Politics – The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.
Democrats are emotionally invested in retreat, and defeat in Iraq. They are playing chicken with the security of our men, and women on the ground. This is pathetic. We are at war whether the Democrats beleive it or not, and our troops deserve better. Remember these gutless wonders when you go to vote next November.
If the Republican's demonstrated equal concern for people without health care, or those losing their homes to foreclosure, increasing costs of fuel and food, they might be more generous with their votes and their dollars to the Republican party. The electorate are asked to support a cause that is remote from their day to day lives yet can't get any help with problems much closer to home. Go figure.
What? Hany, I know you're smarter than this. How is the federal government responsible for home foreclosures? If people cannot manage their wealth, and pay their bills it is not the feds fault.
As for health care, we already had this debate too. What it boils down too is that a thrid of the people who currently don't have insurance can afford it, they just don't seem to want it. The rest of the people are currently covered under the current social programs.
I drive 150,000 miles a year. If gas prices don't really affect me, why should they affect anyone else? Yeah, when prices go up, I'll eat dinner at home instead of going out.
Maybe the dems should take note of the fact that Americans do better when we are allowed to manage their own wealth. Maybe you guys should stay the hell out of our pockets for a few years and see how well we can do.
As for their using our troops as pawns in their sick game, it's disgusting. We need to finish what we started.
Simple, the laws which govern loan products are too favorable to unsavory lenders. The governments role, among others, is to defend the weak against the abuses of the strong. Most people don't have the financial or legal resources to defend against the abuses of such institutions. While many of these loans were legal, they were definitely unethical and misleading and that is being generous. As for gas prices and food prices, the current weakness of the dollar can be directly attributed to the excessive spending, borrowing, and squandering of Americas wealth on tax cuts and unnecessary wars and big Republican spending. Republicans talk about small government but can't deliver it. What they can deliver is big government that is ineffective, crony driven, incompetent, wasteful and in service to the private sector at the expense of the public welfare. The government is suppose to promote the general welfare, and not be for sale to the highest bidder.
So because people did not research what type of loan they were going to recieve, or the history of the company they are getting the loan from, the government is responsible?
"Republicans talk about small government but can't deliver it. What they can deliver is big government that is ineffective, crony driven, incompetent, wasteful and in service to the private sector at the expense of the public welfare."
With comedy like this, you could single handedly replace the writers who are on strike. Let me correct that staement for you.
What demorats can deliver is big government that is ineffective, crony driven, incompetent, wasteful and in service to the private sector at the expense of the public welfare.
Call me old fashioned, but people who go out of their way to deceive others, whether legally or not, are criminals or at least acting like criminals. Often those who are preyed upon are the elderly or under educated. You can choose to defend their practices if you like, I tend to believe such people should be fought. The legal language of a contract can be quite difficult to understand. I am sure you have signed a few contracts in your life without understanding them in their full implications. Of course people need to take responsibility for their decisions but it is also the role of government to insure that business is conducted in an equitable and just fashion. That is why we have usury laws, truth in lending laws, and disclosure laws. It is also the governments role to intervene in financial crisis to mitigate its effects if those threats are far reaching and a consequence of bad policy. That is called reform.
I'm not defending them or their practices. I'm just saying that if I get scammed bvecause of personal stupidity, it is nobody elses fault but mine. I'm 27 years old. I bought my first house 2 years ago. You bet your a that I knew exactly what I was signing. I'd bet you some good money that I got a better deal both on the house and with my financing than anyone you know. In my opinion, if you don't research what you're buying, you deserve to be taught a lesson.
If you are going to make claims about how many people do or do not have health care then you should cite a case for it or it's only hear say and does not constitute fact. As for whom might be covered under anything you know somewhat less than my dog and he just runs around lifting his leg and eating turds.
As for how fuel prices effect people, they do. Which reminds me, do you pay for all of that fuel or is it business related? I would think it must be because no normal person drives 150,000 miles in a year. That or you just lie to inflate your case. People that work a low wage job and have to drive to get to it will be affected.
As for what you do or do not do I'm sure none of these less fortunate people care about how often you have to eat at home.
My opinion is that you are a snotty condescending little penis eater that should be removed from society.
If you don't like that, then don't talk down to people suck-butt.
Dave, way to make yourself look stupid and violate the TOS at the same time. I wonder how some of our homosexual friends on here would be offended that you called me as a "penis eater".
Now, yes alot of my driving is work related. However, I still pay the gas and get expense checks written to me 6 times a year. So I still have to work that money into my finances.
Are you saying that eating at home as opposed to going out does not save money? Because it does. And the people whocannot afford gas are often the ones you see eating at Mcdonalds. Also, the majority of our so called poor in this country have cable tv, can afford to smoke and drink. Smoking a pack a day is about $100 a month. Would that not cover their rising gas prices?
Let's look at this another way Tanglang. When you buy food at the supermarket do you inspect the meat processing plant before you put the hamburger in your basket? Before you drive on an overpass, do you make sure they used six sack concrete and overlapped their re-bar splices at 48 times their bar diameter? When you board a plane to you check first to be sure the pilot is a licensed commercial pilot and the plane has been properly serviced and maintained or that it is staying at the correct distance for other air traffic? The answer is no. The government handles all that for you. If you had to do this, you would be too busy to make money doing stuff that the government is supposed to do in the name of the public welfare. You can call that socialism or big government regulation, but I call it common sense. The government is the entity vested with providing the necessary fairness and stability which are essential for the production of wealth and individual freedom and security.
Slight difference between buying some burger and buying a house Hany.
The government writes the laws which govern lending institutions as well as the handling and processing of food. You accept that the government has an obligation to protect you from tainted meat but no obligation to protect consumers from unscrupulous lending practices even though they write the laws governing those practices. The principle involved whether its meat or mortgages is that both are products offered by private companies for purchase by consumer and consumers deserve the right to protections from fraudulent or substandard practices. The public, for the most part, does not have the training or the expertise to investigate or even to understand the implications of lending laws, interest rates, balloon payments, penalties, and guarantees. I am a contractor in California. WE are required by law to inform consumers of their rights in home improvement contracts before they sign or the instrument is void. Its more seller beware than buyer.
tanglang - Do you think it is a coincidence that the sub-prime loan market has been a free-for-all money grab by the sub-prime scam artists? No. The sub-prime lenders have contributed over 200 million to both republican and democrat parties. Bush has received about $8 million in funds from just one sub-prime scam artist(R. Arnall), who's company has paid out more than $300 million to settle law suits stemming from its lending practices.
When gas prices go up you'll eat dinner at home and not go out. Well that directly effects me. Between you not coming in to eat, and the gas surcharges that are placed on my food deliveries, and the increased cost of food production there will be loss of jobs. Less people working means less people spending which will mean more layoffs. You do the math from there.
The Democrats have been out of "our" pockets for at least six years. Now we have largest deficit in our history, and we are mired in an unjust war. You Republicans have done a fine job!
Well the bad news for you chef is that I hardly ever eat out. When I do it's sushi or Korean food so my not eating out when the prices rise probably wont affect you.
The good news for you is that are a large percentage of Americans who either can't cook, are too lazy to cook, or make enough maney that they can eat out regularly.
You've had 4 YEARS of total control on the ground - 100,000 troops-plus in Iraq, ruling the roost wherever they go. If you can't stabilise a nation 3/4 the size of Texas in 4 years with those advantages, you can't do it ever.
Face it - your military tries its best, but the incompetant commanders and civilian admin personnel have stuffed it up royally for them.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MaryP.Murphy
LyleW.Cortez
RichardD.Phelan
odiedog2
Dan and Jennifer
puffin
angelitobcn
GregD
Radiofreeeuropa
DianCor
Kresta
dadesider
fsev41
rebner
msaleem
chsemi
quicksilver0602
wangyy1980
rimbaud
tchef
mickoleon
miklkit
agentX
onlyonesecret
studentambassador
quackpot
memaskman
TimALoftis
Floppyr
1-2-Oscar
hurr1
LisaFo
Calligula<
72)
Title is somewhat inaccurate. The Senate did not vote to block funds, they failed to pass a bill that would grant funds. Title should read: "Senate continues to accomplish nothing."
Yeah misleading at best,,,,, the anti war bill of the day,,,, I wonder whom they will blame once our millitary runs out of money to by ammo and they get killed in large numbers because of this tactic?
Even if you don't agree with the war, this is over the top to play this sort of game
Presumably the supplies of war material are not so closely inventoried that an orderly withdrawal could not be effected before running out of ammo. If the president insisted that the troops remained in theater until their supplies dwindled, I think he would have to accept part of the blame for any ensuing calamity.
It strikes me as odd that proponents of this war down play its dangers or its costs but at the same time ask that we, the tax payers, continue to offer a blank check for its continuance on the theory that all hell will break lose if we leave. If the world's more powerful military is running this operation so close to a margin of failure, I think this would tend to belie the assertion that this war is small potatoes or the dangers minimal.
We should continue to press for victory now that the enemy is in decline and the security is improving, but, unfortunately, this wars execution was so badly bungled in the beginning, politically, its all but lost.
It is a frequent refrain among war defenders that only 3800 troops have been lost in this conflict over the last four years and compared to other wars this is minimal.
I disagree about Iraq supporting terrorism. Compared to whom? Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. That is an unequivocal fact. They supplied the hijackers, the training, and the funding and continue to be the biggest financiers of Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world. Saddam Hussein made postmortem payments to survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel but compared to other nations, his contributions to terrorism in were small. He was more interested in promoting his own agenda than one which was not of his own making. Al Qaeda was not founded by Saddam Hussein and he would not have been subservient to even sympathetic with their agenda. He was a Pan Arabist and fancied himself to be the reincarnation of the Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar. His was a secular vision of Arab nationalism, however.
Saudi Arabia might crack down on extremist within their nation, at least those not in the royal family, but its no secret that there are plenty of sympathizers within the royal family and Saudi oil money promotes Islamic extremism around the world in Madras schools as well as direct contributions through Islamic charities. This is their Faustian bargain with the extremist groups like the Muslim brother hood. Its a form of payola so they can be left alone to enjoy their high living relative in peace. They even dwarf Iran in supporting terrorism around the world and within in Iraq. The Saudis don't like to see the ascendancy of Shia Islam and the Iranians which is what the "liberation" of Iraq has done. But you don't have to take my word for it. There is plenty of info about the Saudi connection to terrorism on the internet and print media. But we depend upon their oil so we would never have the balls to stand up to them and every effort is made to spare them embarrasment.
Had we as a nation headed the warning issued to us by the oil crisis in the 70's and reduced our dependence on oil in general we would not be in this situation.
You can drill all you want, there isn't enough oil in this country to satisfy our need.
That is nonsense. America's thirst for oil exceeds our reserves period. No amount of drilling will ween us off of foreign oil. Conservation is and was the key. The Alaskan wildlife refuge reserves are estimated at 1% of our domestic needs. The cafe standards were not raised since 1985. I don't blame Republicans for this. Democrats and Republicans share equally in the blame by not being earnest brokers with the American people. Clinton did not raise cafe standards during his tenure as president either. But the American people themselves deserve a share of the blame because we tend to chose leaders who tell us what we want to hear and not what we need to hear. Our per capita consumption of resources makes us the biggest pigs on the planet. At the root of the problem is a culture which is not sustainable. If the 7 billion inhabitants of this world consumed on the same scale as we do, we'd strip this planet bare in a week. Conservation doesn't sell. Its not sexy but it is important.
not 50% of our current consumption which is how much we import. Besides, those reserves must be in international waters or within our own territory or we can't very well call them ours, can we? The key to the future is conservation and developing alternative resources. For that, we need long term planning and government involvement. Energy security should be a bipartisan mandate. The current war in the gulf and all the saber rattling about Iran are directly related to our dependence on Mid East oil. As long as we are dependent on their oil, we will be embroiled in their archaic struggles which we little understand and will never be able to control. When your struggles revolve around he irrational imperatives of religion, there is no fix to that. The peoples of the Mid East will not set aside their beliefs or their feuds for democracy and consumer culture. This is prefaced on the myth that our way of life is perfect and has universal appeal.
Hit the nail right on the head.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
For all the reasons we attack Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia is ten times more guilty that Iraq. OBL was a Wahabist Sunni Al Qeada is a Wahabist extremist group. There is only one Wahabist government in the Mid East. Guess which one? Saudi Arabia. What was the nationality of 15 of the hijackers? Saudis. How many were Iraqis? 0. Where did OBL come from? Saudi Arabia. Where did he get his money from to attack the US on 9/11? Saudi Arabia. Which country got away with raping the US on 9/11? Saudi Arabia. We depend on their oil so people will bend over backwards to deny their connection lest it demonstrate our complicity in the worst terror attack on our nation next to the right wing extremist Timothy McVeigh. But once you ****** yourself it gets easier each time.
I followed the link which indirectly connected Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda sort of possibly. By the standards of this article, the US supports Al Qaeda. Oil purchased from the Mid East supports terror period. Saddam was no friend to Al Qaeda and he was no hero to them. Saddam was a secular leader and more in the vain of Nasser than a religious Zealot like OBL or the Ayatolah Khomeini. Why do you think Reagan liked him so much? Even Bush one sent Saddam Hussein a telegram expressing the US desire to improve relations with Iraq 4 days before he August invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was our counterweight to Iran and as long as he was our bitch, he was immune to political pressure from us. Saddam went from ally to Hitler incarnate over night.
"When a foreign nation is no longer funding, at the highest levels, foreign terrorists to murder domestic nationals - there is less danger in the world."
You are right. The violence is down because Iran has blocked the flow of its explosives into Iraq.
You say a blank check as if we've spent all the money we have on this war
Did you know that as percentage of its GDP, the United States spends 4.06% on military? That's 4 %,,,,, doing exactly what the government is supposed to do,,,, protect us,,,, yes you have the right to say they aren't that's an old argument,,,, what I'm refering to is the government spend 96% of the funds on 'other' things that aren't put forth in the Constitution,,,, I'm not saying anything of whether it's a good or bad thing,,,, just letting you know
slate: "Did you know that as percentage of its GDP, the United States spends 4.06% on military?"
Does that include the civilian contractors and the construction of the bases in Iraq?
Slate, you are mixing apples and oranges here. GDP is our gross domestic product. That is, the valuation of all goods and services produced annually in the United States. Heaven help us all if the federal government ever decides that it has the right to spend all of the monies earned from the goods and services produced in the US. So to say that 'the government spends 96% of the funds on other things that aren't put forth in the Constitution' is grossly inaccurate.
At 4.06% of GDP, U.S. military spending ranked 27th out of 172 nations.[49] The official Department of Defense budget in 2006, $419.3 billion, was a 5% increase over 2005.[50]
2.8 trillion dollars for the Fed gov. they spend 419.3 Billion that leaves 2,380,700,000,000,,,,,, I know I went to the Jethro Bodine Skool of math but it seems there is still a bunch of money left after the DOD gets their share of it,,,,, but hey apples and oranges are expensive these days
As a percentage of discretionary funds (i.e. minus the trust funds of social Security and medicare)war funding (DOD) is more like HALF. Add in small items such as the DOD's share of the debt service (yes, Bush's war is being paid for by DEBT), VA costs Military housing and it is WAY OVER HALF of the discretionary funds.
Also, the U.S. government does not have control of "the other 96% of the G.D.P"
Now hold on Quack,,, the numbers are right above you,,,, debt loans are debt loans,,,, yes we have a huge debt,,,, this nation has had debt in the past, especially during expensive wars. Whether you agree with the war is moot in what I'm talking about. The GDP of the US is roughly 10 trillion and we give the government almost a third of that right now. How much do you think they deserve?
I know the government doesn't control the GDP 'yet', but I've heard of at least one candidate that thinks that taking what is perceived by one party as evil profits to be redistributed. But we know what that means, you and I won't see a dime of it and said party will use it as play money to wield power and buy votes. You know like the last administration promising to give the middle class a tax break, yet after 'working as hard as they have in their life' decided that the only way is to raise taxes. Don't you find it funny that the same thing is being said by them right now? Do you believe them this time too?
Ermmm.... newsflash.
4% GDP does NOT equal 4% of government revenue.
If US taxation levels are around those ofof other Western economies, 4%GDP = 20-ish% of government revenue.
Get with the program, slate.
How can they accomplish with the Repugnants blocking them every step of the way. The people stated last November that they wanted the troops out, but the Repugnants don't care and their leader doesn't care.
Ah, so of course when the people want what you want, it's an example of informed choice. When the people want the opposite of what you want, it's the result of brainwashing.
Welcome to the world of Orwell (or Rove!), David.
Headline should say:
"Message to the do-nothing Iraq government - your free lunch is over"