Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

I just think the whole "we need to cut spending now" people going "what?! we didn't mean defense" is definitely strange and doesn't make Republicans look all that good to the general public.

Edward64

01-05-2012 06:00 PM

Found more details. It doesn't sound so bad "...In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”

Obama announces new, leaner military approach - The Washington Post

Quote:

The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new military strategy that shifts the Pentagon’s focus towards Asia and says the country’s dire budget problems necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.

The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.
:
:
The eight-page Pentagon report outlining the strategy explicitly rejects the notion that the U.S. military should be structured to fight such wars on a regular basis. In many ways, the new approach can be seen as a rejection of the Bush administration’s ambitious foreign policy goals.

“Whenever possible,” the strategy document says, the Pentagon “will develop innovative, low cost and small footprint approaches to achieve our objectives.”
:
:
Officials emphasized that even with the required cuts the U.S. will continue to retain a very large military force.

“Over the next ten 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 said. “In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration.”
:
:
The approach recognizes that U.S. military and intelligence agencies must continue the battle against al-Qaeda and other global terror groups. But instead of using conventional Army and Marine Corps forces in long counter-insurgency wars, the Obama administration wants to focus more heavily on “tailored capabilities appropriate for counter-terrorism and irregular warfare.”

The language in the document essentially calls for a continued heavy reliance on armed drones, elite counter-terrorism troops and small teams of Special Forces soldiers that work with troops from other countries to strengthen their ability to fight on their own. The U.S. would rely heavily on Special Forces troops and other short-duration military training exercises to help new governments in the Middle East develop their militaries.
The strategy does not formally reject the idea that U.S. military forces will be called on in the future to bring order to fractured societies in the developing world. But it suggests that any stability operations similar to those conducted over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan will be of short duration, and have far more limited goals.
:
:
Obama insisted that any cuts to the military will not come at the expense of an expanding U.S. presence in Asia, which he dubbed a “critical region.” To pay for those increases, the strategy suggests the need for significant cuts to the size of the U.S. military ground force in Europe, which has been a mainstay of the Army for decades.

The strategy calls for continued investments in new technology such as armed drones, cyberspace systems to protect computer networks and aircraft that will allow U.S. forces to deploy quickly anywhere in the world.

And it does not completely abandon the long-standing need for the military to deal with more than one conflict at a time.

“We can and will always be able to do more than one thing,” said Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "More importantly, wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. . . This is not the strategy of a military in decline.”

Top Obama administration officials revealed few details about exactly which weapons programs will be cut and how many ground forces will be pared from the military.

Over the course of the last decade, the Army has grown to about 570,000 troops, up from 482,000 prior to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current plans call for the Army to shrink to about 520,000 troops, though senior Army leaders said they expect that the number will be cut further. The defense strategy states pretty clearly that U.S. Army forces in Europe will bear the brunt of those cuts, compared to troops based in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Dempsey and other Army officials have pressed in recent months to ensure that any cuts to the ground forces be reversed if the U.S. launches another large-scale stability operation in the developing world.

Buccaneer

01-05-2012 06:59 PM

I'm fine with it if they do it smartly, which is asking a lot.

sterlingice

01-05-2012 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2591470)

I'm fine with it if they do it smartly, which is asking a lot.

So, libertarian- for the common defense- big and bloated or small and ineffectual? Those are your two choices

SI

panerd

01-05-2012 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2591471)

So, libertarian- for the common defense- big and bloated or small and ineffectual? Those are your two choices

SI

Tongue in cheek? There is no middle ground just two extremes?

sterlingice

01-05-2012 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2591487)

Tongue in cheek? There is no middle ground just two extremes?

Listening to you guys, those are the only choices we have with government. So, which is it you prefer?

SI

Buccaneer

01-05-2012 07:51 PM

Which one do you prefer?

sterlingice

01-05-2012 07:53 PM

I'm more of a small and ineffectual sort for the military but large and bloated for my social programs. I thought you knew that by now. :D

I was curious if forced to pick which you prefer since you seem to find fault with it at any turn.

SI

Buccaneer

01-05-2012 08:16 PM

It's obvious I pick small and effectual for all programs. ;)

sterlingice

01-05-2012 09:56 PM

Unfortunately, if you're the President with the Congress you are dealt and the defense department you have, you don't get to make that choice. And you have to pick one- you can't just punt on the choice.

SI

Buccaneer

01-06-2012 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2591531)

It's not the current President or the Congress (it could be anyone). It's the same that ails (some) corporate capitalism: political/management cronyism. Partisinism is too petty compared to the system which, for the most part, produces either of the two results.

panerd

01-06-2012 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2591491)

Listening to you guys, those are the only choices we have with government. So, which is it you prefer?

SI

It's like asking whether I would cheer for KU or K-State. How about neither? ;)

Seriously though the military budget (not spending time to research so I could be wrong on the exact numbers but my point shouldn't change much) is like 6 times any other country in the world. Obama's new "drastic cut" is like 5.8. Why can't it be 4 times? Twice? Nobody ever said (including Libertarians) that it should be zero.

AENeuman

01-06-2012 11:30 AM

Seeing the massive job opportunities a large military provides in personal, research and manufacturing, I always thought of the military as being mostly a social program.

SirFozzie

01-06-2012 03:25 PM

Unemployment rate falls to 8.5 percent; Obama: Economy starting to â€˜reboundâ€™ - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Unemployment falls to 8.5 percent.

Numbers continue to look good, but will they continue to get better in the run up to the election? (and if they do, does the chances of the Republican nominee, be it Romney or whoever else, get seriously hurt?)

panerd

01-06-2012 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2591833)

Without reading the article wouldn't employment numbers tend to go down during the holidays?

JPhillips

01-06-2012 03:42 PM

Employment numbers are adjusted for seasonal fluctuations.

AENeuman

01-06-2012 05:36 PM

So NPR said there have been 2 million private sector job gained since Obama took office. However, the cuts in government jobs is preventing a significant decrease in the unemployment figures (saw some reference to 500k lost gov't jobs)

Have the Republicans landed on the Holy Grail of strategies? Push for enough government (job) cuts that will mute nearly all private sector growth while still painting Obama as a Marxist....

Brilliant. They deserve the win for pulling this off and (mostly) for the Dem's being stupefied.

Buccaneer

01-06-2012 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2591713)

Seeing the massive job opportunities a large military provides in personal, research and manufacturing, I always thought of the military as being mostly a social program.

People with guns don't count.

Edward64

01-06-2012 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2591833)

For Obama, I think the first criteria most will look at is whether the economy is getting better. So if this trend continues, it will definitely help him and hurt the GOP chances.

Edward64

01-07-2012 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2591833)

Got the official read on this

Jobless rate falls to nearly 3-year low - The Washington Post

Quote:

The unemployment rate dipped to its lowest level in nearly three years last month, good news that on Friday rippled through rival presidential campaigns whose prospects could hinge on the pace of the economic recovery.

Unemployment has declined in four consecutive months, to 8.5 percent, its lowest level since the president’s second month in office. However fragile, it is the kind of trend that President Obama is counting on to convince voters that he deserves a second term in the White House.

But Obama’s advisers reacted to the report with hard-earned caution. They have not forgotten 2010’s “Recovery Summer,” which began with a spate of presidential groundbreakings meant to highlight the healing effects of the economic stimulus bill only to have the jobless rate go up, not down.

They also are concerned about economic forecasts indicating that things could get worse before they get better. A surge in oil prices, a recession in Europe or a slowdown in China could derail the jobs recovery and, with it, Obama’s reelection hopes.

“From the president’s perspective, an acceleration of positive trends is the best he is going to get. He is not going to be able to get the nation back to full employment this year,” said Jared Bernstein, a former member of Obama’s economic team. “But, given all the false starts, you certainly can’t get unduly optimistic.”

SportsDino

01-07-2012 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2591713)

Seeing the massive job opportunities a large military provides in personal, research and manufacturing, I always thought of the military as being mostly a social program.

It is a social program, for well connected and otherwise incompetent lobbyists and corporate executives who generate overly inflated contracts to pad various people's pockets while donating a relative trickle to jobs (some of which are not even in this country). The military industrial complex is a very successful ponzi scheme, big pyramid of contributors, a lot sliced off for corruption, and some payments back in the form of actual military hardware but not enough to justify the costs.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-11-2012 10:44 AM

Good lord. Some politicians and their families need to learn that they don't have to react defensively to every thing that's critical of them. That's part of the gig. Reacting in this way brings it more attention and legitimacy at some level than it every would have if it was ignored.

http://news.yahoo.com/mrs-obama-her-...150915657.html

miked

01-11-2012 11:52 AM

You really like to dig deep don't you? This article seems to be about an interview Michele Obama gave on TV where she was asked about a book written about her that was critical. Seems she just said the book was mostly silly and moved on. I don't know in what way she reacted that brings legitimacy except to mouth-breathers who repost every piece of garbage they find. :shrug:

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-11-2012 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2594259)

She said people were trying to make her look like an angry black woman. She didn't say it was 'silly'. She didn't say it was portraying her as a 'bitter woman' or an 'angry woman'. She implies that there's some sort of racial stereotype where none exists in the excerpt that I've seen released. It makes her look like a defensive person who indicates that there may be a lot more truth in the statements than she'd like you to believe.

FWIW......Newt's comments related to black people and food stamps last week were equally as mind-numbingly stupid from where I stand. Why he ever thought that he had to limit his comments to just black people when discussing food stamps (other than the obvious reason) just boggles my mind. There's people abusing state and federal aid programs all over the place and it's certainly not limited to just black people. His comments make it clear we should be glad no matter what party or ideology we support that he's not going to be our President.

It's just annoying that two people who should be more conscious of their comments and how they are stated given their status in our society are so lacking in those skills as was made obvious by their statements this week.

sterlingice

01-11-2012 07:42 PM

False equivalencies and false outrage for teh win!

SI

JPhillips

01-11-2012 07:45 PM

I'll worry about this when I finally get an apology from Martin Luther King Jr.

There's a guy that should have known better.

DaddyTorgo

01-11-2012 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2594366)

She said people were trying to make her look like an angry black woman. She didn't say it was 'silly'. She didn't say it was portraying her as a 'bitter woman' or an 'angry woman'. She implies that there's some sort of racial stereotype where none exists in the excerpt that I've seen released. It makes her look like a defensive person who indicates that there may be a lot more truth in the statements than she'd like you to believe.

FWIW......Newt's comments related to black people and food stamps last week were equally as mind-numbingly stupid from where I stand. Why he ever thought that he had to limit his comments to just black people when discussing food stamps (other than the obvious reason) just boggles my mind. There's people abusing state and federal aid programs all over the place and it's certainly not limited to just black people. His comments make it clear we should be glad no matter what party or ideology we support that he's not going to be our President.

It's just annoying that two people who should be more conscious of their comments and how they are stated given their status in our society are so lacking in those skills as was made obvious by their statements this week.

You stay classy MBBF.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-11-2012 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2594399)

You stay classy MBBF.

The obvious reason being that Newt Gingrich is an idiot and a racist. I thought that was pretty clear, but perhaps the clouds of politics somehow seem to put a fog over the obvious.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-11-2012 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2594391)

I'll worry about this when I finally get an apology from Martin Luther King Jr.

There's a guy that should have known better.

MLK Jr. set and example 50+ years ago that Michelle Obama could learn a lot from and that would even hold up under present times. He focused on the positive of what could come of a situation where race wasn't used as a crutch or a defense. He focused on NOT being defensive when stating his convictions. It's not even remotely close to similar.

DaddyTorgo

01-11-2012 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2594411)

The obvious reason being that Newt Gingrich is an idiot and a racist. I thought that was pretty clear, but perhaps the clouds of politics somehow seem to put a fog over the obvious.

Not obvious at all. That makes sense though. I rescind my pointing out of the sentence in question.

Buccaneer

01-11-2012 09:38 PM

Quote:

America's top 1% of the population saw their incomes skyrocket by 275% between 1979 and 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, creating a disparity that is foremost in people's minds.

Conflict between rich and poor is at an all-time high, at least in the way of public perception, a new Pew Research Center poll shows.

The survey found that 66% of adults believe there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between the two groups. That number spiked 19 percentage points since Pew last posed that question in 2009.

Lose credibility when using a word like "all-time" when you really don't know anything that happened before 1980. More accurate to say worse disparity in the last 32 years. All-time would include the late 1800s which makes today looks like a communist paradise, I would think.

gstelmack

01-12-2012 07:19 AM

Does it say how much the lower end of the population's income went up between those years? Heck I've quadrupled my income since I left college in '92...

sterlingice

01-12-2012 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2594481)

Does it say how much the lower end of the population's income went up between those years? Heck I've quadrupled my income since I left college in '92...

You can't just look at your own data as you have to take into account aging curves and consider the small sample size. My income has gone up 30000% (or something like that) since 1992! Never mind that I was in 8th grade and mowing lawns.

Heck, my wife and I have done great throughout this recession (aside from the moving across country twice). But that's because we just hit our early 30s and we're at that point in life where we're moving from entry level to more experienced jobs. It doesn't mean the job situation out there doesn't suck.

SI

bob	01-13-2012 04:25 PM

Does anyone smarter than me have some thoughts on what this means for the US / World economy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Standard & Poor's said Friday that it has downgraded the credit ratings of nine euro area governments, including AAA-rated France and Austria.

The ratings agency lowered its rating for Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus by two notches. The move means Italian bonds are now rated BBB+, which is S&P's lowest so-called investment grade category.

France's top-tier credit rating was lowered by one notch to AA+, said S&P.

larrymcg421

01-13-2012 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2594415)

I thought it was pretty clear that they were referring to the history of that specific poll when they meant all-time. If I saw "highest approval rating of all time", I would assume they meant since approval polls started being done, not that they're really claiming someone had higher approval than George Washington.

Buccaneer

01-13-2012 05:54 PM

Quote:

"No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations," Obama told a group of business leaders and administration officials at the White House. "So why is it OK for our government? It's not. It has to change."

Imagine that. If he had said this in 2009, then he would have had some credibility. Now it's too little, too late.

sterlingice

01-13-2012 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob (Post 2595042)

Does anyone smarter than me have some thoughts on what this means for the US / World economy?

If it's like here, it means you can expect the EU to open up an investigation into the gross incompetence of S&P in 2008 within the next week ;)

SI

Edward64

01-14-2012 09:54 AM

Tensions are heating up and I would not be surprised if we are indirectly supporting these assassinations (via a third party). Somehow, I just don't think diplomacy or sanctions will work with Iran ...

Iran Says CIA Behind Nuclear Scientist's Killing | Fox News

Quote:

Iran said Saturday it has evidence that the United States was behind the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist this week in Tehran, state media reported.

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed in a brazen daylight assassination Wednesday when two assailants on a motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to his car in the Iranian capital. The killing bore a strong resemblance to earlier killings of scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program, and has prompted calls in Iran for retaliation against those deemed responsible.

World News - US: Encounter with Iran ship not hostile

Quote:

Last week's close encounter between U.S. ships and Iranian speed boats in the Strait of Hormuz was considered "routine" and a "very common occurence" especially for ships transiting the strait, a senior defense official and a U.S. military official tell NBC News.

According to the officials, the U.S. Navy amphibious ship New Orleans was heading through the Strait of Hormuz nearing the Persian Gulf on Jan. 6 when three Iranian boats approached at high speed. The New Orleans radioed the usual warning to the fast boats to keep their distance. The Iranians did not respond by radio, but simply turned and sped away. The fast boats never got closer than 700 yards.

On the same day, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Adak was also approached by Iranian fast boats, one which had a machine-gun mounted on the bow. As in the case of the New Orleans, the Iranian boats turned away when warned off

molson

01-14-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2595083)

Imagine that. If he had said this in 2009, then he would have had some credibility. Now it's too little, too late.

It just depends on where he is in his career. As a Senator, he criticized Bush for spending and for wanting to raise the debt limit. When he's running against Hillary, he's a super liberal. As the general election gets closer, he's going to get more moderate (I mean really, he wants to consolidate agencies? What a nut. Is he against public roads too?). His last term, his strategy will be based on what will give him the best book deals/speaking fees post-presidency. The guy's only 50 and he's in good health (other than the smoking). He going to be prominent public figure for decades. He's got to set that up.

Swaggs

01-14-2012 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2595288)

I don't think any of what are you said is necessarily unfair, but I feel like Obama was billed a pragmatic thinker rather than a strict ideologue. Lots of people call it wish-wishy or flip-flopping, but I think it is largely a matter of being practical.

JPhillips

01-14-2012 02:37 PM

Most of the people that thought he was a super liberal were his political opponents. Certainly in the primaries he held some positions to the right of Hillary, healthcare being a prime example.

PilotMan

01-14-2012 07:59 PM

This just needed to go in here:

Edward64

01-15-2012 04:24 PM

Not confirmed but indications another #2 or #3 down the drain.

Pakistan Taliban Leader Reportedly Killed In U.S. Drone Strike | Fox News

Quote:

Intercepted militant radio communications indicate the leader of the Pakistani Taliban may have been killed in a recent U.S. drone strike, Pakistani intelligence officials said Sunday. A Taliban official denied that.

The report coincided with sectarian violence — a bomb blast in eastern Pakistan that killed 14 people in a Shiite religious procession.

The claim that the Pakistani Taliban chief was killed came from officials who said they intercepted a number of Taliban radio conversations. In about a half a dozen intercepts, the militants discussed whether their chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed on Jan. 12 in the North Waziristan tribal area. Some militants confirmed Mehsud was dead, and one criticized others for talking about the issue over the radio.

JPhillips

01-15-2012 04:55 PM

I hear all fourteen were the number three man in AQ.

Edward64

01-17-2012 07:50 AM

Here's some Washington Post fact checking from the debates. The most puzzling they say is below. Any Perry fans care to comment?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1

Quote:

“When you have a country [Turkey] that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes, not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it.”

— Rick Perry

This was the most jaw-dropping statement of the night.

The ruling party of Turkey is moderately Islamic, but it generally has not interfered with the country’s secular traditions. While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has prodded the leadership about its commitment to media freedoms, few analysts—if any—would say the Turkish leaders is made up of “Islamic terrorists.” We really have no idea what Perry is talking about.

As for foreign aid, Turkey is a wealthy country that already gets virtually no foreign aid from the United States. The State Department this year made a request for about $5 million, which was earmarked for peace-keeping and security operations—not what one could consider traditional “foreign aid.”

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-17-2012 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2596444)

Here's some Washington Post fact checking from the debates. The most puzzling they say is below. Any Perry fans care to comment?

Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina - The Washington Post

The most puzzling thing is that you assumed there were any Perry fans on this board.

miked

01-17-2012 08:54 AM

Even more puzzling that anyone thinks Perry is capable of making fact-checked statements in a clear manner.

Mizzou B-ball fan

01-17-2012 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2596500)

Even more puzzling that anyone thinks Perry is capable of making fact-checked statements in a clear manner.

That too.

sterlingice

01-17-2012 10:40 AM

Erdogan is more conservative than some previous rules, to be sure. I mean, Turkey had a female prime minister back in the mid 90s and it's not like we've had a female President. The country prides itself on being secular and progressive, tho there are always going to be conservative and liberal elements (in the loose definition of the word) of any political system.

SI

Edward64

01-18-2012 01:12 PM

Well, somewhat disappointed. I get accidents happen etc. but there has to be someway to mitigate and remediate enviromental problems.

NBC Politics - Obama set to reject Keystone oil pipeline

Quote:

The Obama administration was poised on Wednesday to reject the Keystone crude oil pipeline, according to sources, a decision that would be welcomed by environmental groups but inflame the domestic energy industry.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the administration could announce its rejection of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline late on Wednesday. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said later that it has not made a decision on the proposed pipeline.

TransCanada Corp. shares slid more than 3 percent after reports that rejection was imminent.

"We're expecting the pipeline to be rejected," the source said.

Rejection of the pipeline had been expected in Washington after Obama tried to delay the decision until 2013 but Congress forced his hand as part of a popular tax cut measure. Republican lawmakers have already begun work on a plan to let Congress circumvent the administration and give the project the go-ahead.

State Department officials said TransCanada will be allowed to apply again for a permit if it identifies a new route for the pipeline through Nebraska. Critics of the pipeline have said a spill along this route could contaminate the aquifer. But a new route would mean substantial delays.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Page 327 of 527