U.S. residents, pucker up. Thank you George W Bush! - GoFuckYourself.com

MetaformX · 05-13-2004, 02:11 PM

50 billion spent on the war just next year. And th way things go, usually the amount ends up being more when its all said and done. To put 50 Billion in perspective, that would mean taking Bill Gates ENTIRE WEALTH, and spending it all in 1 year. Pucker up fellow U.S. taxpayers and lets take it up the ass again. Thanx GW

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/200...=home&SEC=news

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost more than $50 billion next year, a top Defense Department official told Congress Thursday in the Bush administration's clearest description yet of the conflicts' price tags.

The remarks by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's edged the administration toward critics' estimates that combat will cost closer to $75 billion in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten earlier this year had said that next year's spending would probably be $50 billion.

Wolfowitz also seemed to open the door to compromise over the White House's unusual request for full control over the first $25 billion for the wars. Congress is expected to provide the money, but members of the Senate Armed Services Committee lambasted the unfettered flexibility the proposal would give the president.

"Our forefathers would have scorned such arrogance as has been demonstrated by this administration in this request," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said lawmakers must "maintain our oversight" of the money.

With monthly war expenditures approaching $5 billion, next year's total cost "is $50 billion to $60 billion," Wolfowitz told the panel. "If you look at our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a big bill."

On Wednesday, President Bush formally proposed an initial $25 billion for next year's military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Administration officials had earlier said they would seek no money until next year because of questions about allied contributions and the stability of Iraq.

Wolfowitz told senators that the next request for funds will come early next year, and "it will surely be much larger than $25 billion."

That means the total in 2005 would be more than $50 billion.

The war spending is on top of the $402 billion Bush has proposed for the Defense Department for 2005.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has provided $165 billion to the Pentagon for Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terrorism efforts at home and abroad - excluding what Bush wants for next year.

The initial $25 billion is meant to help the Army and other services pay for operations and maintenance for the first months of next year. Those expenses traditionally include repairs, fuel, food and other similar necessities.

But that excludes other needs, such as paying salaries of reservists called to duty and replacing destroyed and worn out equipment.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the Pentagon's budget, has said he expects next year's cost to be $75 billion. Democrats on the House Budget Committee have calculated that the price tag will range from $67 billion to $79 billion, based on current spending reports by the Defense Department.

The White House's $25 billion request has scant detail but says the president could transfer funds to any defense or classified accounts just by telling lawmakers five days in advance.

Wolfowitz initially defended the request, saying, "We are looking for the kind of flexibility that will make sure that when a need arises, we can allocate funds to where that need exists."

But after senators pressed him on the question of control, Wolfowitz said, "We will work with you."

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, D-Mass., said he will support the $25 billion request.

"The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the administration anticipated. This money is urgently needed, and it is completely focused on the needs of our troops," he said in a written statement.

The request excludes $1 billion that Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, told the House International Relations Committee will be needed next year to staff a U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

That excludes construction of an embassy, which under some scenarios would cost another $1 billion.

bizmak · 05-13-2004, 02:37 PM

50 billion ?? WOW ...

DamageX · 05-13-2004, 02:46 PM

Congrats to the American taxpayers. You know you have the right to vote, don't you?

Rhino22 · 05-13-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DamageX
Congrats to the American taxpayers. You know you have the right to vote, don't you?

Of course they do... but whats the point in voting? It's not like our votes count... Bush shouldn't be in office right now. He lost by around 200k votes..

The peoples voice is nothing in America.

directfiesta · 05-13-2004, 02:50 PM

Instead of invading, they could have just bought it from Saddam ....

BRISK · 05-13-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MetaformX
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has provided $165 billion to the Pentagon for Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terrorism efforts at home and abroad - excluding what Bush wants for next year.

Wow.

$165 Billion already spent, and another $50 billion going to be spent next year, and Bin Laden still hasn't been captured?

crowkid · 05-13-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhino22
Of course they do... but whats the point in voting? It's not like our votes count... Bush shouldn't be in office right now. He lost by around 200k votes..

The peoples voice is nothing in America.

cry me a river, Michael Moore

DamageX · 05-13-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhino22
Of course they do... but whats the point in voting? It's not like our votes count... Bush shouldn't be in office right now. He lost by around 200k votes..

The peoples voice is nothing in America.

Actually, I heard it was more like 500K votes he lost by. Anyway, if the voice of the people isn't heard, I'm sure there are enough guns around. It's been known to work.

Rhino22 · 05-13-2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crowkid
cry me a river, Michael Moore

Okay... call me Micheal Moore for stating an obvious fact?

Have you graduated High School yet?

directfiesta · 05-13-2004, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
Wow.

$165 Billion already spent, and another $50 billion going to be spent next year, and Bin Laden still hasn't been captured?

Bin who ?

Roger · 05-13-2004, 02:59 PM

They will be spending even more on Iraq in the 20 or so coming years. They can't admit they where wrong, that'd be just too easy.

DamageX · 05-13-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhino22
Okay... call me Micheal Moore for stating an obvious fact?

Have you graduated High School yet?

Cheer up man, I can think of worse names to be called. Like George W. Bush.

EviLGuY · 05-13-2004, 03:01 PM

It'll be way more then 50 Billion no doubt.

Rictor · 05-13-2004, 03:02 PM

Bastards.

Donny · 05-13-2004, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Instead of invading, they could have just bought it from Saddam ....

That's a damn good point. Offer the money to Sadaam and his family and he'd likely have left willingly. LOL.

stev0 · 05-13-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Instead of invading, they could have just bought it from Saddam ....

haha, no shit!

CDSmith · 05-13-2004, 03:20 PM

$50 billion is the "conservative" estimate <img SRC="http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/biggrin.gif">

(would the Liberal estimate be $100 billion then?)

Ironhorse · 05-13-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
That's a damn good point. Offer the money to Sadaam and his family and he'd likely have left willingly. LOL.

He was sitting on much more wealth and power in Iraq, and whoever controls that region in 20 years will dominate the world. This kind of stuff is priceless, understand I'm not condoning or condemning just stating facts.

SetTheWorldonFire · 05-13-2004, 03:24 PM

yeah and most of that is spent on cameras, lighting equipment, and the production time of making porn films and snuff.

By american soldiers.

Not bashing but exaggerating the fact.

05-13-2004, 02:11 PM	#1
MetaformX Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,704	U.S. residents, pucker up. Thank you George W Bush! 50 billion spent on the war just next year. And th way things go, usually the amount ends up being more when its all said and done. To put 50 Billion in perspective, that would mean taking Bill Gates ENTIRE WEALTH, and spending it all in 1 year. Pucker up fellow U.S. taxpayers and lets take it up the ass again. Thanx GW http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/200...=home&SEC=news WASHINGTON (AP) - Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost more than $50 billion next year, a top Defense Department official told Congress Thursday in the Bush administration's clearest description yet of the conflicts' price tags. The remarks by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's edged the administration toward critics' estimates that combat will cost closer to $75 billion in the budget year that starts Oct. 1. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten earlier this year had said that next year's spending would probably be $50 billion. Wolfowitz also seemed to open the door to compromise over the White House's unusual request for full control over the first $25 billion for the wars. Congress is expected to provide the money, but members of the Senate Armed Services Committee lambasted the unfettered flexibility the proposal would give the president. "Our forefathers would have scorned such arrogance as has been demonstrated by this administration in this request," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said lawmakers must "maintain our oversight" of the money. With monthly war expenditures approaching $5 billion, next year's total cost "is $50 billion to $60 billion," Wolfowitz told the panel. "If you look at our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a big bill." On Wednesday, President Bush formally proposed an initial $25 billion for next year's military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Administration officials had earlier said they would seek no money until next year because of questions about allied contributions and the stability of Iraq. Wolfowitz told senators that the next request for funds will come early next year, and "it will surely be much larger than $25 billion." That means the total in 2005 would be more than $50 billion. The war spending is on top of the $402 billion Bush has proposed for the Defense Department for 2005. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has provided $165 billion to the Pentagon for Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terrorism efforts at home and abroad - excluding what Bush wants for next year. The initial $25 billion is meant to help the Army and other services pay for operations and maintenance for the first months of next year. Those expenses traditionally include repairs, fuel, food and other similar necessities. But that excludes other needs, such as paying salaries of reservists called to duty and replacing destroyed and worn out equipment. Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the Pentagon's budget, has said he expects next year's cost to be $75 billion. Democrats on the House Budget Committee have calculated that the price tag will range from $67 billion to $79 billion, based on current spending reports by the Defense Department. The White House's $25 billion request has scant detail but says the president could transfer funds to any defense or classified accounts just by telling lawmakers five days in advance. Wolfowitz initially defended the request, saying, "We are looking for the kind of flexibility that will make sure that when a need arises, we can allocate funds to where that need exists." But after senators pressed him on the question of control, Wolfowitz said, "We will work with you." Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, D-Mass., said he will support the $25 billion request. "The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the administration anticipated. This money is urgently needed, and it is completely focused on the needs of our troops," he said in a written statement. The request excludes $1 billion that Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, told the House International Relations Committee will be needed next year to staff a U.S. embassy in Baghdad. That excludes construction of an embassy, which under some scenarios would cost another $1 billion. __________________

05-13-2004, 02:46 PM	#3
DamageX Marketing & Strategy Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Former nomad Posts: 14,293	Congrats to the American taxpayers. You know you have the right to vote, don't you? __________________ Whitehat is for chumps If you don't do it, somebody else will - true story!

05-13-2004, 02:50 PM	#5
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,674	Instead of invading, they could have just bought it from Saddam .... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

05-13-2004, 02:59 PM	#11
Roger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: MetroCity Posts: 3,181	They will be spending even more on Iraq in the 20 or so coming years. They can't admit they where wrong, that'd be just too easy. Last edited by Roger; 05-13-2004 at 03:00 PM..

05-13-2004, 03:20 PM	#17
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	$50 billion is the "conservative" estimate <img SRC="http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/biggrin.gif"> (would the Liberal estimate be $100 billion then?) __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

05-13-2004, 02:37 PM	#2
bizmak So Fucking Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 10,014	50 billion ?? WOW ...

05-13-2004, 03:01 PM	#13
EviLGuY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: malta Posts: 12,745	It'll be way more then 50 Billion no doubt.

05-13-2004, 03:02 PM	#14
Rictor Old Timer Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 12,208	Bastards.

05-13-2004, 03:24 PM	#19
SetTheWorldonFire Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: California Posts: 7,444	yeah and most of that is spent on cameras, lighting equipment, and the production time of making porn films and snuff. By american soldiers. Not bashing but exaggerating the fact. __________________ www.STWOFDesign.com hit me up on icq 154206276 or Skype: JaimeGizzle