WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2009
The Cost Of War: $136 Billion In 2009
Defense Secretary Puts Price Tag On Fighting In Iraq And Afghanistan
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
Special Report
War On Terror
Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.
-
Interactive
Military 101
Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
Speaking for neither his current boss, President George W. Bush - nor his future one, President-elect Barack Obama - Gates told top lawmakers in a New Year's Eve letter that the Pentagon would need nearly $70 billion more to supplement the $66 billion approved last year.
"This estimate is my personal assessment and does not reflect the position of the Bush administration or the incoming Obama administration," Gates said.
The estimate would cover Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other elements of the global war on terror. An official request for war funding is coming after a review by the Obama administration, Gates said.
In the letter, sent to the chairmen of the House and Senate panels overseeing the war, Gates said that Congress should expect that the Obama administration "will conduct a fresh review of these matters and provide an updated and more authoritative proposal early next year."
Gates also said the estimate doesn't account for a proposed increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan.
Quote
Congress provided about $188 billion for the global war on terror in the 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, as a surge in Iraq operations helped bring greater stability to the troubled nation. Obama has promised to bring down war costs as he works to remove most U.S. combat troops.
This estimate is my personal assessment and does not reflect the position of the Bush administration or the incoming Obama administration.
Defense Secretary Robert GatesAll told, CRS says, Congress has approved $864 billion for the overseas wars and other programs related to the battle against terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001. Such funding includes military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans' health care.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 56 Comments...an insignificant pittance compared to the billions and billions of bailout dollars the d-crats will throw out every day.
/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by LoonyLeft
BUSH escalates spending more than any person in history, he and the neo-cons like Phil Gramm champion deregulation which collapses the financial system, and you have the gaul to blame Democrats? How is the weather in fantasyland?
At a rate of $60-70 billion being spent on Bush''s wars every six months, I wonder why the country needs a bailout. Duh. A third grader has more common sense than you.
Posted by TexHillGirl at 01:34 PM : Jan 07, 2009
------------
Good self-assessment.
Pretty harsh word (Rape) when I hope you realize who logistically supports our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would you rather not have our troops with housing and food while they are deployed?
Understand your point about mismanagement, but you also need to understand that there is a high price involved in this support - whether it is Halliburton or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MindURownBiz
Charging for services that were rendered, but never recieved, on a no bid contract...yeah, rape. Rape championed by the administration who served and supported Halliburton. Tell me...was Halliburton there during the 1st war, Vietnam, WWII, Granada, Beruit, anywhere?
instead we are in a major hole and the only fix is to get money back into the workers hands ASAP... The middle class is the entire foundation on which this ocuntry rests
Bush never creaed a job in this country outside of governemnt or military. He gave tax breaks to the already wealthy and to the corporations in which he said it would allow these entities to invest into America''s infrastrucutre and R&D which in return would create a lot of new high paying jobs for Americans.
where the hell are those jobs that the tax breaks for the wealthy/corps were supposed to supply???
we tried it the republican way, it was a collosal failure
Especially with your new president=elect proposing tax cuts and $500 stimulus cks...tossing the $1 trillion we already put in those programs, and another $1 trillion on top of it!
Like I said, the dumb and dumber just get dumber.
Posted by TexHillGirl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn''t we have a national surplus when Bush took office ????
sounds like someone has selective memory.
Obviously you are one of those republicans that will say twist and do anything to save the republican face.
and I beleive there are dems who are problems, but when faced with the recent debacle I''ll never trust a republican until the day i die and Bush/Cheney and people like yourself are the reason why.
you really need to assess your own incompetence before you go off on half educated tangents
Posted by MindURownBiz
Seriously, I wasn''t going to post something on here, until I read this. Your other comments were pretty vague and uninformed, but this is just downright lying.
If you bothered to do any research, you would see that welfare spending accounts for 1% of the Federal Budget. Defense spending accounts for 20%. Nice try, professor, but nobody''s buying what you''re selling.
Posted by TexHillGirl at 02:04 PM : Jan 07, 2009
----------------
Boy, you really are getting dumber.
"No, we didn''''t, when Clinton left office our national debt was the highest it''''s ever been in history at the time! "
What''s your point? Bush will have that honor when he leaves office. Our national DEBT has been climbing every year since the dawn of time. Clinton did actually leave office with a budget SURPLUS, while Bush is leaving with a budget DEFICIT.
Especially with your new president=elect proposing tax cuts and $500 stimulus cks...tossing the $1 trillion we already put in those programs, and another $1 trillion on top of it!
Like I said, the dumb and dumber just get dumber.
Can you define socialist policies? Do you have a problem with public education? Libraries? Roads? Veterans benefits? Disability? Medicare? If you learn a little about socalism, then you would realize that the policies did not start with Johnson, but have been around from the beginning of the country...before socialism was even defined. What policies would you be referring to I wonder? Would it be the civil rights policies of Johnson that bother you so much? Once again...nothing but a bigot, and basing your entire belief structure off of hating people you think you are better than.
Then you probably shouldn''t have used the term "welfare". I guess by your assessment, 100% of government spending is welfare? You don''t know much about maintaining a civilization, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MindURownBiz
Actually, that is not even slightly a fact...but a ridiculous opinion. Entitlements huh? So, again...you want to blame everything on welfare right? Tell me, what do you know of welfare and how it works? What percentage of our money is spent on that compared to other things? Tell me how you have come to that conclusion? Tell me how deregulation and tax breaks for the extreme wealthy have had no impact...tell me how a worthless war on nothing didn''t do anything? It was all welfare huh? Come up with some specifics Dexter
Please cite your source on the trillion dollars a year in the War On Poverty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by TexHillGirl
Really? Give me one, just one reference to that Einstein. I have several that disprove it
While our Citizens are losing Jobs and Homes
Well we can all move to our next state --- Iraq ---
When the rest of this country is Bankrupt !!!!
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html
to see a breakdown of spending each of the last 12 years. This nonsense about welfare bankrupting our country and pouring a trillion dollars every year into the War on Poverty has got to stop.
Educate yourselves, please...
I wrote down your term, SuperPower Responsibility Syndrome. I''ll be using it or something like it. Unjustified Entitlement might fit in there somewhere. If you have ever read any of Pat Buchanan''s books, you know that he clearly saw all this coming 10 years ago.
Still waiting on your source regarding the trillion dollars spent every year on the War On Poverty.
Posted by TexHillGirl
There is no way we spend a trillion dollars on welfare. If you have a source suggesting that, please share. Otherwise, your posts are meaningless.
Posted by TexHillGirl
That''s why it would have been nice if we had gotten the bailout money instead of the banks.
Just wished to thank the Republican''ts and Bu$hCo.
Posted by TexHillGirl
I''m not hiding my eyes, I''m asking for more info on your so called facts. All I''m seeing is wasted space.
------------
So the only way you can post something somewhat coherent is to cut and paste.
Well, let''s look at that article. Social Security isn''t just a part of the war on poverty. Or do you suggest cutting SS for just the poorest 1/5th? Same for education; like it or not, this country has public education for everyone. Or should the poorest 1/5th be made to stop going to school? And $78 billion in private charity? So what? What does this have to do with government spending?
Posted by TexHillGirl
You act as if democrats are the only ones that borrow. How do you think we went from a surplus to a trillion dollar debt in just 8 years? It certainly wasn''t from domestic programs or infrastructure, which is what we need to focus on.
Well, let''''s look at it...
Yeah, social security was a part of the war on poverty, yes it was...read your history the trouble is that the government has had to borrow from it to provide more entitlements...
Let''''s look at your public education...which is TOTALLY support by local tax dollars and regulated by local authority and regulation...hardly a federal dollars goes into it, only the Head Start program...
Please inform me what PRIVATE CHARATIES get federal government money?
Posted by TexHillGirl at 02:53 PM : Jan 07, 2009
-----------
You know this is a lot like the whole "construction companies own all mortgages" and the "401K investments are FDIC insured" discussions. You don''t know what you''re talking about, and when people challenge your "facts," you come up with more ridiculous arguments. It''s like arguing with Rain Man.
How long are you willing to let pregnant teenagers with babies from four irresponsible fathers suck off your largesse?
First of all - were you one of those? The proper grammar would be, "I mean, c''''mon people, how many stupid unwed pregnant teenagers ARE my tax dollars upposed to SUPPORT?
When you are talking in the plural, you must use ARE rather than IS. "IS" in this case, is singular. Secondly, in answer to your question....very very little of your tax money is spent on such things. How much is given to Bush cronies...now there is a #
-------------------------
The article you posted stated Social Security BENEFITS for those in the poorest fifth of the population totaled $100 billion in 2005, not money taken from the SS fund. And the cost of EDUCATING the children of low-income families cost $105 billion more. If you don''t agree with these statements, why did you post an article containing them? And the $78 billion in PRIVATE charity. This is an obvious attempt by the author to inflate his figures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MindURownBiz
I have a Bachelor''s and Masters in History, with a minor in political science. I have worked on the presidential candidacies of Phil Gramm, Alexander, and now Obama. I was the president of the SMU college republicans, invited to 2 Lincoln Day dinners, and have had several chats with former house majority leader *** Armey. I am very liberal now days...but tell me MindURownBIZ...I have skins on the wall to actually discuss these topics with an educated background IN THE SUBJECT MATTER. YOU, on the other hand...call people TROLLS like a 4 yr old. You have nothing to say to me
And the borrowed back out part never GOT TO THE LOWER 5% of the population!
Posted by TexHillGirl at 03:17 PM : Jan 07, 2009
--------------
Who said anything about the lower 5% of the population?
I can''t do this anymore. You really are a moron. You''re disagreeing with the source that you posted, in essence arguing with yourself. What time is Wapner on?
To The Hague
For Crimes against humanity
Dereliction of duty
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The War for Profit Gov''t.
Has anyone seen those WMD''s yet?
In fact, the two wars will be less than 10% of the total government budget for the next year and it is declining.
No one is going to the Hague. Obama will not do anything for fear it will be done to him when his time is up. The Democrats were written off about 7 times since the Civil War and the Republicans have been written off about the same number. The Democrats will eventually overreach and the pendulum will swing again.
The only thing for sure is that power corrupts.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 56 Comments