Pope Flick Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Obama said less troops in Iraq and more in Afghanistan. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._afghanist.html I just said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I just said that. Just giving some proof to your statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think you guys are missing SEC's point. This "plan" the obamessiah is touting is billed as balanced because it has about 1.5 trillion in tax increases and supposedly the same amount in "cuts". The fact is, something like 1.3 trillion of the "cuts" are eliminating the wars and the interest on that money. Like he said, it's smoke and mirrors, with no substantial cuts and even what it does contain kicks the can 10 years down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think you guys are missing SEC's point. This "plan" the obamessiah is touting is billed as balanced because it has about 1.5 trillion in tax increases and supposedly the same amount in "cuts". The fact is, something like 1.3 trillion of the "cuts" are eliminating the wars and the interest on that money. Like he said, it's smoke and mirrors, with no substantial cuts and even what it does contain kicks the can 10 years down the road. But if we aren't spending that 1.3 trillion on wars, aren't we cutting spending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 But if we aren't spending that 1.3 trillion on wars, aren't we cutting spending? man, that is a phantom number if ever I've seen one. that is more than we've spent on the wars in iraq and afghanistan TO DATE. we are in the drawdown phase of both wars, and have been since before obama even took office. and now he is claiming future savings to the tune of $1.3 trillion? if true, that is beyond absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 man, that is a phantom number if ever I've seen one. that is more than we've spent on the wars in iraq and afghanistan TO DATE. we are in the drawdown phase of both wars, and have been since before obama even took office. and now he is claiming future savings to the tune of $1.3 trillion? if true, that is beyond absurd. 4 Trillion according to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 4 Trillion according to this. regardless what you think of some of those "cost" evaluations that try to track every ripple through the economy, the hard numbers that are beyond dispute show that congress has appropriated and the pentagon has spent a little over a trillion to date (that's since 2001). that is the proper metric, because when obama says he is cutting $1.3 trillion in future war spending, he is talking about actual money out of the US treasury, not trying to quantify "the social costs of war" and whatnot. he is talking specifically about how much less the government will spend. the government has not spent anywhere remotely close to 4 trillion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) regardless what you think of some of those "cost" evaluations that try to track every ripple through the economy, the hard numbers that are beyond dispute show that congress has appropriated and the pentagon has spent a little over a trillion to date (that's since 2001). that is the proper metric, because when obama says he is cutting $1.3 trillion in future war spending, he is talking about actual money out of the US treasury, not trying to quantify "the social costs of war" and whatnot. he is talking specifically about how much less the government will spend. the government has not spent anywhere remotely close to 4 trillion. OK, so we could agree on $125 billion a year, then? ETA: And I still say that the true cost of the wars far exceeds 1.3 trillion - I only want to put the "cost out of the treasury" into an annual context. Edited September 21, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) OK, so we could agree on $125 billion a year, then? well, if you take the money spent to date and divide it by 11 years, you'd get something like that, yeah. not sure what that's relevant to. there were drawdown plans being drawn up and executed before obama even took office. no one anticipates or wants to spend more on those wars over the next decade than we have over the past decade. the purported $1.3 trillion "saved" is in comparison to what, exactly? who is proposing to spend whatever obama wants to spend PLUS $1.3 trillion? this would be like the next republican president claiming to have "saved" over a trillion dollars by gettind rid of the obama stimulus bill. Edited September 21, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 well, if you take the money spent to date and divide it by 11 years, you'd get something like that, yeah. not sure what that's relevant to. there were drawdown plans being drawn up and executed before obama even took office. no one anticipates or wants to spend more on those wars over the next decade than we have over the past decade. the purported $1.3 trillion "saved" is in comparison to what, exactly? who is proposing to spend whatever obama wants to spend PLUS $1.3 trillion? this would be like the next republican president claiming to have "saved" over a trillion dollars by gettind rid of the obama stimulus bill. Net spending, all other things being equal, will drop by $125 billion if there are no wars, yes? So, if that's the case, I imagine that would buy a little time to make cuts elsewhere, if necessary. I think trying to say this isn't a cut at all is like no longer having a car payment and saying your household budget isn't improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Hey guys I found a way to save money. We could cut this in half: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures then hope that the "job creators" decide to "support the troops" by hiring these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) WV is the only one I've seen say that 1.3 tril is from cuts from the wars. Ask him where he got the number or somebody see if they can find it. Arguing over phantom numbers that may or may not have been claimed seems kind of pointless (above the normal pointless debating we do around here). Edited September 22, 2011 by Square Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 WV is the only one I've seen say that 1.3 tril is from cuts from the wars. Ask him where he got the number or somebody see if they can find it. Arguing over phantom numbers that may or may not have been claimed seems kind of pointless (above the normal pointless debating we do around here). It is 1.1 trilliion and was excerpted from his plan that he laid out earlier this week. The current cost has been 1.29 trillion and is the number reported by the GAO, I believe. On page 8 of this thread is the synopsis of the savings and spending plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.