Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

He's expected to outline some broad themes of his budget request Monday at a White House summit on fiscal policy and touch on it during his first speech to Congress on Tuesday evening. He is slated to officially send at least a summary of it to Congress on Thursday, barely a week after his $787 billion economic stimulus plan becoming law.

Why do I suddenly have the urge to hide my wallet . . .

HI54UNI wrote:Why do I suddenly have the urge to hide my wallet . . .

You noticed Cleets was on-line?

Bush created a deficit of $1.3 trillion....No Argument

Bank bailout - $700 Billion (since this is borrowed, its debt)

Stimulus Bill - $785 Billion (same thing...borrowed)

So far, we're at $2.785 billion in debt

To reduce that debt by 2013 to $533 billion will take a huge tax increase, because while Iraq is drawing down, Obama has committed to building up Afghanistan...so there's not going to be as much savings from the war as some think... If you've followed the news, supply by truck is becoming more difficult...with more troops, more supplys are needed...they are going to have to be flown in and that is expensive...

Cuts is programs sacred to the Democratic Party will have to happen...in addition to huge tax increase...

Good luck with that.....

dbackjon wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Why do I suddenly have the urge to hide my wallet . . .

You noticed Cleets was on-line?

Cleets doesn't scare me, I'd have him iron my shirts.

Col Hogan wrote:Bush created a deficit of $1.3 trillion....No Argument

Bank bailout - $700 Billion (since this is borrowed, its debt)

Stimulus Bill - $785 Billion (same thing...borrowed)

So far, we're at $2.785 billion in debt

To reduce that debt by 2013 to $533 billion will take a huge tax increase, because while Iraq is drawing down, Obama has committed to building up Afghanistan...so there's not going to be as much savings from the war as some think... If you've followed the news, supply by truck is becoming more difficult...with more troops, more supplys are needed...they are going to have to be flown in and that is expensive...

Cuts is programs sacred to the Democratic Party will have to happen...in addition to huge tax increase...

Good luck with that.....

....and even if we weren't at war at all, there's still only a marginal savings over what it costs to simply maintain a standing army.

closed circuit to Col: and that's 2.785 TRILLION.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Bush created a deficit of $1.3 trillion....No Argument

Bank bailout - $700 Billion (since this is borrowed, its debt)

Stimulus Bill - $785 Billion (same thing...borrowed)

So far, we're at $2.785 billion in debt

To reduce that debt by 2013 to $533 billion will take a huge tax increase, because while Iraq is drawing down, Obama has committed to building up Afghanistan...so there's not going to be as much savings from the war as some think... If you've followed the news, supply by truck is becoming more difficult...with more troops, more supplys are needed...they are going to have to be flown in and that is expensive...

Cuts is programs sacred to the Democratic Party will have to happen...in addition to huge tax increase...

Good luck with that.....

....and even if we weren't at war at all, there's still only a marginal savings over what it costs to simply maintain a standing army.

closed circuit to Col: and that's 2.785 TRILLION.

What a typo...

And as we learn more...it continues not to add up...

Obama is not going to cut the military...he's going to gut the military...and raise taxes...the agenda becomes very clear....

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=9

Colonel - disagree with your assessment that it doesn't cost much more to fight a war than to maintain a standing army.

Latest estimates I have read show the cost of the Iraq War at $1 Trillion and climbing.

dbackjon wrote:Colonel - disagree with your assessment that it doesn't cost much more to fight a war than to maintain a standing army.

Latest estimates I have read show the cost of the Iraq War at $1 Trillion and climbing.

Without going back and doing exact research, the DOD budget (without any war-time costs) was in the vicinity of $385 Billion a year...

If it is cut below that level, than it's gutting the military because we have to repair/replace equipment from the current wars...

Add in the costs of Iraq (we'll have some folks there at least till 2013 or 2014) and Afghanistan, and we're talking a budget of $500 - $550 Billion a year JUST TO MAINTAIN current force levels...which have been seriously reduced by Bush 1 and Clinton administrations...

And, jon, where did I say it doesn't cost that much moreto fight a war than to maintain a standing army??? That was the fallacy of the Bush administration...they maintained the DOD budget as if a war was not going on...then paid for the war with massive supplementals (borrowing) which is why the deficit is so high...

I'm already taxed over 50% of my income, so I think Obama can do it by taxing the larger incomes and getting them close to 50%.

dbackjon wrote:Colonel - disagree with your assessment that it doesn't cost much more to fight a war than to maintain a standing army.

Latest estimates I have read show the cost of the Iraq War at $1 Trillion and climbing.

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.

hank scorpio wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Colonel - disagree with your assessment that it doesn't cost much more to fight a war than to maintain a standing army.

Latest estimates I have read show the cost of the Iraq War at $1 Trillion and climbing.

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war, health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... ws&sp=true