$74 Billion - What would you do?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-08 10:52:18

$74 Billion is the first actual appropriation of war funds. I'm sure there will be a lot more, but let's see how this could have been better spent:

There are about 3 million homeless people in America. If the govt. were to buy them all a mobile home for $10,000 and give them and extra $10,000 to give them a little boost it would only cost $60 billion. We could then of course give the remaining $14 billion to the rich and continue to tax the middle class to death. :;):

We could start a Mars program with a budget of $2 Billion per year. After 10 years and $20 billion of development we would be ready to a start Mars Direct exploration program. That would leave us with $54 billion or 27 years or 12-13 missions. That gives each mission over $4 billion. This would lay the groundwork and infrastructure for private ventures in the future.

What would you do with $74 billion?

Palomar · 2003-04-08 11:49:19

What would you do with $74 billion?

*Geez...I can't comprehend that much money. But here's my idea:

$35 billion for space exploration (Mars Direct), probes to Europa to check out whether or not life's there, etc.

The remainder to be divided between AIDS research; assisting the elderly in the U.S. with prescription medication costs; assisting working families in being able to afford health insurance if their employer doesn't provide it.

And as for more personally-inclined indulgences: Provide funding towards further preservation and expansion of the Panda bear population (because they're sooooo cute!) and other wildlife preservation/endangered species, purchase the entire personal libraries of Denis Diderot and Voltaire from the Russian government, and (last not but not least) purchase Ferney from the nation of France (Voltaire's last chateau) for continued restoration and preservation.

And I'd keep back a cool $5 million for my hubby and me {big grin}.

Okay, MarsGuy...you asked.

--Cindy

TJohn · 2003-04-08 13:44:36

I would definitely have most of the money go towards manned Mars exploration and manned nuclear powered spacecraft development. The rest would go to ensuring that my wife and child are taken care of, helping my family, in-laws and other relatives. I would also build me an observatory in my backyard!

Ad Astra · 2003-04-08 15:41:54

Sure, you could buy the homeless a trailer and give them a chunk of money, but would that solve their problems? The gift of money would not necessarily motivate these people to work or rehabilitate themselves. Many of them are addicted to substances or mentally ill. They need the intervention of friends and family, and they need a hand up, not a hand out.

Middle class tax burden? The wealthiest ten percent bear 96% of the tax burden in the United States.

$74 billion is a lot of money, but can you put a price on our security, or the freedom of Iraqis? If our freedoms were gone and we lived in fear of government, would we be putting a price on our liberation? This money will come out of the Bush tax cut, which supposedly benefits "the wealthiest one percent."

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-08 16:32:23

All right Ad Astra, you want to talk about the war? Here goes.

Your arguments are:
1. American/World security,
2. Freedom for the Iraqi people.

How in the world has Iraq ever threatened American security? They don't have ICBMs or Nuclear Weapons. They have never attacked the United States before. They do not have good relations with Osama Bin Laden. Hussein wants to stay in power in Iraq, and he knows that any post Sept. 11th terrorist attack on the U.S. would bring swift and terrible retribution. I have yet to see any chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction come out of Iraq. (Gas masks and fertilizer are NOT chemical weapons.)

2. Before Daddy Bush's "Operation Desert Storm" (excuse me while I gag...) Iraq was a developed nation. The women went to college, owned businesses, etc. Before the sanctions of the last 12 years the Iraqi people had food, medicine, water, jobs, an economy, life. So, they had a corrupt leader. Who doesn't? Show me one political leader who says he isn't corrupt and I'll show you a liar. I don't think Sadaam is a good leader but his people didn't have it that bad before the U.S. stepped in.

I could list a lot of facts but I have to go to a peace rally right now.

"Violence begets Violence," John Lennon.

soph · 2003-04-08 16:44:57

Sanctions didn't cause starvation, Saddam did. Oil for food was unlimited until Saddam bought military equipment with the money.

And we have found huge storehouses of the food we sent for the people, going to the military. The food is there, the people don't have to starve, Saddam just wants to feed his military instead of his people. There is more than enough food there.

You mean in 1988, when tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and chemical weapons were used, it wasn't that bad? Oh, I see.

soph · 2003-04-08 17:04:58

Getting back on topic, $74 billion is a lot of money, but it depends on how it's appropriated. People are more willing to see it go to war against a brutal dictator than towards the space program, or to handing homes to the homeless (people would rather upgrade their own conditions).

The funding really has to come through the private sector. Government money can only do so much. The transcontinental railroad is a great example, government aid and incentives led private industry to achieve great feats, which live on today.

dicktice · 2003-04-08 19:27:49

Saddam is/was (hopefully) not just a "corrupt" leader...but a certifiable "nasty," like Hitler or Stalin, who ruled by unspeakable terror. He and his tribe have festered in the World more than long enough.
Nothing in the past compares with the present World situation, when you sum up all the "firsts" that are reported almost hourly. So, measures to counter him/them, however desperate and brutish, have turned out to be unprecedented, as well.
The only thing we have from our history of warfare that applies, is human nature. How ingenious we humans are to have got as far as we have without wiping ourselves out, considering all the evolutionary baggage we've been lugging around from our reptilian past!
He/they--if allowed to continue unopposed--were on the way to leading our World into eventual oblivion. I hate to credit President Bush et al., but I'm pretty well convinced that it takes an "elected-nasty" to decisively eliminate an established "nasty-for-life."
The lives--the threat--the destruction and waste--all that money...doesn't matter compared with the end of all that. We will be free to pursue Mars Direct, through volunteerism and private enterprise in good conscience, without government (I know it: tax-derived) funding. It wasn't going to happen, anyway.
But, if-and-when the Iraqi people get their act back together--what a relief, to be able to collaborate even, with them in (say) Babylonia ecology-revival (you know--where civilization began?), involving Solar power (I know it: they've got oil) and hydrology...preparatory to engineering desert ecosystems for Mars Direct. [How about that--didn't think I'd be able to make the tie-in, did'ja?]

HombrePequeno · 2003-04-08 20:31:10

What would I do with that $74 billion? Well I sure wouldn't give it away to bums. Most of them are homeless because of lack of motivation and drug problems.

If I had to spend that $74 billion on something other than war I'd put it towards space elevator research, fusion research, and more space exploration. You could probably get those for that much.

But $74 billion isn't that high a price to pay for freeing 24 million people.

dicktice · 2003-04-09 07:40:51

Hombre:
You need to take off six months (say) and live like a "bum" before you have any right to be judgemental, kiddo. You don't mind my calling you kiddo, do you? Because that's what you sound like--still wet behind the ears.
Space elevator? Fusion research? Drop in the bucket. But Mars Direct--now, $74 billion could make all the difference!
Freeing people, even for space exploration addicts like us, takes precedence because we're all there is, see?--situated in a universe that couldn't care less about our freedom to live and enjoy all-too-short lives, on an absolutely unique and beautiful planet that we've been so lucky to have evolved upon. We're all one family, and we who are free to do so need to nurture those of us who are victims, if only to prevent us from becoming victimized ourselves.
Meanwhile, it won't cost all that much to plan and test the initial Mars Direct options here on Earth--and while we're at it, let's see if some of the newly-freed Iraqis would like to become involved as well....

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 08:06:37

So, they had a corrupt leader. Who doesn't? Show me one political leader who says he isn't corrupt and I'll show you a liar. I don't think Sadaam is a good leader but his people didn't have it that bad before the U.S. stepped in.

What a fool. Typical left-wing moral equivalency. It's all the fault of the US, and has nothing to do with an expansionist dictator that rules with unmatched brutality.

Why don't you flip on the news today and watch the iraqis celebrate the removal of saddam? Saddam is not just another corrupt politician, he was a brutal, genocidal dictator. Why don't you talk to the kurds or the marsh arabs?

dickbill · 2003-04-09 09:48:20

Why don't you flip on the news today and watch the iraqis celebrate the removal of saddam? Saddam is not just another corrupt politician, he was a brutal, genocidal dictator. Why don't you talk to the kurds or the marsh arabs?

Why don't you expend your horizon by trying to access different sources of informations ? compare and look with critical eyes, don't swallow the pictures raw.
From Agence France Press sources, those dancing and singing iraqis were mostly from a popular Chiite quater of bahgdhad. These Chiites have been roughly reprimed in the past because they have revolted several times against Sadam Hussein, so obviously they don't like sadam. But here is the fact: take a picture of a subset of the iraqis population which are seemingly happy, repeat 1000 times on CNN and you can fool the entire US population.
The US military there are not so dumb to believe this propaganda: they know the war is not over, and even with sadam dead, they have to be very careful with these supossedly liberated, happy and friendly people.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-09 10:03:02

It sounds like the pro-war people in here watch the mainstream news a little too much. Why don't you turn on an independent news source?

It's funny but really sad that all of you have accepted whatever Bush has told you. He claimed, at first, that this war was neccessary to disarm Iraq. Iraq had these terrible weapons of mass destruction. So terrible that they threatened U.S. security. No WMD have been found to date and the U.S. controls most of Iraq. Either there are none, or there are very few.
So, instead of admitting that he was wrong about this major threat to national security, he just changes his tune. "We invaded Iraq to liberate the people...yea, that's it...It has always been our purpose to liberate the Iraqi people...hey, Rummy, they're buying it..." (Meanwhile, Americans everywhere sit in front of their TVs nodding with blank, vacant eyes.)

Before the American invasion the U.N. inspectors were actually making progress. More and more inspectors were being let in, U2 flights were being allowed, the inspectors said they needed more time. Why then did Bush think he had to start a war? Since when did he become the World Police? Even if Sadaam was playing cat and mouse games the U.N. was making progress and would have caught him soon enough.

Here's a little tidbit of information for ya:
Both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were our allies in the past. We supported Osama as a freedom fighter in his struggle against the 'Evil' Russians (who are now our allies). We supported Sadaam in his war against Iran. It seems we can't decide who is our friend and who is our enemy.

This is all too remenicient of "1984" by George Orwell. Read it.

clark · 2003-04-09 10:29:57

Why don't you turn on an independent news source?

In other words, we should listen to your version of events, or the version you believe is true. Why should we accept that your media sources are any more reliable than ours? Where are the glaring inaccurate reports that don't jive with reality on CNN or the BBC? Not being hostile here, just would like to move beyond rhetoric.

He claimed, at first, that this war was neccessary to disarm Iraq. Iraq had these terrible weapons of mass destruction. So terrible that they threatened U.S. security.

Actually, he said they threatened democracy and the security of free nations. And really the threat posed by Saddam was the real possibility of him using the vast wealth of Iraq to develop WMD's and then use proxy forces to deliver the weapons. We face a similar problem with North Korea becuase they have so little money- they will see the legitmacy of selling WMD's to non-state actors, or even other states. Proliferation of these weapons in the hands of extremists or those with little regard for their native populations is a big problem. The reason nukes are not used now is becuase those nations with them have to much to lose by usig them, or care about their population. Those with nothing have no reason not to use these weapons.

Before the American invasion the U.N. inspectors were actually making progress.

Yeah, that's a favorite of mine. Now, take a step back, and tell us all what enabled the UN inspectors to make this progress. I wonder if a huge massing of American troops had anything at all to do with that.

How long are we supposed to have our troops sit out in the desert? The UN certainly wasn't willing to deploy troops to force Saddam to comply. France made no such move, even though Chirac admitted that the inspections only worked with US military threat.

Why then did Bush think he had to start a war?

Becuase the window of opportunity was closing for an easy military victory. For 12 years Saddam has played with inspectors. He continued the same methods of deception after 1441. If we waited, it would make what most people agree was an inevitability much more difficult, the neccessary removal of Saddam.

Since when did he become the World Police?

When the UN failed to act. If one cannot receive justice, then one is at liberty to exact justice.

Both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were our allies in the past.

And France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Russia, England, Italy, Vietnam, Korea, China- all have at one time or another been our friend, mortal enemy, ally, liberator, liberated, etc.

Nations don't have friends, they have mutual interests. We are friends as long as our mutual interests are served.

dickbill · 2003-04-09 10:50:22

about the WMD, Clark, there were not really the issue. Read the interview of Hans Blix in the spanish paper "El Pais" if you can, or a repport of it in yahoo, like I did.

clark · 2003-04-09 10:57:32

Here is the article you mention:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....9135638

I will admit, this is something to consider. But the actual truth will eventually be revealed at the end of this conflict.

Anyway, happy POW day.

Ad Astra · 2003-04-09 11:07:51

If the Pentagon has it's way, Iraq will be governed by Iraqi expatriates. The CIA and State Department were pushing for American interim government. I think we'll see a compromise between both positions, but I'd expect the Iraqi expatriates to be more independent and more popular with Iraqis. The UN will play a role, particularly in meeting the humanitarian needs of Iraqis, but that role must be determined by the divided security council.

The war is not yet over. Several objectives remain.
1.) The coalition must defeat the Special Republican Guard and other Hussein loyalists in Tikrit.
2.) The prisoners of war taken by Iraq, both in Gulf War II and the unreleased prisoners from Gulf War I and the Iran-Iraq war, must be set free.
3.) WMD must be thoroughly investigated. We haven't heard much about this because the Pentagon does not want to announce a possible WMD site only to have the evidence refuted (as the news channels already have.) There are several sites "of interest." National Public Radio had previously announced the discovery of missiles that contained nerve agent, and while it is easy to call this the "smoking gun," all of these suspect sites must be investigated. The untold story of the war has been the work by special forces to destroy Iraq's banned missiles. I believe that when all has been told, Iraqs possession of al-Hussein (SCUD) missiles, and probably weapons loaded with chemical agents, will be exposed.
4.) al Qaeda must be purged from Iraq. Perhaps you have heard about the terror camp at Salman Pak. Marines recently raided it. When they did, they found foreign fighters and an old airliner that, according to defectors, was used for hijack training. In my estimation, Iraqi sponsorship of conventional terrorism was more dangerous to the United States than their WMD. When this is all over we may finally be able to answer whether Iraqis trained the Saudi and Egyptian nationals who would eventually attack the United States.

Rebuilding Iraq may take up to two years. But when it is done, the United States will be able to withdraw from the Saudi bases that supported the no-fly zones. Essentially, the success of achieving our political objectives (the Clauswitzian reason for going to war) hinges on our handling of the rebuilding. If the post-WWII rebuilding is used as a model, and a greater committment is made to the Israeli-Palestinaian peace progress, stability will be restored to Iraq and it may hopefully spread to Palestine, Iran, and Syria. This, in turn, will allow us to save money that would be spent on further "police actions" in the out years.

So when that $74 billion is recouped, I'd spend it on space, scientific research, some conservation projects, and paying down the debt.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 11:18:34

It sounds like the pro-war people in here watch the mainstream news a little too much. Why don't you turn on an independent news source?
It's funny but really sad that all of you have accepted whatever Bush has told you.

Who's pro-war? I was merely responding to your statement that compared saddam to every other politician in the world. At the least, you could admit that was a stupid comparison.

I read news from over 100 online newspapers from around the world, so your statements about "independent news" is just as presumptuous as your saddam comparison.

"All of you" accepted what? How on earth could you possibly know what "all of" the people have accepted and what they have not?

It sounds to me like you make broad generalizations about people you don't know, and make absurd assumptions based on your broad generalizations.

I'm none too impressed.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 11:38:44

And France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Russia, England, Italy, Vietnam, Korea, China- all have at one time or another been our friend, mortal enemy, ally, liberator, liberated, etc.
Nations don't have friends, they have mutual interests. We are friends as long as our mutual interests are served.

Yes, spoken like someone who has a true understanding of the world. *All sides* of this particular conflict have an agenda. Russia and France have business interests with Saddam, the US does not. As far as I'm concerned, the so-called WMD was merely a pre-text to launch this war, which could have been justified on other grounds, such as humanitarian.

What is funny about so many who are either pro-war or anti-war is they lack the sophistication or knowledge to make real judgements. A polarized position is often a sign that someone has been dismissive of anything that doesn't align with their pre-conceived views.

Even funnier, is when some of these people assume that anyone who doesn't share their polarized anti-war views is ignorant or poorly informed.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-09 12:17:59

What would I do with that $74 billion? Well I sure wouldn't give it away to bums. Most of them are homeless because of lack of motivation and drug problems.

You need to take off six months (say) and live like a "bum" before you have any right to be judgemental

Many of the poor really don't know how to take care of what they have, or the work ethic to hold down a good paying job. I have worked with a couple people on welfare to get off and get a good paying job. They really don't understand things like getting up to go to work on time every morning, doing quality work, and pride in your job. One former street kid did learn: he is off welfare, earned a CNA, MSCE, and all but the exams for a CNE. He got a job as a LAN administrator and was promoted to store manager. That took several years of encouragement and teaching computer technology before he got to that point. Another guy has accounting certification, but never worked as an accountant. He kept toking every morning on his way to work at a furniture factory, until he got fired. Then he worked as a lawnmower guy, before getting work as a farm hand. All these people had a tendency to destroy their own furniture and possessions at home. One person lived in a shared house with a couple roommates; the roommates took the 25" TV into the basement, but didn't connect the cable or any external antenna. They complained the picture quality was unwatchable so took the TV to the dump. The TV worked fine upstairs. The TV owner was outraged, but it was too late to get the TV back.

I have another friend who was the best telephone technical support person I knew. He was jealous of my income, so got a second job as a security guard. He couldn't handle both jobs and a family, and got ill from the workload. He blamed his illness on allergies, but I don't believe him. (Some doctors didn't believe him either. He had to search for a doctor that would go along with the allergy story.) He really didn't want to be away from his family at all during the work day. How he is on welfare and has another child: a total of 3 children. I looked at getting him back to work at his old job, but he is living in government subsidized housing and getting more money from welfare than he would get from the tech support job. His mother gave him a used van and is living in a 3 bedroom townhouse. When his van broke down his mother paid for repairs, and his sister often gives him food or computer parts. Why would he want to work?

I feel I am qualified to criticize the chronic poor. I have not always been lucky. My income has fluctuated from a high of $100,000/year (U.S. funds) to delivering newspapers or pulling nails from boards in a salvage yard. (Try working outdoors in a salvage yard in January in Winnipeg, 60 miles north of North Dakota!) I was unemployed once, Unemployment Insurance benefits ran out (Canadian equivalent to Social Security), no money and all my lines of credit had max'ed-out. The only food I had for a week was fish from the river or vegetables from my garden. But I didn't go on welfare and didn't go to a food bank. It can be hard getting yourself moving again after a period of unemployment. While unemployed it is really hard to get out of the house to look for a job, and after you've contacted all the employers in your field that you can find it's hard to do anything further to look for work. Low-paying jobs outside your field can be hard as well because employers tend to want people who will stay in that job. Sometimes you just have to wait months before a job becomes available. Continuing the job search, and getting back into the routine of work can be a real test of character; I certainly know. But some people fail that test, and if you give them money or pay their bills when they aren't ready, they'll just waste it. Helping someone improve themselves to prepare for a good job, or helping them find work (not just giving them a job) is the only way they will be able to hold onto what they have.

Oh, another example: That same unemployed computer tech got a student loan to take a computer technology program. He kept skipping classes to be with his children until he was kicked out. It wasn't the best school (I warned him not to go there), it cost him $10,000 in tuition and gained nothing. He failed to pay the student loan, until the bank offered to let him buy-out at the cost of the original loan principle. The bank swallowed interest, late charges and service fees; his mother paid the loan principle. He hasn't learned and still thinks he was justified skipping classes to be with his children. He convinced his mother to give him the van after the loan incident. He didn't maintain the van and (as previously mentioned) when it broke down he asked his mother to pay for the repairs. It's especially sad considering I still ask him technical questions. For example, when I couldn't send a file or receive web pages with large images he explained how to add registry keys for Windows to limit packet size. My ISP's routers fail to assemble/dissable large packets (standard size for Windows) and some of their old routers could only handle small packets. He's too good to sit on his ass playing computer games, but I've done all I can. He'll never hold down a job until he wants to work.

dickbill · 2003-04-09 12:27:36

Yes, spoken like someone who has a true understanding of the world. *All sides* of this particular conflict have an agenda. Russia and France have business interests with Saddam, the US does not.

sorry to be off topic. Mr Perdue, maybe you could answer in the war and politic forum ?
First, who is not foolish in this list ? certainly not me and yes, I can fool myself like anybody else.

But back to what you say about France interests in Iraq, chirac has denied that categorically. I have posted the interview, by Ms amanpour, in this forum.
In particular, chirac said that france oil importation from iraq are ridiculously low compared to the US.

do you have better sources since you claim the reverse ? does chirac lies or is he a fool himself ?. Chirac in france has the same reputation than Bush here, he is not very smart, etc. So he could be fooled by his own councilors, that's possible, but proove it please.

clark · 2003-04-09 12:33:20

But back to what you say about France interests in Iraq, chirac has denied that categorically. I have posted the interview, by Ms amanpour, in this forum.
In particular, chirac said that france oil importation from iraq are ridiculously low compared to the US.

You asked...

http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/InsidetheRing.html

The reporters write for the Washington Post.

from the article:

Deals in Iraq
U.S. intelligence officials said oil companies in both Russia and France secretly tried to conclude deals with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in the days before military action against Iraq began.
The oil deals were an attempt by the companies, which were not identified by the officials, to get a foot in the door for contracts for oil and oil-related development in a post-Saddam Iraq.
"They believed they could get the contracts and then hope they would be honored later," one official said.
Bush administration officials still are deciding how to divide up contracts for rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq. Opponents of the U.S.-led war, such as France and Russia, are not expected to get any favored treatment. U.S. and British companies, however, are expected to be big winners in the lucrative oil market in Iraq.
The Russians' oil deal with Baghdad was to be done through the United Nations' oil-for-food program. The French company was working behind the scenes with the Russian firm in an effort to mask the involvement, the officials said. U.S. intelligence agencies, however, detected the efforts and reported it to senior Bush administration officials the week before military operations began.
The intelligence comes amid other reports of a French company providing aircraft spare parts covertly to Iraq, and how a Chinese chemical company sold missile-fuel chemical to Iraq with the help of a French company.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-09 12:35:26

But back to what you say about France interests in Iraq, chirac has denied that categorically. I have posted the interview, by Ms amanpour, in this forum.
In particular, chirac said that france oil importation from iraq are ridiculously low compared to the US.
do you have better sources since you claim the reverse ? does chirac lies or is he a fool himself ?. Chirac in france has the same reputation than Bush here, he is not very smart, etc. So he could be fooled by his own councilors, that's possible, but proove it please.

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Chirac can deny all he wants. Are you aware that Chirac personally managed the sale of a nuclear reactor to Iraq in 1975, for which the sole purpose was to build "the first arab bomb" to destroy israel? TotalFinaElf, the french oil company, has (had...) a $30 bln contract with Saddam, which would come into effect when sanctions were removed. Russia has $8 bln in debts, and Lukoil, the Russian oil company has a $50 bln oil contract, which they announced yesterday they would sue to protect.

But since you are so well-read you surely already know this stuff?

dickbill · 2003-04-09 13:12:35

why don't you post that stuff in the war and politic forum ?
you force me to answer in this thread which is off topic.
Mr Perdue, yes I know about the nuclear powerplant. That it was specifically done to destroy Israel, I didn't know that. Are you sure ? Then why France sold MirageIII fighters to support Israel against the arabs then ?

Clark, there are a couple of people from Fina-Elf in jail now. You cannot incriminate the official french governement for what do in secret some bad guys heads of compagnies or the mafia. the USA don't have the monopol of corrupted compagnies.

But all in all, certainly yes, I fully agree that part of secret french policy decisions stink. In France, there are hawks too, ready to anything to get more money or more power and who are not afraid to put some blood on their hands. I hate them and that stinks, I know, but it doesn't serve america interests to oversimplify the french position because of those french interest. It's like saying that US go to war for the oil, you have to be insane or naive to believe that.

soph · 2003-04-09 15:23:37

This thread is getting pointless fast. Lock or move, please?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-08 10:52:18

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#2 2003-04-08 11:49:19

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#3 2003-04-08 13:44:36

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#4 2003-04-08 15:41:54

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#5 2003-04-08 16:32:23

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#6 2003-04-08 16:44:57

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#7 2003-04-08 17:04:58

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#8 2003-04-08 19:27:49

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#9 2003-04-08 20:31:10

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#10 2003-04-09 07:40:51

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#11 2003-04-09 08:06:37

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#12 2003-04-09 09:48:20

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#13 2003-04-09 10:03:02

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#14 2003-04-09 10:29:57

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#15 2003-04-09 10:50:22

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#16 2003-04-09 10:57:32

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#17 2003-04-09 11:07:51

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#18 2003-04-09 11:18:34

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#19 2003-04-09 11:38:44

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#20 2003-04-09 12:17:59

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#21 2003-04-09 12:27:36

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#22 2003-04-09 12:33:20

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#23 2003-04-09 12:35:26

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#24 2003-04-09 13:12:35

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#25 2003-04-09 15:23:37

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

Board footer