Candidate Obama opposed Spending Freeze

For those still believing the rhetoric, please listen to Candidate Obama repeatedly opposing in principle the notion of a "spending freeze." Apparently, he will now announce one in his State of the Union. Of course we voted against the man who honestly told us we needed one. :shrug: It is a shame we didn't listen then, we could have saved a few trillion in wasted tax dollars.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/26/obama_campaigned_against_spending_freeze.html

Below is a link to a *Washington Post *story on President Obama's proposed spending freeze.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503549_pf.html

I guess I should be pleased that President Obama is now correcting some of the errors of Candidate Obama:
a. Some detainees will be tried at tribunals, which candidate Obama opposed.
b. The surge in Iraq, roundly condemnned by candidate Obama, is now being copied in Afghanistan.
c. The spending freeze, proposed by Senator McCain, but rejected by candidate Obama, is now being proposed by President Obama.

**Better late than never!
**
Proposing a spending freeze after wasting Trillions of $$$$ in hard earned taxpayer money is like bouncing 1000 checks & then swearing you won’t write any more checks? The damage is already done.

The other problem is that Congress never has any trouble finding ways around these ideas, like attaching non defense related spending to the Defense appropriations bill…

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

It's worth a try, even if they do get around some of it.

John

Candidate Obama criticized McCain for proposing a "hatchet" strategy for spending reduction when a scapal is what is needed. Amazing that America didn't pick up on his naivite right then. The fact is that the federal budget doesn't need a scalpal OR a hatchet. It needs a BACKHOE and perhaps some blasting dynamite.....

I'm not persuaded yet that he really is proposing a spending freeze. Lots of things, including special programs still on the drawing board are not included. Also, of course, a "freeze" at the current level of spending guarantees extremely high levels of spending.

It's a little unrealistic to expect that each and every campaign promise/debating point will be adhered to. Part of it is the fact that politicians stretch the truth, part of it is that they're always looking for compromise, and part it is that conditions and events can make them change their minds.

In the year 2000 Bush ran a campaign in which he adamantly opposed nation building. Then he proceeded to attempt it in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. One could say he was a "flip flopper" or that he lied or that conditions and events made him change his mind.

Agreed in principle, but not in specifics. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the US Federal government is and has been spending WAY beyond its means for decades. That calls for rather more than a scaple. Circumstances didn’t change and Obama didn’t just now discover the apalling national debt.

…you mean like that minor occurrence on 9/11?

What similar event has changed Obama’s course of action?

[quote="rlg94086, post:9, topic:184490"]
...you mean like that minor occurrence on 9/11?

What similar event has changed Obama's course of action?

[/quote]

9/11 had little to do with Iraq and most assuredly nothing to do with Bush's involvement in Haiti and the Aristide situation. And even in Afghanistan its a valid debate whether the US forces need to prop up a corrupt and inept government in order to fight terrorism.

Apparently people aren't happy even if Obama flip-flops to their point of view. I guess he's darned if he does and darned if he doesn't.

So, you don’t believe that the events of 9/11 changed Bush’s view on nation building? Had 9/11 not occurred, you posit that Afghanistan and Iraq would still have happened? What do you base that on?

[quote=NewEnglandPries]Apparently people aren’t happy even if Obama flip-flops to their point of view. I guess he’s darned if he does and darned if he doesn’t.
[/quote]

Whom are you referring to? There are a lot of different people with a lot of different points of view.

[quote="NewEnglandPries, post:10, topic:184490"]

Apparently people aren't happy even if Obama flip-flops to their point of view. I guess he's darned if he does and darned if he doesn't.

[/quote]

I would be thrilled and give earnest kudos to Obama if he really put meat behind his rhetoric about deficits. But I think he's just blowing hot air and has no intention of touching any of the spending that is so sacred to his party philosophy. Maybe you noticed the nearly 4 TRILLION dollar budget he just presented?? Maybe he used a scalple somewhere in that vast pork barrel, but as noted above it is the wrong tool for the job.

[quote="rlg94086, post:11, topic:184490"]
So, you don't believe that the events of 9/11 changed Bush's view on nation building? Had 9/11 not occurred, you posit that Afghanistan and Iraq would still have happened? What do you base that on?

[/quote]

We don't know what would have happened, that's the point. Did events change Bush's plans for Iraq? We have no idea. Maybe it never would have happened, maybe it would have anyway. We don't know and that's where various groups with various opinions will supply whatever answer fits their world view.

[quote="NewEnglandPries, post:13, topic:184490"]
We don't know what would have happened, that's the point. Did events change Bush's plans for Iraq? We have no idea. Maybe it never would have happened, maybe it would have anyway. We don't know and that's where various groups with various opinions will supply whatever answer fits their world view.

[/quote]

That wasn't the point you made earlier:

9/11 had little to do with Iraq

So which is it? You are sure "9/11 had little to do with Iraq" or you have no idea? My guess is the latter....

[quote="rlg94086, post:14, topic:184490"]
That wasn't the point you made earlier:

So which is it? You are sure "9/11 had little to do with Iraq" or you have no idea? My guess is the latter....

[/quote]

Depends on what you mean by "had to do with 9/11." It wasn't directly related to the attacks on 9/11 since Iraq was not part of the plot and Iraq was not an al qaeda stronghold. So in that sense the invasion had little to do with 9/11.

But did 9/11 change Bush's plans for dealing with Saddam and Iraq? On that we do not know. That's where the right will claim Bush's world view/foreign policy thoughts/perception of threats were changed on 9/11 and the left will claim it simply gave him the excuse to do what he was planning to do anyways.

[quote="NewEnglandPries, post:15, topic:184490"]

But did 9/11 change Bush's plans for dealing with Saddam and Iraq? On that we do not know. That's where the right will claim Bush's world view/foreign policy thoughts/perception of threats were changed on 9/11 and the left will claim it simply gave him the excuse to do what he was planning to do anyways.

[/quote]

Yep...the typical, baseless paranoia of the lunatic Left. There are even those who take it the step further and claim that Bush was behind 9/11. To most rational people, it is obvious that 9/11 had a very strong impact on our country and the president.

I have yet to hear from you what events/conditions changed to bring about Obama's supposed newfound fiscal conservative leanings. Did he not expect the economy to be bad? Maybe he just didn't have a clue about economics going in, and once he got there he started to figure it out? He sure seemed confident on the campaign trail.... :shrug:

[quote="rlg94086, post:16, topic:184490"]
Yep...the typical, baseless paranoia of the lunatic Left. There are even those who take it the step further and claim that Bush was behind 9/11. To most rational people, it is obvious that 9/11 had a very strong impact on our country and the president.

[/quote]

There's "typical baseless paranoia" on the left and the right.

I have yet to hear from you what events/conditions changed to bring about Obama's supposed newfound fiscal conservative leanings. Did he not expect the economy to be bad? Maybe he just didn't have a clue about economics going in, and once he got there he started to figure it out?

I don't expect politicians to keep every last one of their campaign promises. Most of them are made to pander to certain base elements of their party or to distinguish themselves from their opponent. They change their positions for a variety of reasons, including deals to get votes on other issues.

He sure seemed confident on the campaign trail.... :shrug:

Yeah, its called posturing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.