Got this from MoveOn.org... Something incredible is happening. Just a week ago, it appeared that President Bush would get $87 billion for the Iraq war and occupation in a landslide vote. But thanks to hundreds of thousands of emails, tens of thousands of calls, and constituent visits by thousands of Americans, more and more members of the House and Senate are declaring that they will vote No. This is big news. It appears that members of Congress are standing up and demanding that the President face the facts and make real changes to his Iraq policy. Members of Congress need to know that if they take a leap of faith here and do the right thing, we'll be behind them. With the vote scheduled for tomorrow in the House and Friday in the Senate, it's critical that they hear from us TODAY. Over the next 48 hours, we're working with Working Assets and True Majority to deliver a flood of phone calls and emails to Congress telling them to take a stand. Please take a moment to call your Representative and both your Senators right now. Let them know that you expect them to vote AGAINST Bush's additional $87 billion request for Iraq. You can reach them at: Representative Kevin Brady DC Phone: 202-225-4901 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison DC Phone: 202-224-5922 Senator John Cornyn DC Phone: 202-224-2934 We're hoping to get 100,000 constituent communications in to Congress by Friday. Then please ask your friends and colleagues to make calls too. Over the weekend, Senator John Kerry announced he's inclined to vote against the request. Yesterday, Senator John Edwards declared in strong language that he will also vote no: "This mission will never be successful unless the president dramatically changes course." Even Senate and House leaders Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi have signaled that they may well vote against the bill. President Bush and Republican leaders are trying to portray the $87 billion package as the only way to help the troops in Iraq. But it's the President's failed policies that put the troops in harm's way, and it's the President's refusal to work with the UN that keeps them there. It's time for Congress to draw a line in the sand and tell the President that for our national security, the safety of the troops, and the stability of the Middle East, he must change course. A strong vote against the $87 billion will demonstrate just that. Please make your call today. This is a critical vote. With your help, Congress can tell the President that without a plan, without working with the UN, without firing the staff responsible for the mess in Iraq, his $87 billion proposal is just no good. MoveOn.Org is also running a television commercial, watch it in MPEG format or RealMedia
I wouldn't mind giving up the 87 bill, but I think it's time we started sacrificing to see just how devoted to the cause some americans are. Who would give back some of their tax cut for the sake of Iraq?
Oski, I would consider it, if the government took a real hard look at getting rid of entitlements. DD
If I was done with school and working, I'd do it. Though, starting salary for a poli sci major would mean that my tax cut would barely fund one M-16.
As a Poli Sci graduate I can tell you that it doesn't get better anytime soon unless you go to law school first...
On another side note DaDa, how do people get jobs as testers? Not that I'm a talented gamer or anything, I'm just curious how people get those jobs.
Oski, It is usually an entry level position into the industry...showing a passion for games is the easiest way...and knowing someone helps of course. Testing is an essential part of the development process. DD
Andy, Yes I make video games. My companies website As for entitlements...I would target EVERY SINGLE one of them. To have the budget of anything going up automatically each year without any accountability is WRONG !! I would like a general audit by an outside firm.....and then we will see where all that pork is going. DD
Are you in Houston or do you live in Austin? So, you would do away completely with Social Security, Welfare, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? I agree that the pork needs to be cut, but the vast majority of our tax dollars do not go to pork, they go to social programs like these.
Andy, Entitlements are the annual RAISES to those programs, not the programs themselves. Yes, I live in Austin, grew up in Houston. DD
OK, we have different definitions of the word "entitlements." I always heard people refer to social programs themselves as entitlements (as in, the people receiving them feel entitled to them). In that case, I agree with you completely. BTW, the next time you are in Houston, I would like to buy you a beer and run a game idea by you.
At least that is my point...I want to look at the ANNUAL raises to entitlements.....not the entitlements themselves...I mispoke and no edit. DD
Hmm.. No blank check? I wasn't aware that it was a blank check. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that the proposed expenditures were very clearly laid out, and that Congress had already gone over every line item and crossed out what they didn't want to spend on. My bad, I must have hallucinated that part... It will pass, thank God, because it has to. If we are not going to spend the money to rebuild Iraq, then we might as well come home right now, and hand Osama and/or Saddam the keys to Baghdad. But we will spend that money, because failure in Iraq is not an option, despite Ted Kennedy's best efforts to turn it into one. BTW, if I had to sactrifice the tax cuts to pay for this, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Long-term security is far more important than temporary tax relief. Luckily, we don't have to.
Actually, about $9 billion is not ear-marked for anything, and is available for Rumsfeld to spend however he wants, with no Congressional oversight... http://slate.msn.com/id/2089674 You might think that Slate is not a neutral source, but in the article, Kaplan specifically goes through budget request. Here is the source document... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2004/omb/supplemental_9_17_03.pdf By the way, I am not saying that there are not massive expenditures needed in Iraq. I am just pointing out that even if you accept that the requests are reasonable and realistically priced, 10% of the requested $87 billion in in fact a blank check.
