Cyclo et al, Haven't you noticed? Even Bush doesn't mention the cost of this war, because he wants to "stay the course," and he'll get more negative performance ratings for telling the truth. On second thought, some people like ican who still support this war would rather spend it on killing and maiming rather than promote universal health care for all of our citizens - the population with the shortest life span and highest infant mortality rate of all the developed countries... Bush and ican can make sure our life span shortens even more with this war that has spread to many parts around the world.
Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Make sure you add 144 billion dollars, the prices of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No point in ignoring the costs of that, is there? They go on the books either way.
Cycloptichorn
Federal Budget Deficits in the years 2006 & 2007; page 2, Table 1:
October 2005 to September 2006 = $248.2 Billion
October 2006 to June 2007 = $121.0 Billion
From page 3, Table 2:
estimate for full fiscal year,
October 2006 to September 2007 = $204.7 Billion
Yes, and make sure you, as I said, add anywhere from 130-150 billion for the cost of the war. You can't just ignore those costs, as you seem to want to.
Cycloptichorn
Please provide us the evidence that the costs of the war are not included in the federal budget deficit data I provided.
Then please provide the evidence for what those costs October 2005 to September 2006 and October 2006 to June 2007 actually were.
Then please provide the evidence for the estimated war costs for October 2006 to September 2007.
ican, If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing upwards of 2.8 billion every week, the total federal deficit ain't gonna be what you posted. You should know by now how our government produces numbers that has so many twists and turns to them, nobody in their right mind will be able to interpret them.
On second thought, you may be quite capable.
cicerone imposter wrote:Cyclo et al, Haven't you noticed? Even Bush doesn't mention the cost of this war, because he wants to "stay the course," and he'll get more negative performance ratings for telling the truth. On second thought, some people like ican who still support this war would rather spend it on killing and maiming rather than promote universal health care for all of our citizens - the population with the shortest life span and highest infant mortality rate of all the developed countries... Bush and ican can make sure our life span shortens even more with this war that has spread to many parts around the world.
I would rather al-Qaeda be exterminated in order to greatly reduce their advocated and managed suicidal mass murder of non-murdering Muslims and Americans.
I am opposed to government funded universal health care, whether the war continues or ends. Government funded universal healthcare will only duplicate or exceed the messes in health care costs and effectiveness fostered by other countries that provide government funded universal healthcare.
I am in favor of private charities buying needed health care insurance for all those who want it and cannot purchased it for themselves. Currently about 85% of the public has its own privately funded health care. There is no requirement for government funded
universal health care.
Your allegations about American lifespans relative to that of other developed countries are malarkey.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing upwards of 2.8 billion every week, the total federal deficit ain't gonna be what you posted. You should know by now how our government produces numbers that has so many twists and turns to them, nobody in their right mind will be able to interpret them.
On second thought, you may be quite capable.
Please provide your evidence to support these allegations.
Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The most important feature of the new budget released by the Bush administration on Monday is that it is not, in any serious sense of the word, a budget at all. It is a monumental fraud, aimed at concealing fiscal reality and usurping decisions on spending that, under longstanding US constitutional procedures, are reserved to Congress rather than the executive branch.
Many of the most expensive and politically contentious initiatives of the Bush administration are simply left out of the budget. By one estimate, the omitted costs come to $4 trillion over 10 years, an amount equal to about one-and-a-half year's spending at the current rate of $2.5 trillion a year.
There is no funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the costs are estimated at $5 billion a month even if the US troop presence in Iraq is reduced to 120,000 next year.
White House budget director Joshua Bolten admitted that the war would involve major costs, but added, "It wouldn't be responsible for us to take a guess at what those costs are." (This argument apparently does not apply to the campaign for Social Security privatization, which Bush has sought to motivate through implausible and tendentious projections about the state of the system's finances 75 years from now).
The Bush administration has consistently refused to incorporate spending for its war policies into the regular budget, instead making use of supplemental appropriations bills rammed through Congress with demagogy about the need to "support our troops." The purpose has been to distance the social cuts imposed by the administration from the cost of its wars, and thus conceal their essential connection: millions are being cut off food stamps, student loans or health insurance to finance American military aggression.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have called for revising the AMT, either by raising the level at which it takes effect or indexing it for inflation. The result would be to reduce tax revenues by $72 billion in 2009 and a total of $500 billion over the following decade. The Bush administration supports the restructuring of the AMT, but its budget assumes that the full AMT revenues will be collected, a key element in its projection that the budget deficit will be cut in half by 2009.
More and more, the financial numbers produced by the White House have come to resemble the cooked books of corporations like Enron or WorldCom. Huge liabilities and expenses are shifted into "off-the-books" accounts like the shell corporations created by Enron to sustain its Wall Street image of ever-rising profitability. If Bush were CEO and Bolten CFO of a Fortune 500 corporation, the budget numbers they have just submitted would be grounds for prosecution for securities fraud.
The Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), having somewhat higher standards than Enron's now-defunct accountant Arthur Andersen, has refused for years to certify the accounts of the federal government. This year GAO auditors gave 21 out of 26 federal departments the lowest possible ratings in terms of their accounts, meaning that the auditors could make no determination whatsoever about the actual state of the books.
There has been considerable negative commentary on the budget in the corporate-controlled media, much of it focused on the arbitrary assumptions and concealment of large future costs. BusinessWeek magazine, in an editorial headlined, "Wanted: An Honest Budget," summed up the case as follows: "New private retirement accounts could cost $1.5 trillion from 2011 to 2015 and add $100 billion a year to the budget deficit for 20 years. Making tax cuts permanent could cost $2 trillion. Fixing the AMT could cost an additional $500 billion. These are real numbers that should be included in any real budget. If President Bush believes the policies proposed are best for the nation, then he should lead an honest dialogue about how we should pay for them."
The Washington Post published an acid-tongued account of Bolten's press conference, citing his remark during the briefing, "I actually enter into this with a happy spirit." The Post correspondent wrote: "It's no wonder Bolten was so chipper: His budget was full of happy thoughts. The spending plan Bolten outlined was a model of fiscal responsibility. But as he fielded questions for an hour, it became steadily clearer why the new budget seemed so restrained: The White House left out a lot of expenses the government is likely to have, while including savings the government is unlikely ever to see."
House OKs plan to withdraw US troopsIt probably won't pass in the Senate.
cicerone imposter wrote:Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
...
What is it about Martin that warrants anyone believing what he writes to be the truth?
The issue we were discussing is whether or not the budget deficit is decreasing or increasing.
Let
D = the budget deficit absent war spending.
Let
W = war spending.
The question then is whether,
D2006 +
W2006 is greater or less than
D2007 +
W2007.
Not only do I not know whether Martin is competent to discuss this subject, I don't know what is his answer to that question.
Listening to a senior General in the British Army, its quite clear that we have lost Basra.
(not of course from what he was saying, but because of what he couldnt say in terms of success)
The army has withdrawn to the airport. They are handing over to local forces but...
the police are "100%"- according to another unnamed senior source -infiltrated by militants loyal to local war lords not the "Iraqi" government.
The only foreign presence in Basra is the Iranian consulate.
7 barbers (yes barbers) have been murdered for shaving men. (Unislamic apparantly)
Women are forced to be covered from head to foot.
Meanwhile attacks on the British Army intensify and casualties increase because the militant groups, some of which are loyal to Iran, are competing with each other to claim most credit for driving the British out.
So billions wasted. Thousands killed. Iraq put back in the middle ages and Iran's hand immeasurably strengthened. Well done everybody.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Make sure you add 144 billion dollars, the prices of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No point in ignoring the costs of that, is there? They go on the books either way.
Cycloptichorn
Federal Budget Deficits in the years 2006 & 2007; page 2, Table 1:
October 2005 to September 2006 = $248.2 Billion
October 2006 to June 2007 = $121.0 Billion
From page 3, Table 2:
estimate for full fiscal year,
October 2006 to September 2007 = $204.7 Billion
Yes, and make sure you, as I said, add anywhere from 130-150 billion for the cost of the war. You can't just ignore those costs, as you seem to want to.
Cycloptichorn
Please provide us the evidence that the costs of the war are not included in the federal budget deficit data I provided.
Then please provide the evidence for what those costs October 2005 to September 2006 and October 2006 to June 2007 actually were.
Then please provide the evidence for the estimated war costs for October 2006 to September 2007.
As you well know, the Iraq war has been paid for in large part off of 'special supplementals' to the budget, the entire time; it is not reflected in Bush's budgetary calculations.
Quote:
Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.
"Calling it an emergency means the spending does not get the scrutiny," he adds, because then the spending is reviewed by only one committee - House Appropriations. In addition, he says, emergency spending is exempt from caps on discretionary spending. This has prompted the military to include in the bill items that are not directly related to the war. Making the spending a part of the budget would end the practice of some members placing pet projects on a bill that must be passed, he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html
Natrually, 1 minute with google could have found this information out, Ican, do a little research plz.
Cycloptichorn
Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.
Quote:You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined "satisfactory."
Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.
Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, previously I posted this to:
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Bush's budget: government by fraud and lies
By Patrick Martin
9 February 2005
...
What is it about Martin that warrants anyone believing what he writes to be the truth?
The issue we were discussing is whether or not the budget deficit is decreasing or increasing.
Let
D = the budget deficit absent war spending.
Let
W = war spending.
The question then is whether,
D2006 +
W2006 is greater or less than
D2007 +
W2007.
Not only do I not know whether Martin is competent to discuss this subject, I don't know what is his answer to that question.
Cyclo, likewise, not only do I not know whether
you are competent to discuss this subject, I not know
your answer to that question.
John Aravsois at Americablog.org sums up the way that many of us feel about Iraq:
Quote:Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.
Quote:You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET
...
/
Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.
Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.
Cycloptichorn
Fred Kaplan is not a reliable source of information about what is happening in Iraq, and neither are you.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Bush and the WH lied yesterday about Iraq. Big time. An objective look at th actual situation doesn't show a 'mixed bag,' as the Prez. presented, but a failure.
Quote:You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 5:47 PM ET
...
/
Just another set of lies by a group who can't bring themselves to tell the truth.
Maybe that's why so many Americans, Ican, can't get on board with the Iraq fiasco - b/c they know that every time Bush moves his lips, he lies. He's been caught in so many lies, false statements, and half-truths, there's just no reason to believe him when he talks about the importance of the war.
Cycloptichorn
Fred Kaplan is not a reliable source of information about what is happening in Iraq, and neither are you.
He can read a report issued by the Administration as well as anyone else can. If you had actually read the piece, you would see that he draws upon the Admin's own report as his source of information.
Nice try at character assassination, but you failed to address the topic: that the administration's own report completely contradicts Bush's 'mixed bag' assessment.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
He [Fred Kaplan] can read a report issued by the Administration as well as anyone else can. If you had actually read the piece, you would see that he draws upon the Admin's own report as his source of information.
Nice try at character assassination, but you failed to address the topic: that the administration's own report completely contradicts Bush's 'mixed bag' assessment.
Cycloptichorn
I read Kaplan's piece. Yes, Kaplan says he draws upon the administration's own report to fabricate his article. The question that remains is whether you or Kaplan are competent to correctly understand the administration's report.
By the way, I did not try to assassinate Kaplan's character. I did question Kaplan's competence ... and your competence as well. If you really cannot tell the difference, you are worse off than I thought. If you can tell the difference, and pretend otherwise, then you are surely no damn good.
