If you had a trillion dollars . . .

[Ladylethal 12]

You dream small, brother.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Luis&Laura

[Nessa 23]

portuguesenglish would be the official language of our country and hubby would be the King, I'd be the Queen

[mawilson 2,133]

Make no mistake - the next President will exploit the ignorance of the American people to justify spending of his/her own based on the fallacy that war funds are lying around, just waiting to be diverted into something more "worthy". That the Iraq war is based entirely on leverage is lost on most.

I'm not so sure:

Pentagon is left scrambling to pay for war

Washington - Congress's failure last week to agree whether and how to fund the war

puts the onus on the Pentagon, at least for now, to find a way to cover expenses in

Iraq, potentially forcing the Defense Department to close dozens of domestic military

bases and imperil the livelihoods of tens of thousands of defense workers.

The congressional inaction may trigger Secretary Robert Gates to carry out his threat

last week to furlough as many as 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors this

winter, raising the stakes for Democratic lawmakers determined to tie war funding to

a drawdown of US troops from Iraq.

Before lawmakers left town Friday for their Thanksgiving recess, they did approve the

Pentagon's $470 billion base budget, but not a supplemental funding request to pay for

war operations. Democrats don't want to fund that $189 billion defense request from

President Bush unless the money is tied to deadlines, or at least goals, to bring the bulk

of troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008.

One Democratic measure, to provide $50 billion for war operations as long as the

Pentagon aims to all but finish the redeployment of troops by December 2008, failed

in the Senate on Friday. Another measure backed by Republicans, to provide $70 billion

with no such deadline language, also failed, leaving the Pentagon uncertain about how

to pay for the next several months of operations in Iraq.

That leaves the Pentagon with no choice, according to Secretary Gates, who said bluntly

last week that the furloughs would be "the least undesirable" of the limited options if it

runs out of money. The Defense Department would begin laying off nonuniformed defense

workers, effectively shutting down all Army bases by February, followed by at least some

Marine bases a month later.

The urgency stems from federal laws that require workers to be notified 60 days in advance

that they might be furloughed in another month.

Though Gates is considered one of the least partisan members of the Bush Cabinet, some

see his strategy as politically shrewd. It may well force congressional Democrats to back

away, at least for now, from their strategy to tie war funding to a troop-withdrawal deadline,

says Loren Thompson, a senior analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank near

Washington. Otherwise, Democrats could be seen as not supporting troops in the field,

even though the furloughs would not affect troops directly at first.

"If this is yet another cat-and-mouse game over war funding, people should be clear that

Gates is the cat, because in the end the Democratic mice are not going to be able to have

their way," he says.

At the Pentagon Thursday, Gates complained that an uncertain funding stream at best

creates busy work for defense planners – and at worst negatively affects the troops.

"The high degree of uncertainty on funding for the war is immensely complicating this task

and will have many real consequences for this department and for our men and women

in uniform," he said.

Unlike during last year's budget showdown with Congress over war funding, the Pentagon

this time has little wiggle room for moving money around, said Gates. The Pentagon currently

can move only about $3.7 billion into accounts for war operations – roughly the equivalent

of one week's worth of war funding.

That's largely true, says Rep. Joe Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania, a former Navy admiral who

worked on the Pentagon's Joint Staff before retiring and running for Congress. "Money is

only so fungible among various accounts," he says. "Congress makes it that way."

Representative Sestak voted in favor of the ultimately unsuccessful proposal to fund war

operations at $50 billion as long as troops start leaving soon. But he says he doesn't want

Congress to micromanage the war via its purse strings and says the better option for

Democratic lawmakers is to put such goal-post language in an authorization bill instead

of insisting that it be part of an appropriations bill. The distinction would give Pentagon

planners a date to work toward, without directly affecting their ability to spend the money

Congress appropriates for war operations.

"It makes Congress a less blunt instrument," Sestak says.

Only when lawmakers end their rancor over the war can the two parties come to an

agreement about how to proceed, he says. "I don't think we sit down enough with the

other side to work things out."

This is not the first time the Pentagon has threatened severe consequences for delayed

or insufficient war funding. Earlier this year during budget negotiations for fiscal 2007,

the Defense Department said it would have to curtail critical predeployment training for

troops and other procurement programs if Congress didn't provide enough money for

the war. But the situation was different then, because the Pentagon already had what's

called "bridge supplemental" funding that allowed it more flexibility to get through

budgetary dry spells. This year, no such supplemental funding exists – hence the

Pentagon's threat to begin shutting down US bases.

Ultimately, gridlock over war funding may not end until after the '08 election, says think

tank analyst Mr. Thompson.

[almaty 19]

You dream small, brother.

\

lol//hey who doesn't want to see the oak ridge boys..and andy williams...

[trailmix 77]

a trillion....well, i guess, i could finally take that trip to Branson, Missouri and see Boxcar Willie perform

Listen to the jingle,

The rumble and the roar,

As she glides along the woodlands,

Through hills and by the shore

Hear the mighty rush of the engine,

Hear those lonesome hoboes squawl,

While traveling through the jungle

On the Wabash Cannonballllllllllllllllll

[Amby 490]

you all have big plans for the trillion...I just want to pay off my student loans

[mawilson 2,133]

you all have big plans for the trillion...I just want to pay off my student loans

The trillion dollars is essentially a loan, so you would be using one loan to pay off another.

[Amby 490]

you all have big plans for the trillion...I just want to pay off my student loans

The trillion dollars is essentially a loan, so you would be using one loan to pay off another.

lol does it have low interest? I'll take it if it does

[Amy B. 0]

There are lots of stuff that I could do with that money.

I would start by paying everything off...... I would go to Pakistan where my hubby is and stay with him for a lil while.

Then buy pretty clothes and stuff.....and not have to work....NICEEEE!!!

Well, gotta get ready for work now ..

[JVKn'CVO 11]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

Caro and nessa... you guys need to have a catfight over this.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

Caro and nessa... you guys need to have a catfight over this.

I'm glad you find it funny. Because I sure don't.

Saludos,

Caro

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

Caro and nessa... you guys need to have a catfight over this.

I'm glad you find it funny. Because I sure don't.

Saludos,

Caro

Fill me in here, is there some kind of Brazilian-Argentinian rivalry?

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

Caro and nessa... you guys need to have a catfight over this.

I'm glad you find it funny. Because I sure don't.

Saludos,

Caro

Fill me in here, is there some kind of Brazilian-Argentinian rivalry?

you need to see their soccer games

[JVKn'CVO 11]

If you had a trillion dollars . . ., what else could you buy instead of a war?

well humpfff i guess i can consider invading argentina.

Hubby and I would move back to Brazil, buy Argentina and name it Brazil of America

This joke is not funny. It's offensive, and please don't use it again.

Saludos,

Caro

Caro and nessa... you guys need to have a catfight over this.

I'm glad you find it funny. Because I sure don't.

Saludos,

Caro

Fill me in here, is there some kind of Brazilian-Argentinian rivalry?

I wish I could fill you in, but I don't understand the joke either. Other than soccer friendly, respect-based rivalry, I can't think of anything.

Saludos,

Caro