namelesstavern.net

for 2007 and 2008. From Associated Press.


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official said Friday.

The requests Monday, to accompany President Bush's budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, would bring the total appropriations for 2007 to about $170 billion, with a slight decline the following year.

The additional request for the current year includes $93.4 billion for the Pentagon - on top of $70 billion approved by Congress in September - and is about $6 billion less than the Pentagon's request to the White House budget office.

Bowing to pressure from Congress, the administration will also break down the $145 billion request for next year into detailed form.


For 2009, the White House assumes spending will be down to $50 billion, with no funding planned beyond then in hopes the war in Iraq will have wound down.

Bush has said his five-year plan will bring a balanced budget by 2012, but the claim has met with some skepticism from Democrats since the White House has declined to forecast long-term war costs.

"If we're successful carrying out the president's current policy, we would hope that we'd begin to have less of a financial commitment even in this fiscal year," said the senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be unveiled until Monday. "This is our best guess."

The spiraling war spending - up from $120 billion approved by Congress for 2006 - is largely to replace equipment destroyed in combat or worn out in harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iraq requests are certain to face scrutiny by the Democratic-controlled Congress, which is debating whether to try to block Bush's request to increase troop levels in Iraq to quell the burgeoning violence in Baghdad.

War critics also say the Pentagon is using war funding requests to modernize the armed services with weaponry - such as the next-generation Joint Strike Fighters or the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft - unlikely to see action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Bush has said his five-year plan will bring a balanced budget by 2012

And if we get a democrat president in '08, guess who is going to take the credit for the balancing of the budget?

rofl

It's pretty convenient for Bush to make that statement considering even if he doesn't meet that goal, and the dems do when they take over in 08, he'll take all the credit and morons like you will back him on it.

I just find it a hilarious testament to conservative stubbornness that after all Bush has done wrong, they still have the audacity to sing his praise.

Ginzburgh wrote:I just find it a hilarious testament to conservative stubbornness that after all Bush has done wrong, they still have the audacity to sing his praise.

QFT

the way Bush spends there is NO FUCKING way he will ever accomplish this

Ginzburgh wrote:I just find it a hilarious testament to conservative stubbornness that after all Bush has done wrong, they still have the audacity to sing his praise.

QFT

Evermore wrote:

Ginzburgh wrote:I just find it a hilarious testament to conservative stubbornness that after all Bush has done wrong, they still have the audacity to sing his praise.

QFT

the way Bush spends there is NO FUCKING way he will ever accomplish this

if you steal enough foreign oil it would be doable

Balancing the budget?

Uhhhh... how is spending ANOTHER 200 BILLION going out even out the books?

From what I seen on the news so far, Bush's budget submission contains curbs on domestic agencies' spending and cuts to farm programs, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. It also would require more of the higher-income recipients to pay greater premiums. The budget proposal also assume strong tax revenue since the the economy is growing.

Bush's budget proposal is almost 3 trillion dollars.

Phlegm wrote:From what I seen on the news so far, Bush's budget submission contains curbs on domestic agencies' spending and cuts to farm programs, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. It also would require more of the higher-income recipients to pay greater premiums. The budget proposal also assume strong tax revenue since the the economy is growing.

Bush's budget proposal is almost 3 trillion dollars.

As in, they are going to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid ?


I wish our gov't would offer some form of decent healthcare for everyone

Burgy99 wrote:

Phlegm wrote:From what I seen on the news so far, Bush's budget submission contains curbs on domestic agencies' spending and cuts to farm programs, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. It also would require more of the higher-income recipients to pay greater premiums. The budget proposal also assume strong tax revenue since the the economy is growing.

Bush's budget proposal is almost 3 trillion dollars.

As in, they are going to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid ?

Basically that's what Bush wants to do.

Burgy99 wrote:I wish our gov't would offer some form of decent healthcare for everyone

John Edwards agrees with you. He wants to raise taxes to pay for health care. He aslo said that Congress should deny funding for the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Ginzburgh wrote:It's pretty convenient for Bush to make that statement considering even if he doesn't meet that goal, and the dems do when they take over in 08, he'll take all the credit and morons like you will back him on it.

You know I find it interesting that you see a democratic victory in the 08 presidential election as a guarantee, especially this early on. I think you overestimate the impact of the so called failures of the Bush Administration. For the sake of argument here I'll pretend that every charge of failure ever made is completely accurate and glaringly obvious. The Democratic Presidential nominee will not be running against Bush (and most likely not Cheney either). I think the then historical record of the Bush Administration will carry huge weight with those who voted democratic last time, but for those like me who voted against someone instead of for Bush the stigmata of the Bush administration will not carry nearly as much weight. You might sight recent elections, however that is ignoring the fact that the Democrats victory in the midterm was not nearly as significant as they would have you believe compared historically to other midterms resulting in a change of the party in power in Congress.

In the here and now it looks as if the Democrats presidential nominee will be H. Clinton or Obama. Quite honestly I'd rather see Gore run again rather then one of these two, quite honestly he'd have a better chance. The fact is Clinton moved to a traditionally staunchly Democrat state to get elected to the Senate, doesn't bode well for her chances running on a national scale where the races have been very close. Obama has the Charisma, but unfortunately a lack of record and experience. Gore has demonstrated high viability as a presidential candidate already and has a better "resume" then both. All that aside I haven't even delved into the issue of sex and race, which I'm sure will have some effect. This is regrettable but I'm being realistic, how much of an effect is up to conjecture, and it might be negligible.

What really concerns me more then anything else is I fear this country will have a 08 presidential election much like the last, where both candidates are sub par. Hell if that happens I may just get fed up enough with it all to vote a 3rd party candidate, something I've never done.

Phlegm wrote:

Burgy99 wrote:I wish our gov't would offer some form of decent healthcare for everyone

John Edwards agrees with you. He wants to raise taxes to pay for health care. He aslo said that Congress should deny funding for the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Nationalized health care is a substantial platform for H. Clinton also.

[quote="Lueyen"]What really concerns me more then anything else is I fear this country will have a 08 presidential election much like the last, where both candidates are sub par. Hell if that happens I may just get fed up enough with it all to vote a 3rd party candidate, something I've never done.[/quote]

Come to the dark side! Vote Libertarian :pirate:

Diekan wrote:Balancing the budget?

Uhhhh... how is spending ANOTHER 200 BILLION going out even out the books?

steal it from Social Security?

Eziekial wrote:Come to the dark side! Vote Libertarian

That is a very distinct possibility.

I like the Libertarian position on social issues, ie that Government has no place whatsoever getting involved in things like gay marriage, abortion, drug use, etc. etc. etc. I don't, however, like their attitude about laissez faire capitalism, (aka caveat emptor) and the complete lack of governmental services. There are very GOOD reasons for such things as social security, and that's to prevent having old or poor people from dying in the streets. That's just the tip of the ice berg.

As I've said before, my own personal politics probably runs closer to the Greens than anything else (though they're TOO pacificistic for me), but I know they'll never get elected to national office, so I fail to see a point in voting for them.

-Arlos

arlos, Social Security as it is doesnt work now. i realize there are some that totally rely on it but in general it isnt working. its turned into a savings account for the government

You know I find it interesting that you see a democratic victory in the 08 presidential election as a guarantee, especially this early on.

I predicted the dems would take control of the house and senate and many people called that prediction totally ridiculous. It was a gut feeling then and it’s a gut feeling now. I guess It all depends on who runs and how much worse this war gets.

Ginzburgh wrote:

You know I find it interesting that you see a democratic victory in the 08 presidential election as a guarantee, especially this early on.

I predicted the dems would take control of the house and senate and many people called that prediction totally ridiculous. It was a gut feeling then and it’s a gut feeling now. I guess It all depends on who runs and how much worse this war gets.

You predicted that? rofl Every news network has been predicting that a year before it happened.

I meant in casual conversation with political savvy people retard, not to the world. Believe it or not, despite the fact that the news predicted the dems would take control, there are still those thick skulled conservatives that thought it was a ridiculous notion. Know any of those people Mindia?

If you want, you can swap the world "predicted" with the word "assumed".

Diekan wrote:Balancing the budget?

Uhhhh... how is spending ANOTHER 200 BILLION going out even out the books?

aint that the truth. Fucking stupid asses.

Ever wonder how some of the money were distributed in Iraq?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17010110/

Mr Waxman said that, in a 13-month period, the US government had shipped 360 tonnes of cash to Iraq. "Who in their right minds would send 360 tonnes of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what [this government] did."

One official from the provisional authority described an environment awash with $100 bills, said a memo released by Mr Waxman's office.

"One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency." In some cases, cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices.

Huge sums were doled out, sometimes in dollar bills from the back of pick-up trucks, it was alleged.

Literally 360 TONS of banknotes. To a war zone. Full of corrupt officials. 12 BILLION in cash....

I thought I had gone beyond being staggered at the complete idiocy of the policies and actions taken by this administration. I was wrong.

Seriously, what sane individual would consider that a GOOD idea?

Ye gods, how much of the insurgency did we end up FUNDING ourselves with such moronic fuckups like this one?

-Arlos