I just skimmed through a few recent issues of Time magazine and found some interesting numbers. Though these disparities in numbers seem completely illogical on the surface, once you put Bush into the equation, it makes perfect sense... :rolleyes:

__________________________________

$15 million
Value of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq with American taxpayer dollars.

$80,000
Amount an Iraqi businessman spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same exact factory, after delays prevented the American firm from doing it.
__________________________________

$400 million
Amount requested by the Bush Administration to build two 4,000-bed prisons in Iraq

$112 million
Estimated cost of building those two prisons in the United States.
__________________________________

$87 billion
Amount President Bush has requested next year for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

$47.6 billion
Amount, adjusted for inflation, spent by the Marshall Plan in 1949 (its peak year), to rebuild all of Europe after World War II.
__________________________________

1,500
Estimated number of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in Iraq before the war, hundreds of which remain unaccounted for

$500
Reward offered by the US military for each weapon turned in by Iraqi citizens

$5,000
Amount one weapon can fetch on the black market.
__________________________________

138
Number of US soldiers killed in Iraq between March 30th, when the war began, and May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat had ceased.

200
Number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1, as of October 19.
__________________________________

$49.5 million
Funds raised by President Bush's re-election campaign in the third quarter, an all-time record amount.

$14.8 million
Funds raised by Howard Dean during the same quarter, also a record for a Democratic presidential candidate.
__________________________________

15%
Increase in total direct compensation paid to CEOs at majory US corporations from 2001 to 2002

$3.02 million
Median pay for those CEOs in 2002

hmmm... sounds like our prez is an overspender huh? or maybe he has a poor concept of getting a good deal,... maybe his wife should teach him how to price shop a little bit better.... ( bonehead ):egads:

If you think there's a Republican or Bush bias to pork-barrel spending in Washington, think again. Read Washington Waste from A-Z, or Parliament of *****s, or the amusing Below The Beltway (Dave Barry).

Lobbyists influence politicians to spend money and in return make campaign contributions. Politicians make deals with other politicians to get spending provisions for their own districts, or their own causes, or for their favorite lobbyists.

This system really is broken. But, like our broken tax code, NO ONE wants to change it.

The point here is that the Bush Administraion is the richest Administration in the history of the nation,the most corporatized Administration in the history of the nation, that has waged the most expensive war in the history of the nation during the most recessed and greatest deficit in the nation. All while they managed to raise the most campaign dollars in the history in the nation.

These are not honorable extremes to have under your belt. Though backdoor pay-offs HAVE occurred in the past, George Bush is by far the most guilty of such practices as this clearly points out. Newt Gingrich was pretty high up there also considering his post in government.

The richest interest groups have raised the greatest amount of money ever to see to it that Bush is re-elected in 2004. The richest industry and construction companies are getting the most price-inflated contracts to rebuild Iraq, much of that money, which is pocketed as 100% pure profit---from who? Not Iraqis, but American taxpayers.

Why not allow Iraqi construction companies and industry---which exist and are functional---rebuild Iraq while simutaneously severing their dependancy on us and self-revitalizing their own economy? Because then American construction companies wouldn't be able to make millions and millions of dollars and Bush could not rely on them to give him the richest fundraiser in the history of America.


Bit, it seems like you are a little upset about the corruption of the system. Why then are you using the regularity of the corruption to defend the greatest offender of all? :confused:

Originally posted by bitkahuna
If you think there's a Republican or Bush bias to pork-barrel spending in Washington, think again.

Bit, I know about pork barrel spending, I know about lobbying on Capitol Hill, I know about the entire lobbyist process, and I know about fundraising in politics. I have written reports on pork spending in Congress. One of my last reports and incidentally also one of the biggest examples in history is that of the War Appropriations Bill for the Iraq War in April. Remember? Well the Republican-controlled Senate rolled in a record-breaking $80 billion in pork-spending on a bill that was bicamerally and bipartisanly agreed to be clean and pork-free. There were 9,362 pork projects stuffed into a war funding bill.

Who was responsible for such wasteful spending? Not to any surprise, they were ALL Republicans: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvannia, andSenator Jim Bunning of Kentucky are amonst the greatest offenders. But who was the head of the pork-barrel spending, who was the man that oversaw and personally approved every pork project? Republican Senator Ted Stevens of course, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Originally posted by lex400sc
The point here is that the Bush Administraion is the richest Administration in the history of the nation,the most corporatized Administration in the history of the nation, that has waged the most expensive war in the history of the nation during the most recessed and greatest deficit in the nation. All while they managed to raise the most campaign dollars in the history in the nation.

You must be only thinking of absolute dollars, because taking inflation into account, or even GDP, many of those things are not true.

The projected deficit (going down by the way) is, I think I read, about 4% of GDP. The 'largest' deficit as a percent of GDP was under Ronald Reagan, in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union (worked too).

How do you know the administration is the richest ever, and are you only talking about the executive branch cabinet and leadership?

This recession was a non-event compared to ones like under Jimmy Carter, or how about going back and looking at the Depression after 1929? Your statement is pure hyperbole.

The richest interest groups have raised the greatest amount of money ever to see to it that Bush is re-elected in 2004. The richest industry and construction companies are getting the most price-inflated contracts to rebuild Iraq, much of that money, which is pocketed as 100% pure profit---from who? Not Iraqis, but American taxpayers.

You just seem to resent rich people, I don't get it. You know there's more corruption in poor countries, like, um, Mexico?

Bit, it seems like you are a little upset about the corruption of the system. Why then are you using the regularity of the corruption to defend the greatest offender of all? :confused:

America works DESPITE the ineptness and inefficiency of its government because people here are still able to take risks (they're not beaten to death entirely by tax codes and regulations like other countries) and have a can do attitude. Fortunately, despite the staggering waste, fraud and abuse, the U.S. government is still relatively small compared to other nations.

As far as Bush being the biggest offender, I don't buy that for a second. Clinton, for example, is the quintessential smooth talking politician and his wife is actually worse. Hillary appears to have NO principles, just power-lust. But back to Bush, despite my not liking the system, if one wants to be successful in Washington, you have to work the system to your advantage and that's what Bush has done. Sure he could try to change it, but it wouldn't work and he'd be out of office.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
You must be only thinking of absolute dollars, because taking inflation into account, or even GDP, many of those things are not true.

The projected deficit (going down by the way) is, I think I read, about 4% of GDP. The 'largest' deficit as a percent of GDP was under Ronald Reagan, in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union (worked too).

The numbers are inflation adjusted. The growth of GDP should not be factored in and the deficit shouldn't be trivialized as a mere percentage of it. We are still dealing with absolute dollars in the end, not percentages. Bonds and loans aren't valued as percentages, they are valued in hard dollars. I thought you'd have known that GDP is limited in its interpolation. Federal budget and economic produtivity are not necessarily proportionally related.

Are you a conservative or a Republican? Because if you were a conservative, you'd be quite unhappy that the size of government is growing larger every year under both Bushes and Reagan. You'd be unhappy with the irresponsible fiscal waste under the largest budget deficit in history. On the other hand, if you're a Republican, you just pretend to like shrinking government, and talk about responsible spending all day while you burn money all day long.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
How do you know the administration is the richest ever, and are you only talking about the executive branch cabinet and leadership?

It's common knowledge. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, the collective administration (yes this means the cabinet too) is the richest in the history of America. It's a pretty simple statement: Bush Administration is the richest Administration in history. Not too many ways you can get that confused.

The cabinet is a veritable tycoons' club with seven of its members owning assets worth more than $10 million. Eleven of the remaining twelve are millionaires. The pauper in their ranks is the Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, whose property's minimum value is only $680,000, but then again under favorable conditions, her net worth could be as much as $2 million. The president has assets valued at $11-21 million, including a sizeable Texas ranch. Much of that money was made while he was a manager and shareowner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which benefited greatly from state funding of its stadium.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
You just seem to resent rich people, I don't get it. You know there's more corruption in poor countries, like, um, Mexico?

No I resent people that shamelessly exploit and are driven by personal greed. Often times they happen to be rich people. And yes I know there is more corruption in other countries, but should we be happy and complacent with our own problems just because we aren't yet a Bangladesh? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bitkahuna
America works DESPITE the ineptness and inefficiency of its government because people here are still able to take risks (they're not beaten to death entirely by tax codes and regulations like other countries) and have a can do attitude. Fortunately, despite the staggering waste, fraud and abuse, the U.S. government is still relatively small compared to other nations.

Beaten to death by taxes? How about beaten to death by increased (wasteful) overall public spending, while simutaneously cutting social services that help to stabilize and improve society internally? How about ulterior motives in wasteful spending used to line the pockets of the very rich while raping the low and middle class?

You should know that this "staggering waste, fraud and abuse" does not get better on its own. In fact, attitudes like yours make the situation worse. Yeah, America works for now. But what happens when the middle class is completely dissolved? When jobs have been completely exported to Mexico, India, and China. When all that is left of America is an over-inflated stock market backed by nothing: no work force, no industry, no resources, just a bunch of virtual money? What happens when America consists of very very very rich and very very very poor? Violent revolution, I believe. What happens when social services are neglected and we are tied down by maintaining all our expensive, uneccessary super-military weapons? What happens when the entire mainstream news-media is controlled by one corporation? America works for now, but don't be so short-sighted. Look at the patterns and trends of America and her problems and see where it is heading under such policies. There is a definite NEED for change in America and non-chalant attitudes like yours only feed into the problem. Just like terrorism, the situation only gets worse when you ignore it.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
As far as Bush being the biggest offender, I don't buy that for a second. Clinton, for example, is the quintessential smooth talking politician and his wife is actually worse. Hillary appears to have NO principles, just power-lust. But back to Bush, despite my not liking the system, if one wants to be successful in Washington, you have to work the system to your advantage and that's what Bush has done. Sure he could try to change it, but it wouldn't work and he'd be out of office.

Name one instance in which either of the Clintons inflated the value of a public contract by more than 187 fold. Answer me who in the history of the United States has raised the most money in interest group contributions. Then reflect on how rich these interest groups have to be to amount to the largest collective fundraiser in history. Compare the tax cuts of Bush and Clinton and observe where all the money went in each instance. Name an instance where Clinton determined he was going to war before consulting the UN, then proceeded to wage a war based on false reasons for hidden purposes against the will of the UN and World. You say a whole lot of nothing in the above quote. Prove to me that Clinton is worse and prove to me that Bush isn't as bad as you say.

Originally posted by lex400sc
... Not too many ways you can get that confused.

... You say a whole lot of nothing in the above quote.


I'm not debating you if you continue to hurl insults or condescending remarks.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I'm not debating you if you continue to hurl insults or condescending remarks.

Let me prove to you that I was not being insulting or condescending as you see it....

Originally posted by bitkahuna
How do you know the administration is the richest ever, and are you only talking about the executive branch cabinet and leadership?

First of all I knew the administration is the richest ever because I hear it all the time. It's one of those commonly excepted facts. You read it in the news and you see it mentioned on tv.

Second, the "administration" is the executive branch, cabinet, and leadership. The "administration" is the entire hook line and sinker. It's all the people Bush are in charge of, which is the entire executive branch: cabinet officials, presidential advisors, white house staffers and aides, etc.

When I said "Not too many ways you can get that confused." that's because to me, there aren't many ways you can confuse or even question this statement: "Bush Administration is the richest Administration in history". I made that remark expressly so that if you still didn't understand, that you would maybe re-examine things and work it out for yourself.

When I said "You say a whole lot of nothing in the above quote." that's because you challenged the validity of my claim that "Bush is the biggest offfender". You make the allusion that it is the Clintons who are the biggest offenders, but then you stop there and offer no explanation. Thus you just said a whole lot of nothing

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I don't buy that for a second. Clinton, for example, is the quintessential smooth talking politician and his wife is actually worse. Hillary appears to have NO principles, just power-lust.

This was your entire explanation for why you don't buy my "Bush biggest offender" statement. What did you just tell me? Nothing but vague, generalized opinions.

I hope you now understand that I was not trying to be insulting or condescending.

Hate to drag up an old thread, but this is relevant to the OVER-INFLATED costs of rebuilding Iraq.

Bush killed a provision in his $87 billion request for Iraq that would have punished companies that defrauded U.S. taxpayers while doing business in Iraq. Read on: http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx

The administration proposed cuts to schools and services for military families as our men and women in uniform risk their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read on: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2335705.php

The Bush EPA is now dropping lawsuits against polluters who may have broken the law by expanding their operations without safeguards. This makes Bush's gutting of the Clean Air Act retroactive to before he was president. Read on: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06EPA.html


I like this quote too: "I think that is one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States' strategic thinking" This coming from a 13-term Congressional veteran Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa and a former Rumsfeld aide. Read on: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20031104/pl_nm/iraq_usa_leach_dc