OK, I just heard that the cost for the invasion and this year and next years occupation will cost AT LEAST 150 billion dollars.

So what could the US have done with 150 billion dollars if we hadn't invaded Iraq over non-existent WMD?

I would have liked a lottery with automatic entry for all Amercan citizens over seventeen. How many Americans are over seventeen? Anyway, the lottery could allow ONE MILLION winners. Each winner would then receive, tax free, 150,000 DOLLARS for being good citizens. Maybe I would have been one of the winners...;>) !!!!

Good idea? Might have helped the economy a bit and kept a few tens of thousands of people alive.

Oh well, too late now.....

Any other better ideas for spending 150 billion dollars rather than on invading Iraq?

I would rather think about fantasies of how we could have spent the 150 billion dollars than thinking about how we will have to pay back the money we borrowed.

That’s only a starters cost of fixing what wasn’t broken!

That money is for the war, not just Iraq.

150 billion dollars is a lot of money.
Eliminated illiteracy worldwide?
Ended poverty worldwide?
converted the US entirely to renewable energy?

any of those things would actually have made us safer.

WAR? How dramatic!

That money it’s to cover-up the absents of intelligence in managing foreign policies among many other things. We the tax payers, are not going to get a detailed information (as always) on how’s going to be spent. If it has to do with the Terror or War, it is top secret. In other words, we just pay and shut the F’ck up.
Hypocritical to rise our hands to the heavens on how brutal was Saddam while we, like Saudi and several others of our friends have had given asylum to dictators and war murderers.

Before G.W.Bush, our economy had the largest surplus in the last fifty years, and now that it has evaporated into thin air, we simply get a dramatized fairytale on war games by a lunatic crusader.

Our social structures, our excessive crime rate, our medical care system, our unemployment and industrial technological excellences should have the highest priority. Instead of paying billions in covering our foreign failures. If we take our Military might of the equation… We are naked!

Click (http://www.costofwar.com/)


Cost of the War in Iraq
$73,379,860,158


Compare to the cost of:

Pre-School
*7,410,464 additional children could attend a year of Head Start

Kids Health
*22,466,449 additional children could be provided with a year of health care

Public Education
*998,366 additional school teachers could be hired for one year

College Scholarships
*1,329,467 additional four-year scholarships at public universities

Public Housing
*748,775 additional affordable housing units could be built

If the cost of invasion really is $150 B. Then I can only suspect that GW Intends to recover the cost with interest. If of course the Iraqi's will let him.
Does anyone here have any figures as to how much of that 150 billion is already earmarked for US corporations? How much will be spent on weapons, ammo, intelligence ect? How much more will go on infrastructure?

Direct from the taxpayer to big biz!
Hasn't that always been the American way?
Dee Cee

You don't hear Cheney complain.....His company is doing quite well from taxpayers money....

Those US corporations will spend that money paying us and taxes. We will use that money to pay more of us, and taxes.

Originally posted by Jagger
OK, I just heard that the cost for the invasion and this year and next years occupation will cost AT LEAST 150 billion dollars.

So what could the US have done with 150 billion dollars if we hadn't invaded Iraq over non-existent WMD?


The United States would have lost over $150 billion if it had not invaded Iraq - due to inflation(the dollar has already inflated 20% in the last year and a half, allah akbar). Iraq had started using EURO's for its international oil transactions, instead of (petro)dollars. Originally, countries or companies that were buying oil from Iraq would first have to trade with the United States to obtain US (petro)dollars. This became unnecessary when Iraq switched to EURO's, so the United States lost money, and would have lost a lot more if it had continued any longer.

There is always the chance that OPEC will switch its oil transaction currency to EURO's, or better yet, Islamic Gold Dinars. It would be dumb of them not to, considering the fact that the EURO and gold are much stronger than the debt heavy (petro)dollar. If this happens, don't be suprised when the dollar goes into hyperinflation.

What I am getting at is that the United States will not survive if it does not invade every major oil-rich arab country. It is completely essiential to it's survival.

Without taking a stance on the Iraq war either way...

And if the money had to be spent, instead of being used for tax cuts, etc...

I'd still rather that money be spent on the military than on the various bullshit socialist programs I've seen mentioned in this thread.

I wonder if anyone in the Bush administration were smart enough to float the idea of simply buying Iraq?

Originally posted by DeeCee
Direct from the taxpayer to big biz!
Hasn't that always been the American way?

It's the socialist way; found in virtually every Western nation and many non-Western ones as well.

"Bullshit socialist programs"?
What about our socialized military? Why are we letting the government squander our hard earned cash when we could privatize the military? What makes the military more efficient than any other wasteful government program?

Time to sell it off and hire mercenaries. It worked for imperial powers in the past.

Originally posted by Repo Man
What about our socialized military?

The military exists to perform one of the few legitimate duties of the government: national defense.

Originally posted by Repo Man
Why are we letting the government squander our hard earned cash when we could privatize the military? What makes the military more efficient than any other wasteful government program?

I never claimed that federal control of the military is more efficient.

It is necessary for two reasons:
[list=1]
The military is a tool of foreign policy. Foreign policy should be determined and enforced by elected representatives (the government), not the highest bidder.
While I'd never blindly trust a government, a national military run by elected representatives is probably less likely to be used in an abusive manner than one run by the highest bidder who answers to nobody.
[/list=1]

It's the socialist way
Really Galt?
Taxpayers in socialist countries subsidise big biz?
Are your sure your not confusing 'big biz' with state owned enterprise?
Maybe socialism is good for busness!
Who'd have thought it?
Dee Cee

Some members of the forum believe that anyone who isn't a libertarian is a socialist.

Specifically where that $150 billion is going to? Who are the top 10 in the accounts payble checkbook?

Hint:

Military Operations including replenishment of munitions = $62.6 Billion

(most of it going to salary, benefits, supplies, food, fuel etc)

More at: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/sprj.irq.letter/

Originally posted by DeeCee
Really Galt?

Yes, really.

Originally posted by DeeCee
Taxpayers in socialist countries subsidise big biz?

Yes. So do taxpayers in nations with mixed-economies (part capitalist, part socialist), such as America.

Originally posted by DeeCee
Are your sure your not confusing 'big biz' with state owned enterprise?

The two would be indistinguishable in a socialist country.

Originally posted by DeeCee
Maybe socialism is good for busness!

It can be, at times. But it is always bad for freedom, which is why I am against it.

Originally posted by DeeCee
Who'd have thought it?

Adolf Hitler, for one.

Originally posted by justiceusa
Some members of the forum believe that anyone who isn't a libertarian is a socialist.

Was that directed at me?

I don't assume that all non-Libertarians are socialists (some are communists, after all :D) . But programs such as nationalized healthcare and public education are socialist.

I've been meaning to ask about that.

IN the UK we have the NHS, if you are injured or need to go to hospital you just go, Its all included in your Tax.

I've not understood the system in the states where if you cant pay you cant be treated, i know it's not exactly like that and it involved insurance and the like but the idea of having to have the cash to pay for cover to be eligable to be treated seems a bit....obscene to me.

Personally i dont see why people are against the idea that if your injured or need to go to hospital and be treated with the technology today there should be the system there to help you, you shouldnt have to be well off to be treated.
They are still trying to privatise the health care in the UK through the back door which really annoys me.
I probably wont ever be in a situation where if i needed to be treated i couldnt afford it unless it was some stupid operation that was done only by private companies that want £200,000 for the operation, a few thousand for the materials, a few thousand for the staff's time then a massive sum for "administration" or something (it happens)
What happened to the vision of a few decades ago where the human race seemed to be advancing so far so fast and the idea that if we worked together with each other we could acheive so much.
Looking at the world today maybe it is the same maybe i've just gotten older wiser and more cynical but it seems to be we arent progressing anymore, we seem to be slowing down, even going backwards some places and stagnating.
We seem more interested in cutting corners so big business can cut a buck and run than actually investing into science and technology and making sure it acutally WORKS.
We seem more interetested in only investing in ideas and technology some big company can patent and make money out of quickly rather than looking to the future and investing in technology that will benefit everyone down the line.
Worst of all we seem determined to do this all as fast as possable whilst our resorces last, what good will it be in a few decades saying ok our bad lets actually try to improve things rather than bodge everything for a quick buck when there are no resources left to do it with =/

anyway my rant over so someone explain to me how the US health care system actually works and why you think free health care is wrong =/

I agree.

There have been many books written about the American health care system. Basically the rich, of course, always have health care. The middle class only have health care if they can afford to buy a health insurance policy, or most commonly, their employer provides a health insurance policy. The elderly have a government program called medicare which is mediocre at best and does not cover perscription drugs. The poor are covered by a similiar program ( medicaid) in which the federal government gives money to each state to provide care for the poor. Working people who make too much income to be covered by a progam for the poor or whose employer does not provide medical insurance are just plain put of luck. At this point there are about 45 million American with no medical care.

In the last 10 years big corporations have entered into the picture, claiming that free market forces will keep the cost of health care down if they are allowed to be the providers of health care. By using a managed approach to cost containment they claim that they can lower the cost of health care in America. These private entities are called HMO's ( health maintenance organizations) , and PPO's (preferred provider organizations) . These private organizations basically decide which doctor a person will see and what treatment he will receive depending on a predetermined set of guidelines. Private medical practitioners who stay within these guidlines and make fewer referals to specialty clinics and who order fewer expensive tests receive bonuses from these organizations.

Basically whether or not medical care will remain in the private sector or become a national care system remains a hotly debated polical issue. this only obfuscates the fact that our medical care system is starting to lag behind other modern countries.

Before I get myself any more confused let me give you a link to some interesting points of view provided by a medical doctor.

http://www.yourdoctorinthefamily.com/grandtheory/section3_1.htm

Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
anyway my rant over so someone explain to me how the US health care system actually works and why you think free health care is wrong =/

"Free" healthcare isn't free. It costs every bit as much as privately funded healthcare; possibly more. You just don't notice it the same way because payments are taken in the form of taxation rather than cash, credit card or check.

Personally, I don't see that I should be obligated in any way to provide healthcare (via taxation) for the rest of the nation.

I don't know the workings of America's healthcare to the exact detail, but the basics are:

Many people receive healthcare benefits through their employer.
Those who don't receive employment benefits and can afford to pay for their own healthcare either do so or do without.
Those who don't receive employment benefits and can't afford to pay for their own healthcare either sign up for welfare or do without
Emergency rooms are supposedly required to provide emergency healthcare for sick people, regardless of their ability to pay.

Ironically at this point the only people in America who recieve free court mandated complete health care, are prison inmates and illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens shouldn't get jack shit, in my opinion.

Government healthcare for prisoners makes sense (for those who think prisoners should get healthcare at all), since they are unable to get regular jobs and buy their own insurance.

justiceusa, your recommended site has a good discussion on the new free market health care.

The problem is the free market doesn't work when other greater values beyond profit are involved. The health care field has a conflict between the higher value placed on quality care for patients versus maximizing profits. Just exactly what societal value is healthcare suppose to provide- profit or quality patient care?

What is interesting is how the efficiencies of the market simply increase profits by providing poorer quality health care. Intentionally decreasing health care quality, increases profit.

It is a very interesting case of a market maximizing profit at the expense of societal needs.

Not suprisingly, those who complain about not having access to government spending are the ones most incapable of self-support.

Who cares how much is spent on Iraq? If you, the individual, can convert your own personal effort into income, what need have you for government handouts based on taking from the productive to give to you, the non-productive?

If you aren't contributing to the common good by generating taxable income, who gives a f*ck what are your fantastical expectations of those that do?

Whiny, blithering incompetents. Who needs you?

You can't even support yourselves, or you wouldn't be asking for -- expecting -- a free handout.

Losers, with a capital L.

I pay my tax and yes that goes to the government who use that money for many things including my health care, the USA it seems doesnt include health care..or pretty much anything aplicable to the average joe, in your tax dollars its all paid seperatly.

As for those saying if you dont pay tax you dont deserve health care thats a bit blind arrogant and inhumane.
There are those that cannot afford this for reasons not of their fault, Unemployment is so high in the US and rising, Benefits are being cut left right and center, People are subject to being screwed by big business, false accusations in court that ruin them, medical problems that means they cant earn and insurance doesnt cover them, America is famous for suing everyone and anyone for anything and everything, why do these people deserve to just die in the gutter because of bad fortune, surely the human race has become better than that in the last 2000 plus years.

All the ones saying illegals and jobless go off and die probably all are ok for cash right, you can afford health care so why should you care or pay for others?
I've been laid off before so that my Company KPMG could afford to buy up a load of Enron after the scandal, pissed me off as i had just gotten myself a flat and was then out of work for 6 months, i got very lucky and found a place that was desperate for juniors with big comapny names on their cv (Rare enough) that would take shit money, i lost the flat and was getting into so much debt, if i was in the USA i wouldnt of been able to afford medical care, i was bearly managing to get food and that was with Social security paying me doll money for being out of work, i understand the American counter-part system is being screwed over at the moment and millions of americans have lost eligability for this sytem for many reasons including being out of work for too long.
If i wasnt lucky enough to sell myself short into this job i would of been screwed, i work hard, i'm educated, why should i if i suffer a disease or accident, be left to die because i've been screwed over by the system and have no money?

Hell by keeping me afloat the system let me get back on my feet and now i've put far more money back into the system in tax than they spent keeping me above water and a lot more on top of that through normal spending and i'm only 21, i've got many more years ahead of me (hopefully), instead the system could of told me to fuck of so some fat cat could line his pockets via a private company instead of investing in the system and i would of spent all this time in god knows what state.

Again I agree.

Yes, it would be nice if we could take care of each other, at least a little.

Americas debt continues to rise:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm



One day soon this debt will be the leading problem that will cause a great depression UNLESS something is done to eliminate it.

Paul Krugman, Princeton economics professor and very good NYT columnist, was on Charlie Rose tonight. He stated we are headed off a financial cliff if we don't deal with our deficit in the next couple of years. He said we are following Argentina's route and will see a financial meltdown before the baby boomers begin retiring. If we don't deal with our ballooning deficit. He said the deficit could put us into third world status within a short number of years-it isn't far to the retirement of the baby boomers. And Krugman is a respected, mainstream economist.

He also believes there is a clique within the Bush administration which intentionally wants greater debt. They want to starve the government thus getting rid of "New Deal" programs such as medicare. unemployment benefits and social security. They are a libertarian branch which doesn't feel the governement should be involved in any more than the absolute bare essense of government such as defense.. Of course, bankruptcy would accomplish their goals.

This Bush admin has some real fanatics on all issues of government whether economics, international relations or the legal system. IMO, the Bush admin is the most dangerous government the US has had in its history. Let us hope we can get through Bushs last year without completely trashing the world and ourselves.

"Your recomeded site has a good discussion on the new free market health care".

Yes and one almost has to read between the lines to realize that the new free market approach is not a dependable mehtod of suppling health care because it is relies soley on the profit motive.

One serious epidemic and the whole system would go bankrupt and shut down. One major terrorist attack could do the same. Plus there is always the volitility of the market itself which must be entered into the equation.

What worries me most is the fact that our free market system is currently laden with scandal. There are no requirements that a any company be run by honest people. When perpetrators of economic mayhem are caught, they either walk free or are given a slap on the hand fine to pay. Since the new mega health care providers are for the most part publicly traded corporations, they are prone to the same market manipulations and scandals that currently infest the American economy.

A free market would be truly wonderful if it were truly free. But it never has been. Someone has always had to pay a price for the dishonesty in management , and that someone has been the ordiany working man. In the Enron case alone thousands of employees lost not only their retirement funds , but also their jobs and their health insurance.

Galt,

"Free" healthcare isn't free. It costs every bit as much as privately funded healthcare; possibly more. You just don't notice it the same way because payments are taken in the form of taxation rather than cash, credit card or check.
Certainly it costs more. More people use it.

Personally, I don't see that I should be obligated in any way to provide healthcare (via taxation) for the rest of the nation.
Personally, I have no problem in understanding why I'm obligated to pay my share of taxes for the national healthcare program as I'm very aware of the fact that I myself can get into the unfortunate position in which I am dependent on my fellow human, regardless of my best efforts to be and remain self sufficient.

Originally posted by mouse
Certainly it costs more. More people use it.

I'm not just talking about overall cost. I'm also talking about comparative costs for the same treatments in private facilitices and taxpayer-funded facilities.

My guess is that the same treatment would cost more in a nationalized healthcare system as there would be more bureaucracy and red tape to deal with. It is the government, after all.

Originally posted by mouse
Personally, I have no problem in understanding why I'm obligated to pay my share of taxes for the national healthcare program as I'm very aware of the fact that I myself can get into the unfortunate position in which I am dependent on my fellow human, regardless of my best efforts to be and remain self sufficient.

Fair enough. Just don't force me or anyone else into it.

Michael Moores take on the 87 billion dollar price tag of the 150 billion dollar total.

----------

To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87 billion means:

$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States.

The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs Under George W. Bush $26,363 Each!

The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two-thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security.

The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]

$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The Federal Government Spends On After School Programs.

George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations Committee]

$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends On All Environmental Protection.

The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council]

There you go. In black and white. A few million of you will receive this letter. Please share the above with at least a half-dozen people today and tomorrow. I, like you, do not want to see another approval rating over 50%.

Originally posted by Galt
I'm not just talking about overall cost. I'm also talking about comparative costs for the same treatments in private facilitices and taxpayer-funded facilities.

My guess is that the same treatment would cost more in a nationalized healthcare system as there would be more bureaucracy and red tape to deal with.

But it is the overall cost that counts and sorry but your guess isn't good enough. Give me some facts that are current. The cost of bureaucracy has remained the same. The cost of private health care has skyrocketed in recent years.

Originally posted by justiceusa
The cost of bureaucracy has remained the same.

Are you sure?

Originally posted by justiceusa
But it is the overall cost that counts and sorry but your guess isn't good enough.

For me, it's economic freedom that counts. And while overall cost is important, a comparison between the costs of private and taxpayer-funded treatment is certainly relevant (for those who want to argue on a cost premise).

Man! .. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS.... ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS ... ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS.

a lot of oil has to be pumped to have any significant ROI. And how much will US companies really benefit from the granted "rebuilding" contracts? Am I missing something?

No. You have your finger on why Bush is going DOWN.

I hate to say this but it is actually closer to 161 billion. It is easier to just say 150 billion.

I found this in the site you posted earlier in this thread: Three reasons for the high cost of health care. (http://www.yourdoctorinthefamily.com/grandtheory/section2_4.htm)

According to the link you posted, the three main factors driving up the cost of healthcare are waste and fraud, an increasing use of expensive technology and a rapidly aging population.

Few entities are more wasteful than government bureaucracies (in America, anyway). The difference between private and public sector wastefulness is that wasteful private entities either change their ways or go out of business. The government can just raise taxes to increase funding for wasteful public entities, or divert funds from some other area.

The cost of using advanced medical technology and the financial burden of the aging population will have the same effect on both public and private healthcare.

EDIT: And, aside from all of this, we must still consider the most important question (to me, at least): What effect does forcing one person to pay for the healthcare of another have on our rights?

Originally posted by Galt

Fair enough. Just don't force me or anyone else into it.

Fair enough i just hope if you ever find your self out of luck and in need of help someone else isn't quite so selfish and you get the help you need to get back on your feet that i did.
Maybe, maybe then you'll see the benefit maybe not.

Surely, this must be frowned upon in even some conservative circles?

Conservative circles believe in the Law of the Jungle as created by God. Libertarians believe in the Law of the Jungle as created by Darwin. Either way, they only look out for them and theirs. All others are the "enemy" and slightly subhuman. Of course, none has every been sick in their lifes and they lack the foresight to realize they might get sick in the future.

I thought only poor people got sick?

Originally posted by Galt
The difference between private and public sector wastefulness is that wasteful private entities either change their ways or go out of business.


No they don't go out of business, especially in the health care sector, they just keep charging more and providing less. The market forces of the 19th century no longer apply to the real world.

Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
Fair enough i just hope if you ever find your self out of luck and in need of help someone else isn't quite so selfish and you get the help you need to get back on your feet that i did.

I am not opposed to helping people. I am opposed to being forced to help people.

Originally posted by Jagger
Either way, they only look out for them and theirs. All others are the "enemy" and slightly subhuman.

Wrong. There is nothing in the conservative or Libertarian "platform" that encourages hostility towards charitable acts. It is only forced "charity" that Libertarians and some conservatives disagree with.

Originally posted by Jagger
Of course, none has every been sick in their lifes and they lack the foresight to realize they might get sick in the future.

More stupidity.

I have been sick - not life-threateningly sick - but sick. I have had a few surgeries as well. I know all too well that I may get sick or injured in the future, which is why having a job that provides health insurance or buying my own is always a priority of mine.

Originally posted by justiceusa
No they don't go out of business, especially in the health care sector, they just keep charging more and providing less.

The more they charge and the less they provide, the easier it will be for some damn fool to open a medical center that charges less and provides more and runs everyone else out of business.

Originally posted by justiceusa
The market forces of the 19th century no longer apply to the real world.

Supply and demand never goes out of style.

Originally posted by Galt


Supply and demand never goes out of style.

Supply and demand do not apply to medical care. Demand has been increasing for the last 25 years and there is no end in sight. Those who control the supply dominately control the price.

The consumer is left out of the loop , hells bells thats what this whole medical care delema is all about.

Thats one reason the government has put severe limits on the patents one can put on new medical products. It is very hard to maintain a monopoly on a drug or device for long. Imagine what the price of some lifesaving drug would be if only one company in the world could produce it. They could just say "Can't pay? THEN DIE YOU FILTHY ANIMAL! BWAHAHAHA!!!" and you would have no recourse. As it is things are somewhat better.

Originally posted by justiceusa
Supply and demand do not apply to medical care.

Sure it does. Increase the number of doctors in America by 5000 percent and see what happens to the cost of an office visit.

Originally posted by justiceusa
Demand has been increasing for the last 25 years and there is no end in sight. Those who control the supply dominately control the price.

Demand is more difficult to control than supply. If someone needs or wants something, there really isn't much we can do to change that.

Originally posted by Galt
Sure it does. Increase the number of doctors in America by 5000 percent and see what happens to the cost of an office visit.


Thats a toltally over simplistic approach. we aren't talking about jelly beans here.

Although since the average doctor has a support staff of 4 that would certainly put a dent in the unemployment figures.

On the other hand with doctors being the third leading cause of death it might be an interesting experiment in population control.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS -- enough for 25 space elevators!

Now projected to be on the order of a $6 billion investment, the first space elevator could quickly reduce lift costs to $100 per pound. That far outstrips todays pricey launch costs of roughly $10,000 to $40,000 per pound, depending upon destination and choice of rocket launch system (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&e=14&u=/space/spaceelevatorhighhopesloftygoals)

SPACE ELEVATOR!! WOW!! I had never heard of that...

Strech a ribbon from the equator into space?? Anchor it on earth and in space?? And then attach an elevator onto the ribbon??

Amazing....too bad we won't be able to afford if we keep spending all our money on wars for non-existent WMD's.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jagger
[B]SPACE ELEVATOR!! WOW!! I had never heard of that...


Inspired by Motrola coast to coast walkie talkie adds.:D

I just watched the McClaughlin group. Apparantly there is another 50 billion needed this year. However that 50 billion was not included in the 87 billion requested by Bush because they are holding a summit for international contributions. All in the panel stated that Bush admin is dreaming if we expect 50 billion in contributions from the international community. The great majority of that 50 billion will come from the US people.

So to be honest, perhaps we should say around 210 billion for two years.

I know! We'll blame the :eek:onomy on Saddomma Been-Sane!:D

China is kicking our butt....we have to kick somebody...smaller...:D