Why does the Bush Administration CONTINUE to leave the military in a fiscal lurch?

Discussion in 'Military' started by jasendorf, May 31, 2006.

  1. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,99145,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

    What I'm trying to figure out is why the Bush Administration CONTINUES to not put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into its annual budgets. I know their main reason is so that they can continue the facade that their failed budget policies will somehow lead to a balanced budget... but is that really a good reason for our military to be left in the lurch?
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Probably because every time Bush asks for a dime liberals start whining about the deficit.

    Y'all need to shit or get off the pot.
     
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I can't WAIT until 5stringJeff replies here; laying the smack. Nobody knows Army budgets like Jeff. :)
     
  4. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    So, let me get this straight... the Bush Administration won't even ASK to put funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the annual budget and you blame it on liberals? I guess that's the quintessential "passing the buck" if I ever saw it.

    OK, let's see... House, Republican controlled... Senate, Republican controlled... White House, Republican controlled... but if they don't allocate money to the troops in the budget... IT'S DOSE DAMNED LIBERALS!!!

    Amazing how far you'll go to make excuses for the failures of the Republican Party.
     
  5. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    odd...the first paragraph explained it:

    Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody directed the Army last week to stop ordering many spare parts and supplies in an effort to pare back spending until Congress passes the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  6. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Point is, why should Congress even have to pass an EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING BILL in the first place? Why didn't President Bush put this spending in his proposed annual budget? Did he think we weren't going to be at war this year???

    Nevermind... I'll tell you why.

    Because if he were to do that, the "our tax cutting policies will bring us to a balanced budget" lie falls apart if you factor in the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, they make a budget which ignores our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and then act surprised when they need a couple hundred billion for them.
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    did congress not know that we were not going to be at war? why did they not increase the budget? you dems are so smart....yall should have know better and taken care of us dumb red state folks....you don't help us then make fun of us for being stupid and not doing what you knew we were doing wrong?.....ever wonder why we don't jump over to your side?
     
  8. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Oh, it has nothing to do with being stupid. The Republican Party knows that the only way it can funnel money back to the rich is to cut taxes and the only way to cut taxes is to falsely justify it by extrapolating "future returns" which show some sort of fiscal balancing. They can't do BOTH that and fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without desception and a little budgeting slight-of-hand so they pull this "emergency spending" year after year. Meanwhile, the military has to refrain from ordering spare parts while the Republicans feed their future campaign contributions back to the millionaires who "need and deserve it most."
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    damn you found us out.....pity you smart folk can't stop us
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Frankly, the wars ought to be in the annual budgets. However, one cannot anticipate all the costs of the ongoing war, so even if the GWOT was in the annual appropriation bills, there would still have to be a supplemental budget bill to fund the war for the rest of the year.

    As to your OP, jasendorf, I wouldn't consider the VCSA as part of the "Bush Administration." He's a general, not a politician.
     

Share This Page