MSNBC: How will Congress pay for the $30 billion Afghan surge?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

President Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan ensures what was already inevitable: The cost of the wars in that country and Iraq is about to exceed $1 trillion. Less certain for Congress is how to pay for it.

The new Afghanistan strategy will cost at least $30 billion more than current spending, and Democrats were divided Tuesday on what to do. Key leaders rejected a proposal from liberal members to impose a "war tax" that would hit workers earning as little as $30,000 a year, but they offered no plan of their own.

Before leaving for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Obama huddled with about 30 top lawmakers from both parties at the White House, winning support from key Republicans for the new strategy. "Republicans are going to be supportive of funding for these troops," Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said after the meeting.

But Lewis rejected calls for increased taxes and instead urged Obama to pare back money to federal agencies, many of which are slated to receive double-digit increases in funding for fiscal 2010. Other Republicans suggested using unspent stimulus funds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34234330/ns/politics-washington_post/

[Oregone]

1. Sell The Audacity of Hope to foreign countries and use the proceeds

Its the audacious solution to pay for the escalation

[spanone]

2. i don't recall any angst from the media when bu$h* invaded iraq AND afghanistan

[tularetom]

3. Gee I don't recall them ever asking this question

Durig the Cheney administration.

[redqueen]

4. Of course not.

But isn't it nice when the RW, the far left, and the M$M can all unite and agree on something?

:sarcasm:

[tekisui]

11. They certainly should have asked it then.

And, should be asking now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. Exactly right. Why is that so hard to understand. How are we going to pay for this?

Whether one supports the surge or not, we should still be wondering where the money is going to come from. We are broke and the rich still have their comfy tax breaks for at least another year.

Gee, didn't candidate Obama promise to rescind those to pay for his economic recovery plans? Oops :blush:


Any way, how ARE we going to foot the bill for this escalation, which is bound to be billions if not trillions of tax $$$?

[WCGreen]

26. I believe he pledged to let them expire...

Sticking "p"

[Blue_Tires]

23. [phone]

[gratuitous]

5. What is a question never asked from 2002 to 2008?

Correct, gratuitous. Make a selection.

"I'll have Celebrity Nipple Shots for $600, Alex."

[eleny]

6. Maybe now we know why the president hasn't fought for a strong public option

He knew the funds wouldn't be there.

[EOTE]

16. A strong public option would actually save money over time.

That's not the reason he didn't fight for it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. His corporate masters ie the health insurance industry wouldn't be pleased, that's why.

[eleny]

28. The initial outlay would cost a bundle and that's what counts right now, imo

I heartily agree that over time the cost savings could be significant. But at start-up it seems that it would make quite a dent. Politically, that's a hot potato.

[EOTE]

32. That's not really true.

And since when have we ever been solely concerned with initial costs rather than costs over time? Do you think we really "have" the money to send to Afghanistan? If Obama had ever been interested in a public option, he would have pushed for it. The startup costs were not a factor in his decision making.

[eleny]

33. I'm a proponent of a Medicare for all type system...

So I think we're on the same page here. But I'm trying to figure this all out from day to day and as the ground shifts under our feet. I understand that Obama is a corporatist.

[EOTE]

34. It becomes easier to figure out when you realize that Presidents, even Democratic ones...

don't always have our best interests in mind. I have no doubt that Obama is a better President than McCain would have been. But that doesn't negate the fact that pretty much all Presidents are beholden to the interests which got them elected. The comedian Bill Hicks once had a little bit about how Presidential elections only provide the illusion of true democracy. He said something in jest which is probably closer to the truth than even he realized. He said that any President, no matter how well meaning at first, is brought into a darkened room shortly after being elected. In this room are some of the most wealthy and influential people in the world, the corporate masters. The new President takes a seat and a screen comes down from the ceiling and a video begins to play. In this video, you see the assassination of Kennedy, but it's not the Zapruder film that everyone is so familiar with, it's a video from a completely different angle that just about no one has ever seen. After the video is finished playing, one of the corporate masters stands up and says "This is what happened the last time a President decided not to play ball with us. Any questions?" Now, I doubt that this exact scenario actually plays out, but I'd be fairly surprised if something a lot like it doesn't happen whenever a new President takes office. These people hold a ridiculous amount of power. I try not to be too conspiratorial, but these days it's hard not to. I think the point is, if you want to be elected President in this country, you've got to play ball. And that doesn't stop once they become President either. I think we dodged a bullet by electing Obama last year, I think a McCain/Palin Presidency could have been an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, while Obama is much better, not everything he does is going to be for the benefit of the country.

[kenny blankenship]

7. We can always carve more money out of Medicare

Old dead people tell no tales - old pirate wisdom.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Don't give the Obama Administration any ideas. Actually I think they are already on to that idea.

Those pesky 'entitlement' programs need reforming, ya know and not in a way that will actually benefit those who rely on Medicare and Social Security. Nice, eh? :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Maybe they'll grow some spine and refuse to fund a lost war.

One can "hope" for some "change".

[Amonester]

10. Don't "count" on it.

Donation$ from warmonger$ (of our money not even "earned" yet) trump peace.

"Be afraid. Be very, very afraid."

Same old, same old.

[BeFree]

9. Cake sales!

Yard sales?

Ya mean they haven't figured this out yet? They've decided to send more troops but haven't figured where the money is coming from?

WTF?

[Amonester]

13. They know the printer's switch is on whenever they need big donation$. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. LOL!

Great planning, eh?


Oh, the money will magically appear -- from somewhere.

It always does? :evilgrin:

However, someone is gonna get screwed over, they always do, and it won't be the rich greedy bastards.

[havocmom]

12. Tax the 'contractors' and the profiteers

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. Good idea, especially the oil companies .

[livetohike]

14. Where was this question for the last eight years?

No one dared question Dumbo Bush on the cost of his wars. Suddenly it's an issue.

[redqueen]

18. It's not about the cost of war... it's about manipulating public opnion.

Someday, maybe, we'll catch on.

[livetohike]

21. They msm do their damndest to do just that

I think I'm going to give away my tv.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. It will be paid by NOT doing health care

Gramma just might actually die this time.

[chill_wind]

25. "Unspent stimulus.." Republican hyenas, circling for the kill.

[eShirl]

27. by cutting food stamps/ medicaid/ unemployment/ ...?/

bah humbug.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Who cares how much it costs?

Just as long as tax payer's hard earned dollars aren't being wasted on health care or housing or jobs. Those things we question and dole out with an eye dropper. We open up the fire hose if it means we can get our war on.

[hughee99]

30. By trafficking billions of dollars worth of heroine, of course.

It's a "jobs" program for Afghanistan and generates revenue for "certain people".

[hughee99]

31. By trafficking billions of dollars worth of heroine, of course.

It's a "jobs" program for Afghanistan and generates revenue for "certain people".