Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74423)	2/16/2003 12:04:31 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 281500

Maybe then hope to give them some money next year. The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again. TP

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (74423)	2/16/2003 10:21:55 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>The current budget calls for nothing for Afghanistan.<< The only place where I've read that is the BBC, and I don't think Brits understand the US budget process. As far as that goes, I don't think anybody really understands the 2003 budget. It was four months late, the only thing passed on time in October was the defense budget. They finally put the last 11 bills into one huge bill, and nobody read all of it before they voted on it, they just held their noses and hoped for the best. Congress appropriated $300 million for Afghanistan. That's in the 2003 budget. Apparently the administration did not break out a specific line in the foreign aid bill that said "Afghanistan," and that's what the BBC is talking about. The lateness of the budget is one reason Trent Lott had to go. Bush demanded that Lott finish business after the Republicans won the Senate back, but he called a recess.