediocrity, wastefulness, and finger pointing.

same as it ever was.