War funding request may hit $100 billion

[Gaard]

link

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to ask for between $80 billion and $100 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, rather than the $70 billion to $75 billion the White House privately told members of Congress before the election, according to Pentagon and White House officials.

Administration officials said yesterday they have not concluded how much money they will request in a "supplemental" spending package that is scheduled to go to Congress in January.

"There's work going on inside the department to understand what's needed, and there's work going on with the Office of Management and Budget," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters yesterday.

But some analysts and government officials said the request is expected to run as high as $100 billion, bringing the total cost of operations in Iraq alone to well over $200 billion since the March 2003 invasion.

 

[Babylon]

Well what do you expect from a President that only focus on spending in military...

 

[sandorski]

It was always safe to claim $200billion. Everyone knew it was going to cost at least that much, but if you're trying to get Elected, sometimes it's best to act like there is no tomorrow.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It was always safe to claim $200billion. Everyone knew it was going to cost at least that much, but if you're trying to get Elected, sometimes it's best to act like there is no tomorrow.

Are we forgetting the 82 billion last year too?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: sandorski
It was always safe to claim $200billion. Everyone knew it was going to cost at least that much, but if you're trying to get Elected, sometimes it's best to act like there is no tomorrow.

Are we forgetting the 82 billion last year too?

I'm pretty sure that was included.

 

[Engineer]

It's only money....we can print more.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer
It's only money....we can print more.

a trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

 

[digiram]

reminds me of this satire article

http://www.bush2004.com/greensheet/gs_01.html

 

[Kerouactivist]

apprently the more dead we become.....the more dead we feel

 

[yllus]

Wasn't $80 to $100 bln the stated annual figure all along? Sorry guys, my head is a bit frazzled from this year's exam season.

 

[glugglug]

Add 2 digits, then it starts to become plausible.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer
It's only money....we can print more.

a trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

There is no real money....it's an illusion, as are the deficits (or so many would say so here).

Oh, and I was being somewhat sarcastic on my previous comment, but it's somewhat true. We borrow and then print.......borrow and print......borrow and print. (I still don't understand why we print $10 for every dollar we borrow though? :confused

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Babylon
Well what do you expect from a President that only focus on spending in military...

Is that why military spending amounts to about 3% of our total gdp?!?!?!? Why dont you go check how much the military cost as a % of gdp compared to previous presidents.

It was always safe to claim $200billion. Everyone knew it was going to cost at least that much, but if you're trying to get Elected, sometimes it's best to act like there is no tomorrow.

I dont think anybody ever said eventually it wouldnt. But saying it already cost 200 billion when it didnt is telling a lie.

I have a prediction medicare costs 100 trillion. Oh wait maybe over the next century and a half.

Now compare the costs of this war as a % of our GDP with previous wars. We are talking about less than 1% of our annual gdp. In WWII we were spending multiples of our gdp to pay for it.

This will not break us.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Babylon
Well what do you expect from a President that only focus on spending in military...

Is that why military spending amounts to about 3% of our total gdp?!?!?!? Why dont you go check how much the military cost as a % of gdp compared to previous presidents.

It was always safe to claim $200billion. Everyone knew it was going to cost at least that much, but if you're trying to get Elected, sometimes it's best to act like there is no tomorrow.

I dont think anybody ever said eventually it wouldnt. But saying it already cost 200 billion when it didnt is telling a lie.

I have a prediction medicare costs 100 trillion. Oh wait maybe over the next century and a half.

Now compare the costs of this war as a % of our GDP with previous wars. We are talking about less than 1% of our annual gdp. In WWII we were spending multiples of our gdp to pay for it.

This will not break us.

The point is Moot, as there was No way to avoid spending $200billion. IOW, the Money was spent, even if you had not the receipt yet.

 

[BBond]

One small detail to take into account, this is well over $200 billion being spent on an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion. There was no threat from Iraq that justified this spending, this destruction, or this slaughter.

 

[Snoop]

Originally posted by: BBond
One small detail to take into account, this is well over $200 billion being spent on an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion. There was no threat from Iraq that justified this spending, this destruction, or this slaughter.

BBond, did you support Kerry in the election?
Well, if you did, then I would assume you would respect his opinion on the Iraq issue:

"He (saddam) cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

Whether you agree with the manner in which the US engaged Saddam (without full UN support), is irrelavent to the fact that Kerry is refuting your idea that this war was completely unncecessary, unprovoked, and that Iraq was no threat to the US.

Whats interesting, is in this address,, Kerry goes on:
"Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun the United States must not lose its resolve to take action. But I think there is strong reason to believe that the multilateral resolve will persist. "

To me, this sounds like affirmation of the Bush administartions policy toward Iraq. The "resolve" for confronting Saddam had "waned," and as Kerry states, "the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

and

"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. "

Link

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Snoop

Originally posted by: BBond
One small detail to take into account, this is well over $200 billion being spent on an unnecessary, unprovoked invasion. There was no threat from Iraq that justified this spending, this destruction, or this slaughter.

BBond, did you support Kerry in the election?
Well, if you did, then I would assume you would respect his opinion on the Iraq issue:

"He (saddam) cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

Whether you agree with the manner in which the US engaged Saddam (without full UN support), is irrelavent to the fact that Kerry is refuting your idea that this war was completely unncecessary, unprovoked, and that Iraq was no threat to the US.

Whats interesting, is in this address,, Kerry goes on:
"Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun the United States must not lose its resolve to take action. But I think there is strong reason to believe that the multilateral resolve will persist. "

To me, this sounds like affirmation of the Bush administartions policy toward Iraq. The "resolve" for confronting Saddam had "waned," and as Kerry states, "the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

and

"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. "

Link

I voted for Kerry and I was/am 100% against the war in Iraq. Just because someone votes for someone doesn't mean that they support everything (or anything for that matter) of that person's position. We need to get those people up to elections, start their own democratic (elected) government and start to pull out. I've had that position before the so called war and see nothing to change my opinion on the subject, except to say that the preparation (or lack thereof) just strenghtens my original ideas that we should not have gone period!