Don't Faint, But I'm Giving Obama Props on this.

[posty]

OK, this is terrible stinky bait billay, even though it's probably true...

 

Maybe, but the SOTU address will probably try to paint Obama as a fiscal conservative...

 

But if this is true and he does want to freeze spending, how will a second stimulus going to happen??

[yo mama]

I wish Congress could control its spending urges, but it can't. I'm in favor of a spending freeze, but I don't think the freeze should exclude anything. To be meaningful, a budget freeze creates a zero sum game. Any increase in spending ought to come at the expense of an existing program of less importance. I guess its a step in the right direction, but it smacks of being designed to do little more than tamp down populist outrage.

[bpwallace49]

I wish Congress could control its spending urges, but it can't. I'm in favor of a spending freeze, but I don't think the freeze should exclude anything. To be meaningful, a budget freeze creates a zero sum game. Any increase in spending ought to come at the expense of an existing program of less importance. I guess its a step in the right direction, but it smacks of being designed to do little more than tamp down populist outrage.

 

And with ramping up the committmnet to Afghanistan, there is no way that Obama will cut spending enough to justify the additional war expense. Not in anyway that will get past congress . .

[Perchoutofwater]

I wish Congress could control its spending urges, but it can't. I'm in favor of a spending freeze, but I don't think the freeze should exclude anything. To be meaningful, a budget freeze creates a zero sum game. Any increase in spending ought to come at the expense of an existing program of less importance. I guess its a step in the right direction, but it smacks of being designed to do little more than tamp down populist outrage.

 

I agree with you, but something is better than nothing. Remember the guy saying he is going to freeze domestic spending signed the biggest spending bill know to man, so you have to look at this as progress. At least it's a step in the right direction. Besides, I'm trying to give him credit for something.

[billay]

OK, this is terrible stinky bait billay, even though it's probably true...

I'm serious. I'm a bigger Obama supporter than most, but the recent poll numbers and Mass. election have really shaken his resolve in my opinion. He is trying to halve his cake and eat it too. As Az pointed out, this reduction in spending is de minimis in the larger scheme of things. That and the "Bank Responsibility Act" or whatever that post-TARP tax scheme thing is called, are political window dressing designed to take some political heat off his agenda. He knew his policies would be unpopular, but I wish he would show the same political conviction he has shown at other times. If that means one term, then so be it. I'm sure that the rest of the party is ready to hang hang him out to dry however, if he doesn't change his course. This kind of stuff though just pisses me off.

[evil_gop_liars]

but something is better than nothing.

 

Except when it comes to health care.

[Perchoutofwater]

Except when it comes to health care.

 

If you can actually do it where the government spends less money, then yes.

[bpwallace49]

This is a classic example of why the left usually end up in an epic fail. Obama tries to do a moderate action, and the far left roasts him for it. The right may secretly agree, but will never publically admit it, or focus on how it could have been better.

 

End result, something that is a step in the right direction of limiting spending gets bi-partisan disdain . . . I hate Washington . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

This is a classic example of why the left usually end up in an epic fail. Obama tries to do a moderate action, and the far left roasts him for it. The right may secretly agree, but will never publically admit it, or focus on how it could have been better.

 

End result, something that is a step in the right direction of limiting spending gets bi-partisan disdain . . . I hate Washington . . . .

 

I'm pretty sure I'm on the right and publicly applauded him for it. Sure it could be better, but that could be said about damn near anything the government does.

[yo mama]

And with ramping up the committmnet to Afghanistan, there is no way that Obama will cut spending enough to justify the additional war expense. Not in anyway that will get past congress . .

Something has to give. I just wish we had congressional and presidential leaders who were capable of making a hard decision. I though Obama was tough enough to walk away from these wars; its a big part of why I voted for him. He disappointed me. You don't fight wars you can't afford, especially one that doesn't have an exit strategy.

[bpwallace49]

I'm pretty sure I'm on the right and publicly applauded him for it. Sure it could be better, but that could be said about damn near anything the government does.

 

And I give you HUGH props for that Perch . . . I meant congressmen and political pundits . . .

[bpwallace49]

Something has to give. I just wish we had congressional and presidential leaders who were capable of making a hard decision. I though Obama was tough enough to walk away from these wars; its a big part of why I voted for him. He disappointed me. You don't fight wars you can't afford, especially one that doesn't have an exit strategy.

 

Well . . he IS withdrawing from Iraq, right? And unfortunately Afghanistan is way too unstable and has too much influence on Pakistan and their nukes. I wish there was a clear answer . . .

 

It is waaaay too much to ask for congress to actually do what is best for the country over their partisan bullcrap.

[westvirginia]

Something has to give. I just wish we had congressional and presidential leaders who were capable of making a hard decision. I though Obama was tough enough to walk away from these wars; its a big part of why I voted for him. He disappointed me. You don't fight wars you can't afford, especially one that doesn't have an exit strategy.

 

I don't think anything will be done until a bunch of these bums are thrown out. The ONLY thing these guys care about is their cushy jobs, so

[yo mama]

I don't think anything will be done until a bunch of these bums are thrown out. The ONLY thing these guys care about is their cushy jobs, so

Maybe we could explore this yet-to-be-used means available to we, the people...

 

Article V of the US Constitution allows a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.

 

If the US Congress is the problem, the states have an available remedy. As far as I'm concerned, modern movements like the tea partiers should be exploring this in earnest. Maybe the Fed would be more serious about reform if it felt like the a majority of state legislatures were serious about doing it for them.

[Azazello1313]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/26/...dget-freeze-ice

 

do you actually buy that spin? even a little bit? here are the first couple sentences of the wapo article:

Under mounting pressure to rein in mammoth budget deficits, President Obama will propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security, a concession to public concern about government spending that could dramatically curtail Obama's legislative ambitions.

 

The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama's first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy.

they are proposing EXACTLY what mccain proposed (and obama ridiculed) during the campaign -- an across-the-board discretionary spending freeze on everything but defense and entitlements (i.e., on everything except what really counts).

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

do you actually buy that spin? even a little bit? here are the first couple sentences of the wapo article:

 

they are proposing EXACTLY what mccain proposed (and obama ridiculed) during the campaign -- an across-the-board discretionary spending freeze on everything but defense and entitlements (i.e., on everything except what really counts).

 

No, they are not. An across the board spending freeze means leaving spending for every program untouched. They are proposing leaving the total untouched but prioritizing the categories of said spending. Now I may be wrong, but is that what McCain proposed?

[westvirginia]

Maybe we could explore this yet-to-be-used means available to we, the people...

 

Article V of the US Constitution allows a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.

 

If the US Congress is the problem, the states have an available remedy. As far as I'm concerned, modern movements like the tea partiers should be exploring this in earnest. Maybe the Fed would be more serious about reform if it felt like the a majority of state legislatures were serious about doing it for them.

 

Ooh, didn't even think about that one. What I'd love to see is the Senators go back to being appointed by the states, rather than elected. If you're not running for election you don't have to do the popular thing, but the right thing.

 

I guess lawyers are good for something after all!

[bpwallace49]

Ooh, didn't even think about that one. What I'd love to see is the Senators go back to being appointed by the states, rather than elected. If you're not running for election you don't have to do the popular thing, but the right thing.

 

But the appointees are determined by the sitting governor . . .right? Aaaand the governor is elected, so that really doesnt change anything

 

Just like Blagovich . . :its fkin' GOLDEN" . .

 

I would love to see term limits back on the table for congresspeople on BOTH sides of the aisle . . . .

[Azazello1313]

No, they are not. An across the board spending freeze means leaving spending for every program untouched. They are proposing leaving the total untouched but prioritizing the categories of said spending. Now I may be wrong, but is that what McCain proposed?

 

exactly what part of "three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security" are you having trouble with? obviously, they have particular areas where they want to pass new legislation to spend more (hundreds of millions and billions more /carlsagan), but they are proposing a general across-the-board freeze on non-defense spending. that is mccain's "hatchet", pure and simple.

[Ursa Majoris]

they are proposing a general across-the-board freeze on non-defense spending.

As long as the wars are funded properly (and they can be done separately), what is it that makes defense such a sacred cow?

[Perchoutofwater]

As long as the wars are funded properly (and they can be done separately), what is it that makes defense such a sacred cow?

 

It is something the government is actually supposed to do? If your favorite social program fails it may make life a little harder for a few until they re-learn to do for themselves or charity picks up the slack. If defense fails we are all screwed. That is not to say it shouldnt be looked at it and waste eliminated, but I can think of a lot of things more wasteful and less critical and not actually mandated by the Constitution.

[Ursa Majoris]

It is something the government is actually supposed to do? If your favorite social program fails it may make life a little harder for a few until they re-learn to do for themselves or charity picks up the slack. If defense fails we are all screwed. That is not to say it shouldnt be looked at it and waste eliminated, but I can think of a lot of things more wasteful and less critical and not actually mandated by the Constitution.

But we spend way more than all the rest of the world combined. That includes the so-called arch enemies Russia and China, all of NATO, India, all the warmongers in the Middle East, N Korea and every other nation on the planet. More than all of them combined!

 

We even have a gigantic ocean on either side so geographically we may be the best protected nation on earth. We have enough nukes to eradicate all life. Yet we persist in this lunacy of spending unbelievable levels on defenses we flat out don't need and you fiscal conservatives go along with it. Why? Puffed up pride? Misplaced fear? What?

[Perchoutofwater]

But we spend way more than all the rest of the world combined. That includes the so-called arch enemies Russia and China, all of NATO, India, all the warmongers in the Middle East, N Korea and every other nation on the planet. More than all of them combined!

 

We even have a gigantic ocean on either side so geographically we may be the best protected nation on earth. We have enough nukes to eradicate all life. Yet we persist in this lunacy of spending unbelievable levels on defenses we flat out don't need and you fiscal conservatives go along with it. Why? Puffed up pride? Misplaced fear? What?

 

I agree it could and should be streamlined. Still there is a bunch of crap I'd rather see cut first, particularly the stuff not mentioned specifically in the constitution. Also as long as we are your beloved U.N.'s enforcers we need a large military. Could you imagine if we weren't their enforcer? They would be even a bigger joke than they already are if that is possible.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Regarding spending on national defense, it doesn't help that you have intellectually dishonest people on the right.

 

Don't ask me how (i've never been a registered Republican voter) but I just received a mailing from Michael Steele and the GOP which contained a survey about voter attitudes and of course the typical request for money. Could have something to do with changing my registration from Democrat to unaffiliated, but whatever.

 

Anyways, here is the first question under a section called National Defense:

 

1) Do you believe the Obama Administration is right in dramatically scaling back our nation's military?

YES------NO------No Opinion

 

EXCUSE ME? WHAT AN OUTRIGHT LIE! The Obama Admin increased overall defense spending in it's first budget from the prior year. What typical stereotypical "Democrats are weak on defense" bullpoopy. It pisses me off to no end.

Edited January 27, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[The Mucca]

But we spend way more than all the rest of the world combined. That includes the so-called arch enemies Russia and China, all of NATO, India, all the warmongers in the Middle East, N Korea and every other nation on the planet. More than all of them combined!

 

We even have a gigantic ocean on either side so geographically we may be the best protected nation on earth. We have enough nukes to eradicate all life. Yet we persist in this lunacy of spending unbelievable levels on defenses we flat out don't need and you fiscal conservatives go along with it. Why? Puffed up pride? Misplaced fear? What?

 

Why, because it is the most important thing to America. Without the Biggest, Baddest defense in the world, you just might

be cleaning your masters camel crap tomorrow.