Obama 2008: Adding $4 Trillion dollars to US Debt "Unpatriotic" (over 8 years), What about Obama's $5 Trillion?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    And his opponents are right to run on Obama's record...



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    riddler my friend, you are leaving out that the lions share of this debt is directly tied to and a result of the debt cycle Bush/Cheney started, No matter how the repubs try to paint this as Obama's debt, it just doesn't 'stick'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 8:34 PM GMT
    realifedad said riddler my friend, you are leaving out that the lions share of this debt is directly tied to and a result of the debt cycle Bush/Cheney started, No matter how the repubs try to paint this as Obama's debt, it just doesn't 'stick'.


    Even if that were the case and I'd submit it's not, you'd think the fact Obama campaigned on this in 2008, he'd actually do something different instead of worse.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 03, 2012 9:59 PM GMT
    There is absolutely no doubt that Barack Obama not only refused to change the federal budget in order to reduce debt accumulation, he in fact changed the federal budget in order to accelerate the increase in debt accumulation.

    It's a no brainer except to the brainless and those who lie to themselves each and every day.

    Having said that, I have never been a George W. Bush fan. He allowed debt to accumulate at 50% the rate of one Barack Obama, which is still an issue that will come home to roost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 10:28 PM GMT
    If you look at debt as a % of GDP which is a better indicator, Obama doesn't look so bad. Compare his record to Reagans:

    Average annual increase by administration:

    Carter: 10.6%
    Reagan: 23.6%
    Bush I: 13.9%
    Clinton: 4.4%
    Bush II: 11.1%
    Obama: 13.8% (including 2011)

    Source CBO

    Obama is a lot less that Reagan and just shy of Bush 1. It is the projected debt that is the mess and neither party has stepped up to the plate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2012 10:33 PM GMT
    Riddler, O inherit the Bush/Republican financial debacle and 2 unpaid for wars.
  • Montague

    Posts: 5205

    Jul 03, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidRiddler, O inherit the Bush/Republican financial debacle and 2 unpaid for wars.


    Hopefully we have enough of a country left to bank roll the third war against North Korea or Syria! Or maybe China can help us. icon_wink.gif
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 03, 2012 11:00 PM GMT
    neuergriff saidIf you look at debt as a % of GDP which is a better indicator, Obama doesn't look so bad. Compare his record to Reagans:

    Average annual increase by administration:

    Carter: 10.6%
    Reagan: 23.6%
    Bush I: 13.9%
    Clinton: 4.4%
    Bush II: 11.1%
    Obama: 13.8% (including 2011)

    Source CBO

    Obama is a lot less that Reagan and just shy of Bush 1. It is the projected debt that is the mess and neither party has stepped up to the plate.



    The real issue of course is the total debt load as a percentage of GDP. Having said that, I do not applaud any of the President's listed as to their ability to allow America to accumulate debt.

    It is almost worth having OB for another four years just to see what happens. If we take his current rate of debt accumulation he would likely hit 27.8%.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    Montague said
    Caslon19000 saidRiddler, O inherit the Bush/Republican financial debacle and 2 unpaid for wars.


    Hopefully we have enough of a country left to bank roll the third war against North Korea or Syria! Or maybe China can help us. icon_wink.gif





    OH THE IRONY OF IT ALL !!!


    The repub Neo Con Hawks have teamed up with the Israeli Neo Con War Hawks and are salivating over starting another war as you pointed out, but you left out their most loved war they've been trying to get going since the days of their most loved think tank "The Project For The New American Century", it was led and dispanded in disgrace after bringing on the war with Iraq under William Krystal, he's since popped up in another group of Neo Cons now pushing the same war wish list.

    But as you know, no repugnant will complain about debt for their sacred wars 'for our safety'. LMAO, but by god don't waste money on them damn old people drawing Social Security, and them lazy unemployed people.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 04, 2012 3:32 PM GMT
    realifedad said riddler my friend, you are leaving out that the lions share of this debt is directly tied to and a result of the debt cycle Bush/Cheney started, No matter how the repubs try to paint this as Obama's debt, it just doesn't 'stick'.


    You keep blaming Bush for Obamas bad presidency. If you think its all Bushes fault then why doesnt Obama try to reduce the debt instead of make it worse??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2012 3:57 PM GMT
    It's funny, when the right wing want to scream about how they will ruin Obamacare, they happily remind everyone that how the tea bagging nutcases in congress control spending, but when it comes to blaming someone for the debt, it is all Obama. How does ha work inside of your big giant empty heads?
    Seems like you can't have it both ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2012 10:15 PM GMT
    jock_1 said
    realifedad said riddler my friend, you are leaving out that the lions share of this debt is directly tied to and a result of the debt cycle Bush/Cheney started, No matter how the repubs try to paint this as Obama's debt, it just doesn't 'stick'.


    You keep blaming Bush for Obamas bad presidency. If you think its all Bushes fault then why doesnt Obama try to reduce the debt instead of make it worse??


    Very simple, you do not cut spending during an economic crisis cold turkey. The private sector is so intertwined with the public that that would introduce a worse situation. Obama's attempt to have a balanced approach has not worked since the GOP won't budge on waste.

    Just take a look at the Tea Party favorite Cantor and the GOP delegation to Va. This is just a few of their pet projects:

    Fighter plane engines the Air Force doesn't want $385,000,000,000 (billions)
    Subsidies to Israel - $10,000,000,000 unfunded
    Caroline County Dawn Wastewater System: $3,000,000
    Jefferson Labs in Newport News: $1,000,000
    Northrup Gumman in Arlington: $2,500,000
    College of William and Mary: $500,000
    City of Hampton: $500,000

    The list goes on and on. These are either unwanted, unfunded or should be paid for at the state level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 2:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said riddler my friend, you are leaving out that the lions share of this debt is directly tied to and a result of the debt cycle Bush/Cheney started, No matter how the repubs try to paint this as Obama's debt, it just doesn't 'stick'.


    Even if that were the case and I'd submit it's not, you'd think the fact Obama campaigned on this in 2008, he'd actually do something different instead of worse.







    Well in laymens terms here's the facts:



    1.Bush started with a surplus

    2.Bush spent a good share of that surplus on giving $300 to mostly Americans who didn't need it. (recall Clintons Larry King interview)

    3.Bush started a medicare program costing hundreds of billions and didn't pay for it.

    >>>>THE SURPLUS WAS THEN GONE<<<<<
    4. Gave Billions in Tax breaks to Americas Wealthiest saying it would spur job growth but had the worst job record since the Depression. WHERE ARE THOSE PROMISED JOBS ? Over these ten years since, This cost the US around another Trillion Dollars.

    5. Bush overeacted to 9-11 spending on his 'war on terror' (more like beating back the blowback from American Interventionism) and started the unpaid for 'Dept of Homeland security' and thereby spent billions more, duplicating the FBI and CIA

    6.Bush Lied us into a unecessarry war with Iraq and started barrowing from China Costing us Trillions in War expenses and in ongoing Wounded Warrior expenses. The interest on those debts is costing billions

    7.Bush promoted Walstreet and Bank Gambling, downplayed and diluded checks and balances, ignored warnings of a housing crisis and the economy went bust, promoted bailouts that cost trillions more.

    8.Bush recession cost in lost jobs and billions in lost income tax revenue, He kept barrowing and the Debt, kept increasing as did the interest.

    9. Obama inherited all of this mess, the direct results of which are costing trillions more,

    10. Obama is faced with the Republican party of No, whose intransigence has strangled any and all remedies to the Bush mess in their efforts to "MAKE OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT"


    Even though technical details are left out, I am sure this paints a rather vivid picture of why we are where we are today. The mess Obama was handed would be next to impossible to overcome in 3 years with a totally cooperative and compromising Congress and Senate.

    Throw in the Republican Party of No to block everything the democrats attempt to improve the situation that they could get away with and then avoid cooperating and compromise while offering only more tax cuts that didn't create jobs and it becomes impossible for Obama to turn the debt and deficit cycle around.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jul 05, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    Even though technical details are left out,




    Ahhhhh, but you see my dear RLD....The Devil Is In The Details. You cannot make your points valid simply be laying them out in "layman's terms" because it's just not that simple. There is plenty of blame to go around for where we (the USA) sit in the here and now. We can blame Bush...We can blame Obama....We can blame congress on both sides of the aisle....blah-blah-blah....but the only real truth in all of this is that no one president, no one administration, no one political party is to blame. We are ALL to blame for the "living beyond our means" lifestyle we were all too willing to partake in, and the government that made it easy for us to do that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 2:56 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    Even though technical details are left out,




    Ahhhhh, but you see my dear RLD....The Devil Is In The Details. You cannot make your points valid simply be laying them out in "layman's terms" because it's just not that simple. There is plenty of blame to go around for where we (the USA) sit in the here and now. We can blame Bush...We can blame Obama....We can blame congress on both sides of the aisle....blah-blah-blah....but the only real truth in all of this is that no one president, no one administration, no one political party is to blame. We are ALL to blame for the "living beyond our means" lifestyle we were all too willing to partake in, and the government that made it easy for us to do that.


    Hopefully Riddler will see your post, which is all fairness should be addressed to him as well.

    Question; how is the Iraq war living beyond your means?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jul 05, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Question; how is the Iraq war living beyond your means?



    It was living beyond our means because we went into it without a clear mission on how to get out and, more importantly, we were already deep in debt and had no idea how the war was going to be paid for. Yes, we could blame this all on President Bush but, again, it's just not that simple. The congress voted on going into Iraq by an overwhelming vote based on data and intelligence that was available to them. We also didn't count on Iraq being as difficult of a mission as it became. Getting Saddam Hussein was the easy part.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 3:50 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    Even though technical details are left out,




    Ahhhhh, but you see my dear RLD....The Devil Is In The Details. You cannot make your points valid simply be laying them out in "layman's terms" because it's just not that simple. There is plenty of blame to go around for where we (the USA) sit in the here and now. We can blame Bush...We can blame Obama....We can blame congress on both sides of the aisle....blah-blah-blah....but the only real truth in all of this is that no one president, no one administration, no one political party is to blame. We are ALL to blame for the "living beyond our means" lifestyle we were all too willing to partake in, and the government that made it easy for us to do that.


    Hopefully Riddler will see your post, which is all fairness should be addressed to him as well.

    Question; how is the Iraq war living beyond your means?





    Thing is CJ you know and undestand the points in 'laymens language' because the technical details are quite well known, you know as well as I do that the jist of the problems were exposed by what I wrote.

    The Iraq was brought to us by lies, the groups who pushed for it had been trying to get even Clinton to do their bidding, whether you like it or not it all goes straight back to a Neo Con group called "the Project for the New American Century" led by William Krystal who disbanded that think tank in disgrace after the Iraq war and is now Author of another such group pushing for yet another war.

    CJ, quit ignoring facts, its these influences who put major portion of our debt into play, they're trying to bring about more harm to our economy by pushing for more war and you seem adverse to facing it.

    Their wars and military adventurism hold a huge share of our US debt and deficit problems. Face it CJ, end those militaristic adventures and we would greatly improve chances of getting out of debt and improve our US Budget, it boils down to, do we want to spend ourselves into more and more debt for destruction in our world or spend that money at home to improve our citizens lives and job prospects ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 3:58 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    meninlove said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    Even though technical details are left out,




    Ahhhhh, but you see my dear RLD....The Devil Is In The Details. You cannot make your points valid simply be laying them out in "layman's terms" because it's just not that simple. There is plenty of blame to go around for where we (the USA) sit in the here and now. We can blame Bush...We can blame Obama....We can blame congress on both sides of the aisle....blah-blah-blah....but the only real truth in all of this is that no one president, no one administration, no one political party is to blame. We are ALL to blame for the "living beyond our means" lifestyle we were all too willing to partake in, and the government that made it easy for us to do that.


    Hopefully Riddler will see your post, which is all fairness should be addressed to him as well.

    Question; how is the Iraq war living beyond your means?





    Thing is CJ you know and undestand the points in 'laymens language' because the technical details are quite well known, you know as well as I do that the jist of the problems were exposed by what I wrote.

    The Iraq was brought to us by lies, the groups who pushed for it had been trying to get even Clinton to do their bidding, whether you like it or not it all goes straight back to a Neo Con group called "the Project for the New American Century" led by William Krystal who disbanded that think tank in disgrace after the Iraq war and is now Author of another such group pushing for yet another war.

    CJ, quit ignoring facts, its these influences who put major portion of our debt into play, they're trying to bring about more harm to our economy by pushing for more war and you seem adverse to facing it.

    Their wars and military adventurism hold a huge share of our US debt and deficit problems. Face it CJ, end those militaristic adventures and we would greatly improve chances of getting out of debt and improve our US Budget, it boils down to, do we want to spend ourselves into more and more debt for destruction in our world or spend that money at home to improve our citizens lives and job prospects ?


    "The Iraq was brought to us by lies"

    The Iraq what? But anyway, if you want to talk about lies ... almost the entire world was "lieing" or maybe we should make that 'lying'

    so again for the 1000th time.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    CJ, be honest with yourself and us all. What share of the economic cost do the combination of the following list lay claim to ?

    1.The wars
    a. the debt and interest to finance them
    b. the ongoing cost of medical care for the nearly 30,000 wounded
    c. the ongoing costs of war prisons and new departments / duplicative agencies to fight 'war on terror' that is in the CIA's own words, "blowback from our foreign policy"

    Most estimate the cost at 3 trillion dollars and growing because of cost to continue the status quo started by the above. Its snowballing and you know it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 4:21 PM GMT
    Thanks you "OLD GEEZER" your helping prove my point, Who and What groups were the people from behind the pushing, proding, maneuvering and promoting lies to even the above ?

    Can you tell us ? Can you admit to who they were and the reasoning behind their wanting to push for war with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? (this group failed to get Bush to agree to add an Iran war back then, but are now nearly successful in adding it)

    Who are these people doing most of the pushing for economically tragic wars ? What groups are the primary source behind the push for war ?


    Do tell us ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 4:26 PM GMT
    Tell us how you would rather cut on infrastructure, Civil safety net programs and Social Security so we can keep up with wars and US Military interventionist policies. Did we learn anything from Iraq ? Anything at all ?




    So which is it "OLD GEEZER" and CJ, do you want to spend on wars or spend the money here at home where the money goes into our economy and starts the economic wheels churning for more jobs and revenue for our country and debts being paid down ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 9:54 PM GMT
    Financial cost of the Iraq War


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The following is a partial accounting of financial costs of the 2003 Iraq War by the United States and the United Kingdom, the two largest non Iraqi participants of the multinational force in Iraq.








    Contents
    [hide] 1 U.S. war costs 1.1 Direct costs 1.1.1 Appropriations

    1.2 Indirect and delayed costs
    1.3 Military equipment lost 1.3.1 Land equipment
    1.3.2 Air equipment


    2 U.K. war costs
    3 References

    U.S. war costs

    [edit] Direct costs





    A Marine Corps M1 Abrams tank patrols a Baghdad street after its fall in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    The costs of the War on Terror are often contested, as academics and critics of the component wars (including the Iraq War) have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,[1] which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[2] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.[3]

    Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.".[4]

    Appropriations

    See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
    FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
    FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[5][6]
    FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
    FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[7]
    FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[8]
    FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[9]

    It is unclear why no breakdowns are offered on the basis of each war.

    [edit] Indirect and delayed costs

    According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[10][11]
    Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[12] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[12]

    The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[13][14]
    Military equipment lost

    The U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress:;[15] they are approximations that include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2009.




    [edit] Land equipment
    80 M1 Abrams tanks
    55 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles
    20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
    20 M113 armored personnel carriers
    250 Humvees
    500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers
    10 Assault Amphibious Vehicles[16][17]


    [edit] Air equipment

    Main article: List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War
    109 Helicopters
    18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft

    In June 2006, the Army said that the cost of replacing its depleted equipment tripled from that of 2005.[18] As of December 2006, according to government data reported by the Washington Post, the military stated that nearly 40% of the army’s total equipment has been to Iraq, with an estimated yearly refurbishment cost of $US 17 billion. The military states that the yearly refurbishment cost has increased by a factor of ten compared to that of the pre-war state. As of December 2006 approximately 500 M1 tanks, 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 1000 Humvees are awaiting repair in US military depots.[19]

    [edit] U.K. war costs

    As of March 2006, approximately £4.5 billion had been spent by the United Kingdom in Iraq. All of this money has come from a government fund called the "Special Reserve" which has a current allocation of £7.4 billion.[20][21]

    As of June 2010 UK costs exceeded £20bn for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.[22]

    [edit] References

    1.^ "Costs of war". Brown University. Retrieved 9 February 2012.
    2.^ "Costs of War". Costs of War. Brown University.
    3.^ Crawford, Neta and Catherine Lutz. "Economic and Budgetary Costs of the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to the United States: A Summary". Costs of War. Brown University. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
    4.^ Transcript of a March 16, 2003 interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney by NBC's Meet the Press, from the website for the International Relations Program at Mount Holyoke College
    5.^ National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home from the Cost of War website
    6.^ "Congressional Reports: Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan since 9/11". zFacts.org. 2006-04-24. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
    7.^ Increase In War Funding Sought from The Washington Post
    8.^ Gray, Andrew (2009-04-10). "UPDATE 2-Obama seeks $83.4 billion more in 2009 war funds". Reuters.
    9.^ Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (February 1, 2010). "Defense Budget/QDR Announcement". Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
    10.^ Richard Sammon (July 2007). "Iraq War: The Cost in Dollars". Retrieved 2007-07-23.
    11.^ "U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs". Reuters. October 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
    12.^ a b The three trillion dollar war from The Times of London
    13.^ "Strapped for money, Army extends cutbacks on spending". USA Today. 2006-07-20. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
    14.^ Michael Hirsh (2006-07-21). "End of Days?". Newsweek. Arc
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 9:56 PM GMT
    WHO PUSHED FOR THESE WARS ? WHAT FAR RIGHT GROUPS ?



    Our Country cannot overcome such debt, with the party of no blocking at every angle, nor can it overcome this Militaristic debt gaining when the Party of No blocks every effort to slow military spending and even is now pressuring toward yet another war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 10:07 PM GMT
    realifedad said Tell us how you would rather cut on infrastructure, Civil safety net programs and Social Security so we can keep up with wars and US Military interventionist policies. Did we learn anything from Iraq ? Anything at all ?




    So which is it "OLD GEEZER" and CJ, do you want to spend on wars or spend the money here at home where the money goes into our economy and starts the economic wheels churning for more jobs and revenue for our country and debts being paid down ?


    Hey Frantic Fanatic, what is it, the 10,000th time for this 'conversation' ?

    And at 58 ++++++ you have no room to be calling anyone else an old geezer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2012 10:08 PM GMT
    realifedad said Thanks you "OLD GEEZER" your helping prove my point, Who and What groups were the people from behind the pushing, proding, maneuvering and promoting lies to even the above ?

    Can you tell us ? Can you admit to who they were and the reasoning behind their wanting to push for war with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? (this group failed to get Bush to agree to add an Iran war back then, but are now nearly successful in adding it)

    Who are these people doing most of the pushing for economically tragic wars ? What groups are the primary source behind the push for war ?


    Do tell us ?


    Bomb Iran
    Go Bibi

    for you sweetheart