digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

House Expected to Pass $70 Billion War Funding Bill

foxnews.com — The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to give President George W. Bush a victory in his yearlong battle with anti-war lawmakers over Iraq by approving $70 billion for U.S. military operations there and in Afghanistan.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • smurfz, on 12/20/2007, -4/+46The cost of Bush = $9.1 trillion in total so far.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/20/2007, -3/+17Let's talk about what the bankers are costing us. The residuals of the war in Iraq and overspending equates to a lot more than a couple trillion. The Iraq and Afghanistan, war on drugs, war on terror fiasco's cost trillions overseas, but the government doesn't pay for it, they take out loans from banks to pay for it. THEN, they come to us, and tax us, to pay for it. Those taxes show up in the form of inflated goods by attacking the market that sells the goods, the small businesses, even large, and destroying out savings account by further reducing the value of the dollar by continuously having to print more to afford our unbelievable spending.... Holy cow... Thanks Ron Paul. I never knew I could know so much.

      correct me if I was wrong in attempting to comprehend the mess we're in please.
      • CaptainGirf, on 12/20/2007, -9/+1Better to be in debt and continue printing than to just say "***** it" and go back to a gold-based currency.
        • bjornski, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8We would NEVER be able to acquire the gold needed to do that.

          Never.
        • ManOfVirtues, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Are you freakin' mental?!!
      • slvrbullet87, on 12/20/2007, -4/+070 bill for war, 512 bill for "welfare" programs. Yeah then Republicans are the ones blowing all the money
    • zomgflamer, on 12/20/2007, -15/+6Lets hope he used that 9 trillion to buy cocaine and is planning on snorting it all at once soon. Best thing he can do for USA.
    • Zera, on 12/20/2007, -7/+19The Democrats we elected lied. Truth: They love war.
      • noahhoward, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9How the hell can that comment be buried? The truth hurts Digg, the dems are no different than the republicans, you can't say you want to get rid of the republicans for screwing you then blindly praise the dems, that's not how it works. You want to blame Bush alone, fine, but you're putting a lot of misguided faith in hundreds of politicians who gladly stabbed you in the back for profit. You people have to have the most ***** up sense of trust I have ever seen.
      • slantyeyed, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1If there was no war, the Democrats would have nothing to crusade about and then they'd have to work on less glamorous issues like health care, illegal immigration, the homeless, education, etc.
    • CaptainGirf, on 12/20/2007, -7/+2Alright, we've got the absolute values being tossed everywhere -- start talking in percentages and relative terms. We've spent a lot, no doubt, but this isn't the worst thing our nation's been through.
      • PhantomRogue, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7Your right, the War alone isnt, but everything the Bush Family has done to this country sure as ***** is.
    • IADTatami, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3It's like watching a Robin Hood movie being played backwards.
  • ronpaul20008, on 12/20/2007, -11/+31Here's something I just read...........Marvin Bush was head of Securacom.. security for Washington Dulles International Airport, United Airlines, & the World Trade Center. That's George Bush's younger brother. And Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset, codenamed Tim Osman.. he was Bush's business partner in the Carlyle Group... And get this, the Hinckley family is also good friends of the Bush's... Hinckley was the shooter of Ronald Reagan whose Vice President was Bush's father... but from what I hear, Hinckley shot Reagan because he was obsessed with a hollywood actress... cause that makes perfect sense... not to give presidential powers to the vice president, who was previously head of the CIA which makes no sense at all....Scott Hinckley, brother of the shooter, had a dinner appointment at the home of Neil Bush the day following the shooting... Another amazing coincidence. HUH.
    • Napoleone, on 12/20/2007, -7/+18The Hinkley connection went extremely under-reported at the time. Not many people know about it. The truth is out there for those who seek it.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/20/2007, -8/+13The sick world of coincidences means this will fall on deaf ears to the lame minded, my friend. Just keep campaigning to get Ron Paul elected, and we may make it out of this mess yet.
    • doctorfungi, on 12/20/2007, -3/+14Marvin Bush's time in Securacom only lasted until 2000, and even then, Securacom's contract at the WTC expired in 1998 and was given to EJ Electric (a larger contractor).

      Marvin Bush still did have an involvement in a company that was involved in the World Trade Center though, HCC insurance. They LOST $24 million as a result of 9/11.

      See why trying to connect the Bush's to 9/11 through Marvin is stupid?

      Sources:
      http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/200502 ...
      • noahhoward, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3It's amazing how much different the picture is when people don't ignore facts. Thanks for posting that information.
    • AntBing, on 12/20/2007, -8/+6TINNNNNNNNNNNN FOILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!

      Hahaha get a life.
      • johnjen5321, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Too many people don't understand the secret combinations that surround us and threaten our very existence. The people that perpetuate these "coincidences" WANT people to be antagonists to those who might start figuring out the truth yelling "Conspiracy Nut! Conspiracy Nut! Lookout for the nut job!" thus smearing a negative stigma on those who would not quietly accept "official" explanations release through the media.

        Time for America to wake up from the nightmare we're living, kick ALL of these politicians to the curb and put a president in office who will actually work FOR the people as it was intended.
        • slvrbullet87, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1You forgot to mention Ron Paul atleast 3 times. /sarcasm
    • DogBotherer, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6Too many people are coincidence theorists...
      • johnjen5321, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Too many people don't understand the secret combinations that surround us and threaten our very existence. The people that perpetuate these "coincidences" WANT people to be antagonists to those who might start figuring out the truth yelling "Conspiracy Nut! Conspiracy Nut! Lookout for the nut job!" thus smearing a negative stigma on those who would not quietly accept "official" explanations release through the media.

        Time for America to wake up from the nightmare we're living, kick ALL of these politicians to the curb and put a president in office who will actually work FOR the people as it was intended.
    • bjornski, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Not only those things, but remember, Neil Bush was heavily involved in the S&L scandals, and help contribute his own multi-billion dollar *****-storm. And now he's getting huge contracts to help push a "dumbed down" test-preparation education system.

      The entire family is crooked.
  • iraq, on 12/20/2007, -1/+24Since water-board is still not declared an illegal method of obtaining intel, can we use it on these knuckleheads to figure out what the hell they are thinking and how they expect to get us out of the mess that we're in?
    • bhattsan, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2Like I said below, Bush would have vetoed the omnibus bill had he not gotten the 70 billion, and since we cant override any vetoes because the dems don't have a 2/3 majority and the congressmen would go home with basically *nothing* done without the omnibus bill.
  • cubytes, on 12/20/2007, -7/+1I would just spend and sign off on as much money as I could, with the little time I had left in office too, smart move Bush.....smart move :|
  • pedrovoltaire, on 12/20/2007, -12/+2that's not nearly enough IMO...
  • doctorfungi, on 12/20/2007, -20/+1Cutting off funding to the troops isn't the right way to go about ending this war. There are other ways we can pull the troops out without starving them for resources first.
    • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -3/+11You're living in a fantasy world Corkey, where countless deaths in Iraq are the invention of a 'liberal' media, where the insurgency is comprised of al Qaeda operatives, who had long ago infiltrated Saddam's Iraq, and where MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was attained two years ago, and everything since then has been the advent of democracy. And they say libs are dreamers....

      And if you war mongering assholes won't join up at least get training as florists to help us deal with all the flowers the iraqis are throwing us.

      let's assume for a moment that every member of the American military voted for bush...that leaves roughly 60,000,000 republicans who AREN'T serving...now let's say half that number are too old or disabled to serve...that leaves 30,000,000 con's content to sit on their a$$es while our troops are extended, put on stop-loss or re-called to duty...30,000,000 who either DON"T support their president and his war for oil or are too COWADRLY to serve...that's pretty pathetic

      and btw, ac1bd USN retired 77-99 and never missed a flight physical, so save all that "what have you done for your country" crap for somebody else
      • buddarien, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3So by your faulty logic.....

        If I support a woman's choice, I must have an abortion?
        If I support law enforcement, I must become a police officer?
        If I want to enjoy a good steak, I must become a butcher?

        No corkey, you are just wrong. And so is the argument about supporting our troops, so try a new one already.

        There is no way that you have served your country honorably. Your little rant down below is proof of that. It is a free country, you may leave at any time.

        Buh-bye now.
        • OC73, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1Better yet, if they support America's defeat and retreat from Iraq, why aren't they willing to join the enemy on the battlefield?

          They've supported them in their propaganda war from the very beginning, so why not quit being a bunch of armchair jihadists and join the fight?

          Virgins await!
        • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11-800-GO-ARMY

          Sign up or STFU!
    • imgstacke, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10It's how we ended Vietnam - cut funding and the DoD has got to initiate a pull out. The Dems could of ended this and didn't. This 2-party system is a joke.
  • bhattsan, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13They will attach this onto the 570 billion dollar Omnibus bill for domestic expenses they are passing off before the holidays( BTW, this bill already passed). Bush said he would veto the bill if they didn't give him 70 billion dollars before the holidays. The democrats had to pass it, otherwise the 12,000 earmarks (read:pork) that they had for their donators wouldn't pass, and they would come home for the holidays, telling us people, that they didn't manage to get money for the roads, the schools, the local companies, etc.

    oh, and here's a better source than foxnews.com: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119802495240238121 ...
    • No1ofnote, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0You're actually saying the Wall Street Journal is 'better' than Faux Noize ? hmmmm.....Rupert Murdoch ring a bell moron? He owns BOTH.

      oh, and BTW, the bill is for $515 billion. And what do we get for this princely sum?

      * Funds Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college. (Bush proposed cutting the program by 200 million claiming he can't find money for it)
      * Social Security Administration would get $450 million to contend with a backlog of disability claims
      * Consumer Product Safety Commission's gets $80 million (you know, to keep the lead out of our 'Chinese made' toys)
      * $11.2 billion for veterans' health-care programs, border security, to rebuild a collapsed bridge in Minneapolis (something else bush couldn't find money for), heating subsidies for the poor, aid to low-income mothers, drought relief (hey, screw the farmers, right?)
      * The projects put into the bill help with rural development, others with scientific research, and still others fund construction of roads and bridges; others support either community organizations or parks projects.
      (gosh, can't do that, can we?)

      Just because the Republicans cried that the bill was not entirely stripped of earmarks, they were pissed because they didn't get to shove the crap they normally put into bills as amendments. (Remember the 'bridge to no where' in Alaska by GOP's Ted Stevens?)(wait, isn't he under federal indictment?) The Appropriations Committee summary of the legislation said it would cut funding for most types of lawmakers' pet projects, called earmarks, by 40 percent from two years ago (you know, when the GOP ran things

      Oh, and lets be clear your '12,000 earmarks' figure is b.s. It's no where near that, and if you had a brain stem, you'd be able to admit that.

      Jesus, try get your facts straight.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 12/20/2007, -9/+22The only money that should be spent on the neocon's imperial war is to
    1) Bring all the troops home immediately
    2) Prosecute, convict, imprison the war criminals responsible for starting it
    • OC73, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2Sorry, you and the Democrats lost that fight. Time to find something new to bitch about.
      • Loonacy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1But if we don't stop fighting then we can't lose, right?
      • brownanimal, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Shut up retard, liberals and dems should just drink the cool aid
    • branjb, on 12/20/2007, -0/+13.) Find as many homeless people as we can and give them all the money we can to help better America
  • lakush, on 12/20/2007, -4/+15The troops are not starving for resources. There is enough money in the system to take them out of harm's way or redeploy them.
  • lakush, on 12/20/2007, -6/+10$24 Million is pocket change to those who profited off insider trading and defense contracts.
  • itsameericle, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5I can't believe that the Democrats are playing politics in keeping the status quo so that they can have favor in the presidential election. Their decision will hurt millions of lives and squander hundreds of billions of dollars (debt+interest!). It's obvious that they are not making any changes, whether they want to or not. I wish they would wake up. Voters notice. I'm pretty sure people are tired of the status quo of destruction of America's good name, wealth, and moral compass (international affairs and governmental abuse of power). Hopefully, the disaffected will see the beacon to lead us away from this path. If not Ron Paul, please not the mainstream fake politicians (yes that is redundant and no, I don't think that includes Obama).
    • Rakuseki, on 12/20/2007, -3/+0Seriously, I wish people would get off this Ron Paul kick. The man's a do-nothing and all the things he wants to do are too radical to be considered. Abolish the IRS because it's 'extra constitutional'? Haha, good luck with that (both getting it done and arguing theconstitutionality of it). Of course while it sounds good in idea, never mind the 86 thousand people he'd lay off in the process - but that doesn't matter cause it's Ron Paul!. Look, I prefer the constitution in it's original format before the extra amendments just as much as the next person who actually know what the document says but Ron Paul isn't going to fix anything. There's a reason he's at 4.2%.

      Look, voting for the President shouldn't be your focus nor will it solve any of the prescribed problems you've mentioned. The President does not represent you (if you are indeed an American Citizen). If you don't like the way things are going, pay more attention to Congress. But to be appalled that the Democrats are doing what they can to maintain their power is sheer stupidity. Furthermore, do you even know what the rest of that bill has in it? You know, the other thousand pages or so filled with ear marks from high heaven? They didn't do it for nothing. They simply cannot strong arm legislation right now. They don't have the numbers with such a slight majority. And even if they did, you (not you personally but the collective Digg community) make it sound like it's so easy to run this country when you've got 303 million people shouting at the top of their lungs for all kinds of things. That's a slight exaggeration using the pop count of course, but you get my point.
      • zeromous, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I think the idea is to reinstall bipartisanship and integrity to the presidency, not necessarily push through radical or unrealistic changes.

        Could you argue that Ron Paul wouldn't act as an appropriate presidential check and balance compared to the other partisan candidates?
        • Rakuseki, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Yes, yes I can. Representative Paul isn't nicknamed 'Dr. No' for nothing. And the idea that he'd 'reinstall bipartisanship' and integrity to the presidency is moot. The president can't be bi-partisan. He either is apart of his party, the other party, or neither of the parties (as some random independent who won't get elected in the first place.) And what makes you seriously think that his method would institute 'check and balance' any more appropriately than any other candidate? All you could wager on with good prediction would be that very few if any bills would be passed under his pen given his voting record.
          • zeromous, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I would say that you haven't made much of an argument other than I don't think the presidency works that way, which sort of shows you don't know how it works. A president works with congress to make appropriate laws, and is supposed to use veto and signing statements to keep congress from getting out of control. He is the head of the executive and each branch is there to act as a check and balance to the other.

            See the reason you don't understand this is because you maybe don't remember the last time you had a bipartisan (but obviously affiliated) president, so I really can't blame your ignorance, but you should really evaluate your understanding considering I'm not even an American citizen.

            I have no affinity for Ron Paul in this way, but it seems obvious to me that his major tenant is constitutionality. That would imply that it doesn't really matter what his party is, his policies are always going to be presented initially as small government classic conservative/libertarian, but I get the impression he would at least honor the constitution and the structure it provides, rather than trying to circumvent it in a partisan manner.
          • Bamont, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1@zeromous
            Have you ever taken a civics class? Do you know anything about how our government works? It never ceases to amaze me how many of you "Constitutioners" don't have any idea about why things were setup the way they were. Now, you don't live here, so your knowledge is limited to what you've dug up on the internet. That means, depending on what you read, many people have a very skewed (if not ignorant) idea of what happens in this government.

            The President represents the United States, as a legal term, meaning the Federal government which oversees the states. The Electoral college was put in place as a result of not wanting the people to elect government officials. It was years later when we allowed Senators to be elected by the people. The President doesn't represent the people - you don't live here, yet you seem to think he does. People argue constantly over President Bush, for instance, not caring about what they want. No *****, because he represents an entirely different entity from the people. They don't elect him - so why should he waiver to their wants?

            For calling someone ignorant, not living here, and obviously having no idea how our government works and why it works the way it does - you sure do make far-reaching arguments. I'd suggest you do a little more research on why it was setup a certain way, as opposed to just assuming that because you've read a blog that maintains one view point - it has to be the correct one.
  • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -15/+19To deal w/ this piece of sh*t country..

    I have seriously given up on the notion that this country will ever be something that I can be proud of. Our government is run by a bunch of corrupt morons and it is supported by a bigger bunch of bigger morons who have no decent sense of right and wrong, but instead think "morality" is all about trying to legislate who people have intercourse with rather than about honesty or how people should treat one another.

    The only way to approach this country and all of the backwoods idiots in it is to use their own stupid policies against them to get richer and richer so that you have enough money that you never have to be in the same room as any of them and you don't have to send your kids to school with any of them, and when the time comes, you can move to Canada or Europe when things get even more crappy here.

    So bye bye hillbilly, bible-thumping freaks!! Buh-bye jack-booted nazi skinheads, bible-humping xtian wackos, latté sipping democrats, towel-headed islamo fanatics, fat stupid american sheep, bloated military profiteers, scheming greedy Zionists, corrupt arab monarchs, jingo spewing congressmen, babykilling coward soldiers, token ethnic cabinet members, and marionette presidents!

    Buh-bye wiretapping, Warrantless searches, Torture camps, enemy combatants, unending wars, Ineffective natural disaster responses, Power Cuts, Budget deficit, Cowboy accents, e-mails to pageboys, White house midnight male prostitutes, posts with "lib traitors" in title, O'reilly, Jingoism, New vocabulary by the president,

    alcoholic, old, fat, uneducated, toothless, Big Mac eating, inbred, southern illiterate white trash hillbillies, Made in China Flags, Freedom Fries, Macacas, Taxpayers paid vacations to Scotland, Mobster lobbiests, Crusaders attacking the wrong country, Swiftboat men for truth, New Reasons to stay in Iraq, Ann coulter dressed as a woman, Evil Swedish chief UN representative, Flight suits, Condi Playing the Paino while countries are bombed, plastic sheets and duct tape, color coded paranoia levels!

    Buh-bye high gas prices, Hydrogen economy, WMDs searches, Finding more bones at ground zero 5 years after Iraqis attacking the USA on 9-11, Ricin plots, Liquid Bombs, Shoe Bombs, Dirty Bombs, The twins, Direct orders from God, Going after dady's assassins, Forgetting Osama, Bush dropping dog on head, Pretzel accidents, Segway accidents, The mid-east roadmap to hell Protecting Israel so that Jesus comes, Threatening North Korea with Caviar embargoes, Flip Floping,

    Buh-bye to staying the ever changing course, Asking Libs for the plan, Deadenders in their last throes before the curve, Gay-Bashing Flaming knob-rubbing meth-addicted hypocrit Preachers, "The Constitution is just a piece of paper.", Defiance of the geneva convention. Buh-bye habeas corpus.

    Enjoy your speudo-patriot-act-restricted-"freedom" in your illiterate, poverty stricken counties Amerika! Hope your 'prayer in schools' makes you feel better about how bad your lives suck!!! Hope you enjoy licking the bottoms of the Bush family's shoes while you wear your size extra-large Walmart outfits and eat hamburger helper for dinner for the rest of your pathetic lives!!!
    • ukfoole, on 12/20/2007, -4/+9Please don't move here. We don't need any more whiny pusses. I hear Russia is a great place to go to. They are literally tossing freedoms away to Putin in exchange for security and loving it (70% presidential approval rating).
      • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1No matter how you cover a turd in chocolate, you still end up with a chocolate turd.

        Amerika is the world's chocolate turd.
    • KBWUSA, on 12/20/2007, -7/+7You are one miserable crybaby brat. It must suck to be you. On your way out to buy a new pacifier and box of diapers, you should denounce your citizenship and move elsewhere. Take the ukfoole's suggestion and move to Russia.
    • noahhoward, on 12/20/2007, -4/+7Anyone who uses the term babykiller as a blanket term for any nations volunteer soldiers isn't worth *****. Anyone who can then top that by levelling that many unfounded insults at millions of people he has never met deserves the worst life can offer. Get out and good riddance. Maybe head to Iraq and put your money where your fat mouth is, give the people there some help. Try North Korea, I'm sure they'll be happy to have you. I hear Iran is nice too, enjoy, *****.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1ANYONE who condones illegal wars, treason and SPYING on Americans, is too brain-dead to make ANY intelligent comments!

        Look at the idiocy of these speeches that are obviously prepped for our president (because, Lord knows, he couldn't string a coherent thought together in public to save his own ass) and strewn with the psychological buzzwords, "freedom," "democracy," and other abstractions that are molded to serve autocratic/plutocratic ends. Wilkommen to Amerika fool!....

        But keep waving the flag Corkey because your bigotry is nothing to be ashamed of, and to thump the bible because your ignorance is a virtue. You should cherish your hatefulness and small-mindedness as they are family values. You are not society's rejects, but rather, you are higher on the ladder than certain other people. Right-wing radio points them out so that you know who to hate to feel better about yourself.

        Keep buying more little yellow magnets made in China because you're too stupid to understand real Democracy, too stupid to understand high treason and too stupid to find the fvcking recruiting office or a library.
      • branjb, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Guess I'm a babykiller then
    • OC73, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1You're free to go. Nothing could be better for america than one less whiny vagina.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Look another 28%-er telling an American where to go
    • slvrbullet87, on 12/20/2007, -3/+0The tampon goes in the front hole next time.
    • heresy_fnord, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2Most intelligent thing I've read in ages. The people of the US need to stop pandering to the NeoCons and this failure of a government.
      • brownanimal, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1shut up retard
        • dildoolielly, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I guess when you have no rebuttal, rely on insults
  • manicallday, on 12/20/2007, -4/+9This makes perfect sense. You see this is helping our troops. Because they want to stay there and win. Although there's really nothing to win right now, our troops really want to see this through to the end. If they didn't get this money the troops would be forced to go home and then they would be losers. So in order for our troops to be winners they have to stay and die.
    • imgstacke, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10The war was lost before the first bomb fell - Even Cheney knew that when he was Sect. of Defense back under G H. W. Bush. - I think his exact words were something like [It would have been] "a Quagmire" to go into Baghdad.
    • bjornski, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5How do you see an occupation though to the end?

      There is no war. This is occupation and nation-building.
  • Zlorp, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6doesnt this same bill cut all funding from ITER? WTF is wrong with our government?

    guess fusion power would pose too much of a problem for energy companies and the senators/president that they pay for.
  • Icecream, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1I guess House has to do something while the writer's strike is on.
  • Zlorp, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6seriously people, THEY CUT ALL FUNDING FOR ITER! this is serious *****!!
    • snotrokit, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why wouldn't they, their buddies don't make money on it.
      no profit for them= no funding for you.
  • sherrife, on 12/20/2007, -2/+12Course it will, the democrats are imperialist war-mongers just like the republicans. In fact history shows that they have started more wars than the republicans. Both parties are owned and controlled by corporate capitalist interests. Revolution is the only way to truly change the disgusting way our society functions.

    "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" - Emma Goldman

  • hackntossh, on 08/27/2008, -2/+4What a sad State of affairs...
  • zombiedepot, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11Those democrats really know how to show Bush who is boss.
  • joper90, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6spineless wankers
  • BluesFan, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4And the biggest waste of money out of all this is the so called "The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives" who give the Bush Admin everything they want in the end anyways.

    Why not just save time and money and give them what they want in the first place? There's no need to debate about it for months if the result is the same.
  • tycity, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11Pelosi said 100 times that Bush would not get a blank check - dumb bitch lied right to our faces. Shame on you Pelosi - we all stood on line, even Republicans, and voted you lying assholes in. You're all just a burden on the gene pool. Go away already.
  • pigfister, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2good for you USA, keep paying your taxes so your country can commit genocide around the world in your name!
    • noahhoward, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Oh how I love people like you. Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. You have any idea how quick Iraq would have been if we were committing genocide? Four B-2's in the air is all it would have taken, one week tops, no need to send ground troops, no red tape, simply in the air over and done. Try thinking before you speak.
      • branjb, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1But it's cool to speak out against the man
  • pilgrim3970, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Nice vote for change Dems.
  • Rakuseki, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I'm going to get dugg down for this but sometimes, like right now, the majority of you guys make me chuckle. The lot of you have absolutely no idea how the system works or more importantly why it works that way. Instead of rationally looking as to why the Dems can't/won't do what you think they should you apply knee-jerk emo-laced answers to the 'problem' then cry from the top of your duct-taped soap boxes as if your quips make a difference. Instead of all the anti-President Bush sentiment, or crying foul when you found out that quid-pro-quo is the order of business in Washington instead of seeing Speaker Pelosi 'handing the GOP the business', all of you should take a Civics class or at least read up on how things are done. I'll give you guys some credit though, you can dream like champions.
  • chicofaraby, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Anyone else have the urge to take some Congresscritters by the lapels and shake the ***** out of them while yelling, "What the ***** is wrong with you, stupid?"
  • SteelChicken, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Wow, as if the Democrats didn't have enough going wrong for them already. They just do whatever Bush says now apparently.
    Spineless pussies.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5"We tried everything to stop this war" cry the Democrats. Too bad you never tried winning. You've done the one thing I thought was impossible. You made John McCain look good.
    • card51short, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2we're winning?! Hell yeah! Bring our boys home!
      Oh, right....if we live the terrorists might come back.
      Oh well what's another 50 years in Iraq?
  • Dgenx2, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Didnt the dems pledge not to pass a spending bill w/o a timetable for withdrawal.

    They need to grow a ***** backbone.

    Vote ron paul 2008.
    • chicofaraby, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1Yeah, another Republican is the solution. Jeezus....
  • SlimFastForYou, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1"The Democratic-controlled..."
    Shouldn't that say "The oligarchical..."? Or were they referring to our Democrat-controlled House of Representatives?

    /grammarnazi
  • rouslan, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2The regression of counter in www.costofwar.com will increase. I wonder how many diseases could be cured with all this money...
  • sremick, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Seems to me there's a fundamental flaw in our system of government that the founding fathers overlooked.

    Congress is supposed to be the balance of the president's power. However, the only way congress has power is in the ability to veto. That requires a 2/3rds majority in congress of the opposite party than the president. However, the same people who elect congress(wo)men elect the president... it would seem very unlikely that a population swinging towards one party enough to elect that party's nominate for president would simultaneously elect enough of the OTHER party into congress to allow for veto power and that balance. Which leaves the congress with no power, even if they have a slight majority by chance. The situation we're in now.

    Don't even get me started on "signing statements"...
    • rouslan, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1This system of government seems terribly inefficient.
    • Rakuseki, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Um, well, there's a few things wrong with this. First off, the Legislative Branch isn't supposed to balance the Executive Branch's powers. That would make it a two part system. It shares that responsibility with the Judicial Branch. Secondly, if you were looking at the way the Founding Fathers intended, the people don't elect either the President or Senators. In fact, and this may not surprise some people, the President is -not- representative of the People. That's not his purpose, nor was it ever designed to be his purpose. He represents the fifty states, i.e. the United States as a legal term. That's why we use the Electoral College to elect him, not the popular vote (much to many people's anger...which is unfounded anyway). The Senate is another issue. While the 17th amendment allows them to be directly elected by the people, this wasn't the intention either. They represent the State, not the People. And any bill has to go through both houses before it reaches the President. But since they're elected by the people, you do run that 'stacked deck' option you sometimes run into.

      In any regard, please read up on who you're talking about when you reference the Founding Fathers. There are few people past, present, or future, that rivaled the political intelligence the founding fathers possessed.
  • way2muchsense, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2No guts. None. I would suggest to those who want more and better Democrats in Congress to shift their emphasis to the White House. Congress is broken, and they'll just go along with whoever is in the Oval Office on anything important because they really don't want to do the heavy lifting, so find a good candidate for President and hope that person has coattails.
  • pilgrim3970, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1"Wow, as if the Democrats didn't have enough going wrong for them already. They just do whatever Bush says now apparently. Spineless pussies."

    I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that the big, bad, Bush has some sort hold on these folks and can force them to do whatever strikes his fancy but I suppose it is better than admitting that partisanship is nothing but a scam and that they all - Republican and Democrat - really have the same goals, they just pander to whoever they think they can get the most votes from. So it isn't a battle of ideologies but a battle for personal power.
  • entrophize, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2WHY DO YOU PEOPLE DIGG FROM FOX NEWS?

    Don't you REALIZE you're only feeding the problem by propagating this hyped-up and contrived *****?

    Unreal. Seriously.
    • zeromous, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I often wonder this myself. I call them anti-sheep.

      Worst thing you can do is actually visit this link and tell Fox news that no matter that what they print they can count on you for an ad impression or two (and hopefully some of your mindshare).
  • jbmcb, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I heard an interesting hypothesis on the radio today. The Democrats in congress continue to fund military action in Iraq because, if they cut funding and we withdraw, they'd be blamed for what happens in Iraq next. There's a good chance that there would be a nasty civil war, funded by the Saudis, Syrians, Turks and Iranians. Images of that war would be plastered all over TV during the presidential elections, it would be bad news for the Democrat ticket. When it's most politically expedient, they'll probably pull the troops out.
  • Elwayish, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0dildoolielly id leave then you classless trash .... Fing kill yourself .... do us all a fav
  • OC73, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Notice when you read up and down this thread how many people think standing up to Bush is a sign of strength, while standing up to terrorists, and supporting the troops fighting them, is an example of weakness.

    What utter lunacy.
    • orangefly, on 12/20/2007, -2/+0typical spin on the situation....
      bill....is that you....???....
  • pcpimpster, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2If this is still happening, we shouldnt leave Iraq.
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/19/iraq.tor ...
  • No1ofnote, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Bush is a jerk. I'd shut down the government just to end this a@sinine war. I'd say screw it, everyone go home. (and yes, I do work for the government, but it would soooo be worth it.)

    6+ years of GOP bungling and ineptitude have given America:
    NO Immigration Reform
    NO Social Security Reform
    NO Border Security
    NO Health Care Reform
    NO Capture of Osama Bin Laden

    But, in all fairness, we did get to spend 160 billion dollars on the Iraq War of Mass Deception.
    This amount of expenditure could have funded:
    • 6 years of global anti-hunger programs
    • 1,446,714 additional units of public housing in the USA
    • basic immunization for every child in the world for 53 years
    • paid for 21,281,000 kids in Head Start
    • funded worldwide AIDS programs for 16 years

    Vote GOP? NEVER AGAIN
  • Nocturnalis, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I hear a lot of talk about revolution but are the ones speaking it truly ready to die to change the current system? Seriously... when America has elections we vote and see what happens, then go about our business when the victor is chosen. In other countries in the world when election time comes around it's really a revolutionary situation. People of opposing parties really kill each other. The murder rate goes through the roof.

    Are we ready for that here in the US? If not stop throwing out the word as if it means just walking down the street with picket signs.
  • Zlorp, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1We are not at war with anything. "war on terror" is just a term used like "war on christianity" both are untrue and used by fear mongers to manipulate people.
  • rohit12, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1why r they spending so much at war. they can spend this money for the upliftment of the poor nations and to eradicate poverty from this planet, this way they can even curb terrorism. when every one has some constructive work to do then they will not turn towards terrorism, thats my personal opinion.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.