Has Obama totally fucking lost the plot?

[Seth]

The notion that the US will default on its debts if the debt ceiling is not raised is a lie. We have a surplus of something like 34 billion PER MONTH after non-discretionary spending, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, debt service and the military are paid for. Essential services like the FBI and suchlike are included.

But what that means is that the REST of the federal government has to run on only 34 billion per month, which means massive federal shutdowns in discretionary spending and massive layoffs of federal workers, all of which is just fine with me.

If the US defaults on a single obligation, it will be because Obama is unwilling to prioritize spending in the face of a refusal of the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. If that happens, Obama should be impeached for fiscal irresponsibility.

Why is the military "non-discretionary"? As I posted above, that seems to me (from the outside, looking in, as it were) to be the logical choice for serious cuts, given a proposed 2012 budget somewhere between 1 and 1.4 TRILLION dollars.

We have to pay our army whether or not it's in action. Certainly the military actions are discretionary, and I'm with you in that we should get the hell out of mot of the places we have troops committed to combat, but the military is one of the only truly essential and constitutionally-mandated purposes of government. Certainly costs can be cut, but soldiers still have to eat and be housed, even if they are idle.

[Tero]

Sounds like politics. Obama does not need money, he needs votes.

[Geoff]

Why is the military "non-discretionary"? As I posted above, that seems to me (from the outside, looking in, as it were) to be the logical choice for serious cuts, given a proposed 2012 budget somewhere between 1 and 1.4 TRILLION dollars.

We have to pay our army whether or not it's in action. Certainly the military actions are discretionary, and I'm with you in that we should get the hell out of mot of the places we have troops committed to combat, but the military is one of the only truly essential and constitutionally-mandated purposes of government. Certainly costs can be cut, but soldiers still have to eat and be housed, even if they are idle.

Getting out of those places would be a start, at least, but I suspect (I haven't researched it, admittedly) that most of the budget (other than operational costs) is going on high-tech sexy stuff like the F-35, the new SSNs and Aegis.

[Seth]

Sounds like politics. Obama does not need money, he needs votes.

Yup. This is brinksmanship with the economy every bit as dangerous as the brinksmanship with nuclear weapons Kennedy played during the Cuban missile crisis.

Obama is desperately trying to pin the failure of the economy caused by his profligate spending on the Republicans by claiming that they are obstructing the "recovery" because they won't let him borrow more money for more profligate spending.

Fortunately, the public seems to have wised up about Obama and is standing firmly behind the notion of cutting spending and preserving the spending cap.

[Ian]

Sounds like politics. Obama does not need money, he needs votes.

Yup. This is brinksmanship with the economy every bit as dangerous as the brinksmanship with nuclear weapons Kennedy played during the Cuban missile crisis.

Obama is desperately trying to pin the failure of the economy caused by his profligate spending on the Republicans by claiming that they are obstructing the "recovery" because they won't let him borrow more money for more profligate spending.

Fortunately, the public seems to have wised up about Obama and is standing firmly behind the notion of cutting spending and preserving the spending cap.

Perhaps you interpret your opinions and the Tea Party as "the public".
The public is standing firmly behind no such thing. Not even close, in fact. An analysis of polling data by 538:

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

The back-and-forth of the debt limit negotiations can be perplexing. But the facts driving the debate are quite straightforward. Any deal, or any workaround to a deal, will need to be approved by a majority of the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are extremely conservative on fiscal matters and are significantly out of step with the public as a whole. Given that Democrats continue to control the Senate and the White House, and that their votes may be necessary in the House as well, this makes compromise nearly impossible.

Consider, for example, the poll that Gallup released today, which asked Americans whether they prefer tax increases or spending cuts as part of a deal. Preferences were weighted toward spending cuts:

(Graph)

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.

We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

(Graph)

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.

With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.

However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.

If we do take the Republicans’ no-new-taxes position literally, it isn’t surprising that the negotiations have broken down. Consider that, according to the Gallup poll, Republican voters want the deal to consist of 26 percent tax increases, and Democratic voters 46 percent — a gap of 20 percentage points. If Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.

(Graph)

It would be foolish, in my view, to render any overly specific predictions about how the negotiations are likely to be resolved. But I would put greater weight on scenarios that would involve House Republicans not having to violate the pledge they signed to Mr. Norquist, including an end-around like Mr. McConnell’s — or even a failure to raise the debt ceiling at all, resulting in some combination of a debt default, a government shutdown, and a Constitutional crisis.

If a deal were to occur, it would probably have to be revenue-neutral. There is still some possibility of this because there are some tax reductions that many Democrats in Congress would support on their own merits — for example, cuts to the payroll tax, which could have a stimulative effect, in exchange for the closing of tax loopholes elsewhere.

But the House Republicans are very unlikely to capitulate on their no-tax pledge. And Democrats have little reason to capitulate either: they are on the right side of public opinion.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

[Seth]

Sounds like politics. Obama does not need money, he needs votes.

Yup. This is brinksmanship with the economy every bit as dangerous as the brinksmanship with nuclear weapons Kennedy played during the Cuban missile crisis.

Obama is desperately trying to pin the failure of the economy caused by his profligate spending on the Republicans by claiming that they are obstructing the "recovery" because they won't let him borrow more money for more profligate spending.

Fortunately, the public seems to have wised up about Obama and is standing firmly behind the notion of cutting spending and preserving the spending cap.

Perhaps you interpret your opinions and the Tea Party as "the public".
The public is standing firmly behind no such thing. Not even close, in fact. An analysis of polling data by 538:

G.O.P.’s No-Tax Stance Is Outside Political Mainstream

The back-and-forth of the debt limit negotiations can be perplexing. But the facts driving the debate are quite straightforward. Any deal, or any workaround to a deal, will need to be approved by a majority of the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are extremely conservative on fiscal matters and are significantly out of step with the public as a whole. Given that Democrats continue to control the Senate and the White House, and that their votes may be necessary in the House as well, this makes compromise nearly impossible.

Consider, for example, the poll that Gallup released today, which asked Americans whether they prefer tax increases or spending cuts as part of a deal. Preferences were weighted toward spending cuts:

(Graph)

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.

We can also use the Gallup poll to tease out what mix of tax increases and spending cuts the public would like to see in a deal. Assume that the people who told Gallup that they wanted “mostly” cuts would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio of spending reductions to tax increases, and that those who said they wanted mostly tax increases would prefer a 3-to-1 ratio in the opposite direction. (The other choices that Gallup provided in the poll — an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts or a deal that consisted entirely of one or the other — are straightforward to interpret.)

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:

(Graph)

Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.

With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.

However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.

If we do take the Republicans’ no-new-taxes position literally, it isn’t surprising that the negotiations have broken down. Consider that, according to the Gallup poll, Republican voters want the deal to consist of 26 percent tax increases, and Democratic voters 46 percent — a gap of 20 percentage points. If Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.

(Graph)

It would be foolish, in my view, to render any overly specific predictions about how the negotiations are likely to be resolved. But I would put greater weight on scenarios that would involve House Republicans not having to violate the pledge they signed to Mr. Norquist, including an end-around like Mr. McConnell’s — or even a failure to raise the debt ceiling at all, resulting in some combination of a debt default, a government shutdown, and a Constitutional crisis.

If a deal were to occur, it would probably have to be revenue-neutral. There is still some possibility of this because there are some tax reductions that many Democrats in Congress would support on their own merits — for example, cuts to the payroll tax, which could have a stimulative effect, in exchange for the closing of tax loopholes elsewhere.

But the House Republicans are very unlikely to capitulate on their no-tax pledge. And Democrats have little reason to capitulate either: they are on the right side of public opinion.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

[Robert_S]

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

They're hacking you phone too!

[Ian]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

It's not a New York Times opinion piece. It's from 538.com, a remarkably competent and nonpartisan website which was acquired by the NYT.

And since you either didn't bother to read it or hope that by responding with such a curt dismissal that other people won't, I'll sum it up: the article describes a Gallup poll on where the American public stands on budget adjustments, and it showed that your assumption of where "the public" stands is miles off target. So unless you want to claim that Gallup is also an uncredible, yellow-journalism mouthpiece for Obama and the Progressives, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to assessing the public. Gallup proved you to be completely incorrect.

[Seth]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

It's not a New York Times opinion piece. It's from 538.com, a remarkably competent and nonpartisan website which was acquired by the NYT.

And since you either didn't bother to read it or hope that by responding with such a curt dismissal that other people won't, I'll sum it up: the article describes a Gallup poll on where the American public stands on budget adjustments, and it showed that your assumption of where "the public" stands is miles off target. So unless you want to claim that Gallup is also an uncredible, yellow-journalism mouthpiece for Obama and the Progressives, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to assessing the public. Gallup proved you to be completely incorrect.

The numbers in the blog were manipulated and do not represent the Gallup poll results accurately.

Most people want the cap maintained and spending cut, which is what I said.

[Ian]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

It's not a New York Times opinion piece. It's from 538.com, a remarkably competent and nonpartisan website which was acquired by the NYT.

And since you either didn't bother to read it or hope that by responding with such a curt dismissal that other people won't, I'll sum it up: the article describes a Gallup poll on where the American public stands on budget adjustments, and it showed that your assumption of where "the public" stands is miles off target. So unless you want to claim that Gallup is also an uncredible, yellow-journalism mouthpiece for Obama and the Progressives, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to assessing the public. Gallup proved you to be completely incorrect.

The numbers in the blog were manipulated and do not represent the Gallup poll results accurately.

Most people want the cap maintained and spending cut, which is what I said.

Sorry, your claim of bias is false. 538.com took their data directly from Gallup's own website:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Defic ... Hikes.aspx

If by "most people" you mean 20%, then you're correct.

[Seth]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ainstream/

I'm sorry, the New York Times is not a credible news source, as it's a yellow-journalism mouthpiece for the Obama administration and the Progressives.

It's not a New York Times opinion piece. It's from 538.com, a remarkably competent and nonpartisan website which was acquired by the NYT.

And since you either didn't bother to read it or hope that by responding with such a curt dismissal that other people won't, I'll sum it up: the article describes a Gallup poll on where the American public stands on budget adjustments, and it showed that your assumption of where "the public" stands is miles off target. So unless you want to claim that Gallup is also an uncredible, yellow-journalism mouthpiece for Obama and the Progressives, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to assessing the public. Gallup proved you to be completely incorrect.

The numbers in the blog were manipulated and do not represent the Gallup poll results accurately.

Most people want the cap maintained and spending cut, which is what I said.

Sorry, your claim of bias is false. 538.com took their data directly from Gallup's own website:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Defic ... Hikes.aspx

If by "most people" you mean 20%, then you're correct.

What part of "Only/mostly with spending cuts = 50%" escapes you?

And then there's this from the poll:

Gallup finds about 6 in 10 Americans paying close attention to the debate about raising the debt limit. When the same poll asked for their general position on raising the limit, without providing reasons for doing so or not doing so, Americans were more likely to oppose an increase than favor one. The 42% who are opposed to doing so generally find fault with the government's spending patterns when asked in an open-ended format to explain their views. (emphasis added)

And how about this:

Government spending seems to be the primary worry for Americans when their opinions are probed about raising the debt limit.

I said most people want the cap maintained, and that they want cuts to government spending. Both statements are proven true by the Gallup poll, but not by the bogus claims in the lefty blog.

You lose.

[Warren Dew]

We have to pay our army whether or not it's in action.

Out of a $600 billion military budget, only about a quarter is military payroll. While I'm sure there are some necessary support activities as well, in the event of no debt limit increase, there is a lot of room for emergency cuts. The department of defense employs plenty of civilians many of whom could be furloughed, for instance.

[Geoff]

We have to pay our army whether or not it's in action.

Out of a $600 billion military budget, only about a quarter is military payroll. While I'm sure there are some necessary support activities as well, in the event of no debt limit increase, there is a lot of room for emergency cuts. The department of defense employs plenty of civilians many of whom could be furloughed, for instance.

The budget next year is double that, at least according to Wikipedia.

Total Spending : $1.030–$1.415 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States

Certainly, some personnel cuts can (and should, IMO) be made, even if just not replacing retiring personnel, but a more cost-effective target might be R&D and procurement, which account for around a third of the total.

The F-35 is a lovely aircraft, but how many more do you realistically need, at $300 million per plane? The new Virginia class fast-attack sub is doubtless an excellent piece of technology, but at $2 billion per boat, are they really necessary these days?

[Seth]

We have to pay our army whether or not it's in action.

Out of a $600 billion military budget, only about a quarter is military payroll. While I'm sure there are some necessary support activities as well, in the event of no debt limit increase, there is a lot of room for emergency cuts. The department of defense employs plenty of civilians many of whom could be furloughed, for instance.

I agree in principle. But it's also worth noting that the spending we do on military research and improvements in military technology are what keep our military at the top of the heap.

The real problem is not so much spending on the military, it's the deployment of the military into combat on a long-term basis that involves nation (re)building.

Our involvement in Iraq, for example, should have been limited to the lightning invasion and hunting down of Saddam (the first fucking time around, when he invaded Kuwait). Once accomplished, we should have immediately withdrawn from the theater, leaving Iraq in shambles. The same with Afghanistan. We should never have committed large numbers of troops long term, and should have pursued Osama using special forces, stand-off weapons and limited deployment, and NO nation building should have been pursued.

Instead, a policy of "bomb the fuckers back to the stone age" should be undertaken and repeated every time the country engages in or allows hostile actions against the US or our allies. Let them rebuild on their own.

And don't get me started on Libya...

Foregoing the rebuilding of nations we've been forced to decimate would save a lot of money.

[kiki5711]

Mariuana is much more lame than alcohol. We should outlaw alcohol and legalize pot