Bush Will Seek $87 Billion for Iraq

Reuters via Washington Post ^ | 9-7-03

[dogbyte12]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will announce on Sunday night that he plans to ask Congress for $87 billion to fund the U.S. military deployment in Iraq and pay for reconstruction, a Republican source said.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the money would fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and reconstruction over the coming budget year.

The figure includes assistance for Afghanistan. Bush was to make the request in an 8:30 p.m. EDT address to the nation, the source said.

The figure was at the high end of expectations. Some members of Congress said earlier they expected Bush to get what he asked for but wanted him to detail how long U.S. troops would remain in Iraq and outline a strategy for bringing them home. (snip)

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Just curious, what are your qualifications?

[sakic]

I'm a conservative, but today I'm a conservative who wishes his last name was "Haliburton"!

Haliburton has fared pretty well so far (vast understatement).

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

The better question is how will our budget deficit look if the psychos set off a couple of nukes in our country? Most people have short memories, and thus are short sighted.

[joesnuffy]

Lets see the county sucked 4 grand out of our account
The state the Feds and FICA will suck a whole lot more
Gas is up Propane is up Food prices up
and now I get to pay even more for Iraq
Where is the less govt party....again?

[Consort]

Ah… I think the next generation was already scheduled...

Don't make excuses for them. Let them fugure out a way.

[goodnesswins]

"free universal education?".....BAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[chance33_98]

How much of it is coming back? Many US companies will be participating in the rebuild, some of it goes to our troops, equipment manufacturers, and so on. Plus we will most likely be creating a new market for our products (which can be paid for via oil sales).

Yes it is a load of money, but if considered a long term investment it may not be such a bad deal (not to mention the above, much of it may be being recycled right back into American companies who will providing the services, which could result in some local job creation).

Time will tell the effect it will have and whether or not we come out ahead on the deal.

[jgrubbs]

I am so glad we have a conservative in office, I would hate to see someone who is in favor of BIG government and increasing the size of government in office. </ sarcasm>

[StopGlobalWhining]

Why aren't we using Iraq oil revenues to bill them for reconstruction charges, along with protection services, training for police and military, etc?

After all, it's for their ultimate benefit as much as it is for ours, so why should American taxpayers be expected to foot the entire bill?

I guess I don't have the wisdom, knowledge, and Ivy League education of those in the State Department to understand why we are such suckers.

[chance33_98]

Funny how Republicans are so very concerned about deficit spending when a Democrat is in the White House yet have no problem piling up the debt for their children when a Republican president goes on a spending spree.

I think the reason revolves around what it is being spent on, as per my last post this could be seen as a long term investment paying off more than we put in. Deficit spending is still not a grand idea, but if it is going to happen I would rather see it going to something which has future payoffs than to some liberal goofball idea or funding for planned parenthood.

I would rather take out a loan for a house which I could resell for more than I paid later, then to take out a loan for the same amount to support a habit which will suck the money dry with no return.

How this turns out we will not know for many years, it may be a financial blunder or it may have vast payoffs. I would be more comfortable with it if we were cutting more pork and being more fiscally responsible, but time will tell.

[ohioWfan]

Ummmmmm........Saddam already USED WMD........where were you???

[edchambers]

$87 billion is over $300 for every man woman and child in the country. I wonder when parents should break the news to their young children that they are going to work an extra few years to pay for this.

$300? you mean we might have to give up a week or twos pay to win the war.I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL IT SINKS IN. WHEN YOU GO TO WAR YOU DONT WORRY ABOUT HOW MUCH IT WILL COST OR HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE. YOU SHOULD ONLY BE CONCERNED WITH WINNING.BECAUSE WINNING IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATERS.

Would all you accuntants out there like to estimate the cost of LOSING

[ohioWfan]

How many DUers do you suppose are posting on this thread?

[Enough is ENOUGH]

"$87 billion?"

This is in the form of a loan to Iraq, one of the largest oil producing countries, isn't it?

[Lib-Lickers 2]

you sir are an ass,,,,, and by the way if we need more I'm sure it will be asked for,,

[thtr]

"$300? you mean we might have to give up a week or twos pay to win the war.

Win the war? We already won the war, it’s the peace we’re about to loose. Since the $87 Billion is completely borrowed money we won’t begin to pay it off for at least 30 years. But in the meantime we will pay interest on the loan and the $87 Billion will ultimately cost us $250 Billion.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Exactly right!,, there would be an automatic world wide depression and starvation thus creating anarchy around the world,,

[Conservababe]

Well, there are certainly more hysterics than economists on this thread.

LOL