Has Obama totally fucking lost the plot?

[Ian]

Seems there was a bit of a misunderstanding there, Seth. Yes, most people want to see some sort of spending cuts, including meself. What I was pointing out, above all else, is the fact that 80% also want to see some level of revenue increase, meaning (largely) taxes. Only 20% say would like the issue to be resolved without any increase in revenue (and given the knee-jerk reaction people tend to have to the word "taxes", I think it's quite possible that 20% is a soft number), in stark contrast to pretty much everyone on the Republican side of Congress. So are you part of the 80% or the 20%?

That's all the subject of public opinion, though. If you'd care to explain the math of how things are going to be realistically fixed only through spending cuts, have at it.

[Seth]

Seems there was a bit of a misunderstanding there, Seth. Yes, most people want to see some sort of spending cuts, including meself.

That's precisely what I said. Thanks for finally admitting that your first response was erroneous.

What I was pointing out, above all else, is the fact that 80% also want to see some level of revenue increase, meaning (largely) taxes.

I don't think the Gallup numbers substantiate this claim. As I read the numbers, 73 percent of people polled are "open to tax increases" but of those, only 11 percent would rely primarily on tax increases. But 73 percent appear to say that they would only accept tax increases along with spending cuts, and 42 percent oppose raising the debt ceiling while 35 percent are unsure. Only 22 percent believe the debt ceiling should be raised.

Only 20% say would like the issue to be resolved without any increase in revenue (and given the knee-jerk reaction people tend to have to the word "taxes", I think it's quite possible that 20% is a soft number), in stark contrast to pretty much everyone on the Republican side of Congress. So are you part of the 80% or the 20%?

See how easy it is to falsify the data to produce the result you want? You have falsely claimed that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase." This statement is NOT supported by the Gallup numbers. You are recasting the results, which were in response to the question "Ideally, how would you like to see Congress reduce the federal budget deficit?" The results do NOT indicate that people "want to see some level of revenue increase," as you claim, they indicate that most Americans favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the federal budget deficit. This is substantially different from your claim that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase."

That's all the subject of public opinion, though. If you'd care to explain the math of how things are going to be realistically fixed only through spending cuts, have at it.

It's exceedingly simple: Pay the interest on the debt first, and prioritize spending to meet what's left without increasing the government's debt. What's so difficult about that?

Of course, that does require things like spending cuts to entitlement programs, but that's just how it goes when you run out of money.

My preferred plan is a constitutional amendment that forever restricts the federal government from collecting OR spending more than 15 percent of the prior year's annual Gross Domestic Product. Period. Don't need a "balanced budget" amendment, just one that puts the bit back between the teeth of the feds and binds the government to taking a maximum of 15 percent of our annual wealth.

This encourages government to grow the economy and the GDP through good governance so it can collect more total revenue. It also cuts government revenues automatically if the economy tanks, which keeps it from doing what Obama is trying to do now, which is spend his way out of a recession by raising taxes and borrowing more money that we cannot afford to pay back...ever.

[Ian]

Only 20% say would like the issue to be resolved without any increase in revenue (and given the knee-jerk reaction people tend to have to the word "taxes", I think it's quite possible that 20% is a soft number), in stark contrast to pretty much everyone on the Republican side of Congress. So are you part of the 80% or the 20%?

See how easy it is to falsify the data to produce the result you want? You have falsely claimed that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase." This statement is NOT supported by the Gallup numbers. You are recasting the results, which were in response to the question "Ideally, how would you like to see Congress reduce the federal budget deficit?" The results do NOT indicate that people "want to see some level of revenue increase," as you claim, they indicate that most Americans favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the federal budget deficit. This is substantially different from your claim that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase."

No, those two things are exactly the same. No substantial difference at all - assuming there must be some difference is just wishful thinking. All but 20% indicate a preference for seeing increased government revenue as part of a solution to close the deficit, and that means taxes. Of those, only 4% would like to see it done only through increased revenue, with no change or an increase to spending. IMO, I would call that leftist 4% unrealistic to the point of being stupid, and I'm sure you'd agree. As for the 20% that would like to see the deficit reduced only through spending cuts with no revenue growth (that means taxes), any sober look at the data would also have to call that unrealistic to the point of being stupid. But for purists on the far left and the far right, there's their beloved idealism and then there's real-world pragmatism, and ne'er the two shall meet.

So getting back to the point of this thread, what does that have to do with Obama? Well, he's the one who's actually been willing to compromise about this matter, whereas others have been the ones clinging to their purist idealism. Moreover, his preferred plan for reducing the deficit comes down to more than a 4-1 ratio in terms of spending cuts over taxes. And yet it is the Republicans who have balked at this offer and been much more adamant about not compromising than Democrats, clinging to their ideology apparently without either the sense or the balls to raise taxes a single dime. The party of Reagan is now being lead by a cadre of children, either unrealistic about their duty or else scared to death of what the far-right will think of them in the primaries and in the general election, or both.

[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.

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

From your own link:

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5][emphasis added]

Yes, $680 billion is more than $600 billion - my mistake. However, the trillion plus figure includes a hodgepodge of nonmilitary spending, incuding spending from the FBI, Homeland Security, interest on the national debt, etc., and is basically propaganda. Most of that stuff has very little to do with the military.

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...

I agree with most of that, especially with getting the heck out of Afghanistan and Libya. Where we've already done the nation building, such as Iraq, we ought at least get an ally out of it, but that's being bungled too.

My point isn't that we should keep only the quarter of the mlitary budget that involves paying soldiers; my point is that it wouldn't be difficult to find some substantial cuts in the rest of the military while still paying soldiers and still retaining the really essential stuff.

[Seth]

Only 20% say would like the issue to be resolved without any increase in revenue (and given the knee-jerk reaction people tend to have to the word "taxes", I think it's quite possible that 20% is a soft number), in stark contrast to pretty much everyone on the Republican side of Congress. So are you part of the 80% or the 20%?

See how easy it is to falsify the data to produce the result you want? You have falsely claimed that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase." This statement is NOT supported by the Gallup numbers. You are recasting the results, which were in response to the question "Ideally, how would you like to see Congress reduce the federal budget deficit?" The results do NOT indicate that people "want to see some level of revenue increase," as you claim, they indicate that most Americans favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the federal budget deficit. This is substantially different from your claim that "80% also want to see some level of revenue increase."

No, those two things are exactly the same. No substantial difference at all - assuming there must be some difference is just wishful thinking. All but 20% indicate a preference for seeing increased government revenue as part of a solution to close the deficit, and that means taxes. Of those, only 4% would like to see it done only through increased revenue, with no change or an increase to spending. IMO, I would call that leftist 4% unrealistic to the point of being stupid, and I'm sure you'd agree. As for the 20% that would like to see the deficit reduced only through spending cuts with no revenue growth (that means taxes), any sober look at the data would also have to call that unrealistic to the point of being stupid. But for purists on the far left and the far right, there's their beloved idealism and then there's real-world pragmatism, and ne'er the two shall meet.

So getting back to the point of this thread, what does that have to do with Obama? Well, he's the one who's actually been willing to compromise about this matter, whereas others have been the ones clinging to their purist idealism.

Compromise my ass. Obama's never compromised on anything, he's played games and lied through his teeth since the day he began running for President. We've had enough, and we want real spending cuts, permanent ones, and we're cutting off his credit card until he and the Democrats get with the program.

If HE causes a default by failing to allocate what money he has left properly by paying our debts first and prioritizing what's left, that'll bury his chances for reelection, and that's exactly what's got to happen, no matter what.

Moreover, his preferred plan for reducing the deficit comes down to more than a 4-1 ratio in terms of spending cuts over taxes. And yet it is the Republicans who have balked at this offer and been much more adamant about not compromising than Democrats, clinging to their ideology apparently without either the sense or the balls to raise taxes a single dime.

That's because of WHO the taxes are being levied on. Republicans will not allow Obama to burden the very people who are the ONLY hope of digging out of this recession with taxes that will be used to provide more entitlement spending, like Obamacare. It's fiscal insanity to tax the "wealthy" when they are the only people who can create the jobs and businesses that are needed to end the recession.

Obama and the Progressives want to destroy capitalism, and they are willing to destroy the US economy to accomplish it, and we're not going to let them do it. That's what the last election was about and we're standing firm that until there are massive spending cuts, no new taxes will be permitted, and when they are, they will be evenly distributed, not aimed at only one segment of the population out of Marxist zeal to destroy the bourgeoisie merchant class.

The party of Reagan is now being lead by a cadre of children, either unrealistic about their duty or else scared to death of what the far-right will think of them in the primaries and in the general election, or both.

As long as they hold firm and don't allow the deficit ceiling to be raised and don't allow any new taxes, I don't care who they are.

Forcing Obama to repeal Obamacare and make other substantial spending cuts FIRST is essential, because he's a pathological liar, like all Progressives, and is perfectly willing to make promises he intends to break as soon as he can, as he's been doing since he took office.

No more trust. Cut first, then we'll talk.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems like he's ditching his base:

He praised US forces for toppling the Taliban in weeks, driving Al-Qaeda from the terror camps where they plotted the September 11 attacks.

Sounds like he's in favor of that one. Afghanistan = justified war.

"When the decision was made to go into Iraq, our troops raced across deserts and removed a dictator in less than a month," Obama said, referring to a conflict which he vigorously opposed.

Sounds like a win.

"When insurgents, militias and terrorists plunged Iraq into chaos, our troops adapted, endured ferocious urban combat, reduced the violence and gave Iraqis a chance to forge their own future," he said.

Did I read that right? The surge worked?

The president also noted the surge strategy he ordered to revive the war effort in Afghanistan and the killing of Al-Qaeda's leader in one of the high points of his presidency.

"A few months ago, our troops achieved our greatest victory yet in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11 -- delivering justice to Osama bin Laden in one of the greatest intelligence and military operations in American history."

"Credit for these successes, this progress, belongs to all who have worn the uniform in these wars."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

And, he ordered the surge in afghanistan, increasing casualties, and broadening the war.

Good show on bin Laden. Hip hip ... and all that!

Sounds to me like Obama was giving a fine "attaboy" to the entire effort over the last 10 years.... how's that make all those on the left feel? Weird, eh?

[Robert_S]

I think he saw that the surge worked and decided to give it a try even though it might look ideologically incorrect. That's a promising sign.

He's also Commander in Chief so it's his job to say nice things about the military.

[Coito ergo sum]

"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.

[Ian]

Pathetic.

[Coito ergo sum]

"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew, uh, as a janitor makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that with a badge of honor. I have no problem with that." B. Obama.

Jew, janitor....what's the difference?

[Ian]

I prefer the occasional verbal flub during a public speech compared to the thoroughly inarticulate babble of our former President. Sheesh. The man spent eight years without saying the word "nuclear" correctly, and you're happy to jump on Obama for saying the word "intercontinental" instead of "transcontinental". The horror!

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, he didn't say nuclear "incorrectly." It's a dialect, and also very common in the military. Jimmy Carter, renowned as one of our genius Presidents, also pronounced it "nukular." It's a southern thing. Walter Mondale also used that pronunciation, as did Dwight Eisenhower and even Bill Clinton.

In fact, Bush's usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster's, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A 1961 Merriam-Webster's edition was the first to include "nucular"; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president." They even noted its prominence among "British and Canadian speakers."

http://www.slate.com/id/2071155/

Interesting how the only one of that group of prominent politicians to be lambasted for the usage was George Bush. Huh...

I'm not jumping on Obama nearly as hard as folks jump on any Republican candidate's gaffes. I'm just applying some consistency. If Palin says anything wrong, she's front page of every news website. If Obama says there are 57 states, it's "oh, well, it's an understandable slip..."

We had days of discussion over Palin screwing up the history of the Paul Revere's ride, and most of the people correcting her were just as mistaken with THEIR version of what happened. (and I fucking HATE Palin...)

[Warren Dew]

I prefer the occasional verbal flub during a public speech compared to the thoroughly inarticulate babble of our former President. Sheesh. The man spent eight years without saying the word "nuclear" correctly, and you're happy to jump on Obama for saying the word "intercontinental" instead of "transcontinental". The horror!

So correct pronunciation is more important than correct meaning?

That would explain a lot about why some people like Obama.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just look at it for 30 seconds, and then: Looks like someone in the White House press office needs to brush up on his or her U.S. geography.

Symbolic of the wheels coming off the bus over there at 1600 PA Ave...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe they just moved Denver?