The USA Budget

John Creighton · 2004-07-27 18:16:41

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy … tml]Budget

John Creighton · 2004-07-27 18:18:46

As much as I think more funds should be devoted to space, NASA gets three times as much money as the National Science Foundation, 115 times as much as the endowment for the arts and 99 times the amount given to the national endowment for the humanities. I can see why leaders talk about funding other scientific and engineering initiatives. ). To help put it in better perspective it is 0.23 times the amount spent on enducation.

P.S. Why does bush hike in long pants and a shirt?

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-27 19:12:35

To hide the strings?

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-27 19:17:03

In all seriousness, though, I agree with you. I think the NSF is underfunded, or at least, I think that cut backs in the NSF are a Bad Thing ™. But there's really not much that can be done. Most of the science in NASA is basically a tenth of all the funding that NASA gets (imho, just pulling that out of my butt). Maybe a fifth, at most.

But I think that the private sector could get something moving if there were goals set, like if prizes were created. A billion dollar moon base prize, anyone? Ten billion to Mars? That would make people squiggle gleefully, throwing their own money out there just for the heck of it. We'd have so much innovation. But yeah.

More money for science. And what money that isn't for science, throw it to the little man.

Euler · 2004-07-27 20:34:26

As much as I think more funds should be devoted to space, NASA gets three times as much money as the National Science Foundation, 115 times as much as the endowment for the arts and 99 times the amount given to the national endowment for the humanities. I can see why leaders talk about funding other scientific and engineering initiatives. ). To help put it in better perspective it is 0.23 times the amount spent on enducation.

We still spend 30 times less money on NASA than we do on Defense. Comparisons with Education funding are also not really fair, since most education money comes from the states and local governments.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-27 22:32:30

As much as I think more funds should be devoted to space, NASA gets three times as much money as the National Science Foundation, 115 times as much as the endowment for the arts and 99 times the amount given to the national endowment for the humanities. I can see why leaders talk about funding other scientific and engineering initiatives. ). To help put it in better perspective it is 0.23 times the amount spent on enducation.
P.S. Why does bush hike in long pants and a shirt?

I would agree with you that we need to fund the national labs significantly more then they are, we need more big projects like the National Ignition Facility and a new larger accelorator facility, but this funding shouldn't come from the NASA budget. (ideally I would like to see it come from medicare/medicad or wellfare or some other social programs) These 'big science' programs further the cause of general research that is the seed corn of new technologies. The US needs to catch up in the areas of fusion and particle physics with the CERN accelorater and the various European tokomaks. (Although admittedly I am of the camp in physics that thinks that IC fusion is far more promising, barring the low temprature fusion thing from panning out)The national labs also provide a huge driving factor for the economy as our supremacy is based on our technological dominance.

The one thing I don't like is people pointing to the DOD budget and saying "OMG the military is spending
so much, we should use all that money for X program"

The DOD is an enabler, if we don't maintain and continue to expand our military dominance we won't be able to ensure our security and we will be increasingly vulnerable to subversion by the rest of the world. Also without the unquestionable insurmountable threat of the American Military Machine it will be very hard to insure the free flow of important raw materials. (eg Oil)

First and foremost the DOD should be A.) Funded to the highest possible extent and B.) Be given carte blanche on procurement and tactics. IE if they think they need a system be free to procure it, not forced to go through the needless process of congressional approval from people who do not understand what they are making policy on. C.) Be free to get rid of cost-plus.

Euler · 2004-07-27 23:46:23

The one thing I don't like is people pointing to the DOD budget and saying "OMG the military is spending
so much, we should use all that money for X program"
The DOD is an enabler, if we don't maintain and continue to expand our military dominance we won't be able to ensure our security and we will be increasingly vulnerable to subversion by the rest of the world. Also without the unquestionable insurmountable threat of the American Military Machine it will be very hard to insure the free flow of important raw materials. (eg Oil)
First and foremost the DOD should be A.) Funded to the highest possible extent and B.) Be given carte blanche on procurement and tactics. IE if they think they need a system be free to procure it, not forced to go through the needless process of congressional approval from people who do not understand what they are making policy on. C.) Be free to get rid of cost-plus.

Where is the threat that makes us need all of this excessively overwhelming might? We could cut military spending by 80% and we would still be spending more than any other country. Our navy has 4/5 of all of the world's carrier aircraft, and it could probably defeat all of the world's other navies combined. We also have close to half the world's nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to anywhere in the world with no warning. We also have more military satellites than the rest of the world combined. We have a large variety of methods short of war to convince other countries to do what we want, and most of the other counties with powerful militaries are allies of the US.

While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-28 00:17:55

The one thing I don't like is people pointing to the DOD budget and saying "OMG the military is spending
so much, we should use all that money for X program"
The DOD is an enabler, if we don't maintain and continue to expand our military dominance we won't be able to ensure our security and we will be increasingly vulnerable to subversion by the rest of the world. Also without the unquestionable insurmountable threat of the American Military Machine it will be very hard to insure the free flow of important raw materials. (eg Oil)
First and foremost the DOD should be A.) Funded to the highest possible extent and B.) Be given carte blanche on procurement and tactics. IE if they think they need a system be free to procure it, not forced to go through the needless process of congressional approval from people who do not understand what they are making policy on. C.) Be free to get rid of cost-plus.
Where is the threat that makes us need all of this excessively overwhelming might? We could cut military spending by 80% and we would still be spending more than any other country. Our navy has 4/5 of all of the world's carrier aircraft, and it could probably defeat all of the world's other navies combined. We also have close to half the world's nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to anywhere in the world with no warning. We also have more military satellites than the rest of the world combined. We have a large variety of methods short of war to convince other countries to do what we want, and most of the other counties with powerful militaries are allies of the US.
While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.

In the current world most of what you say is perfectly accurate. The problem is that the world is a very dangerous place that is far from static. Let us not forget that Germany went from being a bombed out shattered nation to a juggernaut in less the ten years and nearly conquered the western world. The reason we have to maintain our might as you put it is that it takes decades year between concept and production of new systems and, so we have to be preparing for the wars we will be fighting in the 2010s and 2020s.

For example the Air Force is in the ‘perfect storm’ of procurement right now since many of our front line systems are reaching the end of their effective design cycles and their replacements were either cut back significantly or canceled altogether. The F-15 was designed in the 70s, and the F-16 is rapidly becoming yestertech. Our bomber and tanker forces are horrible antiquidated with the exception of the B-2 which was cut to such a small production run as much as a silver bullet as it is still doesn’t really keep our capability. In retrospect we would have been better off just ordering 300 B-1bs in the 80s instead of splitting bomber procurement to both the B-1 and then ATB program. Or if you go back even deeper if we had followed through with the brilliant program that was the XB-70. Toss in the 50 year old fleet of KC-10 and KC-135s we desperately need a replacement for…well you get the picture. The good news the USAF has an out in Space based systems and UCAVs which are coming online faster and cheaper then ever expected. The navy on the other had is screwed without a great answer

Also on the subject of the Navy they are in a serious pickle right now since during the mid-90s (not pointing any fingers )there was a serious cut in the funding and slow down in the ordering of new ships so our fleet is reaching retirement age over twice as fast as new ships are becoming operational, so we are in the position of trying desperately to try and get more ships out there faster with less people. The good folks at Electric Boat have come up with some really good ideas like the fully automated weapons handling system for the next LA class attack boat upgrade and the Virginia class is being built modularly so that hopefully they can be produced faster then both the LA and Seawolf classes were. Also the reactivation and refit of Ohio Class SLBM subs are massive cruise missile carriers (essentially the arsenal ship concept from a few years ago) will serve as a huge force multiplier since it offers carrier like strike capability with a huge amount of flexibility without having to deal with putting an immensely valuable asset like a CVN at risk.. It will be interesting to see how the DD(X) turns out especially since they will be all electric and possible nuclear powered.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 05:34:07

While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.

PurduesUSAFguy made some good points in response to this, but missed probably the most basic one.

If I attack you with a knife, would you rather fight back with two knives... or an automatic rifle from an armored vehicle with fifty guys and a helicopter backing you up? It's always prudent to have the greatest advantage possible, willfully reducing your capability in the face of any threat is foolish and irresponsible.

P.S. Why does bush hike in long pants and a shirt?

:hm: I do that. Ticks. Hate them.

John Creighton · 2004-07-28 09:25:13

Anyway, the point of this is NASA does make up a reasonable percentage of the federal budget. Granted, NASA does do a lot of earth science stuff as well, so it is hard to say what percentage of that goes to space science and engineering. I compared it with education because both programs are an investment in the intellectual capital of the country. As far as comparing it to defense, it seems like defense is the real reason NASA funding seems comparable to other programs like health and education. That is NASA gets a quarter as much as education, but only 1/25 that of defense. On the bright side the majority of the defense funding does go into research and development. Thus it still goes to funding the intellectual capital of the United States. Some obvious drawbacks of this is much of the technology is classified. Granted defense spending creates a lot of jobs and funds a lot of science. So all and all the beget is not that out of whack. Although the if at all possible the deficit should be eliminated. Perhaps this is to hard to do in a time of war.

P.S. That is a good point about most of education is funded from the states. Does anyone know the total tax revenue of the states and the aggregate amount spent on each program from all the states combined.

John Creighton · 2004-07-28 09:29:01

P.S. Why does bush hike in long pants and a shirt?
I do that. Ticks. Hate them.

Oh, maybe there is more of a problem with tic down in the states. I live in Nova Scotia, Canada. There aren’t very many tics up here. I just thought it would be kind of hot hiking in those clothes. The picture just seemed unnatural to me. Kind of like he was trying to look pretty for the camera.

Then again maybe he was hiking on a cool September day.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 09:47:43

While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.
PurduesUSAFguy made some good points in response to this, but missed probably the most basic one.
If I attack you with a knife, would you rather fight back with two knives... or an automatic rifle from an armored vehicle with fifty guys and a helicopter backing you up? It's always prudent to have the greatest advantage possible, willfully reducing your capability in the face of any threat is foolish and irresponsible.

All the high tech weapons in the world will not stop the demographic bomb we are facing.

We need to figure out how to defuse global resentment (whether justified or not) because if our answer is to put our boot on peoples throats there will be hell to pay when we get pulled down.

And if we number 300 million in a world of 6 billion, we won't have enough boots to do the job.

clark · 2004-07-28 09:56:16

And if we number 300 million in a world of 6 billion, we won't have enough boots to do the job.

So we can't invade. We can't be invaded. Stalemate.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-28 10:31:03

While I do appreciate that a strong military can come in handy, it seems like we could reduce the military by at least 1/3 and still be able to project overwhelming power throughout the world.
PurduesUSAFguy made some good points in response to this, but missed probably the most basic one.
If I attack you with a knife, would you rather fight back with two knives... or an automatic rifle from an armored vehicle with fifty guys and a helicopter backing you up? It's always prudent to have the greatest advantage possible, willfully reducing your capability in the face of any threat is foolish and irresponsible.
All the high tech weapons in the world will not stop the demographic bomb we are facing.
We need to figure out how to defuse global resentment (whether justified or not) because if our answer is to put our boot on peoples throats there will be hell to pay when we get pulled down.
And if we number 300 million in a world of 6 billion, we won't have enough boots to do the job.

We are 300 million against 5.7 billion. Even in that situation we win.

No other nation has a Navy, Air Lift, or Bombing force capable of mounting an offensive against the US. The countries we share a border with could be felled in a matter of days, the Canadian military is functionally equivalent to the Coast Guard (No offense to Canada, I Lived in Kingston, Ontario for two years and enjoyed it so much we still have a summer house there) and the Mexican military is, well...you get the picture.

As far as being concerned by nuclear or other long range strike, I think I said this in another thread but we have a tremendous advantage in that arena in that we have the best sensing and intelligence so we can hit the their birds on the ground. A first strike by tridents fired from the North Atlantic, Artic Circle, and Sea of Japan would allow only between 3 and 8 minutes of warning, not enough to initiate a response. (The fastest Russian response time in training during the peak of the cold war was 19 minutes decision to launch) A second strike followed up 10-20 minutes after the first warheads hit would take out leadership and conventional forces and leadership targets while a final third wave if need be would hit within 4-5 hours to take out Urban-Industrial targets if the enemy had not yet capitulated.

The world is ours for the taking, and we don't. We've never used our power accept for altruism, that says allot about our national character.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 10:35:50

We can maintain military supremacy for decades. But then the payback against my grandchildren will be fearsome.

And I seek to avoid that result.

The world is ours for the taking, and we don't. We've never used our power accept for altruism, that says allot about our national character.

Until now. That is my beef with GWB.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-28 10:56:09

We can maintain military supremacy for decades. But then the payback against my grandchildren will be fearsome.
And I seek to avoid that result.
The world is ours for the taking, and we don't. We've never used our power accept for altruism, that says allot about our national character.
Until now. That is my beef with GWB.

That's a thread onto itself, lol, and I don't think this is the forum to do it, I have enough debates on the liberation of Iraq in meat space, lol.

Also I would say that this is the begining of the American Epoch, not the end, we will fall one day, but it will be to our own progenity in the form or one of our by the off world colonies most likley. I'd suggest reading the book 'The Future of War' it provides the best explanation of why I have read so far, I've done alot of reading on the matter, but that is the book that provides the best summation.

You think the 20th was the American Century, your going to love the 21st.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 11:30:59

Whether this is the beginning or the end for us is entirely up to us. The probelem is that many who think they are helping are actually hurting.

For example, the stronger our military the better able we are to deal with any threat. To intentionally weaken ourselves is ill-conceived. But we cannot maintain peace or dominance indefinately through military might alone.

It's possible to do, but we haven't the stomach for it. We're better than that.

We can maintain military supremacy for decades. But then the payback against my grandchildren will be fearsome.
And I seek to avoid that result.

It depends largely on what we do with that supremacy. Leaving the rest of the world to wallow in its ruin will not allay the wrath, but neither will pouring aid on them without guidance.

If we can use our might in righteous causes it will help, but only if we succeed in molding those we defeat just as the Romans and British did before us. Many of the ideas, political and cultural remain with us from the Roman Empire. We ourselves are the direct descendents of the British Empire. Both created lasting impressions, coherent political ideas, a uniting language and other advances which endured long after their passing.

If the cultural and philosphical foundations of a civilization can be secured than the geography of the political seat of power is only of secondary importance.

And for the first time in history a nation truly has the power to set the language, culture and to a lesser extent philosophies of the entire world. We have the opportunity to help millions of downtrodden around the world, and in so doing make the world America. If that is achieved, then the soul of America will always survive, even if the United States of America ceases to exist as a political entity.

But that puts us way over budget.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 17:18:47

Cobra & PurdueUSAF - -

Don't the arguments you state above support John Kerry's position that we should have 40,000 new regular Army/Marine infantry and double the special forces and increased pay and benefits and faster rotation of Reservists (ending Reserve "stop loss")?

If we are to be an imperial occupation minded power we will need more muddy boots.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 05:31:33

Cobra & PurdueUSAF - -
Don't the arguments you state above support John Kerry's position that we should have 40,000 new regular Army/Marine infantry and double the special forces and increased pay and benefits and faster rotation of Reservists (ending Reserve "stop loss")?
If we are to be an imperial occupation minded power we will need more muddy boots.

It's all in the details. The argument might have some weight were it consistent, but Kerry shows no signs of actually following such a policy. Expanding the military or a more aggressive stance globally.

See, the thing is that we all know war is hell, and I don't want it any more than you do, or John Kerry or Dennis friggin' Kucinich. But there's alot of shit in the world, some a direct threat to us and some just horribly wrong. If a US administration firmly advocated fixing it through imperial means, I'd back it. Not blindly and not without difficult questions, but I'd back it.

Where we are now is an odd half-step. What we are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan is a rushjob version of what could be undertaken. Bush's position was watered down from the start and has only become more so. Kerry is increasingly becoming Bush-Lite in the foreign policy arena. Whoever we pick is probably going to do essentially the same half-assed job in the current arenas, only Bush has people behind him pushing harder. Kerry's people want to pull him back.

I'm seeing it like this: We can't take a purely defensive posture, we can't check every port, every border crossing, every plane, car and train. We need to take offensive pre-emptive action. But that doesn't really solve the core problem. For that we need to remake the societies of the countries we move against. We need to make them like us. The more we do this the better, not only with regards to the immediate conflict but for the future in general. Ours is the most inclusive, free and just society ever to grace this earth. Expanding it is good and noble.

Just for the sake of argument:

We have three options at the moment. Isolationism, just try to mind our own affairs and let the world be. This won't work anymore, they'll come here.

The current policy, preemption when popular and justifiable. A series of small wars, seen as wholly separate. A haphazard approach. Has potential to work, but it's slow and the people by and large don't get it. A shift in administrations could completely derail the policy, making matters worse than they started.

Imperial policy. Current approach on steroids. Expand the military for the express purpose of occupation and nation-building. Create a "civil corps" to aid in rebuilding the defeated nations. Organize national policy around a bold vision with the express intent of exporting the best of American philosphy, culture, language and law.

The United States of America is at present capable of projecting power an order of magnitude greater than any other power on Earth. American forces are in a completely different class from any other. If we really wanted to we could take the whole thing.

But we won't. We'll take the harder road for ourselves and our children because we believe it is wrong to impose our will on others, even if we know they're wrong. That's the kind of people we are, fools at times, but honorable.

:hm: what were we talking about? Oh yeah, Kerry's space policy. If he announces at the convention tonight that those 40,000 new troops he wants are either for occupation and assimilation duties for new operations or the first Space Marines bound for Mars he's got my vote.

EDIT::
Oh wait, this is the US budget thread. Going off-topic in too many places, can't keep track.

:hm: So how do we pay for 40,000 Space Marines and some big honkin' rocketships with plasma cannons on 'em?

clark · 2004-07-29 09:49:48

I'm seeing it like this: We can't take a purely defensive posture, we can't check every port, every border crossing, every plane, car and train. We need to take offensive pre-emptive action. But that doesn't really solve the core problem. For that we need to remake the societies of the countries we move against. We need to make them like us. The more we do this the better, not only with regards to the immediate conflict but for the future in general. Ours is the most inclusive, free and just society ever to grace this earth. Expanding it is good and noble.

We need friends and allies to help. There isn't enough of us, and our treasure will not last forever. Bush has squandered our goodwill and our good name, for what? To go guns blazing into Iraq when we could have taken our time to convince and influence others that this needed to be done.

We can agree that we need to protect our way of life. We can agree that we should encourage the spread of democracy and human rights. Why can't we agree that it is infinetly harder to do this when we are isolated, and despised throughout the world?

People around the world still love America, but they fear Bush. They hate Bush. How has Bush built alliances? second rate reformed third world nations that offer a smattering of boots and cut and run at the first sign of trouble?

The United States of America is at present capable of projecting power an order of magnitude greater than any other power on Earth. American forces are in a completely different class from any other. If we really wanted to we could take the whole thing.

This attitude is not credible. We do not have the power to rule the world. We do not have the capability to oppress the world. We struggle right now with occupying a nation the size of California. We are spending our treasure at a rate that we cannot sustain without serious harm to our future.

Our defense, our military is designed to work in tandem with our allies- what we are seeing is what happens when are allies are not there. Why do you think reservists will have to be deployed longer than 48 months? Why do you think we have the stop-loss increasing?

Any administration will do what is neccessary to protect the american people. It's their job. I sincerly believe that changing our leader will make it easier on the guy on the ground because with someone else, we just might get some freaking help. There is no way any nation will help as long as Bush is in charge.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-29 10:23:52

Purdue and Cobra,
Your comments here remind me of the JibJab song, "You can't say nuclear...that really scares me..."

Ok, I'm sure you can say 'nuclear', but you still really scare me.

Let's look at funding those imaginary 40,000 troops. We have about 10,000 nuclear weapons, right? Let's cut that arsenal down to say...just enough to destroy the entire world once. What would that leave us with -- 1,000? That's still plenty of offensive power, but now we have saved some money to pay for those 40,000 GIs. And as a side benefit we got some of the more moderate Anti-nuke people to vote for us.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 10:30:18

Slow down missile defense. Don't stop it, slow it down.

Pay for 40,000 regular infantry and double the special forces.

clark · 2004-07-29 10:30:43

Where are we going to get "40,000" more troops?

An all volunteer military that has trouble reaching it's quota means that you end up paying more for each extra pair of boots. More incentives increases the cost dramatically, and couple this with a booming economy (which any President would like) and it becomes even harder.

It also makes it harder to modernize that army, and if you increase the capability (i.e. the size of the military) then you neccessarily create the opportunity for a new Administration to get bigger ideas. The size of our current military is constraining our adventures (that and the fact no one wants to help us, so that means we have to make do with what we have).

Or, we could just draft a whole new generation of Americans to go fight these wars. That's really what we are talking about when we talk about increasing the size of the military by 2 divisions (that or increasing the budget of DOD to intice more people to volunteer).

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 10:34:11

We can agree that we need to protect our way of life. We can agree that we should encourage the spread of democracy and human rights. Why can't we agree that it is infinetly harder to do this when we are isolated, and despised throughout the world?

Of course we can agree on that, the disagreement is whether the statement that we are despised is true, and if so, why.

People around the world still love America, but they fear Bush. They hate Bush. How has Bush built alliances? second rate reformed third world nations that offer a smattering of boots and cut and run at the first sign of trouble?

The Bush factor is overplayed. Certainly there are people that "love America but hate Bush." But they aren't running things. Governments don't work that way, our allies are peeling away for economic and geopolitical reasons, not some petty tiff with George Bush.

This attitude is not credible. We do not have the power to rule the world. We do not have the capability to oppress the world. We struggle right now with occupying a nation the size of California.

DISCLAIMER: The following should not be construed to support a given course of action.

We exercise remarkable restraint in our use of force. We are unusually concerned with preventing civilian casualties. Rather than fight a war then pick up the pieces after, we are trying to fight the war without breaking anything. We're rebuilding before we're done killing the enemy. It's hard, and it's expensive as hell. We could do the whole thing faster and cheaper if we just pounded our target into the stone-age, rounded up the survivors and rebuilt on our terms and our timeframe.

But that's not who we are. That's my point, we choose to make things more difficult for ourselves out of concern for people we're trying to help, many of whom don't particularly like us. Our foreign policy is a weird sort of national masochism, but we do it anyway.

I sincerly believe that changing our leader will make it easier on the guy on the ground because with someone else, we just might get some freaking help. There is no way any nation will help as long as Bush is in charge.

Dozens of nations are helping. And those that aren't have reasons other than Bush for that position. Put Kerry in the White House and the French still won't be on board. And we don't need them.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 10:35:16

clark has a good point.

So long as we build missile defense rather than raising 40,000 more troops we cannot project imperial power without allies. Okay, now Bush cuts our ties to our allies and thus no imperial policy.

Double reverse back flip foreign policy.

Besides Bush '04 means Hillary '08. Cool!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-27 18:16:41

Re: The USA Budget

#2 2004-07-27 18:18:46

Re: The USA Budget

#3 2004-07-27 19:12:35

Re: The USA Budget

#4 2004-07-27 19:17:03

Re: The USA Budget

#5 2004-07-27 20:34:26

Re: The USA Budget

#6 2004-07-27 22:32:30

Re: The USA Budget

#7 2004-07-27 23:46:23

Re: The USA Budget

#8 2004-07-28 00:17:55

Re: The USA Budget

#9 2004-07-28 05:34:07

Re: The USA Budget

#10 2004-07-28 09:25:13

Re: The USA Budget

#11 2004-07-28 09:29:01

Re: The USA Budget

#12 2004-07-28 09:47:43

Re: The USA Budget

#13 2004-07-28 09:56:16

Re: The USA Budget

#14 2004-07-28 10:31:03

Re: The USA Budget

#15 2004-07-28 10:35:50

Re: The USA Budget

#16 2004-07-28 10:56:09

Re: The USA Budget

#17 2004-07-28 11:30:59

Re: The USA Budget

#18 2004-07-28 17:18:47

Re: The USA Budget

#19 2004-07-29 05:31:33

Re: The USA Budget

#20 2004-07-29 09:49:48

Re: The USA Budget

#21 2004-07-29 10:23:52

Re: The USA Budget

#22 2004-07-29 10:30:18

Re: The USA Budget

#23 2004-07-29 10:30:43

Re: The USA Budget

#24 2004-07-29 10:34:11

Re: The USA Budget

#25 2004-07-29 10:35:16

Re: The USA Budget

Board footer