W wants 80 billion more

Locked
User avatar
high tek
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: canada

W wants 80 billion more

Post by high tek » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:05 am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... aq_bush_dc

......while deficit is at 368 billion

imagine they used ALL THAT MONEY TO FEED THE WORLD?
wouldnt THAT stop ALL terrorism?

JASIII
george martin
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:59 am
Location: On the Tundra

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by JASIII » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:12 am

I heard something interesting on public radio the other day: If you take the amount we've spent on the war in Iraq, and divide it by the # of people in Iraq, it comes out to $17,000 per person. the average yearly income in Iraq is $1,500. So it seems we could have BRIBED our way to "victory" there!!!!!
"If you will starve unless you become a rock star, then you have bigger problems than whether or not you are a rock star. " - Steve Albini

User avatar
high tek
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: canada

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by high tek » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:15 am

yea, unfortunately there wouldnt be reason to have a military presence there (as a base to take over the entire middle east)

interesting stat though

TrumpsHair
buyin' gear
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:47 pm

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by TrumpsHair » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:59 am

It would be great if only the people who voted for Bush were forced to pay for this. What's fucked, is even those Bush haters, like me, are stuck with paying his stupid fucking bill.

User avatar
high tek
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: canada

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by high tek » Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:45 am

TrumpsHair wrote:It would be great if only the people who voted for Bush were forced to pay for this. What's fucked, is even those Bush haters, like me, are stuck with paying his stupid fucking bill.
thats rough.
reason to move if i ever heard of one.
funding murder is not a good idea in my books.

User avatar
marqueemoon
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:56 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by marqueemoon » Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:30 am

Yeah. This is fucking great. Did anyone see Frontline last night? Terrorists are basically using Iraq as a training camp now. Why go overseas to kill Americans when they will come to you?
I the prostitute, shall not hide...
But I was very much bothered with my work!

analogcat
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:29 am
Location: ohio

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by analogcat » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:10 am

JASIII wrote:I heard something interesting on public radio the other day: If you take the amount we've spent on the war in Iraq, and divide it by the # of people in Iraq, it comes out to $17,000 per person. the average yearly income in Iraq is $1,500. So it seems we could have BRIBED our way to "victory" there!!!!!
This would've happened...if Iraq were in Texas

User avatar
trodden
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5651
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:21 am
Location: C-attle
Contact:

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by trodden » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:14 am

high tek wrote:
TrumpsHair wrote:It would be great if only the people who voted for Bush were forced to pay for this. What's fucked, is even those Bush haters, like me, are stuck with paying his stupid fucking bill.
thats rough.
reason to move if i ever heard of one.
funding murder is not a good idea in my books.
word.

User avatar
kcrusher
tinnitus
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:28 am
Location: Location! Location!
Contact:

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by kcrusher » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:41 pm

It's worse than that - the U.N. is urging other nations to take measures to help the U.S. reduce it's debt and trade deficit...

U.N. Report Calls for Help to Ease U.S. Budget and Trade Deficits
By Elizabeth Becker
The New York Times

Wednesday 26 January 2005

WASHINGTON - The United Nations on Tuesday urged all the major industrial countries, especially Japan and the nations of Europe, to help the United States reduce its deficits by spurring their own economies to grow faster.

In a report, "World Economic Situation and Prospects 2005," the United Nations said that the budget and trade deficits of the United States were putting the global economy off balance.

It echoed warnings by the International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions in saying the United States cannot continue to carry its huge debts.

"What we really need is a major advancement in cooperation among the advanced economies to help the U.S. get out of this problem," said Jos? Antonio Ocampo, the under secretary general for economic and social affairs at the United Nations, in an interview.

The United States deficit is a global problem in part because the country has the fastest-growing economy among industrial nations and, together with China, is largely responsible for helping to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. But whereas China has been an economic engine with its huge growth in manufacturing and exports, the United States has pushed growth by consuming far more goods than it exports.

The report said that the global recovery may have reached its zenith, with the world's economy growing by 4 percent in 2004, compared with 2.8 percent in 2003. The report estimated that the global economy will grow by 3.25 percent this year.

Over all, the developing economies, including China and India, are doing better than the industrialized nations, according to the United Nations report.

"We have a very peculiar mix that is almost unprecedented," Mr. Ocampo said. He said the mix included high commodity prices, high oil prices and a lack of major perturbances in financial markets, which routinely hurt the more vulnerable developing countries. The biggest problem facing developing nations is the money they have to give rich nations to repay old debt and the money they are spending to accumulate international reserves to protect against a future financial crisis.

Much of those reserves are made up of United States Treasury bonds, which in turn are underwriting the United States debt.

Despite the earlier warnings, the United States debt has deepened; its trade deficit is forecast to have reached a record $600 billion for 2004. The Bush administration has promised to reduce spending in its new budget and has called on China to revalue its currency against the dollar to make Chinese exports more expensive, which in turn would help lower the United States trade deficit.

But the United Nations report said the problem was made more complicated by the falling dollar. A continued drop in the dollar could hurt the economies of Europe and Japan, which need to grow so they can buy more American goods and help right the trade imbalance.

Instead, the United Nations report urges the major industrial countries to work out a solution that will help the United States reduce its deficits by spurring their own economies to grow faster, especially Japan and the countries of Europe.

The United States has amassed a debt without precedent. The International Monetary Fund calculates that the United States' current-account deficit stands at $631 billion, or 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.

Japan and China both have trade surpluses, as do most of the wealthiest European nations. The exceptions are Britain, which has a current-account deficit equivalent to 2 percent of its G.D.P., and Italy, with a deficit of 1.1 percent of G.D.P.

"The message of our report is that the industrialized countries all have their own problems that will hurt growth," Mr. Ocampo said. "The U.S. has its deficits while Europe and Japan are slow in recovering. But the most challenging is the U.S. twin deficits."

Go to Original

Bush Aides Say Budget Deficit Will Rise Again
By Edmund L. Andrews
The New York Times

Wednesday 26 January 2005

WASHINGTON - The White House announced on Tuesday that the federal budget deficit was expected to rise this year to $427 billion, a figure that includes a new request from President Bush to help pay for the war in Iraq.

The White House's announcement makes it the fourth straight year in which the budget deficit was expected to grow; as recently as last July the administration had predicted that the deficit, which was $412 billion last year, would fall this year to $331 billion.

The deficit figure announced by the White House, which includes part of an additional $80 billion that Mr. Bush requested mostly for Iraq, was higher than the $368 billion estimate announced earlier in the day by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, though that figure did not include supplemental costs for the war. The deficit estimates are roughly consistent with each other with the inclusion of those costs, which cover bombs, bullets, armor for vehicles used in Iraq, and the replacement of tanks and Humvees blown up by insurgent forces.

Neither estimate includes the cost of privatizing part of the Social Security program, the leading element of Mr. Bush's domestic agenda. Estimates of the cost of creating those accounts range from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next two decades.

The Congressional Budget Office noted that if Mr. Bush wins Congressional approval to make his tax cuts permanent, a top priority for the administration, the deficit would grow by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan taper off gradually, the agency estimated that price tag over the next 10 years could total nearly $600 billion.

In a briefing for reporters on Tuesday, senior administration officials insisted they were still on track to fulfill Mr. Bush's campaign promise of reducing the federal budget deficit by half by 2009. But Mr. Bush is already well behind in reaching his goal. The deficit this year will amount to about 3.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy, a figure that is still below where the United States was in the late 1980's.

Beyond the war costs, administration officials did not spell out the precise reasons for the deficit increase. Tax receipts are expected to climb by about $200 billion in 2005, but mandatory spending for entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid is expected to rise significantly faster than the rate of inflation.

Mr. Bush defended his $80 billion request for Iraq in a written statement on Tuesday - he had no public events where he could be questioned about it by reporters - saying "our troops will have whatever they need to protect themselves and complete their mission."

But on Capitol Hill, Democrats made clear that while the $80 billion was likely to be approved, they would use the debate on it to question Mr. Bush's war strategy, just as they have done with the confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice, the nominee for secretary of state.

The White House made no estimate of the cost of the war beyond the next year, being careful not to tip its hand about how long Mr. Bush expects American troops to remain. But on Monday, Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace, the director of Army operations, said that the Army was operating on the assumption that the number of American troops in Iraq would remain above 100,000 through 2006.

One military expert who has been briefed by the Pentagon said on Tuesday that part of the $80 billion would be used to establish more permanent military bases in Iraq, assuming the new Iraqi government permits a long-term American military presence. The Congressional agency estimated that the war in Iraq and other military operations against terrorism could cost $285 billion over the next 5 years.

Democrats quickly seized on the administration's announcement and the new Congressional deficit report, accusing Mr. Bush of making a bad fiscal situation worse by pushing for permanent tax cuts at a time of war.

"The administration remains in denial about these fiscal results," said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina and the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

In contrast to the White House budget forecasts, which extend only 5 years, the Congressional projections look ahead 10 years and include many of Mr. Bush's most costly initiatives. For example, extending his tax cuts adds little to the deficits over 5 years but would add $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Preventing an expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax, a parallel tax that was designed to prevent wealthy people from taking advantage of loopholes, would cost about $500 billion.

Administration officials dispute the notion that creating private Social Security accounts would be as expensive as it first appears. They argue that the government would eventually save at least as much money as it spends by lowering the cost of future benefits to retirees. The government, however, might have to borrow as much as $100 billion a year over the next 20 years to pay full benefits to existing retirees, as even the administration has begun to acknowledge.

Even without any changes to current law, the Congressional agency predicted that annual interest costs on the federal debt would almost double from $160 billion last year to $314 billion in 2012. That would be about six times what the federal government spent last year on education.

White House officials provided few details about how they want to use the $80 billion in supplemental war costs that Mr. Bush plans to request.

A senior administration official said on Tuesday that about $75 billion would go for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would come on top of $25 billion that Congress already appropriated for the first few months of this fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1.

Much of the request, which is a big jump from last year, is to cover rapidly rising costs of repairing and replacing equipment. Many soldiers and their families have complained about a shortage of properly armored vehicles. But Pentagon officials have been struggling even more with the wear and tear on tanks and weapons that are being used constantly in grueling conditions.

One official said on Tuesday that Bradley fighting vehicles were being driven about 4,000 miles a year in Iraq, six times their normal mileage.

The administration also intends to spend about $1 billion on technology and equipment to fend off "improvised explosive devices," the roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of American soldiers and many more Iraqis over the last year.

About $5 billion of the $80 billion would be used on programs like financial aid to Palestinians as they try to build a democratic government and a heavily fortified embassy in Iraq for the State Department.

Administration officials predicted they would spend about $35 billion of the emergency request this year, and the balance in 2006 and later.

The biggest fiscal problem confronting Mr. Bush is that more than 80 percent of the $2.3 trillion federal budget is currently off-limits for cutting. More than two-thirds of the annual budget goes to mandatory entitlement programs, mainly Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

More than $500 billion will go to the military and domestic security, not counting the extra money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Administration officials want to increase financing for the military and domestic security above the rate of inflation for the foreseeable future.

That leaves less than $500 billion for all the other discretionary domestic programs, like space exploration, education and tax collection. Administration officials hope to freeze that spending at current levels, which would lead to real cuts after adjusting for inflation. But that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would save only about $9 billion a year.
America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
- Hunter S. Thompson

Fieryjack
steve albini likes it
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:25 am
Location: New York, USA

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by Fieryjack » Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:52 pm

If you take the amount we've spent on the war in Iraq, and divide it by the # of people in Iraq, it comes out to $17,000 per person
That's pretty interesting....though each person might not have any bridges to cross, buildings to live and work in, passable roads, electricity, water, sewage, a police force, etc. I guess they could use all that money to skip town or to stuff a mattress, though, unless someone took it from them first.

User avatar
JohnDavisNYC
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3035
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: crooklyn, ny
Contact:

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by JohnDavisNYC » Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:09 pm

they'd have bridges and shit if we hadn't destroyed them all. go us.

john
i like to make music with music and stuff and things.

http://www.thebunkerstudio.com/

Wilkesin
steve albini likes it
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:03 pm

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by Wilkesin » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:09 pm

George Bush just heard about "all your base..."

TrumpsHair
buyin' gear
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:47 pm

Re: W wants 80 billion more

Post by TrumpsHair » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:14 pm

The situation is untenable. 1,578 dead. $300 billion in treasure. Another two hellish years for our troops.
All for what? More Iraqis are dying now than died during Saddam's regime. The torture rooms are still open for business. Iraq is now a prime terrorist recruitment and training ground. "Democracy" is nowhere to be found. Civil war is imminent. Our armed forces are being degraded into paper tiger status. The war has cost us international support and respect. We no longer have the ability to respond to genuine threats.

It's not just a monumental fuck up, but one that keeps on sucking us dry, and apparently will for at least two more years.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests