Bush: “I Need About $50 Billion More…”

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Iraq, Legislation, Money, War

And he’s daring the Dems to vote against it…

The request — which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year. [...]

Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq, which has expanded the U.S. force there by about 28,000 troops, to about 160,000. The cost of the buildup was not included in the proposed 2008 budget because Pentagon officials said they did not know how long the troop increase would last. The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.

I think Bush is right that Congress won’t shorten our stay in Iraq. Or maybe it’s better to say that they simply can’t. There’s no way the Dems’ slim majority can break the Repubs, much less the President’s veto. The public may not be fond of Congress right now over Iraq, but gridlock is keeping us there.

So are we really talking about $50 billion?

Some consideration is being given to trimming the new request by a few billion dollars, the White House official said. But, he added, “this is pretty close to a done deal.” Almost all the spending is relatively noncontroversial, he added, with the vast majority of it necessary just to keep the U.S. military operating in Iraq. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to reporters, said that the supplemental requests are likely to be “rolled together” and considered as one package.

And that, as they say, is that. Sure, the Dems will make noise, but it’s impotent rage.

And so it goes…


This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 and is filed under Iraq, Legislation, Money, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Bush: “I Need About $50 Billion More…””

  1. Jeremy Says:

    What’s another 50 billion on top of a soon to be trillion dollar plus war? We’ve already got a record deficit and Bush insists on giving out tax-cuts to the richest Americans. Who in the f! gives out tax-cuts during a war?

    It’s easy to print more money and have China assume our debt when you aren’t the one that has to pay it back. Bush is going to suck every last dime out of this country before his term is up. It’s not enough to rob the hard working Americans’ Social Security or Health care, he’s got to auction off the next generation of Americans’ future as well.

  2. Fielding J Hurst Says:

    They do have the power NOT to pass the spending bill, so if they had the gonads, they could de-fund the war. Right now, I think they see it as too good of a presidential election issue and don’t want to screw it up.

    Fielding J. Hurst

  3. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    We’ve already got a record deficit

    This is simply not true. The deficit has been steadily declining every year since 2003, and is projected to come into balance around the time Bush leaves office.

    Bush insists on giving out tax-cuts to the richest Americans.

    Everybody got a tax cut. In fact, as a percentage of their income, the poorest Americans have been paying less taxes under Bush than under any administration in recent history.

    Who in the f! gives out tax-cuts during a war?

    Considering the fact that last year the federal government collected record-breaking tax revenue, it seems more than enough tax money is available to fund one of the least expensive wars in U.S. history. Only the 1st gulf war cost less money as a percentage of what the country earns.

    It’s easy to print more money and have China assume our debt when you aren’t the one that has to pay it back.

    Nearly 70% of our debt is held by Americans, with less than 5% held by the chinese. The Japanese hold almost twice that amount, and the British are poised to overtake the Chinese within several years.

    It’s not enough to rob the hard working Americans’ Social Security or Health care, he’s got to auction off the next generation of Americans’ future as well.

    Federal health care expenditures have steadily risen since Bush took office, to over 2 trillion$, or about 16% of GDP, which is significantly more than what was spent during the Clinton administration.

    he’s got to auction off the next generation of Americans’ future as well.

    Our tax revenue, yours and mine, has been used to pay off debt acquired during the lifetimes of previous generations, do you think debt roll-over will become illegal anytime soon?

    Your boilerplate platitudes simply don’t stand up to the facts. The cost of the Iraq war should be measured against the sacrifice of our brave soldiers, and the benefits of stemming the tide of salafist Islam in the 21st century. The economy will be fine, bearing that America is successful in projecting power in the middle east in order to eradicate fundamentalist Islamic jihadism, which has existed and will continue to exist with or without Bush as president.

  4. Arni Stifado Says:

    Dems don’t need a majority to deny this
    All they have to do is – NOTHING. If they don’t send a spending bill to Bush, he gets no money, nor any opportunity to veto anything.

    Congressional leadership (currently the Dems) holds the power of the purse – PERIOD. Anything that is paid for is their doing, and anything they want to deny, they can – majority or no majority.

  5. sleipner Says:

    As always, I’m stunned by the magnitude of Jimmy’s ability to twist reality 180 degrees into his predefined and fixed image of how he wishes the world worked.

  6. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Great rebuttal to the statistics sleipner. Since all you have to do to win an argument around here is to claim your opponent is wrong and get the last word in without any rational discourse, I see that my post here came later than yours, so I win and you are wrong.

  7. Jeremy Says:

    “Great rebuttal to the statistics sleipner. Since all you have to do to win an argument around here is to claim your opponent is wrong and get the last word in without any rational discourse, I see that my post here came later than yours, so I win and you are wrong.”

    Jimmy the Dhimmi, the truth is your “statistics” are about as solidly rooted in reality, as, well, you are. Which is to say, they aren’t!

    I said: ‘We’ve already got a record deficit’

    And you say: “This is simply not true. The deficit has been steadily declining every year since 2003, and is projected to come into balance around the time Bush leaves office.”

    This is preciously the nonsense I am talking about. Your little feeble mind is incapable of grasping the larger picture, that “statistics” emanating from this neoconic (soon to be coined, count on it) government are almost without question redacted, reworked, “corrected,” molded and worked into the perfect public relations packages we come so used to from the Bushites.

    Expecting Bush to “tell it like it is” about money squandering and corrupt practices is like asking Hitler to tell us he thinks “Jews” are discriminated against, that is to say, pigs will fly first before we the people know the full extent of Bush’s plundering of America’s
    finances.

    This is but one article that perfectly expresses my doubts about Bush’s forthrightness to square with the American people, especially! about matters of economic truth:

    “If President Bush needs a name for his deficit-reduction plan, he might consider this: Deficit Deceit. That, at least, would be an honest description of a plan based on made-up numbers, wishful thinking and purposeful obfuscation.

    During his re-election campaign, Bush promised to halve the budget deficit in the next five years. Even with an honest effort, that would be a formidable task considering the budgetary hole in which the nation finds itself. As it turns out, the administration isn’t going to give it an honest effort.

    Instead of using last year’s actual $413-billion deficit to measure success, Bush is reportedly going to substitute an inflated projection of $521-billion. So with the stroke of a pen, the goal just got magically closer. Half of the larger amount will be a lot easier to reach, never mind that it is a phony number.

    Real progress still will be difficult, given the administration’s spending ambitions and intention to make existing tax cuts permanent, not to mention a likely repeal of the alternative minimum tax. So the plan conveniently assumes a highly optimistic (some say unrealistic) doubling of new tax revenues in the coming year, even though the administration’s own projections for economic growth are flat.

    Still taking no chances, Bush will leave significant expenses out of the budget, including the $100-billion cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as though there is no real price to pay for those painful conflicts. And there will be no mention of a key item on his agenda – privatization of Social Security – that is expected to cost a staggering $2-trillion over the next couple of decades.

    We are accustomed to exaggeration when it comes to campaign promises, but such deception in federal budget projections carries great risk. Deeper deficits would put an undue burden on future taxpayers and undermine our credibility with foreign investors, who have so far been willing to buy the growing supply of treasury bonds.” -St. Petersburg Times

    You can repeat your ignorant, logic-twisting tripe as long as you wish, you may even convince yourself by it, but not me. I suspect you have a “reading deficit,: which is easily remedied by, uh, reading material outside of the Reagan library and the FOX archives.

  8. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I get it. Bush and the neocons are simply lying when the U.S. treasury department publishes those numbers. How convenient for you.

    I guess this is just like when the neocons lied about “19 arab hijackers,” and the faked videos of Osama Bin-Laden, or the “reworked” cell-phone calls from the passengers of flight 93.

  9. Jeremy Says:

    lol, or lied about weapons of mass destruction, or mobile chemical labs or lied about outing a CIA officer, or lied about helping the people of New Orleans repair their lives or lied about a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda pre-invasion or lied about giving the U.N. weapons inspectors enough time to assess Iraq’s war making capabilities or lied about Patrick Tillman’s real cause of death or lied about the real extent of torture or lied about being a “”uniter not a divider” or lied about no interactions with Jack Abramoff or lied about U.S. rendition operation or lied about “Only bad guys are spied on” or lied about Al Qaeda being the significant source of violence in Iraq (when in fact it is Iraqi’s causing the majority of the violence) or lied about being welcomed with roses and chocolates upon our arrival or lied about not wanting
    to exploit the Iraqi oil resources (these same fields have been handed over to American oil companies in spades) or lied about building permanent American military bases in Iraq or lied about what else? God only knows what we “don’t” know about, what we will never find out.

  10. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    All right already. You win. The treasury department employees are lying to the public about tax revenues. It is a fact that the deficit is growing, the budget is not on pace to be balanced by 2009, we did NOT have record-breaking tax revenues last year, and the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by “Zionists.”

    All of this is true simply because Bush has no credibility, Jeremy speaks the truth, and you don’t need numbers or facts because they are all corrupted by lying liars anyway.

  11. Jeremy Says:

    “All right already. You win. The treasury department employees are lying to the public about tax revenues. It is a fact that the deficit is growing, the budget is not on pace to be balanced by 2009, we did NOT have record-breaking tax revenues last year, and the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by “Zionists.”

    All of this is true simply because Bush has no credibility, Jeremy speaks the truth, and you don’t need numbers or facts because they are all corrupted by lying liars anyway.”

    Okay then, I forgive you.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: