>>>>>>>We have the same problems up here to... but then mirrored. Whenever the left is over spending and the government goes into increased debt, the right has to clean up the mess. In the US the roles seems just to be mirrored. You don't have to be an intellectual to see it. Just release yourself from the R bias and look at the financial (debt) facts. They don't lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not a rich guy. If Obama doesn't renew the Bush tax cuts, it will cost me about 4,000 per year, or so I am told. So, you argument doesn't hold water. Obama has a rough road ahead. I wish him well.
>>>>>
>>>>>I heard him say that he will decrease taxes for 90% of the people, but he will higher the taxes for the ones earning more than 250.000 a year (though I have seen claims that to be lower). IOW, tax the rich more. So it seems to me, you might be better off (unless you're making more than that amount)
>>>>
>>>>You misheard him. Of course, with Obama, it depends on when you heard him. I heard him say 95% of the population would get a tax cut. Then there is the fact that 40% of that 95% don't pay taxes, so he's going to be taking money from those who do and giving to those who won't or don't work. Then you have to look downstream to see that he and the Ds will not keep the Bush tax cuts, so that will be a big tax increase, as it will cost me about 4k per year. He also has 1 trillion in new programs that will have to be paid for (tax increase). Tax increases are not a good thing when the economy is bad. Hopefully, he will do a "Clinton" and shelve some of these nonsensical ideas, at least until the economy recovers.
>>>
>>>If he pulls out of Iraq, he won't need a tax increase for his new programs. I'm not advocating dumping Iraq just like that, mind you, but if he does, he'll have a lot of money to spend.
>>
>>That was a part of his plan on where the money would come from in the beginning of his campaign when he promised to have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months. You can find it if you look for older copies of his tax plan.
>
>Firstly, moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will hardly yield any saving. However, the more illuminating point would be that moving troops out (e.g. to Europe or any other safe place) will not bring much saving anyway. Folks may finally learn that very significant part of Iraqi expenses was fixed, i.e. troops will continue receiving allowances and supplies in every location (Baghdad or North Carolina alike).

22 months ago when the campaigning began, there wasn't the confirmed opinion that more troops were needed in Afghanistan anywhere close to the # of troops in Iraq. Obviously that rules out the recuperation of $ plan from bringing the troops home.

It could be argued that his policies changed as real world situations (or his knowledge of them) changed. That may just be the process of being realistic.

One thing that seemed apparent is that as Obama gained ground in the campaign and drew more support, he gained the support of economists, military experts, and foreign relations people. As his information and knowledge of the world grew, his policies and views adapted as well. After his briefings with the current administration (that includes CIA, NSA, et al), we may see his policy plans change again and that is to be expected and happens with every new President.