Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine!

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,457
We finally know, well innocent until proven guilty kind of know, who the greaseballs are behind some of the major hacks that we have been talking about for the last few years. These Ukrainian hackers are getting nailed for crimes involving more than 100 U.S. companies. The authorities caught up with three of them in the EU. One is already in U.S. custody and the Justice Department is working on extraditing the other two. Dasvidaniya!


Three Ukrainians associated with the hacking group FIN7 have been arrested in Europe in connection with hacks of more than 100 U.S. companies that led to tens of millions of dollars in losses, according to U.S. officials and court documents.

The suspects, Fedir Hladyr, Dmytro Fedorov and Andrii Kolpakov, were arrested in Europe between January and June of this year, the Justice Department said on Wednesday. Hladyr is in U.S. custody and U.S. authorities are seeking extradition of the other two, the department said.
 
Some smart fuckers. Instead of arresting them, have the FBI or CIA hire them before another country does.
 
So, the Country that needs America's military hardware and backing is hacking the American Government? Russia just moved in there recently ... just saying
 
pcgeekesq said:
Yeah, it feels like the US is falling behind in the cyberwar arena.
Well, maybe we're just so damn good we never get caught, but that kind of wishful thinking is not the way to bet.
Click to expand...

The US is pretty good, eternal blue and double pulsar showed that. They were some extremely clever hacks. Problem is with any intelligence capability, if you use it a lot and do so flagrantly, you risk revealing you are doing it and the methods you are using and then having the intelligence denied in the future because it gets shut down. Nobody can say for sure, except for people high up in the US intelligence community, but it seems the US uses their cyber attacks carefully and sparingly to get high value national security information, to try and keep them under the radar. They aren't running around hacking foreign companies to try and screw with them.
 
Good! Hopefully the agencies involved can uncover much of the extent of the damages they've caused and make even more arrests.


panhead said:
Hilary who?
You need to worry about the current, as Rex Tillerson so eloquently said "fucking moron" running the country. He's really really good at bankrupting.
Click to expand...

Federal government consists of three equal parts that "run the country". Two of them can jointly override the one you're falsely deranged about. And it's always been that way since the first Congress in 1789.
 
The_Capulet said:
The FBI and CIA don't need any more slimeball crooks. No thanks.
Click to expand...

That's what the CIA is, though.

After WW2, captured Nazi scientists became USA scientists (which is where the USA got its advanced missile tech from - and is why the USA is significantly behind Russia in missile tech now, because the USA's former Nazi scientists are not working anymore or are passed away), and captured Nazi generals were integrated into NATO and the CIA to help them against Russia.

There have been Nazi mottos used by US government officials at various times on immigration, on justifying propaganda, and on other things. A lot of US propaganda methods are taken straight out of Nazi programs.

Perhaps that's because some of the Nazis that created, developed, or worked within the Nazis propaganda regimes also helped the CIA and other US agencies develop the USA's own similar regimes many decades ago.

https://ips-dc.org/the_cias_worst-k...nfirm_united_states_collaboration_with_nazis/

naturally-the-common-people-dont-want-war-neither-in-russia-5141480.png


^ Exactly what the US government and MSM did regarding Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Iran (without as much success), and now Russia.
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
The US is pretty good, eternal blue and double pulsar showed that. They were some extremely clever hacks. Problem is with any intelligence capability, if you use it a lot and do so flagrantly, you risk revealing you are doing it and the methods you are using and then having the intelligence denied in the future because it gets shut down. Nobody can say for sure, except for people high up in the US intelligence community, but it seems the US uses their cyber attacks carefully and sparingly to get high value national security information, to try and keep them under the radar. They aren't running around hacking foreign companies to try and screw with them.
Click to expand...

But are we hacking Russian elections?
Oh wait, they don't really have any, do they? Not really.
 
Delicieuxz said:
After WW2, captured Nazi scientists became USA scientists (which is where the USA got its advanced missile tech from - and is why the USA is significantly behind Russia in missile tech now, because the USA's former Nazi scientists are not working anymore or are passed away).
Click to expand...

Yes, SpaceX is so far behind the Russians in missile tech, it's all sunshine and vodka martinis at Roscosmos:

Because of technical problems with its rockets and cost pressure from SpaceX, the country's once-lucrative commercial launch industry is fading. And soon, conditions may worsen.
...
The bottom line is that global demand for Russian rockets is rapidly dwindling, and the great hope for the future, the Soyuz 5, remains years if not decades away. How long can Russia survive on past glories? "There are significant doubts about the future of Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft," Borisov concludes. -- Russian editor: Our space program is entering the “Dark Ages”
​
See also: Russia appears to have surrendered to SpaceX in the global launch market
 
pcgeekesq said:
Yes, SpaceX is so far behind the Russians in missile tech, it's all sunshine and vodka martinis at Roscosmos:

Because of technical problems with its rockets and cost pressure from SpaceX, the country's once-lucrative commercial launch industry is fading. And soon, conditions may worsen.
...
The bottom line is that global demand for Russian rockets is rapidly dwindling, and the great hope for the future, the Soyuz 5, remains years if not decades away. How long can Russia survive on past glories? "There are significant doubts about the future of Russian launch vehicles and spacecraft," Borisov concludes. -- Russian editor: Our space program is entering the “Dark Ages”
​
See also: Russia appears to have surrendered to SpaceX in the global launch market
Click to expand...

The USA is very far behind Russia in missile and anti-missile tech. That's why Russia's best anti-missile and anti-air system is more than twice as capable in all metrics as the USA's own best system, and that is why the USA is threatening other countries against purchasing Russia's anti-missile and anti-air systems, and that is why Turkey and India are purchasing Russia's systems despite the USA's threats, and that is why the US government stated twice in 2017 that the USA possesses no defence against Russia's hyper-sonic missiles, and that is why the USA doesn't even have hyper-sonic missiles, and that is why so much else, also. The USA is a good 1 - 2 generations behind Russia in missile and anti-missile technology.


By the way, SpaceX and space programs use rockets, not missiles.
 
Delicieuxz said:
The USA is very far behind Russia in missile and anti-missile tech. That's why Russia's best anti-missile and anti-air system is more than twice as capable in all metrics as the USA's own best system, and that is why the USA is threatening other countries against purchasing Russia's anti-missile and anti-air systems, and that is why Turkey and India are purchasing Russia's systems despite the USA's threats, and that is why the US government stated twice in 2017 that the USA possesses no defence against Russia's hyper-sonic missiles, and that is why the USA doesn't even have hyper-sonic missiles, and that is why so much else, also. The USA is a good 1 - 2 generations behind Russia in missile and anti-missile technology.


By the way, SpaceX and space programs use rockets, not missiles.
Click to expand...
Technically, they're rocket propelled missiles, not rockets themselves:
Definition of missile
: an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance
  • stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets aremissiles
: such as
a : guided missile
b : ballistic missile
Click to expand...

From NASA, with love:
How Does NASA Use Rockets?
Early NASA missions used rockets built by the military. Alan Shepard became the first American in space flying on the U.S. Army's Redstone rocket. The Atlas missilewas used to make John Glenn the first American to orbit Earth. NASA's Gemini missions used the Titan II missile to launch astronauts. The first rockets NASA built to launch astronauts were the Saturn I, the Saturn IB and the Saturn V. Apollo missions used these to send men to the moon. A Saturn V launched the Skylab space station. The space shuttle also uses rocket engines to carry astronauts into space. NASA uses rockets to launch satellites and to send probes to other worlds. These rockets include the Atlas V, the Delta II, the Pegasus and Taurus. NASA also uses smaller "sounding rockets" for scientific research. These rockets go up and come back down, instead of flying into orbit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
That's what the CIA is, though.

After WW2, captured Nazi scientists became USA scientists (which is where the USA got its advanced missile tech from - and is why the USA is significantly behind Russia in missile tech now, because the USA's former Nazi scientists are not working anymore or are passed away), and captured Nazi generals were integrated into NATO and the CIA to help them against Russia.

There have been Nazi mottos used by US government officials at various times on immigration, on justifying propaganda, and on other things. A lot of US propaganda methods are taken straight out of Nazi programs.

Perhaps that's because some of the Nazis that created, developed, or worked within the Nazis propaganda regimes also helped the CIA and other US agencies develop the USA's own similar regimes many decades ago.

https://ips-dc.org/the_cias_worst-k...nfirm_united_states_collaboration_with_nazis/

View attachment 93368

^ Exactly what the US government and MSM did regarding Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Iran (without as much success), and now Russia.
Click to expand...

I just watched an interesting show on history channel. The topic was the German u-boats. Apparently the type 21, which was finished just barely before the end of WWII, was used as the prototype for the first American nuclear submarine. Who knew.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Missiles are self-guided weapons that can be rocket-based.

The Atlas missile is indeed a missile - it's an ICBM.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be weapons, but some weapons are missiles, yes. NASA has the same definition as Merriam-Webster on that page I linked, btw. Some missiles use rockets, others are dropped (bombs), and some are thrown (balls, rocks, for example).
 
Delicieuxz said:
The USA is very far behind Russia in missile and anti-missile tech.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The US is just behind Russia's propoganda about missiles and anti-missiles:

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters that nothing Russia demonstrated changed the Pentagon’s perspective. “I saw no change to the Russian military capability and each of these systems that he’s talking about are still years away, I do not see them changing the military balance. They do not impact any need on our side for a change in our deterrence posture.” Indeed, the missile seems to fuel the propaganda machine more than it actually changes the strategic balance. -- https://theaviationist.com/2018/03/12/russia-test-fires-new-kh-47m2-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile/
​
No one should be surprised that the USSR is hyping up there advanced weapons and the US isn't.
The US is still acknowledged as a super-power. Russia is trying to get that back.

Furthermore, please note that every ICBM is a hypersonic missile, and the US still has a bunch of those. So you're wrong to say it doesn't.
Also, the US has the X-37, a reusable hypersonic spaceplane currently used for long-duration secret missions. Russia has nothing like it.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Missiles are self-guided weapons that can be rocket-based.
Click to expand...

So, you admit that the US leads in rocket technology, but claims Russia is ahead in missile technology.

How?

Better guidance systems? I doubt it.
Better warheads? I doubt it.

Better propaganda? Only if you believe what Putin and his underling say is the truth.
Do you?

Although I admit, after 8 years of a President with zero interest in defending US interests, they may have caught up some.
But that day is done.
 
pcgeekesq said:
So, you admit that the US leads in rocket technology, but claims Russia is ahead in missile technology.

How?

Better guidance systems? I doubt it.
Better warheads? I doubt it.

Better propaganda? Only if you believe what Putin and his underling say is the truth.
Do you?

Although I admit, after 8 years of a President with zero interest in defending US interests, they may have caught up some.
But that day is done.
Click to expand...

whether or not a president does or doesn't care about US interests DARPA has and always will be developing things on a basically unlimited budget. what the president says publicly has little to no effect on them. most of which we'll never know exists until it's actually used or they feel it's necessary to use as a statement to the world.
 
pcgeekesq said:
I doubt it. The US is just behind Russia's propoganda about missiles and anti-missiles:

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters that nothing Russia demonstrated changed the Pentagon’s perspective. “I saw no change to the Russian military capability and each of these systems that he’s talking about are still years away, I do not see them changing the military balance. They do not impact any need on our side for a change in our deterrence posture.” Indeed, the missile seems to fuel the propaganda machine more than it actually changes the strategic balance. -- https://theaviationist.com/2018/03/12/russia-test-fires-new-kh-47m2-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile/
​
No one should be surprised that the USSR is hyping up there advanced weapons and the US isn't.
The US is still acknowledged as a super-power. Russia is trying to get that back.
Click to expand...

No, the USA is leading Russia when it comes to propaganda, and Mattis is downplaying the discrepancy between Russia and the USA's missile technology for domestic propaganda purposes. Mattis acting non-phased when talking to the USA's domestic audience is about keeping up appearances of US superiority, to keep the domestic propaganda morale high, and to sound in-control of things and not caught off-guard. It's about preserving the public's faith in the US government's claims about what it is.

But Mattis wrote something very differently in his National Defense Strategy report: Mattis: US military advantage over China and Russia 'eroding'

"Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare - air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace - and is continually eroding,” Mattis warned, adding at one point: “America has no pre-ordained right to victory on the battlefield."


And other US military officials have said less confident things:

The US can't defend against Russia's newest cruise missiles — so it may have to try offense instead
China and Russia are 'aggressively pursuing' hypersonic weapons, and the US can't defend against them, top nuclear commander says

Also, Russia's hypersonic missile has been shown in a couple of video tests. So, it isn't years away. It's here already, as Putin said in, I think, his last national address.

As clarified in this thread, a missile that uses rockets is a lot more than just a rocket. And Russia absolutely has better detection and guidance systems than the USA, as well as bigger and more advanced warheads. The US spends around 10x the money on R&D to simply get comparable results to Russia's technology. I'm speculating that is not only due to currency conversion differences, but also to differences in bureaucracy and ease and cost of access to resources. There are differences in the countries' education systems that might play a role (free university education, with, I think, the highest % of citizens with tertiary education in the world).


Russia started modernization efforts for its military a while ago, but the fruits of that modernization effort have been manifesting throughout the last several years. Ironically, it was the USA's unilateral withdrawal in 2002 from the ABM treaty with Russia, which the USA did so that it could start stacking offensive missile systems around Russia's borders, that motivated Russia and gave Russia the license to develop some of its modern missile technology that outclasses the USA's arsenal.

As I said, the USA doesn't even have a lot of the stuff Russia's recently unveiled, such as hypersonic missiles (not meaning ICBMs). And the US government feels threatened by that, which is why the US government has just thrown $1 billion at Lockeed Martin to pursue of development of hypersonic missiles to try to catch up to Russia: US awards $1bn contract for hypersonic missile as it falls behind Russia and China in new arms race


And here are some technical comparisons between the US' best anti-missile / anti-air system, and Russia's:

The US' Patriot Missile system:

Detection rage - 180 km
Interception range - 130 km
Minimum range - 10 km
Max speed - 7,920 km /h
Deployment time - 25 minutes

Russia's S-400 system:

Detection rage - 600 km
Interception range - 400 km
Minimum range - 2 km
Max speed - 17,180 km /h
Deployment time - 5 minutes

Also, the stealth detection of Russia's systems is generally believed to be very good (it's been suggested to be able to detect F-22 and F-35), while the USA's stealth detection is speculated to be minimal.

Also, Russia is well into development of the upcoming S-500 system, which will replace the S-400 system, while the S-400 system becomes Russia's main export model.


The US government has already acknowledged Russia as a super-power. I think that the US government would not do that unless it was past the point of there being any point to denying it any longer. Remember, a lot of countries, and especially the USA, and also NATO countries as a whole, are information and propaganda bubbles where the internal view is starkly different from the view outside of those bubbles. And the internal view is also heavily distorted compared to the reality. When the atmosphere is 'USA is best, USA is unchallenged' inside the USA, don't take that to mean it's the reality and that that sentiment exists inside USA geopolitical rivals own countries.

I think that the only reason the US government would acknowledge Russia as a super-power is because Russia is already about equal in military power to the USA (perhaps the USA is even less powerful after factoring Russia's latest military tech) and in not acknowledging that the US couldn't engage Russia in discussions that would have useful outcomes. If the US pretends it is significantly (or even at all) militarily more powerful than Russia than the US will base its negotiations on that perspective, and then those negotiations won't be fruitful because there won't be any reciprocation to them from Russia's side. And the US won't be able to do anything to change that non-reciprocation because the US doesn't have the power to impose any reciprocation by force.


Also, it takes around maybe 3x the military power to successfully invade a country as it does to defend it. The USA couldn't even handle Iraq and Afghanistan - two of the less powerful countries in the Middle East. Turkey is the most powerful one, and Iran is also a more powerful one. Iran would chew the USA up and spit it out if the USA attacks Iran. Against Russia? Forget it. That's why the US is attacking Russia through economic warfare instead, threatening countries against doing business with Russia, and has tried to demand that the EU buys US gas instead of cheaper and more reliable Russian gas. - though the EU has rebuffed the US' demands.
 
Last edited:
I wish we can simply skip due process and just terminate people who do harm to others. It's great for population control. Yes I know, once we go down this road, it's all downhill from there. Anyone will be fair game.
 
Delicieuxz said:
No, the USA is leading Russia when it comes to propaganda, and Mattis is downplaying the discrepancy between Russia and the USA's missile technology for domestic propaganda purposes. Mattis acting non-phased when talking to the USA's domestic audience is about keeping up appearances of US superiority, to keep the domestic propaganda morale high, and to sound in-control of things and not caught off-guard. It's about preserving the public's faith in the US government's claims about what it is.

But Mattis wrote something very differently in his National Defense Strategy report: Mattis: US military advantage over China and Russia 'eroding'

"Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare - air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace - and is continually eroding,” Mattis warned, adding at one point: “America has no pre-ordained right to victory on the battlefield."


And other US military officials have said less confident things:

The US can't defend against Russia's newest cruise missiles — so it may have to try offense instead
China and Russia are 'aggressively pursuing' hypersonic weapons, and the US can't defend against them, top nuclear commander says

Also, Russia's hypersonic missile has been shown in a couple of video tests. So, it isn't years away. It's here already, as Putin said in, I think, his last national address.

As clarified in this thread, a missile that uses rockets is a lot more than just a rocket. And Russia absolutely has better detection and guidance systems than the USA, as well as bigger and more advanced warheads. The US spends around 10x the money on R&D to simply get comparable results to Russia's technology. I'm speculating that is not only due to currency conversion differences, but also to differences in bureaucracy and ease and cost of access to resources. There are differences in the countries' education systems that might play a role (free university education, with, I think, the highest % of citizens with tertiary education in the world).


Russia started modernization efforts for its military a while ago, but the fruits of that modernization effort have been manifesting throughout the last several years. Ironically, it was the USA's unilateral withdrawal in 2002 from the ABM treaty with Russia, which the USA did so that it could start stacking offensive missile systems around Russia's borders, that motivated Russia and gave Russia the license to develop some of its modern missile technology that outclasses the USA's arsenal.

As I said, the USA doesn't even have a lot of the stuff Russia's recently unveiled, such as hypersonic missiles (not meaning ICBMs). And the US government feels threatened by that, which is why the US government has just thrown $1 billion at Lockeed Martin to pursue of development of hypersonic missiles to try to catch up to Russia: US awards $1bn contract for hypersonic missile as it falls behind Russia and China in new arms race


And here are some technical comparisons between the US' best anti-missile / anti-air system, and Russia's:

The US' Patriot Missile system:

Detection rage - 180 km
Interception range - 130 km
Minimum range - 10 km
Max speed - 7,920 km /h
Deployment time - 25 minutes

Russia's S-400 system:

Detection rage - 600 km
Interception range - 400 km
Minimum range - 2 km
Max speed - 17,180 km /h
Deployment time - 5 minutes

Also, the stealth detection of Russia's systems is generally believed to be very good (it's been suggested to be able to detect F-22 and F-35), while the USA's stealth detection is speculated to be minimal.

Also, Russia is well into development of the upcoming S-500 system, which will replace the S-400 system, while the S-400 system becomes Russia's main export model.


The US government has already acknowledged Russia as a super-power. I think that the US government would not do that unless it was past the point of there being any point to denying it any longer. Remember, a lot of countries, and especially the USA, and also NATO countries as a whole, are information and propaganda bubbles where the internal view is starkly different from the view outside of those bubbles. And the internal view is also heavily distorted compared to the reality. When the atmosphere is 'USA is best, USA is unchallenged' inside the USA, don't take that to mean it's the reality and that that sentiment exists inside USA geopolitical rivals own countries.

I think that the only reason the US government would acknowledge Russia as a super-power is because Russia is already about equal in military power to the USA (perhaps the USA is even less powerful after factoring Russia's latest military tech) and in not acknowledging that the US couldn't engage Russia in discussions that would have useful outcomes. If the US pretends it is significantly (or even at all) militarily more powerful than Russia than the US will base its negotiations on that perspective, and then those negotiations won't be fruitful because there won't be any reciprocation to them from Russia's side. And the US won't be able to do anything to change that non-reciprocation because the US doesn't have the power to impose any reciprocation by force.


Also, it takes around maybe 3x the military power to successfully invade a country as it does to defend it. The USA couldn't even handle Iraq and Afghanistan - two of the less powerful countries in the Middle East. Turkey is the most powerful one, and Iran is also a more powerful one. Iran would chew the USA up and spit it out if the USA attacks Iran. Against Russia? Forget it. That's why the US is attacking Russia through economic warfare instead, threatening countries against doing business with Russia, and has tried to demand that the EU buys US gas instead of cheaper and more reliable Russian gas. - though the EU has rebuffed the US' demands.
Click to expand...
I do find it interesting that the typical, 'oh look Russia produced missiles that flew crooked, and blew up, ha ha funny ' articles that have been typical of the MSM in the US are being replaced with silence, or just, 'Russia announced'.... Or 'Putin announced'..., But with a lot less ' ha ha funny little Russians and their toy military ' type comments... This been a long time observation for me, im not saying the change has been like flicking a switch.
 
Delicieuxz said:
The USA couldn't even handle Iraq and Afghanistan - two of the less powerful countries in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

The USA rolled the Hussein and Taliban regimes in short order but forgot rebuilding a nation after you destroy it is harder than destroying it. War changed forever during Vietnam because it allowed citizens of the imperium to watch, in real time, the devastation war wrought abroad.

I am not at all concerned about a conventional war with any of the other nuclear powers. I am not concerned about nuclear exchanges. I am concerned about relatively less corrupt, relatively free, relatively democratic, relatively meritocratic societies becoming more like corrupt kleptocracies like Russia through the weaponized use of disinformation and propoganda.

You'd think on a computer hardware forum some of you nerds would remember the warning in Sneakers!
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
whether or not a president does or doesn't care about US interests DARPA has and always will be developing things on a basically unlimited budget.
Click to expand...
Uh, NO. I've worked for DARPA (back when it was called ARPA). There's definitely budget limits.
 
snowcrash said:
I wish we can simply skip due process and just terminate people who do harm to others.
Click to expand...
You can do that. Yes, it's murder, and illegal, and you should be prepared to pay for it. But you can do it, if you want.
People do it nearly every day, in areas like the gang-controlled neighborhoods of Chicago.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Iran would chew the USA up and spit it out if the USA attacks Iran.
Click to expand...
You are clearly delusional. The US could bomb Iran into dust and rubble with purely conventional weapons, and there's nothing Iran could do to stop it.
But we won't, because it's not in our interests to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Wow, now that is a co-ordinated group...a legitimite looking front scam company that introduces itself to the victim company, tests their security, and then passes on the vulmerbilities to the hacker group....that is genius.
 
These Ukrainians are small fry. Most of the losses due to hacking are from well organized, large criminal enterprises, not small groups like this. While I'm glad they have been shut down, I'll be a lot more impressed when some of the real sharks are caught.
 
pcgeekesq said:
You are clearly delusional. The US could bomb Iran into dust and rubble with purely conventional weapons, and there's nothing Iran could do to stop it.
But we won't, because it's not in our interests to do that.
Click to expand...

Iran is over 3x the size of Iraq, with more than double the population (which is unified a lot more than Iraq's was) and a vastly more powerful military: Iran - 13th most-powerful in the world; Iraq - 47th most-powerful in the world. The USA wouldn't have a place to launch air attacks from to reach many important targets, and then there are the S-300 AA systems Iran has bought from Russia in addition to Iran's own. And there are many other reasons why your over-estimation of the US' military and your under-estimation of Iran's is fairy-tale nationalistic hubris. But I'll leave things there.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
Good! Hopefully the agencies involved can uncover much of the extent of the damages they've caused and make even more arrests.




Federal government consists of three equal parts that "run the country". Two of them can jointly override the one you're falsely deranged about. And it's always been that way since the first Congress in 1789.
Click to expand...

No false statements, Trump's companies have filed bankruptcies six times. I would say that makes him really good at bankrupting. When Congress and the President are from the same party, there is no overriding.
Cutting taxes and increasing federal spending is a recipe for disaster. Annual Federal deficit is over 1Trillion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top