You don't have to be a Republican to like this...

GhengisFarb™ · January 12, 2004, 18:52

....but it helps. Probably been around the email circuit for awhile but its the first time I saw it and thought I share it with the rest of Apolytoners.

Quote:

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion" casually, think about whether you want that politician spending your tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases:

A billion seconds ago, it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.

The Democrats are complaining on how long the war is taking but consider this:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!!!

Man our military is GREAT !

Verto · January 12, 2004, 19:36

Lawrence of Arabia · January 12, 2004, 19:48

hahahahahahah. define irony: dumbass republicans thinking they are fiscally conservative when we have the biggest deficit spending since Reagan.

loinburger · January 12, 2004, 19:58

I didn't realize that the raid on the Branch Davidian compound, Hillary's tardiness in producing the Rose Law Firm records, or Ted Kennedy's losing his oldsmobile cost the American tax payers billions of dollars, nor did I realize that thousands of people died as a result of said events. Ah well, I guess you learn something new every day.

MichaeltheGreat · January 12, 2004, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hahahahahahah. define irony: dumbass republicans thinking they are fiscally conservative when we have the biggest deficit spending since Reagan.

Bush II is putting Reagan to shame in terms of deficit spending. The dif with Reagan is that the national debt grew a much higher percentage because it had been relatively low before Reagan came in.

Bush will really have to work hard and get a second term to increase the national debt the same percentage as Reagan, but he's skinning Reagan in the raw numbers.

DinoDoc · January 12, 2004, 20:18

That looks like two rants fused together. One amusing and one not so amusing.

The Emperor Fabulous · January 12, 2004, 20:50

Quote:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It's a lot easier to kill people who you don't consider equal then it is your own citizens.

Quote:

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

How long's it taken you to find Osama?

Quote:

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!!!

Yet accomplished the same goal: taking a country through deception

OzzyKP · January 12, 2004, 20:51

87 Billion Seconds Ago Rome was founded.

St Leo · January 12, 2004, 21:35

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

Uhm, you haven't signed a peace treaty yet, right? Therefore, you haven't taken Iraq.

Urban Ranger · January 13, 2004, 00:30

Quote:

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

I didn't know that there was a bounty on those records.

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2004, 00:32

I don't think even most Republicans will make much sense out of this mish-mosh of...well, nothingness.

TCO · January 13, 2004, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't think even most Republicans will make much sense out of this mish-mosh of...well, nothingness.

billyuns and trillllyuns.

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2004, 00:42

What are how many seconds Carl Sagan has been dead for?

TCO · January 13, 2004, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What are how many seconds Carl Sagan has been dead for?

Come on down!!!

Mr. Harley · January 13, 2004, 02:18

No fair TCO - you beat me to it.

The Emperor Fabulous · January 13, 2004, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO

billyuns and trillllyuns.

Are those crunchy like Funyuns?

The diplomat · January 13, 2004, 09:02

Will people stop blaming Bush for the deficit? Sure he bears some blame, but not all of it.

What about Congress? They write the budget, and they are the ones that pass the budget with the huge deficits!

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are to blame for the deficit, because neither side does anything to reduce it! Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress continue to add their pet spending increases while blaming the other for creating the deficit!

Congress should be ashamed of itself!

Stuie · January 13, 2004, 09:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Will people stop blaming Bush for the deficit?

No. No they won't.

The Andy-Man · January 13, 2004, 09:19

Quote:

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.

I rather like that one

Agathon · January 13, 2004, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Will people stop blaming Bush for the deficit? Sure he bears some blame, but not all of it.

What about Congress? They write the budget, and they are the ones that pass the budget with the huge deficits!

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are to blame for the deficit, because neither side does anything to reduce it! Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress continue to add their pet spending increases while blaming the other for creating the deficit!

Congress should be ashamed of itself!

Um, the Republicans control both houses do they not?

It's clear that this irresponsible spending is Bush's way of reducing the size of government, since cutbacks will be inevitable. A pity that he doesn't realize that the government does all sorts of useful, efficiency-promoting things.

Still, it looks like you'll all learn the hard way.

The diplomat · January 13, 2004, 09:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Um, the Republicans control both houses do they not?

yes but not a supermajority. The Dems filibustered judicial nominees that they didn't like, so they obviously do have some legislative power. So, if the Dems are so concerned with the deficit how come they are not doing anything in Congress to try to reduce the deficit?

After all, when the No Child Left Behind Act was being wirtten, the Dems argued it did not spend enough money! When the free prescription drug plan was being debated, Ol' Kennedy and others argued that it did not spend enough money. They did not seem very concerned about the deficit then!

The Dems are just as hypocrite on this as the Republicans are, because they whine and moan about the deficit when it is election time, but when the budget is being written, they contribute to the deficit with their social spending increases just as much as Republicans do with their military spending increases!

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 09:59

Why you should blame Bush for the deficit is his drive to cut taxes at the same time as he is increasing spending. That's just stupid.

The diplomat · January 13, 2004, 10:03

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why you should blame Bush for the deficit is his drive to cut taxes at the same time as he is increasing spending. That's just stupid.

Maybe, but the tax cuts did help the economy. They are a big reason he had 8% GDP growth last quarter and unemployment down at 5.7%

The diplomat · January 13, 2004, 10:04

The tax cuts were good. But they should have cut spending too to compensate.

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 10:07

I have no doubt that tax cuts will help the economy. However, public works spending would have helped it faster and more, because they would have placed more money in the hands of those who spend more of their income.

By the way, job creation in the US has been dismal. Unemployment has been dropping because less people are looking for work. Go ask your treasury department.

And the tax cuts are going to keep costing money. What sort of stimulus package doesn't take effect for close to a year and then lasts for a decade? Doesn't make any sense when you want relief right now.

The point of deficit spending is that when you start hitting good times again you pay down the debt you accumulated in the bad times. The current tax cut certainly doesn't do this.

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 10:08

You are still 3 million jobs off where you were on Jan. 20 2001

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 10:09

How many of those 3 million people will be voting for Bush?

DaShi · January 13, 2004, 10:29

How many of those 3 million will vote?

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 10:32

A lot of them, if they're pissed off enough.

KrazyHorse · January 13, 2004, 10:33

If you were living on a welfare cheque when you'd been making top dollar at a dot-com bubble corporation 4 years before, how mad would you be?