Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPentagon Seeking to Avoid Congress on Syria Strike Costs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-06/obama-likely-to-avoid-congress-on-cost-of-strike-on-syria.htmlPentagon Seeking to Avoid Congress on Syria Strike Costs
(snip)
The Pentagon has notified congressional appropriators that it wont seek added funds to pay for a strike, said a Defense Department official and a Republican aide on the House Appropriations Committee. Both requested anonymity because they werent authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Defense budget analysts say weapon systems like Tomahawk cruise missiles are already in the Pentagons inventory, and personnel costs are on the books. The added expenses of any limited operation probably will be small enough that the Pentagon can absorb it from existing funds, which include a wartime contingency budget of $93 billion this fiscal year
Two defense analysts estimated the total cost of the limited strike envisioned by Obama as between $300 million and $1 billion, depending on how many cruise missiles are launched and how long the attack lasts.
(more at link)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequester forces federal, state and local governments to cut hours and jobs, to cut funds for needed social programs like head start and meals on wheels. Deficit concerns have our politicians discussing cuts to social security. There is the looming fight over raising the debt limit. But the pentagon has enough money in this fiscal year for attacking Syria many times over.
There's the money for properly caring for our own people. Right there! The government admits they have the money but they just don't want to spend it caring for their own citizens. Instead they say they are broke (which they've just admitted is a lie) and use that as an excuse to neglect their own needy citizens. And then are shocked when people don't readily support another war.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 640 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pentagon Seeking to Avoid Congress on Syria Strike Costs (Original Post)
abelenkpe
Sep 2013
OP
A $93 billion "wartime contingency budget." Why don't we use that for health care instead?
Comrade Grumpy
Sep 2013
#2
wandy
(3,539 posts)1. But Syria will be money well spent......
Helping our own would be socialist you know.
We need a new tag..
:everycurswordyoueverheard:
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)2. A $93 billion "wartime contingency budget." Why don't we use that for health care instead?
durablend
(7,465 posts)3. Because DEMOCRACY, that's why
That and FREEDOM need to be bombed across the world!
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)4. Or for rebuilding our infrastructure
There are so many things that money could be used for that could be beneficial.
We are not broke!