Throughout the past month and a half, the papers and tabloids have been full of text related to President Bush's request for 87 billion dollars. The reason behind so much money is to rebuild and reconstruct Iraq. The articles " "The Real Deal" on the 87 billion" by Joe Scarborough, and "Tough Sell at Home" by Terence Samuel, both address the price tag on the move to rebuild Iraq.
One of the few similarities of the two articles was the fact that they both stressed the need to rebuild Iraq. The U.S. Troops are over in Iraq and indefinitely need money to stay and continue to fight the war on terror. Joe Scarborough makes a great point in his article by saying, "We can either fight this battle on the streets of Baghdad, or we can fight the war on terror in the streets of America!".
Throughout reading both articles I found drastic differences between both. The article by Joe Scarborough, " "The Real Deal" on the 87 billion", was very personal to him. The text was his thoughts and feelings on the 87 billion dollar budget, whereas "Tough Sell at Home" by Terence Samuel was more of an overview of what Congress was discussing and had no personal inserts. Scarborough's views for rebuilding Iraq were all for the proposed budget. He feels that not going through with the projected plan will only lead to more terrorism and even hostile communist take-over. Scarborough doesn't understand why we are worried about "nitpicking" the amounts when we have the highest unbalanced budget. In the Terence Samuels article, Congress heavily questions the amounts in the budget and why they are so high. They are asking "why so much money?" and why can't we help our nation with jobs and better schools before we go overseas. A number of Senators are asking for some the money to be given as loans instead of grants so we will get the money back in the future. The article mentions nothing about the future of Iraq if the nation doesn't receive our help, only the price to fix the nation.