Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think Bush is going to raid Social Security to finance his war in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:50 AM
Original message
I think Bush is going to raid Social Security to finance his war in Iraq
As his options dwindle and the War seems to be never ending, he is casting a covetous eye on the Social Security Trust Fund to finance his war.He is going to cry wolf against all evidence, promising people the moon through his privatization scheme.This will allow his cronies to loot the system by issuing phony IOU's whil he cleans up now. Don't tell me this is another conspiracy theory.Worse things are happening and have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Um, too late
he's already raided the fund to the tune of about $100B/year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What "fund" might that be since SS has been a direct payment...
from a worker to a retiree since the Johnson administration? All SS money above what is paid out goes into the "general fund" where all govt expenditures are drawn from. SS has been raided for 60 yrs. and the SS fund repaid with IOU's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. We are creating $100B worth of "IOU's"
on an annual basis. The fund won't even begin to cover anticipated payments beginning around 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. That's correct, but most Democrats have dug in their heels and...
want no change to SS. There is no way to pay SS benefits at the current rate beginning in about 6 yrs. but most people in our party have convinced our elected officials that we want to wait until it crashes to fix it. We can do that, but I guarantee that the fix after the crash will be way worse than what the current administration is proposing (and they have not convinced me that the problem in SS is fixable if every single "fix" suggested by everyone is employed, i.e. cut benefits, raise retirement age, borrow more money to let the workers opt out a small portion of their taxes for a separate a/c, etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yep
and it really wouldn't be an issue if there was a budget surplus. That's what gets me about the idiotic Repub meme of "Democrats = tax and spend". I'll take that anyday over "borrow and spend", especially when interest payments on the national debt is our second biggest expense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Both parties have been equally guilty in contributing to the fantasy...
that SS is anything but a Ponzi scheme and both have milked it for all it's worth for 60 yrs. to pay for whatever programs, wars, etc. they deemed fit and to hide how big the govt really is. Whoever the next president is will probably have the honor of presiding over the end of SS and will get all the blame just like Hoover did for the depression. Whatever party is in the WH when SS goes belly up will be out of power for decades to come. It will be easy to sell the "sheeple" on who to blame.

No sense worrying about the national debt. We will at some time default on that and the people (mostly foreigners holding that paper) will join the SS "recipients" holding those worthless IOU's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. The difference is
Democrats, for the most part, left office with a surplus and more than enough dough to continue the "fantasy". Clinton was fiscally responsible enough to acknowledge the approaching baby-boomer bubble and set his tax agenda accordingly.

There's a lot of sense worrying about the debt--if things get squirrely in China and/or Japan and banks start calling in that debt, we're likely to have a cash crunch, which could cause a SE Asia-style meltdown of not only the economy but the stock market as well (Paul Volcker believes with the current deficit it has a 75% chance of happening in the next 5 years).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. and more bullshit
stop drinking the kooooooolaid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Wow someone's swallowed the entire jug of koolaide!
There is enough in the SS trust account to pay full benefits for the next FIFTY YEARS.

And after that, there is enough in the account to pay 85% benefits.

STOP SPREADING THE BULLSHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
46. I hope you aren't planning to collect any of it. When I got my first...
paycheck for a full-time job nearly 40 yrs. ago, I was horrified at what the govt took for F.I.C.A. or all federal taxes (I'm not even sure they called it that then) and it was downhill from there. When I started doing some research on SS over 35 yrs. ago and found out the govt doesn't have to pay next months benefits or ever give me the money I paid in back (let alone with interest) that was a BIG clue to me to start saving money for my old age in the event I ever got there. Good Luck to you if you haven't figured it out yet. You're off to a late start!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, and to move it farther along the way, against China or Iran
Who knows what evil this man and his posse are planning but it will not be good for us. We must bring him down.

:mad:

I am not going away !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. He already is
40% of our FICA taxes go to the general fund along with income taxes. When they say SS is failing, they mean that the gravy train will come to an end and that 100% of FICA will eventually be needed to support the elderly.

Bush wants to slash benefits by a third RIGHT NOW, and that will free up even more money for his imperial ambitions. So old folks won't be able to survive. Well, they're OLD. You know, useless to the Bush machine. They should just die, already.

Those SS investment schemes are just a smoke screen, since the average investment of 2% of the FICA paid will be very low for most taxpayer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. We have reached the point in the Ponzi scheme that is called SS...
where the big part of the triangle is on top and the little pointy part is at the bottom. All the money reaped by the Ponzi scheme has been paid to the first layers of recipients and the rest used by the govt. for 60 yrs. to hide how much more money the govt. spends than it collects in taxes. The baby boomers are just s--t up the creek with no paddle. There are way too many of them to make some little fix to SS to breathe a few more years into the Ponzi scheme. If they don't have there own retirement, they will be dependent on their kids, church, poor house, etc. because the govt. isn't going to pay for it with SS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the SS Trust fund can meet its obligation
easily into 2045 if left alone.Even after that, several remedies are available to keep it working well into the end of the century. The Republicans are raising fear in people like us to get their hands on this big pile of money to finance their wars for world domination, to generate profit for corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel who see the opportunities dwindling.

I don't think we should fall victim to the fear that the SS is a disaster waiting to happen.Paul Krugman's numbers in the NYT clearly show there is nothing to fear about SS's ability to meet its obligations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
47. Maybe Krugman the pretend economist will pay your benefits...
because SS is not likely to give you your money back unless you think that kids in this country are going to willingly pay 80-90% taxes JUST for your SS benefits. Anybody with half a brain can figure it out if you don't listen to anybody and just do some research on your own. And you won't like what you find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Are all insurance companies "Ponzi Schemes"?
Insurance companies also use current premiums to pay out current beneficiaries. Is the entire insurance industry of the USA a giant "Ponzi Scheme" waiting to collapse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEconomist Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
43. Not really....
Insurance companies use their investments to pay out losses, not premiums. Premiums are invested, and that is why insurance companies are rated on the qualities of their assets. If premiums funded losses, we would be paying a lot more for insurance than we do today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. well of course
I didn't say insurance companies use their premiums to pay out premiums, obviously. The USA also has assets like insurance companies. Social Security is not a "Ponzi scheme" at least according to the traditional definition of the term. The idea that Social Security has no assets is silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. BULLSHIT.
You REALLY should research the FACTS, coz right now all you are doing is spreading around bush BULLSHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Please ask everyone to read Paul Krugman's Op-Ed columns on
the fear mongering about SS during the past three weeks. He clearly spells out that the system is healthy and is going to remain so at least until 2045. Without researching the facts, we have people falling victim to Republican fear mongering.It is sad that we cannot believe an economist of the stature of Paul Krugman and listen to crap from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity not to mention the Loofa Loony Bill O'Reilly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IStriker Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
48. Why would you get your info from "Op-Ed" columns?
They are written by people with an opinion whose job it is to sway your ideas on a given subject. That's no place to get facts. Go to SS and get the facts for yourself, not from Krugman or Limbaugh. It's your money that is being taken from you and you're going to let Krugman or Limbaugh tell you what to think about your retirement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Those are the facts.
Call the SS Administration. Ask them to explain it to you.

Social Security money is not put into some kind of account. It IS an IOU. The money you pay now is used to pay for someone who is currently on SS. Everything not spent to pay people who are currently on SS is just spent by Congress on something else.

As currently structured, SS is not sustainable by a function of pure population dynamics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. What does that mean? There is not enough money available now
from the withholding to pay our current obligations? Or, does it mean there will be no money in the future to meet the projected obligations? When would the system not be able to meet its current obligations? Paul Krugman says it will be able to meet its obligations until 2045.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. you are wrong
"Social Security money is not put into some kind of account."

Yes, it is put into some kind of account.

"It IS an IOU."

So are bonds, so is fiat currency, so is everything if you want to put it generally - like you are doing.

"The money you pay now is used to pay for someone who is currently on SS."

Yes. So? This is how insurance works.

"Everything not spent to pay people who are currently on SS is just spent by Congress on something else."

Yes. That might have to change in the near future.

"As currently structured, SS is not sustainable by a function of pure population dynamics."

False.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. That's how money is saved everywhere
Do you think they should have built some enormous vault and stuck all that cash in it? Is your 401K or other investment just an IOU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. TSP
I am a govt worker. I have the Thrift Savings Plan. I think it is good plan. I know I will have a better retirement from the TSP than I will from SS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Good for you.Many workers at private employers have a 401K plan
that is supposed to supplement the SS.What the Social Security is, is a defined benefit that is not subject to the vagaries of the market.That gives people a safety net regardless how the economy goes.
If your TSP is managed by incompetents, as can happen,it will tank when the economy heads south and you are likely to be without any security.You seem to be willing to take that risk.Many people don't care to assume the risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Really?
Even if I put all of my TSP into the "G" account (govt securities - Bonds and T-Bills) I still get a higher rate of return (4-5%) than I do with SS (about 2% or less providing Congress does not raise SS Taxes).

And I why is SS taxed twice?

I get taxed on my paycheck then I have to pay SS Taxes just for getting my money back when I retire. This doesn't seem fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. If, for some reason, you were to lose your job, as many people
working in the private sector do routinely, they will have a safety net when things go wrong.Social Security takes care of the needs of those people in addition to those like you who are fortunate to have good, secure jobs for life and good health.That program is called a social contract all of us as Americans share.This means that those of us who are young pay into the system to take care of the needs of the older and infirm people now so that future generations will do the same for us. In such cases, the risk is less and that is why your returns are less than what you can do by investing in the securities marlets.Even in the Govt.Securities markets, you must know that there is a risk to your principal.That does not exist with a defined benefit program like SS>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. No
With SS you just risk not getting it ever. Most blacks never live long enough to collect on SS and when they die they can't pass on the money to their kids. With the TSP or a 401K you can do that.

With my TSP if I loose my job I get to take it with me - the same with a 401K.

If I loose my principle in Federal securities then I can assure you SS will have gone away too!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Next time you get a statement from your administrator pay close
attention to the fine print.Whichever investment company is handling your account will have a neat little disclaimer stating that you are not protected against market risks. Social Security, so long as it is fiannced by tax payers, is not subject to that risk. Ask your accountant if this is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Yes the fine print....
SS is subject to the whims of congress. How many times have they reneged on their deal?

I will take my chances with the TSP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Social Security is insurance, not a pension
Social Security is insurance, not a pension. The reason the rate of return is lower and you can't pass the benefits on to your kids is because it's insurance.

What is the problem? You have TSP and a 401k, and you are covered by Social Security insurance. What's the problem? You sound set to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. BULLSHIT.
You're wrong, dear.

There is enough funds in the SS TRUST ACCOUNT to pay full benefits until 2052.

And THAT IS a FACT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grip Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Sorry
I just don't trust politicians with my money. Congress routinely lowers the benifit, raises the taxes on it, or raises the entitlement age.

And their is no "account." Just where is this money kept? I have a bank account where I can go and take the money out whenever I want and I can put it in another bank if I want.

Why can't I do that with my SS money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. That IS NOT what bush's plan is.
Edited on Sat Jan-08-05 03:13 PM by LynnTheDem
His plan will FORCE YOU to INVEST that money. CRAP SHOOT. ENRON. etc.

WHY do you think WALL STREET is so damn happy with bush's plan???

We are NOT in a SS crisis. And that's a FACT.

As for why can't you take your money now & do whatever with it...and what happens to you when you must withdraw that money to pay for medical bills to try and save your life? Or your spouse's life? Or your child's life?

And it's then all gone. You've spent it.

And you're 70 years old, can't get a job, and have another decade or two to live. And no money.

Should I have to pay YOUR share of SS too, or should we just let you sit in a park somewhere until you die?

And the above scenario is why we have Social Security as it is.

Of course we could just put a bullet in your brain, now that we get em cheap from Tiawan. We'll line up the old folk who don't have any money saved up, for whatever reason (the invested in another bushie-Enron, or the stock market crashes etc) and we'll just shoot em into a mass grave.

Do you know WHY America started Social Security??? Because people did what they wanted with their own money...they invested, just as bush wants us to do now...and then the stock market crashed. And people were left with their entire leife's savings wiped out. Literally penniless.

And America was left with a whole lot of people who couldn't even afford a sandwich. Do we hand over OUR savings to help them? Or do we line em up & mass grave em? Just let them starve in the streets and pick up the corpses? That is why SS was implemented; a SAFETY NET of SECURITY.

bush LIES about there being a crisis, and wants to take away the SECURITY of that SAFETY NET and put it right back where we started...playing the stock market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. They aren't asking for 2% of FICA paid
They are asking for 4% of payroll. Therefore, they will take 32% of FICA taxes paid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Child_Of_Isis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think that is why he wants to kill SS.
If the truth be known, he has already broken the bank. What he hasn't spent, he has stolen. This non person came into government for one reason and one reason only. To steal our money. There is little doubt in my mind that he is pocketing most of it, and they keep dishing more out to him. While to some, this may be considered a conspiracy theory, I think one day we will find it to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's more long-term than that.
This isn't about financing the war in Iraq. It's about financing a couple of decades worth of tax cuts, business incentives, payoffs, and the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UncleVinny Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Can we trust this liar?
The White House is now planning a major media campaign to try to convince the American public that we NEED to switch Social Security to private firms. A move that the AARP strongly opposes, but Wall Street loves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39791-20...

I find it a little troubling that the president has to rely on advertising (propaganda?) and distortions to sell his radical ideas to the public. This is the same fellow who brought you weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, an Iraq-Al Queda connection, and a Mission Accomplished banner. All distortions, if not outright lies and deception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. And the war in Iran and in Syria and any other oil country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sincity Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
15. The money will go into
the Camps I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. He's already starting to raid the federal employees pension funds
so i dont think your theory is too much of a leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guns Aximbo Donating Member (324 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
28. I really don't give a rats ass about SS...
But if he does raid it and break it and f@#k it up you'll never see another Repugnant Fascist in the White House again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Only if the Democrats make it an issue.If they become willing
collaborators in the destruction of SS, you and I won't have a choice as seems to be happening with the Alberto Gonzalez case. We now have apologists like Schumer dancing around the issue of torture to accept a guy who has produced documents that justify torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
30. SS is viable to 2045 and beyond. It has been the idea of the RW to get
rid of SS since its inception during the Roosevelt years.

Don't let the bushite bull tossers fool you! Research this, and you will find out the truth.

What is needed, is the citizens of this nation to hold Congress' heels to the fire, and toss uot those that insist on draining SS for what they deem as 'important...generally 'pork' and pet projects.

I urge everyone to call/write/e-mail thier Congress Critters to keep their mitts off what is taken in, and if they insist on tossing money after pet projects and wars, they need to do the right thing and recind the tax cuts, close the corporate loopholes, and if necessary....raise taxes! Hold these 'people' responsible. Sitting here on DU and tapping out "fear posts" won't do it...it takes grass roots action....TAKE THAT ACTION...or watch your future go down the drain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
39. Of course, they are already!
Does "Storm The Bastille" mean anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
45. At al billion dollars a week wasted in Iraq, he has to do something.
Perhaps he could donate the vast fortunes the Bush's have accumulated starting and waging wars for 100 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC