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.

[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

[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]

On Sept 12, 2007

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

On Sept 12, 2007

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in excerpts of the speech provided to The Associated Press.

LOL, he said 16 months, not sure who did the math for you above:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...12/358319.aspx

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

• 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."

listen i can post what was on meet the press last sunday when the new host asked gov jindal if he was going to run for president in 2012 , he gave the old co line speech about how he was going to work for the people of the state for the next couple of yrs

they then showed a clip in '06 and tim russert asked obama if he was going to run for presiden in '08 and his response was no

i heard it on tv scott - multiple times in '07 and '08 - immediate withdraw he said bill and hillary tried to slam it down on him and it backfired cuse the folks were rallying for change

[SniperSB23]

Even funnier, here is what you were referring to. He was calling on Bush to begin an immediate withdrawal to get all troops out by the end of 2008. Now he's being held to promises to get troops out before he even became President. Too funny!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/09/...0171189629808/

[gales0678]

maybe this helps scott - see this was Feb '07 - months before you 1st quote from sept '07

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_packer

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by gales0678

maybe this helps scott - see this was Feb '07 - months before you 1st quote from sept '07

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_packer

Well a rapid withdrawal could be taken to mean anything. The first time he offered a timeline was September and that was 16 months. That was before anyone voted for him in the primaries and anyone voted for him in the general election. So the idea that anyone elected him on any campaign promise other than the 16 months one is ridiculous. If you want to complain that he's changing it from 16 months to 19 months that is fine although extremely petty. You can't say he had a campaign promise to pull troops out immediately though when in September '07 he first offered a timeline and it was 16 months.

[SniperSB23]

It's not like he isn't going to renege on plenty of campaign promises. Just at least wait until he actually does to criticize him for it!

[GBBob]

If any business was forced to stick to their business plan from 2-3 years ago continously, they would be in big trouble. His campaign was focused on getting the troops out. From there, I don't think the emphasis was or should have been on specifically when until he was elected. If anyone wants to change their vote because it's now 19 mos instead of 16 mos or even 16 instead of 10, then I think they missed the point of what he was really getting at.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It's not like he isn't going to renege on plenty of campaign promises. Just at least wait until he actually does to criticize him for it!

just pointing out the facts in feb of '07
from the article

"
In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office."


if you want to define 16 months as rapid withdrawl that's fine that's your way to interpet it - but i read it a different way , i read it as the right thing to say to get voters behind you , which is fine , every pol does it

hillary gambled and lost in '02 when she voted for the war , all this would have been mute had she voted against bush , obama would be back in Ill mucking stalls with Scavs and Dell

[gales0678]

[quote=gales0678]just pointing out the facts in feb of '07
from the article

"
In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office."


if you want to define 16 months as rapid withdrawl that's fine that's your way to interpet it - but i read it a different way , i read it as the right thing to say to get voters behind you , which is fine , every pol does it

hillary gambled and lost in '02 when she voted for the war , all this would have been mute had she voted against bush , obama would be back in Ill mucking stalls with Scavs and Dell and bill would be back in the white house!

[Antitrust32]

any time I've ever heard him talk its been 16 months.

I dont understand this arguement

If the POTUS thinks it is more appropriate now to change that to 19 months.... what is the big fuss? Dont you want your President to do what he and his generals think is best for our country and troops? Things change when it comes to war.

Shoot, Bush thought we'd go in there and win right away and everything would be fine and dandy. Obviously things changed there too.

You can get on President Obama all you want when it comes to his rediculously liberal spending that he has done since elected (I did not expect him to spend this much so far... its been dissapointing).

But to get on him about changing a WAR plan from 16 months to 19 months is just stupid. He's the Commander in Chief... let him do his job right. Its a touchy situation over there, I honestly think we are on the brink of WWIII and do not believe we'll be out of the middle east any time soon.

I want the POTUS to do what is right for the safety of our country.

[Danzig]

i'm not sure how they can legitimately figure that defense spending will be cut by leaving iraq-spending would ramp up in afganistan because that's where he wants to send most of those he's taking from iraq. more creative accounting i guess.