Iraq and afghanistan left out of budget

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 463 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:40 pm:        "Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections." Oh, I see. Sure, that's a sound, non-political way of handling the nation's business...get the money later, not in the so-called "budget" (whatever that word means). See there's the "budget" and then there is the budget. Budget: An itemized summary of estimated or intended expenditures for a given period along with proposals for financing them.   harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1105 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:48 pm:        Hey, at least they remembered Afghanistan this year. Last time they forgot to appropriate any money at all for fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda there, even secretly. ("Karzai Who?") Only $50 billion for Iraq? Does that even begin to cover Halliburton's overcharges? You might enjoy reading Paul Krugman's column, aptly entitled "Another Bogus Budget." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/opinion/03KRUG.html   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1901 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 11:52 pm:        Let alone the NEXT country they decide to invade. Probably in October.