NEW POLL: Is Scott is an aware, decent, ethical human being?

"Jeff" wrote in message
oups.com...

The "supplemental" is part of the budget in disguise. The Bush
Administration plans to increase the size of the standing military.
In
order to do so, they need to build new bases and expand existing
ones
to accomodate them. This planned, fixed expense is NOT included in
the
Pentagon's budget, it was added to the supplemental request so that
ppl
like Miles could claim the military budget was increased just
"3.5%"

Well if you are going to compare budget increases to other
administrations it seems to me that the amount for the War On Terror
not be included if you want to compare apples to apples. But if you
are a Bush hater I can understand how one would want to include those
amounts because accuracy isn't really important in that circumstance.

Well if you are going to compare budget increases to other
administrations it seems to me that the amount for the War On Terror
not be included if you want to compare apples to apples. But if you
are a Bush hater I can understand how one would want to include those
amounts because accuracy isn't really important in that circumstance.


The concern is Budget By Supplemental Request. The Constitution grants
our reprentatives the authority to scrutinize and approve the Federal
budget. The White House is circumventing that process. Congress can't
scrutinze the Pentagon's stealth budget because most of the money is
needed for troops in the field.

Well if you are going to compare budget increases to other
administrations it seems to me that the amount for the War On Terror
not be included if you want to compare apples to apples. But if you
are a Bush hater I can understand how one would want to include those
amounts because accuracy isn't really important in that circumstance.

I'm sure Gulf War Version 1 was included in that 8% quoted before.
Geez pigo why don't you try to think for yourself instead of spouting
off all this tow the line republican crap. If we want your opinion,
we'll just watch Fox.

For those of us who understand what a budget is and how numbers work,
we include all money that the government is planning to spend over the
next budget cycle. Besides the discretionary 'War On Terror', there is
also the required money for social security and who knows what else
that's not being included. The current administration doesn't have a
great track record on truthfullness with the American taxpayer.

wrote:

Geez pigo why don't you try to think for yourself instead of spouting
off all this tow the line republican crap. If we want your opinion,
we'll just watch Fox.

Hey, give Pigo a break!

After all, he's still too busy looking for all those Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq to waste his time thinking. ;-)

Armin

Jeff wrote:

The "supplemental" is part of the budget in disguise. The Bush
Administration plans to increase the size of the standing military. In
order to do so, they need to build new bases and expand existing ones
to accomodate them. This planned, fixed expense is NOT included in the
Pentagon's budget, it was added to the supplemental request so that ppl
like Miles could claim the military budget was increased just "3.5%"


Trouble is the budget increase % has been figured the exact same way for
comparison purposes. Clinton's budget rose 8%/year, Bush Sr. 4% and
those figures were calculated the very same way as this 3.5%. You can't
include this, exclude that unless you also do that for rates you're
comparing against.

Trouble is the budget increase % has been figured the exact same way
for
comparison purposes. Clinton's budget rose 8%/year, Bush Sr. 4% and
those figures were calculated the very same way as this 3.5%. You
can't
include this, exclude that unless you also do that for rates you're
comparing against.

Oh, so what you are saying is all the numbers you quoted are complete
bull****.

Sven Golly wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in news:1108738392.490035.258280
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

The Bush
Administration plans to increase the size of the standing military.
In
order to do so, they need to build new bases and expand existing
ones
to accomodate them.

I don't think this is true. There is still another round of BRAC
coming up
and no new bases are being planned (except maybe in Iraq &
Afghanistan)
that I'm aware of.


I can't find my original source, but based on others that covered this
issue it looks like I may have interpreted monies to accomodate new
troops to mean new bases. It looks more like barracks and equipment.

Scott Abraham wrote:
"miles" wrote in message
news:Eu0Rd.15117$Tt.6507@fed1read05...
Scott Abraham wrote:

Translation: you ain't got the balls to spew your **** in person.
Just
like ALL the freaks who hang out he a usenet pussy.

Translation: Nobody wants to meet a mentally deranged person such
as
yourself. Many years and you can't get over that fact. I don't
come to
usenet to meet people. Is that why you're here?

Translation: you ain't got the balls to spew your **** in person.
Just
like ALL the freaks who hang out he a usenet pussy.

Translation: You seem unstable and it's not rational to make plans to
meet such a person.