How to pay for the war?

Rokenn · 03-21-2003, 12:11 PM

Given that the Bush policy has already cost the US economy about a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars according to a report released today, and that the full cost for the deployment is yet to be known we should start making plans for how we are going to pay for it.

Here is one idea that Congress has already started with:

House Budget Resolution Will Slash $9.7 Billion from Veterans Medical Care and $15 Billion from Disability Compensation and Other Benefit Programs
Write the Speaker of the House of Representatives to express your opposition today

By a vote along party lines, the majority members of the House Budget Committee passed and reported for a vote by the House a budget resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care next year and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the budget resolution would cut $15 billion from the disability compensation and other benefit programs over the next 10 years. The House leadership are pushing these cuts to offset the cost of the President’s $1.57 trillion tax reduction plan. Send an e-mail to the Speaker of the House today. A vote on this resolution by the entire House membership could come as early as Wednesday, March 19, 2003. Please enter your zip code in the box provided, and send the prepared e-mail message today!
------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great way to thank the men and woman over fighting in Iraq...

pritchke · 03-21-2003, 01:05 PM

That isn't even considering the post-war cost.

You are going to have to pay for the post war after the Iraqi leader has been removed. The initial post-war phase of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraqi as been estimated to be at another $900-million.

My money is on the US abandoning Iraq after a few years, and the Iraqi people being worse off than before just because the US can't really aford it and have no real post war plan. Bush isn't one who is able to look to far ahead, he is more a here and now type person. They is also why his environmental policies are horrible, as well as alienating allies.

khazadman · 03-21-2003, 01:23 PM

I'd like to see Bush show some balls (figurativly of course) and veto any spending bill sent up that has all this pork barrel spending that congress is so famous for. Remember the money spent on a museum celebrating the life and accomplishments of Lauwrence Welk? Another way to save money is to abolish the Department of Education. Just take the money and send it directly to the states. Something like 75% of every dollar spent on education is spent on administration. And alot of that administration is in DC. I'd also get rid of NPR, PBS, and the NEA. And then I'd cut the rate of growth in spending on EVERYTHING. Sorry to go off subject a bit, but if he does this we'd have plenty of money for the vets.

Night Stalker · 03-21-2003, 01:52 PM

Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation.

When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

Rokenn · 03-21-2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation.

When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

and not to get all partisan here, but it's the Republicans that are slashing these benefits, all the Democrats on the committee voted against it.

Night Stalker · 03-21-2003, 02:10 PM

To go beyond being partisan ... I could care less about political parties. Thomas Jefferson was very prophetic when lamenting that political parties would be the ruin of the nation.

Charean · 03-22-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:
That isn't even considering the post-war cost.

You are going to have to pay for the post war after the Iraqi leader has been removed. The initial post-war phase of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraqi as been estimated to be at another $900-million.

My money is on the US abandoning Iraq after a few years, and the Iraqi people being worse off than before just because the US can't really aford it and have no real post war plan. Bush isn't one who is able to look to far ahead, he is more a here and now type person. They is also why his environmental policies are horrible, as well as alienating allies.

I hear you on that one!!

I would like to see the interim government last only long enough for them to vote for Iraqis to run their country.

Bush is creating a deficit that is historical, both is scope and in the short amount of time he has been in office.

If he goes through with those tax cuts for the rich, heck, I am already ticked at him.

Animal · 03-22-2003, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation.

When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

It's quite ironic isn't it? To pay for the war, the government will cut the benefits of the men and women who fought in that very same war. A bit of a slap in the face, if you ask me.

Sever · 03-23-2003, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Animal:

Quote:
Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation.

When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

It's quite ironic isn't it? To pay for the war, the government will cut the benefits of the men and women who fought in that very same war. A bit of a slap in the face, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]That's exactly the same impression i got. Although i was also under the impression that the US was expending less than 4% of its GDP in waging a war on Iraq.

wellard · 03-23-2003, 04:22 AM

Call me a cynic but is not the reason they have captured the oil wells and supply ports just so they can sell the oil to finance the war?

And before you shoot me down let me say that I think it would be justified to offset some of the costs of liberating the Iraq people. Not to make a profit but to ease the burden on the allied taxpayer.

What do you think to that?

03-21-2003, 12:11 PM	#1
Rokenn Galvatron Join Date: January 22, 2002 Location: california wine country Age: 61 Posts: 2,193	Given that the Bush policy has already cost the US economy about a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars according to a report released today, and that the full cost for the deployment is yet to be known we should start making plans for how we are going to pay for it. Here is one idea that Congress has already started with: House Budget Resolution Will Slash $9.7 Billion from Veterans Medical Care and $15 Billion from Disability Compensation and Other Benefit Programs Write the Speaker of the House of Representatives to express your opposition today By a vote along party lines, the majority members of the House Budget Committee passed and reported for a vote by the House a budget resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care next year and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the budget resolution would cut $15 billion from the disability compensation and other benefit programs over the next 10 years. The House leadership are pushing these cuts to offset the cost of the President’s $1.57 trillion tax reduction plan. Send an e-mail to the Speaker of the House today. A vote on this resolution by the entire House membership could come as early as Wednesday, March 19, 2003. Please enter your zip code in the box provided, and send the prepared e-mail message today! ------------------------------------------------------------ This is a great way to thank the men and woman over fighting in Iraq... __________________ “This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000)

03-21-2003, 01:52 PM	#4
Night Stalker Lord Ao Join Date: June 24, 2002 Location: Nevernever Land Age: 51 Posts: 2,002	Alas, as usual, when money needs to be found for some pol's pet project, the first place they look is the "benefits" of the men and women that dedicate their lives (sometimes literally) to protecting this nation. When was the last time Congress voted to slash it's own salary or benefits? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] __________________ [url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky!

03-21-2003, 02:10 PM	#6
Night Stalker Lord Ao Join Date: June 24, 2002 Location: Nevernever Land Age: 51 Posts: 2,002	To go beyond being partisan ... I could care less about political parties. Thomas Jefferson was very prophetic when lamenting that political parties would be the ruin of the nation. __________________ [url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky!

03-23-2003, 04:22 AM	#10
wellard Dracolisk Join Date: November 1, 2002 Location: Australia ..... G\'day! Posts: 6,123	Call me a cynic but is not the reason they have captured the oil wells and supply ports just so they can sell the oil to finance the war? And before you shoot me down let me say that I think it would be justified to offset some of the costs of liberating the Iraq people. Not to make a profit but to ease the burden on the allied taxpayer. What do you think to that? __________________ fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years

03-21-2003, 01:05 PM	#2
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	That isn't even considering the post-war cost. You are going to have to pay for the post war after the Iraqi leader has been removed. The initial post-war phase of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraqi as been estimated to be at another $900-million. My money is on the US abandoning Iraq after a few years, and the Iraqi people being worse off than before just because the US can't really aford it and have no real post war plan. Bush isn't one who is able to look to far ahead, he is more a here and now type person. They is also why his environmental policies are horrible, as well as alienating allies.

03-21-2003, 01:23 PM	#3
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 64 Posts: 1,172	I'd like to see Bush show some balls (figurativly of course) and veto any spending bill sent up that has all this pork barrel spending that congress is so famous for. Remember the money spent on a museum celebrating the life and accomplishments of Lauwrence Welk? Another way to save money is to abolish the Department of Education. Just take the money and send it directly to the states. Something like 75% of every dollar spent on education is spent on administration. And alot of that administration is in DC. I'd also get rid of NPR, PBS, and the NEA. And then I'd cut the rate of growth in spending on EVERYTHING. Sorry to go off subject a bit, but if he does this we'd have plenty of money for the vets.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)