| |
$87 Billion War Request Details Spending (washingtonpost.com)
by k at 11:12 am EDT, Sep 22, 2003 |
Oy. we sure are screwed. Of particular interest is this analysis... ] Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the
] Appropriations Committee, issued a report showing how
] much the administration would pay to meet Iraqis' needs
] compared with Americans'. The budget proposal allocates
] $157 per Iraqi for sewage improvements, compared with $14
] per American, for example. The administration is devoting
] $38 per Iraqi for hospitals, compared with $3.30 per
] American.
]
]
] Bush's "vision for Iraq is precisely opposite his vision
] for the United States," Obey said. "We also need to have
] a balance in the budgets between what we're doing abroad
] and what we're doing here at home." Makes you think. |
| |
RE: $87 Billion War Request Details Spending (washingtonpost.com)
by Decius at 11:40 am EDT, Sep 22, 2003 |
inignoct wrote:
] Oy. we sure are screwed. I think thats an apples to oranges comparison. Spending needed to maintain our working infrastructure long term is the not the same as what is needed to rebuild their broken one short term. However, people do not seem to get that the international coallition thing is not about troops, it about money. Canada may provide 8 warplanes for something like this, but they also pick up huge chunk of the tab. In this case the US has had almost no financial assistance, and its going to hurt. This is what we get for their arrogance in going it alone. |
|
| | |
RE: $87 Billion War Request Details Spending (washingtonpost.com)
by k at 2:54 pm EDT, Sep 22, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] I think thats an apples to oranges comparison. Spending needed
] to maintain our working infrastructure long term is the not
] the same as what is needed to rebuild their broken one short
] term. of course it's not an even comparison -- it's meant to highlight the fact that imperialistic motives, a lack of advance planning and retarded foreign relations are costly in more ways than the obvious military ones. This is money, american money, that *could* be used for domestic improvement. I don't think the senator meant to say that the cost for doing those tasks in iraq is too high, just that we shouldn't be spending that money there in the first place.
] However, people do not seem to get that the international
] coallition thing is not about troops, it about money. Canada
] may provide 8 warplanes for something like this, but they also
] pick up huge chunk of the tab. In this case the US has had
] almost no financial assistance, and its going to hurt. This is
] what we get for their arrogance in going it alone. precicely. we'll see how far Bush is willing to prostrate himself in front of the UN to get that international financial assistance. I have my doubts. |
|
|
|
