News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 87 billion? wtf?  (Read 3285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Farseer Phil

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Kill me. See if I care.
87 billion? wtf?
« on: September 9, 2003, 08:56:06 AM »
Um, is it just me or does anyone else think Bush's call for $87 billion (That's 87,000,000,000... lots of zeroes, eh?) is lunacy?  

Offline Archon Khiraq(danceman)

  • The Devil in Pale Moonlight
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Country: se
  • What's the matter? Don't you like clowns?
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #1 on: September 9, 2003, 10:48:02 AM »
for what exactly?
"The blade itself incites to acts of violence" - Homer.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #2 on: September 9, 2003, 10:59:02 AM »
Whatever the cost it will be cheaper than some freak clandestinely setting off a nuke in any major U.S. city someday.

Of course if a bunch of people got off the welfare system, it'd be a lot easier to pay their share of the cost.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline HarlequinSolitaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 747
  • Not Sloataire or Solataire... Solitaire.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #3 on: September 9, 2003, 12:21:52 PM »
And you say that liberals are slaves to blanket media?


"Spend more on defense or evil Arabs will come and steal your children!"


Modernday witchhunting...
'An eye for an eye, and soon the world is blind'

Ghandi

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #4 on: September 9, 2003, 12:59:06 PM »
I don't think Arabs will necessarily steal my children.  I aslo don't hate someone for not being just like me.  

However, I do believe it would be incredibly short-sighted to totally ignore the potential for such an attack in the future in a post 9/11 world.  The danger is that a lot of your liberal friends here are pushing peace just ever so soon after the attacks.  

In general everyone wants a peaceful solution, but in reality it's another story.  I think it's been demonstrated enough times in Israel and through Al Queda communiques that they don't have demands, they just want the death of non-muslims.  You simply can't ask someone like that to a bargaining table when they hate you for who you are.

Tell me Solitaire, what is your suggestion for combating terrorism?  You seem to make a lot of blanket statements and criticizisms yet never present any realistic way of dealing with the problem.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline miclantecuthli

  • The Unpronouncable Man
  • Ancient
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: be
  • Forever in debt to your priceless advice
  • Armies: Empire (AoS), Chaos (AoS)
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #5 on: September 9, 2003, 02:05:40 PM »
Quote
However, I do believe it would be incredibly short-sighted to totally ignore the potential for such an attack in the future in a post 9/11 world.
I think that it's short sighted to attack some countries and start a war in the middle east. It'll stop some terrorist attacks, that's true. But the real problem is not al qaeda, not hamas, not jihad, ... the real problem is the hate against the USA and the west in general.

Defeating terrorism will only be achieved when there are no new candidates for those organisations, when no young boys without a future are willing to waste their live for Bin Laden.

It isn't short sighted to talk about peace, but peace alone is not enough.

Quote
Of course if a bunch of people got off the welfare system, it'd be a lot easier to pay their share of the cost.

It seems very difficult for you to reply without attacking liberals or socialism. Does the starter of this topic asked soemthing about the welfare system? Did he ask where to find the money? I read a different question. Scars was accused of bringing the communism-capitalism debate into every topic, but i have the impression that you're wose. We all know how you think about that subject, start a topic about it if you really want to discuss it. It starts to get annoying, it can't be that difficult to reply: "yes, I think that 87 billion is too much, because blahblahblah ..." or "no, they should spend less because blahblahblah ...". Try it.
Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear And I'm floating around my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do

Offline Travman of Alyeska

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #6 on: September 9, 2003, 02:51:08 PM »
I see that it buys us:

1.  The ability to fight the enemy in Iraq instead of in the USA.

2.  A new ally in a region where they are lacking.

3.  A squeeze play of 2 democratic nations that will pop Iran like a festering pimple, all without firing a shot in Iran.

4.  Two examples of free and successful Islamic nations, which will change the face of the middle east.


I think its a bargain.  Especailly against the cost of another Sept 11 scope attack, or when compared to the $2.2 trillion ($2,200,000,000,000) [Y2003 dollars] that we spent on the Marshal Plan.

Now, Farseer Phil, what do you think of the $400,000,000,000 (initial cost, Y2003 dollars) Liberals want to spend for a Perscription Drug benefit that few people want?  Is that lunacy?

Travman

Offline Sgt. Dellius

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 702
  • Domintis Ultramarini
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #7 on: September 9, 2003, 02:51:35 PM »
surely *whisper it*  8) increased taxes are better than having the Sum of All Fears re-enacted in your hometown? Especially if you live in Denver! (Tom Clancy would be predicting the future twice in that scenario)

think of the tax increases and money spent then to repair the place flattend by some Plutonium and Tritium

BTW how much do US Senators get paid, and does it come out of the US taxpayers pocket?

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #8 on: September 9, 2003, 03:10:22 PM »
87 billion?

Someone has been playing Command and Conquer with the cheats on, for too long........

Offline Camo

  • Scribe to Scars
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Pray they don't take you alive
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #9 on: September 9, 2003, 03:52:18 PM »
         TRAVMAN: Iraq will NEVER be a mini-America, they DON'T WANT western-style democracy, they want a theocracy like Iran, and since george bush is so ignorant he won't even let them have what they want, and generally isn't democracy letting the people have what they want?
If I had but a thousand men who were crazy enough to want to conquer hell then we would do it - Warmaster Solon

Offline Travman of Alyeska

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #10 on: September 9, 2003, 03:54:54 PM »
surely *whisper it*  8) increased taxes are better than having the Sum of All Fears re-enacted in your hometown? Especially if you live in Denver! (Tom Clancy would be predicting the future twice in that scenario)

think of the tax increases and money spent then to repair the place flattend by some Plutonium and Tritium

BTW how much do US Senators get paid, and does it come out of the US taxpayers pocket?

Yes, US Senators are paid by US taxpayers (currently about 50% of working Americans).

How does increasing taxes relate to fighting terror?  Do you mean increase govenment revenues to spend more money on fighting terror?
If so, increased taxes may or may not increase goverment revenue (see Laffer Curve).  I think we are on the side of the side of the curve such that reducing taxes will increase goverment revenue, as has happened in the past.

Travman

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #11 on: September 9, 2003, 04:11:18 PM »
        TRAVMAN: Iraq will NEVER be a mini-America, they DON'T WANT western-style democracy, they want a theocracy like Iran, and since george bush is so ignorant he won't even let them have what they want, and generally isn't democracy letting the people have what they want?

Who says that they want a theocracy?  Did you take a poll there?  Odd that a lot of people in this country seem to think Iraqis want this when I'm sure a vast majority of you would never stand for someone like Pat Robertson as President in the U.S.  Isn't this a bit judgemental?

From what I've seen the only people that want a theocracy there are the Iranian backed shiites.  While one could argue that they are a majority of the population in the south, they are not in the north.  

Since Turkey has already made it very clear they would not stand for an independent Kurdish state, it would leave the Kurds unrepresented in post war Iraq if the government became a Shiite controlled theocracy.

While a democratic form of government may not be what some radical islamics want in south, it is the only fair way to prevent the Kurds from becoming independent to appease the Turks.

The bottom line is that all sides may not get everything they want, but a free-thinking Iraq with representatives is a much better Iraq than an islamic theocracy.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #12 on: September 9, 2003, 04:16:36 PM »


Quote
Yes, US Senators are paid by US taxpayers (currently about 50% of working Americans).

Unemployment is only about 6.2%.  It will never be at zero.  Are we to assume then that your example was satire?

I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #13 on: September 9, 2003, 04:18:02 PM »
Just becuase something works for us, or looks good for us, does not mean that it will go the same way for people in other countries.

Offline Travman of Alyeska

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #14 on: September 9, 2003, 04:28:52 PM »
        TRAVMAN: Iraq will NEVER be a mini-America, they DON'T WANT western-style democracy, they want a theocracy like Iran, and since george bush is so ignorant he won't even let them have what they want, and generally isn't democracy letting the people have what they want?

Between 70% and 87% of Iraqis polled like the way things are going are are looking forward to having a free nation.   I am way sure most of them do not want to be opporessed again.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #15 on: September 9, 2003, 04:58:42 PM »
Quote
I think that it's short sighted to attack some countries and start a war in the middle east. It'll stop some terrorist attacks, that's true.

I disagree that we "started the war" as you so claim.  These islamic fundamentalists have been attempting to spread their trash throughout the civilized world for decades.  The only fault of ours was the failure of our intelligence organizations to recognize the threat and prevent 9/11 from happening.  

I do not feel sorry that we attacked Iraq if there was even the slightest chance Al Queda or any other terrorist could be hiding there, or if they supported them directly or indirectly, which has been proven.  Was it known for certain at the time - definitely not.

However, can you make the argument now that terrorism isn't present in Iraq because they are certainly trying to kill Americans and foreigners on a daily basis now?  Clearly it is attracting them like moths to the flame. Better to have the battleground there instead of an American or English city.

Quote
But the real problem is not al qaeda, not hamas, not jihad, ... the real problem is the hate against the USA and the west in general.

Very true.  And just who percipitates this hate?  The U.S. (as well as Israel) is painted as nothing more than a scapegoat in all these countries so that the dictators in charge of them can distract their people to their real plight.  Their day to day living conditions and any real hope for the future.  They are kept deliberately ignorant because those in power wish it to be so.  The only "education" many receive is to attend a madras while young were they are forced to memorize the Koran, which is later easy to manipulate into hatred for the west.  Much like the Germany of the 1930's, the problems in the Mideast stem from ignorance, intolerance and poverty.  Those are the roots of all hatred.  

Quote
Defeating terrorism will only be achieved when there are no new candidates for those organisations, when no young boys without a future are willing to waste their live for Bin Laden.

Agreed.  But there are only two ways to stop this.  1) Convert them to free thinkers with better living conditions and economies; 2) Kill them before they kill you.

Number one sounds like the better choice, but without an example to follow, this can never hope to be done in other places throughout the Mideast.  Iraq could very well be the first example, but it takes committment, not cowardice.  Pulling back is not the answer.  Making an example out of one nation, may be enough to convince others to get their radicals in line, or inspire some revolutionaries to topple these theocratic regimes.

Quote
It isn't short sighted to talk about peace, but peace alone is not enough.


In general, you're right.  But the clear and present danger is what is today, not a rosy-eyed view of the future where everyone loves each other and sings 'Kumbaya'.  No one can predict the future, but the biggest mistake one can make is not to learn from the past.

Quote
 It seems very difficult for you to reply without attacking liberals or socialism. Does the starter of this topic asked soemthing about the welfare system? Did he ask where to find the money? <snip>

Agreed.  I did mention this to get a rise.  But it also got people thinking as I hoped it might.  $87 billion is much less than the massive Hillary healthfare package estimated at $400B.  And indirectly this was my point.  While some decry this $87B as 'wasteful', it is but a drop in the bucket compared to other social programs that add up to be larger 'wasteful' collective sum.  At least this money will be a first attempt at reducing the hatred Mideasterns seem to have for the west.

I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline HarlequinSolitaire

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 747
  • Not Sloataire or Solataire... Solitaire.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #16 on: September 9, 2003, 05:02:40 PM »
I don't think Arabs will necessarily steal my children.  I aslo don't hate someone for not being just like me.  

However, I do believe it would be incredibly short-sighted to totally ignore the potential for such an attack in the future in a post 9/11 world.  The danger is that a lot of your liberal friends here are pushing peace just ever so soon after the attacks.  

In general everyone wants a peaceful solution, but in reality it's another story.  I think it's been demonstrated enough times in Israel and through Al Queda communiques that they don't have demands, they just want the death of non-muslims.  You simply can't ask someone like that to a bargaining table when they hate you for who you are.

Tell me Solitaire, what is your suggestion for combating terrorism?  You seem to make a lot of blanket statements and criticizisms yet never present any realistic way of dealing with the problem.

How about.... Education? If we help tehir country, rather than bombing it (Wash my mouth out!) Then maybe it will be more successful, not so resentful... And viola! A new ally. But no, it's better to fuel the fires of hate by bombing them and their neighbors... Yep, that works....

Give the people schools, hospitals and such. Show taht we aren't the bad guys.
'An eye for an eye, and soon the world is blind'

Ghandi

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #17 on: September 9, 2003, 05:58:17 PM »


How about.... Education? If we help tehir country, rather than bombing it (Wash my mouth out!) Then maybe it will be more successful, not so resentful... And viola! A new ally. But no, it's better to fuel the fires of hate by bombing them and their neighbors... Yep, that works....

Give the people schools, hospitals and such. Show taht we aren't the bad guys.

Here I agree with you.  Unfortunately this will never work, at least in this simple form, because the aid will not be spent for this purpose.  Toltalitarian regimes use it to buy guns to solidify their power base.  The dictators do this because they wish to remain in power and grab further power.  

Iraq is a good opportunity to show the muslim world that we don't hate their religion or them and that if they are willing to root out the radicals that infest their countries that all can have a better life.  We now have an opportunity to do what you suggest - and I am all for that.  

But we also need to send a clear message to others which is screw with us and reap the whirlwind.  We're not cream puffs that can be bullied into coughing up their lunch money and shouldn't be perceived as such.

Eventually by using this two prong approach, as Iraq is rebuilt, our relations will improve with other mideast countries as the sterotypes of Americans will dissappear.

I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline WhiteCross

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • Jesus: The Way, the Truth, and the Life
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #18 on: September 9, 2003, 06:23:25 PM »
...Which is exactly why we wouldn't let Israel fight (even though they wanted to)

We don't want to make it look like the Jews are Christians are ganging up on the Muslims. Bad impression

Other than that, I don't have much to say, because I don't pay taxes yet  ;D

I think I'll leave...
"Rich and poor have a common bond- the Lord is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2

Support our troops...even if you don't support the war.

Finish the job! Vote for Bush.

Abortion is mean

Offline Scars

  • Warning: He bites
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4570
  • Spooky! Shocking!
    • Progressive Labour Party
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #19 on: September 9, 2003, 08:19:00 PM »
Whatever the cost it will be cheaper than some freak clandestinely setting off a nuke in any major U.S. city someday.

Of course if a bunch of people got off the welfare system, it'd be a lot easier to pay their share of the cost.

Have you ever thought of WHY most of them are on welfare? Sure there are those who are just being lazy, but the majority are those without work.

Next up your first comment- that's pretty much what the US said in Vietnam- "Better to fight them in Vietnam than in New York". Do you have so little faith in teh CIA? Well, I wouldn't either. I mean they find out when The DPRK gets new equipment when it gets paraded.
'The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid
moves'
- Abd al-Nasir
Progressive Labour Party

 


Powered by EzPortal