Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Bush asks Congress for $82 billion for wars

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [quote][b]WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday urged Congress to approve quickly his request for $82 billion to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a myriad of other internationally related expenses, such as training Iraqi security forces, aiding tsunami victims and helping military forces in other nations.

    "The majority of this request will ensure that our troops continue to get what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission,"' Bush said in a statement released before the White House officially sent the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill.

    "It also provides for the continued pursuit of al-Qaida and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere," the president said. "I urge the Congress to move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need to succeed."

    Included in the request is $74.9 billion for the Defense Department, including $5 billion for transforming Army divisions and brigades and $5.7 billion for training and equipping Iraqi military and police, according to a federal official familiar with the supplemental.

    The remaining money in the supplemental request includes:


    $2.242 billion to counter drugs, pay for security, support democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan.


    $950 million to help areas affected by the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean.


    $660 million for construction of a U.S. embassy in Baghdad.


    $400 million to reward nations that have taken political and economic risks to join the U.S.-led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    $242 million for the Darfur region of western Sudan where a 2-year-old civil conflict has left tens of thousands of people killed and more than 2 million displaced.


    $200 million in education and border security aid for the Palestinians.


    $200 million for economic and military aid in Jordan.


    $150 million in military aid for Pakistan.


    $100 million for southern Sudan where a treaty recently was signed to end a 22-year civil war.


    $60 million for Ukraine where Viktor Yushchenko recently was elected president.

    In a written statement on this issue earlier, President Bush had said the special appropriation would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights."

    The Army wants to use the $5 billion to convert 33 brigades and regiments -- about 30 of which are organized into 10 divisions -- into a force of 43 to 48 brigades that would operate more independently.

    "Instead of having the brigade communicate with their divisions and the divisions communicate with their higher-ups, all 43 to 48 would be allowed to communicate with higher-ups and operate more or less independently," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies.

    Last Monday, Bush submitted an overall $2.57 trillion budget for fiscal 2006. That document called for restraining spending across a wide swath of government programs from popular farm subsidies to poor people's health programs. Spending on the military, the biggest part of discretionary spending, would rise by 4.8 percent in 2006 to $419.3 billion.

    The money requested for the military did not include the additional $82 billion, but administration officials point out that while it was not in the 2006 budget request, the $82 billion for ongoing military expenses in Iraq and the Middle East was built into the administration's deficit projections.

    Still, the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 35 moderate and conservative Democrats, known as fiscal and defense hawks, are criticizing the administration for using the supplemental budget request to ask Congress for more money to finance the war. Supplemental budget requests often don't receive as much scrutiny and often don't include the same amount of detail as regular budget requests.

    "The Blue Dog Coalition recognizes that we must support our troops, but the Congress cannot continue to write blank checks," the group said in a statement."

    The White House defended the supplemental request, saying that costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on what is happening on the ground. "Also, when you're looking at the war on terrorism, it's not a cost that I think most people who understand budgeting think should be built into the baseline," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "It's not going to be considered a permanent, ongoing cost -- some of those activities. Like I said, it depends on circumstances on the ground."

    Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, [color=red][u][b]the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.[/b][/u][/color] That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.[/b][/quote]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][b]Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.[/b][/quote]

    And something's wrong with this??

    Hey, let's cut that number down by an immediate $1-billion and stop offering Tsunami relief for inconsiderate nations and a dirtbag world community who has nothing but bad things to say about America!!

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 15 2005, 05:35 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.[/b][/quote]

    And something's wrong with this??

    Hey, let's cut that number down by an immediate $1-billion and stop offering Tsunami relief for inconsiderate nations and a dirtbag world community who has nothing but bad things to say about America!! [/b][/quote]
    Why do you assume I posting this and highlighted that line to imply that something was wrong?? You nervous or something? :blink:

    No, I posted it simply as information on where the cost of the war is to-date, and what this more recent request is for, specifically.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 15 2005, 05:35 PM
    [b]
    And something's wrong with this??
    [/b][/quote]
    yeah there's no end in sight

    no real goal
    no exit strategy
    and no chance of liberal democracy succeeding in that rat infested hellhole


    oh yeah but other than that there's nothing wrong with it at all

    [img]http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/flush/images/flush_animate.gif[/img]

    keep flushing

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 16 2005, 11:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 16 2005, 11:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 15 2005, 05:35 PM
    [b]
    And something&#39;s wrong with this??
    [/b][/quote]
    yeah there&#39;s no end in sight

    no real goal
    no exit strategy
    and no chance of liberal democracy succeeding in that rat infested hellhole


    oh yeah but other than that there&#39;s nothing wrong with it at all

    [img]http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/flush/images/flush_animate.gif[/img]

    keep flushing [/b][/quote]
    that&#39;s why your side will always be in the minority in American government.

  7. #7
    Can some one help me with the math here, if I&#39;m wrong:


    **There are about 280 millions Americans


    **Deducting kids, non-workers, Bush lovely illegals (who don&#39;t pay much taxes--except state sales taxes)...I&#39;d say we have a tax base of about 150 million to 200 million workers. I think it&#39;s closer to 150 million, but...I&#39;ll use 200 million because it&#39;s a round number.


    **Now if the "war on terror" has cost &#036;300 billion, and assuming their are 200 million tax paying Americans (too high a number ?)....


    ...[b]The cost per each tax-payer has been &#036;1,500[/b] :o :wacko:


    Because, it would take &#036;5 from 200 million taxpayers, to reach &#036;1 billion.

    To reach, &#036;300 billion, you multiply that 5 by 300 and get that figure, right?


    Now, I used to be decent at math (600 SAT on math)...but it&#39;s been a while....since I&#39;ve taken a math class (early 90&#39;s)....So, tell me if MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 11:58 AM
    [b] Can some one help me with the math here, if I&#39;m wrong:


    **There are about 280 millions Americans


    **Deducting kids, non-workers, Bush lovely illegals (who don&#39;t pay much taxes--except state sales taxes)...I&#39;d say we have a tax base of about 150 million to 200 million workers. I think it&#39;s closer to 150 million, but...I&#39;ll use 200 million because it&#39;s a round number.


    **Now if the "war on terror" has cost &#036;300 billion, and assuming their are 200 million tax paying Americans (too high a number ?)....


    ...[b]The cost per each tax-payer has been &#036;15,000[/b] :o :wacko:


    Because, it would take &#036;5 from 200 million taxpayers, to reach &#036;1 billion.

    To reach, &#036;300 billion, you multiply that 5 by 300 and get the staggering figure, right?


    Now, I used to be decent at math (600 SAT on math)...but it&#39;s been a while....since I&#39;ve taken a math class (early 90&#39;s)....So, tell me if MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG. [/b][/quote]
    they are wrong- income tax from individuals is just a small portion of the pie- consider tax on gas, food, coporate tax, payroll tax paid by employers, tax on your Jet tickets, etc.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Feb 16 2005, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY &#064; Feb 16 2005, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Riggins44[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 11:58 AM
    [b] Can some one help me with the math here, if I&#39;m wrong:


    **There are about 280 millions Americans


    **Deducting kids, non-workers, Bush lovely illegals (who don&#39;t pay much taxes--except state sales taxes)...I&#39;d say we have a tax base of about 150 million to 200 million workers. I think it&#39;s closer to 150 million, but...I&#39;ll use 200 million because it&#39;s a round number.


    **Now if the "war on terror" has cost &#036;300 billion, and assuming their are 200 million tax paying Americans (too high a number ?)....


    ...[b]The cost per each tax-payer has been &#036;15,000[/b] :o :wacko:


    Because, it would take &#036;5 from 200 million taxpayers, to reach &#036;1 billion.

    To reach, &#036;300 billion, you multiply that 5 by 300 and get the staggering figure, right?


    Now, I used to be decent at math (600 SAT on math)...but it&#39;s been a while....since I&#39;ve taken a math class (early 90&#39;s)....So, tell me if MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG. [/b][/quote]
    they are wrong- income tax from individuals is just a small portion of the pie- consider tax on gas, food, coporate tax, payroll tax paid by employers, tax on your Jet tickets, etc. [/b][/quote]

    Actually I should correct myself in that you are not wrong...if you make &#036;75K (a decent number) and pay 20% taxes (a low-to-moderate numbers) that is &#036;15K in taxes....nevermind take on gas, food etc...but you must also take into account tax on corporations, payroll tax, etc.

  10. #10
    [b]Actually, I mistakenly typed in a zero and edited it....It should be &#036;1,500 per person.[/b]

    The extra &#036;82 billion would be and extra &#036;400 to &#036;500 per tax payer.


    [quote][b]they are wrong- income tax from individuals is just a small portion of the pie- consider tax on gas, food, coporate tax, payroll tax paid by employers, tax on your Jet tickets, etc.[/b][/quote]

    Decent point...Two counterpoints:

    1) Of those 150-200 million tax-payers, a high number are probably K-Mart type workers or people not making even &#036;30,000 per year....So, that &#036;1,500 that&#39;s gone in funding a war that&#39;s yielding these results so far, has basically ate up all the tax-monies these "poorer Americans" pay in a single tax season.

    ....Don&#39;t make the mistake of looking at the whole U.S through the eyes of New York....In vast parts of America (South), &#036;25,000 is a decent, middle class salary.

    2) Huge mistake: A large portion of those taxes collected--gas, food, ect.--go to state government, not the feds...


    Just something to think about. Someone else can do the math.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,337
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 11:09 AM
    [b]
    yeah there&#39;s no end in sight

    no real goal
    no exit strategy
    and no chance of liberal democracy succeeding in that rat infested hellhole

    oh yeah but other than that there&#39;s nothing wrong with it at all
    [/b][/quote]
    I agree that your points are valid...but the conclusion doesn&#39;t seem as obvious to me.

    Can&#39;t a [u]worthy hostile and clever [/u]foe approach us in this "terroristic" way, so as to [u]deny[/u] us a goal and exit strategy?

    By denying us the clean definition of war, they can turn peaceful US citizens into unwitting allies.

    I think Bush et. al. are accepting the terms these guys have given us and decided they must be dealt with in those terms. ..no matter how ugly.

    You gotta respect his resolve.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 12:10 PM
    [b] [b]Actually, I mistakenly typed in a zero and edited it....It should be &#036;1,500 per person.[/b]

    The extra &#036;82 billion would be and extra &#036;400 to &#036;500 per tax payer.


    [quote][b]they are wrong- income tax from individuals is just a small portion of the pie- consider tax on gas, food, coporate tax, payroll tax paid by employers, tax on your Jet tickets, etc.[/b][/quote]

    Decent point...Two counterpoints:

    1) Of those 150-200 million tax-payers, a high number are probably K-Mart type workers or people not making even &#036;30,000 per year....So, that &#036;1,500 that&#39;s gone in funding a war that&#39;s yielding these results so far, has basically eat up all the tax-monies these "poorer Americans" pay in a single tax season.

    ....Don&#39;t make the mistake of looking at the whole U,S through the eyes of New York....In vast parts of America, &#036;25,000 is a decent, middle class salary.

    2) Huge mistake: A large portion of those taxes collected--gas, food, ect.--go to state government, not the feds...


    Just something to think about. Someone else can the math. [/b][/quote]
    BTW: getting back to Lienart- my "source" at SC who is very close with the program responded to my e-mail with "that rumor has been floating around campus all week but ML flatly denies any interest in the supplemental draft"...should be interesting.

  13. #13
    [quote][b]BTW: getting back to Lienart- my "source" at SC who is very close with the program responded to my e-mail with "that rumor has been floating around campus all week but ML flatly denies any interest in the supplemental draft"...should be interesting.[/b][/quote]

    Here&#39;s a first: A political thread turning onto a football thread :o

    Thanks for the info...

    Actually, I was merely posting what some sources (N.Y Post most recently) have written in recent days.

    I, personaly, get the feel that Leinert wanted to stay at USC and shun the draft due to a minor injury, not the desire to "party with pals" a little more....I think he might want his money now.....Time for USC to move on with Booty or Mark Sanchez at QB.

    Supplemental Draft provides a unique chance....If the team that wins the #1 pick has no desire to add another QB (Giants), Matt can play his cards like Kosar did and force a trade to a team he likes...

    Also, some attractive teams in that bottom 12. If he wants to stay in bankrupt California--49ers, Raiders....

    Dallas and Tampa would also be very attractive to someone like Lineart.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 12:27 PM
    [b] [quote][b]BTW: getting back to Lienart- my "source" at SC who is very close with the program responded to my e-mail with "that rumor has been floating around campus all week but ML flatly denies any interest in the supplemental draft"...should be interesting.[/b][/quote]

    Here&#39;s a first: A political thread turning onto a football thread :o

    [/b][/quote]
    It actually happened a week ago with Mike Williams.

  15. #15
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JerryK[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 12:12 PM
    [b] By denying us the clean definition of war, [/b][/quote]
    bull**** - the constitution has a clean definition of war - it is supposed to be declared on another COUNTRY by an ACT OF CONGRESS.

    Bush&#39;s plan from the beginning was to wage an open-ended war on terror that could take "generations" to accomplish.

    We were the one that dropped 150,000 troops in the Middle East, and it&#39;s not the fault of "terrorists" that they are pursuing a murky goal, without a clear exit strategy.

    This is not a legitimate war. This country has not waged a legitimate war since 1945. The founders of the consitution did not create the "executive police action" clause so that agenda-driven presidents could bypass the constitution on the way to waging war every 5 to 10 years.

    It&#39;s a disgraceful consitutional loophole that has been exploited by Dems and Reps alike.

  16. #16
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 11:52 AM
    [b] that&#39;s why your side will always be in the minority in American government. [/b][/quote]
    i agree - intelligent thought will always be a minority party in Washington.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 16 2005, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 16 2005, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 11:52 AM
    [b] that&#39;s why your side will always be in the minority in American government. [/b][/quote]
    i agree - intelligent thought will always be a minority party in Washington. [/b][/quote]
    assuming one considers eternal negativity intelligent thought.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,337
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 16 2005, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti &#064; Feb 16 2005, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JerryK[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 12:12 PM
    [b] By denying us the clean definition of war, [/b][/quote]
    bull**** - the constitution has a clean definition of war - it is supposed to be declared on another COUNTRY by an ACT OF CONGRESS.
    [/b][/quote]
    I agree....again

    And If I were in a small country, with the desire to take on the US, I&#39;d make it part of my strategy to attack the US as a band of individuals so that precisely this argument can be made....and the opponent&#39;s resolve weakened.

    ...giving the US only 2 options: Give up and let them continually expand their defined "holy territory" -or- take a stand in a very ugly way.


    Perhaps a key difference here is that you trust their definition of "holy territory" to remain the same over time....which is ok, but I&#39;d disagree with that.

  19. #19
    i don&#39;t see the connection at all - there isn&#39;t a country in the world that wants to take on the US - we are fighting loose bands of guerrillas without national allegence as if they were a country - from a military standpoint that&#39;s bound to fail.

    as much as we want to assign terrorism to a country the fact of the matter is terrorism has no flag, no armies, no generals, no uniforms and no borders.

    the THEORY is that taking over Iraq and cleaning it up will help to weaken terrorism - but there is no precident and in fact no real concrete reason to believe this theory will work in practice

    we can sit here and debate all damn day but for me the proof is in the pudding -

    TODAY the head of the CIA Goss said it wasn&#39;t a matter of if another 9-11 happens but when - doesn&#39;t sound to me like terrorism is failing at all - if anything these screwballs are getting stronger - we are using our troops as human shields to preserve the status quo -

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,337
    Can there only be a quick fix?

    There isn&#39;t one for poverty. The only cure for US Urban poverty is frankly a liberal one: education, funding, and time.

    Cant the ignorance leading to terrorism require similar approaches, and wouldn&#39;t planting democracies...and promoting liberalism there...be the only way to deal with it?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us