The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Agreed, but raising spending w/o raising revenue isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this budget I think the much bigger problem is the 650 billion in new tax cuts.

But yes, agreed with both of you here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Nah, it certainly does, it's just interesting to me how military spending doesn't follow the same "rules" as other kinds of spending, for either side.

I don't think that's true. Republicans have much more cognitive dissonance when it comes to carving out defense spending from an overall dogmatic mantra of spending cuts. If it wasn't such a huge part of the budget and it wasn't more than something like the next 20-25 military budgets' of other nations combined the dissonance wouldn't be so strong, but it is.

Democrats don't deny that the spending create jobs, though they'll happily point out the waste in the procurement process and the pointlessness of certain military spending projects. They, in general, argue that a lot of that money could be better spent elsewhere or, gasp, even contribute to overall cuts.

Democrats aren't exempting the military from an overall SPEND MORE dogma because Democrats don't have anymore, as if they even did, an overall SPEND MORE dogma, and certainly not one as strong as the GOP's CUT MORE dogma (where there are signatures on a page, lest we forget).

So you can't really compare the two, as you've done. Well, unless painting in black-and-white is your goal.

Edit: I think a big strong military is essential for the U.S., and it also happens to provide great economic stimulus and life opportunities/employment for so many young people. So I'm not a fan of the general vilification of defense spending you see sometimes from the far-left. But like anything else in government, there's also plenty of waste and plenty of backroom dirty politics that benefits the defense contractors (who surely do not pay enough taxes). So I'm all for a moderate, middle-ground approach to improve things.

You say vilification, I say scrutiny. Like it or not, it's an enormous part of the budget, and it's primary benefit (national defense) is hard to quantify, though spending more than all of your allies and most of your, er, non-allies, combined seems a little overkill.

If you want to justify the defense budget as a works program, then even you must admit there's a valid question as to whether that's the best way to set up a works program. I'd propose there are likely cheaper and more effective ways to get young people an education and on-the-job training. This is not an argument to gut the defense budget. The military as a works program has always been a decent side benefit. But, dogmatically (I say this as my gift to you), it shouldn't be the nation's largest works program.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

the liberals say spending is good and helps the the economy, except if it's the military.

I think that's an unfair characterization of most liberals. Most liberals are fine with a good amount of military spending, but not the amount that we are currently spending - and that a lot of the excess can be used for more efficient economic stimulus or safety nets. There is a level where spending loses a good deal of its marginal productivity compared to other uses.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that's an unfair characterization of most liberals. Most liberals are fine with a good amount of military spending, but not the amount that we are currently spending - and that a lot of the excess can be used for more efficient economic stimulus or safety nets. There is a level where spending loses a good deal of its marginal productivity compared to other uses.

I'm all for our allies that reap the benefits of our military to pitch in. For every dollar they spend, we'll spend it on "more efficient economic stimulus and safety nets". They owe us about....$10 Trillion and counting.

[ISiddiqui]

It's generally bad form to offer a gift and then demand payment for said gift .

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's generally bad form to offer a gift and then demand payment for said gift .

It isn't a gift anymore if we dismantle it.

So now that we've clarified that....for every dollar our allies pledge, we pledge a dollar to our economy. There is nothing wrong with the barter system.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm all for our allies that reap the benefits of our military to pitch in. For every dollar they spend, we'll spend it on "more efficient economic stimulus and safety nets". They owe us about....$10 Trillion and counting.

I think most of the 'allies' would have preferred America not to have gone to war in the first place, definitely the people in those countries by and large were hugely against it (the Polls in the UK showed just how much of a travesty the concept of 'democracy' is when the polls were 80%+ against war and we have generally jumped head first into them anyway ...).

The idea that the American military benefits 'allies' is a travesty - America makes its decisions for its own purposes and often ignores the requests of other countries not to be aggressive on a military front, so the concept that other countries 'owe' for the US spending is frankly ludicrous.

Its a bit like a millionaire turning around and requesting you pay for the mansion he built because he feels it stimulated the economy, its an eyesore, you didn't want it and sure as heck aren't about to pay towards it now he's made the mistake ...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So now that we've clarified that....for every dollar our allies pledge, we pledge a dollar to our economy. There is nothing wrong with the barter system.

Or how about we just pledge money to our economy and dismantle our overly large military. That works much better for me.

[Dutch]

Who would you rather start the next conflict then?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who would you rather start the next conflict then?

So you think we should be starting conflicts just for the sake of starting one?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

So you think we should be starting conflicts just for the sake of starting one?

It's the new Republican logic. I mean we can't have all these weapons piling up. We have to kill someone with them!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Its a bit like a millionaire turning around and requesting you pay for the mansion he built because he feels it stimulated the economy, its an eyesore, you didn't want it and sure as heck aren't about to pay towards it now he's made the mistake ...

Don't get me wrong, I'm good with keeping things the way they are. I didn't bring this up. I'm not good with just dismantling our military might because it's 'annoying' and bothers some people for a moment in time while watching or reading the news.

I'm not above negotiating a better deal though. If you really want to help our economy, our allies have always been huge benefactors of our armed services, our technology, our intelligence, surveillance, special operations, and everything else. There is no doubt about that. I'm okay with give and take. If Americans are generally concerned about the cost, then we should split those costs with other rich nations. It's a good compromise in my book.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's the new Republican logic. I mean we can't have all these weapons piling up. We have to kill someone with them!

This isn't Republican logic nor is it new. This has been our American mindset since 1945 and it's worked pretty well so far. Not perfect, but better than our beliefs from 1915-1940 that not maintaining a strong military made everybody nicer. It's just not the reality of the world we live in. Somebody will always be militarily on top and I'd prefer it to be us than anybody else.

[ISiddiqui]

We can basically slice our military budget in half and still be on top. Heck, we could slice it by 3/4ths and still be on top. At this point a good portion of our military budget seemingly exists to make defense contractors rich.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This isn't Republican logic nor is it new. This has been our American mindset since 1945 and it's worked pretty well so far. Not perfect, but better than our beliefs from 1915-1940 that not maintaining a strong military made everybody nicer. It's just not the reality of the world we live in. Somebody will always be militarily on top and I'd prefer it to be us than anybody else.

I would agree it isn't republican logic and is pretty short sighted to think these wars are only happening during republican administrations. However I take issue that all of these conflicts kept the world safer and have worked pretty well so far. There have been a lot of dead American soldiers and innocent civilians killed in these endless wars.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

We can basically slice our military budget in half and still be on top. Heck, we could slice it by 3/4ths and still be on top. At this point a good portion of our military budget seemingly exists to make defense contractors rich.

I don't know enough about that to tell you if 75% of it is to make 'defense contractors rich'. That seems exaggerated. But I agree it's bloated, it's got to be bloated...it's a publicly* funded program after all.

*assuming we actually are paying the bill, which I doubt based on our national deficit increases.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

I would agree it isn't republican logic and is pretty short sighted to think these wars are only happening during republican administrations. However I take issue that all of these conflicts kept the world safer and have worked pretty well so far. There have been a lot of dead American soldiers and innocent civilians killed in these endless wars.

Lots of death, agreed. Imagine if we didn't have superiority or better yet, supremacy on the battlefield. Lots more death probably.

I don't believe we have reached an era that equates to "the end of warfare" and I also don't believe the only reason we still have Americans and foreign civilians dying is simply because our armed forces exist.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

So you think we should be starting conflicts just for the sake of starting one?

Yep, exactly where I was going with that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Lots of death, agreed. Imagine if we didn't have superiority or better yet, supremacy on the battlefield. Lots more death probably.

I don't believe we have reached an era that equates to "the end of warfare" and I also don't believe the only reason we still have Americans and foreign civilians dying is simply because our armed forces exist.

And what reason exactly would anyone have for attacking us had we not engaged in these wars these past fifty years? An extremely complicated battle with a country surrounded by two huge oceans to win over their coal and corn reserves? There's a reason most of the wars are happening right near the center of a lot of the world's energy and religious texts.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

And what reason exactly would anyone have for attacking us had we not engaged in these wars these past fifty years? An extremely complicated battle with a country surrounded by two huge oceans to win over their coal and corn reserves? There's a reason most of the wars are happening right near the center of a lot of the world's energy and religious texts.

Agreed, nobody is going to launch a classic full scale conventional war in North America against the USA. We are much too isolated for anything like that to take place and without some good reason like us going all Hitler on the world or something, we shouldn't have to experience anything like that.

It's pretty much all about protecting our global economic trade for resources. And the flip-side of our isolation is also valid, we, in fact, are very isolated and we rely on and are completely dependent on fair trade of goods.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The idea that the American military benefits 'allies' is a travesty

You didn't post that in German, did you motherfucker?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You didn't post that in German, did you motherfucker?

lmfao!

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You didn't post that in German, did you motherfucker?

To be more accurate, I'd say Russian as opposed to German.

[Dutch]

Da...

[ISiddiqui]

The Brits could probably resist the Russians... the channel isn't easy to cross.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

To be more accurate, I'd say Russian as opposed to German.

Fair point, there were multiple options.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Brits could probably resist the Russians... the channel isn't easy to cross.

Wouldn't matter much when your population can be starved to death.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Agreed, nobody is going to launch a classic full scale conventional war in North America against the USA. We are much too isolated for anything like that to take place and without some good reason like us going all Hitler on the world or something, we shouldn't have to experience anything like that.

I think the Wolverines would disagree with you.

[Dutch]

True. Original, not remake.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Its a bit like a millionaire turning around and requesting you pay for the mansion he built because he feels it stimulated the economy, its an eyesore, you didn't want it and sure as heck aren't about to pay towards it now he's made the mistake ...

I think you meant to say "sports stadium."

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You didn't post that in German, did you motherfucker?

LOL

(I was referring to more modern times, rather than World War 2 ... in a similar vein I won't blame countries for not defending England from the Viking raids )

[Edward64]

I'm glad he's trying to take the initiative to do something about this. The gun show loophole is the low hanging fruit. This won't solve our shooting problems but its the most visible issue. Get it out of the way, show some success and maybe other, more relevant measures will follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politi...uns/index.html

President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said.

Described as "imminent," the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

Plans for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama's annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.

The White House wouldn't comment directly on the exact timing or content of Obama's executive orders. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said that the President expected a set of recommendations on unilateral action to arrive at the beginning of the year.

He said Obama was "expressing urgency" for a list of steps he can take on his own after high-profile incidents of gun violence at the end of this year.
:
Gun control advocates and White House officials say the focus remains on the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows certain sellers of guns -- at gun shows and elsewhere -- to avoid conducting background checks before making sales.
:
Aside from the background check provision, people familiar with Obama's plans say his new gun control announcement will include new funding for government agencies to better enforce existing gun laws.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He's the reason the 2nd amendment exists. A genuine wanna-be despot in the Oval Office, still perhaps not the worst President of all-time (I still hold Carter out as worse) but certainly the most dangerous clueless bastard to ever step foot in the room.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm glad he's trying to take the initiative to do something about this. The gun show loophole is the low hanging fruit. This won't solve our shooting problems but its the most visible issue. Get it out of the way, show some success and maybe other, more relevant measures will follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politi...uns/index.html

While I want to see something done -- this isn't the way to do it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by rowech

While I want to see something done -- this isn't the way to do it.

How would you do it or start it? There's no will in Congress to do anything.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How would you do it or start it? There's no will in Congress to do anything.

It's unfortunate but that's the way it is setup. Only way around it would be get enough states to call for a constitutional convention which is long overdue.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rowech

While I want to see something done -- this isn't the way to do it.

You're letting perfect get in the way of good. The gun show loophole is a canonical example of low-hanging fruit.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He's the reason the 2nd amendment exists. A genuine wanna-be despot in the Oval Office, still perhaps not the worst President of all-time (I still hold Carter out as worse) but certainly the most dangerous clueless bastard to ever step foot in the room.

This is particularly unhinged. Even for you.

[JPhillips]

Funny that Jon wasn't saying anything like that during the Bush, Unitary Executive, years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How would you do it or start it? There's no will in Congress to do anything.

I think the executive action options only make the situation worse. It's like the politicians know it's there, so they roadblock further knowing than they can increase their public 'anger' and further polarize the situation. I think you'd see more compromise if executive actions weren't an option.

[JPhillips]

If the President couldn't do anything Congress would just compromise out of a spirit of generosity?

[miked]

It's amazing, since like 90% of Americans support closing this loophole, that nothing can be done short of an executive action. If congress can't compromise on something that 90% of Americans want, what choice is there that is left?

It's amazing that people who work for drug companies have to register into a public database to visit me, can't buy me a cup of coffee, but they can go to a flea market and sell guns without doing anything.

[Edward64]

Another attempt to repeal Obamacare but this one sounds more positioning for the elections than anything else.

House GOP: First task sending White House bill repealing ObamaCare, defunding Planned Parenthood | Fox News

Congressional Republicans are vowing that the first action upon returning to Capitol Hill will be to send a bill to President Obama that repeals his health care law and defunds Planned Parenthood.

“We were sent to Congress to fight for the American people,” Missouri GOP Rep. Vicky Hartzler said Saturday. “They do not want their healthcare dictated to them by Washington. And they don't want their tax dollars going to abortion providers. … If the president didn't hear the people's voices earlier, hopefully, he will through this bill.”
:
All of the GOP White House candidates back repealing ObamaCare, as the president meanwhile plans next week to tighten gun control, a position backed by all three Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama will no doubt veto the repeal-and-defund bill, which the Senate already passed under special rules that protect it from Democratic obstruction.

However, Republicans have also lined up a veto-override vote for Jan. 22, when anti-abortion activists hold their annual march in Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in 1973 that legalized abortion.
:
Recently appointed House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told conservative talk host Bill Bennett over the holidays, “You're going to see us put a bill on the president's desk going after ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood so we'll finally get a bill on his desk to veto."
:
They insist that doing so will fulfill promises to their constituents while highlighting the clear choice facing voters in the November presidential election.

The Democrats running for president would keep ObamaCare in place.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Another attempt to repeal Obamacare but this one sounds more positioning for the elections than anything else.

As opposed to all the other ones?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Another attempt to repeal Obamacare but this one sounds more positioning for the elections than anything else.

House GOP: First task sending White House bill repealing ObamaCare, defunding Planned Parenthood | Fox News

I mentioned this in the Planned Parenthood thread a week or so ago. All this does is make it so Republicans can act like they kept a promise to the American people. Such progress!

[Edward64]

Closing the gun show loophole just seems like a small thing and there is support within the NRA ranks. I think its opposed because it'll be a stepping stone to other background checks - private sales, family gifting etc. Smart of Obama to concede it won't stop all the attacks.

Obama Returns From Hawaii Saying He's 'Fired Up' for 2016 - ABC News

President Barack Obama is returning to the rancor of the nation's capital after two weeks of fun and sun in his native Hawaii, saying he's "fired up" for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business.

At the top of Obama's priority list is executive action that is expected to expand when background checks are required for gun purchases. Obama is meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss a three-month review of what actions he could take to help reduce gun violence.

The actions, which are staunchly opposed by Republicans and likely to spark a legal fight, underscore Obama's desire to keep up an aggressive agenda in 2016, even as the public's attention shifts to the presidential election.
:
The debate over Obama's gun actions will quickly spill over into the presidential campaign. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has already called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, while Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.
:
"Each time, we're told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn't do anything," Obama said. "We know that we can't stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?"

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

I'm all for the TPP and it may be one of those that Obama gets credit/blame for after he's long gone. Not sure what the definition of nonviolent is or what his alternative is to incarceration but guess its good there is bipartisan support.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of its inmates.

[JPhillips]

The GOP will use immigration or gun control as a "reason" they can't pass incarceration reform.

[Edward64]

Never seen a president tear up like this.

Obama: We Are Here to Prevent the Next Mass Shooting - NBC News

Weeping at the memory of the children murdered during a shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Barack Obama unveiled a series of executive actions Tuesday aimed at preventing more mass killings.

In a powerful 30-minute address to the nation, Obama outlined his plans to slow the flood of firearms sales and keep weapons out of the hands of potential mass murderers.

But the normally stoic Obama grew visibly emotional when he recalled the murders of 20 first-graders and six staffers three years ago by a gunman with an assault rifle at the grade school in Newton, Connecticut.

"Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad," Obama said as his eyes welled up with tears. "And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day."

I'm okay with this. Not sure why this is controversial.

Under the new rules, anyone engaged in the business of selling guns — at stores, at gun shows, over the Internet — has to obtain a federal seller's license and do background checks on the buyers.

I guess things are not as automated as I thought. Not sure the $ but in general I guess I'm okay with this.

Obama's initiative also calls for hiring hundreds of examiners to help the FBI do the increased background checks. And it requires weapons merchants to notify the ATF if their guns are lost or stolen.

I'm okay with this but I guess there needs to be some privacy controls.

Obama added that they're going to "ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system."

"And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here's your chance to support these efforts," Obama said. "Put your money where your mouth is."

I wouldn't buy one if there are "electronics" in the weapon that could prevent me from shooting it. I think this is okay if its optional/additional to but not required for all weapons.

Obama said they will also take steps "to boost gun safety technology."

"If we can set it up so you can't unlock your phone unless you've got the right fingerprint, why can't we do the same thing for our guns?" he said.

I guess a first step on the low hanging fruit.

[NobodyHere]

So is this executive order actually going to prevent any gun deaths?

[AlexB]

No-one can or will ever know.

Personally, if the headlines are that it's going to make gun sellers licensed, and make it harder/impossible for people with mental illness to get guns, particularly rapid fire guns, then I really don't see how people can argue against it: if you are a respectable gun seller and not mentally unstable it shouldn't affect you in any way other than it might tale a couple of weeks extra to get your gun.

Who would honestly say a couple of weeks delay isn't worth the possibility of saving one innocent life? And if you do think of it as an outrage and a restriction of your rights, would you be comfortable with the reverse: speeding up delivery of your gun in return for one extra random, unknown to you, person being killed?

And as a by-product, if it means that there will be more of a black market for guns because some people can't get them because of the regs, anyone caught with an unlicensed firearm or selling them without the requisite checks gets thrown into jail, no questions asked. So more bad guys off the streets too.

(I realise this last part won't actually happen, but the point remains: legislating against keeping weapons that can kill multiple people out of the hands of those unfit to own them has to be a good thing)