Obama Budget Speech Lays an Egg!

"The military is the most important job of gov't" does not provide any kind of statistical analysis whatsoever. Using that as your only baseline, you could make an argument for any budget, of any size.

In many respects, we still have a cold war military. The threats are different now; superpowers will be determined more on economics than on the size of their army. It's time for an overhaul.
 
Onceler said:
It's kind of disingenuous to compare the spending in Obama's first year with any of the Bush spending. That spending was specifically designed to re-energize a dying economy. Now, you can completely disagree with that economic philosophy, and I know that you do, but it IS a fairly popular belief in the field of economics. I would also argue that the spending we engaged in was successful in pulling us back from the brink, and likely paid for itself a few times over with the additional losses it prevented.

Like I said, I know you disagree with that; we could probably argue that one all day. But the salient point is that it's not apples to apples on spending. We're not talking about Obama bloating something like a routine Energy bill even further. We're talking about spending that was specifically designed for stimulus in a bad economic time...
Click to expand...

It failed, and the response of the Administration was that we should double down. We can't afford cuts... We can't stop giving money that we don't have away to people who largely do not need it... We must continue to "stimulate" the economy in exactly the way that didn't work previously...
 
Onceler said:
All you're suggesting is some sort of permanent stimulus program for people in our military. I can't accept that; I can't accept that we always have to have a bloated military budget just to keep people employed.

Military spending should be based on one thing: do we need this to defend the country, or not? You don't have to cut 1/3 at once. There are ways to cut and programs you can use to ease the transition for personnel who will be affected. We can't keep spending because we always spend and this is the way we do it and it's the only way some people have jobs.

You have to look at the pie. What is the big stuff in the pie? It ain't the NEA. You can't sharpen a pencil fine enough to put a line in any pie that wouldn't misrepresent the NEA spending. It's like that thread Winterborn started yesterday; if you're household is going under, you don't fix it by eating in one more time per week....
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest we should have a stimulus program for people in our military, I am merely pointing out that cutting military spending also cuts a lot of other related stuff we might not want to cut. If we cut a billion dollars of NEA funding, what is the worst thing that can happen? Think hard.... now, same question for cutting a billion from the military budget? Bases close, towns dry up, people are out of work, economies tank... the consequences of our cuts have to be considered, when we're talking about federal funding. Some things we can cut dramatically, or defund entirely, and nothing much will be noticed in our daily lives, it won't effect our economy to any great degree, other than the actual money that isn't being pumped into the economy through governmental workers salaries and such..

And with SS, you act like this is something Republicans have to negotiate with Democrats to be able to privatize it.... well, newsflash... SS is insolvent in the current form. It is destined to go belly up, whether you wish to do anything about that or not, is up to you, but at some point, the checks stop going out the door and the system all collapses. Now, Democrats can stand there defiantly refusing to try something new, and let SS fail... or they can join Republicans in trying to shift some of the program to a privatized system, so that we can preserve it for future generations. There is no "negotiation" here, you either wish to save SS or you wish to stick your head in the sand while it dies a slow death.
 
Onceler said:
Got a link for that?
Click to expand...

Housing numbers, continued unemployment numbers that in no way make up for the losses or even have enough for new entries into the job market, blah, blah...

You can pretend it is somehow missed by everybody, but reality isn't fitting in with your limited worldview.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't suggest we should have a stimulus program for people in our military, I am merely pointing out that cutting military spending also cuts a lot of other related stuff we might not want to cut. If we cut a billion dollars of NEA funding, what is the worst thing that can happen? Think hard.... now, same question for cutting a billion from the military budget? Bases close, towns dry up, people are out of work, economies tank... the consequences of our cuts have to be considered, when we're talking about federal funding. Some things we can cut dramatically, or defund entirely, and nothing much will be noticed in our daily lives, it won't effect our economy to any great degree, other than the actual money that isn't being pumped into the economy through governmental workers salaries and such..

And with SS, you act like this is something Republicans have to negotiate with Democrats to be able to privatize it.... well, newsflash... SS is insolvent in the current form. It is destined to go belly up, whether you wish to do anything about that or not, is up to you, but at some point, the checks stop going out the door and the system all collapses. Now, Democrats can stand there defiantly refusing to try something new, and let SS fail... or they can join Republicans in trying to shift some of the program to a privatized system, so that we can preserve it for future generations. There is no "negotiation" here, you either wish to save SS or you wish to stick your head in the sand while it dies a slow death.
Click to expand...

My only point about SS is that it's a good negotiating chip. No politician is going to sign off on something he/she doesn't want unless they get something that they want in return. Ergo, you cut the military, and we'll privatize SS. To me, that's the most perfect compromise there is, because both are at a very similar level in perceived importance and chunk of the pie.

You don't have to sell me personally on privatizing. To me, it's a no brainer.
 
Damocles said:
Housing numbers, continued unemployment numbers that in no way make up for the losses or even have enough for new entries into the job market, blah, blah...

You can pretend it is somehow missed by everybody, but reality isn't fitting in with your limited worldview.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that the stimulus did it's job, and prevented a much more serious downfall. I guess it's perception. Apparently, you thought the stimulus was supposed to get us back to where we were prior to the crash, in under 2 years.

I just wanted it to stop the bleeding, so the private sector could take over & revive the economy for real. That's happening, right now. Probably not as fast as any of us would like, but it is happening.
 
Onceler said:
My only point about SS is that it's a good negotiating chip. No politician is going to sign off on something he/she doesn't want unless they get something that they want in return. Ergo, you cut the military, and we'll privatize SS. To me, that's the most perfect compromise there is, because both are at a very similar level in perceived importance and chunk of the pie.

You don't have to sell me personally on privatizing. To me, it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what politicians will or won't sign off on, the system is going under like the Titanic. Either we do something soon to save it, or we watch the smokestacks sink into the Atlantic forever. If some politician wants to sit around and do nothing, that is something they will have to answer to their constituency for, but to pretend this will be something that can be used as a bargaining chip is just stupid... no it won't go down as you've decided.

Again, you are suggesting one type of cut that will have a dramatic effect on the economy, and effects real people's lives, and in exchange for that, you will let us fix Social Security so it doesn't go broke? That seems a bit fucked up if you ask me. How about we fix Social Security, and we don't do something drastic with cutting military spending? Why can't that be an option, if that's what the people vote for?
 
Onceler said:
And I would argue that the stimulus did it's job, and prevented a much more serious downfall. I guess it's perception. Apparently, you thought the stimulus was supposed to get us back to where we were prior to the crash, in under 2 years.

I just wanted it to stop the bleeding, so the private sector could take over & revive the economy for real. That's happening, right now. Probably not as fast as any of us would like, but it is happening.
Click to expand...

Yet that was not what was promised. This is changing the goal posts, probably due to hero worship or partisanship.
 
Damocles said:
Yet that was not what was promised. This is changing the goal posts, probably due to hero worship or partisanship.
Click to expand...

Just as I would argue that a blanket statement of "it failed" is complete partisanship. With you, I know it has more to do with the fact that you opposed both the bailouts & the stimulus from the beginning. One was under Bush, and one was under Obama, but I'm glad both happened.

You have a stake in both "failing," since you don't want to be wrong. But you were - at least to an extent. America is better off for having had both.
 
This is probably the most civilized debate we've ever had.

As a side note to Dixie we still pay for the military storage of helium because we have I think around 90-95% of the worlds supply of helium. It's use in industry goes beyond filling party balloons or dirigibles. It's a pretty scare resource so I don't have a problem with us paying to store a valuable natural resource.
 
Dixie said:
In recent months, I have wondered where the arrogant condescending class warrior Obama was at? It almost seemed as if he were morphing in to a black George W. Bush there for a while, with all the talk of American Exceptionalism saving the day in another unprovoked war in another Arab nation. Even last week, when he struck the deal with Republicans on this year's budget, he was sounding like Milton Freedman more than the Keynesian he is... I was worried someone may have snatched the president and replaced him with an imposter, this just hasn't been the Obama of old.... but today, The Obama returned! In all his pompous glory!

Before the speech, I thought this would be the opportunity for Obama to step up and lead on the issue of the budget, to give us some specific details on how he planned to tackle this most important issue of our time, and I listened with an open mind, hoping that he would inspire and lead for a change. What I heard was like a cold slap in the face with an 8-year old stale fish. It was the same old 2008 arrogant lecturing, and outright scolding us like children, telling us what we were going to have to accept from him and the Democrats, because he is President, and that's how he wants it. The same divisive and alienating tone we've come to know and love from Obama, as if he thinks this politicizing of the issue with a whitewashing of old campaign rhetoric, is going to appeal to someone! Who the hell was he talking to? Liberals? Is he in THAT much political trouble, that he doesn't have his drones on board anymore?

From his third sentence or so, he began to utter outright lies and distortions of truth, much like the pinheads who post here regularly, building a series of arguments based on the foundational lies, and culminating in... guess what? Tax increases on the RICH!! :whoa:

Wow... didn't see that one coming Barry!

Oh.... We must ALL share in the burden of these 'cuts' that are going to somehow magically end up at $4 trillion in 12 years... wonder where he might have picked that number up from? Hmmm... No real firm details on what all is going to be cut, but it was clear we ALL must share the burden, and especially the rich. Well, Mr. President, with all due respect, what about the 50% of America who doesn't pay ANY tax? Before we start raising the tax on those who create the jobs and prosperity, shouldn't we maybe consider sharing the burden with these people? I mean, if we ALL must share the burden?

This was pathetic Presidential leadership, and it's not Obama's first incident. Squandering an opportunity to lead a nation, in order to campaign for re-election, is a mistake Obama will soon regret. I predict he gets no bounce from this, more of a thud. It was a shameful display of partisan politics, at a time the country needed a leader. Obama blew the easy layup.
Click to expand...

Raising taxes on the poor is stupid because you won't get much money out of them. Most of the people who don't pay taxes are housewives, students, etc... who don't work. If you feel so bad about paying taxes on your wealth, feel free to get rid of it, or do society a favor and kill yourself. I'm not going to shed a tear for you.
 
Onceler said:
As usual, your thread is over-the-top bias, but I do agree on fleecing the rich. I have never really understood that aspect of taxation - "they can afford more." Obama referred to the rich as more fortunate, but in general, they just work really hard...
Click to expand...

Yeah, Onceler. Taxing people who can afford it, rather than people who can't. It makes no sense at all.

I don't think conservatives should feel surprised when the people rise up against their evil and greed and cut all of your heads off.
 
Dixie said:
Regardless of what politicians will or won't sign off on, the system is going under like the Titanic. Either we do something soon to save it, or we watch the smokestacks sink into the Atlantic forever. If some politician wants to sit around and do nothing, that is something they will have to answer to their constituency for, but to pretend this will be something that can be used as a bargaining chip is just stupid... no it won't go down as you've decided.

Again, you are suggesting one type of cut that will have a dramatic effect on the economy, and effects real people's lives, and in exchange for that, you will let us fix Social Security so it doesn't go broke? That seems a bit fucked up if you ask me. How about we fix Social Security, and we don't do something drastic with cutting military spending? Why can't that be an option, if that's what the people vote for?
Click to expand...

The 1980's recession wasn't over by this point in time. I don't see why you'd think this one would be.
 
Onceler said:
Just as I would argue that a blanket statement of "it failed" is complete partisanship. With you, I know it has more to do with the fact that you opposed both the bailouts & the stimulus from the beginning. One was under Bush, and one was under Obama, but I'm glad both happened.

You have a stake in both "failing," since you don't want to be wrong. But you were - at least to an extent. America is better off for having had both.
Click to expand...

We should've let it all burn.
 
King of Nothing said:
Yeah, Onceler. Taxing people who can afford it, rather than people who can't. It makes no sense at all.

I don't think conservatives should feel surprised when the people rise up against their evil and greed and cut all of your heads off.
Click to expand...

How about not raising taxes on either those who "can" and can't afford it, and cutting some spending instead?
 
Onceler said:
Just as I would argue that a blanket statement of "it failed" is complete partisanship. With you, I know it has more to do with the fact that you opposed both the bailouts & the stimulus from the beginning. One was under Bush, and one was under Obama, but I'm glad both happened.

You have a stake in both "failing," since you don't want to be wrong. But you were - at least to an extent. America is better off for having had both.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no problem admitting to some partisanship. I do, however, trust people like our illustrious Senator Bennett who tells me we spent Trillions with little to no value returned, and that's a supporter of Obama's...

Seriously, you have to deliberately ignore the miserable state of the economy to pretend that we've gotten our value from the Trillions we have spent to supposedly "stimulate" the economy. We spent trillions to get thousands in value...
 
Damocles said:
Oh, I have no problem admitting to some partisanship. I do, however, trust people like our illustrious Senator Bennett who tells me we spent Trillions with little to no value returned, and that's a supporter of Obama's...

Seriously, you have to deliberately ignore the miserable state of the economy to pretend that we've gotten our value from the Trillions we have spent to supposedly "stimulate" the economy. We spent trillions to get thousands in value...
Click to expand...

Man, as soon as you guys get one quote from the "left" that supports you, you milk it to death.

You ignore the dozens of positive steps the economy has taken in the last 6 months to make your point. February of 2008 was a "miserable" economy. Today is better - MUCH better. And please don't be tinfoil - I'm not saying it's "amazing." But to say it isn't much better is pure denial.
 
And how can you state that we spent "trillions" and got "thousands"? Exaggeration is the last bastion of the weak-minded. It's not even debatable anymore that the bailouts were worthwhile. Have you looked at the American auto industry of late? That alone is much better than "thousands" in value. Just a silly figure to throw out there, and absolute rubbish, to use your word.

We spent under a trillion on stimulus, and the downward spiral basically stopped there, and the economy has been turning around since then. I'll grant that it's a slow turn, but it's ludicrous to say we've gotten "thousands" in value on that. The economy is growing, Damo; people are getting hired. The unemployment rate IS getting better. But no - not every single person has been hired back, as you seemed to have expected...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top