Yet even more money for War...

Started by RZA3 pages

Yet even more money for War...

Senate approves $70B for war spending

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate unanimously approved $70 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Friday as part of a record Pentagon budget.

The bill, now on its way to the White House for President Bush's signature, totals $448 billion. It was passed by a 100-0 vote after minimal debate.

Approval by a comfortable margin came despite intense partisan divisions over the course of the Iraq war, which is costing about $8 billion a month. Another infusion of money will be needed next spring.

At the White House, President Bush said he would sign the bill and thanked Congress "for passing legislation that will provide our men and women in uniform with the necessary resources to protect our country and win the war on terror."

"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism," he said, "this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrows threats. I look forward to signing this bill into law."

The House-Senate compromise bill provides $378 billion for core Pentagon programs, about a 5 percent increase, though slightly less than President Bush asked for. The $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is a down payment on war costs the White House has estimated will hit $110 billion for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Congress has now approved $507 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and heightened security at overseas military bases since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The war in Iraq has cost $379 billion and the conflict in Afghanistan now totals $97 billion.

The Iraq war continues to be unpopular with voters, according to opinion polls, but even Democratic opponents of the war voted for the Pentagon measure, which provides funding for body armor and other support for U.S. troops overseas.

"America is in deep trouble in Iraq," said Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "The continuing violence and death is ominous.... Militias are growing in strength and continue to operate outside the law. Death squads are rampant."

The growing price tag of the Iraq conflict is partly driven by the need to repair and replace military equipment worn out in harsh, dusty conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or destroyed in battle. Almost $23 billion was approved for Army, Marine Corps and National Guard equipment such as helicopters, armored Humvees, Bradley armored fighting vehicles, radios and night-vision equipment.

Lawmakers allotted $1.9 billion for new jammers to counter improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan and $1 billion is provided for body armor and other personal protective gear.

There is also a stack of pet projects for lawmakers' homes states and districts, including $372 million obtained for Hawaii, home of Daniel Inouye, top Democrat on the defense appropriations panel.

"There are 2,000 earmarks in the bill directed by Members of Congress — somewhere around $8 billion — and a large portion of those don't have anything to do with the mission of the Defense Department," said Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The legislation would be the first of 11 spending bills to clear Congress for the new budget year. The homeland security bill is the only other ready to pass before Congress leaves Washington this weekend. Nine bills funding domestic programs and foreign aid will wait until a lame duck session. That means delays in funding increases for veterans health care.

So little progress has been made on other bills that the Pentagon measure also carries a stopgap funding bill to keep open through Nov. 17 agencies whose funding bills won't have passed. Only the homeland security measure is expected to also pass before Congress leaves Washington to campaign.

The core bill contains $86 billion for personnel costs, enough to support 482,000 Army soldiers and 175,000 Marines. That would provide for a 2.2 percent pay increase for the military, as Bush requested in his February budget.

The bill provides $120 billion for operations and maintenance costs, just less than the Pentagon request. And $81 billion goes for procurement of new weapons, with $76 billion dedicated to research and development costs.

That's still not enough for the White House, which requested $4 billion more. But House appropriators diverted that money to ease cuts in domestic programs. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a version shifting $9 billion to domestic programs but backed off in the face of a White House veto threat.

I think it was the late Tupac Shakur who said it best, 'You know it's funny when it rains it pours, they got money for wars but can't feed poor!?' 😕 srug

its a money vaccume. not only that but this is the first financed war in american history. but screw it, by the time the bill comes, these corrupt old scumbags will be either long dead or too senile to understand how they ****ed us all over. GO DUBYA!!!

Well, do you think under funding the war now will make it better? We can't pull out as it is now, might as well pay to make it better, even if it is a long shot.

^
Seems to me like they keep digging themselves into a bigger hole each and every time.

Can't pull out now, really? Well, that's for another topic but I'm sure there might be some that would disagree.

Continuing to throw money at it wont make it go away

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, do you think under funding the war now will make it better? We can't pull out as it is now, might as well pay to make it better, even if it is a long shot.

Well technically they could pull out - the question is should they and the pros/cons of such an act.

the con: taliban - the sequel

yeah, we're stuck there....and thats based on the overly optimistic assumption that we'll have a choice, but i fear that in the end we will have no choice but to pull out and wait to reap what we sew.

Actually, what the passage of this bill indicates is the apathy for governing that is common practice for every member of the governing body, be they democrat or republican.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well technically they could pull out - the question is should they and the pros/cons of such an act.

I wasn't arguing the physical possibility of pulling out obviously. Iraq is a sh!t hole as it is now, but there is progress being made. Leaving it now would be the wrong thing to do and would only result in another extremist theology being set up in the Middle East with another POS like Saddam taking control.

It's almost a lose/lose situation, but one lose is far worse. I do not have faith in the Bush Admin fixing it, I can only hope come 2008 the next admin doesn't have it's collective head up it's ass.

Originally posted by RZA
^
Seems to me like they keep digging themselves into a bigger hole each and every time.

Can't pull out now, really? Well, that's for another topic but I'm sure there might be some that would disagree.

Continuing to throw money at it wont make it go away

Yes, it is a hole.

Not arguing the physical aspect of pulling out, argueing right/wrong side of it.

Not sayig money will make it go away, but cutting funding would be a guaranteed lose.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, it is a hole.

Not arguing the physical aspect of pulling out, argueing right/wrong side of it.

Not sayig money will make it go away, but cutting funding would be a guaranteed lose.

Well the real question you have to ask what are the benefits of staying and leaving, and if you stay what's the chance that you will stay until the end you desire happens. Staying for 10 more years and then retreating just costs you more money and more lives for the exact same result. Staying is the best thing to do, if there is a chance that this will actually work out in the end, but I doubt that, that chance excists. So cruel as it is for all those Iraqi's that supported the Americans and those that don't want a civil war retreating might be in the best interested of the United States.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well the real question you have to ask what are the benefits of staying and leaving, and if you stay what's the chance that you will stay until the end you desire happens. Staying for 10 more years and then retreating just costs you more money and more lives for the exact same result. Staying is the best thing to do, if there is a chance that this will actually work out in the end, but I doubt that, that chance excists. So cruel as it is for all those Iraqi's that supported the Americans and those that don't want a civil war retreating might be in the best interested of the United States.

We have three fingers in the dam now, we can either keep investing fingers (money) and hope it holds or we can pull our fingers out and watch it all crumble as it surely will. I agree that both scenarios are not ideal, I am hoping that the next admins fingers aren't covered in butter.

Originally posted by Robtard
with another POS like Saddam taking control.

so you still buy the line that hussein was a threat to us? in fact that his name pops up first in your mind instead of the taliban/bin laden?

War cannot be stopped but it can be rejected from the moment you hear about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
We have three fingers in the dam now, we can either keep investing fingers (money) and hope it holds or we can pull our fingers out and watch it all crumble as it surely will. I agree that both scenarios are not ideal, I am hoping that the next admins fingers aren't covered in butter.

Even if you could put all ten of your fingers in the dam, more holes could still pop-up and then what would you do?

I kind of like the fact that we have bases on both sides of Iran. And we are only spending 3 % of gnp as apposed to 7% in WWII and we actually lost more men on iwo jima in 2 weeks than weve lost in this whole war. But, you can always sit back and pick apart anything without offering a better solution. Of course I'm sure you believe that we can "talk" these assholes into not hating us for the freedom that we all hold so dear. And appease them into leaving us alone.

They refuse to communicate. You cannot ask what exactly do they want for us to help the best way possible. I think they are ambitious and they know they want bad things...that explains their refusal.

Originally posted by PVS
so you still buy the line that hussein was a threat to us? in fact that his name pops up first in your mind instead of the taliban/bin laden?

I said Saddam is a piece of shit... Not sure where you get your conclusions from.

Originally posted by Fishy
Even if you could put all ten of your fingers in the dam, more holes could still pop-up and then what would you do?

Dude, I am not saying it can be fixed for certain, but bailing out now would guarantee failure, which part of that can't you understand? If you have the perfect plan that doesn't require money, I am all ears.

If this bill gives soldiers better protection, then let it be.

What kind of protection?