We got it wrong Obama to cut spending

[dellinger63]

By 2 Trillion. Can't wait to see this math. The 2007 budget was $2.77 Trillion so congrats in advance for cutting spending a whopping 75%.




President Barack Obama is promising to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, even as the administration initially invests large sums of money to revive the faltering economy.

He spoke Thursday morning as his administration was preparing to release an outline of its tax and spending proposals for the new budget year starting Oct. 1. Obama said that the administration has "already identified" areas in which it can eventually slash federal spending by $2 trillion.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...022609.article

"It's been one month!"

then..

"It's only been two months!"

etc. etc.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

By 2 Trillion. Can't wait to see this math. The 2007 budget was $2.77 Trillion so congrats in advance for cutting spending a whopping 75%.




President Barack Obama is promising to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, even as the administration initially invests large sums of money to revive the faltering economy.

He spoke Thursday morning as his administration was preparing to release an outline of its tax and spending proposals for the new budget year starting Oct. 1. Obama said that the administration has "already identified" areas in which it can eventually slash federal spending by $2 trillion.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...022609.article

That's over 10 years and is largely based on the assumption that we won't be spending in Iraq in a couple years.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That's over 10 years and is largely based on the assumption that we won't be spending in Iraq in a couple years.

but scott , we were supposed to be out of Iraq from day 1 , then it was 16 months , now it is 19 months - i know obama inherited the problem , but , why run on a promise that you would pull troops immediatly - ok so he has already broken this promise (all pols do this we know , but , some don't believe barack breaks any)

they asked boxer the other night about the new extension from 16 mths to 19 mths , she was caught off guard by the question and her only response was . i 'll have to talk to the president about it but i am sure he has a good reason

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by gales0678

but scott , we were supposed to be out of Iraq from day 1 , then it was 16 months , now it is 19 months - i know obama inherited the problem , but , why run on a promise that you would pull troops immediatly - ok so he has already broken this promise (all pols do this we know , but , some don't believe barack breaks any)

they asked boxer the other night about the new extension from 16 mths to 19 mths , she was caught off guard by the question and her only response was . i 'll have to talk to the president about it but i am sure he has a good reason

Endangering the welfare of the troops just to fulfill some campaign promise would be a terrible thing. He wants to be out of Iraq as much as the people who voted for him do. But he also has a responsibility as commander in chief to do it in a way that doesn't further endanger our troops that are there and I'm glad to see he is going to do right by the troops instead of rushing out in 16 months when there is a better withdrawal plan for 19 months.

The day one thing is a bunch of BS. All he claimed was he'd begin working on a withdrawal plan from day one but that it would take 16 months.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Endangering the welfare of the troops just to fulfill some campaign promise would be a terrible thing. He wants to be out of Iraq as much as the people who voted for him do. But he also has a responsibility as commander in chief to do it in a way that doesn't further endanger our troops that are there and I'm glad to see he is going to do right by the troops instead of rushing out in 16 months when there is a better withdrawal plan for 19 months.

The day one thing is a bunch of BS. All he claimed was he'd begin working on a withdrawal plan from day one but that it would take 16 months.

immediate withrdraw and working on withdrawl plan do not mean the same thing -

tell me why on the campaing trail he promised immediate withdraw or maybe i don't get it maybe in his book and yours immediate withdraw means 16 months but then after talking to the joint chiefs it means 19 months

to me he said what he had to say to get elected - - evey pol does this -

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by gales0678

immediate withrdraw and working on withdrawl plan do not mean the same thing -

tell me why on the campaing trail he promised immediate withdraw or maybe i don't get it maybe in his book and yours immediate withdraw means 16 months but then after talking to the joint chiefs it means 19 months

to me he said what he had to say to get elected - - evey pol does this -

• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Time Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

• On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That's over 10 years and is largely based on the assumption that we won't be spending in Iraq in a couple years.

Then it's easy to figure, when in 4 years the new administration will cut $2 Trillion. Better get in that subsidized Hawaiian canoe trip while I can. At least it's nice to know you'll be able to take a walk over the Hudson River into Paughkeepsie.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262009...ine_157027.htm