Isn't it true that for the first time the cost of wars in Iraq and Afganistan is included into the budget, as well as cost of bailouts and other things that were spent through emergency appropriations druing Bush years, like disaster recovery?
No, sorry, I do not, I have no time for research. That was, however, my understanding of how such dramatic increase in deficit is explained at least partially.
Well, I would guess if one is to research into what explains the dramatic increase in deficit and to which extent one would have to gather some numbers, find out how these numbers relate and then make conclusions. At least to me it sounds like the way to go, if I wanted to do that.
Erm, I am relaying to you what I read in the Washington Post when the budget was first presented. Now, I asked you if those statements were true. You could have said you didn't know, but it seems it is more convenient for your partisan purposes to pretend that I pulled all that out my ass.
You came here and made some statement. And "isn't it true that" doesn't look like genuine question, it looks like rhetorical question in order to make a statement. Which I have no problem with, provided it is somehow substantiated - i.e. it has some meaning which can be discussed, i.e. which costs were included, which weren't, etc. It would be interesting to discuss, and that's what I asked for. In response, I get accused of "partisan purposes". Well, I guess no discussion would happen here after all.
For the first time, the war costs for both Iraq and Afghanistan are included in calculating the projected deficit. Before now, those costs were put in separate emergency spending bills called "supplementals."
This gets to an important point. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded largely through emergency spending measures, and that firehose of money has warped the Pentagon budget process and seriously diminished oversight.
In theory, emergency spending bills are for one-time, unforeseeable calamities. In practice, Mr. Bush has financed the entire war in Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan, with emergency supplemental requests that totaled $248 billion over the last three years. With no sign yet of a troop reduction in Iraq, the costs are likely to exceed $80 billion in 2006.
Да, я ждал больших цифр, чем 80 миллиардов. Но это какая-то лажа: цена войны в Ираке -- порядка триллиона*. Я этот триллион на графике вверху никак не вижу, а из 80 миллиардов он тоже не складывается. Так что я склонен думать, что утверждение про то, что цена войны не входит в бюджеты -- правда, а цифра 80 миллиардов -- это только часть. Может быть основные деньги повалили после 2005-го -- цитата-то старая. Вообще уже само то, что они это провели мимо бюджета отвратительно, какие бы там цифры ни были.
Порядка триллиона - это было предположение в 2007-м, какова будет стоимость в 2009-м. На всякий случай, в 2007-м у демократов было еще модно считать, что эта война - ужасная катастрова, вызванная некомпетентностью Буша, и все пропало. Так что я бы с осторожностью относился к этим оценкам.
military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Если поделить поровну, выходит где-то по 100 млрд. в год.
Не совсем ясно, включается ли в это банковский бейлаут прошлого года и поркулюс этого года - похоже, что нет.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
For the first time, the war costs for both Iraq and Afghanistan are included in calculating the projected deficit. Before now, those costs were put in separate emergency spending bills called "supplementals."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/gates.html
This gets to an important point. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded largely through emergency spending measures, and that firehose of money has warped the Pentagon budget process and seriously diminished oversight.
no subject
In theory, emergency spending bills are for one-time, unforeseeable calamities. In practice, Mr. Bush has financed the entire war in Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan, with emergency supplemental requests that totaled $248 billion over the last three years. With no sign yet of a troop reduction in Iraq, the costs are likely to exceed $80 billion in 2006.
no subject
no subject
Вообще уже само то, что они это провели мимо бюджета отвратительно, какие бы там цифры ни были.
* http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html
no subject
no subject
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
что цена всех войн с 2001 до 2008 была 864 млрд, включая:
military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy
costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Если поделить поровну, выходит где-то по 100 млрд. в год.
Не совсем ясно, включается ли в это банковский бейлаут прошлого года и поркулюс этого года - похоже, что нет.