"Thank God it's not Mitt Romney in the White House",

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

is not an excuse for bad policy decisions like Chained CPI, dirty fuels, cutting social services, ending habeus corpus, failing to cut bloated military budgets (significantly, by say 50%), and failing to follow up on the public option.

[Avalux]

1. Did you vote for Obama?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering...

[grahamhgreen]

3. Of course. Now we're looking for representation! :-)

[djean111]

2. My sentiments exactly. Thank you.

But that seems to be the answer to any criticism.

edited to add - thank you!!!! to whoever gave me my hearts. Much appreciated.

And I voted for Obama, but this time I felt I had no choice. If there was to be, say, a Rahm on that ticket, I will make a quite different choice. Because either I am not a Democrat or Rahm is not a Democrat.

[Arctic Dave]

4. Big K&R

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. But at least taxpayers aren't funding a car elevator in the White House.

I don't remember a promise to cut the miltary budget by 50%. Since Congress is the only one that can pass funding bills, he can ot cut the military budget by 50%.

He did support "The Sequester" which would make a 10% cut in military spending, but I have my doubts about even that going into effect because Congress won't do it. Cutting the military in such a way will not happen unless the entire government is changed.

[grahamhgreen]

8. As commander in chief, he can cut military spending dramatically, I'd settle for 30%, there

that's compromise!

Fact is the big war budget has doubled in the last 10 years & bin Laden is dead, & what we are doing in the ME is creating more bin Laden's, not preventing them.

[JoePhilly]

12. Can you explain how Obama unilaterally cuts Defense spending?

I'm pretty sure that Congress has a say in that. But maybe I'm wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

20. Pick up the phone and bring the troops home - saves 2 billion/week!

[JoePhilly]

24. He's been bringing them home.

Were you asleep?

[grahamhgreen]

25. Hey, 80 more weeks - that's only 160 billion, we can get that by starving granny!

[JoePhilly]

38. My Tea Party friends tell me Obama's going to kill granny via a death panel.

Not sure if I should believe them, or you, on the method.

But clearly there is agreement that Obama plans to kill granny.

[grahamhgreen]

41. Neither. Believe Jay Carney, Obama's spokesman.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. As Commander and Chief he can give his budget to Congress, but that is all

Congress passes a budget, and he can sign it, not sign it, or veto it.

As long as he signs it, it is going to be spent. If he doesn't sign it but doesn't return it to Congress in ten days, it becomes law. If he doesn't sign it and Congress is not in session, it is a pocket veto. He can veto it and send it back to Congress within ten days. Then Congress can over ride his veto if they have the votes. Once the money is assigned by Congress, he doesn't have a choice not to spend it.

He can not on his own cut a dime of what Congress puts in the budget. He either vetoes the whole bill or signs it.

The Iraq adventure is over. We are out of there.We are no longer paying for that.
Afghanistan is, finally, winding down and people are coming home. We will be out by the end of 2014. He actually has the projected savings to the budget from those wars as part of his plan for deficit reduction.
Of course, that doesn't mean the military budget for non war activities will shrink, but those aspects of the war will be over.

We still have bases in Kuwait and other places in the Gulf. That won't change as long as watching the movement of oil from the region remains important to the American economy.

If you want large cuts to the military budget, you need to look to changing Congress by electing people who will do it. Then, you can only hope that a Democrat runs and wins the White House who will set as national policy reducing the military. There have been none since FDR.

Obama ran his first term, promising to expand the Afghan war, which he did. He supported a war in Libya and used American air power there. He has actively prosecuted the "war on terror."

He is not a President that will ever do what you want.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Congress appropriates but as CEO of the armed forces what he orders the

Military to do accounts for the majority of the big war budget. If he orders the troops home, it saves money. Pretty simple.

He can also lobby for a 50% reduction, but he'd rather lobby to starve grandma by chaining her to a CPI.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. You have the President confused with Ron Paul, and

Democrats confused with Paul's branch of Libertarians.

Though you have upped our call from 30% to 50%.

Fortunately, grandma is safe because Republicans refused to accept their own ideas when offered by the President and Democrats in the Senate would never pass that.

(Another reason why you should be pushing for changes in the House and Senate.)

[OceanEcosystem]

43. I very much disagree.

Much of defense spending comes in the form of equipment maintenance, equipment acquisition, personnel salaries, normal training, etc. This tends to be relatively stable and unchanging.


The missions and operations that Obama order the military to take out are by NO means "the majority of the big war budget," as you dub it.

[grahamhgreen]

44. Well, here it is:

[RussBLib]

6. it may not be an "excuse"

but it's still a very valid sentiment.

[JoePhilly]

7. Obama hates us.

yup.

[grahamhgreen]

9. He might not hate us, but he does not represent us, not according to the polling data on Americans,

and since that is his job, I expect him to do it.

[JoePhilly]

11. Which polling data?

I mean, if you think he's going against the true will of the people, at least name the polls.

And as an aside, is that what we want? A President who simply watches polls?

Maybe we do. Perhaps we should do it as a reality show.

"America's favorite policy polls!"

I could mention that national polls do not necessarily reflect district level polls ... a point that matters because the house of Representatives is tied more to the latter.

And then there are State level polls, Senators tend to focus on those.

So ... which specific polls do you mean? Which set are the ones Obama should be basing his every decision on?

[grahamhgreen]

30. If he doesn't do what the American people want, then who is he rreally representing?

National polls of course. Do you understand gerrymandering? His job is to represent, not dictate.







The poll, conducted by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Stimson Center finds that when shown the discretionary budget for national defense alongside the discretionary budgets for education, veterans’ benefits, homeland security and various other spending areas, 65 percent of respondents found Defense spending to be more than what they had expected. Overall, respondents would cut the budget by 18 percent. Republicans cut an average of 12 percent and Democrats 22 percent. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/10/482180/public-supports-cutting-military-spending/

[JoePhilly]

36. That's it? That's what you're going with?

Three questions in which the position you demand doesn't get 50%, and one in which 60% think we can shrink the defense budget.

You might also want to check the combination of "benefiting" and "no impact" in the first three questions. For two of them, that combination is HIGHER than the number you highlighted.

But regardless, you ignored the second part of my post ... Do you want a President who simply follows the latest polls?

[malaise]

33. +10,000 n/t

[white_wolf]

13. Nice strawman. n/t

[JoePhilly]

15. Not nearly as nice as the one in the OP, but thanks anyway!!!

[white_wolf]

16. Except the OP never once claimed Obama hates us or anything.

[JoePhilly]

17. Yea, Obama just failed to cut the Defense budget by 50%.

Obama was going to cut the military budget by 50%?

Notice also that the SS cuts mentioned in the OP have not occurred.

The straw in the OP's straw-man, as it were.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Pay attention. Chained CPI is still on the table! HuffPo:

President Barack Obama may find opposition from inside his own party if he is serious about making changes to the way Social Security benefits are distributed in order to pass a deal to replace sequestration.

A majority of the House Democrats -- 107 members -- sent Obama a letter on Friday stating that any changes to entitlements will be opposed by members of his own party.

"We remain deeply opposed to proposals to reduce Social Security benefits through use of the chained CPI to calculate cost-of-living adjustments," reads the letter, which was the idea of Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Donna Edwards (D-Md.).

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently said the president would be open to implementing chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would alter the annual adjustment in how benefits are paid to Social Security recipients by using a less generous baseline of inflation.

"He has put forward a technical change, as part of a big deal," said Carney. "A technical change of CPI is possible as part of a big deal."

He added, however, that the president is opposed to raising the eligibility age of Medicare.

Progressives have opposed chained CPI because it would reduce the benefits that senior citizens receive. (AKA starving granny to pay for war)

The letter stated that while House Democrats are "committed to making the changes that will extend solvency for 75 years," Social Security has not negatively contributed to any of the country's fiscal problems so "it should not be on the bargaining table."

House Democrats reiterated in the letter their "vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits in any final bill." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/obama-social-security-reform_n_2695257.html

[JoePhilly]

35. The impending cuts to SS get predicted here every couple months.

And have been predicted every couple months since Obama took office.

This place bursts into flames for a week or two, and then nothing happens. You can almost set your watch by it.

[grahamhgreen]

40. They have been working to cut SS not for months, but for DECADES! Yes, he wants to cut it,

you and I are the firewall between starving the elderly and taking care of them like responsible children.

[grahamhgreen]

31. I never said "Obama was going to cut the military budget by 50%", but thanks for playing!

I said failing to cut is a bad policy decision.

[JoePhilly]

37. your words ... "failing to cut bloated military budgets (significantly, by say 50%)"

Straight from the OP.

[grahamhgreen]

39. Quote,

""Thank God it's not Mitt Romney in the White House", is not an excuse for bad policy decisions like ..... failing to cut bloated military budgets (significantly, by say 50%)....""

Nowhere does that say that he claimed he would, just that his failing to do so is a VERY bad decision (for American, but not for the war profiteers!)

[forestpath]

10. K&R

[LiberalAndProud]

14. I wish I lived in your world

where you think cutting the military budget by 50% could ever happen. You set a high bar, grahamhgreen, a high bar indeed.

[grahamhgreen]

18. It's called negotiating. start at 50%, and get 20. We have double the military budget since 9/11,

bin Laden is dead.

A 50% reduction just brings us to pre-911 levels. The military is destroying the country it is supposed to protect by driving into mad debt.

A 20% reduction in the military would mean ZERO CUTS to social programs.

You do live in my world. Think about it. Some bunch of neo-cons figured out a way to double the military budget in 2000, we can certainly halve it.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. You're preaching to the choir.

I want those things too. I am watching as a Republican candidate for SoD can't get confirmed by a Republican Senate. Crying about what Obama has failed to do won't change the unreasonable, spiteful, vindictive behavior of our Republican legislators. We could start out at 80%, we'll still end up with nothing. I'll be happy if we could settle for the 6% that the sequestration deal would force.

[deutsey]

32. Too often, Obama begins with the compromise

and whittles it down from there.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Sure, but I'm still very glad Romney is not President. nt

[grahamhgreen]

28. No Sh*t!

[ZombieHorde]

29. Indeed. nt

[JaneyVee]

34. Jeez, I remember when we used to judge people based on their actions, not their in-actions

[KoKo]

42. Ohhhh...Thank GOD...we might have had.......

K&R~

[davidn3600]

45. Some might argue...."what's the difference?"

-Corrupt bankers go unpunished.
-The richest Americans have had no trouble expanding their wealth under Obama, while the average middle class American has lost 40% of his net worth since the recession began.
-Housing is not improving.
-Wages are stagnant or even falling.
-Absolutely nothing has been done on the issue of climate change.
-Nothing has been done on education.
-We got billions being spent on expanding our domestic spying.
-We have drones in the air watching us.
-We've got over 1,000+ foreign military bases still in operation.