Bush's spending habits?

[Alliandre]

Bush pushes anti terror message

My question is, should he really be spending $33bn on "homeland security".

There's a hell of alot better things he could be spending that sort of money on. Sure, some funding is needed, but the fact that this kind of money is being pushed forward is stupid in my opinion.

But then, I'm not American, so what concern is it of mine?

 

[Will]

The American political system sucks even more than the UK one does...For any Americans reading this, vote Nader. If the Democrats haven't used legal challenges to stop him standing.

But that's democracy, kids...a two party system with identical policies.

 

[Aada]

well its not as if America has as much trouble generating money then the UK..

There population dwarfs ours by a large margin and like you said.. your not American so who gives a crap? lol

 

[dysfunction]

I dont know why anyone thinks this is a lot of money???
$33bn doesnt sound that much to me for such a large country to protect itself...

With strong bipartisan support President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security – the most comprehensive reorganization of the Federal government in a half-century. The Department of Homeland Security consolidates 22 agencies and 180,000 employees, unifying once-fragmented Federal functions in a single agency dedicated to protecting America from terrorism.

It is focused on six key areas: intelligence and warning; border and transportation security; domestic counterterrorism; protecting critical infrastructure; defending against catastrophic threats; and emergency preparedness and response.

 

[Paradroid]

$33 billion doesn't sound like much, but when you consider it's all based on bullshit it seems fairly extravagant.

Prior to 9/11 (the event which started this "Home Security" snowball), the existing US intelligence agencies were unearthing the 9/11 plot...they were told to stop investigating. An open letter to Bush from a republican CEO demanding answers to basic questions touches on just this point...

I demand as an American citizen that you lift the "gag order" on Sibel D. Edmonds and let Americans know what foreign names and what AMERICAN NAMES she uncovered in her FBI translations that were involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and the financing of 9-11. Her facts and your "official story" lies do not add up. Americans demand the truth on that matter before the election.

...

I demand to know the exact date of the order that had our military practicing in early 2001 the invasion of Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Bridas Corporation and make that pipeline under control of US interests, many of your Bush Pioneers, and the exact date that our military started practicing and preparing for that invasion.

...

I demand to know why your administration keeps running the name and photos of Adnan G. El Shukrijumah as the "dirty bomb boogeyman" and on March 25, 2003 the FBI knew exactly where to find him and did not go after him. That telephone call was made from my telephone by a Canadian friend that was in Little Rock on that date, Mr. Bush, so do not pretend "national security" with me.

...

I demand to know why your administration keeps referring to Adnan G. El Shukrijumah as a "Saudi" when the FBI knows full well he is not Saudi. His family is from Guyana in South America and they have lived in Florida since 1986 without incident. His grandparents were from Yemen, moved long ago to South America and his mother is from Trinidad & Tobago.

...

I demand to know why you alerted India, Pakistan and "Axis of Evil" member Iran of your intentions to attack the Taliban / Bridas well before 9-11, and not notify the citizens of this nation. That matter was reported on June 26, 2001 in India newspapers.

So, if their existing agencies were gagged, what use would more agencies (or one big joined-up agency) be? If only to ensure nobody strays from the official line?


:touch:

 

[Validus]

Don't be silly, getting rid of evil masterminds of satan is faar more important than making most of the US citizens lives better!

 

[throdgrain]

You're all a bit nosey really tbh

 

[nath]

The American political system sucks even more than the UK one does...For any Americans reading this, vote Nader. If the Democrats haven't used legal challenges to stop him standing.

But that's democracy, kids...a two party system with identical policies.

I would be inclined to agree, but the problem is that the people who vote Nader segregate the Democrat vote - given how close it is this time, they need to vote Kerry. I know what you mean about them being more or less the same, but I honestly thing another 4 years for Bush would be a terrible terrible thing. With that in mind, it's important for Nader voters to put him aside this time (as they should have done last time) just to make sure Bush doesn't get in.

 

[Will]

From spiked

Nader is by no means a great candidate. His outfit is fashioned from some odd alliances, and he has been shameless in gathering support from anyone who will give it. In some states he is running as the Populist Party candidate, in others he is representing Ross Perot's Reform party. In states like Michigan he has even used the Republican Party machine to gather signatures.

Nevertheless, voters do not need to be shielded or protected from his influence. Being a maverick and an opportunist should hardly disqualify the man from running for national office. It is hard to see how he threatens voters any more than any other candidate.

Democrats don't really want to 'protect voters' from Nader's sham party or candidacy - they just want to stop people from being able to vote for him. Democrats showed no such concern about Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 - a candidacy that arose out of little more than a comment on the Larry King Live show - nor did they complain when he split the Republican vote and aided Bill Clinton's passage into the White House.

The attempt to kick Nader off the ballot gives an idea how some activists view the American electorate. Anti-Nader campaigners assume that they are the only ones who are capable of doing the electoral maths in this election. They think that voters will vote for Nader without thinking about the consequences, and so rob the Democrats of yet another election.

But in reality people will vote for Nader because, for whatever reason, they prefer him over the other candidates. Everyone knows that the race is close. If voters fail to vote for Kerry it will be for the simple reason that he and his campaign have failed to convince them. Kerry and the Democrats may be getting their excuses in early but, when it comes to it, blaming the other guy for being in the race won't cut it.

I've quoted some choice words from the end...but every year, the campaign goes along the lines of "don't vote Nader/Perot/Lib Dem, we need your vote to stop Bush/Bush/Thatcher". Things will never change unless people actively vote to change things.

 

[Bodhi]

To any americans reading this, vote Bush and piss off the entire European internet community. And Michael Moore. Pleeeeeeeease.

 

[nath]

I'd laugh and agree if I didn't think you were serious, and were actually unaware of just how damaging another term for Bush would be :|


edit: oh and Will, I normally agree with that view but this time I really do think it's more important to vote Kerry as Bush is that much more of a psycho.

 

[Jonaldo]

Vote None of the above!

imo!

 

[dysfunction]

I'd laugh and agree if I didn't think you were serious, and were actually unaware of just how damaging another term for Bush would be :|

Damaging for whom?


Its not going to make any difference which one of them gets into power. They are all as bad as each other...

 

[nath]

In principal, I agree - Democrats/Republicans, same shit different colour tie. However, this time I think Bush could be far more dangerous - I think he's held back this year because he wants to be reelected. Another 4 years and he's got nothing to lose and as such, free reign to implement all his wacky fundementalist christian ideas.

 

[Paradroid]

I think that's the long term argument for Nader/liberal voters. If all non-Bush voters rally together to oust Bush, what message will the democrats get from this? Their policies are too far right for many liberals (not much between dems & repubs on many fronts), so it could well be more of the same.

Whereas, if Nader does take more democrat votes and they lose again, the next time round in 4 years the dems will have a far more liberal agenda to persuade the political left - that's the theory! In reality we'll all be crawling around on rubble, whilst the worlds elite sip cocktails from the safety of their bunkers!

 

[nath]

Exactly my fear.




OK, not exactly but close.




Well, ball park.

 

[dysfunction]

Storm and teacup come to mind with this thread...

 

[nath]

America is a bit more than a teacup