Nothing you've written indicates otherwise. Not that it would matter for this discussion, as it is about the deficit, and removing several hundred thousand troops takes an enormous amount of money.
What part of "the deficit projections from Obama's latest budget start increasing again in 2015 like here, getting back over $1 trillion again in 2020" didn't you understand? We're not talking about 2080 and you can't have it both ways. Either you use the projections in which case you're full of shit or you don't, in which case you're also full of shit because then you can't claim that Odumba "lowered it in the longer term."
Now as of 10/2010, we still have troops there?? But, he said it was the "first thing he was going to do", and that we could "take that to the bank". Maybe he means how he took trillions of tax dollars to the banks...
The bank bailout was announced and signed by Bush on October 3, 2008. The withdrawal of all combat troops was proposed by Obama as soon as he gained office, was opposed by the Republicans, and is complete.
You're playing this game again? Troop withdrawals cost money over the term of the withdrawal. Over the LONGER TERM, as I stated, they will reduce costs and thereby reduce the deficit.
August 31 was the deadline for withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. Although President Obama says he achieved that goal, over 50,000 regular troops remain there, nominally providing training and support. They are however, armed and will accompany the Iraqi military on some missions. About 5000 special forces troops also remain there, helping Iraqi forces find and capture or kill insurgents. The 50,000 regular military forces are scheduled to return home by the end of 2011, but the Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Ubaidi does not believe that deadline. He argues that a US military presence in Iraq will be needed for several years â âmaybe endlesslyâ (see article excerpted below). Moreover, according to Antonia Julhasz, oil industry analyst for GlobalExchange.org and author of The Tyranny of Oil, in addition to the US military forces staying in Iraq, about twice as many private military companies (PMCs) also remain there. Many of these are essentially mercenaries who work for companies like Xe Services (formerly Blackwater), Titan Corporation, Pathfinder Security Services, DynCorp, and Aegis Defence Services (UK). There is no stated deadline for removal of PMCs from Iraq.
So the press is fooled too, I suppose: Last US combat troops leave Iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/iraq-last-combat-troops-leave
Here's where the budget money is going, and why there are so many non-combat troops there. Hundreds, literally hundreds, of bases have already been closed: <img src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/map-iraq-2004oct00.jpg">
republicans are hypocrites. they have no idea where to cut spending. they are just playing on the angers of gullible americans to get elected. here they are squirming when asked exactly where they will cut spending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-qPE8AfqQ&feature=player_embedded Chris Wallace asked Fiorina over and over again to name just one program she'd cut. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BesYn5--wxk&feature=player_embedded