Bush needs more money for Iraq.

[Donkey®]

washingtonpost.com

Originally Posted by article

Bush Wants $50 Billion More for Iraq War
Planned Request Signals Confidence That Congress Won't Prevail on Pullout

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 29, 2007; Page A01

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing the two officials argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said.

Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq, which has expanded the U.S. force there by about 28,000 troops, to about 160,000. The cost of the buildup was not included in the proposed 2008 budget because Pentagon officials said they did not know how long the troop increase would last. The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.

Some consideration is being given to trimming the new request by a few billion dollars, the White House official said. But, he added, "this is pretty close to a done deal." Almost all the spending is relatively noncontroversial, he added, with the vast majority of it necessary just to keep the U.S. military operating in Iraq. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to reporters, said that the supplemental requests are likely to be "rolled together" and considered as one package.

The revised supplemental would total about $200 billion, indicating that the cost of the war in Iraq now exceeds $3 billion a week. The bill also covers the far smaller costs of the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon said recently that the cost of the Iraq war has surpassed $330 billion, while the war in Afghanistan has cost $78 billion.

"We have said previously that after General Petraeus reports, we will be evaluating what adjustments may need to be made to our pending [fiscal 2008] supplemental request, which was sent up in February with the rest of the budget," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said last night. "I'm going to decline to speculate on this, as General Petraeus has not testified. Nor have any decisions been made at this stage about whether, when or what specific changes could be made."

A House Appropriations Committee aide said that an additional White House spending request has been anticipated but that it was expected to be far smaller, perhaps about $30 billion. "We haven't seen the details, but we'll give it the scrutiny it deserves," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "It's long past time for giving blank checks to the administration."

Despite widespread media anticipation of next month's Iraq hearings, Pentagon insiders say they do not expect them to result in any major changes in military strategy. The sessions are expected to occur the week of Sept. 10, with Petraeus and Crocker appearing before a total of four committees in the House and Senate.

"I don't see any surprises" coming out of the hearings, said an officer on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said he expects Petraeus and Crocker to focus on tactical security gains in and around Baghdad in recent months and on shifts in tribal allegiances in favor of U.S. forces, and to argue that those improvements may open a window for greater political reconciliation in Iraq over the next six or seven months.

In any event, this officer said, he expects the current counteroffensive to be maintained into next April. "The surge was designed to last for a year," he said. "I don't think they'll change that."

In a speech yesterday to the convention of the American Legion in Reno, Nev., Bush gave an optimistic assessment of recent events in the war, now in its fifth year. "There are unmistakable signs that our strategy is achieving the objectives we set out," he said. "The momentum is now on our side."

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

Is there seriously no end in sight? People in here talk about the economy booming and on the flip side, ignore this complete waste. What good is a stable economy if we're spending ourselves into the ground?

[Scrum]

The Democrats are going to pass this just like everything else they get bullied into.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The Democrats are going to pass this just like everything else they get bullied into.

Don't count them out yet, we'll see what develops

Would you rather Democrats shoot themselves in the foot so the new GOP Congress and President of 2009 have us invade Iran?

The numbers simply aren't there for a majority of likely voters to support cutting troops funding completely at this point

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Don't count them out yet, we'll see what develops

Would you rather Democrats shoot themselves in the foot so the new GOP Congress and President of 2009 have us invade Iran?

The numbers simply aren't there for a majority of likely voters to support cutting troops funding completely at this point

Funny how if they don't give Bush more money, it's seen as cutting funds.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Funny how if they don't give Bush more money, it's seen as cutting funds.

Because the public won't understand the difference, Bush is framing the issue, if he says "its not enough money to protect our soldiers in Iraq" then its all or nothing, and the numbers aren't there to go to "nothing"

[Donkey®]

And the same old shit continues....



Bush wants another $42 billion for wars - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration on Monday asked for an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the 2008 request for total war funding to $189.3 billion.

The request comes on top of $147 billion already sought for in the wars. Most of the money goes to Iraq, which is costing the Pentagon an estimated $2 billion a week.

"Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not -- and that is that America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," President Bush said in an appearance with members of veterans groups at the White House.

Bush said the money will cover basic operating expenses, plus additional armored vehicles and countermeasures designed to protect U.S. troops from roadside bombs.

"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.


The president also called on Congress to finish the appropriations bills that fund the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs before lawmakers' holiday recess, set to begin in mid-November.


The request is bound to kick off another debate on Capitol Hill over the course of the Iraq war. Bush's last supplemental spending request led to a showdown with the Democratic leaders of Congress, who pushed for a withdrawal of American combat troops in 2008 -- a demand dropped after the president vetoed the measure.

Minutes after Bush spoke, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, warned the president not to expect Congress to "rubber-stamp" the latest request.

"In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change of strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue," Reid said.

He said the new request means the overall cost of the widely unpopular war now approaches $650 billion since the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"The entire war in Iraq is being paid for with borrowed money," Reid said.

He contrasted the Iraqi funding with Bush's October 3 veto of a $60 billion children's health care bill that had bipartisan support and would have been paid for by an increase in cigarette taxes. Bush called the bill too expensive and a step toward government-provided health care.

"It's no wonder the American people are frustrated," Reid said. "We've been fighting for America's priorities, while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy. He wants us to come up with another $200 billion and just sign off on it -- that's what he said today."

The administration made the initial supplement request, which lawmakers have yet to approve, in February.

The original request submitted to Congress for $141.7 billion was followed by a $5.3 billion request to fund the purchase of more armored vehicles. Both of those requests total $147 billion.

he latest request would cover more armored vehicles and repair of existing equipment that can be returned to the field, Pentagon officials said.

In addition to daily operations, the White House said the latest supplemental would fund about $1.7 billion in new spending on veterans' health care, $1 billion for military construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan and another $1 billion for training Iraqi soldiers and police

It's just pathetic that the Democrats keep bending over...it's pathetic that people cry about their "tax dollars" going to random little things...yet ignore this shit.

[Donkey®]

So in the last post, the article states they need 1 billion more to train Iraqi soldiers and police...all the while...


Report: Most of $1.2 billion to train Iraqi police unaccounted for - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

Report: Most of $1.2 billion to train Iraqi police unaccounted for

(CNN) -- The U.S. State Department is unable to account for most of $1.2 billion in funding that it gave to DynCorp International to train Iraqi police, a government report said Tuesday.

[SoFlaJDM]

this is why congress has such a low approval rating... shit like this keeps happening and it's like they look the other way

[Donkey®]

I am trying to figure out why people are more worried about the Red Sox, why Dumbledore is gay and which news channel is least biased as opposed to this...

[SoFlaJDM]

i can see the obsession with the sox, but everything else

[Roonie]

I am speechless. This sucks.........

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Funny how if they don't give Bush more money, it's seen as cutting funds.

Did he learn that trick from the Democrats? They have been doing that for decades with almost every social program on the books.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Did he learn that trick from the Democrats? They have been doing that for decades with almost every social program on the books.

I think I would rather pay for social programs in MY country as opposed to social programs in Iraq. Thanks.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I think I would rather pay for social programs in MY country as opposed to social programs in Iraq. Thanks.

amen and double

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I think I would rather pay for social programs in MY country as opposed to social programs in Iraq. Thanks.

No kidding.

That's all this garbage is. International welfare (but the money ends up in US contractors hands) masquerading as something to keep us safe from the boogie-man.

[Donkey®]

Oh, more interesting thought on the subject...

Originally Posted by article

Iraq war's creeping costs
Even at $415 billion, the war's pricetag doesn't threaten to derail the economy. But it's making a stealthy appearance in mortgage rates, fuel prices and other indicators.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
October 23 2007: 6:01 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Iraq war may be funded largely with Uncle Sam's borrowed cash, but don't think American consumers will escape without taking a hit in the wallet.

From steeper mortgage payments to higher fuel prices, the cost of the war is already starting to sink in.

And while the burden on the nation's overall economy is currently fairly small, the longer term effects of redirected investment and restricted borders could hurt the country's competitiveness.

The nation has spent $415 billion in Iraq and another $190 billion since 2001 fighting the "war on terror," which includes the fighting in Afghanistan, according to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan research arm.

That number could grow substantially. The CBO estimated in August that the total could hit $1 trillion by 2013 and that's if nearly two-thirds of the 210,000 troops now deployed are brought home.

On Wednesday, CBO Director Peter Orszag is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill and is expected to say that those numbers have been revised higher.

In addition, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said recently that a long-term "Korea-like" presence in Iraq could end up costing $2.5 trillion, or enough to cover half the estimated shortfall in Social Security due to retiring baby boomers.

On Monday, President Bush asked for another $42 billion for war efforts on top of the $142 billion already requested for the current fiscal year, bringing the overall total for 2007-08 to nearly $200 billion. This is extra money for the war, above and beyond the Pentagon's regular budget of about $450 billion, which accounts for about a sixth of the government's overall 2007 spending of about $2.8 trillion.
The greatest economic boom ever

Some experts say the U.S. economy can handle the spending binge without a problem.

"A half trillion dollars sounds like a pretty big number," said Jay Bryson, a global economist at Wachovia Corp. "But in a $14 trillion economy, it just isn't all that big."

Bryson said that as a percentage of the nation's overall economic output, total defense spending is just about 4 percent.

That compares with about 7 percent during the Vietnam War, 15 percent during the Korean War and 25 percent during World War II, he said.

"People argue we can't afford this war, but that's just not true," said James Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "At 4.5 percent of GDP, this economy could do that forever."

But other economists see things differently.

"I'm not buying that argument at all," said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody's Economy.com, an economic consultancy. "That's a pretty big number - it's going to add up."

Faucher said one result of the war is most likely higher interest rates, as government borrowing means more bonds on the market, keeping bond prices low and yields high. Interest rates for things like home or business loans are pegged to bond yields.

While interest rates are historically fairly low, Faucher argues, they would be even lower were it not for the war.

Higher interest rates mean people pay more money for mortgages. They also mean businesses are less likely to borrow cash to invest in research or new facilities.

"It's going to have an impact on long-term growth, especially if this continues," he said.

An estimate by the Center for Economic and Policy Research put that impact at the loss of 500,000 jobs after ten years of war spending, and crimping overall economic output by $60 billion a year.

"It's draining resources away from productive sectors of the economy," said Dean Baker, co-director at Center for Economic and Policy Research. "It will be more of a drag over time."
The poverty/terror myth

Both Baker and Faucher concede that in the early years of the war the extra spending was probably good for the economy, which was in recession.

But any economic stimulus is now overshadowed by the inflationary pressure the war spending causes.

While business spending focuses largely on buying durable goods like buildings or computers, military spending is largely on consumable goods like food, fuel and clothes.

"Prices for goods and services would be lower" were it not for the war, said Baker. "We are paying for it."

Another drag on the economy comes not from war spending, but policies.

Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the country has tightened up visa requirements for foreigners entering the country.

The Heritage Foundation's Carafano said that it's harder for business or scientific groups to hold conventions in the United States, as well as for foreign students to come and study. Tighter restrictions have also caused big delays at the border when it comes to moving goods.

"This could make America a much less competitive place," he said.

While the Bush administration's choice to focus the war on terror in Iraq can certainly be debated, Carafano said that spending on the war on terror overall needed to be balanced against the cost of not doing anything.

"What would it cost if we had a 9/11 every year," he said. Top of page