What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- jarrodhunt, on 10/10/2007, -11/+335I think its time we elect a fiscally conservative president!
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -21/+295We had one. His name was Bill Clinton.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -127/+15Too bad he wasn't a bit better at national security and foreign affairs huh? Perhaps if he hadn't been on a golf course refusing to leave when that sniper had Bin Laden in his sights we wouldn't be spending the money we are now.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -86/+12Buried for truth?
- didiman, on 10/10/2007, -40/+5What do you expect, this is Digg. I am really hoping chase was being sarcastic, but sadly I don't think he was.
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Wait... You're saying a comment about Clinton being bad with foreign affairs (despite the fact that he was pretty much universally loved), and bad at national security (he came WAY closer to taking out Bin Laden than Bush ever did) is buried because we know you're right?... You even seemed to attempt to imply he was worse at Bush, who has created the biggest foreign affairs nightmare in the last 20 years, and made our country less secure rather than more... Buried for idiocy.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda's camps in Afganistan in the middle of 1998. That was called Operation Infinite Reach, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
Unfortunately, that occurred in the middle of the Lewinski scandal. Clinton's attack of Al Qaeda was viewed as a "Wag the Dog" scenario and interpreted as a means of distracting from the affair. Clinton was forced to stop his attack of Al Qaeda to deal with Republican attacks on his Presidency.
If conservatives had not been so lustful at attacking Clinton, he could have finished Al Qaeda in 1998. However, conservative Republicans wanted Clinton's blood, which distracted Clinton from finishing the job. If anyone is to blame for Al Qaeda surviving up until 9/11, then it is those same conservative Republicans who were distracting the president over a relationship with an intern. - Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20This neocon BS has no business in this thread. This is not a clintonomics argument. It is about Bush completely screwing us for decades to come.
- GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Also buried because you think that Clinton spent too much time on the golf course while defending the president that took more vacation on his first 100 days than any other president did in an entire term. Also buried for the reasons listed above. It is amazing that you can ridicule a president for poor national security but back up a president that had an NIE hand delivered by a CIA operative that said "Bin Laden Determined to Attack", only to have said president say "O.K. you've covered your ass" and ignore the warning. Then when the attack happed, he sat there like the dumb-ass he is in a classroom with a stupid look on his face while waiting to be told what to do. Amazing. Simply amazing.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's right, rightard.
You are SO smart we just digg you down out of jealousy.
It has nothing to do with your stupid rightard *****.
How do you ***** sleep at night?
I can't even ***** believe you assholes bring up Clinton after President Traitor has ruined America.
Let's see, we are occupying third world nations and running a deficit that it may take decades to deal with, and you bitches whine about the prez who lead us in a time of prosperity?
Man, you are too dumb for words.
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+53Could your rants please include just a smidgen of truth? Please?
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -27/+4Your truth or the truth. Do a search, research Operation Desert Fox from 1998. Research the Iraq Liberation Act. I'm not sure how you people forget this stuff so conveniently. Don't just bash a politician because it is the popular thing to do, most of what we have today was set in motion before most of us know who Bush Jr. was.
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Desert Fox funded Iraqi revolutionaries who didn't like Bin Laden, basically following the precedent of every Cold War president... I don't see how that's relevant... He did of course start the policy towards regime change in Iraq, but he no more went after invading Iraq than any other president went towards invading Cuba...
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15"I'm not sure how you people forget this stuff so conveniently. "
The same way YOU people forgot why we're in IRAQ. In case you don't remember that would WMD's. Oh and also in case you forgot where we were supposed to be getting Osama "Been Smokin" , that would be in afghanistan , you know that lil country just to the right of IRAQ and over Iran. I know its easy to take a wrong turn and end up in another country and start ***** it up.
Oh and just in case you forgot how we would be greeted in Iraq, I believe your Lord N Savior Cheney put it like this "liberators"...hmmm...I wouldn't quite phrase it that way right now. Oh and how you may have forgotten that Bush would wait till his lil buddy Petraeus gave his assessment next month before changing his course. But, G.W. stated earlier this week that it wouldn't matter what he says, plus now they want to limit his hearing with Congress and also edit his report.
Now when I look at it like this, "Your People's" memory is worse than "Our people's" memory.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -58/+6Here's one opportunity Clinton deliberately passed up to capture Bin Laden. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
Here's his order not to kill Bin Laden. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1099325/posts
It may be unpopular people but wake up. Clinton could have prevented everything you blame Bush for.- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Yes, because terrorist organizations are centralized institutions that cease to function without leadership, and Bin Laden was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks (though he denied this, without having a very good reason to)...
Face it, he couldnt've prevented *****, Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, Bin Laden is the head of Al-Qaeda, but logically it does not follow that Bin Laden must've been responsible for 9/11. - DAllenJ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12No. I blame bush for insisting that Iraq is the target, for lying about WMDs, and implying that al quaeda and Iraq were connected before we invaded. Your boy insisted he knew best. Now it's clear he didn't, and it's Clinton's fault? Sorry, guy. Nice try, though.
- biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Foreign affairs? You mean better than Bush's stance which is basically not to even talk because he is such an idiot he cant even complete a sentence unless its some old sain he remembers from before he became a coke head? Great foreign affairs policy... dont negotiate anything but put ridiculous money into the military so if anyone pisses us off we can just go and destroy them.
Clinton's ability to complete sentences and negotiate with other nations puts his foreign policy above Bush's any day
As far as Osama being in someones sites... You learned that from a right wing nutjob that failed to disclose that the supposed intel was actually a test to see what the US would do if it thought Osama was in a given location. Clinton was trying to get Osama far before Bush had even heard the name. Clinton's administration stopped 3 terror attacks during new years 2000. Bush did absolutely nothing to try and get Osama. And it was a far more dire situation during the 9 months Bush was in office. - DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The cell's were already operational - killing bin Laden would've only prevented the Afghanistan war after 9/11. 9/11 could've been stopped if our FBI/CIA/etc. people who had all the information they needed to destroy the cells (WITHOUT civil liberties destroying Patriot Act powers) -- if those guys had done their jobs and communicated it would have been stopped. And maybe they would have if John Ashcroft gave a flying crap about terrorism pre-9/11 or George Bush had even BLINKED at a memo like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Yes, because terrorist organizations are centralized institutions that cease to function without leadership, and Bin Laden was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks (though he denied this, without having a very good reason to)...
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -44/+2***** comment system didn't add the last one.
Here we have an article about Clintons refusal to simply kill Bin Laden. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1099325/posts
Here we have the Clinton administrations refusal to accept Bin Laden's arrest. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
If you don't like those hit google there are plenty more out there. It is crystal clear that Clinton could have prevented all of this.- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -26/+3Christ this is annoying fix the comment system PLZ.
- *jooloop*, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16I've never had any problems. User error?
- texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10PEBKAC
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Clinton at least had the government putting out some effort... Bush shut down the CIA unit that was targeting Bin Laden in 2005... This unit was started by Clinton... Likewise George H.W. Bush could've stopped him even easier by not supplying much of what eventually became his army.
- Nocturnalis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/17/predator.video/
The predator drone that they think spotted OBL was unarmed. So what order could they have given then. Fly the plane into them? - SenorCardgage74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hahah. Free Republic.
Someone wanna add "Noah Howard" to the big board, under the "Douche" column? - citizenerased42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think people have lost track of whats "truth", at least when it is regarding Bush or Clinton. Its probably true that Bush is a horrible president, he certainly misled us into war with Iraq... Clinton may have been able to prevent 9/11, but maybe not.... Its all easy too easy to place blame after the fact... Unfortunately all i usually ever see on digg is comments not based in truth, but rather based on a non-ending supply of bitter emotion.
- TarikofGotham, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39Bush could've prevented everything we blame Bush for too.
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35OMFG, free republic says Clinton had the chance to get Osama? Why isn't this on the front page of every newspaper!? Oh yeah, that's right, because you people are full of crap.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -28/+4You don't like that source? Do a search, there are plenty of others to include the mainstream.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Actually, Clinton did have the chance to take out Bin Laden. And Clinton took that chance by sending 75 cruise missiles to Al Qaeda camps in Afganistan back in 1998. However, that was in the middle of the Lewinski nonsense, so Clinton got distracted and never finished the job. If anyone is to blame for Al Qaeda surviving up until 9/11, then it is those same conservative Republicans who were distracting the president over a relationship with an intern, which was none of their business in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -41/+7Diggers can't handle the truth on Clinton. They simply seem to think that he walked on water and such. Here's an article about the same Bin Laden situation with confirmation from the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. It also cites a timeline which is irrefutable. Clinton KNEW there was a direct threat against the US. He KNEW that Bin Laden had already attacked American interests and killed hundreds of people, including Americans, yet did nothing to prevent it.
Bin Laden Allowed To Escape For Financial Reasons
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/01/bin-laden-allowed-to-escape-for.html
Sorry Diggers, but your "great President" failed you in such a spectacular way that killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen who's only crime was to go to work or get on a plane. These include children as young as 2 years old. Still want to defend your beloved Clinton?- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Things are not as they seem. The executive branch has been taking us for a ride for quite some time.
- crweaks23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20The 3000+ people who were killed or injured in the attacks was a terrible tragedy that was the result of failed intelligence across the board. Blaming the trade center bombings on Clinton is an extreme and unprovable accusation. That's not to say that mistakes were not made. In contrast, sending our sons and daughters into Iraq without a plan and ignoring warnings about the inevitable chaos that we are now in the middle of was a preventable, catastrophic mistake. And we still don't have Bin Laden, in case you forgot.
- Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Does this mean that Clinton borrowed over a trillion dollars?
Also, who was PoTUS and CIA director when the CIA was training OBL and his friends to take on commie Russians?
Was the Clinton family business partners with the bin Laden family for the past 35+ years?
Why did the DoJ (under Gonzo) close down the 'Hunt for OBL" division?
Why did "Chainsaw" Cheney flip-flop on his 1994 assessment of the prospect of invading Baghdad? (I'm thinking $1.1T!)
"My Pet Goat"......?
Now, Dubya wants to trash Patraeus' report and submit his own to Congress. The goalpost is moved further down a few yards.
$1.1 trillion dollars. The Bush twins aren't even serving in the Armed Forces. You think they would've enlisted since Saddam "tried to kill" their Granddaddy.
Now, Cheney is pulling his pants down and wants to grab-ass Iran.
Sith-Lord Rove is leaving to stock up on brimstone & treacle.
Mr. Williams, cue the "Imperial March" theme from Ep. V. - Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yeah, Clinton just *warned* Bush about UBL on his way out the door, handing him dossiers upon dossiers about his organization, previous attacks, etc. Past 2000, the job was Bush's, not Clinton's and Clinton left Bush with all the info necessary to put UBL on the top of the wanted list. He ignored it and the country paid the price.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You link to a page entitled "right wing lunatic" and expect us to believe any of it.
- crweaks23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38Firstly... this article is based on the financial irresponsibility of Bush. Period. You're diverting the attention with this garbage.
Secondly... Clinton is remorseful that he did not kill Bin Laden, but he did go after him, including bombing his hideout with a full military assault. As for your links, here is an article written on the subject from a bit more reputable source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ .
Third. How can you sit there posting links about Clinton not getting Bin Laden, yet not mention anything about 9/11 and the events that happened after. One of the reasons from Clinton not capturing Bin Laden was to prevent war. Bad decision. However, here we are, days after the 9/11 strikes, with a SOLID, CONCRETE reason to go after Bin Laden. Bush's response? Attack Iraq. Why, why, why, why did we not go after Bin Laden RIGHT THEN?? Which mistake was more costly?? Honestly, your logic astounds me.- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3"However, here we are, days after the 9/11 strikes, with a SOLID, CONCRETE reason to go after Bin Laden. Bush's response? Attack Iraq. Why, why, why, why did we not go after Bin Laden RIGHT THEN??"
Bushes response was to attack AFGHANISTAN! What the hell? Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan and our immediate response was to attack Afghanistan not Iraq and attempt to kill Bin Laden.
How the ***** can you post such ***** and dare accuse me of having screwed up my logic? The worst part is you are being dugg up, most likely by the same retards who are burying articles about Dessert Fox. Has America forgot history that quickly?? - SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16@noahhoward
You dumb... ignorant little man... you didn't remember all the BS that the Bush camp spun about Iraq assisting the Taliban and the the Al Queda connection to Iraq? I bet you even believed it at that point. - jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8@noahhoward
If you listen to the reports, Bush and Channey among others wanted to go to Iraq almost immediately. if you are a truth seeker, admit this and move on. - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
- biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Noah ... he went to afghanistan till the pipeline was built and then took off and went to Iraq. He didnt finish the job and now we have the military wasting time in Iraq instead of FINDING BIN LADEN.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3"However, here we are, days after the 9/11 strikes, with a SOLID, CONCRETE reason to go after Bin Laden. Bush's response? Attack Iraq. Why, why, why, why did we not go after Bin Laden RIGHT THEN??"
- achortleaday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Not that it wasn't a great opportunity and all ... but do you really think that killing Bin Laden would've solved all our problems? Its not like if he was gone everyone else would have just said "Oh, well *****. Bin Laden's dead, what's the point any more?"
Oh, right, it has nothing to do with bush's spending anyway. The Iraq war was about saddam and his 'wmd's, not bin laden. - supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Buried for obvious neocon screed... post-911 articles covering up Bush's canyon-sized faults by blaming Clinton... maybe if your tools weren't trying to impeach him he could have been doing his job? Or speaking of golfing, maybe you forget for 2001 Bush set record for vacation days for a newly elected president, but better block out that truth, your rigid partisan mind can't handle it.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3My rigid partisan mind? Oh you mean the same mind that would like every current politician thrown out on their asses and replaced with people who will do their job rather than manipulate us all for their own gains? ***** you.
I want to see the TRUTH come out I'm sick of people demonising one person while ignoring the bigger issue. People can't even bother to read facts that contradict the view that Bush is the root of all evil. The only partisan action here has been the people who can look at an article about something like Desert Fox and bury it because it doesn't line up with their world view. We have already forgotten the mistakes made so again, ***** you for trying to label me as some unmoving unfeeling political nutjob. The truth is I am open to far more facts than you will ever bother looking for. - SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Did you even make a point that time, noah?
How's the O'Riely factor treating you? - jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3well, if you are serious, why don't you start with the first Bush? why begin with Clinton? Under which pres did OBL rise to power? The region has been troubled for a very long time, but what policies led to the creation of OBL?
- JayWright, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1At that I will actually agree with Noah. Our whole system is *****, and so is everyone in it. Clinton/Bush/Rudy/Obama/Romney all work for the same end goal. No one in Washington is good, and NO ONE represents anyone but themselves.
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Um, no ***** YOU Noah... you want demonizing (sp) ? Clinton has been demonized for 10 years and it's over... he's out of office... the article is about BUSH BORROWING A TRILLION DOLLARS moron... not about what partisan "open minded" crap you are spewing about Osama, okay? Stick to the topic, maybe you can get at some level of "truth".
- GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@noahhoward (jazz fan?)
I suppose it's our fault that Bush borrowed a record sum of $1.05 trillion then right? And if the government had borrowed 1.05 trillion under Clinton's watch (instead of generating a record surplus) you would be blaming him. Don't pretend you wouldn't. You have already blamed him for far too many things on this thread alone to be pulling the "I'm sick of people demonising one person while ignoring the bigger issue" crap. As far as far as " demonising one person while ignoring the bigger issue" you work among the best. Bill'O and Rush would be proud.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3My rigid partisan mind? Oh you mean the same mind that would like every current politician thrown out on their asses and replaced with people who will do their job rather than manipulate us all for their own gains? ***** you.
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Crweaks23:
Even your own link points towards Clinton not taking the threat seriously:
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
So, you think a "full military assault" is lobbing two cruise missiles at an aspirin factory? You think that not hitting your target, then doing NOTHING is taking the threat seriously? I'm not saying Bush is perfect, far from it, in the threat against the US, but he certainly takes it a lot more serious then Clinton ever did.
Who gives a ***** if Clinton is remorseful? It's his job to protect the American public and he failed spectacularly. He had numerous chances to get Bin Laden and he simply ignored it for various reasons, including a $6 billion dollar aircraft deal with the UAE. Explain that to me. I'm not surprised my logic astounds you, I take threats against my country seriously and you simply don't.
But you are right, this article is about fiscal responsibility, and Bush AND CONGRESS are both responsible for it. You can't get a budget passed without Congress. Period. So, the previous 5 years you can blame on Republicans, but anything past that, you have only the Democrats to blame. They have no backbone when it comes to anything, so are you so surprised that they've become rubberstamp artists?
Take a look at the earmarks your friend John Murtha put into a recent bill. There were HUNDREDS of them totally millions of yours and mine hard earned tax dollars. Democrats love to bitch and complain about the financial situation of the US, but yet here they are putting BILLIONS of dollars worth of earmarks into spending bills. REAL Republicans such as myself want to cut the fat out of the government, lower taxes for everyone, including yourself, and make Americans more self reliant.
Plus, this article doesn't even account for things such as inflation or percentages of GDP, so it's worthless data.
For example, my grandparents paid $18,000 for their house in 1955. That house today is worth around $275,000. I bought my house for $225,000, so you could argue that I've borrowed 12 1/2 times the amount for my mortgage, but you don't see statistics like my wife and I pull in a little more than $100k a year.
So, yes, we do need to be fiscally responsible and call out those who aren't being that way, including: John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Stevens, and even George Bush. - dBLiSS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"you have only the Democrats to blame. They have no backbone when it comes to anything, so are you so surprised that they've become rubberstamp artists?"
Correct me if i'm wrong, but unless all this spending has only been going for the last 8-9 months, didn't the republicans control both houses and the white house during the majority of the enormous spending? - Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@noahhoward
I assume you as pissed at Bush as you are at Clinton for not getting OBL.
"CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek
Yup, Georgie didn't supply enough forces to provide a cordon to prevent OBL from escaping. So let's hear about your anger at Bush.... - JayWright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wow... Moron.
- Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Regardless of who, in your neocon opinion, could have taken out Bin Laden previously, Bush was charged with that task and failed utterly. You know who another person who could have dealt with Bin Laden/middle east terrorism issues a long time ago was? His ***** father.
The republicans are the rubber stampers. Remember that episode with congress where Bush blew them off saying everything he could to make them look 'un-american' because they didn't just throw a stamp on whatever he tossed at them? ***** off. You are so wrong that it is sickening.
I might tell you to open your eyes, or mind, but I find that rather unlikely. Instead I suggest that you take some happy pills and stay out of armchair politics. - Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@ Wargalas
"He certainly takes this more seriously than Clinton ever did."
*****. It's on public record that Clinton, Tenet and a host of others attempted several times to warn the Bushies about UBL and the threat he represented, but the Bushies put him on the back burner. Even when information came forward about a specific plot using airplanes, they ignored it. When Clinton left office, UBL was on the wanted list, with a task force dedicated to finding him and a full dossier on his activities. Two attempts to kill him had been made. From that point, Bush did ZERO. In fact, he did less than zero because he dismantled the very group that was dedicated to catching UBL.
They took it a LOT more seriously when it looked like they could successfully tie the attack to Iraq. The PNAC had long advocated invading Iraq as a means of cementing US control over the Middle East, including sending letters to Clinton advocating this action while Clinton was still in office. Within hours of the attack, plans to invade several ME nations were on the table, including Iraq, and intelligence officers like Tenet are on record as having been told to focus on Iraq, focus on Iraq, focus on Iraq.
It was a snow job from start to finish - look like you are against global terrorism while you use that sentiment to fuel a personal agenda you've been advocating for a decade. - biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Noah ... On Aug. 19th Bush will break the record for most vacation days taken by any president ever, last set by Ronald Reagan. For all the time Bush and Cheney spend talking about how these are such dire times and how America faces such imminent threats, it sure speaks to his character that he is willing to work less than any US President in history.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/10/bush-set-to-beat-reagans-vacation-record/ - Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Apparently, none of you can read. I said: "the previous 5 years you can blame on Republicans, but anything past that, you have only the Democrats to blame." Is it really that difficult to read a simple statement? As for Bush "dismantling the OBL unit" it's been well documented that they've moved them to various other places within the CIA that is tasked with getting Osama.
As for Bush's father getting Osama? Osama didn't declare war on the US and attacking our interests until 1992, after Bush had left office. He was unhappy with our helping Saudi Arabia against Saddam's impending invasion of that country (which he did invade a small town on the border). Please get your time lines correct here people. Otherwise you're simply historical revisionists. Osama went off to Sudan, Afghanistan and other countries and started plotting against us. He didn't appear on ANYONE'S radar until 1993, when Clinton was in office.
Take some time to study the issue at hand rather than jump on the current bandwagon.
As a side note, I also chided Bush for not doing a good enough job. Take a look at my posts in previous topics to see. Perhaps if you all would stop sucking Clinton's ***** for a moment, you'd see what kind of wimp he really is. - masterkenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You forgot the /sarcasm at the end.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -86/+12Buried for truth?
- Hungryhaney, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36Worst case he took OBL as serious as our current, incompetent administration. But he didn't start a war with the wrong country just because he wanted to play soldier (could have done that during his time in the Air National Guard, but was too busy partying/scared he might die).
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5Uhhh.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
You are joking right. Clinton bombed Iraq for four days and signed documents to start the regime change path.- seks03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9stfu man, no one cares if your an incompetent commenter
- DaSuHouSe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Noah it's pretty obvious to everyone that Clinton wasn't perfect. But you're getting digged down because it's obvious you can't hate on Bush. The fact is Clinton didn't seriously go after Bin Laden when the most he had done was an Embassy bombing. Bush didn't seriously go after Bin Laden when the most he had done was bomb the WTC. And don't act as though Bush's presidency before 9/11 didn't exist, because he had the same opportunity to go after Bin Laden before 9/11.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, right in the middle of a period when Saddam had kicked out the inspectors and had shot at planes overflying Iraq as part of the UN sanctions. Brinkmanship is part of politics and threatening to do something you DID NOT ULTIMATELY DO, is how that is accomplished. Capeche? It was a THREAT.
Bush, on the other hand, defied the UN after attempting to bribe/intimidate the SC members to vote his way (which didn't work). Do you not remember how bugs were found in the hotel rooms of the security council representatives and how those were tied back to the Americans? Did you not see that in the news? We sure did up here in Canada. He still used the UN resolution as justification for the invasion, too, even though the UN had specifically ruled that it didn't apply in this case.
He also did it when the UN inspectors were actually allowed into Iraq and were doing good work. Bush himself ordered the inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam. Saddam was actually complying at the time of the invasion. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Clinton bombed Iraq for four days and signed documents to start the regime change path."
Clarification. The "regime change path" documents were ONLY that the US would supply the Iraqi National Congress (exile group) with materiel etc. There was never anything done in terms of actually invading Iraq, authorizing military force, etc. etc.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -28/+2Oh, no that must not have happened either right. How dare I post facts that contradict popular opinion.
- meechwings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Well, maybe you should try posting "facts" that aren't opinion and don't come from right wing websites (or are trying to tell me "rightwinglunatic.com" is Fair and Balanced?).
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Source for sniper incident or it didn't happen and you're a dirty liar.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5Uhhh.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
- Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Here I thought the topic was the economy - Way to go off on an unrelated tangent
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57Noah, that doesn't even make sense. Read the 911 report for starters, which contradicts you on this point. It is public record how much funding Clinton got to fight terrorism and how more much was denied by Republicans. Those you honor for fighting "terror" (Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, Armitage, and Bush during '98, '99, and '00) are literally the same exact people who repeatedly stated publicly that it was a waste of time and money during the 90s. Bush didn't hold a single cabinet level briefing on terrorism in the first 9 months of Bush's administration (until 911) despite having access to the same intelligence that made Clinton so proactive and despite Richard Clark's on the record pleadings to do so. In Clinton's own words (paraphrased) "I failed. But at lease I tried. They [Bush republicans] not only didn't try, they mocked us for even trying and actively tried to stop us."
It's a matter of public record. Read it in Fox New's own reporting if you like:
http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview
We can certainly debate the merits of the response to 911, but there is no credible way to even insinuate that Clinton did any less than leave Bush dire warnings and ample covert action programs already in progress. Clinton created the CIA group dedicated solely to finding and killing UBL. Bush disbanded this unit. Read the 911 report (unlike Giuliani), read Dick Clark's book, read Powell's book, read Bob Baer's books, even watch the factual content of FOX news, but for God's sake stop making up scenarios in your head with no basis in reality.- *jooloop*, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Did you just say "factual content of FOX news?" Surely you must be joking?!?
- adamantium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He was joking, "Mr. Obvious"
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1You know what, I give up. It is abundantly clear you lot will believe what you want regardless of what any facts say. It is a fact that Clinton could have stopped this, but you'd rather blame Bush. Okay, fine. But let me ask you something, when Bush professes his innocence do you take his word as gospel? No? Well then why is Clinton allowed to clear his own name despite evidence to the contrary? You're facing the wrong bogeyman and it has already come back to bite yo in the ass.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Noah, you seem like an intelligent guy. You don't have to believe the word of Bill Clinton, or George Bush to understand what the facts are surrounding the run-up to 9-11. Look at the primary source government documents, and read the 9-11 Commission Report, and look at all of the source documents. What you will see is that it was neither Bush's nor Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. Yea, there were foul-ups, including Bush's disbanding of the CIA group pursuing Bin Laden, and Clinton's less than stellar attempts to get Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that it is either of their fault.
Politics, like life, is complicated. - Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Jesus could've stopped it too, all he had to do was kill Bin Laden's great great great great great grandfather... Do you have a point?... The Soviet Union could've prevented this too simply by spending more resources on crushing rebellion in Afghanistan... How about we blame Gorbachev?...
Clinton had some attempts going on what he believed was a limited risk, Bush stopped all effort searching for a known murderer of thousands in order to attack an uninvolved party... They still don't come out even. - DAllenJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Why didn't Santa stop Bin Laden? Or Aquaman? Or Sonic the Hedgehog? Why is everybody so ***** incompetent?
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Phew... finally we can return to bashing Bush for wasting our tax dollars AND putting us into a huge ass deficit. Unless you'd like to list all of Jimmy Carter's flaws...
- ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Noah, you seem like an intelligent guy. You don't have to believe the word of Bill Clinton, or George Bush to understand what the facts are surrounding the run-up to 9-11. Look at the primary source government documents, and read the 9-11 Commission Report, and look at all of the source documents. What you will see is that it was neither Bush's nor Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. Yea, there were foul-ups, including Bush's disbanding of the CIA group pursuing Bin Laden, and Clinton's less than stellar attempts to get Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that it is either of their fault.
- mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But they DID get an Impeachment for a BJ in the Oval Office. Sure glad we have the Republicans protecting us.
- *jooloop*, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Did you just say "factual content of FOX news?" Surely you must be joking?!?
- FadieZ, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1He changed his name?
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda's camps in Afganistan in the middle of 1998. That was called Operation Infinite Reach, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
Unfortunately, that occurred in the middle of the Lewinski scandal. Clinton's attack of Al Qaeda was viewed as a "Wag the Dog" scenario and interpreted as a means of distracting from the affair. Clinton was forced to stop his attack of Al Qaeda to deal with Republican attacks on his Presidency.
If conservatives had not been so lustful at attacking Clinton, he could have finished Al Qaeda in 1998. However, conservative Republicans wanted Clinton's blood, which distracted Clinton from finishing the job. If anyone is to blame for Al Qaeda surviving up until 9/11, then it is those same conservative Republicans who were distracting the president over a relationship with an intern.- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1So, by your logic, if a police officer is going after a murder suspect, but he's "distracted" by a speeding car, then the speeding car is at fault for the officer giving up and letting the murder suspect get away? Clinton had a moral duty to protect the American people and he had WAY more time then Bush (who's also at fault for not getting Osama) to get Osama. Hell, the CIA had Bin Laden IN THEIR SIGHTS and were waiting for the OK to go in. It never came. Michael Scheurer (spelling?) the head guy of the CIA's "get Bin Laden" unit has said that we had no less than 8 opportunities to get Bin Laden and that Clinton was the sole person he blamed for the failure.
Doesn't get much more definitive then that. - mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The distraction wasn't the speeding car. It was the Republican Party crying, wailing, and throwing a hissy-fit insisting everyone look at the speeding car rather than the more-important murderer. Then they dragged Mr Clinton out of his office to testify about the damn BJ like it really mattered.
Mr Bush had NINE MONTHS to meet for national security regarding al-Qaeda but didn't. He ignored Mr. Clark's expertise and then ignored any and all of Mr Clinton's intelligence on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Instead, he went into office with Iraq on his brain and that's ALL he has been concerned with since day-one.
And now thanks to his ignorance and stupidity, we are wasting BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq. - aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The biggest scandal of the Clinton Administration wasn't a stained dress...
http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346684
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Terror-Bosnia-Al-Qaida-Global/dp/product-description/0760330034
" the Clinton administration, in collaboration with Iran, secretly supplied Bosnia’s mujahidin, including al-Qa’ida, with millions of dollars of weapons and supplies;" This is tangling alliances at it's best. - aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You can digg me down for it but the fact is Clintons interventions in Bosnia wasn't a good idea (it's a perfect example of why we should have a non-interventionalist foreign policy), it delayed peace talks and negotiation because one side had the backing of the US, which resulted in lots of people dieing and helped in structuring the terrorists networks like Al Qaeda.
- Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1So, by your logic, if a police officer is going after a murder suspect, but he's "distracted" by a speeding car, then the speeding car is at fault for the officer giving up and letting the murder suspect get away? Clinton had a moral duty to protect the American people and he had WAY more time then Bush (who's also at fault for not getting Osama) to get Osama. Hell, the CIA had Bin Laden IN THEIR SIGHTS and were waiting for the OK to go in. It never came. Michael Scheurer (spelling?) the head guy of the CIA's "get Bin Laden" unit has said that we had no less than 8 opportunities to get Bin Laden and that Clinton was the sole person he blamed for the failure.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -127/+15Too bad he wasn't a bit better at national security and foreign affairs huh? Perhaps if he hadn't been on a golf course refusing to leave when that sniper had Bin Laden in his sights we wouldn't be spending the money we are now.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5Weird. Last time I checked the budget was approved by Congress......and during the last 4 years of Clinton, who had majority rule in Congress? Oh right....republicans. They have seriously messed it up this time though.
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And who CREATES the proposed budget draft that gets passed? Or to rephrase, who does the actual work? That's right, the executive.
- robdazomba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Beyond that, an effective leader in the executive branch can (and has in the past) influenced Congress's dealings on the budget. However, that takes a president with some intelligence and long-term vision about what he needs and why he needs it and how it will impact the country and the economy. Bush (unlike Clinton) appears to have nothing in terms of the intellectual rigor that requires.
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2-1 for blatant half-assed assumptions on fiscal responsibility in relation to political party.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One important wrinkle everyone needs to keep in mind.
Budgets are projections. Two budgets can have different costs depending not just on how money is allocated, but what assumptions (e.g. unemployment level) you use.
Example: Because of this, Reagan's budgets during his administration were only "lower" than Congress' because he used rosier future predictions. When you compare the Reagan-proposed budget with the actual-passed budget and use the math for what actually happened, Reagan's budgets would have been more expensive. On PAPER, they were less expensive, but only because they were using different sets of predictions for what the economy would be like.
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And who CREATES the proposed budget draft that gets passed? Or to rephrase, who does the actual work? That's right, the executive.
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+66But... but... but... Democrats "Tax and Spend"®
- Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43And Republicans "Borrow and Spend"
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I know, I was being ironic?
- dBLiSS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Agreed. It makes more sense to "earn" the money before spending huge wads of it. (I use the term "earn" loosely") The only difference is borrowing and taxing is borrowing has to be paid for by the taxes of future generations.
- biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5and at higher prices too
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3What, do you expect there to be a middle class? I think it's high time we return to a medieval class system: royalty... peasants... religious fervor... Crusades... bad teeth... plague... oh *****, wait maybe not. It looks cool in RP games...
- Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43And Republicans "Borrow and Spend"
- johnrf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+57If we are going to overspend couldn't we at least spend the money on something that benefitted our citizens?
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20No, apparently social programs in the US are better handled by "faith based groups" and in the mean time Bush borrows and spends billions every month to "help" the people of Iraq. It's okay to fritter away all your tax dollars on a failed foreign (and national security) policy of monumental proportions but suggest a universal health care system that could improve the standard of living for millions of Americans and all those "fiscal conservatives" start screeching about giving away their hard-earned money to those who won't help themselves. It's pure ***** hypocrisy.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The government social programs, till the 90's, and FOUR GENERATIONS of welfare recipients. Democrats NEVER required those recipients to try and get off it. In fact, they put up roadblocks to prevent it, road blocks like loosing benefits the second you entered school to get the education required to get the decent job to get off welfare.
This country has never done a good job with social programs, mediocre at best.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The government social programs, till the 90's, and FOUR GENERATIONS of welfare recipients. Democrats NEVER required those recipients to try and get off it. In fact, they put up roadblocks to prevent it, road blocks like loosing benefits the second you entered school to get the education required to get the decent job to get off welfare.
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4But but but....the terrorists
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's just crazy talk... infrastructure... refinancing Wall Street during it's current plunge... health care... what, is this Russia? Wait, it is Russia. USSA! USSA!
- richmondphotog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think that the borrowing is going to be the move that undid America. when it is all said and done. isn't this tied to the us dollar becoming the new peso?
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20No, apparently social programs in the US are better handled by "faith based groups" and in the mean time Bush borrows and spends billions every month to "help" the people of Iraq. It's okay to fritter away all your tax dollars on a failed foreign (and national security) policy of monumental proportions but suggest a universal health care system that could improve the standard of living for millions of Americans and all those "fiscal conservatives" start screeching about giving away their hard-earned money to those who won't help themselves. It's pure ***** hypocrisy.
- heebygeeby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Yeah, if you call dipping into social security to balance the budget fiscally conservative. Wait, no.
- FadieZ, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Maybe Bush was trying to purchase Miss Hilton.
- FadieZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No one gets me lately =(
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, we get it, its just not funny
- ThePixelator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fail.
- FadieZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No one gets me lately =(
- faithfreedom, on 10/10/2007, -20/+23Vote for Raul Paul. He's going to fix this mess.
- jasdf, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Isn't everybody over Ron Paul yet...I am.
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9Libertarianism: the political philosophy of choice if you're rich and greedy.
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Or you believe in personal liberty.
You are ignorant. Read more.- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3TRUE libertarianism isn't what current self proclaimed "libertarians" push.
A corporations personal freedoms often infringe upon an individuals personal freedoms.
Furthermore, an individual, or a group of individuals has the right to form bodies (ie the government) to ensure these freedoms are maintained.
There are elements of libertarianism which are valid, but this anarcho-capitalism ***** which is glued to it is a complete farce. - Blu3j4y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So being a greedy bastard and believing in personal liberty are exclusive concepts?
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3TRUE libertarianism isn't what current self proclaimed "libertarians" push.
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How is the non-initiation of force a greedy principle? It seems to me that the people who advocate violence to achieve social goals (taxes, aka all the money the government gets) are the greedy ones. You should learn what libertarianism is before you spout of nonsense.
"But but but.... the government helps people!!" What if I stole your wallet, took out 20 dollars, and gave the rest to a homeless guy? Would you appreciate that? I bet you'd be happier if you gave the guy the money yourself, wouldn't you?
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Or you believe in personal liberty.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Sorry no, eliminating all government like a bunch of anarchists is not the answer. What we need is responsible, efficient government, such as programs like Medicare. And yes, Medicare IS more efficient than private healthcare insurance. US society would actually save money and provide better healthcare by eliminating private healthcare insurance and moving everyone to Medicare.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5eliminating governmental bodies which are no longer controlled by the citizens who fund them is definitely a good idea.
Small government isn't no government... theres a balance which can be reached... - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OHH, so you are cleverer and have more information than everyone in the market combined, wow!
Ignorant or arrogant, I wonder?
I think individual responsibility is far better than some arrogant, self congratulatory egoists tinkering around with Utopian utilitarian systems.
Ideas like yours are what made the 20th century. Pompous arseholes who thought they knew better than other people building political systems that they said would be better than individual choice. Think of welfare, Keynesianism, socialism, central banking, national healthcare, telecom monopolies: what a ***** failure. The list is practically endless because they are not new ideas, they are all of the same: the use of force to get someone else to do something they don't want to do.- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Medicare is more efficient and provides better health care than "individual choice" private insurance. "Socialized" fire departments work better than "individual choice" private fire departments. "Socialized" police departments work better than "individual choice" private police departments. I could go on and on. These government agencies are not failures and work better than they would in a Libertarian utopia where they wouldn't exist. Society would pay more and be worse if we eliminated government to the extent that Libertarians want.
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There's no such thing as private insurance in the US today. 50 cents of every dollar of health care costs is paid by the government. I've never even heard of private police departments. There are volunteer fire departments and government fire departments. The volunteers are usually better. I could go on and on. The government agencies are failures and government intervention is screwing with the marketplace. Society pays more with the leech on society known as government and we'd be much better off if we lived in a world that wasn't funded with coercion and violence, but voluntary interaction instead.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@AgentBuckwald
Spoken like a true anarchist. Thanks for proving my point.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5eliminating governmental bodies which are no longer controlled by the citizens who fund them is definitely a good idea.
- robdazomba, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5How many Enrons do we have to watch happen before the Libertarians give up this utopian crap about deregulating everything? Just in case you haven't been paying attention for the last... oh, say... two decades, deregulating ***** DOESN'T WORK.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Exactly. Look at any attempt at deregulating in the last two decades, from the airlines to the electric companies, and all of those industries have wound up worse than they were before the deregulation.
The Libertarian philosophy of eliminating government is merely anarchism in a conservative disguise.- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Bah, proper libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism and it is hardly anarchy in disguise, it has it in it's ***** name.
So some bureaucrat/politician/economically illiterate news presenter called it "deregulation" huh? Bet he doesn't even know the meaning of the word, or he was simply blaming the market for more government failure, which seems to be common practise. - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They called it deregulation because it was deregulation. 2 + 2 = 4, not 5, asshat.
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Deregulation for one is not deregulation for all. People in government tend to help their friends and punish their enemies. That's how monopolies happen. A company is helped by government rules and the marketplace gets blamed for it. Remove the mercantilist government and no businesses have unfair advantages.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Bah, proper libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism and it is hardly anarchy in disguise, it has it in it's ***** name.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Not this again. Enron was the outcome of government tinkering and it was the market that discovered the problem. There has never been a free market for decades.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Enron was a private business working in the free market. It came about from deregulation of the market, as pushed by Libertarians. Enron is a total Libertarian failure, like most Libertarian adventures.
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We only have a free market for the businesses that the government likes. The others get punished. We have mercantilism, not capitalism.
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2so tell me... under an anarcho-capitalist system, how do I protect my much coveted personal freedoms when those freedoms become infringed upon by a corporate entity?
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Umm, take your business elsewhere? You can't do that if government infringes on your freedoms. There's nowhere else to go.
- matador3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD
New revelations concerning wrongdoings at Enron seem to surface every day, and the scandal took a tragic turn last week with the suicide of a top Enron executive. In Washington, Congress has been scrambling to assemble hearings that will make various members look properly outraged and committed to reform. The popular media and some politicians want to portray Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. Already legislation has been introduced to force all publicly traded companies to submit to federal audits.
In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.
One such project, a power plant in India, played a big part in Enron's demise. The company had trouble selling the power to local officials, adding to its huge $618 million loss for the third quarter of 2001. Former president Clinton worked hard to secure the India deal for Enron in the mid-90s; not surprisingly, his 1996 campaign received $100,000 from the company. Yet the media makes no mention of this favoritism. Clinton may claim he was "protecting" tax dollars, but those tax dollars should never have been sent to India in the first place.
Enron similarly benefitted from another federal boondoggle, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC operates much like the Ex-Im Bank, providing taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for overseas projects, often in countries with shaky governments and economies. An OPIC spokesman claims the organization paid more than one billion dollars for 12 projects involving Enron, dollars that now may never be repaid. Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers.
The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most in Washington are busy devising ways to "save" investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to Congress and the Clinton administration. It's a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.
This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. Yet we should not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. We certainly should not allow the Enron collapse to be characterized as a failure of capitalism or free markets, because the opposite is true. The Enron collapse provides an example of how government does so much to prevent the market from working properly in the first place.
January 30, 2002
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul12.html
read, learn, stfu
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Exactly. Look at any attempt at deregulating in the last two decades, from the airlines to the electric companies, and all of those industries have wound up worse than they were before the deregulation.
- CroMag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, he'll fix it. Everything will be perfect then.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1/sarcasm
- Nocturnalis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I thought fiscally conservative was the Republican way!?!? O_o
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I blame all of Bush's 'fuzzy math.'
- exformation, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13But... but.... but... that figure's not adjusted for inflation!
- byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's almost useless to look at these numbers without adjusting for inflation. But even if the numbers are not adjusted, the news is alarming.
- NoHandle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Good luck with that...
- mepol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5oooooh!, awwwww! look at all the zeros!
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6What we need is action. Digg up my #1, A General Strike on 9/11
No Work, No School, No Shopping
We must act if we want change. We cannot continue to be isolated and alone waiting for some leader to save us. We have to save ourselves.- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0http://www.larouchepac.com/ This guy is the only one I know of who has a plan for the bursting world economy. Our economy is finished. We need a new Bretton Woods.
- simmux, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I think it's time U.S. citizens realize that it's time to realize how sad U.S. is getting!
U.S. is the main course around the world when it comes to jokes. You're ridiculous. And the peoples of the rest of the world which, by the way, are the majority, just laugh at your servant attitude. We well understand that your President took the place of the British King. But, still, we see no move in the direction of sensitive politics, in the U.S. and abroad. Just imagine spending that money IN the U.S. And just imagine all the slaughter going on.
But decadence is a necessary period all civilizations go through. It's just your turn...
By the way, you can say no to eternal debt and misunderstanding of what you - the kind people - are due to the inconsiderate looting of your politicians. It's not that difficult. Or... just keep rolling through the nonsense of spending more in armament than in social services... It's your life. And we watch, sitting on the banks of river. We've seen it all. So did you. But some just don't learn... It's called natural selection. But why am I mentioning evolution to you? Stick with creation... And good luck...- ThePixelator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you've never been here have you...
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -21/+295We had one. His name was Bill Clinton.
- scubasewj, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5woah thats 1,350,834,223,402,384 than i can make in a life time.
- suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+265If he's just borrowing it, he's going to give it back right? RIGHT?!?
- grr74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+129No, you (as a taxpayer) gotta give it back.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+82No, your children and children's children will pay it back. Too bad they cant vote eh? Good long term planning conservatives, screw your kids out of a future.
- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -25/+1[Insert global warming comment]
- burningbush, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3insert brain into WarpFox's head
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+82No, your children and children's children will pay it back. Too bad they cant vote eh? Good long term planning conservatives, screw your kids out of a future.
- SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -5/+94And the real kicker is, he gave most of that money to his already rich buddies so they could be a lot richer. Its called the shifting of future wealth that would have been created by hard working people over the next fifty years, into the pockets of the super rich who simply want it now.
- Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Exactly, The revolution took place, Now the Rich are completely secure and can continue to destroy the economy until we are all reduced to beggars and thieves. in such an environment they can manipulate poor people to forcibly control other poor people. "Your either with us, or against us" regardless of where you were born.
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13What? An overriding class struggle stretching across multinational and multi-generational boundaries? Who'd a thunk it?
History repeats itself as often as people forget the lessons previously learned.
- joebob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13What? An overriding class struggle stretching across multinational and multi-generational boundaries? Who'd a thunk it?
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Yeah but don't you know how trickle down works? All of those super wealthy bastards will take 1% of that money and give us jobs. That way we can work our asses off to earn our tax dollars back.
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1That money is a mortgage on your children's future, and you're fine because you'll get some of it back?
- JayWright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.. hmm..
- breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, definitely sarcasm. "super wealthy bastards" and "work our asses off" kind of give it away.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, technically they will loan it to us, then borrow a trillion dollars again and take it all back in taxes.
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What, you expect to live a middle class life or something? This is Ameria.
- Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Exactly, The revolution took place, Now the Rich are completely secure and can continue to destroy the economy until we are all reduced to beggars and thieves. in such an environment they can manipulate poor people to forcibly control other poor people. "Your either with us, or against us" regardless of where you were born.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -7/+47Don't forget the $30B he just donated to Israel.
- icon1985, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10its up to the american to pay the debt.
- LukeSkope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The debt will never be paid back, in fact it is impossible to ever pay back the debt as long as the money is borrowed at interest. All money in circulation is borrowed so, I borrow $100, and have to pay back $110, where does that other ten bucks come from?
- Alucard66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0nope, that's why the gold slandered was abolished, so those 1 dollar bills have no backing except that they're worth 1 dollar. or if you're not talking about that and instead talking about how you'll have to set someone else behind that 10 dollars that they borrowed, basically yeah except it doesn't really work like that and it works out, I'd explain but it'll take forever just take an economics class or read about it online... but basically it works because the money isn't worth anything, just what we think its worth so by having creating goods/services you can get 10 dollars out of nowhere kind of...
- LukeSkope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The debt will never be paid back, in fact it is impossible to ever pay back the debt as long as the money is borrowed at interest. All money in circulation is borrowed so, I borrow $100, and have to pay back $110, where does that other ten bucks come from?
- johnrf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Don't worry, no one is going to pay it back. Bush sold our country to the Chinese and now they are going to poison us. Impeach bush, cheney and deport Alberto.
- pcghost, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Love him (haha) or hate him, Alberto Gonzales is an American citizen. Arrest him, try him, obviously convict him, but deport him???? You had me until that blatantly anti-Mexican comment.
- Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7it was a joke, take a chill pill.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i wish i had a chill pill.
- pcghost, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Love him (haha) or hate him, Alberto Gonzales is an American citizen. Arrest him, try him, obviously convict him, but deport him???? You had me until that blatantly anti-Mexican comment.
- Kardall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, he is giving it back on a daily basis. One bomb at a time.
- nishay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0no dudes, the american debt will never be paid off; its well in the trillions now
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+130 Trillion.
10 years ago it was half that. - Chaos12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+130 Trillion.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Look, I really really don't like Bush, but this recent crisis is not his fault. The crisis has been going on since 1971 when they removed the value from money by taking it off the gold system of Bretton Woods. MOST of the US economy is backed by SPECULATION and all it took was one event (the sub-prime mortgage defaults) to cause a world-wide chain reaction. This generation is about to get an economics lesson the REALLY REALLY hard way. Nothing nobody and no collection of countries can pay back the debt. The banks don't HAVE ANY MONEY. This is why the world banks of already spent over 400 billions dollars trying to prevent to keep the doomed system up for as long as they can in the hope a miracle will happen.
After the great depression of the new century occurs most in the media will probably blame Greenspan. He deserves a lot of the blame, but certainly not the bulk of it. A lot of people have made a lot of money from this speculative system, I am sure some were even able to by a Caribbean Villa and live out there lives with the fake money. NOBODY is going to pay it back. It is collapsing right NOW and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it. We are going to have to set up a system that Roosevelt made famous with the "New Deal." Get ready kids, cause Kansas is going by by. - BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Look, I really really don't like Bush, but this recent crisis is not his fault. The crisis has been going on since 1971 when they removed the value from money by taking it off the gold system of Bretton Woods. MOST of the US economy is backed by SPECULATION and all it took was one event (the sub-prime mortgage defaults) to cause a world-wide chain reaction. This generation is about to get an economics lesson the REALLY REALLY hard way. Nothing, nobody, and no collection of countries can pay back the debt. The banks don't HAVE ANY MONEY. This is why the world banks have already spent over 400 billion dollars trying to keep the doomed system up for as long as they can in the hope a miracle will happen.
After the great depression of the new century occurs, most in the media will probably blame Greenspan. He deserves a lot of the blame, but certainly not the bulk of it. A lot of people have made a lot of money from this speculative system, I am sure some were even able to by a Caribbean Villa and live out there lives with the fake money. NOBODY is going to pay it back. It is collapsing right NOW and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it. We are going to have to set up a system that Roosevelt made famous with the "New Deal" and start producing things again, like cars, industry etc. Get ready kids, cause Kansas is going by by. - aabjora, on 01/02/2009, -0/+0Be sure, we need just some MISERABLE generations to receive the money back, generations that will cope with this mortgage mess....
my space:
http://www.mortgagerefinancingloanz.com/
- grr74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+129No, you (as a taxpayer) gotta give it back.
- Sujamy, on 10/10/2007, -106/+7I'm sure that other presidents in history have done this. However, due to Bush's public image as "very money driven" and "incompetent", it is being more widely publicized for him.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+67Other presidents have borrowed a trillion dollars? If you're trying to be funny, it's not working.
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -0/+49I think Bush has been pegged as "very money driven" and "incompetent" only because of his apparent drive for money and his outstanding incompetence.
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22RTFA
- drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Transation "I'm sure this article is false because I"m a total idiot who doesn't want to believe the truth about another idiot that I support"
- Cglass, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Which is why I support you, drake.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1I thought there was some box you had to check when you joined Digg that said "I'm a liberal?"
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1conservatives would take this news even worse than liberals would! what are you on about? did you forget that conservatism is about limiting the government? apparently so, if this does not bother you.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1apparently people don't understand sarcasm?
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1conservatives would take this news even worse than liberals would! what are you on about? did you forget that conservatism is about limiting the government? apparently so, if this does not bother you.
- diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm so glad "you're sure", even though I imagine you have no expertise whatsoever. It much be nice having such an incredibly low standard for determining what is true.
- zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or not. The very title of the this post makes your comment ridiculous.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Other presidents have borrowed more money than all the rest of the presidents combined? No, I don't think so.
Further, Bush holds a Master's degree in Business Administration. That MBA means he's supposed to know something about running a business and fiscal responsibility. Either Bush knows he's running the country into the ground and doesn't care, or he's an absolute idiot that can't remember his university lessons from a few short years ago. Either answer is equally bad. - FongoBongo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@Sujamy
Clearly this girl has no idea of politics whatsoever or even economics. She throws the concept that a trillion dollars is something which is small and can be done by anyone. Wake the ***** up you stupid bitch. America has the largest defecit in the world and eventually it will have to pay it back. And when it does, the currency will be completely devalued, people will lose their jobs, and you won't be able to pay for your dip ***** manicures anymore.
- macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -60/+25Did they adjust for inflation?
I thought not..- videolab, on 10/10/2007, -11/+41Even if they did not adjust for inflation, it is more than EVERY PRESIDENT COMBINED. Bush has destroyed the value of our currency during his term largely because of our mountain of a deficit.
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Yes, but still not adjusting for inflation.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11You can always find a good excuse to defend a moron
- Jeffmr1, on 10/10/2007, -21/+9Im no fan of Bush, i have to admit i was duped, i did vote for him. But macman2k brings up a good point. I can't get to the article from work so i don't know, but if they didn't adjust for inflation this looks more like a smear campaign.
- PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6yeah... cos if they didn't adjust for inflation it means he didn't borrow much. Dumbass
- projectstartrek, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Actually, it might, depending on the rate of inflation.
- PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6yeah... cos if they didn't adjust for inflation it means he didn't borrow much. Dumbass
- thebankshow, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Inflation aside, if you read the description it says "past four years alone." Add on Bush's first four years and the fact becomes overwhelmingly clear.
- douggmc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Everybody is slamming and digging down macman2k ... but he is somewhat correct. It is not a fair/accurate assertion the article is making because of it. Now with that said, I'm going to guess that it is still a striking amount that "Bush" has borrowed and worthy of the outrage considering what we are spending it on.
- pt4117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12This probably is a number meant to bring out excitment, but it is still pretty huge. Think about just the previous twenty years.
He's still out borrowed his dad, Clinton, and Reagan combined. That's a hell of a lot of money, and the inflation argument can't help *that* much over such a short time period. - gmillerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The issue of debt is hard to nail down with the GAO, did any of that previous money get paid back in specific terms.
Taking out $1T is one thing, but it could be $1.5T before we pay it back. - enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Just because inflation was not taken into account doesn't mean this comparison is meaningless. Even if you look at spending as a percentage of tax revenue, Bush has still destroyed all the progress made in the 90s. We're worse off now than when Reagan left office.
- Jeffmr1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm not an apologist for Bush's fiscal policy, but if they didn't adjust for inflation then this is just an attack. Ten years ago the dollar was worth way more than it is today, let alone fifty or two hundred years ago.
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Go figure, the dollar was worth way more before Bush. Republicans FTW, NOT! /borat
- backness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That makes it worse.
The government printing money like crazy will only further reduce its value
- broeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I bet if you add up the spending for the first 25 presidents it doesn't even touch the defense budget of a president from the 90's
- videolab, on 10/10/2007, -11/+41Even if they did not adjust for inflation, it is more than EVERY PRESIDENT COMBINED. Bush has destroyed the value of our currency during his term largely because of our mountain of a deficit.
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -7/+59And of course they will hope this doesn't come back to bite us in the ass while a Repug is in office and if it does when a Dem is in office it will be all their fault. Or there's always the ever popular "It was Clinton's fault".
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3swap republican and democrat and that still makes sense
- jmf866, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9Bush and Clinton are both puppets for the same masters.
- *jooloop*, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And who is the Master of Puppets?
- Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"There's always a bigger fish." -Qui-Gon Jinn.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3....Metallica?
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1omg, i just had a revalation! its the riaa's fault!
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Skull & Bones? The Illuminati? The Federal Reserve? Who the ***** knows, but they're there.
- *jooloop*, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And who is the Master of Puppets?
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3So you are basically saying that if anything bad ever happens in the future while a dem is in office, it will always be a republicans fault. Way to preempt it. This is even worse than the "Clinton's fault" people. At least that has already happened.
- jtbndy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Clinton actually ran a budget surplus when he was in office.
- heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2Ever heard of the dot com boom? Look it up sometime. Apparently it boosted the economy and it happened when Clinton was in office.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah, and we'd have other booms too, if the moralizing republicans would get out of the way. A stem cell therapy boom, a green technology boom.
- masterkenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Agreed. Republicans are holding this country back.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7To clarify, the moralizing is holding back the stem cell boom, it's a pure lack of imagination and a surplus of corporate cronyism and pessimistic nay-saying that's holding back the boom for cleaner, more efficient power and tech products.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and awesome robot-dog hybrids!
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Clinton ended with the biggest surplus in history. Bush followed up a few years later with the biggest deficit in history.
Fact.
- heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2Ever heard of the dot com boom? Look it up sometime. Apparently it boosted the economy and it happened when Clinton was in office.
- patbenetar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+175Bush...most depressing American in history
- migbike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Nah.. I think the people who voted for him and still believe in him take that award.
- JayWright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Seriously... I'm generally an optimistic person, but reading things like this just make me feel so hopeless. How can we ever truly overcome the damage done by this man? :(
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1by learning from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
knowledge is power. - phlebitis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I feel the same. He has ruined so much. That man has no shame. He has left a hopeless mess of a country for the next administration to inherit. The only thing that was going right for anybody was that the economy had been more or less stable, which benefited the wealthy. In the last week and a half, that has all gone to ***** as well. He has failed failed failed on absolutely every issue.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1by learning from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
- schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+59And with a debt this large some people still seem to think that a war in Iran is plausible. Imagine Iran winning a war against the US because they ran out of money, soldiers, and destroyed their economy.
- millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Oh, there will always be money for war.
- Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not necessarily. I've read a couple of books about the financials of WWII and the US was in dire financial straights coming into late 1944, to the point where if the War Bond drives didn't work, they were going to have to capitulate on at least one of the three major fronts (N.Africa/Italy, Normandy, Pacific). Funny thing about industrialists whose factories you have commandeered to make fighter planes ... they want to get paid for the income they lost because they weren't making cars.
- TeatimeGrommit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25That's actually how we beat the Soviet Union. Reagan borrowed money, talked like the USA was building the strongest military since Alexander the Great, and the Soviets spent themselves bankrupt trying to keep up. Sad that we're now going to be beaten by the same tactic.
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Maybe we'll have some states split up so we don't have such a corrupt central government. It'd be nice to have some choices.
- itsdafrank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nice dream. The libs could have both coasts and the southwest border states, and the cons could take the rest of the south and also mid-west, that way they'd only share a border with Canada. Hmm, I wonder how long it'd take before war with Canada commenced?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2War of 1812. Canada won.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no legal way for States to hold referendum to leave the union.
- ec92009, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not even Texas?
- itsdafrank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nice dream. The libs could have both coasts and the southwest border states, and the cons could take the rest of the south and also mid-west, that way they'd only share a border with Canada. Hmm, I wonder how long it'd take before war with Canada commenced?
- millyuns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Oh, there will always be money for war.
- rick777, on 10/10/2007, -9/+73He may have borrowed all that money, but just think of all the money we're saving at the gas pumps now!!!!!
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33I think you forgot "Oh wait.."
- bhattsan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Compared to Europe, were waaaaay better off
- eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And think of all the money we're saving on bank vault storage space.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3this will get me dugg way down.
Let the gas prices rise to 5 bucks a gallon or more. This will spur the research that will get us OFF oil. Then we can tell the middle east where to stick it sideways.
That means get out of Iraq, ignore Iran, get out of Afghanistan, tell the Saudis we don't need their base ever again, send the carriers HOME. (or off the shores of china where their threat is taken seriously) Even consider closing the bases in Germany (what are they for without the USSR?) Heck, even ignore North Korea. Don't feed the idiot and the people will try harder to throw him out.
Let someone else be the world cop. Just make sure we can kick said world cops ass.- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because of course we can just get off oil tomorrow. do you have any idea what 5 dollars a gallon + would do to our economy? it would suck majorly, since theres nothing in place to end it. remember, everything, not just cars, run on some type of oil. helicopters, planes, cars, tanks, not to mention all the non transportation oil usage. We ont be able to replace thos for a number of years, thats too long for 5+ dollars a gallon. this should have been govt mandated by the time we reached 2, not 4-5.
- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That was my view years ago when I would say $3/gallon. Now we're there with record oil company profits and gas tax receipts and we're living under the same power structure. Let me pose a question: given our current economic situation with the potential for an unprecedented depression, who do you think is going to show up with new unsuppressed energy technology for the proles? I don't have an answer for that. We're set up not for extortion, but for bankruptcy and immobility. That's my take, I hope I'm wrong, and happy birthday.
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33I think you forgot "Oh wait.."
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -17/+54I believe it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse.
- lpmiller, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25it is the president that sets the agenda and has the veto power. It is the president that didn't veto the vast majority of spending bills by a republican congress. So...your point is?
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ronald Reagan submitted 8 budgets of which 2 were passed. Congress holds the purse strings, not the president
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33The White House sets the budget. Congress can refuse to fund his budget, but then again, we've had a rubber stamp congress for the last 6 years.
GOP != fiscal conservatives- Azriel7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Well, to be fair it looks like we will have a rubberstamp congress under the democrats too. :(
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The president drafts a budget, then congress can either accept or reject it, with or without any ammendments. Clinton seemed on the ball though. I guess he must have had a good congress to help him with the budget....
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not really. The difference was that Clinton was willing to veto a budget rather than issue a blank check.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3you believe wrong
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I blame the 'conservatives' in for most of that spending increase as they were in power for most of Bush's term.
There was nothing 'conservative' about their spending.- MURDERTRON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's neoconservatism, "conservatism" through not being conservative. Get it? Get it!? Whoa-ah-hahahahahaha! Let's all laugh at the funny joke!
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That might happen if they pull that dick out of their mouth and stop selling out to corporate interests.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So lets ban PAC's
- oldbike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Note that the article says that the borrowing was as of 2005. I haven't seen the evidence that I'd hoped for that we've elected a fiscally responsible Congress. However, I expect it will take them a little while to find the right path to rein in the spending of their predecessors and the spending requests of the President. The problem is that the President has claimed that he'd be quite willing to move money from quality of life for the troops and use it to prolong his wars.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dems are, if anything, less capable of finding the right path.
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you can honestly say that after all of this? did you completely miss the past 6 years?
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dems are, if anything, less capable of finding the right path.
- phlebitis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1From www.senate.gov:
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Democrats are not in control. They may have the majority, but they don't have the margin they need to get anything meaningful done.- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good for the senate, or are you one of those that want the dems to hold 60 seats so they can ignore the reps?
And no, the force is NOT strong with me, get out of my way digg!
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good for the senate, or are you one of those that want the dems to hold 60 seats so they can ignore the reps?
- lpmiller, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25it is the president that sets the agenda and has the veto power. It is the president that didn't veto the vast majority of spending bills by a republican congress. So...your point is?
- daniel2e, on 10/10/2007, -25/+132Look, I'm not going to argue that the administration isn't fiscally irresponsible, maybe even catastrophically so. However, when citing statistics such as these: Adjust for inflation OR DON'T F-ING BOTHER.
- slicknick, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14My sentiments exactly.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but these stats are meaningless if they are not adjusted for inflation.
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OK, adjust for inflation, and the figure goes down. Do you really think it's gonna go down enough to not be a ridiculously high amount of money borrowed?
- slantyeyed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1at least it will be accurate. i'd hate to bomb a federal building on inaccurate data.
- daggah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3OK, adjust for inflation, and the figure goes down. Do you really think it's gonna go down enough to not be a ridiculously high amount of money borrowed?
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Fancy. All we need to do is adjust the numbers for inflation and we get a healthy economy.
- meechwings, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Not necessarily, but not doing so would be like walking into a car dealer and expecting to able to buy a new car at 1970s prices.
- harksaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40I'm no expert, but isn't the massive borrowing a big part of the reason we have inflation?
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7We should always have mild inflation, it's the sign of a healthy economy.
- ExCornelius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, it's the sign of creating more units of currency, albeit mildly.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7We should always have mild inflation, it's the sign of a healthy economy.
- devophl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually, Bush has added 2.3 trillion to the national debt in the past 4 years. The significant difference between B