Candidate Obama, 2008: 'Raising the Debt Is Unpatriotic'

Raees wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: anyone who is paying attention knows you can't just keep spending when you have no money.

Oh you mean like starting TWO unfunded wars (at $4 TRILLION and counting) and then keeping them off the books so they won't show up in the deficit under your replacement takes over?

You really need to get the facts straight, you mean the two wars that Congress voted for, and funded them. They were not kept off the books either. Iraq war resolution was approved by congress Oct 02, by doing this they also authorized funding for it.

the AUMF was authorized by joint resolution of Congress Sept of 2001, thus funding came with it.

[youtube:35sx0u91][/youtube:35sx0u91]

If you listen closely Barry says "war" in the singular form and I assume he meant the war in Iraq. Did Barry mean to lead his faithful down a path that allowed him to increase troop strength in Afghanistan later on or did he really think there was only one theater of active combat that needed to be addressed?

BTW, nice deflection from the original topic. Care to address the deficit as it is today and how we got here or will there be more shenanigans?

Raees wrote: Never mind that he made that statement in 2008 on the campaign trail.

I'll give him this campaign hyperbole just as I gave Bush the Elder a pass for "read my lips: no new taxes."

But as bad a president as the right claims him to be, I'm quite surprised they'd have to go back to before he was president to find something to criticize him for.

I'm not surprised YOU have to dig all the way back through Bush's two terms to find something to blame the mess that Obama has made of everything.

Another left idiot defending the biggest assclown to ever be president, Hell Jimmy was mild compared to our current moron.

Obama knows what the American people want. You will hear it in his speeches.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Obama does as President.

Obama is a liberal, so he lies.

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: anyone who is paying attention knows you can't just keep spending when you have no money.

Oh you mean like starting TWO unfunded wars (at $4 TRILLION and counting) and then keeping them off the books so they won't show up in the deficit under your replacement takes over?

You really need to get the facts straight, you mean the two wars that Congress voted for, and funded them. They were not kept off the books either. Iraq war resolution was approved by congress Oct 02, by doing this they also authorized funding for it.

the AUMF was authorized by joint resolution of Congress Sept of 2001, thus funding came with it.

Why bother, Raees has her talking points from John Stewart. Two legs bad, four legs good.

Authorizing funding and keeping the costs of the wars off the yearly budget so the costs don't show up are two entirely different things.



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 031728.php


In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.

As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02 ... ng-the-ir/

So the US military spending is about 3.4% of GDP, it was much higher during the Cold War. And much less than entitlement spending currently.

I agree that a lot of the military should be trimmed. Do we really need 12 carrier groups when the rest of the world have less than 10 combined? But we also need to cut domestic spending.

And he's right... Asking those making more than $250K to pay 3.9% more on their earnings OVER $250K is not unfair. (Of course, people in that bracket can pay for much better number-crunchers to try to find more ways to make their effective-tax-rate go down, but it's not unfair.)