Speaking of 9-11 Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks. Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that: the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US a large attack was planned the attack would be on United States soil target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C. the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned hijacked plane missions were anticipated people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed." <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JRY_BOYeySc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ntkoqiNJunE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
are you kidding me? The tech bubble burst and still, everyone that wanted a job had a job. Of course there is going to be little job creation when unemployment is at record lows. How do you not get this? Its not a bad thing to have little job creation when nobody needs jobs and unemployment is at 4%. Its only a bad thing when you need job creation and unemployment is at 10% or higher (like under Obama.
And yet Clinton could've gotten him years earlier and saved us Trillions of dollars in wars and 10s of thousands of lives. (and millions of airport security gropings) http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
You lie again about a $200 billion surplus that never existed. Going to charts straight from the U.S. Treasury... http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm ...we can see that the federal debt has increased in each and every year since 1957. No exceptions. No Clinton "surplus". The deficit as a percentage of GDP did decline during Clinton's last four years, when Republicans controlled both houses of congress. If Gore had been elected president I'm sure we still would have got Medicare D, given that the Democrats are even bigger advocates of government entitlements than are neocons. Quite likely there wouldn't have been that disastrous Iraq war, I'll grant you that. Not more than $2 trillion of the current $15.5 trillion debt can be attributed to the Iraq war (I'm using a high estimate here). (Note: Ultimately the Iraq war may cost on the order of $3 trillion, counting the expense of servicing the debt for the war and the long term extra costs of caring for veterans. However, at least $1 trillion of that isn't on the books yet so doesn't show up in the federal debt.) The federal debt has increased by $9.8 trillion since 2000. That means that at least $7.8 trillion of that increase is due to spending other than the Iraq war. Most of it is due to ballooning government pensions and entitlement spending. Neither party was in any way fiscally responsible when they made their various promises to the baby boomers, and now the baby boomers are starting to retire. So if Gore had been elected the federal debt might be $13.5 trillion instead of $15.5 trillion, but we'd still be in one hell of a hole.
Even if we use your numbers,BUSH STILL INCREASED THE DEFICIT BY OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/...onal-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS President Clinton announces another record budget surplus BUDGET SURPLUS September 27, 2000 President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Like our American athletes in Sydney, we've been breaking records and have come a long way."In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history."The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations."I hope we will see a continuation of this trend in the final budget negotiations," the president said. "I am concerned frankly about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree." Congress, Clinton said, has not adequately funded education programs, strengthened Medicare and funded other domestic priorities set forth by the administration."These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.The president unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House, before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston."This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive years of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was 122.7 billion, and 69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Clinton didn't start an unfunded medicare drug program nor did he try nor did Gore ever say he would start medicare part D so there is nothing to suggest Gore would have.Dont forget about the Bush tax cuts that Gore never would have done.I also doubt Gore would have expanded the government as mush as Bush did http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...nd-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments Iraq war ends with a $4 trillion IOU WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) â The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion. Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually. Although that only represents about 1% of nationâs gross domestic product, itâs more than half of the national budget deficit. Itâs also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year. Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated it would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion. âThe direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you canât easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,â said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces. Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July. Other experts said that was too conservative and anticipate twice that amount. The advance in medical technology has helped more soldiers survive battlefield injuries, but followup care can often last a lifetime and be costly. More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Add in Afghanistan and that number jumps to 47,000. Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University. Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veteransâ disabilities. The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132.2 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older. Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. âWe will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,â said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. âThe U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.â
+1 When the supreme court appointed Bush the color of the sky changed. It pains me to think how much better off we would be now