Bush wants $25 Billion more for Iraq

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 07:47pm

CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) --Calling it a "high priority," President Bush on Wednesday asked Congress for an additional $25 billion to cover military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies," Bush said in a written statement released by the White House. "We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops.

Bush Budget Director Josh Bolten and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz went to Capitol Hill for an afternoon meeting with senior GOP leaders. They included House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska and John Warner of Virginia -- the chairmen of the Appropriations and Armed Services committees, congressional and administration sources said.

"$25 billion will not be enough," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Florida, after the meeting.

Young said the money is needed because additional troops are being deployed, many of whom are Reserve or National Guard troops who will start getting full-time pay. He said he expects the White House to ask for more money early next year but said he didn't know how much.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the House majority leader, said he expects Congress to easily approve the funds.

"This is not money for Iraq," he said. "This is money for our troops. No one is going to have a problem with that."

One administration official described the White House request as a "modest adjustment" to the Pentagon budget and added that "there is still work to be done on the long-term assessment of what will be needed into next year."

In his statement, Bush described the $25 billion as a "contingency reserve fund" that would be used to "meet all commitments to our troops."

"I have pledged to our troops that they will have all the resources they need to get the job done, and I look forward to working with Congress on this high priority," Bush said.

Bush said he would pursue a full supplemental request for the 2005 fiscal year "when we can better estimate precise costs."

The administration had previously indicated it hoped to wait until after the November election to request any additional money for Iraq and Afghanistan, but in recent weeks officials have conceded costs have been higher than expected.

In part, the rise is to due to higher troop levels in Iraq and the costs of increased military activity in response to the insurgency there.

Democrats have accused the administration of not committing to firm numbers about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because, they say, the cost could bother some voters.

Is anyone out there surprised by this?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-05 07:49pm

Oh look, he'll just pull this out of his magical moneybox given to him by the People.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 07:49pm

fuck, and I thought college aid and universal health care were more important.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-05 07:49pm

EDIT: Of course, it should be pointed out the brilliance with which this bill is being presented. It's being labeled as money for our troops salaries so if any Democrats get an idea to vote it down, they can be attacked for "voting against supporting our troops!".

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 07:50pm

The Kernel wrote:EDIT: Of course, it should be pointed out the brilliance with which this bill is being presented. It's being labeled as money for our troops salaries so if any Democrats get an idea to vote it down, they can be attacked for "voting against supporting our troops!".

damned if you do, damned if you don't, lol

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-05 08:00pm

BoyRocketeer wrote:fuck, and I thought college aid and universal health care were more important.

Not to start a tangential debate, but college aid has consistently been a disaster for everyone involved, and all economic studies in the last ten years suggest that we're massively over-funding colleges with public money, since society isn't getting nearly the utility out of every graduate as that graduate costs the state.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 08:03pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
BoyRocketeer wrote:fuck, and I thought college aid and universal health care were more important.
Not to start a tangential debate, but college aid has consistently been a disaster for everyone involved, and all economic studies in the last ten years suggest that we're massively over-funding colleges with public money, since society isn't getting nearly the utility out of every graduate as that graduate costs the state.

I thought the purpose of college aid was getting people to school, regardless getting the utility outta them.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-05 08:13pm

Funny, I just saw a Bush ad on TV talking about how much Kerry's spending is going to hurt the nation.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-05 08:14pm

Durandal wrote:Funny, I just saw a Bush ad on TV talking about how much Kerry's spending is going to hurt the nation.

Democrat money is evil and harms the nation though. Isn't it obvious?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-05 08:19pm

Ah yes ... nation building money is only good when it's rebuilding other nations. I completely forgot.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-05-05 08:23pm

Are we getting extra money for Mars too?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-05 08:31pm

Having the Dollar be the worlds reserve currency (not to mention the oil currency) won't last forever and when it does end the US doesn't want a huge deficit hanging over its head.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-05 08:42pm

That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-05 08:47pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

...And how did it get that big?
By spending one dollar at a time.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-05 08:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

12 trillion dollar deficit? Holy fuck. I can't even comprehend the enormity of that figure. How the hell did it get like this?

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 08:49pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

jesus that's unfathomable. I guess that's why I'm not an econ major.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-05 08:53pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
...And how did it get that big?
By spending one dollar at a time.

Yup and with no end in sight we might as well spend spend spend to properlly fund things we really have no choice about such as Iraq. At least I can see how my money is being spent with that situation which is more then I can say about some other things the US goverment throws money at.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-05 08:56pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

The problem is that all this deficit spending is habit forming and increases the deficit. If the US really is in a war on terror then the US public shouldn't be surprised that they are asked to pay more in taxes, that is traditionally how nations have fought wars for several centuries.

If the money must be spent (which it does) then taxes should be raised, is this war only in public favour as long as they don't have to pay for it? (today at least) but that is only my opinion, an ever increasing US deficit could be considered good for the EU so knock yourselves out and remember that everything looks better plated in gold.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-05 09:08pm

TheDarkling wrote:
The problem is that all this deficit spending is habit forming and increases the deficit. If the US really is in a war on terror then the US public shouldn't be surprised that they are asked to pay more in taxes, that is traditionally how nations have fought wars for several centuries.

And the fear is that raising taxes will drive down the economy, which will greatly reduce tax revenue and will kill out any gains, if not making deficits worse. Whether or not that will acutally happen and to what degree is of course a subject for massive drawn out debate on its own. And as for past precedents, deficit spending has been a good way to get out of recessions for a long time as well. Thats one of the biggest gripes people have with the IMF for example, by forcing nations to balance there budgets it removes the ability for the goverment in question to try to boloster its economy.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-05 09:18pm

That ain?t workin? that?s the way you do it
Get your money for nothin? get your chicks for free

*whistles a tune*

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 09:23pm

Stofsk wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.
12 trillion dollar deficit? Holy fuck. I can't even comprehend the enormity of that figure. How the hell did it get like this?

That's the accrual deficit, the actual one. The deficit you hear about so often in the news is just the meaningless cash deficit, it doesn't take into account long-term liabilities like Social Security and Medicare.

Quite frankly no one has any business bitching about the deficit unless they're ready to start taking away Social Security and Medicare benefits from future retirees, right now.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-05 11:26pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That 25 billion's really going to hurt our 2.3 trillion dollar budget and 12 trillion dollar deficit.

The dawn of Sea Skimmer economics: Being indescribably in debt just means that you can spend more!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-05 11:37pm

Does anyone here know that there is not a single country in the history of the world that has cut taxes during war time?

You know why? Because it's a fucking stupid idea.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-05-06 12:03am

Master of Ossus wrote:
BoyRocketeer wrote:fuck, and I thought college aid and universal health care were more important.
Not to start a tangential debate, but college aid has consistently been a disaster for everyone involved, and all economic studies in the last ten years suggest that we're massively over-funding colleges with public money, since society isn't getting nearly the utility out of every graduate as that graduate costs the state.

Fuck. I could've told you that. The college I've attended has done nothing but increase its costs, and the classes I've been parrt of have been pressured more than once by professors to write to congressmen asking for more.

Sometimes I wonder if Colleges ever understand the concept of thrift.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-05-06 12:21am

I have noted consistently in my college searching of the past year or two that all major universities are in a constant race to outspend each other. This principally takes the form of construction. I don't know of a college campus that doesn't have buildings being built or remodelled. OSU (a few miles from my house) breifly lost the title of largest university athletic center, so they're building a new one just to regain their title. There is no concept of how rising tuition rates might have an adverse effect on the rest of the nation, because most universities would do just fine with double their current rates. It would just mean more spaces go to slightly less qualified people with more money, and most universities don't care about that.