It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

can anyone answer this question for me?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
back in the clinton administration, newt and his buddies had their contract with america. one of the things in it was that they wouldn't be able to run on a deficit, UNLESS THEIR WAS A WAR. was this passed?

the reason why I ask this is that well, if it was.....and I have come to the conclusion that the current administration has decided that as long as we are at war, well the president should have the right to disobey any law he sees fit, trample on any rights, and ignore any treaties that he feels are in his way.......

gee, can't imaging why they would paint such a pretty picture while trying to lead us into a nice long lasting war, can you??




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I'm not sure about your question, but I know Politics & war go hand in hand.

Nothing new, just a new tyrant running the show.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
just thought I'd bring it back up, see if anyone knew the answer. I know clinton kept the budget balance, and had surpluses. was he legally bound to??? then well, when Bush go in, well, in order to have all the money they wanted, was a war necessary to get that m oney?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar


back in the clinton administration, newt and his buddies had their contract with america. one of the things in it was that they wouldn't be able to run on a deficit, UNLESS THEIR WAS A WAR. was this passed?

the reason why I ask this is that well, if it was.....and I have come to the conclusion that the current administration has decided that as long as we are at war, well the president should have the right to disobey any law he sees fit, trample on any rights, and ignore any treaties that he feels are in his way.......

gee, can't imaging why they would paint such a pretty picture while trying to lead us into a nice long lasting war, can you??


Actually those concepts are in "The Art of War" and "The Prince". But your right, it may be NWO-eliests, you know who did Sandra Bullocks make-up and hair for "Miss Congeniality", LOL
- What can I say politics always NEEDS humor. But my point is the Bush Adminstration may be on some Secret Societies plans or running on their own, we can't know for certain.
Sorry, but we'll try to figure it out.


What's the Washington intellecgence community without some of it's "BEST" being elietests? And Elitests always have some agenda, but who knows?

[edit on 12/17/05 by bsbfan1]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The "Contract with America" was passed, but it was never really legally binding, and was, after the initial chest-thumping by Newt, quietly set aside.

Clinton never established any spending-- no president does. The Congress has the sole responsibility for deciding on government spending. Additionally, the budget was never really balanced, nor were there any real surpluses under Clinton's administration. That's a myth based on a fundamental misrepresentation. In the later years of Clinton's presidency, the yearly deficit decreased, but there was still a deficit every year. In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which set nominal spending caps through 2002. At that point, Clinton announced that there would be a budget surplus beginning in 2002. This projected surplus depended on Congress actually adhering to the spending caps, which they immediately did NOT do (as a matter of fact, they immediately started to spend the projected surplus, in installments), and on tax revenues continuing to increase, which they were certain NOT to. The already obviously approaching collapse of the tech stock bubble was ample evidence, to any who actually considered the idea, that tax revenues were NOT going to continue to increase, and were in fact certain to decrease as the overall value of the stock market fell. His projected surplus was never granted any legitimacy by any but the most hopeful and/or foolish partisans, but has somehow, over the few intervening years, come to be considered not even as a foolishly hopeful projection, but as a historical fact. The budget surplus in fact never existed.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Cool! See you learn something new and cool everyday. But I actually had no idea that's how that worked thank you. And in case your wondering the "BSB BORADS "CT-POLITCAL UPDATE!"" is done! So play time and party time man! YAY!



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join