It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 04:31 PM
"The Bush deficit of $304 billion, the largest in history as well as the most precipitous, (see above) is pre-budget. With the new Bush budget in place, our deficit is $5.4 trillion over ten years. (Bush is back-loading the deficit so the entire economic penality of what he is doing will not be readily apparent until after he is out of office.) Paul Krugman suggests that we count on that post-budget deficit to increase by around $140 billion evey six months, and that's based upon past behavior and does not count the Bush war against Iraq: "Independent analysts, who take into account the stuff the administration pretends doesn't exist the war, the alternative minimum tax, and so on think we're looking at deficits of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P., maybe more, for the next decade. And then it will get much worse." We know that a deficit such as that which is predicted could move our country into a depression in ten or so years. But as Bush said as he was leaving Texas for D.C. when told that the state was moving into deficit spending due to his ill-advised tax cuts, "That's not my problem." To see how bad it could get, let's look at a NYT estimate of the cost of a Bush war on Iraq.

Military Deployment = $79 billion
Military Occupation = $105 billion (First 5 years only.)
Humanitarian Aid = $10 billion
Governance = $12 billion
Reconsrtuction/Recovery = $105 billion
Debt/Claims/Reparation = $361 billion
Aid To Allies = $10 billion (Does not include quid pro quo deals)
TOTAL: $682 billion

The Bush budget assumes a deficit of $5.4 trillion by the end of ten years, but the addition of a Bush Iraq war deficit of .7 trillion will push it up to $6.1 trillion, and assuming Bush will continue his ill-advised economic plans with a GOP Congress in place, the deficit by the end of his present term in office will reach $6.7 trillion. Bush plans to plunder the taxpayers' money coming in to support Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to bring down the deficit to $3.2 trillion, but pretty much eliminating the three programs by so doing, which is his ultimate goal, thereby destroying the key economic safety nets nearly all of the poor and most of the middle class have. By then, the government will have to delete 30% of its social programs or put heavy taxation in place to avoid doing so. Given the huge deficit we will still have at that point, "the temptation to print money to pay our debts will become almost irresistible." That being the case, inflation will set in, jobs will be lost, and wages will remain fixed as prices go up. By then, of course, ex-President Bush will be saying, "That's not my problem." It will be ours."


posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 04:43 PM
Excellent question Bout time.We will!!Bush has DETSROYED this country & each day he's in office it get worse!Not until he vaporized this planet will he be stopped!Liz Smith in this mornings column even spoke how the people in Txas are pissed because he left a 10 billion (BILLION,not million!)debt when he left office.Ann Richards would have been lynched if she had done that!

Somewhere in Texas a village has lost its idiot
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease!!!

posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 04:54 PM
B-T, who will pay for the damage done if the war is not carried out? His stated goals are the destruction of Israel, the destruction of America and dominance of the Middle East. Foresight, and not much of it, is all that is necessary to see what lies down the road for us if we do not act. Yeah, this is going to be an expensive scene, but at least it will be a scene we will survive. Give him more time and what we are trying to destroy in his country will end up in ours, and our children and wives will suffer for our hesitation and cowardice.
Chamberlain's folly and cowardice should've been a lesson worth learning. This time it'll be on our soil, in our cities, in our homes. Forget the cost. We are Husein's enemy, and we are bin Laden's enemy. Our enemy is the friend of our other enemy, and so on.

posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 07:31 PM

I wonder what would happen if all citizens refused to pay their Income Taxes, on the grounds that they are not only Unconstitutional (Passed into an Amendment only due to an Unconstitutional "Executive Order" in the first place) & that the Federal Reserve System, being Unconstitutional, means that everybody's been guilty of passing counterfeit money all this time anyway...

Then how would Bush pay for the war?...

posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 11:57 PM
i'd be all for not paying taxes. they piss me off anyway. i didn't get a great refund this year either. screw that. i'm not payin for any piss ant war against a bunch of err piss ants. maybe the sales of the oil we get will help a bit but i doubt it'll do much.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 04:53 AM
BT, you didn't ask the right question.

The right one is :

Who will pay if Saddam and peoples like him are not disarmed and removed definitively ? You ? Me? My daughter ? I don't want to pay the bill,because some cowards didn't dare to act against these crazy mollah and tyrants who just want to wipe out us from the earth surface.

The Dalladier & Chamberlain fans will not win this time !
The new Hitler's/Stalin's of the 21 century have to be stopped.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 08:52 AM
Your right UP, ALL the new HITLERS, must be stopped

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 09:56 AM
...Speaking of Hitler...

...Have you seen what kind of "legislation" Bush is trying to push onto Americans?...

Hey, I'm all for the idea of getting rid of terrorists, but Bush is going about it all wrong. He's trying to use conventional military tactics to weed out a very *unconventional* foe. He's not capable of "thinking outside the box" the way the foe does on a normal, routine basis.

If I had *any* reason to stop paying taxes, it would be for the purpose of getting the corrupted government back on the track it should've never left...And that includes the idea of getting this country back to the gold standard & disbanding the Federal Reserve. In other words, I wouldn't stop paying taxes because of Sodamn Insane or other terrorists...I'd stop paying them to help oust the terrorists that are running the US government.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 10:02 AM
Good point Bout Time - a war will cost a lot of money. Let's stop funding the NEA and use that money towards disarming Saddam!

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 10:22 AM
Thomas, U-P, Bob:
Define for me how Sddam's Iraq will be able to pull off a ramp up or pass off of weapons, given the 24/7 scrutiny, both physical and electronic? Define for me the incidents of terrorism funded by or carried out by Iraqis in the last 10 years? The military invasions?
Define for me ANY FUNDAMETALIST Islamic stronghold/faction inside of Iraq that has survived Saddam?
Define for me ANY LINK to terror agents we're chasing for 9/11 to Iraq that has been established?
After you do all that, maybe you can make a logical case for immediate war over continued & ratched up inspection & containment.
But please, the Hitler anology is historically inaccurate and completely without thought with the only place that it holds water is that Saddam & Adolph are both fascists & scumbags. Bush is much closer in a line by line comparison to Hitler than Saddam is.
Bob, spending money on Iraq is not making the US safer...spending and delivering the money that Bush has shortchanged the states on for Homeland Security, would make us safer. If he would keep the promise to fund what was needed on the state level, and not put up false shows like positioning rocket launchers around the capitol, we'll be better off. To put it in better perspective, if this whole Dividends tax charade was dropped, and the money was spent on education ( which he has also not funded despite his rhetoric & promises), it would pay for every child going into a Head Start program.

posted on Feb, 19 2003 @ 11:35 AM
Bout Time,

TC, Bob88 or myself do not have to define you anything. For you, the nazi is not Saddam but Bush. And for us, the nazi is Saddam and not Bush.

So, I don't see why I would have to waste my time. But if TC or BoB88 want to try, they can do it.After all, I'm speaking for myself, and not for them.

I think that we'll see who had right and wrong after the war.

P.S : MidnightDStroyer, what's going on ? You are always speaking about the Fed Res, the unconstitunional taxes,the corrupted gov...etc...

Are u ok ?

I don't want to see you on the CNN news.

" A wacko grabbed his gun and headed toward Washington DC to shoot the IRS employees. "

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 11:02 AM
Sure you have to define it....or else your argument is without merit and you've lost the debate. We're America, we're the good guys. Banana Republic dictators attack and kill other states soley based what they think there enemy is; just look at Africa. We have laws, we need to prove our case. Pre-emptive war is something our country has never done, and until the case is made that it's the only feasible option, it's immoral & likely illegal.
And for the record, I don't think Saddam or Bush are Nazis.....just a fascists dictator and a neo-fascist corporatist as defined by Roosevelt.

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 11:51 AM
Look Bout Time, if after all you have read and heard on the news (TV, radio,website... ) we still have to explain you why it's almost an obligation to remove Saddam and his WMD program, or you are an idiot ( and I don't think that you're an idiot !
), or you do it on purpose. I'm sure it's the last solution. You do it on purpose. But Why you play this " game " is still a mistery for me.

We don't have anything to lose. It's the left-wing who has many to lose.Because when the peoples will understand really what happened, who was behind what, and why many peoples were " anti-war " ( in fact anti-freedom ) and who is/was really the bad guys and the good guys, I feel that many will cry and will have many regrets.

[Edited on 20-2-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Are u ok ?

I don't want to see you on the CNN news.
" A wacko grabbed his gun and headed toward Washington DC to shoot the IRS employees. "

Not likely...I don't even *own* a gun of any kind. My wife has certain disabilities that would make if too dangerous to have one around the house. Also, a gun can be too random...If you miss your intended target (Which I have to admit, I'm not a Marksman by any stretch of the definition), that bullet has to go *somewhere* & I don't want to be (accidently) responsible for killing a neighbor. I have *other* ways to defend myself & my family that don't rely on my aim with a gun...

Like I've said before...I'm *not* against the idea of doing something about terrorists. It's Bush's *methods* of dealing with them & what he's doing against the Constitution in the process that I'm against.

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 12:45 PM
U-P: "Nothing to lose!?!? The left wing is the only thing with something to lose!?!?!"

!?!?! Que !?!?!

- No proof has been given except proof that's been refutiated by valid sources
- I've seen nothing that puts Iraq as a "Clear & Present Danger" that requires invasion within the next several weeks
- We'll see Jihad like the world has never known
That's ALOT to lose.

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time

1) U-P: "Nothing to lose!?!? The left wing is the only thing with something to lose!?!?!"

2) - No proof has been given except proof that's been refutiated by valid sources

3) - I've seen nothing that puts Iraq as a "Clear & Present Danger" that requires invasion within the next several weeks

4) - We'll see Jihad like the world has never known

That's ALOT to lose.

1) Yes. Losing all their illusions. Losing the peoples supprot when they'll see who's really Saddam and peoples like him. Losing future votes, when the peoples will understand that they have been screwed by the left.

2) Impossible debate.What's a proof for me is not one for you, and vice versa.

3) See above.

4) Oooooooooooooof course !!!!!!!!!! So, for you, surrending is the only sustainable possibility. " Better red than dead " was the " peacefull peoples " motto during the Cold War era, and now your new motto is " better muslims than dead ". Sorry BT, but me, I was thinking the opposite ! " Better dead than red ", and now, it's " better dead than muslim !!! "

5) You beat me BT. None of my familly members will have to fight if there is a war against Irak. But when they joined the Army/Navy/AF, they didn't know that, may be, they would have to fight ? When I was soldier, it was clear in my mind. If there was a war, I had to fight. And it wasn't a problem for my familly, my friends or for me. Because it was just my fu$% job, and also, it was my choice to be in the army. It was my choice to protect the Western world against all his ennemies.

But I understand you, and I know that it's not funny when someone from your familly is on the frontline.

[Edited on 20-2-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 10:40 AM
They are not bitching about this yet-to-be-proven-necessary-war.....I am! To the contrary, while I think it has to do with age & worldliness, I don't know of too many young military guys who aren't itching for a fight.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 12:04 PM
BT, if you are here, today, it's for a good reason. Many young soldiers gave their live ( or were ready to give it ).

I don't say that I saved the whole western civilisation by myself, but I know that I helped a little bit, and I'm proud to have been involved in the Cold War. Without the thousand and thousand and thousand of " little Ultra_Phoenix ", who were ready, everywhere in the world, to stand up and fight, the communism didn't win and lost the battle.

Before the communism, it was the nazism and the fascism. And now, there is another communist-nazis like threat. Terrorists and fanatics who want to kill us all !

Fortunately, we have many news " little Ultra_Phoenix ", everywhere in the world, who are ready, like our grand-parents, parents, and myself did it before, to protect us.Protecting all of us, even peoples like you, who are allways ready to surrender without any conditions to our worse ennemies.

And when I see these so-called " anti-war " peoples, it reminds me those former so-called " anti-war " protesters who were protesting against the NATO, in the eighties, but who were shuting up their mouth when the former Warsaw Pact/USSR were threatening us !

The old saying has right. Nothing new under the sun !
And of course, one more time, the same peoples will win, and the same peoples will lose ! I'm wondering when you'll understand that we have to fight if we want to stay alive and if we want to keep safe & secure our civilization.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 03:59 PM
"Shades of Gray"

Listen, for the last time, it's not 'invade Iraq now' VS 'Do nothing'.
And people who don't believe in the immediate attack don't love Saddam or are naive.
Stop the chest thumping brovado about 'righteousness' and must 'protect future generations'. the people against immediate war served their country, love their kids and are righteous folks as well.
In a Black or White perspective, there is only Saints or Sinners.....just because you've assumed the Halo, don't expect folks to glue on horns to fit your role play.
I know full well how those who came before me sacraficed and what they died you equating this immediate war with the flimsy reasons that might start it to their ultimate sacrafice, I think you cheapen it.

posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time

don't expect folks to glue on horns to fit your role play.

I don't expect anything BT, because I don't play any role game. I'm deadly serious !


log in