"Obama: Cut Defense Spending As Opposed To Food Stamps"

[ClarkUSA]

Video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=604228&mesg_id=604228

I love having a liberal President like Barack Obama, who is not afraid of standing up for and stating Democratic principles while showing strong leadership in the face of complete Republican obstructionism.

How ever this turns out - and I suspect it will be a clean debt ceiling bill in the end - I am proud that President Obama has rejected all Republican gambits and gotchas. He will no doubt continue to do so.

[Scurrilous]

1. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

2. Mo' liberal policy: "Pres. Obama to announce a staggering 65% increase in fuel-efficiency standards”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724479&mesg_id=724479

[whatchamacallit]

3. Oscillations from your cognitive dissonance could shatter glass

:crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

4. Do you enjoy denigrating fact-based Obama supporters on a forum for Democrats?

[whatchamacallit]

5. If you want to defend our wall street-war-president for being centrist, that's fine

just don't expect rational people to except he's a liberal on your say-so.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Do you have anything but baseless negative demonizing rhetoric to offer on this thread?

Rational people would offer facts that back up their claims, like I did in the OP and on the thread which proved President Obama is a leader who stands up for liberal Democratic principles.

Why are you ignoring the facts? Is that the only way you can go on spewing false memes? Or didn't you know that Romney is outraising Pres. Obama nearly 2:1 on Wall Street?

[whatchamacallit]

7. Until Obama pulls the brake on the rightward betrayal train, probably not. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

8. Well, it's evident you make a habit of ignoring facts as evidenced in the OP.

It's ironic you are accusing me of cognitive dissonance when you do that & when your claims are TOTALLY empty of factual content but thanks for kicking my OP, anyway. :)

[woo me with science]

9. Ya gotta admit it's pretty damned nervy

to seek kudos as a defender of food stamps when you just put 650 billion of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts on the table.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Pres. Obama has explicitly come out against cutting Medicare & SS benefits but wants cuts to costs.

He also wants to eliminate fraud in those programs. He's consistently had this position since his SOTU address in January. What's "nervy" about sticking to one position which many think is perfectly valid, considering much can be done to lower costs to the prescription drug program, to name just one example which has been mentioned.

[woo me with science]

21. Bullshit.

Multiple reports have indicated that what he put in the table included chained CPI and a raising of the Medicare age.

[ClarkUSA]

25. What's bullshit is the constant attempt to demonize this President with fearmongering rumors.

[woo me with science]

27. Don't even try it, ClarkUSA. He has defended benefit cuts REPEATEDLY. nt

[ClarkUSA]

29. Provide direct quotes from President Obama's budget plan. Rope-a-dope ploys don't count...

... because they are meant to be strategic.

[woo me with science]

36. Okay. Here's a reality sandwich for you:

OF COURSE President Obama has defended benefit cuts. He has defended them REPEATEDLY. To argue otherwise is either to have been comotose during this whole debacle or willfully resistant to reality.


1. He supported them in the first press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

"And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on."



2. He supported them in the second press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president

"well, let me put it this way: If you’re a senior citizen, and a modification potentially costs you a hundred or two hundred bucks a year more, or even if it’s not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who’s 40 today 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more....The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well."


3. He put 650 billion in cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the table and then publicly bemoaned the fact that the Republicans did not accept his "big deal." And we learned afterward that the "big deal" absolutely DID include benefit cuts. By reports from multiple sources (including Nancy Pelosi, btw), the deal, which was agreed upon except for the revenue component, included the following:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/what-obama-was-willing-to-give-away/?utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue


"Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny."


4. Now the Republicans have moved further right, and the President is *still* begging for a compromise. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/address-president-nation)

"...serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress."

Let me repeat: the President offered up these entitlement benefit cuts just last week. Now the Republicans have moved further right, and the President continues to plead for a "compromise." Not only that, but he insists that serious debt reduction must include "entitlement reform," and he references their ability to find common ground as they did before.

NEVER does he say that benefits cuts are off the table. All evidence screams that they remain on the table.

Only the willfully blind would insist at this point, with the history I have detailed here, that this "entitlement reform" will not include benefit cuts. In fact, Kucinich is on record chastising the President for not being more forthright with the public about his planned cuts to Social Security. The above-mentioned cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are certainly also still on the table, as well.


5. Add to this the President's longstanding history of PLANNING significant entitlement reform and aligning himself with other Hamiltonian Democrats who have been very clear about wanting to slash the benefits system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315


6. And his promise to reform entitlements soon after he was elected President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html




If, after all of this, you continue to claim that Obama does not support benefit cuts, you are creating your own reality.

In summary, you insult people who have actually been paying attention when you tell them the opposite of what they have observed with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. People dislike being played for chumps, and that is how this administration is making them feel right now. It is one thing to assault people's livelihoods and piss on their futures. It is even worse to tell them you are their protector while you are doing it.



Just one more note of counsel, Clark, before I abandon you to whatever further wild attempts you will make here in my absence, while ignoring everything in this post. Whatever good you think you are doing the President through these sorts of posts, they are having the opposite effect of what you intend. The truth is that people get offended by flat-out denial of reality and being told the chocolate ration has been increased. In general, we welcome debate when it is earth-based, but have just so much tolerance for it when the responses require us to enter an alternate dimension.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Show me the final plan that does that. Quote? Remember, Bernie Sanders endorsed McConnell's plan...

... which provides for a Catfood Commission II on steroids yet everyone applauds St. Bernie despite that fact. It's amazing.

FYI, President Obama has rejected the McConnell plan. :)

Any answers given during those press conferences were strategic because Pres. Obama knew Republicans would never go for revenue hikes. It's ridiculous for you to bring any of them up because there is NO DEAL on anything with a revenue hike with the Teabagger House.

Furthermore, President Obama is for means-testing for the wealthy. What's wrong with that?

[Cali_Democrat]

105. Stop with the facts!

Don't be so mean :cry:

[ClarkUSA]

108. Winning Progressive: "No, Pres. Obama Did Not Propose Cuts to Medicare and Social Security Benefits"

For example, in his press conference earlier this week about the debt ceiling negotiations, our President said the following about Medicare and Social Security:

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation... what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term."

. . . . . . .

With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened? So the reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years. And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.... making changes to these programs is so difficult that this may be an opportunity for us to go ahead and do something smart that strengthens Social Security and gives not just this generation but future generations the opportunity to say this thing is going to be in there for the long haul.... Social Security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt. On the other hand, we do want to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for the next generations, and if there is a reasonable deal to be had on it, it is one that I’m willing to pursue.


These statements in support of Medicare and Social Security are quite similar to ones that President Obama has made previously. For example, just last week the President gave an interview to reporter Jean Enersen from KING-TV in Seattle in which he made clear that he wants to strengthen and “preserve intact” Social Security and Medicare and that he would not accept anything that “dismantles or weakens” Social Security and Medicare. See around the five minute mark in the video:
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/Jean-Enersen-1-on-1-with-Pres-Obama-125177029.html

More facts at: http://www.winningprogressive.org/no-president-obama-did-not-propose-cuts-to-medicare-and-social-security-benefits

[Mimosa]

76. "Demonizing"

Clark, in expressing our anxiety and disagreements about policies, nobody of integrity on DU (and most people who habitually discuss issues with you have integrity, I hope you'll admit) has any desire to 'demonize' the President. Many of us were his most energetic supporters and campaign contributors. And quite a few of us are disappointed but still somewhat hopeful.

The way you frame your arguments using extreme language seems to me like you are attempting to make people like Cali, Woo Me with Science, and even me sound like we are teabaggers who hate the President. That's not fair. People who are angry about specific policies or 'feints' are worried about the future. We don't *automatically* trust Obama to protect our interests. The ACA of 2010 was a major disappointment. 'Rumors' of what many of us regarded as a sellout marerialised. So we don't automatically believe the President will defend Social Security or medicare. He's the one who said everything's on the table! We don't like the expansion of military conflicts. Our objections to policy directions, our concerns, are all made in *good faith*.

Your repeated statements that people who disagree are 'demonizing' President Obama are unfair and unjustified. I keep hoping for the best form the President who I supported. Can you please explain why you make them?

US infrastructure deteriorates while the government keeps building infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW, this expresses my thoughts on defense spending:


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ClarkUSA]

79. That's right. Just look at the ridiculous red herring attacks this OP has drawn out.

[Mimosa]

81. You call alternative info 'red herring' attacks

Do you believe everybody who disagress with you is wrong or motivated by animosity towards President Obama?

I think even the President's democratic critics LIKE him. I *like* him a lot. There are facets about Obama's character I admire. But at times i distrust *his administration's policies*. :D

[ClarkUSA]

83. The evidence is clear. And so is the meaning of the term "red herring".

BTW, I wasn't speaking to you or of you :) nor of Wilms, either.

However, I meant every word for those who have repeatedly disrupted this OP thread with their pet red herrings, in an attempt to distract from the OP content, which is hard to argue with, given the evidence I offered.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Indeed! +1

[Wait Wut]

14. "Killing me softly..."

:rofl:

:yourock:

[Sheepshank]

53. empty rhetoric is right on

too bad...because a factual conversation would have been somewhat informative and interesting.

[rms013]

146. Liberal vs Conservative

The distance between the left and right has always been the same. In my life time the right has moved to the far right and the left has maintained that constant distance therefore moving to the right. The definition of liberal or for that matter conservative is apparently time sensitive.

[Safetykitten]

18. HAAA!!!

[ClarkUSA]

33. It's a classic case of projection. HAAA!!!

As I have shown here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724983&mesg_id=725034

[Cali_Democrat]

10. ***Obama's Defense Department seeks highest defense budget since World War 2***

For FY2012

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

God damn facts!

[ClarkUSA]

12. NPR.org: "No Longer 'Wine And Roses' For Defense Spending" (Six Days Ago)

http://m.npr.org/news/Politics/138586932

[Cali_Democrat]

17. The Obama Administration came out with a different defense budget proposal for FY2012?

Link?

[ClarkUSA]

23. Check out what your own source says. Or didn't you read it before posting it as a "gotcha"?

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Ah yes...that's the same defense budget proposal that's the highest since WW2

Thanks for playing:hi:

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

31. FAIL. Your own source says "it's still a consistent percent of overall federal spending".

Your gotcha fails miserably. :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

35. LOL. Did you really reply to one of my replies 4 separate times?

I just noticed that. Hit a nerve, eh?

Sorry for destroying your thread with facts. I sincerely apologize. :hi:

Facts are stubborn things. Until Obama proposes serious defense cuts in his budget proposals, his statements are nothing more than words.

His latest defense budget proposal includes no serious defense cuts.

Sorry dude.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Yes, because you conveniently tout a headline while completely leaving out pertinent facts.

I want anyone reading this OP to know what a miserable failure your "gotcha' attempt is AND to know the facts really bely predictably misleading efforts to demonize President Obama's policy decisions.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. LOL

Don't worry, Obama will have serious defense cuts in his defense budget proposals soon!

Give it time!

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

41. Your own source says the Pentagon will face "extreme budget cuts... $400 billion... over 12 years."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724983&mesg_id=725055

Do you bother to read anything you post as a pathetically lame "gotcha"? :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

42. The serious defense budget cuts are coming soon, I tell ya!

Obama says so! Just ignore his actual proposals on paper and listen to his words!

[ClarkUSA]

43. President Obama has cut the defense budget in the past already. He's offering to do so now.

Just because Republicans won't let him doesn't mean he's not sincere. Don't you know any facts or are you ignoring Republicans' part so as to denigrate President Obama all the more for something for which he is blameless?

[Cali_Democrat]

46. It's the Republicans....they're forcing Obama to propose these large defense budgets!

They won't let him propose much smaller defense budgets!

It's not his fault!

[ClarkUSA]

47. I repeat, your OWN source says "it's still a consistent percent of overall federal spending."

That's despite the fact that $46 BILLION alone is "due to cost overruns or technical glitches."

You keep ignoring these facts. Why? Do they interfere with your denigration of President Obama?

[Cali_Democrat]

49. The serious defense cuts are coming soon, dude

Just ignore actual proposals on paper. Don't pay attention to the numbers in the budget proposals and listen to words.

Unicorns,rainbows and sunshine! :D

[ClarkUSA]

52. Really? Do you think the Teabagger House will pass Pres. Obama's budget "soon"?

Unicorns, rainbows and sunshine! :D

Just ignore what's been happening for the past seven months. Don't pay attention to your own source and continue to push demonizing memes which leave out pertinent facts that debunk your miserable failure at "gotcha".

[Cali_Democrat]

54. Poor Obama

That mean 'ol teabagger house is forcing him to propose the gargantuan defense budgets.

Obama has to propose these large defense budgets. He has no choice :cry:

[ClarkUSA]

56. Wrong. Your OWN source says "it's still a consistent percent of overall federal spending."

That's despite the fact that $46 BILLION alone is "due to cost overruns or technical glitches."

You keep ignoring these facts. Why? Do they interfere with your denigration of President Obama?

[Cali_Democrat]

59. The real defense budget cuts are coming soon!

Very, very soon. :hi:

Obama says so! Pay no attention to his actual proposals that don't include serious cuts. We won't continue to spend massive amounts of money on defense like we have been in the past.

It's all under control!

Trust Obama and his words! The real defense cuts are coming!

Unicorns, rainbows and sunshine! :D

[ClarkUSA]

61. So you DO think the Teabagger House will pass Pres. Obama's budget which cuts hundreds of billions?

You must be the only one. :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

63. So Obama has to PROPOSE large defense budgets

Because the teabaggers will not vote for defense bills otherwise!

It's not Obama's fault! He really wants these cuts...

...but he's being forced to PROPOSE large defense budgets by the teabagger house :cry:

[ClarkUSA]

64. That's false. You're full of strawmen today. Why are you ignoring the facts from your own source?

Is it because your own source DEBUNKS your demonizing meme? Yes, that's it, obviously.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. Noooo! It's true! Obama wants serious defense cuts!

In fact, the fiscal year 2012 prposal isn't even that big! Anyone who says it's big is a liar plain and simple!

Ignore the actual proposals on paper! Obama wants the serious cuts!

Listen to the pretty words! :D

[ClarkUSA]

66. Pres. O does, indeed. Your own source backs me up. But the Teabagger House won't pass his budget.

[Cali_Democrat]

67. I agree! He does want the cuts!

Listen to the pretty words!

And if Obama proposes large defense budgets in the future, blame the teabagger house for that! Obama can't really control HIS OWN proposals!

I can't get into it all now, but I'll just say it's complicated.

Trust Obama. The serious cuts are coming and will arrive shortly!

[ClarkUSA]

68. Yes he does. Your own source backs me up, too. But the Teabagger House won't pass his budget.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. Yes! He wants major defense cuts! His most recent proposal may not contain major defense cuts

But they are coming!

Obama says so! Trust what he says! :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

70. "Obama Wants Defense Review, $400 Billion in Cuts" (Apr 13, 2011)

This and other factual evidence in this Google Search prove you are 100% wrong:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Pres.+Obama+wants+defense+department+cuts&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Your own source says the same thing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724983&mesg_id=725055

Why are you trying to mislead people?

[Cali_Democrat]

71. Yes! He WANTS those cuts and more!

Listen to his words!

Very pretty words!

[ClarkUSA]

72. lol! You just contradicted yourself in the face of facts. Do you not care how that makes you look?

You have zero credibility.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. The cuts are coming! Trust Obama and his words!

:D

[ClarkUSA]

74. Too bad the Teabagger House won't vote for Pres. Obama's budget or for any policy he wants, eh?

It's a shame that some purposeful idiots don't understand Civics 101 or pretend not to so as to attack this President 24/7.

[Cali_Democrat]

75. I know!

They're so mean! :cry:

[ClarkUSA]

78. They, like so many others, want this President to fail at everything he wants to do for America.

[Cali_Democrat]

102. I know

It's a shame.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

88. So if we spend more on medicare, or the environment, etc.,

then we have to spend more on defense too because it has to remain "a consistent percent of overall federal spending." Seriously lame reply dude. The fact remains that Obama's FY2012 defense budget request (even if adjusted for inflation) is the highest since WWII.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Who said that? That's a strawman argument.

If you have a problem with the facts, then take it up with Cali_Democrat's source, which I quoted.

The same source states that $46 BILLION alone is "due to cost overruns or technical glitches" so the budget is not entirely reflective of President Obama's wishes.

[Cali_Democrat]

101. You're referring to money already spent

In previous budgets.

[ClarkUSA]

103. One mo' time: "Obama Wants Defense Review, $400 Billion in Cuts" (Apr 13, 2011)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=724983&mesg_id=725200

Like those facts, eh? :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

104. "Review"

$400 billion over how many years?

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

107. Defense News: "Obama's Plan: Cut Defense Spending by $400B by 2023"

"We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities and our role in a changing world," Obama said during a speech on his debt and deficit reduction plan at George Washington University.

The goal will be to hold growth in the defense base budget below inflation, which would save $400 billion by 2023, according to the White House. This deficit reduction effort is in addition to the savings generated from ramping-down overseas contingency operations, the White House said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6229773

[Cali_Democrat]

109. So any formal proposal yet from the Obama Administration regarding the specifics of the cuts?

Or is still a "review" at this point?

[ClarkUSA]

110. Email the DoD and ask them when their review is going to be done.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. Ah yes....pretty words, talk of "reviews"

have me thoroughly convinced that these cuts will happen! No doubt in my mind!

Rah rah sis boom bah! :D

[ClarkUSA]

112. Many said that about DADT repeal, too. Yet you sure seem believe his words 100% when they suit you.

In fact, your belief in what President Obama says appears highly selective. Thus, your sneering at what he says is ironic, to say the least.

[Cali_Democrat]

113. I'm concinved. The cuts will happen for sure!

No doubt in my mind!

Hooray!

[ClarkUSA]

114. You're wrong. The Teabagger House will reject any such WH initiative out of political spite.

There's plenty of spite aimed at President Obama these days, not only from Republican teabaggers but from bile-filled DLC PUMAs like Jane Hamster Face, who supports GOP clientele's wishes via her media company while attacking President Obama from the left she pretends to speak for.

Real liberal Democrats like me know our only hope of seeing liberal President Obama's plan passed is to work hard at making sure Pelosi is House Speaker once again.

[Cali_Democrat]

115. "The Teabagger House will reject any such WH initiative"

Yup!

So Obama HAS NO CHOICE but to PROPOSE large defense budgets that the teabaggers will support! They're FORCING HIM to formally propose huge defense budgets because they will reject any WH initiative that contains large cuts anyways!

He's being forced into this :cry:

[ClarkUSA]

116. You just did a complete 180 for the second time in this OP thread. How amusing. Let's go for 3x!

:rofl:

<< So Obama HAS NO CHOICE but to PROPOSE large defense budgets that the teabaggers will support! They're FORCING HIM to formally propose huge defense budgets because they will reject any WH initiative that contains large cuts anyways! He's being forced into this >>

Again with the false strawman argument. You never tire of those, do you? You must really dislike the OP content to linger so. :)

[Cali_Democrat]

118. It's the teabagger house! Blame them!

"The Teabagger House will reject any such WH initiative" that includes large defense cuts!

Obama's large defense budget proposals don't really reflect what he really wants!

[ClarkUSA]

119. Most Americans are way ahead of you on that realization, as polls have shown.

Only teabagger Republicans and PUMAs deny or make light of the fact that the Teabagger House is the crux of the legislative standstill on Capitol Hill right now.

[Vattel]

130. You seem to have missed the point.

You keep pointing out that Cali's own source says that the percentage of the defense budget devoted to defense has remained consistent, as if that was somehow relevant. Maybe you should explain why you think it is relevant. If non-defense spending goes up, defense spending must go up if the percentage of the defense budget devoted to defense is to remain consistent. But surely how much money needs to be spent on defense doesn't depend on how much money we are spending on things other than defense. So I don't see the relevance of what you have repeated over and over.

[ClarkUSA]

137. You miss my point.

I quoted several passages from her lame "gotcha" source, all of which disputed her ongoing attempts to paint President Obama as some kind of DoD big-spender.

[woo me with science]

13. So inconvenient. nt

[ClarkUSA]

15. FACT: Pres. Obama advocates cutting hundreds of billions to the DoD budget.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Pres.+Obama+wants+to+hundreds+of+billions+to+Defense+budget&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[woo me with science]

24. Where's the new budget proposal?

Prove it.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Read Cali_Democrat's own "gotcha" source.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Is there a FY2012 budget proposal other than the one I have already linked?

Huh? :shrug:

Didn't think so :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

32. Your own source says "it's still a consistent percent of overall federal spending."

Funny how you're ignoring this fact, eh? :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

16. Your source says "it's still a consistent percent of overall federal spending."

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

[ClarkUSA]

19. Your source says $46 BILLION alone is "due to cost overruns or technical glitches."

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

[ClarkUSA]

20. Your source says the Pentagon will face "extreme budget cuts... $400 billion... over 12 years."

http://www.businessinsider.com/2012-us-defense-budget-largest-since-world-war-ii-2011-7

[Wilms]

34. Richard Wolff: Debt Showdown is "Political Theater" Burdening Society’s Most Vulnerable

"This is political theater in which two parties are posturing for the election coming next year," says Wolff.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/28/richard_wolff_debt_showdown_is_political

[ClarkUSA]

38. Blame the Republicans. It's clear whose side Pres. Obama is on from the OP.

Besides, who gives a shit what a reporter thinks?

[Wilms]

44. Actually, many here are interested in analysis--your advocacy notwithstanding.

[ClarkUSA]

45. I am interested in analysis by those who have actually been a Dem part of budget process before.

That's why I listen to Lawrence O'Donnell, because he knows what he's talking about. His bio proves me right, too.

[Wilms]

55. I've only seen his program once. Right after the recent speech given by Obama.

And while interesting, LO tone in describing his thoughts on what was going on sounded like a voice-over for a movie-trailer.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Yeah, I've heard people say that although I don't mind his "tone".

Ed Schultz' "tone" is much more annoying to me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. It's not "objective" analysis. It is commentary from the so-called "Professional Left."

Nothing objective about it at all

[Wilms]

62. What, in particular, did you disagree with?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. "Analysis" is an opinion. He is basing his opinion on pure conjecture and rumor

He's not in the room while negotiations are going on. He's not part of the political/policy making process. While I appreciate his commentary, it's not based in fact or reality; it's based on speculation.

[Wilms]

100. Why are there negotiations at all?

Raising the debt-ceiling, historically, is perfunctory.

Why are there discussions about SS when it adds not a dime to the deficit?

Why are SS recipients being threatened with "Chained-CPI"?

Am I "speculating" that this nonsense is going on?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

135. Ask the Teabaggers/ReTHUGs. The fact that there even has to be negotiations

is a farce. These people make me sick!!

[Wilms]

138. Thanks for responding to the first of my four questions.

Do you have any thoughts on the other three I asked?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

139. I agree with you on the SS. It doesn't have anything to do with the deficit.

And, in fact, SS has run a surplus in every year except for 2008.

My view is that until I see a package with the Big Three included, I'm simply not going to sit here and speculate about something that doesn't yet exist.

I want to see what's being proposed.

Actually, I support a clean debt ceiling bill, just as we had in the past. To be honest, if Obama doesn't fight for that; or, if he signs off on some bullshit that contains cuts to benefits, I will not support him. I have stated that intent many times on this forum.

Until I see it in writing--in a plan or bill--I'm not going hysterical over conjecture and opinion-based analysis. I simply don't operate that way.

[Wilms]

141. No hysteria here. And neither "conjecture and opinion-based analysis".

Obama has made reference to modifications in SS. He did so in the recent speech. There are suggestions that he merely refers to stepping up effort to combat fraud and abuse, but I'm not buying that. I'm not aware of anything standing in the way of such an effort.

The Chained-CPI idea, also, is not the result of conjecture.

To be hopeful, I might conjecture that these threats to SS are being made precisely to get Americans to give voice to the process. So be it. But in that case, why are posters who do give voice shouted down by some of the more enthusiastic advocates of the administration?

If there's the idea of "make me do it", clearly some here haven't gotten the memo.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. Please listen to me CLEARLY!! Unless there is a PLAN or BILL on the table,

there's no discussion here to be had. Period!

[Wilms]

145. Does that mean no ice cream today either?

:shrug:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

147. Maybe a glass of red....

[Mimosa]

85. ^ Thanks for the interesting interviews, Wilms ^

Very thought provoking. :D

[great white snark]

48. K&R. That doesn't sound like a liberal sell-out.

Or stealth Republican. Or Wall St. whore.

If our President really wanted to gut Social Security and Medicare, and if our President was really spineless and weak, he would have given Republicans what they wanted by now. He is a principled man standing by those principles and the public knows it.

The deep, dark corners of the internet refuse to accept it.

[Pisces]

50. Me too!!!

[ClarkUSA]

51. Seems like some people would rather ignore the facts in the OP. Thanks to all who acknowledged them!

Guess many folks want to avoid disputing the fact that President Obama has been a defiantly liberal president with the needy in mind as evidenced by the OP's Obama video-linked proof of the President's strong denunciation of Republican goals.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. See! DU was right! Obama is worse than Bush! Hell, he's just like Reagan!!

:sarcasm:

[Armstead]

77. "I don't support insurance mandates":...."I believe there should be a public option, maybe."

I'll eat some crow the day I start to see all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and food stamps and similar programs put into a "Do Not CUT this Budget Item" category as the Democrat/GOP draconian budget cuts go into effect.

[Mimosa]

80. Why are you demonizing the President, Armstead?

:7

You must be a closet teabagger working to elect President Bachmann! *tease*

Seriously, I think we should be able to praise the President for what he does right and express disagreement awhen we think he's headed down the wrong path. ;)

[Armstead]

84. I have praised him on many occasions...

...its just that as his presidency has gone on, there have been too many occasions where I feel the opposite response is called for.
Wish it were otherwise.

Actually I'm for Palin. :smile:

[ClarkUSA]

82. More red herrings? You do realize Congress' role in nixing both those, right?

Or do you think President Obama can override a GOP filibuster with less than 60 votes (Independent Joe Lieberman sided with the GOP) in the case of the public option?

Did you complain about the insurance mandate when both Hillary's and Edwards' health plans featured it?

Or did you just decide you were against it when Republicans decided it was unconstitutional? :sarcasm:

[Armstead]

86. More ofvthe Obama is impotent defense...You havecto come up with new material

As for mandates, I agreed with Obama during the campaign when he was against them.

I could accept and support mandates IF theyvwere part of true universal Medicare for all plan with an affordable, income-based public system....Or at least a public option.

As for the pub,ic option, Obama never really pushed for it, sent mixed messages and then pushed to kill it.

One of the reasons I lost faith in the guy.

[ClarkUSA]

87. They are called facts. Perhaps you need to study Civics 101 or finally acknowledge the facts --->

Google Search re: the death of the public option and who killed it:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Joe+Lieberman+killed+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

You didn't answer my questions:

1. Do you think President Obama can override a GOP filibuster with less than 60 votes (Independent Joe Lieberman sided with the GOP) in the case of the public option?

2.. Did you complain about the insurance mandate when both Hillary's and Edwards' health plans featured it?

3. Do you agree with the Koch Party Republicans who have decided the mandate is unconstitutional?

[Vattel]

89. Um, your google search was

"Joe Lieberman killed public option." Maybe that's why you got a lot of results that suggested that Joe Lieberman killed the public option.

[ClarkUSA]

91. lol! The facts speak for themselves.

BTW, I don't get "a lot of results" when I google "Bernie Sanders killed public option":
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bernie+sanders+killed+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

:sarcasm:

[Armstead]

90. Okay

1) I think if Obama had pushed strongly and twisted arms from the beginning for the public option, he wouldn't have had to....And if not at least he would have actually tried.

2)i wasn't thrilled with anyone's plans in the primary because I believe we need a single payer system. But Clinton's plan was at least better in both price controls and public insurance options than tjhis mess we have ended up with. (I was an obama supporter, btw.)

3) Yes I agree with anyone R or D who believes it is unconstitutional to force people to buy a private product like health insurance -- especislly when there are no meaningful price controls in effect.

P.S. As the poster below noted, Googling with a pre-determined answer is not the way to make your points.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Google provided the facts from credible sources about Joe Lieberman's starring part in killing PO.

It's ridiculous to quibble with that, unless you have proof ALL those sources are wrong? :sarcasm:

Like I said to Vattel, I don't get the same verification when I Google "Bernie Sanders killed public option". Gee, I wonder why? :eyes:

As for your answers:

1. Your opinion, which does not answer my question at all, is irrelevant. Joe Lieberman was adamant in his opposition to the public option. The facts speak for themselves.

2. Link to where you challenged the insurance mandate in both Hillary's and Edward's health plans.

3. Every Congressional Republicans agrees with you and so do plenty of teabaggers. Funny how President Obama is always attacked for allegedly siding with Republicans on issues and here you are, doing it for real, Armstead.

[Armstead]

94. Whatever...Circular arguments are a waste of time

[ClarkUSA]

95. lol! Especially when you can't acknowledge the facts or provide evidence to back up your claims.

I repeat:

Every Congressional Republicans stands with you in opposition to the insurance mandate and so do teabaggers.

Funny how President Obama is always attacked for allegedly siding with Republicans on issues and here you are, doing it for real, Armstead.

[Armstead]

97. Lol no you are a waste of time....No matter what I might do...

To provide evidence or whatever, you would put up you wall and refuse to acknowledge anything....You are using a popular right wing debating style, and I don't feel like playing.

BTW it is possible to disagree and debate with people in a constructive, and even enjoyable way. But the buzzsaw approach is just boring.

[ClarkUSA]

99. I'm not the one who stands with Republicans and teabaggers on the issue of the insurance mandate.

Talk about "a waste of time" and "right-wing... style". I guess you know what you're talking about, given your self-admitted political sympathies on this issue.

:rofl:

I'm still waiting for you to link to where you ever challenged the insurance mandate in both Hillary's and Edward's health plans as per your claim.

[creeksneakers2]

93. K & R

More need to push your idea of cutting the military.

[Logical]

106. So are you guaranteeing Obama will not cut SS? Please answer! n-t

[flamingdem]

117. I wonder if he's delivered a knock-out punch to the republican party

... he seems like the kind of guy who waits for an opening.

The back and forth has revealed the party to be full of
lunatics and greedy pigs.

Maybe that truth will reach the masses..

I can dream anyway.

[ClarkUSA]

120. They sure seem to be publicly floundering and flaying about these days, making fools of themselves.

Dyed-in-the-wool Reaganites are violating their hero's 11th Commandment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1601719
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x725411

Doncha love it? :D

<< Maybe that truth will reach the masses.. >>

I'm guessing that if the 2012 elections were held today, indies would swing Democratic.

<< he seems like the kind of guy who waits for an opening >>

You know him well.

[Mimosa]

122. Clark, while you're arguing with us DEMOCRATs

Clark, while you keep arguing with us, telling us we're wrong on nearly everything, I called a few senior friends tonight. I listened. I learned they believe the President want's to destroy Social Security and Medicare. The animosity towards the Presdent is strong. I went as far as i could to counter the Republican misinformation.

What strikes me about your constant chastising of Dems on DU is you seem to think we DEMS are the 'enemy'. Meanwhile Republican memes are gaining. I fight them all the time while you're here telling us we're "demonizing" the President. I found that so darn offensive because from 2008 on I've been doing outreach to COUNTER anti Obama BS. Here on DU you act like you've been appointed to 'whip' somebody into line. You don't seem to get how hard it is to defend President Obama to regular people.

[ClarkUSA]

123. Bullshit. I haven't argued with you or anyone who isn't posting "anti Obama BS" as you put it.

As for my standing up for President Obama in my own OP thread, that's my prerogative, isn't it? It sure as hell isn't against DU rules.

BTW, I haven't seen you castigate anyone who posts OPs that cast Pres. Obama in a negative light yet, so spare me the lecture.

[Mimosa]

124. You think disagreement with policies means people 'hate Obama'?

"Anti Obama bullshit". Hmm. I never post 'anti-Obama anything. I rather like him. But I believe he's been very WRONG on some important issues. It's my right as a citizen to THINK. ;)

Once you open up and listen you'll realise people like me LIKE OBAMA. We want to help him help the nation. But sometimes he seems to be his own worst enemy. I think I know where you're coming from.

I think arguing with DUers is misdirecting your considerable skill and energy. What if you could try to educate REPUBLICANS and show them where they are wrong?

*edited for misspellings*

[ClarkUSA]

126. That's a false statement. You've created plenty of strawman arguments in one reply. It's amusing.

Why are you putting quotations over a phrase I never used in my previous reply to you? Hmm? :eyes:

<< "Anti Obama bullshit". Hmm. I never post 'anti-Obama anything. I rather like him. But I believe he's been very WERONG on some important issues. It's my right as a citizen to THINK.

Once you open up and listen you'll realise people like me LIKE OBAMA.>>

Another strawman argument or two. Why do you keep self-referencing when I have never mentioned you thusly?

<< I think arguing with DUers is misdirecting your considerable skill and energy. What if you could try to educate REPUBLICANS and show them where they are wrong? >>

What makes you think I don't?

[Mimosa]

125. I actually have.

But true anti-Obama topics are rare.

[ClarkUSA]

127. Link to when you have done that.

"But true anti-Obama topics are rare."

Yeah, they're as rare as dandelions on a spring day. :sarcasm:

[Electric Monk]

121. I think even calling it "Defense Spending" is disingenuous at this point.

It's not about defending America from some guy with leftover ww2 era anti-aircraft artillery in Libya.

[Morizovich]

129. No love for Morizovich?

:(

[ClarkUSA]

133. THANK YOU, MORIZOVICH!!!

I should have included a Hat Tip to you in the OP. Please accept my apologies... thank you for finding and posting this video in the first place.

The beer's on me. :toast:

[Morizovich]

136. Hmmm...Old Milwaukee.....

:thumbsup:

[Vattel]

131. Don't be fooled.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6263614

"When U.S. President Barack Obama ordered a $400 billion cut to defense spending, he picked a number that was defensible and yet relatively easy to reach.

Meeting that goal will require just a small real drop in planned spending over a decade, according to the White House, or simply keeping growth flat, one analyst found."

[ClarkUSA]

134. I'm not. Would you rather Pres. Obama not have publicly defended the neediest amongst us?

Would you rather President Obama not have publicly called out Republicans while standing up for liberal Democratic principles?

I am glad he did both and so should ever liberal Democrat who wants this President to succeed.

As for your quotes, here's what the article also said:

Still, a flat overall budget will require choices, largely because troops' pay and medical costs are growing faster than inflation. That will likely require more cuts to force structure, doing a better job of keeping weapons programs on time and budget, and a yet more intense effort to find efficiencies, Adams said... senior Pentagon officials from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on down portrayed the years to come in much starker terms.

"The secretary believes that this process must be about managing risk associated with future threats and national security challenges, and identifying missions that the country is willing to have the military forgo," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said April 13.

Marine Corps Gen. James Cart-wright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience at a space conference in Colorado Springs, Colo., that finding the money will be tough.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6263614

It's easy to point fingers and move the goalpost but I don't recall the last time a Democratic President wanted this much of a cut to the DoD budget during a time of war.

[and-justice-for-all]

140. Fuck yeah!!! nt

[Mimosa]

143. thanks for the link.

Clark, you should have posted the sound bite HERE too.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.