| Author |
Message |
Similitude
Lieutenant
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 205
|
 Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:51 pm Bush wants $80B more for Iraq war |
|
| Quote: | WASHINGTON -- The full cost of war in Iraq came into sharper focus Tuesday -- in dollars, deficits and troops.
The Bush administration announced it would seek $80 billion in new spending mainly for Iraq as the Army confirmed plans to keep 120,000 troops there for at least two more years.
That new spending would boost the U.S. budget deficit to a record $427 billion this year, administration officials said -- about $100 billion higher than White House estimates six months ago.
Already, the United States is spending about $5.1 billion a month to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- with Iraq by far the bigger, averaging $4.3 billion a month, Bush aides said Tuesday.
The new spending would push total U.S. anti-terror costs to $300 billion, or roughly half the total cost in Wednesday's dollars of World War I or the Vietnam War.
And senior Bush administration officials said they expected another major Iraq spending request next year, even as the Pentagon hopes Iraqi elections in four days can start that nation on the road to self-sufficiency.
President George W. Bush defended the spending Tuesday, saying the request "makes clear to terrorists that our resolve is firm and we will complete our mission." His aides insisted he was still on track to meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years.
Democrats charged the new deficit numbers -- which don't include transition costs for Bush's proposed Social Security overhaul -- suggest that Bush will fall short of his goal. "We have red ink as far as you can see," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
About $75 billion of the $80 billion will go for military operations and repairs of worn-out, overused equipment, mostly in Iraq, the senior officials said. About $1 billion will go toward efforts to thwart roadside bombs lethal to U.S. forces, such as better surveillance and training dog teams. The remainder will go toward training Iraqi security forces, the key to the U.S. exit strategy, and other foreign aid items.
The $300 billion in U.S. war costs far outstrips early White House estimates, as well as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's early predictions that Iraqi oil revenue, not U.S. taxpayers, would cover the costs.
As a result, Bush has signaled that his budget proposal next month will include almost no increase in discretionary spending, except for defense and homeland security.
As for the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office Tuesday said deficits over the next decade would total $855 billion, without counting costs of war or the Social Security plan. This year's shortfall alone, the budget office said, would be about $400 billion, including the wars.
With costs continuing to rise, the Army this week said it envisioned keeping the same number of soldiers there for at least another two years.
About 120,000 of the 150,000 troops in Iraq now are Army soldiers. Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army's operations chief, told reporters this week that the "most probable case" would be keeping that number there for two years, but he said that could change if Iraqi forces can take over more security tasks. |
Just think how much that 80 Bil could do in the Economy today.. I disagree with having our troops over there for a whole two more years.
~John
-------signature-------
TNA, The Next Leap for Pro Wrestling...
http://www.tnawrestling.com
Anti-WWE
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:03 pm |
|
Source, please, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Similitude
Lieutenant
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 205
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:10 pm |
|
Hmmmm...don't know where I stand on this one. I may actually agree with Bill O'Reilly for once on Iraq. He made a good point: Why does it have to be $80 billion in TWO years? Why can't we cut it in half, both in money and time, to get the Iraqis to work more for their country. But then again, if the Pentagon sees this as necessary, who am I to disagree? I don't know, I'm caught between those 2 things.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
