Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/18/2008 1:31:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 1:59:16 PM EST
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:00:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?


Neither. ONE MAN holds veto power and he isn't running for anything right now so it's a moot point.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:00:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?

six, last two has been the dems. get yer facts stright.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:01:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 2:02:28 PM EST by Frank_The_Tank]

Originally Posted By gene5:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?

six, last two has been the dems. get yer facts stright.


Congress cannot veto legislation.



Oh and Bush isn't a conservative.

And water is wet.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:05:03 PM EST
iraq war
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:09:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
I'm gay and I like to suck off horses.


Alrighty then.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:12:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


Sure, why not?
Get both.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:16:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
I'm gay and I like to suck off horses.


Alrighty then.



Holy shit I just spit Coke all over my screen.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:20:17 PM EST
As long as it wasn"t Horse!!
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:21:37 PM EST
Great. So the Republicans didn't propose a bunch of spending increases... they just voted for them. And the Republican President signed most of them.


Now that's what I call bi-partisanship.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:21:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
I'm gay and I like to suck off horses.


Alrighty then.



Holy shit I just spit Coke all over my screen.


Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:26:09 PM EST
Good find!
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:28:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war




Obamas proposed NEW spending of 1,000,000,000+ in 4 years of a 1st term is how many more billions than Iraq's costs?


I also find it sickening you liberals treat Iraq as nothing more than a topic of spending. Never mind the fact that we have engaged and destroyed thousands of al-Qaeda fighters and leaders. We have removed a genocidal dictator from power. We have stopped someone from messing around with WMD's. We have turned a country that was run by a murderous iron fist into a democracy. And those are just a few items on a long list. But all you fucking liberals care about is the monetary cost and how that money can go to more of your stupid ass dipshit social programs for the "disadvantaged". For being such "caring" people you sure don't give a fuck about the tens of thousands of Iraqi's that are going to get slaughtered after your Messiah pulls our troops out. People like interpreters or anyone else who has worked for the coalition is either going to get beheaded or lined up against a wall and shot. Ive seen first hand one after another of people that worked for us over there suddenly not show up for work to find out they were murdered. Fuck we even had a shop keeper get killed because he sold stuff to us. Its going to be a wholesale slaughter on these people. But money for social programs for lazy ass fuckers here is more important right?


You people obviously cannot win any debate on Iraq because the "reasoning" behind why we should pull out changes after the previous arguement has failed. Now its the monetary cost. Before it was WMD's (which were found BTW), before it was a civil war, before it was blah blah blah and whatever other shit spews out of your filthy mouths.


I EAGERLY await to see what else you have to say. Ill be waiting.

Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:34:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:
<Epic Ownage>

I EAGERLY await to see what else you have to say. Ill be waiting.

Smackdown!
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:37:39 PM EST
In for the fun.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:47:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 2:48:23 PM EST by No-Worries]

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing


Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:50:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


September 2008 join date
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:53:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:


I EAGERLY await to see what else you have to say. Ill be waiting.




It takes time to gather coherent retorts from DU, so I wouldn't count on seeing any.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 2:58:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




I see what you did there.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:02:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By packinheavy:
In for the fun.


Uno mas.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:03:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?


Neither. ONE MAN holds veto power and he isn't running for anything right now so it's a moot point.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is called "Denial".
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:04:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Great. So the Republicans didn't propose a bunch of spending increases... they just voted for them. And the Republican President signed most of them.


Now that's what I call bi-partisanship.


/thread.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:07:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Det0nate:

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:
Which party has had veto power for the last eight years?


Neither. ONE MAN holds veto power and he isn't running for anything right now so it's a moot point.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is called "Denial".


No it's not. The democrats are successfully pushing ALL the blame off for the current state of the economy onto the republicans. In truth, best case scenario is it is split down the middle 50/50 for the democrats.

Also we have a republican who is specifically campaigning on the fact(or so he says) that he will veto any bill filled with "pork."
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:08:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
I'm gay and I like to suck off horses.


Alrighty then.


Classy.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:09:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
Let's whack some rhetoric with facts.

i35.tinypic.com/2hnakwi.jpg

i37.tinypic.com/mm8tuf.jpg

i34.tinypic.com/2ir3jbs.jpg

i34.tinypic.com/ieiide.jpg


www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=948&org_name=NTUF


Well, those are two of the last 8 years...
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:13:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:17:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 3:21:19 PM EST by verticalgain]

Originally Posted By Towely:
Also we have a republican who is specifically campaigning on the fact(or so he says) that he will veto any bill filled with "pork."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/MNR813AHDN.DTL

This is about the bailout bill:


The bill was approved easily, 74-25, winning support even from lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks - including Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party's presidential nominee, who warned last week that he might oppose a bailout bill if it included more pork-barrel spending.

"It is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill," he said in a speech in Freeland, Mich. "It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen."

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program Thursday, McCain was pressed on why he voted for a plan that included earmarks that he strongly opposed. He said he had to support the bill because the country is "on the brink of economic disaster."

"There were plenty of other bills that I fought against, voted against" because of pork, McCain said.


So he won't vote for bills with pork in them unless he does.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:18:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
Let's whack some rhetoric with facts.

i35.tinypic.com/2hnakwi.jpg

i37.tinypic.com/mm8tuf.jpg

i34.tinypic.com/2ir3jbs.jpg

i34.tinypic.com/ieiide.jpg


www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=948&org_name=NTUF


Well, those are two of the last 8 years...


No, each session of congress runs two years. The 102nd session went from Jan 1991 - Jan 1993. Thus, you have 16 years of data running up to this current year in those charts above.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:21:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 3:21:37 PM EST by No-Worries]

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


I'm not saying his hands are clean. But today, everything is being portrayed as it's all the republican's fault. That's a total crock of shit. The only thing republicans are guilty of is not marketing the true genesis of what happened and that both sides are at fault.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:22:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By Towely:
Also we have a republican who is specifically campaigning on the fact(or so he says) that he will veto any bill filled with "pork."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/MNR813AHDN.DTL

This is about the bailout bill:


The bill was approved easily, 74-25, winning support even from lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks - including Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party's presidential nominee, who warned last week that he might oppose a bailout bill if it included more pork-barrel spending.

"It is completely unacceptable for any kind of earmarks to be included in this bill," he said in a speech in Freeland, Mich. "It would be outrageous for legislators and lobbyists to pack this rescue plan with taxpayer money for favored companies. This simply cannot happen."

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program Thursday, McCain was pressed on why he voted for a plan that included earmarks that he strongly opposed. He said he had to support the bill because the country is "on the brink of economic disaster."

"There were plenty of other bills that I fought against, voted against" because of pork, McCain said.


So he won't vote for bills with pork in them unless he does.


I have doubts that he will veto every bill that is loaded with pork but this was a special situation. Not that i'm any less pissed about it because I was against the bill from the get-go but I don't think this is a foreshadowing to what his policy will be on vetoing if elected.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:23:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
The only thing republicans are guilty of is not marketing the true genesis of what happened and that both sides are at fault.


They weren't forced to participate. The President could have vetoed every single bill they passed if he had so chose. It would have been in line with his campaign promise of smaller and more common sense government.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:25:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2008 3:25:45 PM EST by Towely]

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


57 TRILLION vs. 565 BILLION. I don't think you're quite comprehending how vast of a difference there is between the two....

The money we spend on these failed social programs could have funded over ONE HUNDRED wars. That's inconceivable... It's sickening.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:26:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
The only thing republicans are guilty of is not marketing the true genesis of what happened and that both sides are at fault.


They weren't forced to participate. The President could have vetoed every single bill they passed if he had so chose. It would have been in line with his campaign promise of smaller and more common sense government.


Looks to me from the charts (at least the first two) that in many cases, they didn't participate. I wish he would have vetoed bill after bill. He didn't. WTF do you think Obama will veto. Defense spending and nothing else.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:27:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:
I have doubts that he will veto every bill that is loaded with pork but this was a special situation.


A special situation? Such is life. There will always be one giant problem of one kind or another facing our nation. President Bush sold out his small government promises in the name of fighting terror. McCain will do the same in the name of fighting the economy and saving the environment.

This goes back to the "give up an essential liberty in exchange for a little temporary safety" argument. Here we are giving up one of our most precious liberties (a free market) in exchange for "economic stability" (perceived safety). I won't vote for a man to lead our nation who will not stand by this most basic of principles.

Of course Obama is worse, and I'm not arguing about that.

Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:27:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
I'm gay and I like to suck off horses.


Alrighty then.


Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:28:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
Looks to me from the charts (at least the first two) that in many cases, they didn't participate. I wish he would have vetoed bill after bill. He didn't. WTF do you think Obama will veto. Defense spending and nothing else.


No one is talking about Obama.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:29:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


57 TRILLION vs. 565 BILLION. I don't think you're quite comprehending how vast of a difference there is between the two....

The money we spend on these failed social programs could have funded over ONE HUNDRED wars. That's inconceivable... It's sickening.


Lemme throw another little number in there:

Obama's Global Poverty Act (senate bill s.2433): Give $845 Billion to the United Nations to spend as they please to combat poverty around the world. Bu...bu... but...bu...Iraq!
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:50:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:

I have doubts that he will veto every bill that is loaded with pork but this was a special situation.


They're all "special situations". The simple fact is, if an act of Congress was necessary for Jesus Christ to return to earth and bless every human soul on the planet, that act would not be passed unless it was laden with pork.

The bailout was a complete crock, in any case. We were hysterically told that it must be passed immediately or there would be tanks and soldiers on American streets come Monday AM. Since then, the market has tanked by how many hundreds of points? Meanwhile, the destination for bailout money has changed, not a dime has gone anywhere yet, and far more than $700 billion has been injected into the markets (fruitlessly) via other means.

Plain and simple, we were lied to. And enough members of Congress who at least wanted to appear to do the right thing set a price they could be bought at, and that price was met. It's nothing more or less than the latest row of pigs burying their snouts in a trough full of our tax money and money borrowed off of our backs and the backs of future generations.

McCain, Obama, and every other Congressional rep who voted yes for that bill ought to find themselves doing the Mussolini twitch under a Washington DC lamppost. They won't, and we're going to find that there are plenty more of "emergency, necessary, special" bailouts which are required to buy votes for them and line their own nests. Unless a miracle happens and most of them lose their seats this November 4th, they're going to go right on doing whatever the fuck they want to, because we'll have told them, loud and clear, that they're free to betray the public trust, and we'll vote for them anyway.

This election will, I'm sad to say, demonstrate that the American people no longer deserve the government our Founding Fathers fought, bled, and died to give us.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 3:57:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


57 TRILLION vs. 565 BILLION. I don't think you're quite comprehending how vast of a difference there is between the two....

The money we spend on these failed social programs could have funded over ONE HUNDRED wars. That's inconceivable... It's sickening.


I comprehend quite well the difference. I do not, however, accept that because the Iraq war cost 1/1000th of our future entitlement obligations that that means it's OK. That's like saying if you owe $100,000 on your VISA card, what the hell, go ahead and spend another $100 on dinner out tonight... why not? It's just $100. But that's how you got to your $100,000 balance... by treating sums of money as comparably insignificant. I mean, look at what you just basically said... "$565 billion is nothing, it's peanuts, there are bigger things to wory about!" But it's still $565 billion (and counting!) that is being added to our nation's account. And spending like that is why we now have a national debt ceiling of well over $11 trillion, which is not "chickenfeed", even compared to the $57+ trillion of Socialism.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 4:01:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
Lemme throw another little number in there:

Obama's Global Poverty Act (senate bill s.2433): Give $845 Billion to the United Nations to spend as they please to combat poverty around the world. Bu...bu... but...bu...Iraq!


Again... the fact that one program is "worse" doesn't mean the "better" one must be enacted.

The two are completely separate items. If we had a choice... A) spend $565 billion blowing up terrorists in Iraq; or B) spend $845billion on "global poverty", and we had to pick one... clearly, A would be the better choice. But that isn't the case. $565 billion (and counting!) is gone in Iraq, and that isn't going to stop Obama and his crowd from trying to enact their "global poverty" wealth redistribution.

Besides... someone could always retort that Bush's $4 trillion Medicare plan was five times the size of Obama's proposed Marxist make-America-pay bill. But that would be just as meaningless a comparison.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 4:04:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:



Also we have a republican who is specifically campaigning on the fact(or so he says) that he will veto any bill filled with "pork."



LOL, that's rich. considering he just voted for the bailout, which is CHOCK FULL OF PORK.

Link Posted: 10/18/2008 4:06:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


Geez. Go away, already.
Link Posted: 10/18/2008 4:47:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:
The only thing republicans are guilty of is not marketing the true genesis of what happened and that both sides are at fault.


They weren't forced to participate. The President could have vetoed every single bill they passed if he had so chose. It would have been in line with his campaign promise of smaller and more common sense government.


Looks to me from the charts (at least the first two) that in many cases, they didn't participate. I wish he would have vetoed bill after bill. He didn't. WTF do you think Obama will veto. Defense spending and nothing else.


Those charts were about who proposed what. Not who voted for what.
Link Posted: 10/19/2008 12:06:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


57 TRILLION vs. 565 BILLION. I don't think you're quite comprehending how vast of a difference there is between the two....

The money we spend on these failed social programs could have funded over ONE HUNDRED wars. That's inconceivable... It's sickening.


I comprehend quite well the difference. I do not, however, accept that because the Iraq war cost 1/1000th of our future entitlement obligations that that means it's OK. That's like saying if you owe $100,000 on your VISA card, what the hell, go ahead and spend another $100 on dinner out tonight... why not? It's just $100. But that's how you got to your $100,000 balance... by treating sums of money as comparably insignificant. I mean, look at what you just basically said... "$565 billion is nothing, it's peanuts, there are bigger things to wory about!" But it's still $565 billion (and counting!) that is being added to our nation's account. And spending like that is why we now have a national debt ceiling of well over $11 trillion, which is not "chickenfeed", even compared to the $57+ trillion of Socialism.


A lot of the Iraq $ is going to the costs of fighting and a lot of it is going to the costs of INVESTING in infrastructure wich will help the people be able to support themselves.

These costs will go down over time.

The cost for the social programs in the US have a long history of getting larger and larger as we all know. Very little of that $ is used to INVEST in getting the people OFF of the entitlement merrygoround. Yes some of it goes to infrastructure development but most of that is just neglected or flat out destroyed by the entitlees.

Socialism was a failure at the first settlement in this country which only took them a year (at the most) to figure out. Socialism (personal and corporate) is still a failure even though it is taking us many years (and many more) to see it.
Link Posted: 10/19/2008 12:18:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Towely:

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By No-Worries:

Originally Posted By Sabahalkhair:
iraq war


$565 BILLION = Iraq War (www.costofwar.com)

$57 TRILLION = Medicare, Social Insecurity, Federal Pension liabilities

Thanks for playing




C'mon... "But they spent and wasted more money than we did!" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

At least most / a big part of the $57 trillion of Socialism goes to Americans. Spending $565 billion and counting to prop up a doomed regime on the other side of the globe might be a drop in the bucket compared to that, but that could have been most of our "bailout" right there.

Besides, $4 trillion of that $57+ trillion is for GWBs Medicare splurge. His hands, and the hands of Congressional Republicans, are not clean on that mess.


57 TRILLION vs. 565 BILLION. I don't think you're quite comprehending how vast of a difference there is between the two....

The money we spend on these failed social programs could have funded over ONE HUNDRED wars. That's inconceivable... It's sickening.


It also could have wiped out personal debt for every American thereby avoiding or fixing the current financial crisis. They could have done that if the fat cats on Wall st. and the financial industry did not have the Dem leadership in their pockets.
Link Posted: 10/19/2008 5:06:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2008 5:06:42 AM EST by No-Worries]
How in the hell could it have wiped out the debt of every American? That's a load of bullschitt. "fatcats"? Plenty of fatcats in the urban shitties signing up to mortgages they can't afford of their OWN volition. That problem is also much bigger than the bill from Iraq. Maybe American's should concentrate on wiping out their own debt and not looking to uncle sham to wipe it out for them. Next they'll ask for taxpayers to bail them on credit cards.
Top Top