thinkprogress.org — The Democratic leadership in Congress is set to pass a host of domestic funding bills that would exceed Bush’s request by $22 billion. The extra funding would help go towards veterans health care, infrastructure improvements, education, and other domestic priorities.
Sep 24, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bsmangSep 25, 2007
This account has been closed by the user
agarwaenumarthSep 25, 2007
He hasn't been impeached by a Democrat Congress yet, and we haven't seen funding for illegal wars cut off. Yeah, they're doing a really good job up there.Wake up, Democrats! Your politicians suck just as much ass as the globe-f**king Republicans!
myztrySep 25, 2007
Hardly. But as far Iraqi WOMD and being a 'God fearing country' you American's are one well duped bunch,
myztrySep 25, 2007
LOL. A lot is different. For a start the government would just slip the word revolutionary under the terrorist banner, and start priming the machine. The worlds just too different and inequitable 'against the machine' to even draw a half decent comparison.
bestenemySep 25, 2007
Well, the underlining phrase is "can only exist until", which means, unless there is a solid system of checks and balances, the system will collapse. Unfortunately at this point in history we are at that point where we have drifted too far away from the original ideas of our constitution. It's not the design that's causing the downfall, but the intended misinterpretation of it. No system is perfect. No civilization has lasted forever. The average lifespan of any complex civilization is 200 years. Ours is slightly pass that's point. It's overdue for reconstruction.
hierophantusSep 25, 2007
The problem with your insinuation that those of use who disagree with your view can't handle "facts" is that you insist on a context-free version of those facts. Nothing in your post here responds to my (implied) point, which is that the Congress, regardless of its makeup has hardly opposed Bush's spending priorities. I don't call it "control" when legislators give the executive pretty much whatever it wants. It's not a R vs. D issue, it's a matter of being realistic about who really controlled where money has gone for the last 6+ years, and when you look at the lack of oversight exercised by either party in Congress over the budget, the conclusion that the Congress "controlled" spending is true only in the most technical and meaningless sense.More specifically, who can really claim Iraq wasn't Bush's choice of black hole for tossing money into? And who can really deny that it's Bush alone who stands in the way of passing the $22 billion? This is the comparison here, not some abstraction.
starwarsfanMay 23, 2008
It's funny how people think the Democrats sincerely oppose the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress has been funding the war all along. The Democrat candidates don't sincerely oppose the war - they're just saying they do because the war is statistically unpopular, and they'll say anything they think will get them elected.Only one candidate has opposed the war and the funding of the war from the very beginning. That candidate is Ron Paul.
tamannagApr 3, 2009
America is economically powerful country in the world but still bush is not paying that money for the people. This is something like a fake one. If this is fact then how it could be possible that the America is on the top of the world for economically power.<a class="user" href="http://www.x-fat.com">http://www.x-fat.com</a> <a class="user" href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai-Berry---How-I-Lost-30-Pounds-in-Under-30-Days-Using-The-Acai-Berry&amp;id=1998407">http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai-Berry---How-I-Lost- ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.hilarysweightloss.com">http://www.hilarysweightloss.com</a>