You are very good at avoidance Redux.
This administration made an issue of the war funding not being in the previous administrations budgets.
This administration also made a big issue of their transparency... Also this administration said that the war funding would be in the budgets from now on. ok, fine. Nothing new there.

Now just weeks after passing their budget they come back for another 85,000,000,000. I'm sure no one thought of this "in their plan" just a few weeks ago, eh? Seems rather shady to me. No one thought to slip this in so it would get counted under Bushs budget - nahhhh. That's Chicago style.

Yet the opposite is true. Too many sheep following the wonderful rhetoric.

I dont think you get it.

Iraq/Afghanistan funding runs out this month because it was not included in Bush's FY 09 budget or his last supplemental budget request.

What option is there other than a new supplemental appropriation for funds through the rest of this fiscal year (through Sept 30)?

Its not like it could have been included in the FY 2010 budget proposal released several weeks ago.....it doesnt work that way...different year, different budget.

And starting with the 2010 budget, war costs are included.....that is a first and that is a fact.

Is this where I am supposed to say....baaahhhh, baaahhhhh

They have no choice but to ask for funding. Bush made a habit of not including the budget for funding Iraq/Afgan in his budget and making it a supplemental so they could get it through Congress. The precident has been set for Obama and the Afgan/Iraq funding.

for next yearfor this year.

Nah - you been saying that for awhile. JUST KIDDING.

I understand it just fine. Still seems like SSDD or SSDA.

There ya go!

Filtering my political babble into simple monkey talk that even a classic human should be able to understand!

There is/was never any confusion over the budgets and when it was being appropriated for.

So what's the complaint?

Nevermind - no complaint Obama is great and all is well in the world.

You must submit comrade. :D
http://thepeoplescube.com/Laika.php

So when you don't understand what's going on, you start whining about transparency... it's all them being deceptive.

And then when it's explained, you won't even admit it was your lack of understanding, and not their lack of transparency, so you answer a straight foreword question with a smartass remark.
No wonder so many people are sick of this forum.

The discussion was changed Bruce, as usual. My opinion was that this is simply adding money to fight a war without it being in the budget. That is all. Which part of that is not clear?

And ot ask for this money just weeks after their own budget for next year is passed is "smokey" at best. It reeks of the same shit as the last administration that they complained about. Is it simply a matter of circumstance and timing? Perhaps, but I am not buying it.

Bush did precisely the same thing. Budgets did not include in-progress wars.

Obama = Bush = LBJ.

Same old shit.

The money for the war is in next year's budget.
That starts in September.

They asked for money to fund the war from when Bush's money runs out (now) until the new budget starts in September.

There is nothing "smokey".
There is no "reeking".
There are no "sheep".
There is no "wonderful rhetoric"

There is, however, a whole thread of pissing and moaning about a problem that never existed.

This year's budget was made last year, under Bush, who did not want the wars to be in the normal budget.

Obama wants the wars to be in the normal budget, and they are in the first budget under his administration- the 2010 budget. He can't retroactively put this year's wars' worth of spending in the budget passed last year. Or, I suppose, the way to do that would be through a supplemental. Which is what he is doing.