The Bush administration is expected to seek $120 billion in additional financing to pay for continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2006, The New York Times reported. According to one estimate, that would raise the total cost of those two military operations since Sept. 11, 2001, to more than $450 billion. And counting.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
62 Comments
My numbers may be wrong but wasn’t this supposed to only cost about $15 billion? Now it is climbing to $450B and I bet there aren’t very many republikans who are outraged by this. Shrub didn’t lie, he is just bad at math.
President Bush sends Treasury Secretary John Snow out to collect cans a bottles to pay for war in Iraq.
“if that doesn’t do it, I can always cut medicare benefits to the elderly”, he remarks to v p whatshisname.
Meanwhile, grey panthers were seen assembling in Huston, Texas.
Not only that k but Iraq’s oil revenues would take care of the bill. I guess that idea went away to the same hiding place as the non-existant WMDs.
“Life is what happens when you’ve made other plans”.
Where does all that money go?
It goes into the pockets of Bush/Cheneys friends whose corporations provide support for the military. It also goes to the so-called reconstruction effort.
How come this doesnt make people sick?
K,
It was supposed to cost 1-2 billion because the rest would be funded by “Iraqi oil revenue.”
It’s just another of a long string of lies we Americans were fed about this war.
What short memories we have. The USSR broke it’s back financially in Afghanistan fighting the same kind of war we’ve undertaken. I predict that this war will be the financial ruin of the U.S.
It’s going to cost more when we go into Iran. :(
I’m for the War on Terror, but the cost is getting really out of control. Especially since the cost greatly outways the results.
This is going to cost the economy for the next 20 to 30 years. Hopefully we have enough peace time to recover.
I mean, we are still paying for LBJ’s Vietnam.
Although I’m greatly concerned about the war cost, I am more concerned about other program cost such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Talk about leaving nothing left. The “give-me” Democrats Baby Boomer generation is going to clean up the coffers.
I was listening to NPR and they said that if nothing is done, SS/AID/CARE cost would be more than 60% of the entire Federal Budget by 2015.
The government is going to be funding retiree european ski vacation and boner pills, instead of good uses such as our rapidly deteriating infrastruture.
Joe, better start putting money into your 401K.
What a waste. And yet some people around here expect our government to act like anything other than what it is.
Ok..time for a reality check. How many people that are wringing their hands over the cost of this war protested against the costs Kennedy/Johnson war?
Gee…forget about that one, did we?
Dammon. I already plan and act like SS will never be there for me. 401K and investing in individual stocks are part of my life now.
Raptor–I did. But you forget, it was the Kennedy, Johnson, NIXON war.
Back then, the US had about half the national debt (thanks mainly to borrow and spend Ronald Reagan) than it does now.
As for this quote–”The “give-me” Democrats Baby Boomer generation is going to clean up (out?) the coffers”, it’s another ludicrous example of blaming the victim.
Democrats haven’t controlled any branch of the federal government for something like four years now, and the deficit and national debt have hit historic highs in current dollars and adjusted for inflation.
But that’s the Republican way, with their sweaty palms pulling every lever of power, the conservatives inveigh that all our problems are caused by liberals.
Doesn’t even make good nonsense.
So, Lib…by your analysis, let us project a few years into the future.
Let’s say the Iraq war continues for a while. Let’s also say that next election, a Democrat named “X” is elected. That Democrat presides over an end (ignominious or otherwise) to the Iraq war.
Does that make Iraq the Bush/X war? Or do you hail X as a hero while still castigting Nixon?
Total numbers of deficit dollars are not valid comparisons…inflation (notably during the Carter administration, remember 18% mortgages?) has changed dollar values. To say a 10 billion deficit today (example only) is twice as bad as a 5 billion deficit in the 1960’s is not only wrong, it is a denial of simple economics.
So…Lib…I ask again..were you protesting the cost of the 1960-70 war? Or are you just particular in who you object to?
BTW, the 60 percent of the budget that Medicare, Medicare, and SS is going to consume is the old game of conflating a bunch of numbers together to end up with a “shocking!” conclusion.
Using the Iraq war as the new cost of “national defense,” you could make a case that military spending will consume some huge percentage in the future too.
The huge percentage is based on projecting the massive increases in health care costs out into the future and assuming that no check exists to slow that growth.
It’s like saying that the average house in Wichita will sell for over a million dollars in 2030 because prices have doubled in the last twenty years.
Prices will rise only to the degree that people can pay those prices, duh.
Even under GW’s gloom and doom scenario, SS can pay 80 percent of its benefits for infinity.
Medicaid and Medicare are another story because the greed of medicine and big pharma seem to know no bounds . . .
PS..I am not claiming that all ills are caused by liberal government.
My only point is that both liberal and conservative views have their shortcomings and failures. You tend to completely ignore that.
To all you “Bush Lied” Kool-aid drinkers.
A quote from Jack Kelley in the Toledo Blade.
“Those who have bet their political futures that Saddam had no WMD may be starting to sweat.”
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/COLUMNIST14/602040352/-1/COLUMNIST
If any WMD does show up, I want to see a firm evidence chain linking them to Iraq. I wouldn’t put it past the current administration to “plant” evidence. With all the lies to date, what’s one more lie, more or less?
Hey XXX..
How about the newspaper article? That was enough “proof” that Bush knew Abramoff…
WMD’s arent going to show up. Evidence that Sadam transfered massive quatities to Seria IS showing up- in the form of Sadams own paperwork.
But those are probably forgeries. Let’s get Rather on the case.
Some problems with his analysis Heckler. For one thing we should have found evidence at the sending sites. Decontamination is very difficult.
Sounds to me like we have another “Curveball” who has been 100% discredited.
JoeI keep telling you the money for SS & MC was already paid for and should be in the coffers. And would still be in there if the Bushietails hadn’t spent it all on an illegal war.
“Hey XXX..
How about the newspaper article? That was enough “proof” that Bush knew Abramoff…”
Funny raptor, I don’t recall saying anything like that. Would you please show me where I did? But now that you mention it, aren’t there some visitors logs and photos that show Bush and Abramoff had some kind of link? I probably shouldn’t even mention the $150,000 that Abramoff raised for the Bush campaign. I get $150,000 contributions all the time from people I don’t know, don’t you?
Conservative publications and websites have been rife with conspiracy theories about WMD, and republicans live on that kind of hokum. The link you provided states that “Mr. Sada said he was told of the WMD transfer by the pilots of the two airliners”. Not hardly something we could consider “damning evidence”, is it?
Raptor, nobody was any more surprised than I was that there were no WMD in Iraq. And if WMD do turn up, that puts the issue in a whole different light, doesn’t it? But like I said, if WMD turn up, I want some proof that it’s not planted.
Show me some good evidence besides “My brother-in-law knows a guy who heard someone talking in a bar….”
Joe W,isn’t it wonderful that you have investments like a 401K to retire on? When I was your age, there was no such thing as a 401K. All we had to depend on was Social Security, Which was backed by the full faith of the U.S. government, and defined benefit pension plans, which were protected by law. Funny how things change over the years. Joe, don’t you think I should be entitled to what I was promised? Is the word of the U.S. government not something we should be able to count on?
Sorry, X. Wasn’t specifically referring to you, but more in general of what passes for logic on this blog sometimes.
In the case of the lobbyist/picture thing, one side was asking for definitive proof of a relationship, the other side quoted some newspaper article. The article had speculation but no solid proof. Much like the one about the moving of WMD’s. Yet, tempers flared, people got all riled.
Again, X..sorry…wasn’t suggesting you were party to that ugliness…
Raptor, I was too young to really protest anything during Vietnam–but I got an earful from those who came back!
I don’t understand your alleged reasoning.
I WASN’T surprised when there were no WMD’s in Iraq. We had been effectively blocking that nation for friggin’ decade. They couldn’t even chlorinate their water! (Chlorine can used to make poison gas. . . by the way, XXX, feel to correct me if you found something different when you were there).
Yeah, Lyndon Johnson tricked us into Vietnam. Recently released phone conversations show he did it because Goldwater was making speeches about “blowing Vietnam to the moon!” So to win the election of 1964, this asshole ruined his legacy. I wish I could go back in time and tell that oily bastard: “Lyndon! You’re going to beat Goldwater! I can’t promise that attacking Vietnam won’t help, but you’ll still win! Pull your head out!”
If you’re challenging the notion that liberals are perfect, I can only laugh at you. Who believes THAT?
XXX, yes you should be entitled for what you paid into the system. The bad thing is that you will recieve much more than you ever put in and the younger generation is footing the bill and we are a much smaller generation.
Retirees are also the richest generation. I’m all for helping the elderly and the poor. We should help them. But at what expense to the American Economy?
The people who 1st recieved SS recieved a whole lot more than they ever put in, and I suspect you will too. You put in, let say, $50,000 in your life time in the system, but get back $600,000 in return off the backs of the younger worker is a bit unfair. Sure! It’s a great system as far as investment returns, but it will bankrupt the American government.
The money used in Iraq to make the mid-east safe for Halibuton and israel could have been better used at home. The money could have been used to round up and deport illegal immigrants and build a wall and put troops on our southern border to stop the future flow of filthy drugs and wetbacks into our nation!
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Heckler, I checked out your link.
Okay, listing John Lofton as a source made me giggle, but even taking it at face value, I want direct evidence. Iraq moved ALL of its WMDs to other countries, just prior to a assault which would REMOVE SADDAM? Uh. . . okay. Interesting that Hussein placed greater importance on saving the weapons than, say, his POWER and his FUTURE? Yeah, he couldn’t possibly USE THEM, could he? Naaah. . .of course not! That would be as deranged as, say, shooting missiles at Israel. . . .
Read my words, Rage, before you accuse me of ‘alledged reasoning”.
For the simple minded, let’s take it one step at a time.
1. I asked if those attacking the cost now ever complained about the cost of the Kennedy/Johnson war. No response on that except from one person who claimed it was the Kennedy/Johnson/NIXON war.2. My exercise in the future asked if a hypothetical Democrat who hypothetically ended Iraq would be referred to in a similar manner like the above reasoning. But, obviously would not, since PL never assails his precious liberals.
My entire point was to emphasize how one sided many of these blog continued “arguments” are. Blaming every conceivable ill on one group, while never, ever accepting any fallacy of any other.
Did I say liberals are not perfect? No..I was trying, gently, at that time to suggest that nobody is. But, the subtlety of my statement was obviously beyond you, in your unceasing desire to blame/argue/find fault with everyone who disagrees with you.
This is exactly what I’m TALKING ABOUT! IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
Joe Williams writes, “That you put in, let say, $50,000 in your life time in the system, but get back $600,000 in return off the backs of the younger worker is a bit unfair.”
This is CLASS WARFARE! Pure and simple. Here it is. Prima facie case. Joe is pitting younger workers against retirees.
But if you suggest that we raise social security taxes from their current cap of 90 thousand to say, 200 thousand, the Joe Williams of the world immediately accuse you of . . . “class warfare. You want to soak the rich.”
Oh, boo hoo.
If you tax the poor at a higher rate (social security taxes that stop at 90 thousand while those that earn 900 thousand pay nothing to social security on the top 810 thousand), Joe W says that’s fine and good.
But if you point out the unfairness in such a regressive system, he accuses YOU of class warfare.
Pure hypocrisy.
As far as Saddam hiding WMD’s, notice
1. this evidence hasn’t turned up until after 3 years?
2. Hans Blix found no evidence on the ground and neither did Kay or Duelfer.
3. first it’s Iraqi pilots and then it’s Russians hiding the WMD’s. Which is it, both?
4. Syria was willing to take the WMD’s because they had no fear the US would crush them like a bug too?
Doesn’t make good nonsense.
Oh, one last thing. No actual physical evidence as Ben Huie points out . . . just personal testimony by people trying to save their bacon.
Yeah, right . . .
THE WMDS WERE FLOWN TO MARS ON CHINESE ROCKETS PROVIDED BY BILL CLINTON. IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT!
I recall Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice all stating categorically that they knew exactly where the weapons were. We have sattelites that can read a newspaper from orbit but we can’t find drums of mustard gas and vx, and we could not detect the movement of these compounds across the Iraq-Syrian border?
One day these traitor should all be put on trial for their crimes.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
WATCH OUT IAN! MY GESTAPO IS GOING TO COME AND GET YOU!
Dubya,
If you can’t subdue a few thousand muslim-arab savages in Iraq then what will you do when confronted by tens of millions of well armed and angry White Americans? rotflmosao
viva La raza Blanco!!
The Social Security program is the ultimate Pyramid scheme. Live with it.
I came across this video on TV News Lies News site. It is a 22 minute video and is quite interesting. We know American soldiers are having problems, however most Americans do not know the full extent of the damage that the United States is doing using “depleted uranium”. It seems that there needs to be some accountability form the American Bush White House if they knew that this problem is as great as it appears to be.
The congress of the United States needs to cause the halt of these munitions.
THE NUCLEAR WAR ON IRAQ – LINK – http://www.archive.org/download/tweymannuke/tweymannukeriraqsisdn05snowshoef.wmvDeputy Director of the Uranium Medical Research Centre, working with Dr. Asaf Durakovic, Tedd Weyman organized and led field studies in Afghanistan and Iraq to measure and analyze uranium contamination of radiotoxic and chemotoxic heavy metals (’depleted uranium,’ etc.) from battlefield weapons. The use of uranium in non fissile-penetrating weapons and bunker busters are effectively nuclear weapons, Weyman reports. It is known world wide, he says, that DU weapons have long-term implications that, right now corporations and governments are hiding. But Weyman cautions, “If you don’t have a moral objection [to using DU on another nation], you might have a pragmatic objection which might be the liabilities that a nation faces for permanently contaminating another nation’s environment…Uranium contamination in Iraq will last for millions of years. So the liabilities are very significant when you have every nation that was on the receiving end and every soldier on the sending end contaminated.”TVNL Comment: Online VIDEO – FREE
Rage, you connect me to the wrong war (my service was in Vietnam). I was a surprised “civilian” when we didn’t find WMD in Iraq. I guess it never occured to me that Bush would dare tell such a whopper at the time. I was wrong about our lying president and wrong about WMD. My being wrong didn’t cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. I can afford to be wrong; the presedent can’t.
Joe W,If I had been allowed to invest that $50,000 over the 40 years I’ve been paying social security (I started working very young), what would it be worth now? Do you think the government should be able to use my money without interest? Would you allow someone to use your money without interest? The government pays China interest to use their money. Am I entitled to less?
Here is where the large majority of the tax dollar is going, running second is the automatic pay raises the congress gives themselves each year. Must be great!
Tax Day is Monday, April 17, 2006 …. do you know where your tax dollars are going?http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm (new edition coming out soon)
Bush to Request $439.3B for Defense BudgetBy LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterFri Feb 3, 8:46 AM ETPresident Bush’s 2007 budget seeks a nearly 5 percent increase in Defense Department spending, to $439.3 billion, with significantly more money for weapons programs, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained by The Associated Press.The budget figures, to be unveiled next week, come as the Pentagon prepares to release a separate long-range strategy to reshape the military into a more agile fighting force better able to fight terrorism, while still preserving its ability to wage large conventional wars.More than a year in the making and scheduled to be released Friday, the strategy review represents the broader thinking that guides how the dollars are spent. It does not call for the elimination of any of the largest weapons programs, as some had expected.Instead it proposes cutting some smaller programs such as the E-10 surveillance plane, reducing the size of the Air Force, overhauling the Army National Guard and increasing the number of special operations forces like the Green Berets, whose role in the global war on terrorism is rapidly expanding.The budget, meanwhile, would include $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which would get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.Senior defense officials provided the totals on condition of anonymity because the defense budget was not being released publicly until Monday. The figures did not include about $50 billion that Bush administration officials said Thursday they would request as a down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. The administration said war costs for 2006 would total $120 billion.Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would not provide any details of the budget Thursday but called it appropriate.”We have been able to fund the important things that are needed. It is a sizable amount of money,” Rumsfeld said.The budget proposal represents the fifth consecutive year that spending on weapons has increased, after years of cutbacks during the 1990s.And it gives a more detailed view of the broader themes in the strategy plan, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. The themes include how the Pentagon needs to collaborate better with other government agencies in the war on terrorism; that the government must forge closer partnerships with other countries to battle terrorists, and that there must be greater investments in efforts to gather, process and distribute intelligence.John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said he was not troubled by the lack of program cuts in the Rumsfeld plan.”It’s the common parlance in Washington to measure big decisions by how many trophies are hung on the wall, how many dead animals are hung on the wall that you shot and killed,” he said. “That’s the wrong way to look at this.”Overall, the budget plan would give the Army $111.8 billion, including $42.6 billion for personnel. The Army National Guard would receive about $5.25 billion for personnel, and the Army Reserves would receive $3.4 billion.Other programs funded in the budget include:• $3.3 billion for the Army’s key weapons program, the Future Combat System.• $583 million for nearly 3,100 more heavily armored Humvees.• Nearly $800 million for 100 Stryker transport vehicles, built by General Dynamics Land Systems.• $2.2 billion for the F-22 fighter. Plans are to buy 20 of the aircraft, built by Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, each year in 2008, 2009 and 2010.• $2.5 billion for the next Virginia class submarine.• $360 million in the budget for development of the new CH53K heavy lift helicopter, built by Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft for the Marine Corps._$5.6 billion for programs for military families, including child care and tuition assistance._About $1.8 billion for 81 Army Black Hawk and Navy Hawk helicopters._$1.3 billion for five new Joint Strike Fighters.___AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.___On the Net:Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/http://www.warresisters.org/piechart
Here is where the large majority of the tax dollar is going, running second is the automatic pay raises the congress gives themselves each year. Must be great!
Tax Day is Monday, April 17, 2006 …. do you know where your tax dollars are going?http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm (new edition coming out soon)
Bush to Request $439.3B for Defense BudgetBy LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterFri Feb 3, 8:46 AM ETPresident Bush’s 2007 budget seeks a nearly 5 percent increase in Defense Department spending, to $439.3 billion, with significantly more money for weapons programs, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained by The Associated Press.The budget figures, to be unveiled next week, come as the Pentagon prepares to release a separate long-range strategy to reshape the military into a more agile fighting force better able to fight terrorism, while still preserving its ability to wage large conventional wars.More than a year in the making and scheduled to be released Friday, the strategy review represents the broader thinking that guides how the dollars are spent. It does not call for the elimination of any of the largest weapons programs, as some had expected.Instead it proposes cutting some smaller programs such as the E-10 surveillance plane, reducing the size of the Air Force, overhauling the Army National Guard and increasing the number of special operations forces like the Green Berets, whose role in the global war on terrorism is rapidly expanding.The budget, meanwhile, would include $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which would get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.Senior defense officials provided the totals on condition of anonymity because the defense budget was not being released publicly until Monday. The figures did not include about $50 billion that Bush administration officials said Thursday they would request as a down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. The administration said war costs for 2006 would total $120 billion.Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would not provide any details of the budget Thursday but called it appropriate.”We have been able to fund the important things that are needed. It is a sizable amount of money,” Rumsfeld said.The budget proposal represents the fifth consecutive year that spending on weapons has increased, after years of cutbacks during the 1990s.And it gives a more detailed view of the broader themes in the strategy plan, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. The themes include how the Pentagon needs to collaborate better with other government agencies in the war on terrorism; that the government must forge closer partnerships with other countries to battle terrorists, and that there must be greater investments in efforts to gather, process and distribute intelligence.John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said he was not troubled by the lack of program cuts in the Rumsfeld plan.”It’s the common parlance in Washington to measure big decisions by how many trophies are hung on the wall, how many dead animals are hung on the wall that you shot and killed,” he said. “That’s the wrong way to look at this.”Overall, the budget plan would give the Army $111.8 billion, including $42.6 billion for personnel. The Army National Guard would receive about $5.25 billion for personnel, and the Army Reserves would receive $3.4 billion.Other programs funded in the budget include:• $3.3 billion for the Army’s key weapons program, the Future Combat System.• $583 million for nearly 3,100 more heavily armored Humvees.• Nearly $800 million for 100 Stryker transport vehicles, built by General Dynamics Land Systems.• $2.2 billion for the F-22 fighter. Plans are to buy 20 of the aircraft, built by Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, each year in 2008, 2009 and 2010.• $2.5 billion for the next Virginia class submarine.• $360 million in the budget for development of the new CH53K heavy lift helicopter, built by Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft for the Marine Corps._$5.6 billion for programs for military families, including child care and tuition assistance._About $1.8 billion for 81 Army Black Hawk and Navy Hawk helicopters._$1.3 billion for five new Joint Strike Fighters.___AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.___On the Net:Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/http://www.warresisters.org/piechart
Did you really think the government gives you interest on your social security? You have another thing coming.
Social Security was design during the depression, because Americans had very poor savings habits. Look how history repeats itself. Lastest news is that Americans still cannot save money. It has nothing to do with the Bush Economy or poor paying jobs, it is because people spend money like there is no tomorrow and borrow money like mad for instant gratification on their wants and needs.
No XXX, you do not earn interest on your money you paid into social security. It doesn’t work like a savings account or a 401K or a pension plan.
The government started Social Security because they felt the average americans didn’t have the will power or the intelligence to save money for themselves, so the government saves it for you.
What you put in is what you are suppose to get. They came out with a formula that most people would basically die within the first 5 years of recieving social security, but the greatly under-estimated the life expantacy.
That is why when you die even if before you recieve SS, it is forefited to the the government. You cannot pass it to your children like you can with other retirement investment vechiles that are not government ran.
Also! It is a really bad mistake to think you can live off of social security alone. It is now design to be a supplement to additional retirement income, not the only retirement income. But that is going to be the reality of a lot of baby boomers.
So to think that you socked away $50,000 to the government for SS and thinking it will grow with compound interest… LOL. Yeah right. The government is not in the business in investing.
Plus SS money that accumulated has been spent by Democrats in passed Congresses starting back 40 years ago. There is not really a surplus. Most of all SS that are paid out to seniors are being paid through by today’s tax payers.
This was supposed to beabout the funding for the war. But I have to clear up a few glaring errors in posts first.
Social Security is the most sacred of trusts. It is a contract that would allow those who had worked all their lives to have a few years of leisure before they died ( I know this concept is anathema to Conservatives who think we must all work til we fall over dead….think Wal mart Greeter here) The idea would have worked. Even four years ago when Al Gore proposed his “lock box” (much derided by the right) if revenues for Social Security had been held in reserve and allowed to collect interest as opposed to being made part of the general revenue ,the program would remain fully funded. It is not too late too apply this option.
The next glaring misnomer comesfro Joe Williams. Uh Joe? You say if a worker dies his accumulated social security is forfeited to the government. Uhhhh that is not even close to true.
Minor children of a deceased worker are guaranteed payment in form of support from those paid in funds of a parent. Secondly, the worker himself may access his social security savings in the form of disability if said worker should become disabled.
But see folks? This is more of the spin of the right. DON”T Question the WAR!!!! We gotta pay for the war! We gotta be safe!!!! Don’t ask what the war costs or who gets that money or even whether the war was justified! Look! Look uhhh,,,,,,look over there at entitlements! Talk about spending!!
So much for the right wing shell game.
The thread was the cost of the war. Now maybe CF or XXX or someof my more connected fellow bloggers can help me out here. But just by my simple reckoning, this “war” is quickly becoming one of the single most expensive endeavors in the history of America. Now this would not be so troubling if the “war” had any clear time to come to an end, if the “war” itself could be shown to have been necessary, or if Halliburton (principle contractor for the war in Iraq, last headed by current Vice President Dick Cheney) hadnt just announced its most profitable year in its history.
“The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous” Orwell “1984″
JR. You are actually only telling halve-truths. A famous tatic of the left.
Most people who decease, the great majority, we are talking well over 90% do not have dependent children under the age of 18.
SSDI is not taping into your portion of the SS. It is using SS as a welfare program and it is greatly abused. I knew a girl that claimed at the age of 19 for SSDI because she said she had arthritis. Although she did actually have a very acute form of it, but it didn’t stop her from working and she told me it really didn’t give her any pain other than some stiffness in the morning. She got herself a fat SSDI check and still does today after 10 years since she started.
Some people need SSDI, so if it is abused, at least don’t leave anybody that needs it out of it. We expect government programs to be greatly abused. It’s the democrat way. Why not! It’s not their money.
Heckler, did you read that article you linked to? Now, do you believe it? If so I have some wonderful property on south Pawnee with an ocean view to sell you.
Do you really think Saddam could get 56 flights to Syria without the US knowing? IF there were any flights in Iraq after the first Gulf War they were the proud recipients of an Air Force escort. Between the fighter sorties, AWACS monitoring and the naval fleet capable of detecting anything flying in the geographical region there is no way 56 planes went from Iraq to Syria without being investigated. Do you really believe there was an airline operating in Iraq to even transport this material? You should really try to not be so gullible.
Tellitasitis, I would take what that guy says with a (very big) grain of salt. There were several things he stated that were wrong (I only listened for about 5 minutes). We should strive to be better than the conservatives by doing (and doing well) what they are incapable of: having integrity and critical thought. Lest we lower ourselves and become like the conservatives on this blog.
JR, as I said upthread, there’s a lesson to be learned from the USSR and Afghanistan. Afghanistan broke the back of one of the mightiest military powers on the planet. The Soviets spent themselves to death fighting a ragtag insurgency (sound familiar?). Bushco is headed down the same path. We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have on a war we can’t win. Nobody in history had ever defeated a home-grown insurgency. People like Joe will tell you that a huge war deficit doesn’t matter when compared as a percentage of our economy but in the next breath will complain about what a drain Social Security is on the economy. And all the while, Bush wants more billions for his “excellent war”.
Incidently, Iraq isn’t that much different from Vietnam. Now we have Haliburton. During Vietnam, we had Bell, Rockwell, McConnall-Douglas, GM, and Chrysler. Vietnam lasted 5 years longer than it had to because the “military/Industrial Complex” was making so much money.
And Joe,I honestly don’t mean this as an insult, but considering your spelling, your inability to construct a simple sentence, and your horrid punctuation, how in the world did you ever graduate from college?
Raptor writes–Total numbers of deficit dollars are not valid comparisons…inflation (notably during the Carter administration, remember 18% mortgages?) has changed dollar values. To say a 10 billion deficit today (example only) is twice as bad as a 5 billion deficit in the 1960’s is not only wrong, it is a denial of simple economics.”
I love it when the right-wing combines their totally wrong “facts” with a snotty cock-sure attitude.
I was basing my statement that Reagan doubled Carter’s national debt by looking at national debt AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. That’s the most common way of looking at national debt because it takes into account the “earning power” of the country, just like a banker looks at how much you earn before she gives you a loan.
Since GDP also is measured in current dollars against national debt also in current dollars, inflation is factored out of the equation.
“80 percent of Republicans are really Democrats who haven’t gotten educated yet.” Robert Kennedy, Jr.
k
This story will be easy to check up on. The author knows the pilots names, knows the time frame for when the flights took place. If there was a humanitarian crisis in Seria, they would have had to get special clearance to make these flights, there is most likely saved radar data to check.
It will be easy to check the veracity of the claim. The only thing we wont be able to determine for a fact will be what the cargo was. But if everything else checks out it will be hard to say that the story is false.
And I have no doubt that the story is being checked out.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
This is a link to a graph showing how national debt more than doubled from the end of Carter’s term (32 percent of GDP) to the end of Reagan’s (almost 70 percent of GDP).
It also puts the lie to the commonly held belief that right-wingers continue to spout that Reagan’s “tax cuts generated MORE revenue for the gov’t” than higher taxes.
It isn’t true now. It wasn’t true then. The facts speak for themselves. Revenue was lower in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars at the end of Reagan’s eight year term than at the beginning.
And of course the national debt skyrocketed as shown.
Heckler–
We’ve got full and complete access to the entire country of Iraq, all the former Baathist scientists (Chemical Ali, Mrs. Germ) for going on three years, and the best you can do is “somebody said Saddam flew them out of the country.”
Is there any bologna you won’t eat from this administration and its shills?
I agree heckler, it is undoubtably being checked out. In the meantime you might ask some professional in the field about how difficult it is to decontaminate a site where chem/bio/nuclear materials have been handled. The fact that we haven’t found those tells this professional that they are not there.
I am actually shocked that the Bush regime has not tried to plant wmds in Iraq. I gather that the zionist fear what would happen if they got caught!
V.L.R.B!!
Heckler just for a minute think about your post (I don’t know were you got the info from so you will get the credit for it). And now think about this: Iraq is having trouble feeding it’s own people, having trouble getting organized and putting an official government in place. How are they going to not only organize the transport of this aid but get the aid to send to Syria? I seriously doubt I am the first one to think of this and I’m sure this thought would have occured to some military person and if this were to occur these planes would have been searched before they left. Based on this I still believe the origional story you linked to is nothing but a bunch of lies.
Ben, I used to be in the Air Force and chemical weapons are generally fairly easy to decontaminate. There is equipment that can be loaded on a 5k truck for portable decon. It consists of hot water and a special detergent that combined will break down the chemicals. Nuclear and biological agents are different and I have no experience with them so I cannot say but I believe they get the same treatment.
K–
No evidence of precurser materials in soil?
Joe? You truly demonstrate the hypocrisy and spin and blind faith in YOUR leader that is the current GOP.
Look upthread everyone. Joe stated that social security payees often die…..leaving no benefits for their families. I refuted that by pointing out that Social Security payees who die leang behind minor children leave those benefits to those minor children.
So Joe calls ME a maker of half truths. Let’s see Joe…. You said social security payees die leaving nothing for their families. I showed you were wrong and I’M somehow the maker of half truths?
Uh Joe???? YOur next subject was disability……YOu know, workers who pay into Social Security and then due to grave illness recieve benefits when they can no longer work. I can assure you very wholeheartedly that the heavy handedness and hard hearted policies of the GOP are well played out as to disability Joe. I got an aunt that has been unable to work for many years. She and her husband currently live in a trailer without toilet facilities or running water. Her disability claim reached the desk of one JUDGE PICKERING…….now I bet you know that name. Care to guess how he ruled?
More? I myself have serious health issues. I’ve been trying to get disability for more than 2 years. Care to guess at my success?
Aww but Joe has done it AGAIN!
The subject was the war and was it worth it.
So I point out again.
Cost in lives…….over 2,000 on “our side” probably more than 20,000 (help me out here XXX) on “theirs”
Cost in money approaching 500 BILLION Dollars. Bush just asked for another 120 Billion. Given the current state of failure. A Trillion dollars is not gonna be far away.
Let me type out that number for you.
1,000,000,000,000 dollars.
Aww but we were discussing whether it was worth it.
Hmmm…….well Osama Bin Laden is still at large. He is thought to be in Pakistan….which incidentally already HAS nuclear weapons which we released our sanctions on in order that Pakistan help us get Bin LadenHamas was just elected democratically in Palestine.Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war.
So Joe and atttentdant bushies…….go ahead and tell us how it was worth it. Now don’t go get me testimony from the grieving family of a dead American serviceman who so desperately need to think that their sacrifice meant something. I’ll just respond with Cindy Sheehan and other mothers who want more than simple reassurance that their sacrifice was not in vein.
Now think very carefully on this. YOu bushies are getting yourselves into a very tricky spot. You blindly support a warring pResident that the nation at large continues to doubt. You do this while evidence mounts of coruption and corporate greed and duplicity at the highest levels.
In short Joe and all……you better worry more about your own country and quit this facade of caring so much about some illusory “march of freedom”
Good post, JR. And consider this from the SOTU–Bush’s own words–”The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us.”
Bush ADMITS his war in Iraq–2500 American soldiers dead, half a TRILLION dollars–has not diminished the ability of the enemy to attack us.
Was it worth it?
Bush says it wasn’t.
Hmmm . . .just curious. At 44, I’m well above the median age in America.
Anyone here younger than me? ;-)
I will turn 39 on April 20.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
PL, I don’t know. I know that the detergent and hot water rendered the chemicals inert and harmless. I don’t know the chemical composition of the different materials (never really cared that much to find out) so I don’t know what happend to them and if they could be detected later.
WAR HAS COST EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA 3000 DOLLARS–SO FAR
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20060203/cm_ucrr/iraqscivilwarhascost3000perusfamilysofar
Clip:”If you remember, the White House’s own economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired for predicting, in September 2002, six months before the invasion, that the total cost of the war might reach between $100 billion and $200 billion. What I (and perhaps others who questioned the wisdom of the war before it began) remember is the hundreds of e-mails and letters I received after I quoted Lindsey and used the higher figure as more likely. “Moron” and “traitor” were among the more polite epithets of the day.
“But the exact figures are not the issue. The Washington issue is that the Bush administration has been lying from day one about the cost of this “preventative” war of choice. The original White House estimate of the total war cost was $75 billion, including the destruction of all Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction.” Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, whose fiscal acumen won him the presidency of the World Bank, even offered the theory that the war would be self-financing, paid for by Iraq’s oil production. That’s rich. And so are oil producers everywhere.
“The war, in fact, is a factor in the escalating cost of petroleum products here and everywhere else in the world. Leaving that aside as you watch the gas-pump digits rise to Super Bowl numbers this weekend, two anti-war research institutes, the International Relations Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, estimate that the war’s cost per citizen has reached $727 — or close to $3,000 for a family of four. By the end of this year, those figures should reach about $1,300 per citizen, or more than $5,000 for that family of four.”
War Costs, Defense Budget RisingBy LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
(02-07) 00:36 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) –
The country’s two overseas wars and its homeland defense could cost as much as $10 billion a month this year — nearly 50 percent more than last year, the White House estimates.
The rising price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and questions about military strategy for Iraq and possibly Iran, are expected to come up Tuesday as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Rumsfeld is expected to talk about the Pentagon’s proposed $439.3 billion budget and how it will help pay for the military’s transformation into a more flexible fighting force. Transformation includes large spending increases in special operations forces, unmanned vehicles, foreign language skills and gathering intelligence.
During fiscal year 2005, which ended last Sept. 30, the Defense Department spent about $6.8 billion a month on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the replacement of equipment damaged or destroyed there.
White House estimates indicate that the U.S. will spend more than $125 billion during the fiscal year ending in September. An additional $50 billion already is being planned as a downpayment for war costs in 2007.
Rumsfeld is likely to be asked about how well the military is prepared to face off against Iran if that country continues its stated plans to further develop its nuclear capabilities.
He also is expected to directly address congressional concerns about the National Guard, including cutbacks in funding for personnel and the need for additional equipment. Under the current budget, the Army received $5.28 billion to fund 350,000 Guard troops. In the proposed 2007 budget, which begins Oct. 1, the Army would receive $5.25 billion to only fund the current number of Guard troops — which is about 333,000.
Defense officials have said that if recruitment goes up, the Army will find the money to pay for as many soldiers as the Guard can recruit, up to a maximum of 350,000.
The budget also shows that Iraq war costs are escalating in part because the Army is replacing large numbers of worn out or destroyed vehicles. The budget includes $583 million to buy more Humvees with extra armor, and the overall budget for Army combat and support vehicles is $3.8 billion — almost double the 2006 sum.
“Our equipment is wearing out at a significant pace,” Tina Jonas, the Pentagon’s budget chief, said at a news conference Monday.
The Pentagon also is proposing to spend $3.3 billion to protect troops in Iraq from roadside bombs, the biggest killer there. About $2 billion has been spent on that so far in the war.
The $439.3 billion defense budget request is a 7 percent increase over 2006. It would pay for an active-duty military of about 1.3 million troops, or 29,600 fewer than this year. It covers a reserve force of 825,700 people, a drop of 22,800.
The Air Force plans to cut 40,000 people over the next several years.
Funding for special operations forces, like the Army’s Green Berets, would grow to $5.1 billion in 2007 — about $1 billion more than this year and double the amount in 2001, Jonas said. The number of special operations forces would grow from about 50,000 today to about 64,000 by 2011.
___
On the Net:
Defense Department at
http://www.defenselink.mil