PHOTOS: The $592 Million U.S. Embassy In Iraq
PHOTOS: The $592 Million U.S. Embassy In Iraq
Construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq, set to open in September, is projected to cost $592 million, with a staff of 1,000 people and operating costs totaling $1.2 billion a year. It will be a 104-acre complex, which is the size of approximately 80 football fields. On May 10, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized the ballooning size and cost of the embassy in a hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
Now, having said over and over again that we don’t want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq, we’re building the largest embassy that we have — probably the largest in the world — in Baghdad. And it just seems to grow and grow and grow. … We agree that we should focus our aid locally not in Baghdad, but we have 1,000 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad. You add the contractors and the local staff it comes to 4,000.
The architectural firm designing the embassy, Berger Define Yaeger, has posted the designs for the colossus on its website. Some previews of the compound’s planned swimming pool and tennis courts:
The complex “will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.”
The U.S. embassy is likely to create even greater Iraqi resentment toward the U.S. occupation. While Americans will be living in posh quarters, the citizens of Baghdad are forced to survive with just 5.6 hours of electricity a day. Baghdad was also recently rated the world’s worst city in which to live.
UPDATE: The residence of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will be 16,000 square feet. The deputy chief of mission in Iraq will have a “cozy cottage” measuring 9,500 square feet.
Wow!!! looks like we are staying awhile eh?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pmMaybe once it is done, the people of Iraq will follow the example of the people of Iran and occupy it for themselves.
BTW, how useful is a god damned pool when everywhere you go you have to be wearing a bulletproof vest? Such a freaking waste of our money.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pmAnd in Indiana, it’s only going to cost us $100,000 for our new football stadium….$693 million…. maybe they should go with a soccer stadium instead…. it would be more popular…..
May 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThey don’t need to just worry about the resentment of the Iraqi people. I don’t think the American people are going to be thrilled with all the glitz or the price when it gets out to the general public.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmand our Harvard MBA pres signed off on it.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmsorry, I meant $100 million more for the football stadium than the embassy…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“You add the contractors and the local staff it comes to 4,000.” -leahy
local? …ya think? ….hell, they brought it foreigners to BUILD the place…
this is such a kick in the stomach to the iraqis…
and to me and mine, for that matter…
for shame…
but it’s about time this got some actual print and focus…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pmget it out there…
wait for 1 years time it will be full of bullet holes and mortar cracks , It will be a constant reminder to the iraqi people of Occupation , it will get hit by rocket propelled grenades everyday . will look like a bombay shanti town within 2 years
May 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pmThe Ugly American Embassy.
Ugh.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pmRegulation swimwear for the US Embassy Swimming Pool in Iraq:
May 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmhttp://www.beautifuliron.com/ images/ Armour16thcentbFrontquart_small.jpg
um……yeah. THIS is sure going to make America safe. Expanding the empire. or was that just a building to be friendly?
I sometimes have a hard time believing that this kind of insanity goes on and on - every single day.
This type of policy - imperialism - is sure to bring us more violence and war. Hopefully we can stop it someday…
Some thoughts:
“Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?”
May 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ is_imperial_liquidation_possible_for_america
snipers get ready go
May 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmeeew. It looks so boxy…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmIt’s OK, the Democratic lead congress will put it in check. All is fine.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI hope its cholrine gas proof and Kartosh rocket resistant
May 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmThis administration has no sense of shame. Disgusting.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmmy brother in law is an architect. these plans are hideous-give him the job!!!!(as long as I get a kickback-that’s the American way, right P1, Saywhat and the rest???)
May 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmYep it is the size of the Vatican, and Bush can someday go rule from there as a Pope. Thank the Congress for continueing to fund the Iraq fiasco and giving money to build this montrous Embassy in Baghdad.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pmLooks like a huge, comfy place for the Iraqis to take hostages some day.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pmCan we get a story on the 14 permanent military instillations we’re also building in Iraq?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pmUse google image search
http://images.google.co.uk/ images?hl=en&q=US%20Embassy%20In%20Iraq&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Its such an easy target for snipers across river and mortar rounds
PROBLEM IS CAR BOMBERS WAITING OUTSIDE … ALL THE TIME
May 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pmCan’t you read? One of the office buildings is planned to be converted into a school. This is a great thing for the Iraqis and they will be so thankful to us for building this for them. :)
May 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pmwho approved this monstrosity? This couldn’t have been planned after March 2003. It is obvious this was in the works for a long time. I am sick of this group of LIARS.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pmThe open air pool will be deemed unsafe, so a multi-million dollar roof will be constructed over it, using rebar and cement. Most of the buildings on the edge of the complex are built like bunkers anyways.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pmNow I wonder what the new Iraq leader will think of this building. I remember Bush bombed Saddam’s homes maybe Al Sadr will look at this as a repayment. Let’s hope the new leader of Iraq doesn’t ask for all the rebuilding of what we destroyed. As the US taxpayers got broke the Bush Administration is spending as much as possible and giving big business money by the ton before Bush’s term is over. Now when Americans see the debt Bush as put us in and the repayment for damages done look for the media to blame Clinton for all the troubles.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThat’s not an embassy. That’s a walled compound.
I’m half surprised it isn’t shaped like a giant oil rig.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWe’re the great liberators!
May 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmWill our troops be allowed to use the same facilty that the oil pirates use?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 11/ 07/ thinkfast-election-day-edition/
According to that post the Democratic lead congress is going to clean up this kind of thing. Quit worrying already.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmYa know, I bet you can waterboard a whole lotta them there insurgents at one time in that pool.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSomeone explain to me how this is different than one of saddam’s palaces rising from the desert and overlooking the abject poverty of the average iraqi…
Oh that’s right, this “embassy” is actually larger and better built than saddam’s palaces…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pmif i wanted a foolproof way to keep the insurgency going, it would be to build a pool in the middle of a city of people who can’t get clean drinking water. heckuva job.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmDM > look at the plot drawing above. The complex looks to be in the shape of a meat clever. Since heads are chopped off in Iraq, it seems to be appropriate.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmmost of those 80 football fields are a buffer for RPGs, etc.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pmLike I have said many times over, “We are never leaving Iraq.”
The con-artists that govern this country know we are not leaving, ever, they want to control the Middle East Oil, and not to get more oil, the goal is to control the oil, as in less oil, so that Oil companys can make obsene profits by refining LESS oil…for those that have not figured this out yet.
Hating our corrupt politicans daily.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmthe mortars will make that pool a much less desirable hangout than the pic would make it appear
May 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmYAHOOOOO!
THIS HERE IS SOVERIGN IRAQ, FOLKS!!!!!
AIN”T FREEDOM GREAT!!!!! LET’S GIVE THEM IRAQIS A HAND FOLKS! AIN”T SHE A BEAUTY! WHOOOOOEEEEE! WE COLDN”T A DONE IT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!
May 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pmWell, this will probably turn out to be one expensive pile of rubble someday. Fantastic. Please, just give me 1/100th of the funds this will cost (and there’s NO WAY this will stay on bugdet, btw) so I can quit my job and retire a VERY happy man.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pmThey can always employ massage therapists to pump up the economy. Beyond appauling use of tax money. Hello Halliburton, our government in exile.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pmStand up. Take three steps forward, turn right, take three steps, right again three steps, right again three steps.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pmYou have just outlined one sqare meter.
The embassy encompasses over 420,000 of these.
BushCo. nepotism alert
- that design is right out of the ‘futuristic’ sixties Howard Johnson’s?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThis is what my tax dollars are going for?? Why don’t they use the $$$$ and buy much needed ARMOR FOR OUR TROOPS! I think this is an outrage. Bush’s blood money built this. My gosh….look at that pool! My opinion….and I stand by it. I bet our enemies will have this embassy blown up in 6 months.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmHow are the Iraqis planning to use it when we leave in 2009?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmYa’ think they designed a helicopter pad on the roof? Look how handy it would be in light of our past experience in Veitnam. I’m willing to wager that we never use the Embassy (we might use the footprint as a garrison - but not as an “Embassy” in the true sense of the word).
Wonder who’s making the big money on this debacle.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm$593 million?
Hmph, that’s about 15 minutes of welfare services provided by the government.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pmthis “embassy†is actually larger and better built than saddam’s palaces…
Comment by mongo — May 29, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
larger, ok… but i really doubt it is “better built”…
it’s on record that the outside contractors have built nothing but shit,
May 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pmfalling to pieces before even occupied, or finished…
…
At 104 acres, this place will be bigger than Disneyland.
http://www.themeparks.com/dland/dland-funfacts.htm
May 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI sent the following to members of Congress last week:
US Fortress Embassy In Baghdad
Wednesday 23rd of May 2007
by Jay Randal
The NEW humongous US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, is due to be completed this coming September, costing taxpayers $592 million and covering 104 acres of land.
Vatican sized fortress enclave will include 27 buildings, and house 615 staff in bomb-proof fortifications, with 16,000 square feet palace for Ambassador to reside in.
His deputy/2nd-in-command will live in a 9,500 square feet residence, while everyone else will get modest one-bedroom apartments, and guards housed in barracks.
The compound will have Olympic size pool, gym, and communal commissary for meals, with its own power generators, water supply and sewage treatment facility.
While the residents of Baghdad live in abject squalor, without electricity except for few hours daily and dirty water to drink, the embassy staff will live like royalty.
Iraq’s population will gaze from afar at the lighted US citadel of imperialism, angered in growing resentment, and someday might even storm the American Bastille.
(Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
[NOTE: The TP article mentions the Embassy will have a staff of 1,000, so the project is being escalated in size to house more personnel now]
May 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pm#35, I agrre with you 110%. Leaving Iraq is not going to happen in this or the next administration. We’ve left Saudi Arabia (just like Bin Laden wanted) and moved our stake to Iraq. The U.S. footprint in the middle east is growing every year so we can drive our S.U.V.s to the mall to buy a 72″ T.V. for watching Fox News.
Yep, ain’t democracy grand?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pmTo take back our country we need to Impeach Cheney and then Bush!
Please print out the form to get signatures to Impeach Cheney!
Impeach Cheney
May 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pmYou know it’s really damning news when the trolls stay clear of a topic. Come on trolls, let’s hear how this is really needed to keep us safe from the terrorist threat. That would certainly be good for a laugh.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWhat? no golf course?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm“larger, ok… but i really doubt it is “better builtâ€â€¦
it’s on record that the outside contractors have built nothing but shit,
falling to pieces before even occupied, or finished…
…
Comment by katy”
Ok, then built “as well as” saddam’s palaces, which were notorious for their potemkin-village level of opulence and construction quality.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pmNotice the date of completion of the Embassy is this coming September. The same time the Congress claims they will evaluate the situation in Iraq, so this is not a coincidence. Bush will proclaim the Embassy open in September, with huge press fanfare, and the Congress will continue the funding for the rest of Bush’s presidency. President Hillary Clinton will say we cannot abandon this huge complex, so we must remain till every drop of OIL is extracted from Iraq.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pmHas there ever been a more appropriate symbol that this government doesn’t have a f*cking clue about why Americans are so loathed in the Middle East? Though this is a monument to almost sixty years of ham-handed imperialism, I’m quite sure it will breed no resentment toward the United States. Heckuva job, Shrubbie!
May 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pmNothing is too good for the capital of the first US colony in the middle east.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#35 Comment by Buck Fush — May 29, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Like I have said many times over, “We are never leaving Iraq.â€
On this I agree completely, unless we are driven out or taken over ala Iran.
However, on this, you don’t go far enough, in my view.
The con-artists that govern this country… want to control the Middle East Oil, and not to get more oil, the goal is to control the oil, as in less oil, so that Oil companys can make obsene profits by refining LESS oil…for those that have not figured this out yet.
The real goal is to finish Plan A, which is complete control of the ME. Iraq was just the first domino. Iran, Syria and the rest to follow. This control of the ME would then mean control the worlds oil supply and essentially make the world beholden to us for their rising energy demands. (Think China and India). The fact that the oil companies will majorily benefit is secondary and not all that important to the neocons. They need the oil companies expertise to get the oil. The companies get the money in return. For the neocons it is not about money (oil), It is about total power! Here and throughout the world. Read the PNAC Report.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pmthis piece is sheer propaganda. sure, it’s OUR propaganda, but it’s STILL propaganda.
come on, what’s with the juxtaposition of those images? it’s what in cinema studies we’d call “sergei eisenstein”.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:05 pmBefore everyone gangs up on this administration for their iraq embassy, you need to check out the embassy *Clinton* wanted to build!
May 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
and is anyone particularly shocked that the americans want a pool in their backyard (in one of the hottest cities on earth)?
how many of us have pools? while others go hungry? eh?
May 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm$593 million?
Hmph, that’s about 15 minutes of welfare services provided by the government.
Comment by m12
And only 1/32nd of the welfare check given to big oil by this administration
May 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pmwho cares about clinton, 59?
May 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pmNote the *troll* signature *troll*, #62! *troll, troll!*
Oh, and I forgot the link…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkshalle
May 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pmAnd only 1/32nd of the welfare check given to big oil by this administration
Well, they didn’t do half as good a job as the last administration, which offered big oil billions of dollars in tax breaks.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pmI’m on Travelocity.com right now booking a room for August. I want a room with an outside view so I can see all the IEDs and suicide bombers!
May 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pmm12,
why do you guys jump to the “Clinton did it” defense all the time. At least Clinton paid for his subsidies. This President has insisted on instituting a tax deferral while he jacks up his spending. THat way he can auction off our childrens financial futures to China through massive borrowing.
The Republican Party has completely abandoned fiscal conservatism.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“$593 million?
Hmph, that’s about 15 minutes of welfare services provided by the government.
Comment by m12″
…and your point is…?
Do you mean: “what’s the big deal if the govt wastes half a billion dollars building a boondoggle palatial embassy that benefits a relative handful of americans given patronage jobs in the worst city in the world, since it’s only a fraction of what the govt spends to benefit millions of american citizens directly through welfare?”
Or is it something else?
Before you criticize govt entitlement programs, I hope you examine how you or your family may be benefitting, or have benefited in the past, from such programs.
E.g., if you’re a retiree, odds are that you’ve received far more from Social Security than you ever paid into it, and those extra $$$ are coming from the backs of current employees like me and my family.
GI Bill, Medicare, Medicaid, and yes Welfare–If you’re down on entitlements, I hope you’re not taking advantage of them. They all have their place in making the US a better society, even if they’re not perfect.
And if you’re wealthy and have never taken advantage of these programs, congratulations on your luck but stop trying to pull the ladder up on the rest of us hoi polloi as we try to get through life and better ourselves.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pmmongo,
Great point, but here comes m12’s response that he/she has never taken a penny or benefitted in anyway from government spending.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThink about it…
At the right time the entire US government will fly over there and then watch the sparks in the US fly in relative safety compared to what it is going to be like here once the depression and race wars hit. Later on they can come back for adventure tours in the new wasteland! I mean who in their right mind would want to be here when the depression hits?
After all Babylon, Mesopotamia or Iraq or whatever you want to call it is the cradle of humanity. From what I read that is the place God sends the big ship to get the 144,000 chosen ones before the four angles lay the Earth to waste. Those chosen ones are loved by God who takes them to the Garden of Eden. There is no doubt that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are the chosen ones. I guess we just burn up?
PAX
May 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pmIt will also feature a :
Super Wal-Mart
T J-Maxx
Best Buy
PetsMart
Home Depot
Starbucks
McDonald’s
and best of all…. covered parking!!
May 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pm“Great point, but here comes m12’s response that he/she has never taken a penny or benefitted in anyway from government spending.
Comment by Crump’s Brother”
…which is of course a lie for anyone in america to say this.
Unless you grow your own food, don’t drive a car on public highways, don’t take prescription or over-the-counter drugs, etc., you can’t escape the benefits of government spending.
The typical conservative seems to like to pick and choose the ills that government has brought upon the country, and use those examples as justification for crushing *all* government, a la norquist. Get rid of government and let the market rule all.
It is possible to see the precise results of this in china today: e.g., cheaper ingredients for toothpaste give a product that competes more effectively in the market–except that there’s an uptick in the number of deaths that result. From a market standpoint, the deaths should be incorporated into the price of the product–except that the makers of the toothpaste will likely find it cheaper to stifle news about the problem, so the mortality rate becomes “an acceptable level” for the market.
Other examples abound…
May 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pmSince Bush’s proposed Presidential Library (snicker) is supposed to cost $500 million, and this monstrosity already has, how about we just move the George W. Bush Presidential Library (snicker) to Bagdad. Since no one but neo-con idiots will want to visit, it’s perfect - they can find out first hand how effective their policies have been. The dedication alone would be fun to watch on TV.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmwhy do you guys jump to the “Clinton did it†defense all the time. At least Clinton paid for his subsidies. This President has insisted on instituting a tax deferral while he jacks up his spending. THat way he can auction off our childrens financial futures to China through massive borrowing.
You think the Democrats care about our children’s financial futures? If they did, they would never have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare liabilites on future generations!
I’ll take the low interest borrowing.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI was looking at the photos and plan of the embassy and thought, “This is a Geraldo moment.”
May 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThe office buildings are here…
The pool is over here…
You wouldn’t want to hit the pool with a mortar when you are aiming for an office building… would you?
Unless you grow your own food, don’t drive a car on public highways, don’t take prescription or over-the-counter drugs, etc., you can’t escape the benefits of government spending.
Funny thing, that is. You can sum up the cost of everything here, and the wars, and just about everything else you can think of, and it doesn’t measure up to the burden that Democratic pyramid schemes place on our children and current workers by their outrageous confiscatory tax rates.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pmGI Bill, Medicare, Medicaid, and yes Welfare–If you’re down on entitlements, I hope you’re not taking advantage of them. They all have their place in making the US a better society, even if they’re not perfect.
Better for the rising population of leeches, maybe. Certainly not better for the shrinking percentage of honest Americans who aren’t that lucky and actually have to pay taxes.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmm12,
“low interest borrowing”? Then you are not a fiscal conservative. You’d rather borrow money that doesn’t need to be borrowed?
I like how you try to avoid the point however. Your party has abandoned fiscal conservative values. Tax and spend is way better than borrow and spend. That low interest borrowing thing you seem ok with, is code for larger debt.
Let me get this straight, you were not happy with economic expansion of the 90’s because a democrat was doing it right? But as long your taxes are low, you don’t care how much debt we put ourselves in? That makes no sense. Please explain.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmIt is possible to see the precise results of this in china today: e.g., cheaper ingredients for toothpaste give a product that competes more effectively in the market–except that there’s an uptick in the number of deaths that result. From a market standpoint, the deaths should be incorporated into the price of the product–except that the makers of the toothpaste will likely find it cheaper to stifle news about the problem, so the mortality rate becomes “an acceptable level†for the market.
China is having annual 9% growth, compared to 3% for us and 1% for the socialist European nations.
Maybe they’re doing something right.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pmOf course the cost is gonna skyrocket to ~1 billion…
Random thought 0: Club Med at the Tigris, then? By invitation only…
Random thought 1: These Harkonnen architects are really at it again.
Random thought 2: And I hope there are large rooftops with helipads.
> Comment by m12
> I’ll take the low interest borrowing.
Deflationary’s more like it.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pmAsk ANY presidential candidate to explain this embassy…..
May 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThey will ALL dance around that question.
You think the Democrats care about our children’s financial futures? If they did, they would never have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare liabilites on future generations! I’ll take the low interest borrowing. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
BAHAHAHA, if you’re referring to the fiasco known as “medicare reform” passed by your *republican* congress - then you really are st*pidest piece of sh*t *ssh*le today!
The major medical liability comes from an out of control pharmaceutical and insurance industry that’s more concerned about “profits” than “healthcare”. Maybe that’s why they lobbied for the government to not have the right to “negotiate” prices? Wow, imagine that! Not having the right to negotiate prices - how “anti-capitalist” of these so-called capitalist enterprises!
Just so you know - child - that’s called “Fascism”, not “Capitalism”.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm#77
No, I was happy with the 1990s economic expansion. After ramming through OBRA 1993, Clinton destroyed the Democratic majority in Congress. But he learned from his mistakes, and didn’t impede the internet boom, which is about all you can ask for.
Too bad modern day Democrats, especially on the state level, haven’t learned a thing. We’ve got Democrats in Michigan trying to buy Ipods. We’ve got Democrats in California labelling taxes as “fees”. We’ve got Democrats in Minnesota hiking the alcohol tax, the gas tax, the income tax, and everything under the sun to pay for the teachers unions. No thanks!
Oh, by the way…our debt is smaller than it was in 1995. Our debt is smaller than Japan’s, France’s, and Germany’s. Unless you think our economy is going to stop growing (John Edwards might succeed in doing this), why exactly is it such a problem?
May 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmBetter for the rising population of leeches, maybe. Certainly not better for the shrinking percentage of honest Americans who aren’t that lucky and actually have to pay taxes. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Rising population of Leeches? How dare you say such things about the Bush family and the rest of the “Permanent-non-working-class”. They can’t help it that they were born rich, privileged and never have to “earn” those “rights”!
May 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmOh, yeah. THAT will really win hearts and minds…
May 29th, 2007 at 3:36 pmI like how you try to avoid the point however. Your party has abandoned fiscal conservative values. Tax and spend is way better than borrow and spend.
Depends on what you’re spending on. Wars eventually end. Entitlements do not; they continue to grow out of proportion.
I know who’s word I’ll take:
“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference
“This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes … Next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital … I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
May 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pmBAHAHAHA, if you’re referring to the fiasco known as “medicare reform†passed by your *republican* congress - then you really are st*pidest piece of sh*t *ssh*le today!
The major medical liability comes from an out of control pharmaceutical and insurance industry that’s more concerned about “profits†than “healthcareâ€. Maybe that’s why they lobbied for the government to not have the right to “negotiate†prices? Wow, imagine that! Not having the right to negotiate prices - how “anti-capitalist†of these so-called capitalist enterprises!
Just so you know - child - that’s called “Fascismâ€, not “Capitalismâ€.
Congress dictating prices to private enterprise? You are absolutely right. That is Fascism.
Oh, by the way, Medicare D is a lot smaller than Medicare A and B. You can thank Lyndon Johnson for those.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRising population of Leeches? How dare you say such things about the Bush family and the rest of the “Permanent-non-working-classâ€. They can’t help it that they were born rich, privileged and never have to “earn†those “rightsâ€!
Oh, Paris Hilton and company are definitely leeches. But they’re leeching off their ancestors, not me.
Best of luck to them.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI would like to know if any of the money we just gave Bush as an emergency appropriation is going towards this abomination. The one thing that the Democrats can do right now without fear of RepubliCON retribution is to choke off all monies going towards this embassy and towards the building of permanent bases in Iraq.
Because the Democrats have not moved in this direction, I fear greatly that they really do plan on leaving us in Iraq for many years. I fear that they didn’t get the message that the US public wants us OUT OF IRAQ and that means totally out, not leaving thousands behind to protect our stolen oil interests.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmGood Grief! Where is American’s mind? Have we gone crazy? This is unconscionable. The embassy will become the new Alamo. Besieged by terrorist and the continuing and endless front of war. The army will have to stay to protect it.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pmm12,
Nice Kennedy quotes. I’m not sure Kennedy can help us here. So you are down with the Republican’s philosophy of borrow heavy and expand the spending?
Further, the current budget deficit numbers that you see, have nothing to do with war spending. That’s why we never see the war spending in the official budget. It’s always a ’supplemental’. It’s debt on top of the actual deficit number. For instance, if the deficit last year was around $300 million, then you have to add the $120 billion just levied for continuing the occupation of Iraq.
I have quotes for you
“Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
“The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
“Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth He made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820.
“It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, “never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith.” On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
“Our government has not as yet begun to act on the rule of loans and taxation going hand in hand. Had any loan taken place in my time, I should have strongly urged a redeeming tax.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm“Before everyone gangs up on this administration for their iraq embassy, you need to check out the embassy *Clinton* wanted to build! Comment by Troll-troll-trolly-troll-troll”
Waa Waa….but, but, Clinton did it.
Idiot Alert.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pmWow!!!!!
May 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWhat a nice, big, fat, arrogant, soon-to-be-wasted target.
I wonder who the contractors are.
Do I hear the Haliburton spirit song in the background?
Saddam’s latest palace! Ooops, the new US Embarrassy.
How many Blackwater mercenaries and US troops is it going to take to secure this leviathan? I sure hope air cover is factored in, or at the very least, that the interior has clear, brightly-lit pathways to the helipad on the roof….
May 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI would like to hear our great Decider-in-Chief questioned about this massive embassy and the ludicrous costs. Actually, I have never heard one word mentioned on mainstream tv about the embassy.
Isn’t it time someone asked a few questions and demanded some answers? Every prepared utterance of this idiot president is the same old lying garbage. Hey, W, we are not listening anymore!
May 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pmthey should have designed it in the shape of mr magoo with flashing neon question marks decorating the outside walls or a target with flashing neon arrows pointing toward it. those architects suck.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#89
Thomas Jefferson was right about one thing. Once the federal government got involved in education, Social Security, Medicare, and other intergeneration transfers, everything has started to go badly, and deficit spending has been the consequence. The Bush administration and the current Congress have trillions of dollars in mandatory spending established by their predecessors.
Kennedy’s principle is quite simple. By lowering tax rates, you grow the size of the pie, and a smaller slice of a larger pie ends up being a larger piece. It worked then, and it’s working now.
Oh, and fiscal responsibility? The new Democrats decided to stick billions of dollars in unrelated domestic pork in the war funding bill. And who is going to pay for Edwards-care?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmFurther, the current budget deficit numbers that you see, have nothing to do with war spending. That’s why we never see the war spending in the official budget. It’s always a ’supplemental’. It’s debt on top of the actual deficit number. For instance, if the deficit last year was around $300 million, then you have to add the $120 billion just levied for continuing the occupation of Iraq.
That’s not true at all.
http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/officialdebt.html
Official Debt
and Public Debt
Congress has divided government spending into two classes, depending on whether it is accounted for on-budget or off-budget. Most spending, including interest on the debt, is on-budget. Spending on programs with dedicated taxes is considered off-budget, the largest being Social Security. The term unified budget refers to the combined on-budget and off-budget items. The unqualified terms budget deficit or budget surplus refer to the unified budget.
Any spending by the government not covered by tax revenues is financed out of the receipts from debt securities sold by the Treasury to the public. That means the increase in public debt is the net deficit from both on-budget and off-budget spending.
The Iraq supplementals aren’t included in the President’s budget proposals, but they are included in the deficit values.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmm12,
OK, I would love for you to tell us how you feel about the econmic record of the Repubs over the last 6 years when they had all real power to decrease spending and taxes. They only did one. Are you happy with that party’s position?
Are you a borrow and spend Republican?
I realize you probably aren’t. But yet you rail against the Democrats as though they are the ones who spell doom for our economy. I understand you want to see the end of spending on certain programs, but fortunately for hte rest of us, the majority of the country likes Medicare, Education, Social Security, roads, and other programs like that. If they didn’t they would be gone.
Americans rerally don’t like big business hand outs. IT’s a matter of priority. Are we going to set up programs that try to help the least among us, or are we going to continue to help those that need no help?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmfinally had a chance to read cindy’s “letter”, and just heard randi read it on the air… it’s short and to the point…
ThinkProgress should run the whole thing, complete, on a thread…
cindy had so much to say to so many people about so many things…
hopefully this will wake up a lot of people and get us moving…
someone’s gotta do it…
and, as i guessed, she’s not done… “there are still people dying”, she just told randi, calling in…
May 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmgood on cindy!
…
m12, you can divert the topic all you want.
There is still a 104 acre embassy Iraqis wont forget.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmi meant that for the FAST thread… please excuse the off topic…
still, it couldn’t have hurt to read it here…
May 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm…
OK, I would love for you to tell us how you feel about the econmic record of the Repubs over the last 6 years when they had all real power to decrease spending and taxes. They only did one. Are you happy with that party’s position?
They did a poor job with Medicare D, farm subsidies, and several other policies, and that’s why they got voted out in the end.
I realize you probably aren’t. But yet you rail against the Democrats as though they are the ones who spell doom for our economy. I understand you want to see the end of spending on certain programs, but fortunately for hte rest of us, the majority of the country likes Medicare, Education, Social Security, roads, and other programs like that. If they didn’t they would be gone.
It doesn’t matter what the public wants; these programs are going to go belly up in a few years.
Americans rerally don’t like big business hand outs. IT’s a matter of priority. Are we going to set up programs that try to help the least among us, or are we going to continue to help those that need no help?
How about we don’t set up programs at all?
May 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pmPity the grunts, those who have to guard the place and watch the shells and listen to the screams of those trapped inside. Won’t be pretty!!
May 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pmBTW, the line is 100,000 to 1 against dubya or deadeye dick on condi ever spending one night there.
Now, I finally catch up on what US government meant when they talked about rebuilding the country.
Wow, and a pool!
May 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pmI’m on Travelocity.com right now booking a room for August. I want a room with an outside view so I can see all the IEDs and suicide bombers!
Comment by Larry from C — May 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Maybe they’ll start selling timeshares and we can all meet in Baghdad once a year. Yippee.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThis reminds me of an old Shel Silverstein song from way back “I’m standing on the outside of your shelter, looking in”.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm“How about we don’t set up programs at all?
Comment by m12″
Fair enough.
That’s the way the country was prior to the new deal etc. And that’s pretty much where the current administration is taking us.
If you mean literally *no programs* at all, that also means no programs for corporate entities either; no subsidies for farming, energy companies, auto manufacturers, defense contractors, etc., and the resulting true costs to companies in these fields need to be incorporated into their prices.
You might not be all that happy with what you end up paying for bread at that point, or for fresh fruit and vegetables, or for gas, etc. But your taxes will certainly be lower and you’ll be able to keep a lot more of your earnings.
Of course, it will *cost* you a lot more of your earnings to cover the true prices that result, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmThey did a poor job with Medicare D, farm subsidies, and several other policies, and that’s why they got voted out in the end. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
They got voted out, because they’re as incompetent at governing, as you are at *commenting*.
It doesn’t matter what the public wants; these programs are going to go belly up in a few years. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
You Leo Strauss/Trickle Down wingnuts have been screaming that for decades. Didn’t you know that’s why your wingnut leaders have been so UNConservative for the last two decades? They’ve been trying to drown the baby in the bathwater, and f*ck the national economy so we can’t afford any social programming. That’s right. You wingnuts would rather commit economic suicide, than help poor people. Talk about about a bunch of f*cked in the head lunatics!
How about we don’t set up programs at all?
Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
More baby with the bathwater nonsense. Perhaps you should visit some of those third world countries that don’t have any of those programs, and see what it’s like? Or just read some history that discusses what our country was like before they were here? Let me guess, your family comes from “Recent Immigrants”? Asian? Middle Eastern? What is it - child?
Fed the b*llsh*t that you 100% own your own success? If that were true, your family wouldn’t have migrated to this country, where the government has *helped* people succeed for decades - or hadn’t that dawned on your mentally r*t*rded *ss?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmI feel very sorry for the decent inabitants of Baghdad. In the wrong place at the wrong time, they risk being blown to bits by their fellow countrymen or fellow Muslims.
TP if you wish to make a more “anti- US” statement, showing pics of Muslims living in the midst of Muslim destruction is not the way to do it. How about pics of the Sunni operated “house of torture” - nah…..that’s another radical-Muslim triumph! Show photos of US destroyed markets, and school rooms, and hospital wards…..there aren’t photos since the “occupation” of the Great Satan’s destructiveness?
Funniest pundit question over the weekend, “Why do you think Sunni’s were held and tortured by fellow Sunnis?” Maybe these were men who were sick of the treatment meted out by their neighbours?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmGREAT!! I remember seeing this at least a year ago, actually. This should be all over the news.. it really should. And I wonder how many Iraqis they hired to help with the construction?? Pitiful. What a sad shame. I’m sure it’ll be the target of countless attacks..
May 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmThe Marshall Plan after WW II cost $13.3 billion from April of 1948 to June of 1952. That’s in 1950 dollars. Adjusting for inflation the cost in 2003 dollars of the Marshall Plan is about $102 billion.
Considering that we will shortly have spent over $500 Billion on Iraq, we can certainly deduce that the policy is fiscal disaster and that bang for the buck is an oxymoron.
The Embassy embassy in Iraq with of over 1000 people will have equivalent 1/6 of the State’s overseas employees–knowing that many, if not most are intelligence people and military types assigned to the embassy.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmOF COURSE . THERE IS NO I MEAN NO AMERICAN TOO STAND UP TO STOP THIS MADNESS.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmI hope the embassy roof can accomodate the helicopter evacuation ala Saigon, 1975. It WILL be needed, only a matter of when.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmIf you mean literally *no programs* at all, that also means no programs for corporate entities either; no subsidies for farming, energy companies, auto manufacturers, defense contractors, etc., and the resulting true costs to companies in these fields need to be incorporated into their prices.
You might not be all that happy with what you end up paying for bread at that point, or for fresh fruit and vegetables, or for gas, etc. But your taxes will certainly be lower and you’ll be able to keep a lot more of your earnings.
Of course, it will *cost* you a lot more of your earnings to cover the true prices that result, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too.
That’s quite fine with me. Farm subsidies are just pork written by a bunch of Midwest Congressmen from both parties to hold their seats.
Oh, as for the price of food? The average family spent 22% of their income on food in 1951, compared to 7% today. With advances in technology and global competition, we hardly need farm subsidies (which, by the way, show no evidence of reducing the price of food at all!)
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/money_01.html
May 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pmYou Leo Strauss/Trickle Down wingnuts have been screaming that for decades. Didn’t you know that’s why your wingnut leaders have been so UNConservative for the last two decades? They’ve been trying to drown the baby in the bathwater, and f*ck the national economy so we can’t afford any social programming. That’s right. You wingnuts would rather commit economic suicide, than help poor people. Talk about about a bunch of f*cked in the head lunatics!
Really? With unemployment at under 4%, inflation around 2.5%, and GDP growth for the past 20 quarters, we neocons aren’t doing a very good job at f*cking the national economy.
It’s not like doing so is difficult. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
Tell me: with GDP growth of 3% and Medicare A/B programs rising at 9%, how exactly is that sustainable?
It’s a shame, really, that the John Kennedy Democrats are dead. He wouldn’t even have a place in his brother’s party.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pmThe military and Bush want you and I to think we are struggling in Iraq. Considering the actual amount of time spent in Iraq, US casualties are light. In full out wars thousands have been killed in moments.
The news tells us that there is this ongoing “troop surge” and all of these problems needing an even greater surge. In the water another US Battle Group arrives to apply pressure on Iran. So many bases and “pressure” from troop buildup and naval battle groups spells that the “surge” in reality is a “staging action” for the attack on Iran.
If the generals wanted to they could use creeping bombardments and saturation bombing to wipe out all of the population they want in Iraq. If they did that the conflict would end and the troops would come home and that would mess up the bigger plans in Iran, etc.
Those that insist that the PNAC is done might be wrong since the result of their plan is One World Government (NWO). Why go all this way and simply stop? Why get Bush all of those war powers and never use them? Kill nearly a million and loose a few thousand is not proof that we are losing.
In my opinion they want to keep you guessing and then the next shoe drops.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pm#81
May 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThe national debt accrued by this administration is greater than all of the previous presidents combined. You don’t have a problem with this? Your kids great-grandkids might when they are still paying it off.
The national debt accrued by this administration is greater than all of the previous presidents combined. You don’t have a problem with this? Your kids great-grandkids might when they are still paying it off.
The legal obligation of Social Security and Medicare into perpetuity total around $80 trillion. You don’t have a problem with this?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThat’s quite fine with me. Farm subsidies are just pork written by a bunch of Midwest Congressmen from both parties to hold their seats. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Actually, most farm subsidies are written by and for “Large” agri-corporations. In particular ADM and Con-Agra almost exclusively. Small farmers get little to no subsidies.
Oh, as for the price of food? The average family spent 22% of their income on food in 1951, compared to 7% today. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Yes, and the average farmer could make a decent wage, because he wasn’t having to fight a “subsidized” mega-corporation. That same average family also didn’t have to send their kids to pre-school, after-school, nor two incomes to afford that “average” family amount. You do realize that in 1951 the average family had one wage, whereas it now has 2? You also realize that housing costs have risen, and that many people still can’t afford food because that “average” is skewed by the divergence of the wealthy and the poor?
In 1951 the “average” family could get a job working in a factory, and have a nice life - bah, not anymore!
With advances in technology and global competition, we hardly need farm subsidies (which, by the way, show no evidence of reducing the price of food at all!) Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Ah, the ignorance and bliss of another wingnut talking point…
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Agricultural_subsidies#United_States
May 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pm“That’s quite fine with me. Farm subsidies are just pork written by a bunch of Midwest Congressmen from both parties to hold their seats.
Oh, as for the price of food? The average family spent 22% of their income on food in 1951, compared to 7% today. With advances in technology and global competition, we hardly need farm subsidies (which, by the way, show no evidence of reducing the price of food at all!)
Comment by m12″
Farm subsidies aren’t the only factor impacting prices. You also have energy, water, and logistics costs that are impacted to one degree or another by government programs and help to stabilize prices.
Your information from the ’50’s fails to take into account the impact that globalization has on income levels in the developed world, which in this country are only being driven down.
The prices of overseas food are low now, but globalization will also drive them up; and although this country still has agencies like the FDA to protect the food supply, this administration is doing its best to eliminate such oversight agencies due to their adverse impact on food costs. Overseas sources of food such as China don’t bother with such notions as food safety, so their food is cheaper, but it’s also less safe.
You mention “advances in technology.” Who is going to invest in advances in technology if cheap food is available without them?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThe legal obligation of Social Security and Medicare into perpetuity total around $80 trillion. You don’t have a problem with this? Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Oh - puhlease… That’s such a loaded piece of sh*t. The people that benefit from those programs are the same that pay in for the most part. Those are *insurance* systems, that come out of wages…
You realize what the “legal” obligation of drivers are in this country for owning cars is - right? Since you also have to have car insurance to drive? Just like you have to have social security and medicare to ‘work’?
You’re such an idiot.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm“The legal obligation of Social Security and Medicare into perpetuity total around $80 trillion. You don’t have a problem with this?
Comment by m12″
Of course, you’re not comparing apples to apples in your response but that’s never stopped you before…
Existing entitlement programs need to be revised (e.g. social security originally assumed most people would be dead by age 65); there’s probably less political will required to make such revisions than to kill the program outright.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmReally? With unemployment at under 4%, Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Well since Ronald RayGun changed the laws so that only those eligible to receive ‘benefits’ are counted as ‘unemployed’, this is in fact an incorrect number.
inflation around 2.5%, Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
This is *not* a happy figure for most economists, especially considering our poor GDP showing.
and GDP growth for the past 20 quarters, Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
That’s b*llsh*t. First we have a collapsing currency, so growth must be weighed against the loss in value in the dollar. Second the growth has mostly been anemic, considering the *collapse* that preceded it. This is one of the *worst* economic recoveries in history - but don’t let that “fact” cloud your st*pidity…
we neocons aren’t doing a very good job at f*cking the national economy. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
B*llsh*t. Most wallstreet growth is based on three factors. Housing, Cars and foreign investment by American companies. The first two are reaching their peak, and about to f*ck us royally - just like Bush’s inaction on the stock market f*cked us 5 years ago.
You neocon f*ckers can’t wipe your ass without flinging shit - the economy is no different! *ssh*le!
It’s not like doing so is difficult. Just ask Jimmy Carter. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
You mean the man that inherited the f*cked up oil embargo from Nixon, and an already disastrous economy? The man that put many measures in place that finally started yielding results under RayGun?
Tell me: with GDP growth of 3% and Medicare A/B programs rising at 9%, how exactly is that sustainable? Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
By getting control of the health “profit” industry that is largely price gouging the public? How about universal health care - since the rest of the ‘western’ countries aren’t facing the ‘free market profiteering’ we’re facing?
It’s a shame, really, that the John Kennedy Democrats are dead. He wouldn’t even have a place in his brother’s party. Comment by m12 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Oh puhlease! What a st*pid remark. Kennedy started the “war on poverty” you NeoNaziCon idiot.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pmOh and m12, Clinton had 4 out of 8 years with over 4% *REAL* GDP growth, how many years has Bush had that were over 4% - ZERO!
Clinton’s “Bad” years, still outstripped the targets for this year. Q1 only saw 1.3% growth - and this year is forecasted to be worse than Clinton’s “worst” year that caused you “NeoNaziCons” to claim the economy was in the toilet…
I just “love” how you want your stories “both ways”…
May 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pmYou mean the man that inherited the f*cked up oil embargo from Nixon, and an already disastrous economy? The man that put many measures in place that finally started yielding results under RayGun?
Rofl! The misery index was at 13.5 in 1976, and 20.8 when Carter left office!
B*llsh*t. Most wallstreet growth is based on three factors. Housing, Cars and foreign investment by American companies. The first two are reaching their peak, and about to f*ck us royally - just like Bush’s inaction on the stock market f*cked us 5 years ago.
The recession is coming!The recession is coming!The recession is coming!The recession is coming!
Oh wait, lefties have been saying that since 2003, and it ain’t here.
Clinton’s “Bad†years, still outstripped the targets for this year. Q1 only saw 1.3% growth - and this year is forecasted to be worse than Clinton’s “worst†year that caused you “NeoNaziCons†to claim the economy was in the toilet…
And it was 3.5% in Q4 2006…I love how you make a trend based on a 3 month outcome.
That’s b*llsh*t. First we have a collapsing currency, so growth must be weighed against the loss in value in the dollar. Second the growth has mostly been anemic, considering the *collapse* that preceded it. This is one of the *worst* economic recoveries in history - but don’t let that “fact†cloud your st*pidity…
May 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pmUh, no, that’s not true at all.
By getting control of the health “profit†industry that is largely price gouging the public? How about universal health care - since the rest of the ‘western’ countries aren’t facing the ‘free market profiteering’ we’re facing?
Medicare is nonprofit, and is Ted Kennedy’s model for universal health care. Medicare also costs American taxpayers about $8000 per person covered per year.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ ReportsTrustFunds/ downloads/ tr2006.pdf
Please explain to me how you are going to reduce Medicare’s growth from 9% to 3%, and what exactly ‘getting control of the health profit industry’ means. Also please explain how the government is going to receive $8000 * 300 million ($2.4 trillion) from.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:37 pmExisting entitlement programs need to be revised (e.g. social security originally assumed most people would be dead by age 65); there’s probably less political will required to make such revisions than to kill the program outright.
And who’s going to make those revisions? The Democrats?
Don’t make me laugh.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pmThat’s such a loaded piece of sh*t. The people that benefit from those programs are the same that pay in for the most part.
The group that takes benefits is growing. The group that pays for it is shrinking.
Nope, not loaded at all. Entitlements face a shortfall in 10 years.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pmsociety today is so corrupt. its actually sickening to work in a prison where the real crooks are running our government
May 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pmThere is no way in hell I would work in Iraq. I seriously need money to pay bills, but I wouldn’t take even a million dollar job in Iraq. No way. I’d be safer walking the streets in DC wearing a thong bikini and giving away crack. Who would work there???
May 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pmthat’s no moon, it’s an embassy.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pmm12 - Party Ideolog . . . “it’s everyone else’s fault blame game” cannot cover the fact that REpugs have sold America’s middle class’s future down the ol’ river - did you mention that 52% of our National debt service is being paid to foreign governements, vs less than 25% in 1995 - tha “balance is being paid” to American Taxpayers (We were paying “ourselves” interest, now China, Korea, Japan, et al gets the “vig”)
May 29th, 2007 at 11:49 pmDo you really think ANY nation needs 108 ACRE Embassy? What would the American reaction be to a Chinese “liberation” of that “damn Democrat” Congress and a 100 Acre “Embassy” on the Patomac, butt up against the Lincoln Memorial? AS long as it wasn’t a “government funded entilement project”, I guess it wouldn’t matter to you . . .
Errrrr……….wasnt someone condeming Saddam Hussain for his lavish palaces……….
May 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pmttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×497774
America’s Gilded Palace in Iraq
http://www.teambio.org/ 2007/ 03/ america%e2%80%99s-gilded-palace-in-iraq
March 24th, 2007
by Tom Harper
How many of you think American forces will ever, ever be pulling out of Iraq? Gotcha! We’re staying and we’re digging in. We’re gonna be that unwanted relative who moved in and never left. And the Iraqis will LIKE it!
We’re building a sprawling embassy in Baghdad. It’ll be the largest American embassy in the world, covering an area the size of Vatican City. Our new imperial palace will be on 104 acres, with 21 buildings and a staff of 5,000. Congress has already appropriated $1 billion toward building this embassy. But don’t worry, we’ll be leaving soon.
Our new fortress/embassy will be occupying the grounds of Saddam Hussein’s former palace. How’s that for symbolism? “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.â€
May 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amTo imagine the American Empire NOT building an Imperial HQ in Baghdad is childishly naive. The symbolic value of resolute and abiding US power alone far exceeds the mere half billion (or billion, or whatever) dollars channeled to Brown Root (or similar) to erect the thing. One need only look to the monumental edifices created by the British in India to understand the imperative to exploit architecture as a medium for authoritatively communicating policy to a recalcitrant local populace.
Assuming the construction technology to assure that these monuments to Bushism endure is, in point of fact, exportable to Iraq (an as of yet unproven hypothesis), it is a missed opportunity of tragic proportion not to further follow the British example and hire competent architects of the order of Sir Edwin Lutyens rather than the designers of what might easily be confused with an ultra-fortified industrial park lost in some unspeakable corner of New Jersey.
But then again, poetic justice may inform the Bush Administration’s choice of designers in the end. Stupid, crude, insensitive and overblown bunkers would serve with remarkable accuracy as enduring architectural metaphors so graphically explicit that even the most dim-witted and illiterate denizens of the Iraqi underclass for many generations to come could scarcely fail to clearly read the buildings’ message.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:14 ami guess they made their own version of u.s by converting their embassy in to a hotel ;)
May 30th, 2007 at 2:53 ami bit too expensive eh ?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:47 amguess there must be reasons …
Doesn’t look too dissimilar from some of Saddam’s palaces, does it. . .
May 30th, 2007 at 4:17 amI agree on a comment before.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:21 amWhy not build hundredds of soccer stadiums instead :-)
How symptomatic. Soviets used to have such grandiose embassies in THEIR satellites too.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:30 am1.2 billion for just 1000 people??? That’s about 1.2 million per person??? Is it me or do i smell something fishy? Come to think of it, probably 50% of those embassy workers will be Iraqi’s… cleaning tha House, valet parking and serving cold drinks on a hot summer day, going home with a $1000 annual salary. Then the other 50% needs $2,4 million just to keep the embassy on a roll for one year?
Lets say your doing a job without to much responsibility like bringing the mail around and you pay check is about $400.000, which is reasonable, then where does the other $2.000.000 go?
This is probably some sort of scam, making George’s friend very very rich letting the American taxpayer pick up the bill? …gas prices will rise!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:03 amIs it me or are they trying to help terrorists life easier by publishing a floorplan on the Internet?
Way to go guys.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:15 amFor Shame!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:22 amThis is disgusting, over half a billion dollars on a mansion when the rest of iraq is a war zone
Americans, I hope you are ashamed
May 30th, 2007 at 5:34 am“Saddams New Palace” - So This is the real power hub of Iraq?? What better way to control the puppet government of an oil rich nation than from what can only be described as a 5star hotel thinly disguised as an embassy? Its sickening really. I mean we all know the US has added iraq to its “neo-empire” but they could at least be a little more subtle in the way they plan on running it.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:01 amFor one thing it will go over budget by several hundred million dollars, and that extra money will be unaccounted for.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:29 amBut seriously, do the Iraqi people really expect Americans to work and live in their dingy houses? Just kidding of course, but I would imagine some of the bureaucrats feel that way.
big palaces being built and big important people ruling the country, jeez what a change from Saddam.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:37 amWhen you think about the cost of this monstrosity, in the long run it will save us money. You’ve got to look at the big picture. By having such a large “hard target” over there, maybe it’ll keep the terrorist occupied so they’ll stay over there. Or maybe not.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:53 amStrangely, the recenntly built Camp Bondsteel in occupied Kosovo is the largest US military base since Vietnam but we dont bother looking at the military implications as well as results of that equally shameful campaign (probably even worse than Iraq where we claimed we were going to fight terrorists since in the balkan conflicts we openly armed and trained various terrorist groups, along with our iranian arms friends, with the same results, desolation, interethnic warfare which we encouraged, lawlessness, ruled by thugs and criminals).
The empire is spreading across the globe…
May 30th, 2007 at 10:37 amGeorge Bush’s government has “borrowed” billions from the Social Security Trust Fund which will likely never be repaid. Remember why Gore wanted to put the SS monies in a lockbox?
I do not understand why it is okay to be buddy-buddy with China; to buy their slave-labor-produced products; to put this country into unbelievable indebtedness to China; i.e. to support a Communist country, yet we are forbidden from visiting or buying products from Cuba because it is communist.
None of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi; most of them were Saudi Arabians.
Yet, the next day when all airflight was forbidden in the US, our Bush government quickly arranged for most Saudis in this country to be flown out on that day.
When someone slaps you, you do not turn around and slap an innocent bystander, nor do you concern yourself with the safety of the slapper’s family!
May 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amRevolt America. The Goverment can only get away with this if we let them. Stand the hell up, cry about the injustice, point the finger at the Devil Bush and let’s get the party started!
May 30th, 2007 at 11:15 amFighting to offer freedom in Iraq, while the freedoms of americians are being diminished here. Enough!
I would think that amount of money could be used to build some more oil refineries. But that might take money out of G. Bush Sr pocket. Jr wouldn’t want that now would he?
so wait, Saddam rolls into power, kills a bunch of people and builds a palace here and there. We oust him, kill a bunch of people and build a pa–embassy on the scale of a palace?
bastards.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:16 amAll this time I thought my tax money was being used to rebuild Iraq, not build a vacation resort for politicians. Ho ho, the joke is on me.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:29 amAfter the invaders leave in larger numbers, and a “protection force” stay behind near the bases and the embassy, they’ll become like medieval castles under siege…green zones will quickly turn into brown zones, and then dead zones. Cut off food supplies more frequently (like what happened last week) and see how long they can stick it out. Getting out hungry will be the least of your worries, gettting out alive will be the main concern…Won’t look like such a cushy assignment anymore if your icecream and pizza are replaced by constant MRE’s..
May 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am