Bush signs $286 billion
By on Aug 10th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
according to the right wing it is fiscally responsible since the original bill was over 3billion or some such nonsense.
August 10th, 2005 at 3:09 pmI miss the Clinton days when both Democrats and Republicans put out a responsible budget and paid down the National Debt. Am I alone in thinking like that? Current republicans surely don’t seem to care. Democrats can’t take the credit for being much better as the final tally in the House was 412-8.
Ouch!
August 10th, 2005 at 3:41 pmI think the whole thing is a sham. ever notice how just enough democrats side with the republicans to pass some truly terrible laws?
August 10th, 2005 at 3:42 pmWell, here in TN most every repub backed Bredesen. He’s no true dem; he’s just a pansy. Which makes me start to wonder if maybe there are more than a few “plants” invading the dem scene. I tell you, he is one do nothing dude. We have some pretty pathetic options for true dems.
Rosalind Kurita in 06 – Frist is going down!!
August 10th, 2005 at 3:54 pmIt is taxation without representation.
August 10th, 2005 at 3:57 pmBush increased the national debt $2 trillion. 60 million voted for him. I say they owe the country $33,000 each to pay for the policies they chose.
August 10th, 2005 at 4:25 pmKindness,
I think you would be interested to read about the glory days of the Clinton economy and its ties to the opium production in Afghanistan and the affect Bush had on that market (opium market out of Afghanistan) when he took office, and the return affect that had on our economy. I think you would be just as interested to see the domino effect that occurred with the sudden loss of the opium market and the bankruptcies of corporations like Enron, Tyco and such.
Clinton was/is no angel. “His” economy was underwritten with laundered drug money from many sources, one main artery being Afghanistan. The war in the Balkans was a direct result of trying to keep these channels clear from the fallout of the Soviet collapse. When Bush took office and wouldn’t give the Taliban the money they wanted for the oil pipeline for the now ill-fated Barren Sea oil fields, they retaliated by cutting their poppy seed production (the source of opium) to absolute 0. Our economy quickly fell because of this cut, corporations lost major sources of money (the laundered kind), we invaded Afghanistan, put in a former Unocal representative as president, and opium production from Afghanistan is now 10% higher today then it was before Bush came to office.
Now, Clinton was/is not responsible for the creation of these vast corrupt activities, they were handed down to him. But he played the game just as everyone else does.
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents.”
August 10th, 2005 at 4:30 pmUmmm Elvis,
that sounds like a pretty wild conspricy theory to me. do you have any hard factual evidence to back it up that does not include references to UFO’s?
August 10th, 2005 at 4:36 pmcynical ex-hippie (love the name :))
The Federal Reserve Bank and the World Bank are private companies. They make their money (mostly) off the interest of loans, which they make to many countries, ours being their biggest client (I’m assuming on the biggest client part :)).
They have an interest in seeing that the country is deeper in debt, and they have one of the heaviest hands in Washington to make sure it stays that way.
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents.�
August 10th, 2005 at 4:40 pmAccording to a Google search, the full quote is “States are not moral agents, [but] people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions.” Which I think means that we can’t just trust states to be moral, even if they’re led by the ostensibly liberal party, but they can be moral if we make them that way.
August 10th, 2005 at 4:48 pmlol,
No ufo’s. Just reading books papers and articles outside of the mainstream media, much like this site itself.
Try taking a look at ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ by Michael Ruppert, and his site http://www.fromthewilderness.com. Not asking you to believe it, just to consider it enough to read it and decide for yourself before you schluff it off.
In regards to conspiracy theories: I can play the lottery. Everyone has a theoretical chance of 1 in 33 million of winning (or something like that). But as soon as I buy a ticket, I have a PROBABLITY of 1 in 33 million to win. Once there is evidence to support a theory, it becomes a possibility, or has a higher degree of probability, and is no longer a theory.
Be careful that you don’t discard the ‘theoretical’ or ‘probable’ because others have labeled it taboo. You may miss learning something; something real. After all, they (those that label it taboo) may be trying to hide something. I throw out a lot of what I read.
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents.”
August 10th, 2005 at 4:54 pmGary Kleppe
I agree with your thought of what the quote means, very well said. I would only argue that, I don’t think that we need to “make them that way,” I think we need to demand it, and then hold them accountable.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents.”
August 10th, 2005 at 4:58 pmFrom what I’ve read, opium production in Afganistan has gone through the roof since bush43 took office. I’m not sure what you are saying that Clinton’s economy was dominated by laundered drug money.
I thought alot of it was over-valued tech stocks and foolish people chasing IPO’s and what not. What I do know is that more people had better paying jobs than do now.
As far as the Balkans goes, I supported his stopping the slaughter of innocents over there. I hope you aren’t going to suggest that the massacres of serbs, muslims & croats weren’t real & it is all a big consiracy.
But i do thank you for wishing our elected leaders showed more financial restraint.
August 10th, 2005 at 5:08 pmkindness,
From what I’ve read, it’s not just Clinton’s economy that was dominated by laundered money. It’s been the way of our economy since the 40’s or even earlier. Clinton’s economy simply benefited the most. Maybe they just perfected it?
I have a relative who is a major market “player.” Prior to Bush taking office, back in late 98 and through 99, there was a fluctuating market where stocks would drop 500 points one day, rebound over a week or two, drop another 200, rebound, drop 300 etc. I was told by this person, someone who would know, and that I trust, that these actions were purposely staged by the “major players” to “whip the day traders out of the market.” The day traders had caused some “over-pricing” and instability, though it was minor, and merely a nuisance that they wanted to get rid of like a cold. But it was even more interesting when the same relative told me that by the time that the market fell, those issues of “over-pricing” and instability were gone. The day traders and “IPO chasers” were not the cause of the collapse.
I am in no way saying (and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the misperception) that the slaughtering of innocence in the Balkans was not real. It was and it needed to be stopped. I am proposing, however, is that the media reports of who was on what side, and for what real purpose, were fabrications. That we (the U.S.) were responsible for slaughtering as many if not more innocent people then Milosevic in that conflict alone, just by “trying to stop the tyranny.” An example of how twisted an operation that was is that Al-Qaeda was used by the CIA to covertly stir up a lot of the trouble and give the U.S. a reason to get involved.
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents.�
August 10th, 2005 at 6:08 pmMost people don,t have a clue as to what the real intions of the republican party is. If anyone stopped and thought about what the republican has done and want to do to country they would take up arms. They have invaded and brain washed our think tanks, they blame other people for thier mistakes,like above on Clinton, and lie to no end with a straight face. They have no shame and the press, the talk shows helps them by calling the garbage news and feeding to us 24 hr a day. The old saying is that a fool is born everday. Someday they will know and we will all join the NRA.
August 10th, 2005 at 10:32 pmNavy Vet,
Just for clear communication…
I’m no republican! :) I don’t belong to any political party other then my own.
Chomsky writes: “States are not moral agents”
August 11th, 2005 at 2:30 pm571
In your free time, visit some information on 1895
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 am2342
Take your time to take a look at some relevant information dedicated to 1511
November 6th, 2005 at 12:10 am