|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 16, 2013 19:02:14 GMT
Considering we have a president who WILL NOT EVER COMPROMISE and says so at the start of every one of these events that normally get negotiated.......the fact this only gets kicked down the road and delayed for a few more weeks.....again........the results are not so bad for the conservatives. Certainly not as bad as the Democrats and mainstream are portraying it.
So, what did we get....and what did they get?
Democrats got it kicked down the road, so the president can continue to use the presidential Bully Pulpit to beat up on Republicans.....and that's a political win for them!
But they got nothing else. They got no hikes in spending....they got no changes on the Sequestration.
Republicans did not get any changes to Obamacare, despite its problems and it's multi-TRILLION cost.
BUT, they STILL have the Sequestration CUTS....and that's a win. IF Obama wants any of it changed.....he's going to have to compromise and negotiate......because the Congress hold all the cards on that one and aren't caving on that issue.
So, I say.......let this get kicked into an election year. Let the potential voters see and hear all the arguments. Let them decide if they want the Democrats to continue with 2/3rds of the federal gov't and to block every attempt to actually do something about the over-spending. After all, over the next few months, they will be getting a real BIG WHIFF of exactly what Obamacare is going to mean to them personally. And that only helps Republicans!
Bring it On!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 17, 2013 10:35:11 GMT
The Republicans in the House had months in which to change "Obamacare" based upon bipartisan support but instead wasted their time with 42 failed attempts to simply defund it. President Obama and the Democrats welcome any proposals by Republicans that will improve "Obamacare" and/or reduce it's costs or that will reduce the deficits without harming the American People.
Both Democrats and Republicans (excluding 114 House GOP members and a few Senate GOP members) agreed that the Congress should spend the next few months working on bipartisan legislation that benefits American as opposed to destroying the US economy by failing to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. For these Democrats and Republicans the United States was more important that partisanship in politics. Unfortunately there are too many extremists in the GOP that don't care at all about what is best for the United States and instead focus solely upon their partisan BS agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 18, 2013 15:22:55 GMT
Let the potential voters see and hear all the arguments. Let them decide if they want the Democrats to continue with 2/3rds of the federal gov't and to block every attempt to actually do something about the over-spending. After all, over the next few months, they will be getting a real BIG WHIFF of exactly what Obamacare is going to mean to them personally.
So excluding major health-care programs (e.g. Medicare/Medicaid/ACA), Social Security and interest on the debt the cuts in discretionary spending has been curtailed because of many proposals by the "Tea Party" movement in Congress. The only "discretionary" item that has remained immune to budgetary cuts is the DOD budget that was always the "elephant in the living room" and it is the only place were we can still make significant cuts in discretionary spending. The DOD budget, that is close to $1 trillion/yr and growing, is not a sacred cow and needs to be addressed at the earliest possible time. Why we believe we should be borrowing to fund international military interventionism, that isn't even enumerated an role of the federal government in the US Constitution and that the founders of America argued against, remains puzzling to me.
Starting with Social Security/Medicare we also need to address these in the future and need to do so pragmatically. First we need to understand that these programs have been overfunded in the past and actually have close to $3 trillion in assets. The problem is that we're no long collecting enough in revenue to support the programs and the reserve assets will be depleted in the projectable future. The "benefits" for both are really dismal and they failed to address the actual problem identified when they were created. They applied a Band-Aid to a gaping economic wound in America. The problem was originally identified in the 1930's were it was found that approximately 1/2 of the people reaching retirement age hadn't invested enough to have the financial assets to provide income when they became too old to work. Instead of addressing the problem, a lack of wealth accumulation to provide income, they created a welfare Band-Aid that provided the income from taxation collected from others. By the 1960's the same problem was identified because (the same) 1/2 of the people didn't have the financial assets to provide enough income so they would able to afford private health insurance.
The problem for Congress really comes down to either increasing the tax revenues to fund Social Security/Medicare or to address the actual problem that was identified which was that about 1/2 of the People will not voluntarily invest during their working career to have the assets necessary to provide income when they retire. It's pretty straightforward IMHO and I'm an advocate of addressing the problem as opposed to simply continuing to apply a Band-Aid to the problem. The only real issue to be addressed is the fact that to build personal assets requires the entire working career of the person and that creates a 40-45 year transitional period to change from a "welfare" program to a "personal investment" program. During this transitional period those dependent upon the "welfare" system still need to be addressed and this costs money derived from taxation. About $40 trillion is required to fund the transition.
"Obamacare" is different because it is basically funded by general government revenues and not from a special tax source. Will it work? How much will it really cost? Will it ultimately "save" the government money because people have private insurance, albeit subsidized in most cases, over not having this program and continuing to either not treat the medical needs of millions of Americans or by treating them in emergency rooms that cost four times more than treating them in a clinic?
I don't like "Obamacare" but the solution for this is to come up with a program that ensures that those who require medical services will obtain them in the least expensive manner possible. I've not seen any real proposals that will ensure that All Americans will receive medical services if they need them although I've offered suggestions on how this can be accomplished so that "Obamacare" would not exist as we know it.
What we can't do is simply return to the health care crisis that existed before "Obamacare" so Congress should address how "Obamacare" can be replaced without returning to the health care crisis that was responsible for it. This is basically going to have to be done by the GOP because I don't see the Democrats looking for alternative solutions to the problem.
Repeal or Delay of "Obamacare: is not an option. Replacement with a superior program is not just an option but is the right thing to do.
Ultimately, as stated, much of this can come down to the 2014 elections. We know that President Obama will not be replaced because his term lasts until January 2017. We also know that the roughly 80 "Tea Party" Republicans in the House have suffered a serious popularity setback because driving the US government into insolvency was never a viable option and many are unrepentant and were willing to drive the US into a financial crisis that would have adversely affected ALL Americans (excluding the very wealthy) even though they are a small minority in Congress. Will American forget the willingness of the Tea Party to drive the US into an epic financial crisis come November? I don't know because Americans often have a very short memory when it comes to politics.
More importantly will the "Tea Party" members in the House create this identical crisis again in January or will they wait until the November elections where they might obtain the support of the majority of Americans? So far they've pretty much ignore the opinions of the American People.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Oct 18, 2013 15:28:03 GMT
You could all live every comfortably if you stopped wasting such incredible sums on providing gun-men for the oil companies and their like, surely? Why do you need that incredible military machine?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 18, 2013 16:05:20 GMT
You could all live every comfortably if you stopped wasting such incredible sums on providing gun-men for the oil companies and their like, surely? Why do you need that incredible military machine?
I actually support the constant improvements in the technology of war because that technology is a deterrent to potential threats and also allows for the down-sizing of the military while maintaining the same mission capability. Of course that investment in new technology is only a small faction of the DOD budget. The entire B-2 program, for example, cost about $45 billion that only represented about 5.5% of the current DOD annual budget. Twenty B-2's (only 21 were produced and one was strictly a test aircraft) ultimately provided more mission capability than all of the B-1B's and B-52's in the US Air Force because they were not threatened by enemy forces due to their stealth capabilities. B-2's can fly missions with absolute impunity while B-1B's and B-52's are both at high risk from SAM's and Air-to-Air missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Oct 18, 2013 16:14:10 GMT
It's a proportion, though, of the spending of the richest country on earth - though I do take your point. It could call a great deal further before you were in the slightest danger from any rival power.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 18, 2013 19:46:00 GMT
It's a proportion, though, of the spending of the richest country on earth - though I do take your point. It could call a great deal further before you were in the slightest danger from any rival power.
The simple fact is that the United States taxpayers cannot afford to pay the costs of the US playing World Cop. If other countries want us to be World Cop how about they start making payments to us to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending on it annually. If Germany wants US troops stationed in their country then they should pay not just the actual cost but 10% "service fee" on top of expenses. If Japan wants the same then they should also pay. Countries should not be provided with "foreign mercenary military forces" to defend their nations for free and that's exactly what the US is doing.
Personally I don't advocate loaning or renting out the US military to defend other nations. That is not the Constitutional purpose of the US military. I certainly don't advocate the US taxpayers paying for the national defense of countries like Germany, Japan or S Korea. Their citizens should be paying for the defense of their own nations just like we do.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 1:46:50 GMT
Well, hey......this president has ended all wars; devastated al Qaeda; and is going around the world killing people....and their families.... at will with drones. So, actually, the defense budget could be cut out completely then....don't ya think? I mean...after all, Obama's got our back. Isn't that what he always says? You believe him, don't you? Just forget about Benghazi and Egypt, and Syria......and Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's just stop the ONE thing the federal gov't is supposed to do...and that is PROTECT its citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 19, 2013 10:54:55 GMT
Remember one simple fact. The reason that there is an international terrorist threat against the United States is because of the US political and military interventionism in the affairs of other nations. We have spent tens of trillions of dollars over decades going back to the end of WW II to create a threat against us.
Iraq and Afghanistan are both lost causes. The US soldiers that died or were maimed there was a waste. The deaths and maiming of US soldiers didn't improve the security of the United States and, in fact, made us less secure as a nation.
Benghazi was a perfect example of what's wrong with US foreign policy. When the truth came out we learned that it was a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic outpost. The CIA is right up there with the US military when it comes to foreign interventionism and is probably worse because it has a historical record of trying to overthrow democratic regimes and supporting organizations involved in acts of terrorism.
From an internal standpoint what happens in Egypt or Syria is a problem for the people of Egypt and Syria respectively. There are also international concerns that need to be addressed by the UN Security Council which it did do related to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. From the United States perspective the primary problem with Syria is that the US violated our treaty agreement with other nations as a member of the United Nations by unilaterally threatening the use of military force against Syria that violates the UN Charter. Why is it that our Presidents and the United States simpy ignores the treaties we're a party to whenever we feel like it?
If we don't want to follow the UN Treaty agreement (i.e. the UN Charter) then why don't we simply pull out and become an isolationist country? I don't advocate that because I believe the US should be involved in world affairs but that would mean we should comply with the treaties we are a party to.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 17:43:06 GMT
The Republicans in the House had months in which to change "Obamacare" based upon bipartisan support but instead wasted their time with 42 failed attempts to simply defund it. President Obama and the Democrats welcome any proposals by Republicans that will improve "Obamacare" and/or reduce it's costs or that will reduce the deficits without harming the American People.
Both Democrats and Republicans (excluding 114 House GOP members and a few Senate GOP members) agreed that the Congress should spend the next few months working on bipartisan legislation that benefits American as opposed to destroying the US economy by failing to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. For these Democrats and Republicans the United States was more important that partisanship in politics. Unfortunately there are too many extremists in the GOP that don't care at all about what is best for the United States and instead focus solely upon their partisan BS agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 17:59:23 GMT
Remember one simple fact. The reason that there is an international terrorist threat against the United States is because of the US political and military interventionism in the affairs of other nations. We have spent tens of trillions of dollars over decades going back to the end of WW II to create a threat against us.
Iraq and Afghanistan are both lost causes. The US soldiers that died or were maimed there was a waste. The deaths and maiming of US soldiers didn't improve the security of the United States and, in fact, made us less secure as a nation.
Benghazi was a perfect example of what's wrong with US foreign policy. When the truth came out we learned that it was a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic outpost. The CIA is right up there with the US military when it comes to foreign interventionism and is probably worse because it has a historical record of trying to overthrow democratic regimes and supporting organizations involved in acts of terrorism.
From an internal standpoint what happens in Egypt or Syria is a problem for the people of Egypt and Syria respectively. There are also international concerns that need to be addressed by the UN Security Council which it did do related to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. From the United States perspective the primary problem with Syria is that the US violated our treaty agreement with other nations as a member of the United Nations by unilaterally threatening the use of military force against Syria that violates the UN Charter. Why is it that our Presidents and the United States simpy ignores the treaties we're a party to whenever we feel like it?
If we don't want to follow the UN Treaty agreement (i.e. the UN Charter) then why don't we simply pull out and become an isolationist country? I don't advocate that because I believe the US should be involved in world affairs but that would mean we should comply with the treaties we are a party to.
But I happen to disagree with you about anything that's happened to us.....all terrorists attacks.....are a result of something we did to cause it. Regardless of what we did at the request of other countries who are our friends, the Islamic fundamentalist extremists are against any "western" culture and influence. But there is certainly a way to reduce our involvement in those countries....and that is to go after our OWN oil/gas resouces full force. Our country had more energy resources than ALL of the Middle East. We have a president and political party, however, who are beholding to their base, the environmentalist who make excuses for not doing it....no matter how much the technology experts say it can be done without destroying the environment. And how arrogant is it for us to say to the rest of the world...."we have it here, but don't won't to take a chance on messing up our lands; we'd rather mess up yours?" But it has always been Democrats who keep us...and the world... beholding to the Middle East. |
|
|
|
Post by africanhope on Oct 19, 2013 19:57:03 GMT
Ah JP5, the old misconception - only the US helps and the rest sit back and do nothing. You could not be further from the truth. You go in and intervene, or interfere, in other countries on your own mandate, others prefer to do it through international bodies like the UN and AU. If I remember correctly there are currently only 2 or 3 UN missions you are actively part of, which is less than my own country! South Africa currently has troops on the ground in 6 African countries on UN and or AU missions. When I served in the SANDF, I regularly served with troops from France, the UK, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Kenya, Nigeria, and others. I never served with troops from the US.
It is a fallacy only believed by the American right that America is the only country that does anything militarily to bring peace. Let's look at your missions - Iraq (you invaded without a UN mandate). Afghanistan (a NATO war, NATO, the group you dominate). Uhm, where else do you currently have peace missions?
So no. No one is sitting back. No one is expecting you to do it. As a mater of fact, many countries, who do not have your militaries, who do not have your defence budget, do more than you do.
AH
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 19, 2013 21:14:04 GMT
Let me address some of these erroneous beliefs as well.
Germany, Japan, and even S Korea can easily afford to defend themselves and don't require a US military presence. So why do we have major troop deployments in these countries? We can't even say that the "Iron Curtain" exists anymore which was a rationalization for the US military in Europe after WW II.
Prior to 1991 Osama bin Ladin and his al Qaeda organization existed and the United States was not their "enemy" at the time. The Royal Family of Saud that are tyrannical monarchs over the Saudi People were the enemy of al Qaeda.
In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait and there was a UNSC Resolution that authorized the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The combined military strength of Iran and Saudi Arabia was more than enough to force Iraq out of Kuwait and both nations had reason to join together to accomplish that. Instead, because we didn't want Iran to become involved, the US stepped in to support the tyrannical regimes of Saudi Arabia as well as the tyrannical monarchs of Kuwait. President George GW Bush literally rented out the US military (at a loss mind you) to the Royal Family of Kuwait because they were close personal friends and former business associates of the President.
Osama bin Ladin was an "enemy" of the Saudi regime as well as being an enemy of Saddam that was also a tyrannical dictator. Virtually all Muslims objected to the US establishing a military presence in Saudi Arabia but accepted it as a necessity of the time in order to remove Saddam from Kuwait including bin Ladin. The problem is that bin Ladin warned that once in Saudi Arabia the US wouldn't leave once Saddam was out of Kuwait. Guess what, we didn't leave once the "mission was accomplished" and that's when the United States really became an enemy of "al Qaeda" and the terrorist attacks began in 1993 against the WTC.
Of course our political and military support of Israel that is a tyrannical nation when it comes to the Palestinians also works against us and fuels the fires of terrorism against us as well. In 1967 the UN Security Council issued Resolution 242 requiring Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories of the Golan Heights, West Bank, E Jerusalem and Gaza, and the US has done nothing as a permanent member of the Security Council to enforce that resolution. We should not only be condemned but should figuratively be taken out and whipped as a nation because of our political hypocrisy.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul has said in the past but he was correct when he stated, "They don't hate us because we're over here, they hate us because we're over there."
I don't recall the movie but I do recall the line that should be used for those nations that expect us to be the World Cop. "Learn to live with disappointment."
Sorry but the US taxpayers can't afford it. Given a choice between spending $500 billion a year to play World Cop or not spending that money so we have a balanced budget or even have a surplus budget to pay down the national debt I vote against playing World Cop.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 23:39:30 GMT
Ah JP5, the old misconception - only the US helps and the rest sit back and do nothing. You could not be further from the truth. You go in and intervene, or interfere, in other countries on your own mandate, others prefer to do it through international bodies like the UN and AU. If I remember correctly there are currently only 2 or 3 UN missions you are actively part of, which is less than my own country! South Africa currently has troops on the ground in 6 African countries on UN and or AU missions. When I served in the SANDF, I regularly served with troops from France, the UK, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Kenya, Nigeria, and others. I never served with troops from the US. It is a fallacy only believed by the American right that America is the only country that does anything militarily to bring peace. Let's look at your missions - Iraq (you invaded without a UN mandate). Afghanistan (a NATO war, NATO, the group you dominate). Uhm, where else do you currently have peace missions? So no. No one is sitting back. No one is expecting you to do it. As a mater of fact, many countries, who do not have your militaries, who do not have your defence budget, do more than you do. AH UN has some problems. Even Saudi Arabia recently turned down a seat on the Security Council. The UN is way too political. The Council’s inability to take firm action on the current crisis in Syria (ostensibly the fault of vetoes from Russia and China) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (ostensibly the fault of the U.S.). “The manner, the mechanisms of action and double standards existing in the Security Council prevent it from performing its duties and assuming its responsibilities toward preserving international peace and security as required,” the Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Read more: world.time.com/2013/10/18/saudi-arabia-rejects-seat-on-u-n-security-council-and-confuses-everyone/#ixzz2iDKRtp6uSaudi Arabia was correct in that statement they made. WAY too political to be of any real value to the world. They are good with some issues....but not in great military actions. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 20, 2013 0:09:10 GMT
Rand Paul is right. And I believe that means that we're also "damned if we do, and damned if we don't." The U.S. doesn't get involved; we get demonized. The U.S. does get involved, we also get demonized.
|
|
