USA Today: Military may ask $127B for wars

[laststeamtrain]

Military may ask $127B for wars
Posted 11/16/2006 11:17 PM ET
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.

The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.

Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The latest request, due to reach the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress next spring, would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who will chair the Senate Budget Committee next year, said the amount under consideration is "$127 billion and rising." He said the cost "is going to increasingly become an issue" because it could prevent Congress from addressing domestic priorities, such as expanding Medicare prescription drug coverage.

<more>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-iraq-costs_x.htm?csp=34

[htuttle]

1. Fuck that -- 50% of that money goes right into the pockets of contractors...

...and profiteers. I'm starting to agree with Kucinich -- the only way to put an end to this is to just cut the money off.

[laststeamtrain]

3. Remember when 'they' said the oil revenues would pay for the 'war'?

I wonder how much oil 'they're' pumping & hiding?

The new congress has got to stop the bleeding & maybe get some of the money back from the corporados through fines & special taxes (?).

I'm definitely with DK on defunding.

And some people should go to jail.

The Bushistas have out-sleazed Nixon & Reagan combined.

Oh yeah...& all the innocent dead...

Fuck...

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. What if we just gave everyone a million dollars each

and forget about war?

Especially in poor countries where a million dollars is still a lot of money, everyone would be too busy building new houses to bother killing each other.

[ixion]

4. a capital idea

on so many levels. :applause:

[lapfog_1]

6. My proposal from ages ago... when the war started

and the numbers were climbing...

I did some math and estimated that we could give every man, woman, and child about $10,000 dollars to simply leave the country and find somewhere else to live... that would be $40,000 per family of four. Given that the average annual income of an Iraqi wage earner was something like about $2500 per year, a one time windfall of $40,000 per family would have been tempting.

Once they left, we march in and take the oil fields.

Just a whole lot cheaper than what we've done and nobody (ok, not many people) get killed.

Of course, now we've already spent more than the $10,000 per person in Iraq, I think we are closing in on $20,000 per person.

And it's not like they would have to stay away forever, just long enough for us to extract all of the oil.
About 20 years or less (given that we would no longer import from anywhere else).

[wholetruth00]

5. Halliburton and some other war profiteers will just get richer.

[savemefromdumbya]

11. and we just stand by and watch them!

[earthside]

7. Defining Moment Coming

When this request comes for massive amounts of taxpayer dollars (and/or money borrowed from China) for the Iraq occupation -- it will be the moment of definition for the Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate.

The first place it will land will be a House committee (since spending bills have to originate in the House), the Dems get their crack at cutting money for troop deployments for Iraq, for funding U.S. base infrastructure in Iraq.

Will they do it?

Will Sen. Conrad announce that the Democratic Congress will provide plenty of money for support of the troops -- but no dollars for sending those soldiers to Iraq?

Then we will know whether or not this Democratic takeover of the federal legislature is going to amount to anything ... this will be the defining moment.

Bush can then veto the entire appropriation for the military, for the troops ... or he can sign the legislation and bring the troops home. If he vetos, then graphic evidence of his weakening of our military for his own political agenda will be plain for everyone to see. If he signs, then it is a great victory for peace.

But if the Dems fail to put cutting that money in the bill -- then, as far as I am concerned, they have bought 'big time' ownership of the Iraq debacle.

[IndyOp]

8. K&R. Kucinich is right - there is more than enough $$ in the pipeline

to cover the costs of a 6-month long orderly pull out from Iraq.

SO CUT OFF THE FUNDS, NOW.

:grr:

[Drum]

9. Outrageous! nt

[savemefromdumbya]

10. This is OUR money and you are not wasting it

where exactly is this money coming from?

[Megahurtz]

13. Unfortunately, it seems like we have no say in it.

:grr:

[savemefromdumbya]

14. I am hoping that the Democratic Congress is going to listen to the people

[Quantess]

15. Our social security, and from future generations.

It's okay, a few people are getting rich off the war.

[gratuitous]

12. So glad we have nothing else to spend money on

What is this now, $650 billion out of the Treasury? For a war that wasn't supposed to last even six months, let alone the six years and longer it's sure to last now? A war that was going to be paid for out of the proceeds of Iraq's own oil? Say, where is the money for Iraq's oil going, anyway? Anybody have any idea how much oil they're pumping, who's shipping it, who's paying for it, and who's getting paid for it? Or do the terrorists win if the American people get the answers to those questions?