Senate sends $612 billion defense bill to Bush

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MBX, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. MBX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
  2. BigHungry04 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #2
    We have to pay for the war. We must equip our soldiers. The war may be wrong, but failing to pay our soldiers and equip them in a war-zone is even worse.
     
  3. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #3
    And there is more to pay, there is only 60+ billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not enough for the year, so expect a couple of supplemental bills.

    I think we are getting close to over $800 billion for the war so far or something.

    Ironically, I was just reading about that link

    Darn Libertarians, reminding us how we are wasting money at home and abroad. ;)
     
  4. mpshay macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    #4
    I'm not saying that the costs for Iraq & Afghanistan are not high, but don't think that all that money is spent on the actual conflict itself. There are a lot of things that are considered "cost of war" and funded out of those supplementals.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    The entire war has been funded using supplementals to this point, has it not?
     
  6. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #6
  7. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #7
    Wasn't twenty-five billion of that for our beleagured (read: poorly managed) auto industry? Either way, six hundred billion is too much to spend on a wholly non-productive industry. Gotta hand it to the Republicans though, they managed to cow the Dems and the people into doubling the dollars spent blowing stuff up in only eight years...
     
  8. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #8
    "defense" != "war in Iraq" first of all. Nor does it mean the money is only going for making bombs. I work for a defense contractor (well, I'm an intern :eek:) and thus am wholly greatfull for this spending bill.
     
  9. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #9
    You work for the devil :)
     
  10. benzslrpee macrumors 6502

    benzslrpee

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    #10
    it's good to be bad :D
     
  11. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #11
    Not in that regard.
     
  12. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #12
    The devil pays well.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    A significant portion of this budget is procurement, including construction for new ships for the Navy, more F-22/ATF spending for the Air Force, and Future Combat Systems for the Army.

    I think you're right. At the beginning, I believe much of the funding came straight from the defense budget, but ever since, Bush has asked for supplemental bills.

    According to this article, the latest funding vote was in the summer.

    Also, a good article from 2007 on whether or not the military can go broke without such a bill.
     
  14. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #14
    correct ... and nearly all of those projects are in the trillion category over the years combined so don't expect those numbers to drop fast (and i don't expect a democrat to cancel them either .. since those replacements are actually needed)
     

Share This Page