Money makes the world go 'round...

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
I think the idea that c-span analyzes everything congress does then reports it on their website is stupid since they have three channels.

I bet I can find sites all day that give different numbers for how the money was broken down.
Just found a PBS site that says 79 billion was for military spending and 6 billion was for infrastructure.
Another site that says 66 billion dollars was for military and 21 billion was for infrastructure.

Do you want me to paste you every link I find that gives a different number?

But no links the say 26 billion huh, as you previously "Guesstimated"? Funny how off you were. Maybe you heard it backwards. Congress has alot of ambiguous speech that most people wouldnt pick up on from just watching it for a day.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
Do you want me to paste you every link I find that gives a different number?

No, just the one that states "about 26 billion dollars of it was designated for the military."

 

[insein]

Originally posted by jimnyc
No, just the one that states "about 26 billion dollars of it was designated for the military."

he did.

Edit: My bad i misread that to say "No one just says "26 billion..."

 

[jimnyc]

Here's the original bill. Looks like a LOT MORE than 26 billion towards military operations. You lose!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/108_cong_bills

 

[Quad]

Just found a site that said all of it went to military funding



Here's an article that I can trust more that contains robert byrd's speech and he's the head of senate appropriations. He uses the whitehouse numbers not the msnbc or pbs or senate appropriations numbers I saw in an appropriations breakdown of the bill.

http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/001874.html


I'll go with what Byrd says as he is head of appropriations.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
Just found a site that said all of it went to military funding



Here's an article that I can trust more that contains robert byrd's speech and he's the head of senate appropriations. He uses the whitehouse numbers not the msnbc or pbs or senate appropriations numbers I saw in an appropriations breakdown of the bill.

http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/001874.html


I'll go with what Byrd says as he is head of appropriations.

Either way, your statement was erroneous.

 

[jimnyc]

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$12,188,870,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Military Personnel, Navy</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$816,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Military Personnel, Marine Corps</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $753,190,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of
H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Military Personnel, Air Force</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $3,384,700,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of
H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE</DELETED>

<DELETED>Operation and Maintenance, Army</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $24,355,664,000 (decreased by $98,000,000): Provided, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Operation and Maintenance, Navy</DELETED>

<DELETED>(including transfer of funds)</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $1,934,058,000, of which up to $80,000,000 may be transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security for Coast Guard Operations:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $1,198,981,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Operation and Maintenance, Air Force</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $5,598,368,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.</DELETED>

<DELETED>Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide</DELETED>

<DELETED> For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $4,485,452,000 (reduced by $50,000,000) (increased by
$50,000,000), of which--</DELETED>

There's over 50 billion alone for military operations!

 

[jimnyc]

Suffice to say, you were wrong and way off base.

 

[jimnyc]

Funny how the responses stop once facts are provided.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Funny how the responses stop once facts are provided.

Maybe its an epidemic.

 

[Quad]

Aw.

Ok so you get an extra point for being more right. Happy?

I'm reading the bill anyways.

I'm not going to be really happy until the end of the bill, where hopefully, there will be a definition of the terms and further explaination of procurement, Operations/maintainance, defense-wide, etc.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
Aw.

Ok so you get an extra point for being more right. Happy?

You weren't right at all. I was spot on. You spouted baseless numbers and I provided facts.

 

[Quad]

I'm trying to breakdown the numbers in a way that will duplicate how the appropriations democrat broke them down in his presentations.

 

[Quad]

First of all.
You provided an MSNBC article and said it was a fact.

Second of all.
I never pretended I could back my numbers up which I why I let you know that my claims were based on firsthand subjective knowledge.

Third of all.
You disputed my claim with erroneous numbers and it wasn't until I said "MSNBC is not a real source" that you found more reliable numbers - which while trying to gather enough links to show you that 10 sites will have 10 different numbers I found the senate appropriations chairman affirm the whitehouse numbers and said "OK, i'll go with that."

Fourth of all.
I'm reading the bill to see how it could be read so many different ways, and to see if there is a way it can be read that disputes 66 billion going to the troops.

Fifth of all.
Military spending is not the same thing as troop support and don't pretend like it is, read the bill and I'll read it and when we're through we'll decide if it should be called a troop support package or a supplement to the military's budget.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
I'm trying to breakdown the numbers in a way that will duplicate how the appropriations democrat broke them down in his presentations.

So basically you are trying to adjust the numbers and squint at them real hard until they prove that your right? Ok.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
First of all.
You provided an MSNBC article and said it was a fact.

Second of all.
I never pretended I could back my numbers up which I why I let you know that my claims were based on firsthand subjective knowledge.

Third of all.
You disputed my claim with erroneous numbers and it wasn't until I said "MSNBC is not a real source" that you found more reliable numbers - which while trying to gather enough links to show you that 10 sites will have 10 different numbers I found the senate appropriations chairman affirm the whitehouse numbers and said "OK, i'll go with that."

Fourth of all.
I'm reading the bill to see how it could be read so many different ways, and to see if there is a way it can be read that disputes 66 billion going to the troops.

Fifth of all.
Military spending is not the same thing as troop support and don't pretend like it is, read the bill and I'll read it and when we're through we'll decide if it should be called a troop support package or a supplement to the military's budget.

IVe never seen someone so desperate to save a lost argument.

 

[jimnyc]

We were right and you were wrong. No amount of wiggling will change that. You claimed we didn't have a clue what the 87 billion was for and you were wrong. Can't you just admit that and move on?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Quad
First of all.
You provided an MSNBC article and said it was a fact.

Second of all.
I never pretended I could back my numbers up which I why I let you know that my claims were based on firsthand subjective knowledge.

Third of all.
You disputed my claim with erroneous numbers and it wasn't until I said "MSNBC is not a real source" that you found more reliable numbers - which while trying to gather enough links to show you that 10 sites will have 10 different numbers I found the senate appropriations chairman affirm the whitehouse numbers and said "OK, i'll go with that."

Fourth of all.
I'm reading the bill to see how it could be read so many different ways, and to see if there is a way it can be read that disputes 66 billion going to the troops.

Fifth of all.
Military spending is not the same thing as troop support and don't pretend like it is, read the bill and I'll read it and when we're through we'll decide if it should be called a troop support package or a supplement to the military's budget.

Yet you will make these sort of statements:

You have no fucking clue about how our democracy works, you have no interest in finding out.........

You people are so stupid that if legislation has a pretty name and talk radio tells you the legislation is "pro conservative" or "pro liberal" or whatever moronic way you categorize yourself you don't even bother to look at it.

You people are so stupid that when george w bush's campaign marketing made gore "seem too smart" you people fell for it........

and only use those categorizations to win votes from people too stupid to do any real research.........

Kind of makes you look like an ass.

 

[jimnyc]

MtnBiker rules.

 

[Quad]

If you look at the posts you guys are a lot more concerned about being right then I am about not looking wrong.


I think something equally stupid to me calling you guys idiots is that you can't accept my posts and want me to actually type the phrase "I am wrong you are right!" I think that is clear from my posts - and I think another thing that is clear is that this was never a "contest" to me and it was to you.

Now, you can twist my posts to say that I'm not admitting I was wrong, you can pretend as if you didn't get real numbers until I challenged your "source."

I'm going to read the bill to see how the senator on the appropriations committee calculated his numbers, I'm going to read the bill to see how PBS calculated their numbers, I'm going to read the bill to see how robert byrd calculated his numbers, you can opt out if you want!

You've proved one part of my initial post wrong - the claim that only a fourth was specifically designated for the military (and I did say military and not troops) - what about the rest?