Obama General Discussion II

[KhanadaRhodes]

oh my.

 

[yolland]

Andrew Sullivan, April 5

The president's walking away from the deficit commission he set up was, to my mind, one of those moments when his caution was not about the substance of the issue but the politics. He knows we need to cut entitlements and defense or face fiscal collapse. And yet he has allowed Paul Ryan to move into the vacuum Obama created on the most important domestic issue of the day.

Ryan's proposal, whatever you think of it, is serious. His proposal for Medicare looks to me like an extension of the Romney/Obama healthcare exchanges. His proposal for Medicaid--block grants to the states--will inevitably cut down on sky-rocketing healthcare spending. His tax reform is straight out of Bowles-Simpson. Alas, his op-ed is needlessly partisan in its initial lashing out at Obama. That's not the way to start a real dialogue, which is what we desperately need.

But the good news is that we finally have a political party being honest about what it takes to avoid falling off a fiscal cliff. It means sacrifice. And my objection to the Ryan plan really comes down to the injustice of imposing major sacrifices for the poor and elderly, while exempting the wealthy from any sacrifice at all. This is because of Ryan's and the GOP's intransigent, doctrinaire refusal to bring taxes back to their Clinton-era or Reagan-era levels, even as they have given themselves a great opportunity to raise revenues as painlessly as possible. All the GOP has to do is make tax reform revenue-positive rather than revenue-neutral. Income tax rates would come down--but not quite as low as they might have. The money left over could reduce the burden on the poor. If he advocated serious cuts in defense, rather than the minor measures backed by Gates, he'd be on much firmer ground as well.

But this is clearly an opening bid--and a powerful rebranding of the GOP, after the Bush years, as fiscally serious. As David Brooks wrote this morning, we shall soon see what Obama is made of by how he responds. We were told that Obama did not embrace long-term fiscal reform in his State of the Union this year because he needed political cover from the right. Well, he's got it now. Will he react by demagoguing the issue as the liberal blogosphere is doing--or by seeking a way to build on it, to trade cuts in Medicare and Medicaid for a revenue-positive tax reform and deeper defense cuts?

I don't accept the logic that this cannot be done in the year before a general election. The massive debt and deficits can be ducked no longer. While I'm sure there are many legitimate complaints about Ryan, in this proposal at least, he gets real points for seizing the initiative on honest debt-reduction, and pushing it forward as a principal issue for the elections in 2012. For the first time, the Tea Party seems genuine and serious in its fiscal goals. And the Democrats and Obama now have to offer a response. The question I'll be asking is quite simply: how would they save $5.8 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade? Tell us, please.

 

[Irvine511]

i, for one, see no reason on earth why we can't keep taxes low for the rich by eviscerating health care for our most vulnerable citizens.

i mean, honestly, who could object to such a thing?

 

[Canadiens1131]

i, for one, see no reason on earth why we can't keep taxes low for the rich by eviscerating health care for our most vulnerable citizens.

i mean, honestly, who could object to such a thing?

Don`t forget, as an American, YOU, yes YOU, have the change to become a wealthy person thanks to American Exceptionalism!!! YOU could be one of the top 5% of income earners!!!! IT`S THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!!!!!!!

 

[kramwest1]

Don`t forget, as an American, YOU, yes YOU, have the change to become a wealthy person thanks to American Exceptionalism!!! YOU could be one of the top 5% of income earners!!!! IT`S THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!!!!!!!

I like the new box you can check on our tax returns that lets you take your refund in Powerball tickets.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

So, it looks like there might be a government shutdown

 

[yolland]

The first headline I saw this morning was "Obama, GOP Try to Avoid Shutdown, Start to Point Fingers" which I at least got a bleak chuckle out of.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The military won't get paid, other people won't-but of course Congress and the President and VP would still get paid

 

[kramwest1]

The military won't get paid, other people won't-but of course Congress and the President and VP would still get paid

I love the Republican explanation I heard earlier, "Oh, the military will get back-pay once the budget is resolved and the government opens again."


Way to support the troops folks.

 

[BonosSaint]

Money or benefits was never the way the government supported the troops. It just says nice stuff about them.

 

[yolland]

On another note, Paul Ryan viscerally makes me want to hurl, which probably means he has a glorious political career ahead of him.

 

[Irvine511]

i think replacing a successful, single payer system like Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system, and then cutting the funding of those vouchers, is a great way to continue to cut taxes for the rich. it makes me very happy, as a young person, to pay for people born in the 1950s to have great health care and then not have the same system available when i am their age.

 

[deep]

with the left fired up in Wisconsin
the best they could do was 50/50

With 100% of vote counted, Kloppenburg clings to narrow lead; recount expected - JSOnline

I think 2012 will be very close for Obama, much like 2000 or 2004 where one or two states will determine the electoral college, I also think the GOP will win the Senate and hold the House.

I think the deficit spending and public pensions will be winning strategies for the GOP

I have friends, tenants and family members that work in the public sector

Private worker tax payers seem to have come together to go after the public worker pensions and benefits that they no longer enjoy.

 

[anitram]

with the left fired up in Wisconsin
the best they could do was 50/50

With 100% of vote counted, Kloppenburg clings to narrow lead; recount expected - JSOnline

That is quite a bit disingenuous from you given that in 2 months the "fired up" left erased a 30-point lead that Prosser enjoyed.

But I do agree that the election will be close. Though it feels like it is years away, and I certainly wouldn't feel confident making any predictions now.

Remember in 1995, the government shutdown and Newt being a total whining baby ended up reversing the polls and approval ratings for the GOP Congress and Clinton. And in very short order. I am not saying that will happen, but we just have no way of knowing what will transpire between now and November of 2012. Mostly on the House/Senate side - I just don't find there to be a single serious presidential candidate for the GOP so my feeling is they might simply be giving up on it until 2016. Plus, Obama is more useful to them in power than not.

 

[Irvine511]

Obama is more useful to them in power than not.

and he makes the Fox News punditocracy much more money than if there were a republican in power.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i think replacing a successful, single payer system like Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system, and then cutting the funding of those vouchers, is a great way to continue to cut taxes for the rich. it makes me very happy, as a young person, to pay for people born in the 1950s to have great health care and then not have the same system available when i am their age.

i hear you. i'm glad i'm paying for a filet mignon now and in 60 years (since who knows what the retirement age will get pushed up to by then) i can have a mcdonald's hamburger.

 

[Irvine511]

i hear you. i'm glad i'm paying for a filet mignon now and in 60 years (since who knows what the retirement age will get pushed up to by then) i can have a mcdonald's hamburger.

make your own damn hamburger. sheesh. always expecting others to pay for it.

 

[yolland]

27% of communication by members of Congress is taunting, professor concludes - Washington Post

I smirked, but there's something pathetic about that finding. A study of the records going all the way back to the Continental Congresses might well find delegates spent just as much time taunting each other back then, but when virtually everything is immediately tweeted and blogged and spun for the public, I have to imagine that only worsens the dynamic.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

make your own damn hamburger. sheesh. always expecting others to pay for it.

i know! i'm ashamed that i want the younger generation to make me a burger when i'm too old to do it for myself.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Washington (CNN) - Dogged by a 34 percent approval rating among independents in Florida, a new poll out Monday indicates President Barack Obama would have a tough time beating either Republicans Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in that crucial campaign state.

According to the new survey from Sachs/Mason Dixon, Obama trails both past and potential presidential 2012 candidates in head-to-head matchups in the Sunshine State, losing to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by a 48-43 percent margin and lagging behind Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, by a 49-44 percent spread.

Among all voters, Obama's approval rating in the Sunshine State stands at 43 percent, with 56 percent saying they are unhappy with his performance as commander-in-chief. That's consistent with a Quinnipiac University survey released last week that placed Obama's approval rating at 44 percent in the Sunshine state. The Quinnipiac survey also indicates that just over half of Florida voters don't think the president deserves re-election.

The new Florida poll may save its worst findings for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who loses to the president by a sizable 51-39 margin. That's a worse showing than business mogul Donald Trump, who lags 8 points behind Obama with a 48-40 percent spread.

In even worse news for Palin, the onetime GOP vice presidential nominee places sixth with only 5 percent of support among registered Republicans when it comes to the horserace for the GOP primary in Florida, behind Huckabee at 23 percent, Romney at 18 percent, Trump at 13 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 11 percent, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 8 percent.

The poll surveyed 800 registered Florida voters from April 4-7 and carries a sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. For the Republican primary breakdown, the poll surveyed 400 Republicans and carries a sampling error of 5 percentage points.

The survey comes as the Florida Republican Party is currently in a heated debate with other state parties over when it will hold its presidential primary. The state, per an official calendar adopted by the national party, had been slated to hold its nominating contest in March, behind the traditional first four – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

But Florida Republicans bucked that request earlier this year when it leapfrogged those states, saying they will conduct their primary on January 31, 2012, in direct violation of the calendar ratified last year by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, which carved out February for the official start of the nomination fight.

But amid heavy criticism from national Republicans and those of other primary states, Republican Party of Florida chairman Dave Bitner indicated last month he is open to moving the state's primary date back behind the traditional four.

Florida has famously see-sawed between the Democrats and Republicans in recent presidential elections: Obama carried the state by 3 percentage points in 2008 while former President George W. Bush won there by 5 points in 2004. And of course, Bush barely won the state in 2000 after a drawn-out recount.

 

[yolland]

There should probably be a separate thread for the budget issue, but I'll lazily stick this here for now.

A new report released today by SIPRI, a Swedish-based think tank, reveals that U.S. military spending has almost doubled since 2001. The U.S. spent an astounding $698 billion on the military last year, an 81% increase over the last decade.

U.S. spending on the military last year far exceeded any other country. We spent six times more than China—the second largest spender. Overall, the world expended $1.6 trillion on the military, with the United States accounting for the lion’s share. As a percentage of GDP, U.S. military spending has increased from 3.1% in 2001 to 4.8% last year.

The report notes that, “even in the face of efforts to bring down the soaring US budget deficit, military spending continues to receive privileged treatment.” Indeed, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and others on the right are passing legislation increasing defense spending.

 

[deep]

Be wary of the Industrial Military Complex.

 

[corianderstem]

*sigh*

But no, but no! We need to cut funding to Planned Parenthood! Morals are more important than money, and we'll hold the country hostage for it!

 

[deep]

Defense must not be cut, we should spend more.
Would you rather we were 10 per cent short of what we need and be taken over?

Besides most of the money we spend on defense comes from China.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm for increasing military spending if it means soldiers will get the proper equipment they need to do their jobs, and proper care they deserve when they've returned, particularly in the mental health area.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm for increasing military spending if it means soldiers will get the proper equipment they need to do their jobs, and proper care they deserve when they've returned, particularly in the mental health area.

are you kidding me? those brave soldiers didn't fight and get injured only to come home to the bitter, cold embrace of nanny-state socialism.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, you're right. Better to kill themselves than burden the system with their PTSD neediness.

 

[I Move in Mysterious Ways]

I'm for increasing military spending if it means soldiers will get the proper equipment they need to do their jobs, and proper care they deserve when they've returned, particularly in the mental health area.

I'm former military, and I have no problem with budget cuts if it means better fiscal responsibility. While I was on active duty for only four years, the impression I got was that the Army wasted a lot of money. A LOT of money. While some of the equipment we had was very effective and enhanced soldier safety, many of the expenditures felt like excess. Units could spend millions of dollars (literally) on equipment they rarely, if ever used - simply because they had the money at their disposal. It seemed like there were just too many "morale and welfare" programs as well, to the point of us being pampered with stuff we didn't really want or need.

I feel like it really comes down to tighter financial control - i.e. more responsible spending. There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed without devastating unit readiness or the health and safety of troops.

 

[corianderstem]

I can believe that!

 

[kramwest1]

Naturally, there would/could be waste in the military. But, I'd rather err on the side of waste and excess than that of scrimping and need.


I'm not convinced that the returning wounded are getting all of the care they need. Last I read, there still was an effort to minimize the percentage of disability a soldier has to keep costs down.