[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.
off: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush... Has George W. Bush been charged with any crimes? None that I know of - was Bush in charge of the U.S. economy? So, how many years has it been since the United States experienced a terrorist attack on it's own soil? If the war cost us a trillion dollars, then I'd say it is worth it. But, I don't think that the President is very much responsible for state of the economy or the national debt. We live in a representative republic and it is our elected leaders that pass the laws and spend the money. You need to get some smarts: We want to bring down the national debt, but we must win the war before we can do that. It does NOT improve the economy when world trade centers are brought down. My plan is to win the war, and then create jobs so everyone makes good money. My plan makes sense, you're does not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , mainstream20016 mainstream20...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , ShempMcGurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war costs put on the books properly. OffWorld Your math doesn't make sense. Bush left office over a year ago. If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 trillion, that's a difference of only 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that the deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion). So where are the hidden costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put the war costs on the books? These costs didn't come with revenue attached to them; they are expenses and would therefore be put properly by Obama on the debt side of things. I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 trillion. If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 trillion, not 12.5 trillion. Perhaps the national debt clock doesn't include the Bush-era (2003-2008) Iraq war costs; that would account for the lower figure. That is correct. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , WillyTex willy...@... wrote: off: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush... Has George W. Bush been charged with any crimes? None that I know of Actually yes. If he, or Dick Cheney come to certain towns in Vemont, the police are under orders to arrest them. Also, some countries abroad will be required by their constitution and legal structure to arrest them. - was Bush in charge of the U.S. economy? So, how many years has it been since the United States experienced a terrorist attack on it's own soil? Less than a month. If the war cost us a trillion dollars, then I'd say it is worth it. But, I don't think that the President is very much responsible for state of the economy or the national debt. We live in a representative republic and it is our elected leaders that pass the laws and spend the money. You need to get some smarts: We want to bring down the national debt, but we must win the war before we can do that. You can't win the war. It is un-winnable. Go and watch the British TV version (6 parts) of what was later made into a very good, but inferior version, in the Hollywood movie Traffic The British version, also called Traffic will enlighten you as to the nature of Afghanisthan. Available on Netflix. I highly recommend this version to anyone reading this. It goes into much more of the opium trade in Afghanisthan in the 1980's, and how the corruption runs deep to turn that into money made from selling heroine to Western addicts (opium in itself is really not so harmful.) You cannot stop it, unless you stop the demand in your country. All of this is bound up with Taliban financing, Al Quada control of the biggest source of income in the middle east, and other mafia-like pseudo-muslim gangs in Pakistan. (Opium biggest earner, outside of oil, and various countries getting each 30 billion of dollars every year in military subsidies from USA) As for Iraq, you merely helped to empower the Iranians, and cause the Israelis to act irrationally by Condi Rice kicking the Syrians out of Lebanon. They were keeping the lid on the violence in Lebanon. Israel was then attacked by the emboldened Hezbolah (who were kept in check by the Syrians), and Israel attacked back, weakening the region and setting the peace prcess back decades. You lost the region. But the 21st century will reclaim it, as well as Texas for the future, not the neandhertals that have run those places lately. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_re...@... wrote: Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war costs put on the books properly. OffWorld Your math doesn't make sense. Bush left office over a year ago. If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 trillion, that's a difference of only 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that the deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion). So where are the hidden costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put the war costs on the books? These costs didn't come with revenue attached to them; they are expenses and would therefore be put properly by Obama on the debt side of things. I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 trillion. If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 trillion, not 12.5 trillion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ShempMcGurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war costs put on the books properly. OffWorld Your math doesn't make sense. Bush left office over a year ago. If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 trillion, that's a difference of only 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that the deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion). So where are the hidden costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put the war costs on the books? These costs didn't come with revenue attached to them; they are expenses and would therefore be put properly by Obama on the debt side of things. I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 trillion. If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 trillion, not 12.5 trillion. Perhaps the national debt clock doesn't include the Bush-era (2003-2008) Iraq war costs; that would account for the lower figure.
