using the words "iraq" or "afghanistan" in any kind of conversation about deficits out to 2075 is pure lunatic fantasy.
the article does not do this.
but this was hopeychange's favourite trick.
ya, it's just a trick.
and i suppose that the previous administration's deficits to fund those wars by borrowing from foreign sources was just an allusion.
he liked to talk about the worst case scenarios of what WOULD have been spent if those wars would have been full-blown conflicts,
full blown conflicts as opposed to.... full blown war?
and then find magical "savings" by saying since he wouldn't spend that, voila, the deficit is lowered. it was an irresponsible, reckless gambit to try to look fiscally responsible while at the same time scoring political points with his anti-war base. and the cherry on top was that these "savings" could then be funneled into more gov't spending for his statist schemes. as a political ploy, it was cunning. as public policy, it was incredibly cynical, irresponsible, and reckless.
the first few sentences here are not grounded in reality. these are just ramblings.
unless you want to argue that something between two and four trillion has NOT been spent to fund the wars in afghanistan and iraq (and to a lesser extent, pakistan)
http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary
as for funneling money into statist schemes -- what?
the lion's share of spending during obama's term has carried over from the previous administration (or been directly correlated to it): the war on terror, continued stimulus funding plus TARP, the prescription drug plan.
he has pursued exactly one big encompassing
SOCIALIST policy.... universal health care. those awful, awful commies, trying to address the fact htat the united states was the only democratic state without health care.
meanwhile, deficit reduction this year and projected deficit reduction for next year is not invented. it is real, tangible and provable.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-estimates-2013-deficit-642-billion-183237489.html
ramping down of wars in afghanistan and iraq. repayments from banks. tax increases. decreased spending through tarp (QE) and other stimulus measures. sequestration cuts (i.e. $40bn decrease in defense spending). etc.
those aren't phony savings. all real, tangible measures that are contributing to a reduced deficit.
anyone who continues to use that shell game to talk about deficits out to 2075 needs to be ignored outright.
you are taking two disconnected parts of the article and connecting them. you are getting the 2075 date from a graph in the article. the blogger does not make thea rgument that 'ending two wars in 2013 is going to keep our budgets balanced through 2075'.
now, i cna't tell if you're just being dishonest, or actually lack the capability to understand. you tell me.
