"overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration."
Is that the CHANGE you thought you were voting for, America?
"US deficit is factor in decision about increasing troops; Obama weighs military and political costs" by Christopher Drew, New York Times | November 15, 2009
Cost is far from the only concern about escalating the war....
Congress [is] hesitant to support an expansion of troops, especially with the midterm elections next year....
Like they care what we think (seems to only occur around election time), and are going to end them. Yeah, whatever, NYT!
While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say. The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 US troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by General Stanley A. McChrystal, the top US and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.
Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant; in 2006, congressional researchers had estimated the per soldier cost to be $390,000. So even if Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq.
I never believed there would be "saving," and I still don't think we are ever leaving Iraq. I've been hearing that for years and pffffftt!
And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration. Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak, and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.
Pfft!
Senior members of the House Appropriations Committee have already expressed reservations about the potential long-term costs of expanding the war in Afghanistan. And Obama could find it difficult to win approval for the additional spending in Congress, where he would have to depend on Republicans to counter defections from liberal Democrats....
And IN THE END the WAR-MAKERS ALWAYS get their funding!
And Congress' stock portfolios and campaign coffers swell.
Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely US forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.
How much would LEAVING COST?
Military analysts said the increase reflects a surge in costs for mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why are we INCREASING EQUIPMENT to IRAQ if we are LEAVING?
And WITH EQUIPMENT come THOSE to OPERATE IT!
But some costs are unique to Afghanistan, where it can cost as much as $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to the troops through mountainous terrain.
THINK of THAT the NEXT TIME you are FILLING UP at the PUMP, America!!!!!
ALL YOUR TAX DOLLARS as this nation EXPLODES its DEBT!!!!!
Some administration estimates suggest it could also cost up to $50 billion over five years to more than double the size of the Afghan army and police force, to a total of 400,000. That includes recruiting, training and equipment.
So YOU have $50 BILLION -- that's with a B, readers -- to CHUCK AWAY BUILDING UP the Afghan police and army while WE HAVE VETERANS SLEEPING in the STREETS, America?
At a stop at a military base in Alaska on Thursday, Obama told a gathering of soldiers that he would not risk more lives “unless it is necessary to America’s vital interests.’’
Yeah, whatever, 'bamer, you slick sack of s***.
The administration said Friday that it planned to cut up to 5 percent at domestic agencies in fiscal 2011 as part of an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, which rose to $1.4 trillion with the economic stimulus and financial bailouts.
Oh, NOW THAT THEY have LOOTED the NATION it is CUT the SOCIAL PROGRAMS -- and RELEASED on a FRIDAY!!!!!!!
UN-BE-LIE-VA-BLE!!!!!!!!
Several leading Republicans have criticized Obama’s willingness to spend more freely on domestic programs and urged him to provide McChrystal with the resources he is seeking in Afghanistan....
Which war-mongering "leading" Repuglicans?
And the REASON the DemocraPs SAW the LIGHT(?):
"Obama pushes domestic spending cuts
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, mindful of public anxiety over the government’s mushrooming debt, is shifting emphasis from big-spending policies to deficit reduction. Domestic agencies have been told to brace for a spending freeze or cuts of up to 5 percent as part of a midterm election-year push to rein in record budget shortfalls.
Like we are all somehow going to FORGET the DOLLAR-DESTROYING DEFICITS they have run up!!!
Related: Taking the Pulse of the American People
Oh, they SAW the POLLS did they?
President Obama is expected to make post-recession spending restraint a key theme of his State of the Union address in January and an important element of the budget he submits to Congress a few weeks later. He is under increasing pressure, including from moderate and conservative members of his own party, to show he is serious about tackling a deficit that has become an economic and political liability.
And an impingement upon the WAR-MAKING ABILITY of the EMPIRE!
Democratic officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill say options for locking in budget savings include caps on the amount of money Congress gets to distribute each year for agency operating budgets. On Thursday, the government reported that the federal deficit hit a record $176.4 billion for October as the new budget year began. The deficit for the 2009 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, set a record in dollar terms of $1.42 trillion, $958 billion above the previous record in fiscal 2008.
See: Interested, America?
You ought to be; it's YOUR TAX MONEY!
The budget freeze was planned before Democratic setbacks in last week’s elections. But....
Yeah, sure it was.
Why did they jack up the deficit then?
They didn't campaign as budget-cutters.
--more--"Oh, that's why: POLITICS -- and they LIE ABOUT IT!
