Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

SteveMax58 11-13-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2565796)
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss


Yep, definitely could be the case even if change happens on its own (which I don't think is a given at all).

Edward64 11-13-2011 10:06 PM

T-10.

No one is sounding confident. I can hear the tea party saying I told you so.

As Deadline Nears, Debt Reduction Panel Weighs Undoing Its Own Rules | Fox News
Quote:

With 10 days left until an automatic trigger for debt reduction, the Super Committee tasked with finding a plan to get rid of $1.2 trillion in impending debt over the next 10 years may have to punt.

Six Democrats and six Republicans appointed to the panel -- itself a source of contention among colleagues and transparency advocates -- have until Nov. 23 to find the balance that will get past Congress by Dec. 23 and onto President Obama's desk. Without a deal by Thanksgiving, automatic across-the-board cuts divided between defense and domestic programs, also known as "sequestration," kick in.

"I am not giving up on getting something done. I think we still can and I am going to do everything to achieve that," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., one of the Super Committee members.

"In the very unfortunate event that we don't, I think it is very likely Congress will reconsider configuration of that sequestration and consider if this is the best way to do it. I think it will be a lively debate that will occur and the nature of those cuts. If the cuts have to occur they might occur in a different fashion."

Toomey, a tax hawk who formerly ran the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, acknowledged that "the clock is running out."

"But it hasn't run out yet. We still have time, but we have no time to waste," Toomey told "Fox News Sunday."

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., also a member of the panel, said while he was hopeful for a deal, "I am not as certain as I was 10 days ago, but I think that we can."


panerd 11-14-2011 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2566196)
T-10.

No one is sounding confident. I can hear the tea party saying I told you so.

As Deadline Nears, Debt Reduction Panel Weighs Undoing Its Own Rules | Fox News


Of course not in 9 days they will claim its impossible and that if we don't reach some sort of "debt extension" and cancel the automatic across the board cuts then the world economy will collapse.

miked 11-14-2011 07:22 AM

I thought Obama was on record as saying he'll veto any attempted extension.

panerd 11-14-2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2565736)
I think the Repubs are making a gigantic mistake by attacking Obama's foreign policy. 2 reasons for that really...

1) There is no practical improvement with regards to Iran that isn't already being done or tried. ..whether that be covertly (i.e. virus in the nuclear labs cooperating with Israel) or in the public (i.e. economic sanctions & isolation). Perhaps some small technocratic improvements in existing sanctions but certainly none of the Repubs can possibly sell us on uniting a coalition better than Obama to do that...can they?

You can ratchet up the rhetoric if that makes you feel better about the situation but that will only serve to fuel escalation to a point where neither side can back down gracefully when it comes to actual combat.


2) Following on (1)...the American public (imho) is not even remotely interested in combat with Iran. They are much more interested in hearing about how they (and their neighbors) will get back to work. So do what you must as President...but don't try to sell the public on a new war, or the same old rhetoric. It's just not that critical to most people. And of course, how do you answer the question of "funding a new liberation war" without raising taxes on the wealthy. No good can come of this political strategy at all, imo.

Not to mention...I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere. Certainly there was an initial wave crushed already, but that doesn't mean we won't see people rise up again. It will need a stable & democratic Iraq, same in Libya, same in Egypt...but there is at least a chance it can happen gracefully with influence rather than force. You couldn't say the same thing 10+ years ago with any sort of confidence, but I think you can now.


They did give Ron Paul a whole 90 seconds during the first hour of the debate to present an alternate viewpoint. At least Obama can now be the hero and oppose these crazy republicans and their war mongering!

Obama criticizes GOP over Iran, torture

If only a Republican candidate had these viewpoints!

panerd 11-14-2011 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2566276)
I thought Obama was on record as saying he'll veto any attempted extension.


Obama is on the record saying a lot of things but what if the world economy is on the brink of collapse!!! (Sarcasm intended)

Edward64 11-14-2011 09:15 AM

Woo hoo. Lets get this thing out of the way or tossed once and for all (I hope).

Supreme Court will hear health care case this term - Yahoo!
Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.

The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.

Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.

PurdueBrad 11-14-2011 10:21 AM

From a PR standpoint, I think the Supreme Court decision could be a nightmare either way for Obama.

Assuming they follow tradition, the decision would be announced a couple months prior to the election.

IF health care is upheld then I think Republicans flock to the polls trying to get someone in there to change/undo things.

IF health care is found unConstitutional then I think Republicans are buoyed by this and Obama ends up undermined.

The timing of this, at least in my opinion, couldn't be worse for Obama.

larrymcg421 11-14-2011 10:32 AM

I disagree. If the law is upheld by the majority conservative Supreme Court, that'll be a great talking point for him. The conservatives that are motivated by that would mostly be motivated anyways.

lcjjdnh 11-14-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad (Post 2566385)
From a PR standpoint, I think the Supreme Court decision could be a nightmare either way for Obama.

Assuming they follow tradition, the decision would be announced a couple months prior to the election.

IF health care is upheld then I think Republicans flock to the polls trying to get someone in there to change/undo things.

IF health care is found unConstitutional then I think Republicans are buoyed by this and Obama ends up undermined.

The timing of this, at least in my opinion, couldn't be worse for Obama.


I really doubt the Obama administration is worried about that. The Justice Department pushed for SCOTUS to hear the case before the election.

Edward64 11-14-2011 04:25 PM

Interesting polls if valid.

Obama Administration Eager for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Health Care Law - Fox News
Quote:

The Obama White House is confident its sweeping, controversial health care law will pass the highest legal test in the United States, officials said Monday.

"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement after the Supreme Court announced it would consider challenges to President Obama's ‘Affordable Care Act.'

The White House, Congressional leaders and the ACA's opponents have engaged in political and legal battles over the law from the outset of its passage.

One of the main sticking points has been the individual coverage mandate, which states that every American must have health insurance. Ohio voters recently rejected the idea, passing a ballot measure by a vote of 66% to 34%, which amends the state's Constitution to bar laws requiring a person to purchase health insurance.

Monday, administration officials cited a CNN poll showing Americans are coming around on the idea of a mandate.

"According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June," White House Spokesman Nick Papas, said. "The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54%in early summer."

The president and his staff have repeatedly expressed confidence that the law will pass the necessary legal tests, allowing it to be fully implemented. There have been many challenges, with mixed results.

The administration is now looking to the Supreme Court for the final word.

"Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider legal challenges to the health reform law and we are pleased the Court has agreed to hear this case," Pfeiffer said. "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses."


sterlingice 11-14-2011 04:39 PM

I can't see where those poll numbers come from. Sounds more like statistical noise

SI

flounder 11-15-2011 04:13 PM

Senator Coburn's report on federal subsidies given to millionaires just came out. I haven't read it all the way through, but here's the key paragraph from the summary.

Quote:

These billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316 million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over $9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Millionaires also borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college.

On average, each year, this report found that millionaires enjoy benefits from tax giveaways and federal grant programs totaling $30 billion. As a result, almost 1,500 millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009

panerd 11-15-2011 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2567405)
Senator Coburn's report on federal subsidies given to millionaires just came out. I haven't read it all the way through, but here's the key paragraph from the summary.


I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.

sterlingice 11-15-2011 07:13 PM

Of course you do, panerd

Wait? Is that crazy Tom Coburn? Not the first Senator I had pictured making something like this. That's interesting

SI

DaddyTorgo 11-15-2011 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567423)
I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.


So because a small number of people who don't need to benefit from a program (note I'm not judging whether or not they should be able to benefit from it, just saying that they don't NEED to) do benefit, we should abolish the programs that benefit millions who actually need them instead of addressing the problems?

That's just lazy panerd.

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567423)
I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.


Given it's Tom Coburn, I'm guessing he doesn't.

Also, that's an awesome photoshop on the first page. And who are the 18 people that made $10M+ in 2009 yet still decided to collect unemployment benefits?

lungs 11-15-2011 07:21 PM

What is considered a millionaire.... net worth? income? or something else?

sterlingice 11-15-2011 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567495)
And who are the 18 people that made $10M+ in 2009 yet still decided to collect unemployment benefits?


I guess it's possible we have some sort of "I was unemployed to start the year and then created a $10M company overnight" story but I'm a bit skeptical. If not, can we just improve society by shooting them into the sun?

SI

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2567496)
What is considered a millionaire.... net worth? income? or something else?


In this particular report it it looks as though it's defined as income throughout. In some cases it says that explicitly, in others it doesn't, but because they got the data from the IRS, it's safe to assume that's the case.

panerd 11-15-2011 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2567494)
So because a small number of people who don't need to benefit from a program (note I'm not judging whether or not they should be able to benefit from it, just saying that they don't NEED to) do benefit, we should abolish the programs that benefit millions who actually need them instead of addressing the problems?

That's just lazy panerd.


More oversight and more government regulators will solve this problem!

Lazy is not realizing these monsterous programs lead to widespread fraud.

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567538)
More oversight and more government regulators will solve this problem!

Lazy is not realizing these monsterous programs lead to widespread fraud.


Should the government not build roads because people might drink and drive?

panerd 11-15-2011 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567548)
Should the government not build roads because people might drink and drive?


Not the roads thing... how about a comparison to the Nazi's also?

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2567553)
Not the roads thing... how about a comparison to the Nazi's also?


If you had a more nuanced argument, perhaps I could engage in a more substantive debate. But since your argument against government programs seems to lack any real analysis aside from the fact that if you increase government welfare programs fraud will go up, I'm not sure what other arguments to present beyond the most basic ones. Is your argument that fraud exponentially once the size of government programs increase? Is your argument merely that you accept only a certain absolute level of fraud regardless of what additional benefit it might add?

I'm also curious why government "fraud" is so offensive to you. Sure, some of your tax dollars might be wasted. But additional roads also encourage more driving--imposing the costs of accidents and pollution. Are those not equally offensive? Or are you willing to admit we need to consider the cost and benefits of any government action. And if that's the case, what's the cost-benefit analysis you're proposing for limiting government benefits programs?

Edward64 11-15-2011 09:26 PM

Somemore interesting polls. The race angle shouldn't be a surprise I guess.

CNN Poll: Obama ranks low among recent incumbents – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Quote:

President Barack Obama's overall approval rating remains in the mid-40s, where it has been since July, and he continues to receive much higher marks for foreign policy than for domestic issues, according to a new national survey out one year before he is up for re-election.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday indicates that 52% of all Americans approve of how the president is handling the situation in Iraq, an indication that Americans tend to favor Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from that country by year's end. Forty-eight percent of those questioned approve of how he is handling the war in Afghanistan. By contrast, only 35% have a positive view of his economic track record, and just 38% approve of how he is handling health care policy.

It all adds up to an overall 46% approval rating for the president, with 52% saying they disapprove of how Obama is handling his job in the White House.
:
:
The poll indicates that the standard partisan divide over the president remains, with three-quarters of Democrats giving Obama a thumbs up but only 15% of Republicans approving of the job he's doing in office. By a 54%-42% margin, independent voters disapprove of how the president's handling his duties.

Women are divided on how Obama's performing, but men disapprove by a 55%-43% margin. White Americans give Obama a thumbs down by a 61%-36% margin, with non-white Americans give the president a thumbs up by a more than 2-1 margin


molson 11-15-2011 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567559)
If you had a more nuanced argument, perhaps I could engage in a more substantive debate.


Your argument is that if you're in favor of roads, it's inconsistent to be against anything else government does. You can't get any less nuanced than that.

Edit: I'm going to go out there and proclaim that I am PRO-road. In fact, in some states especially, government needs to be way, way, more involved in infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2567565)
Your argument is that if you're in favor of roads, it's inconsistent to be against anything else government does. You can't get any less nuanced than that.


Did you read the rest of my post? That's clearly not my position. My point was merely that an argument that states only the most obvious point--if you increase a government program, you will increase some other bad thing--tells us absolutely nothing about why that's unacceptable.

molson 11-15-2011 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2567566)
Did you read the rest of my post? That's clearly not my position. My point was merely that an argument that states only the most obvious point--if you increase a government program, you will increase some other bad thing--tells us absolutely nothing about why that's unacceptable.


Can't one believe that some government actions have a greater risk of harm than others?

lcjjdnh 11-15-2011 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2567568)
Can't one believe that some government actions have a greater risk of harm than others?


Sure, you can--that's exactly what I said my post. If that's his point, he can can explain why he believes that's the case in this particular instance and perhaps lead to a discussion about whether that's true.

You're a lawyer, so presumably, drawing analogies and making distinctions is basic piece of your analytical toolkit. I'm not demanding he can't hold these two positions, I'm just asking him to articulate why he distinguishes some government programs from others. And to the extent he believes any government benefits programs are OK, what principles should we use in deciding which ones to allow. Logically, the more government benefits are going to create more fraud, but I don't know if his problem if the absolute level of fraud (which seems sort of silly if it's providing a requisite benefit) or an increase in rate of fraud per dollar spent or something else.

RainMaker 11-15-2011 11:44 PM

I think this was a great piece by Mark Cuban. Also thought he was fantastic on CNBC the other day shredding the "tax us more and we won't hire" crowd and how stupid that argument is.

My Views on Corporations & Taxes « blog maverick

Edward64 11-18-2011 03:43 PM

T-5

Debt committee: 11th-hour cheat sheet - Nov. 18, 2011
Quote:

At T-minus five days to Wednesday's deadline, the chance that the committee will reach a "grand bargain" appears to be on life support, and the priest is on his way to deliver last rites.

Instead, the parties, if they can strike a deal at all, are more likely to produce a plan that cuts deficits by $1.2 trillion or less. The plan would likely include a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases.

If they manage to seal a deal on $1.2 trillion, that would stave off what some call "devastating" automatic spending cuts to defense and nondefense spending in 2013.

But if all they do is $1.2 trillion, that means U.S. debt would continue to grow faster than the economy. And lawmakers will get to have this painful debate over and over until they get it right.


JPhillips 11-18-2011 06:27 PM

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.


Edward64 11-20-2011 02:56 PM

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com
Quote:

Members of the "super committee" charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are focused on how to announce failure to reach a deal, Democratic and Republican aides confirmed to CNN Sunday.

While aides said no final decision had been made, they acknowledged that -- barring an unforeseen development -- an announcement of an end to negotiations is the most likely scenario.

Talks on trying to reach a deficit reduction agreement are essentially over and discussions are focused on a Monday announcement, a senior Democratic aide said.


Mizzou B-ball fan 11-20-2011 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)
T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com


It's more of the same. Most would have been surprised if a deal was actually reached. That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

JPhillips 11-20-2011 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)
T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com


Doing anything the super committee could complete is a waste. Just let the spending cuts trigger and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and we'll be in far better shape than any compromise.

miked 11-20-2011 08:29 PM

I don't understand...the dems still control the senate, so what's preventing them from just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You would think they would have some leverage as the tax cuts can't increase without their votes...

panerd 11-21-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2570167)
T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com


Why come to a compromise though when you can do nothing? I am sure this will end up being a D vs R reason or because they want to avoid "economic collapse". At least more people seem to see through this bullshit this time around. (I also credit Obama if he follows through and doesn't allow them to play this game)

Congress may try blocking cuts if debt panel fails - Yahoo! News

flounder 11-21-2011 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2569231)
What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.



It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

JPhillips 11-21-2011 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2570742)
It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.


Sure, but it's all the things they'll do that will increase the deficit. There's no reason to panic if they do nothing.

gstelmack 11-21-2011 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder (Post 2570742)
It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.


Are there spending measures that would expire as well? If the answer is "do nothing", then wouldn't the extra war spending go away, the extensions to unemployment, and the like? No COLA increases for federal wages or social security? No pay raises for Congress? Etc?

flounder 11-21-2011 01:28 PM

I'm pretty sure all of that is included in the CBO numbers that graph is based on. Note that even with the sequestration cuts, total federal spending will still increase, just not by as large an amount. I assume that "doing nothing" means leaving already budgeted increases in place.

ISiddiqui 11-21-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2570203)
That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.


One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

DaddyTorgo 11-21-2011 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2570802)
One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.


The triggers will get rolled back though. They're toothless.

JPhillips 11-21-2011 04:02 PM

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

panerd 11-21-2011 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2570855)
Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!


I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

Edward64 11-21-2011 04:53 PM

T-2 ... it's official now. The post mortem analysis should be fun.

'Super committee' fails to reach agreement - CNN.com
Quote:

Facing harsh reaction from financial markets and a frustrated public, the congressional "super committee" negotiating a possible deficit reduction agreement announced Monday it has failed to reach a deal.

A statement from the panel's co-chairs said that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."

Despite their failure, the committee's co-chairs said "we remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee's work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy."

President Barack Obama scheduled a 5:45 p.m. statement. Other reaction arrived swiftly.

Markets dropped as news spread of the panel's expected failure. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 248 points Monday, with a minor recovery after being down more than 300 points earlier in the afternoon.

Initial reaction had Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for the inability of the bipartisan committee to negotiate at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures.


JediKooter 11-21-2011 05:16 PM

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

Dutch 11-21-2011 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2570868)
I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program?


What a great question, actually.

sterlingice 11-21-2011 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2570890)
Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.


"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

JPhillips 11-21-2011 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2570868)
I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.


I don't like a flat 10% cut. There are areas, say food inspectors for one, that are already severely understaffed.

Of course a 10% cut to discretionary spending won't do much anyway. Defense and healthcare are the problems going forward. Without plans to deal with those anything else is purely window dressing.

stevew 11-21-2011 09:22 PM

This idea of cutting the military by a ton is a good thing. I have a feeling these 10% cuts will primarily come from salary and other things that affect the "little guys". The large scale defense contractors are protected I bet

RainMaker 11-21-2011 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2570868)
I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.


Not all Federal programs are alike. Some have been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years since they don't have the lobbying interests to support them.

Julio Riddols 11-21-2011 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2570914)
"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI


The only way Flair would win is if he snuck in some brass knucks in his tights. He'd have to get his ass beat for about 20 minutes first though, then he would lay em all out and figure four their asses one by one while they all rolled around pretending they were exhausted all of a sudden.

SirFozzie 11-21-2011 10:31 PM

Come on.. these are senators we're talking about. THey'd be sucking wind after two minutes. But that's ok, cuz Flair's the sixty minute man.... WHOOO!

stevew 11-21-2011 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2570914)
"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI


This is even funnier if you didn't read the Grantland piece from a few months ago detailing Flair's financial problems with people and paying taxes.

sterlingice 11-22-2011 05:29 AM

I was trying to go with a wrestler about the age of most Senators ;)

And, no, didn't know he had financial issues so that does make it even funnier :D

SI

flounder 11-22-2011 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2570960)
Not all Federal programs are alike. Some have been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years since they don't have the lobbying interests to support them.


Can you give an example of a program that has been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years?

JPhillips 11-22-2011 06:23 AM

I'll go with the aforementioned food inspectors. I don't know if there have been cuts, but they certainly haven't grown at the rate food producers have over the past three decades.

panerd 11-22-2011 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2571057)
I'll go with the aforementioned food inspectors. I don't know if there have been cuts, but they certainly haven't grown at the rate food producers have over the past three decades.


Officer I was only going 80, at least I wasn't going 100!

Edward64 11-22-2011 08:28 AM

I'm good with this. Haven't seen any polls yet but suspect Obama comes out of this looking better than Congress.

Obama To Veto Any Attempt To Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability To Reach Debt Deal | Fox News
Quote:

President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span.

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference where he laid blame squarely on Republicans who refused to bend in their defense of tax cuts for the wealthy during debt talks. “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure.”

He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.” He included the roughly $1 trillion in cuts approved in August.

"The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion," he said. "They've still got a year to figure it out."

These automatic spending cuts are designed to fall evenly on the military and domestic government programs beginning in 2013.

gstelmack 11-22-2011 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by article
He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.”


I love these commitments. He may only be in office for another year or so, but by golly he can promise what's going to happen 10 years from now. Presidents love to pull this garbage, from both sides of the aisle.

molson 11-22-2011 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2571089)
I love these commitments. He may only be in office for another year or so, but by golly he can promise what's going to happen 10 years from now. Presidents love to pull this garbage, from both sides of the aisle.


You just have to translate his "promises" into "vague statements of preference that will happen if there is zero opposition from anyone." The latter phrasing is more honest, but not very useful in a campaign.

JediKooter 11-22-2011 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2570914)
"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI


If it comes down to the last two standing are Ric Flair and Roddy Piper...oh man! I'd pay to see that.

Mizzou B-ball fan 11-22-2011 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2571091)
You just have to translate his "promises" into "vague statements of preference that will happen if there is zero opposition from anyone." The latter phrasing is more honest, but not very useful in a campaign.


Yeah, that's pretty accurate. He's honestly taking the easier of two roads by not vetoing. If he vetoes, he'd look silly.

panerd 11-22-2011 11:28 AM

My favorite Presidential montage was on the Daily Show where they showed every President since Nixon promising to get off foreign oil in the next 10 years. (The perfect number to not happen at any time during their presidency) Its hilarious watching Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, W Bush, and Obama all make almost the exact same empty promise.

Edward64 11-22-2011 08:17 PM

Possibly too good to be true but interesting read.

Al-Qaeda targets dwindle as group shrinks - The Washington Post
Quote:

The leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network, once expansive enough to supervise the plot for Sept. 11, 2001, have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.

Aymen al-Zawahiri and his second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, are the last remaining “high-value” targets of the CIA’s drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, U.S. officials said, although lower-level fighters and other insurgent groups remain a focus of Predator surveillance and strikes.

Al-Qaeda’s contraction comes amid indications that the group has considered relocating in recent years but that it ruled out other destinations as either unreachable or offering no greater security than their missile-pocked territory in Pakistan, U.S. officials said.

Quote:

Still, U.S. officials who described al-Qaeda as being on the verge of defeat after Osama bin Laden’s was killed said they have been surprised by the pace and extent of the group’s contraction in the six months since then.

“We have rendered the organization that brought us 9/11 operationally ineffective,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said. Asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: “Not very much. Not any of the world-class terrorists they once had.”


Edward64 11-23-2011 05:00 PM

Some fact checking on the GOP candidates/accusations on Obama.

NBC Politics - FACT CHECK: Hyperbole on terror interrogations
Quote:

Michele Bachmann did not intend to be taken literally when she told the Republican presidential debate Tuesday that civil-liberties activists have taken over the interrogation of terrorists from the CIA. But even as a rhetorical point, it didn't hold water.

Her hyperbole on the American Civil Liberties Union was one of the more notable stretches in the national security and foreign policy debate. A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts:


Dutch 11-23-2011 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2571650)
Some fact checking on the GOP candidates/accusations on Obama.

NBC Politics - FACT CHECK: Hyperbole on terror interrogations


Right, if I'm running for President, I don't try and convince anybody that Obama isn't willing to kick some foreign ass for the safety of our country.

SirFozzie 11-23-2011 06:45 PM

Because all he has to do is point at Bin Laden and the other members of Al-Qeda killed and you look like an idiot. Not that it's unusual for Bachmann to look like one, mind you!

Dutch 11-23-2011 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2571682)
Because all he has to do is point at Bin Laden and the other members of Al-Qeda killed and you look like an idiot. Not that it's unusual for Bachmann to look like one, mind you!


Not to mention his successful continuation of our nation building efforts in Iraq, his strong determination to keep Gitmo open and away from here, and the continuation of the Patriot Act. He's done much better than expected. I've no idea what she's talking about.

Edward64 11-24-2011 06:28 AM

This came out of the blue for me. Didn't know we were still working on star wars missile defense - not sure if ground, satellite or combo. I remember reading about alot of failures in the 90's ... hopefully its more robust now.

Medvedev: Russia may target US missile shield - World news - Europe - msnbc.com
Quote:

MOSCOW — Russia's president threatened on Wednesday to deploy missiles to target the U.S. missile shield in Europe if Washington fails to assuage Moscow's concerns about its plans, a harsh warning that reflected deep cracks in U.S.-Russian ties despite President Barack Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with the Kremlin.

Dmitry Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal with the U.S. on missile defense, but he strongly accused Washington and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries. He said that Russia will have to take military countermeasures if the U.S. continues to build the shield without legal guarantees that it will not be aimed against Russia.

The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, and it did that again Wednesday.

"I do think it's worth reiterating that the European missile defense system that we've been working very hard on with our allies and with Russia over the last few years is not aimed at Russia," said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. "It is ... designed to help deter and defeat the ballistic missile threat to Europe and to our allies from Iran."


Edward64 11-24-2011 06:33 AM

Government website on missile defense. No lasers used that I saw, too bad.

The Ballistic Missile Defense System

Edward64 11-28-2011 09:19 PM

This is the most interesting GOP primary I can recall.

Georgia Woman Claims 13-Year Affair With Cain, As Candidate Denies Latest Allegations | Fox News
Quote:

A new woman has come forward with allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, this time claiming the two had a 13-year extramarital affair, but Cain and his advisers deny the claims, just as they have denied the sexual harassment claims that have set back his campaign.

Cain, in an apparent effort to get ahead of the story, appeared Monday afternoon in a cable news interview before the Georgia woman's story aired and said she is "someone who I know, who is an acquaintance, who I thought was a friend," though he denied an affair.

Edward64 12-12-2011 10:56 PM

I think we can quibble on whether all combat troops are out of Iraq but I think Obama has fufilled his promise. Only time will tell if Iraq was worth the price.

Obama and Iraq Leader, Maliki, Mark Shift to Postwar Ties - NYTimes.com
Quote:

In a few weeks, the American military force that invaded almost nine years ago, and still numbered 150,000 when the president took office, will have shriveled to a vestigial presence of military liaison officers and embassy guards. Mr. Obama acknowledged that the embassy in Baghdad would maintain a larger-than-normal security force — a decision that has aroused criticism among some Iraqis. He said that measure was necessary to protect diplomats or American civilians working in the oil sector who might be targeted by militant groups.

Edward64 12-21-2011 07:30 AM

Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).

I did not see any opinions from the GOP candidates.

Obama, Boehner square off in payroll tax fight - CNN.com
Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- The congressional impasse over extending the payroll tax cut became a showdown Tuesday between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

After the Republican-controlled House passed a measure calling for more negotiations, Boehner made public a letter to Obama that urged him to order the Senate back from its holiday break to take part in further talks.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate reject that idea, and Obama agreed with them, telling reporters in a previously unscheduled appearance that the House must approve a two-month extension passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate.

"The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1," Obama said. "It's the only one."

The House motion, passed Tuesday with no Democratic support on a 229-193 vote, expressed the chamber's disagreement with the Senate plan and called for the dispute to be immediately taken up by a House-Senate conference committee -- something already ruled out by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

However, Boehner and the Republican leadership prevented a direct vote on the Senate's two-month extension, signaling they may lack enough GOP support to defeat it in the face of unrelenting pressure from the White House, Democrats and some Senate Republicans.

Instead, the House approved a separate resolution supporting a yearlong extension of both the payroll tax cut and emergency federal unemployment benefits. House Republicans are also pushing for a new, two-year "doc fix," or delay in significant scheduled pay cuts to Medicare physicians.

All three measures are set to expire December 31.

Meanwhile, House members headed out of town for their holiday break after legislative business ended Tuesday.


Marc Vaughan 12-21-2011 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2585488)
Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).


I think its more about trying to screw up the economy before the elections tbh than any 'standing behind their beliefs' .... the more they can mess things up before the election the better their chance of getting into power, at the moment things are starting to look like they're improving so expect spanners to be thrown at the works as often as possible imho ...

Dutch 12-21-2011 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2585509)
I think its more about trying to screw up the economy before the elections tbh than any 'standing behind their beliefs' .... the more they can mess things up before the election the better their chance of getting into power, at the moment things are starting to look like they're improving so expect spanners to be thrown at the works as often as possible imho ...


If that's the case, the Republican Party should be banned.

miked 12-21-2011 10:19 AM

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them. I agree with Boehner that it sucks to pass a 2-month bill to just start the same negotiations. I don't agree with a 1% surcharge on rich people, but I don't think the Republican party is offering anything on their side to cut (defense, etc), rather just expecting the removal of regulations to somehow spur the economy and equal more revenue.

But it's a stupid game of chicken because the R's think Obama has more to lose in an election year.

Dutch 12-21-2011 10:41 AM

Quote:

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them.

There are legal ways to do this though. That's my point. If they are actively trying to tank the economy, they should be banned as a party.

JPhillips 12-21-2011 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2585634)
I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them. I agree with Boehner that it sucks to pass a 2-month bill to just start the same negotiations. I don't agree with a 1% surcharge on rich people, but I don't think the Republican party is offering anything on their side to cut (defense, etc), rather just expecting the removal of regulations to somehow spur the economy and equal more revenue.

But it's a stupid game of chicken because the R's think Obama has more to lose in an election year.


It's a two month extension because the GOP won't agree to a year extension. The Dems would take a clean year extension if they could get it, but the GOP will only go for a year if a bunch of non-related riders are included.

Of course I don't believe the House freshmen would even agree to that. Obama is for it, so they have to b against it. It would be interesting to see Obama embrace a Tea Party platform just so the freshmen could abandon it entirely.

Edward64 12-22-2011 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2585488)
Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).

I did not see any opinions from the GOP candidates.

Obama, Boehner square off in payroll tax fight - CNN.com


Well, Boehner blinked.

I was watching Fox News yesterday and they were telling saying for Boehner to move on.

Buccaneer 12-22-2011 10:47 PM

Glad to see so many saying that tax cuts are good for the economy.

RainMaker 12-22-2011 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2585571)
If that's the case, the Republican Party should be banned.

Can't ban a party if people want it around and agree with their tactics.

RainMaker 12-22-2011 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2586385)
Glad to see so many saying that tax cuts are good for the economy.

It's more people saying lets throw more on the credit card and let our kids figure out how to pay this off.

Jobs are what should be the focal point right now, not these little tax cuts.

sterlingice 12-23-2011 05:42 AM

Yeah, the payroll tax cut is a joke. In the long run, it's just starving Social Security all so everyone can have an election year bribe.

SI

cartman 12-23-2011 10:33 AM

Here's a couple of quotes from Boehner yesterday:

"You know, sometimes, it’s hard to do the right thing. And sometimes it’s politically difficult to do the right thing."

"If you can get this fixed, why not uh, why not do the right thing for the American people - even though it’s not exactly what we want?"

larrymcg421 12-23-2011 10:54 AM

I like the payroll tax cut because it is targeted at people under the $100,000 level and a large majority of that money is more likely to go back into the economy than with something like the Bush tax cuts. I think taking that 2% of purchasing power out of the economy just as it is starting to recover would be a horrible and devastating mistake.

SteveMax58 12-23-2011 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2586492)
I like the payroll tax cut because it is targeted at people under the $100,000 level and a large majority of that money is more likely to go back into the economy than with something like the Bush tax cuts. I think taking that 2% of purchasing power out of the economy just as it is starting to recover would be a horrible and devastating mistake.


I actually agree but this is just another example of how both parties deflect real problems in exchange for the focus to be on this little problem.

Lets not talk about corporate welfare, entitlement reform, or tax cuts for the rich...lets talk about payroll taxes so we can play this game instead of the game that would have real substance and require tangible output.

Raiders Army 12-24-2011 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2586492)
I like the payroll tax cut because it is targeted at people under the $100,000 level and a large majority of that money is more likely to go back into the economy than with something like the Bush tax cuts. I think taking that 2% of purchasing power out of the economy just as it is starting to recover would be a horrible and devastating mistake.


Actually the CBO disagrees with you. The money is more likely to be saved than be put back into the economy.

JPhillips 12-25-2011 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders Army (Post 2587041)
Actually the CBO disagrees with you. The money is more likely to be saved than be put back into the economy.


I thought that was true if the tax cut came as a rebate, but not true if the cut gets spread out over the year in small amounts.

Edward64 12-27-2011 09:39 PM

Obama on the rebound. I think we all knew it would tighten up some.

Quote:

President Obama has enjoyed a rebound in popularity, putting him in a stronger position to defend his presidency in next year's election campaign.

Of course, there's a long way to go between now and a 2012 vote that's still more than 10 months away.

But for Mr. Obama, the important thing for now is that his job approval ratings are moving generally up rather than down, despite attacks by Republican rivals and a still-weak economy.

The latest sign: Gallup polling shows the president garnering 46 percent approval from American adults, the highest level since July and a big run-up after starting the month of December at 41 percent.

Various polls of Obama's job approval, averaged by the website RealClearPolitics, show the same recovery over the past month.

Why the reversal of fortunes, after a summer downdraft in public support?

One big factor is that presidential ratings can be, in part, a mirror of how people feel about the economy and their own prospects. And on that front, the consumer outlook is that the economy is weak but improving.

On Tuesday, a widely watched index of consumer confidence, released by the Conference Board in New York, rose for December to 64.5, up from 55.2 a month earlier. (A reading of 100 on the index would equal the optimism seen in 1985.)

"After two months of considerable gains, the Consumer Confidence Index is now back to levels seen last spring," said Lynn Franco, director of research at the Conference Board. "It is too soon to tell if this is a rebound from earlier declines or a sustainable shift in attitudes."

The revival of consumer confidence, in turn, has come as the job market has shown signs of progress, the stock market stabilized, and European nations have made progress toward quieting a financial crisis.

Another reason the Obama brand name has gained ground, political analysts say, is the partisan fight over renewing a payroll tax cut for US workers. Amid a partisan stand-off, the president appears to have successfully cast himself as standing for middle-class interests.


Edward64 12-28-2011 08:03 PM

Haven't thought much about it but my first impression is this will be a good combination assuming Biden steps away gracefully.

ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket
Quote:

My political prediction for 2012 (based on absolutely no inside information): Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State — a position he’s apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.

So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Moreover, the economy won’t be in superb shape in the months leading up to Election Day. Indeed, if the European debt crisis grows worse and if China’s economy continues to slow, there’s a better than even chance we’ll be back in a recession. Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven’t had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.

According to the latest Gallup poll, the duo are this year’s most admired man and woman This marks the fourth consecutive win for Obama while Clinton has been the most admired woman in each of the last 10 years. She’a topped the list 16 times since 1993, exceeding the record held by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who topped the list 13 times.

Obama-Clinton in 2012. It’s a natural.

rowech 12-28-2011 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2588096)
Haven't thought much about it but my first impression is this will be a good combination assuming Biden steps away gracefully.

ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket


Might be better to switch the order of the two.

SportsDino 12-28-2011 09:40 PM

The CBO historically would call a payroll tax cut to boost consumer spending... also the definition of 'save' is a bit complex, it more often means paying down debt than stuffing pennies in the piggy bank. Debt reduction, while maybe not preferred by our finance overlords, will lead to increased consumer spending in the future as dollars spent on interest are instead available for goods and confidence to perform that spending increases as debt burden is perceived smaller.

I wouldn't put it past the CBO to tweak their current song and dance in order to push a limited tax cut pie to some other pet projects over payroll tax cuts, such as employer payroll subsidies of various forms, or other arguments that rich people need those cuts so much more than everyone else. Compare CBO circa 2000 to now (or even earlier, although the explosion of internet archives makes document mining so much easier over the last decade) and you can see how their opinions show a bias to the mood of the times.

Statistically the payroll tax cut is better than most other tax cuts on the table for boosting consumer spending and the average American's pocket book. Considering the amount of capital sitting around and low interest rates the many other giveaways... er tax cuts that target the rich would have little stimulus effects. If low rates, relatively low taxes, and abundant capital are not enough to stimulate investment... even more tax freebies will not do much more.

Given the current economic situation, anything that boosts consumer confidence is good for rich people's stock portfolios, so if they gave up the class warfare and trying to maximize their cut of the pie... maybe the pie they are eating will be a bit larger and sweeter rather than a glorified shit sandwich a second recession would bring us. Let the poor shlubs have an extra 500-2000 this year, they will spend it on iPads and my Apple stock will continue to be highly priced. Win win for all of us.

Edward64 12-31-2011 07:38 AM

Interesting the only 2012 must do is extending the payroll tax cut and not including finding the budget cuts before the automatic across the board sequester to trim the $1T+ over 10 years.

There's going to be so much partisan "messaging" in 2012.

Obama’s 2012 political strategy: Keep attacking unpopular Congress - The Washington Post
Quote:

After taking his lumps during the summer’s bitter debt-ceiling debacle, Obama switched tactics, eschewing an “inside game,” based on direct negotiations with Capitol Hill Republicans, for an “outside game,” focused on harnessing public opinion. It culminated two weeks ago when House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) gave in under enormous public pressure and agreed to an Obama-backed, two-month extension of the payroll tax cut.

Administration aides believe Obama emerged from the showdown with public consensus that he, not Congress, is more willing to rise above Washington’s partisan gridlock. And as he enters his reelection campaign year, Obama intends to “double down” on his outside strategy, pressing the message that he is fighting for the middle class against a Congress beholden to special interests, administration aides said.

Obama will resume his nationwide jobs tour with an appearance in Cleveland on Wednesday, and his State of the Union address on Jan. 24 will echo the populist themes the president laid out in a speech in Osawatomie, Kan., in early December.

“In terms of the president’s relationship with Congress in 2012 . . . the president is no longer tied to Washington,” deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said.

White House aides believe that without being forced to engage Congress in regular partisan brinksmanship — “putting out fires,” as Earnest described it — Obama will have a “larger playing field” to articulate a broader agenda for the nation as he heads into the election. The administration views the looming February fight over how to pay for extending the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012 as the final “must-do” item, and the last potential “cliff-hanger” legislation on Obama’s domestic jobs agenda.

Edward64 01-01-2012 05:27 PM

Sample partisan messaging but I do think Obama needs to run/explain his track record.

GOP’s battle plan against Obama: Use his own words against him - The Washington Post
Quote:

With Republican voters in Iowa set to finally begin picking a nominee to challenge President Obama, GOP officials in Washington are quietly and methodically finishing what operatives are calling “the book” — 500 pages of Obama quotes and video links that will form the backbone of the party’s attack strategy against the president leading up to Election Day 2012.

The document, portions of which were reviewed by The Washington Post, lays out how GOP officials plan to use Obama’s words and voice as they build an argument for his defeat: that he made specific promises and entered office with lofty expectations and has failed to deliver on both.

Republican officials say they will leverage the party’s newly catalogued video library containing every publicly available utterance from Obama since his 2008 campaign.
:
:
The new GOP playbook is designed to take one of Obama’s great assets — the power of his oratory — and turn it into a liability. It details hundreds of potential targets, partially a result of a president who Republican strategists say is unusually prone to making detailed promises.

Quote:

A 2009 Obama statement that his stimulus bill would lift 2 million Americans out of poverty, for example, is paired against census data showing that more than 6 million Americans have fallen into poverty since he took office.

Quote:

A pledge that an administration housing plan would “help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages” is paired against news reports showing the government spent far less than promised and aided fewer than 2 million.

Quote:

And his 2008 Democratic nomination acceptance speech vow that a green jobs initiative would create 5 million jobs is matched up against news reports from this year depicting lackluster results and headlines about Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker that received hundreds of millions in federal loan guarantees.

Quote:

One Obama quote will be featured prominently: In 2009 he said on NBC’s “Today” show that if he could not fix the economy in three years, “then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

“That’s a clip the American people will hear and see over and over and over again throughout the next year,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

Mizzou B-ball fan 01-01-2012 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2589371)
Sample partisan messaging but I do think Obama needs to run/explain his track record.

GOP’s battle plan against Obama: Use his own words against him - The Washington Post


That's always going to be one of the most effective strategies against an incumbent who has had issues producing what he promised. Don't say what he didn't do, let him say it for you.

Julio Riddols 01-01-2012 07:07 PM

All I know is if SOPA gets passed to go along with the defense bill Obama signed into law on New Years Eve, I'll do anything I can to get the fuck out of America. This shit is getting downright scary.

molson 01-01-2012 07:34 PM

Of course, it's also a little strange to criticize a guy who's acting more in line with your ideals than anyone thought he would.

Edward64 01-05-2012 03:37 PM

I can see both sides of the argument. I didn't see the $ savings or the specific details on programs. Not sure what to think but I do trust Panetta.

Obama unveils plans for pared-down military - CNN.com
Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama unveiled his administration's plan Thursday for a leaner, cheaper military, a reflection of Washington's fiscal belt tightening and slower national economic growth.

The president insisted the new strategy -- which eliminates the military's ability to actively fight two major wars at once -- will allow U.S. armed forces to effectively combat terrorism while confronting any new threats from countries like China and Iran.

"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership," Obama announced during a rare presidential visit to the Pentagon. "I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong -- and our nation secure -- with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined."
Quote:

"The question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over," the president told reporters. "Yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know: The United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

The president was flanked by an array of top Pentagon brass during his remarks, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Republicans immediately blasted the plan, characterizing it as a retreat from the reality of America's global responsibilities.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.