$190 billion / year now.

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#1
WASHINGTON - President Bush and Congress are headed toward another showdown on war spending, this time sparring over nearly $190 billion the Pentagon says is needed to keep combat in Iraq afloat for another year.

Sen. Robert Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, vowed Wednesday not to "rubber stamp" the request and said it was time to put Bush's policies in check.

"We cannot create a democracy at the point of a gun," said Byrd, D-W.Va., whose speech during a Senate hearing on the spending request were interrupted several times by cheers of anti-war protesters.

"Sending more guns does not change that reality," Byrd said.

The tough rhetoric was reminiscent of last spring, when Congress passed and Bush vetoed a bill funding the war through September but ordering troop withdrawals to begin by Oct. 1. Democrats still lack the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

If approved, Congress would have appropriated more than $760 billion for the two wars, having already approved of $450 billion for Iraq and $127 billion for Afghanistan.

Testifying before Byrd's panel, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that America's "difficult choices" on the war "will continue to be a source of friction within the Congress, between the Congress and the president and in the wider public debate."

But Gates said he hoped Congress would approve money that is needed by the troops.

"Under some of the most trying conditions, they have done far more than what was asked of them, and far more than what was expected," he said.

Gates asked Congress to add $42 billion to the $147 billion already requested for the military. The money would pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2008 budget year, which begins Monday.

Gates said the extra money was necessary to buy vehicles that can protect troops against roadside bombs, refurbish equipment worn down by combat and consolidate U.S. bases in Iraq.

More specifically, the request includes another $11 billion for 7,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. This is in addition to the 8,000 MRAP vehicles already planned for fielding.

Congress has not yet approved the money but was on track this week to pass a stopgap spending bill that would keep the war afloat for several more weeks. This gives Democrats, divided on whether to cut off money for the war, time to figure out their next step.

Since Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified this month, Republicans have said they are willing to give his strategy more time to work. GOP members have blocked Democratic bills ordering troops home.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed its first war-related bill in months: a nonbinding measure suggesting Baghdad limit the power of its federal government and give more control to Iraq's ethnically divided regions. The White House said it was unbothered by the 75-23 vote because the resolution made clear Bush should press for a new governing system only if the Iraqis want it.

During the hearing, Democrats and Republicans alike asked Gates whether more could be done to hasten political progress.

"I think the message has been sent to the Iraqi government that our military presence is going to — has begun to — shrink in Iraq, and the expectation of the commander in the field is that it will continue to shrink," he said.

The State Department has requested $3.3 billion for war-related operations in 2008, a figure expected to increase slightly although no details were available on Wednesday.

Deputy State Secretary John Negroponte told the Senate panel said that several unforeseen costs have emerged, including an increased need for aid for the Palestinian Authority.

In a separate hearing Wednesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told a House panel that he was not comfortable with the Army's level of readiness if a new threat emerged.

"I am not comfortable that we could respond as rapidly as we would like to. It would take us time to reverse directions," Casey said.
I like how the annual costs keep increasing. Shouldn't it have been most expensive years ago and the cost be going down?
 

MJMANDALAY

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
13,145
1
0
#2
Wow and thats what they make public.
 

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#3
Bickering about the cost of the war is just a distraction from talking about the real issues - like how offensive the MoveOn.org ad was...
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
142,465
50,258
644
#4
KEEP SHOPPING!!

Congress, your approval rating is at like 11%. You've done nothing after your "victory." Try something. Say no.

Yes, they'll say you're anti-American by voting no. They do that anyway. Even if you vote 100% for an increase in funding, they'll still say you're anti-American. Say no. Just say no.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
142,465
50,258
644
#6
Update: http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S0NKLO3&show_article=1&catnum=0

WASHINGTON (AP) - Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Similar attempts have been made but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

"Many of us have reached a breaking point on this," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "I've done this for too many years. I've waited for the president to start bringing this war to an end. I'm not going to sign up for this any longer."

In the House, Democrats are pushing for a bill that would require the administration to report to Congress in 60 days and every 90 days thereafter on the status of its redeployment plans in Iraq.

The bill, sponsored by Democrats John Tanner of Tennessee and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, was initially cast aside as too mild by Democratic leaders focused on tougher proposals ordering troops home this fall.

But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill.

"This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press.

In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles.

In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat.

The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#10
If we don't spend enough to ruin the US economically resulting in a degraded military and standard of living the terrorists win.
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#11
I say give them what they want. The sooner we go bankrupt the quicker this bullshit stops.
Problem with that is eventually we could encounter hyper-inflation. Government would have to either default or would have to print more money than is healthy. And a default would also have major economic implications (plus it would be dishonerable and scummy).

Only safe way out is the way we came in, we need to lower spending dramatically and avoid issuing any more t-bonds and notes. T-bills only, if we can't pay it off in a year we shouldn't borrow.
 

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
Mar 3, 2005
3,753
2
0
California
#12
Fuck that abudabit, let's just be like Africa. They have insane inflation. You don't see them having any problems do you?