Bush to Request $120B More for War Funding

Drocket

Drocket

CAGiversary!
The Bush administration said Thursday it will ask Congress for $120 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion more for hurricane relief this year.

The White House acknowledges the upcoming requests would cause total spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, to soar well past the $400 billion mark, while spending for hurricane relief would top $100 billion.
Click to expand...

Saying that its $120 for 'Iraq and Afghanistan' is pretty much a deliberate attempt to fudge the issue. The US Military is pretty much doing squat in Afghanistan at this point (while the country slowly backslides into the chaos that Bush critics said would happen if we didn't pay enough attention to the area. But hey, they don't have oil, so fuck it) - realistically, the request is more like '$119.5B for Iraq, and maybe some spare change for Afghanistan if we remember to give it to them.'

Remember when Kerry was attacked for daring to claim that the war would cost $200B? :lol:
 
Well, as long as we've allocated yet more money to assist in Iraq, since everything in America is hunky-dorey. Just ask the elderly about their prescriptions, the young adults about their pell grants, or the Mississippi and Louisiana residents about their homes and livelihoods. They're all heroes for capitulating while the Bush administration worked to demean their standard of living in order to send the military-industrial complex's shareholders home happier.

You're a fool if you ever believed that the war would cost less than this, and I urge you to come forward and admit your sin. Also, let's see who's damnfool enough to still think there won't be a draft still. Keep those hands high so we can count 'em.
 
It's simply amazing that Paul Wolfowitz said “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

And the bush administration continues its tradition of rewarding incompetence with promotions (i.e., head of the World Bank).
 
Everyone said the war in iraq was about oil, but who's gonna end up getting the majority of that $90 billion? Defense contractors.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but this one makes more sense than oil.
 
Why should I be paying for Pell grants? I never received any. No one in my family did. Why is it my family, friends and relatives participate in a wealth transfer giving money to someone who didn't earn it?

I'm all for higher education but where there's a will, there's a way. If you're truly the best and brightest schools like Princeton have become so well endowed that if they want you, you go. No need to worry about paying or driving yourself in debt. With traditional federal loan default rates at 5-10% and mid to high 5 figure loans not being out of the ordinary how many hundreds of millions have we just given people because student loan cuts are not politically popular?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's simply amazing that Paul Wolfowitz said “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03][/QUOTE]

It's downright astounding, even more so when you realize not many people even remember these kinds of promises.

What I don't get is how we've come to spend so much there. I mean, $400 billion, that's a fucking bitchload of money. That's well above the budgets of just about any industrialized nation (Japan spends over $1 trillion yearly, UK $834 billion, Germany $1.2 trillion, France $1 trillion, Italy $768 billion, etc.)

Iraq population = 26 million people

Russia = $106 billion, 143 million people
Spain = $448 billion, 40 million
Australia = $220 billion, 20 million
Canada = $144 billion, 32 million

And we've only been in Iraq since 2003, less than 3 years. Insane amounts of cash.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Everyone said the war in iraq was about oil, but who's gonna end up getting the majority of that $90 billion? Defense contractors.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but this one makes more sense than oil.[/QUOTE]

Much more sense.

[quote name='Three Dollar Hooker']Why should I be paying for Pell grants? I never received any. No one in my family did. Why is it my family, friends and relatives participate in a wealth transfer giving money to someone who didn't earn it?[/QUOTE]

Are you Electrictroy?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Russia = $106 billion, 143 million people[/QUOTE]
Not quite a fair comparison. Russia is in downright shitty condition.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']And Iraq isn't? :D[/QUOTE]
Russia wasn't in a war where another country destroyed its infrastructure.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Russia wasn't in a war where another country destroyed its infrastructure.[/QUOTE]

Not anymore they aren't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not anymore they aren't.[/QUOTE]
They've not been in any for over 60 years. ANy degredation of their country is by their own means.

They built up their country massively, and then left it to degrade since the mid 1960s due to political incompetence.

Just somewhat different than having the entirety of the country bombed.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']They never were. ANy degredation of their country is by their own means.[/QUOTE]

Germany ring a bell?

Though you could argue afghanistan indirectly destroyed the country as well, since all they lost in the war with them and the difficulty in maintaining their infrastructure due to lack of funds.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Germany ring a bell?

Though you could argue afghanistan indirectly destroyed the country as well, since all they lost in the war with them and the difficulty in maintaining their infrastructure due to lack of funds.[/QUOTE]
I changed my post before you posted. Afghanistan happened way after the Soviet Union was on the way out. It's possible to approximate the time that the USSR started to fail at about the time that Brehznev took over.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I changed my post before you posted. Afghanistan happened way after the Soviet Union was on the way out. It's possible to approximate the time that the USSR started to fail at about the time that Brehznev took over.[/QUOTE]

It is often viewed as a significant factor in its collapse. There's many reasons you can argue as to why the soviet union collapsed, though I'm unfamiliar with with arguments stating that deterioration started in the late 60's, they're more commonly viewed as increasing in power during that time.
 
It is often viewed as a significant factor in its collapse. There's many reasons you can argue as to why the soviet union collapsed, though I've never really heard an argument saying the collapse started in the 60's. The economy stopped growing, but wasn't really collapsing when breznev took over. It seems they often thought of as increasing in power during the first 8 or 10 years of breznev's rule.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']They've not been in any for over 60 years. ANy degredation of their country is by their own means.

They built up their country massively, and then left it to degrade since the mid 1960s due to political incompetence.

Just somewhat different than having the entirety of the country bombed.[/QUOTE]

Yet not completely different from the motives of staying ahead in the cold war diverting funds that would have traditionally went elsewhere.

The difference between Communist Russia and the Capitalist United States doesn't lie in any sort of inherent or moral superiority, but rather the willingness of foreign investors to bail one (us) the fuck out when we overspent our means. The United States was Google, the Soviet Union Enron.

To suggest political incompetence is a unique aspect of Soviet life is purely foolish.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Germany ring a bell?[/QUOTE]

That brings up an interesting point. Anyone have any info on how much it cost us to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII, in today's dollars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top