Wolfy's Estimates go up - way up

[Jim]

Funny thing huh? Wolfowitz testified yesterday that the administration is going to need an new appropriation of $250 Billion (yes with a "B") for the war effort.

 

The latest estimate that the war is costing us $5 Billion a month. Charming.

[Greg_W]

He must have used the same calculator as that fucking dumbass Ted Kennedy used when he sold us that Medicare bullshit back in the '60's

 

Have you said your prayers to Uncle Joe Stalin yet today, Jim? Fuckin' Commie Fuck.

[Jim]

And the point is exactly what Greg? Just pointing at the facts, which are grim and getting grimmer.

[willstrickland]

[Jim]

And that Medicare stuff at least gets us some benefits from the cost. It's much more of an efficient delivery system than the private insurance costs. But I digress.

 

We're digging ourselves one big money pit, and for nothing but satisfying the egos of a few neo-cons. Pitiful.

[markinore]

That can't be right. Revenue from Iraq's oil was going to pay for everything. Dubya promised.

[Greg_W]

And the point is exactly what Greg? Just pointing at the facts, which are grim and getting grimmer.

 

In my own hate-filled way, I was making the point that this should not be a surprise to anyone. When, since you became politically aware, have you known ANYTHING that the government has undertaken to require less than what they say? Plus, this was a mess from day one and we knew it was going to be messy. Better to spend the money so that the military can do its job (and win), than to hamstring them like we did in Vietnam.

[Martlet]

I saw 25 billion, but not 250. Could you point me to a link?

[jjd]

And that Medicare stuff at least gets us some benefits from the cost. It's much more of an efficient delivery system than the private insurance costs.

 

[Jim]

I saw 25 billion, but not 250. Could you point me to a link?

 

Opps - my bad. You are correct. I put an extra 0. Here is a link. I was also on the low side on the monthly estimate. It is approaching 6 Billion a month. Current costs to date for Iraq: Around 140 Billion. Quite a bit higher than estimated. Wasn't oil suupposed to pay for all the reconstruction.

 

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000176&sid=aeyzzFSWku1I&refer=us_elections

[Martlet]

In all fairness, that 25 billion was also including supporting the troops in Afghanistan.

[Jim]

And that Medicare stuff at least gets us some benefits from the cost. It's much more of an efficient delivery system than the private insurance costs.

 

Medicare spends about 3% of total costs on administration while private companies average 9.5%.

 

Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, 2000, p. 7; Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, 2000, p. 5. The private sector estimate is contained in A Profile of Medicare: Chartbook, p. 27.

 

 

 

[markinore]

Here's how the 25 billion will be spent:

 

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/national.cfm?story=2004\05\national_bushand25billiondollars_05200400012

[Martlet]

Here's how the 25 billion will be spent:

 

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/national.cfm?story=2004\05\national_bushand25billiondollars_05200400012

 

The Daily Farce. Well, at least now I know where you get your information. No wonder it's so inaccurate.

 

Unless of course you were joking with that comment.....

[catbirdseat]

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.

[willstrickland]

Just Note, the $25B is for the rest of this year. Iraq/Afganistan expenditures for FY'05 are estimated to be between $65-$79B

 

Conservatives' dissent puts pressure on Bush

 

By Steven Thomma and James Kuhnhenn

Knight Ridder Newspapers

 

WASHINGTON — President Bush is facing sharp dissent from his conservative base that could force him to change course on the war in Iraq and other issues or risk losing critical support for his re-election campaign.

The complaints are rising from the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party — including such influential voices as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and columnist George Will, who are challenging the "neo-conservative" doctrine that the United States can remake the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein and nurturing a democracy.

 

"It would be foolish, not to say ruinously arrogant, to believe that we can determine the future of Iraq," Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said yesterday.

 

Bush still has solid support from his party's rank and file — 95 percent of conservative Republicans plan to vote for him or are leaning toward doing so, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

 

But if dissatisfaction over the war and other hot-button issues — such as soaring federal-budget deficits, an expensive new Medicare drug entitlement and a proposed near-amnesty for illegal immigrants — spreads through conservative ranks, it could force Bush to change course or face the prospect that some conservatives might sit out what's expected to be another close election.

 

Bush tried to rally his base last night, addressing the 40th annual meeting of the American Conservative Union in Washington. He stuck to his Middle East vision of a new democracy in Iraq.

 

Allies "know a free Iraq will be an agent for change in a part of the world that so desperately needs freedom and peace," Bush said. "The Iraqi people want to run themselves. And so, on June 30th a sovereign Iraqi interim government will take office, and there will be tough times ahead. These are not easy tasks. They are essential tasks, and America will finish what we have begun and we will win this essential victory in a war on terror."

 

Days earlier, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Bush's vision of America's role may be unrealistic and unwise.

 

"We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force if necessary," Roberts said in a speech.

 

Hyde and Roberts aren't abandoning their support for the war to topple Saddam. Both voted for the congressional resolution last year authorizing military action in Iraq, citing the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

 

But no evidence has been found that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear-weapons program, and Hyde and Roberts now insist that the administration's first priority should be to stabilize the country so Iraqis can form a government.

 

 

 

 

"There's a growing split between conservatives and neo-cons," said a senior House Republican aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. "From day one, traditional conservatives did not believe that the United States could deliver democracy to Iraq."

 

Unlike traditional conservatives, who are wary of big government, budget deficits and foreign entanglements, so-called "neo-conservatives" believe that America has an opportunity and even a duty to export its concept of liberty. Some in the administration thought Iraq would be Exhibit A of how readily Western democracy would take root.

 

Will, who is influential with traditional conservatives, recently scorned such neo-conservative thinking. Conservatism, he wrote, means seeing the world as it is, not as it should be.

 

"Traditional conservatism," Will wrote. "Nothing 'neo' about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix."

 

In a follow-up column, Will voiced sharp criticism of the Bush White House for refusing to consider changing course in Iraq.

 

"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts," Will wrote. "Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in the face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."

 

Bush faces other criticism from traditional conservatives, notably over budget policies.

 

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, noted in a recent letter to members that federal spending has increased by $300 billion since Bush took office, including $96 billion for domestic social-welfare programs. By comparison, Keene said, spending increased by only $51 billion during President Clinton's first six years

[b-rock]

Here's how the 25 billion will be spent:

 

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/national.cfm?story=2004\05\national_bushand25billiondollars_05200400012

 

The Daily Farce. Well, at least now I know where you get your information. No wonder it's so inaccurate.

 

Unless of course you were joking with that comment.....

 

Well given the title of the article "Bush Wants Another $25 Billion To Train Future Iraqi Terrorists" I'd have to guess it was a joke. Or 'Farce' perhaps.