Can any of you Obama backers explain why military spending is mostly off the table, but SS is not?

[grahamhgreen]

The 10,000 pound gorilla in the room are in the budget talks is the military budget.




The Budget has more than doubled in the last ten years.





This radical-right agenda is NOT supported by the majority of Americans, much less Democrats. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 51 percent of Americans want Obama to cut defense spending, but only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. Only 18 percent back cuts in Social Security. (http://on.msnbc.com/pcOmAD)


The thought that we need to continue the wars at the expense of social programs, education, and infrastructure is a far right, neo-con talking point. Something they've been pushing since before George Orwell wrote "1984".

Can someone rationally explain to me why Obama is pushing such a radical far-right anti-Democratic Republican supported agenda? Why is war spending and the pentagon budget "off the table"? It should be a tenth of it's current size.

[mucifer]

1. greed.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

244. MI;ITARY IS DESTROYING AMERICA

GET THOSE EFFING CONTRACTS

[dbt]

2. Corporations.

Big-ass corporations with LOTS of money to spend on Republicans. Like the best Republican in the White Hou$e since Bill Clinton.

EDIT: FORMER Obama backer. Never again.

[Dennis Donovan]

5. Military Industrial Complex - Ike warned us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

[SwampG8r]

185. ike was the last good republican president

he was a great man and a very effective president
he moved us forward in ways we still dont fully appreciate
since ike ....not so much
eta: who better than ike to warn us of the military industrial complex?who would be more an insider to its workings at the time than he?when he spoke he was making a statement from his own experiences and we should always listen to him. republican or not.

[joshdawg]

196. Regardless of my disappointments

with Obama, know this: If he is selected to be the Democratic candidate, (which is a shoo-in) I will back him as much as I did in his last campaign.
I am not stupid enough to NOT vote, nor to vote for a third party, or (shudder) vote republican. Doing any of those three things will get a republican into office. I know what happens if that event occurs. GWB anyone?

[abelenkpe]

3. Can't explain that

Hope someone else can.......

[firehorse]

4. I'm not an apologist - agreeing - but curious what our economy would be if stopped exporting guns

I thought America was primarily in the weapons and war business, creating wars and then providing weapons to all sides.

[grahamhgreen]

8. Is that why

we get attacked by "terrorists"?

[Divernan]

19. They don't go after Canada or Mexico, do they?

[Plucketeer]

156. They should STOP making weapons and using them

and START spending the monies saved on our infrastructure. It's sheer lunacy, what we're doing now - blowing up shit (and innocents) in a country that would rather be left to their stone-age existance! :crazy:

[alsame]

6. I was shocked yesterday when a Republican relative said

"It's the wars and the tax cuts" when we were talking about the spending. I'm pretty sure he only watches Fox, but he immediately defended SS and Medicare and volunteered that the military and tax cuts were the problem. I was speechless.

[juajen]

166. Yep, same thing happened to me. Both of my friends who are Republicans

are collecting ss. maybe that's it. They also blamed the wars and tax cuts.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[bluestate10]

31. I am one of the usual suspects. I can't defend Defense being 58% of the budget.

And cuts to it should be on the table. A budget that big has waste. But troop and veteran care should not be among the items cut. BTW. President Bachmann would be worse, much, much, much, un-measurably worse. So, when I counter the usual leftwing and socialist bullshit and distortions here on DU, I do so with an eye on broader implications that whether I get what I want from a policy change at the exact moment that I want it.

[whatchamacallit]

56. Man...

"So, when I counter the usual leftwing and socialist bullshit and distortions here on DU, I do so with an eye on broader implications that whether I get what I want from a policy change at the exact moment that I want it."

Thanks for providing the the usual rightwing capitalist distortions. :puke:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[freshwest]

129. 'He disrupted badly...'

[Enthusiast]

207. Man...

Me too. :puke:

[grahamhgreen]

73. Thanks!

[bvar22]

77. My World is much simpler.

I only have to ask one question,
"Does this policy advance Traditional FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class Democratic Values?"

Unfortunately, since the 1980s, the answer
has mostly been "NO".

All the rest is just Spin, Tortured Logic, Excuses for Failure, and Labeling Bullshit,
like you exemplified with your "usual leftwing and socialist bullshit" comment.
Thank You for that.
I'm not creative enough to have made up a better illustration.

Time to eat your peas.
:rofl:

[yardwork]

152. What leftwing and socialist bullshit?

[KittyWampus]

46. "Usual suspects"? WTF does that mean? I'm happy to talk about cutting military expenditures.

I do not support cutting Social Security and I sure as HELL don't want DU'ers starting a thread and posting here who clearly do not support the Democratic President or Democrats.

[Lorien]

71. Republicans with a (D) behind their names

aren't ACTUAL Democrats. Most of us realize that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

201. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[grahamhgreen]

75. How about Democratic ideals and principals,

what do we do when someone calls themselves a Democrat, yet pushes Republican ideology?

I guess the more fundamental question is what makes us Democrats?

Supporting the New Deal and the Great Society over grotesque military excess and tax cuts for the people who can afford to pay more is surely one of the tenets of being a Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

170. Your post doesnt make sense. You say you are willing to "talk" about cutting defense

but Pres Obama isnt. You say you dont want to cut SS and Medicare, but it appears the Pres Obama does. Then you say you support Pres Obama. WTF?

I support Democratic principles and not those that dont. You seem to time and again support Pres Obama instead of Democratic principles.

The Revolution is waiting.

[RevStPatrick]

9. Here's why:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7879805770464697597

[grahamhgreen]

13. Are you saying we have a commander in cheif who is willing to

put soldiers lives on the line all day long, kill children as "collateral damage" and yet is too afraid to ask for defense cuts because he's too afraid of the bad guys??

[mochajava666]

119. +1

[Incitatus]

173. Maybe because the bad guy are the only ones who an touch him. or his family

I am not saying that is the case, just playing devils advocate

[Divernan]

17. The link is to the Zapruder/JFK assasination film clip

Welcome to DU RevStPatrick
Usually we do not post links w/out a hint as to what they contain. A courtesy we observe because people are leery of clicking on viruses, trolls' sick jokes, etc.

[DeadEyeDyck]

143. Normally I would agree but after following the link, I think

saying anything would destroy the impact. I may not agree with his statement (that Obama fears for his life from bigger powers) but he was making his statement by showing.

[AntiFascist]

191. Precisely, ever since then Democrats have been intimidated n/t

[Zorra]

10. chirp

Don't hold your breath, GG.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. As far as Sacred Cows go, the military beats SS and Medicare hoofs down.

[Divernan]

12. Simple. Elderly living on $1,000 a month can't make campaign contributions

Now some O supporter will tear jerkingly post about their great aunt Tilly who saved her pennies for a year and sent in $10 and got invited for a VIP tour of the White House. Next they'll furiously tell me they hope I'm struck with crippling poverty so I'll appreciate the plight of Aunt Tilly.

So let me qualify my observation: not only the many people already on SS and struggling to subsist on those SS payments alone, but also the people who are financially struggling AND upset about losing realistic COLAs, or any part of their Medicaid/SS coverage, or know that 65 year olds are unlikely to find employment of any kind, let alone with health insurance - all those people cannot contribute meaningfully to O's Billion Dollar campaign fundraising goal. The MIC? They have endless profits to subsidize political lackeys.

So in one sense, the explanation is the Citizens' United ruling. That case should really be referred to as Citizens Screwed.

[grahamhgreen]

16. So

He'd rather collect money to get re-elected, than fight for the things he was elected to do, essentially.

[BiggJawn]

91. You noticed that too, eh?

Sure shocked the hell out of me when I came to that realization.

[Incitatus]

174. What will be the exuse in term 2 if he acts the same way?

Since e-election will not be a possibility.

[SwampG8r]

188. in term 2 there will be no

promises of lame duck bravery
just a lot of "shut up and take it" until the election cycle and then it will be back to fear mongering

[Incitatus]

192. So does it matter who we are able to elect, or are more extreme measues necessary?

IF even figure heads don't matter, how do you kill the heart of a multi-headed beast?

[Beacool]

228. Fellow Gator, how is it going?

Are you having a good summer?

:hi:

[SwampG8r]

251. its hot and dry

as usual
how you been doing?

[Beacool]

252. Well, it's hot and humid over here.

I HATE too much heat!!! There's nowhere to hide from it. Otherwise, summer has been good so far. In June I went two weeks to Europe to visit family and on the 30th I'm going for a week to the Florida Keys. So I guess that I can't complain. LOL!!!

:D



:pals:

[Ikonoklast]

101. The elderly are one of the most reliable voting blocs.

They turn out in numbers higher percentage-wise than any other age demographic.

If you think that the political power wielded by the elderly in this country isn't reflected at the polls, you'd lose your political race by ignoring that little fact.

[Erose999]

205. We will soon witness the power of the elderly if the President cuts their bennies. If a GOOPER

candidate were to take a hard line on protecting SS and medicare, he could easily walk away with the nomination.

[Beacool]

227. I read that of the huge amount that he raised this past quarter,

only a tiny percent (I think that it was 2%) came from people sending $200 or less. The vast majority of the money came from bundlers. The only time Obama shows up around these parts (NY) is for a fund raiser (the exception was the visit after Osama was killed). NY/NJ metropolitan area is a piggy bank for the Democratic party.

:eyes:

[SoutherDem]

14. I want to know too

Also, how do you stop a war?

We know what it takes to start a war, Congress.

Apparently, you can have a "soft war" without Congress.

Can the President just stop a war that Congress has voted for?

This isn't sarcasm, I really don't know.

[grahamhgreen]

18. Yes, as Commander-in-Cheif, he can bring the troops home anytime.

[Divernan]

20. But if US leaves weapons behind, it hurts markets for MIC

And supporting the MIC is Job One for Obama, the Blue Dogs, and the GOP

[robdogbucky]

29. "...Also, how do you stop a war...?"

Well, in the 60s-70s we had a draft, a free press (somewhat) and public opinion hitting the streets (not on a Saturday but during commute hours so people notice).

We no longer have those things as the MIC learned its lesson. And, when the cold war fizzled, they needed a causa bella for their romps. Hence, we have the over-hyped 24/7 terra threat. Like any of that could hold a candle to the doomsday clock, etc.

Keep wars "justified," sanitized, out of sight and well-funded.



Remember, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the Repubs and the eternal war machine they seem to live off of since the Russians got the bomb.





Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[WinkyDink]

15. War materiel is practically the only manufacturing/exporting we still have.

[Zorra]

22. If stimulating the economy is the reason why we are at war,

then we are a nation of vampires.

[kenny blankenship]

28. It is also completely failing to lead the economy back to health

and has been completely failing for the past ten years.

[Ghost Dog]

122. Bingo.

Also, demobilising would add dangerously to the already large army of under/unemployed.

[spooked911]

220. The sad truth is that we are a profoundly immoral country

And it's nothing new

[hack89]

87. Nonsense

We are the number one manufacturing economy in the world. The difference is that we make high tech capital goods instead of low tech consumer goods.

[Ikonoklast]

104. Nonsense.

This is still the largest manufacturing economy on the planet, and finished high-value goods are shipped all over the globe with a "Made in the U,S.A." label on them.

Let alone the vast amount, in both quantity and value, of raw materials, food, grain, chemicals...you name a category.

Arms and armament account for a small percentage of this nation's exports, in both dollar value and in real terms.

Almost 50% of the total revenue of the S&P 500 is derived from exports from this country.

We still make lots of things the rest of the world is eager to buy.

[blank space]

131. No, America is not

America is the most productive, which is very, very different.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2011/03/china-reclaims-former-perch-as-world%E2%80%99s-biggest-manufacturer/

Further, the US counts manufacturing OWNED by US corporations, which China does not, consider US companies like APPLE who manufacture in China, but are not counted in China, but in the US as it is an American manufacturing company. So in reality, when you consider the amount of outsourcing done by American manufacturers - this should be very, very different.

The idea that America is not the worlds largest weapons exporter is the most laughable thing I have ever read - just ludicrous.

The weapons manufacturing and secret services (which actually make up the bulk of the military budget, then general services like Halliburton, and finally weapons), are basically a form of subsidy. Your economy is %58 military, its actually more than that, which means that your society is %58 government funded - or - socialist. Ironic isn't it.

However your economy has always been built around your military intervention on the bequest of corporate interests - always. This is nothing new and the only surprise is that there is any surprise in this at all - it is the US Modus operandii. Always has been.

The only thing that thas changed in the last 100 years is that you are more willing to use covert means of regeime change with your secret services (thats why the secret services represent almost %75 of that budget). The secret services primary role is regeime control, either maintenance or change. To ensure the most compliant regiems in markets of interest - either through population (selling stuff) or resources and control (utilities).


It amazes me that I have never read on Democratic Underground, or anywhere else, the simple and clear reality in the distinction between Democrats and Republicans - Republicans are far more interested in using weapons as their primary focus, both in regime change and control (selling arms to compliant nations) and supporting domestic manufacturing, while democrats as vanguards of the neo-liberal institutional model are far more interested in using covert means - subsidies, grants, covert banking, secret services, revolutions (Green, Orange, Iranian, etc, etc) - it is the Clinton Obama Carter way.

Bush goes out and bombs countries and we boo him for his violence we all know what is happening, Clinton goes out and secretly organises regime change and we all cheer for democracy, while more die that would from a straight out bombing, and more damage than can ever be imagined has been done for truth, perception and reality.

[Bake]

229. Apparently China is too busy making shit for US to buy ...

... to make weapons for export.

So yeah, that's about the only thing we still actually MAKE and export.

We are so fucked.

Bake

[msongs]

21. perhaps our soldiers would be happier rebuilding infrastructure in the US instead of wrecking it

overseas. Then we could dump half the officer corpse...err corps lol

[freshwest]

130. That's what I've always advocated.

[treestar]

23. There are military cuts

[chill_wind]

25. What amount?

[Divernan]

27. Shhh. It's a secret. He'd tell you, but he'd have to kill you!

[bhikkhu]

38. Something like 75 - 100 billion, over 5 years

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0106/Defense-budget-to-cut-100-billion-Army-and-Marines-will-shrink


...which is the right direction, but not really much at all. Looking at the graph of the increases over the past ten years, much more than that got laid out for no gain.

[Divernan]

41. It's not a cut when they transfer money from one program to another

When is a Cut not a Cut? Is it a cut if the Army cuts funding of one area and then uses that money to buy more unmanned drones? I THINK NOT ! ! !
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0106/Defense...
Gates's carrot

To help motivate the services, Gates challenged them to find $100 billion in cuts, WHICH THEY COULD THEN REINVEST INTO THEIR BRANCHES OR USE TO PAY UNEXPECTED BILLS

The Army, for example, proposed roughly $29 billion in cuts, which it will use, among other things, to expand suicide-prevention and substance-abuse programs, as well as to buy more armored vehicles and unmanned drones like the Predator and Reaper.

The Air Force will use its projected $34 in savings to develop a long-range nuclear penetrating bomber, a project that Gates had earlier put on hold due to the costs of the current wars.

The Navy, for its part, will continue to work on a new generation of electronic jammers and a line of unmanned sea craft.

[Bragi]

218. O's plan: cut about $500 billion from defense budget

Sounds like a lot until you consider two things:

- first, this cut is to be implemented over the next 12 years; and,

- for perspective, contrast this amount (maybe $40 billiona year) with the fact that the two current (useless) wars since 2001 have a total price tag in the $3.7 TRILLION range.

(Click my sig link for info)

I think these cuts are purely cosmetic, if indeed they ever happen, which I doubt.

[bluestate10]

32. The fact that the Joint Chiefs are floating the Draft as a result of Defense cuts,

says there are probably big ones in that area of the budget. And when cuts happen, weapons systems must be looked at, not troop benefits.

[Divernan]

36. Where is there ANY logical connection or explanation? (From experts, not you)

Each drone costs $4.5 million. Are you implying if the Pentagon can't send drones, they're back to using human cannon fodder? Draftees have to be trained, outfitted and paid - pennies of course, compared to weapons' cost. I think O and the Pentagon may float a balloon about reinstating the draft as some half-assed, illogical, scare tactic reason why the US shouldn't cut expenditures on weapons.

[Cherchez la Femme]

63. 'Hiring' more soldiers to save money?!

Can't say I'm surprised at the Mad-Hatter logic.


& as for the Draft -- BRING IT ON!
It's about time the ignorant populace became personally involved,
instead of 'going to Disneyland and shopping' as Dubya exhorted.

Witnessing the REAL cost of war nightly on their television sets is also a good thing.
We blame Bush for embedding 'journalists', putting pressure on news organizations to NOT run war video, not report on and/or banning any photos of the returning coffins of our expired service people (remember the nightly reportage regarding Vietnam?)

...still, I have seen NO CHANGE with this our latest president either!

[hack89]

89. The are not floating a draft

The are actually down sizing - which they see as an opportunity to increase the quality of the force. They will never call for a draft - the military is too high tech for two year conscription.

[DeadEyeDyck]

147. good way to end the war(s)

the reason these wars did not see the resistance that Viet Nam did is because there was not a draft. When it was simply a coin-toss, weather you would be human fodder, marching in the streets seemed to be a viable counter-option.

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, and they are so miniscule that even Republicans can

support them.

[Enthusiast]

211. Sabrina, always with the perfect answer.

A military about one fourth the present size would still be much larger than any other on earth. What is the justification for this? There is none.

The fact is many citizens do not want to admit or recognize -we are no longer in control of the apparatus of government. What does this mean? It means that we have been "taken over".

[rhett o rick]

171. Bull shit. nm

[Enthusiast]

214. Perfect response. nt

[rhett o rick]

233. Did you notice that he didnt stick around for discussion? I call that a drive-by fruiting.

He drives by and throws a rotten pear into the crowd. Then speeds off to the next progressive post.

[chill_wind]

24. Pew: (But the lawmaker/ politicians aren't listening)

re: Cost of wars, foreign aid and reducing military spending

"Both of these reductions receive bipartisan support. Fully 83% of Republicans approve of cutting foreign aid to help reduce the deficit, as do 76% of independents and a more modest 61% of Democrats. Reducing military commitments overseas is favored by 56% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and a substantial 72% of independents."


More Blame Wars than Domestic Spending or Tax Cuts for Nation's Debt
Jobs Are Top Economic Worry, Deficit Concerns Rise

http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/

For both Democrats and independents, no other factor comes close to the wars’ price-tag. In fact, just 29% of Democrats, and 38% of liberals, say that the tax cuts enacted over the past 10 years contributed greatly to the debt.

For Republicans as well, the cost of the wars (49%) is seen as a leading cause of the debt, along with the state of the economy (41%) and increased domestic spending (38%). Even conservative Republicans are about as likely to cite the cost of the wars (47%) as increased domestic spending (43%) as greatly contributing to the debt.


The budget debate is well to the right of both Clinton and Simpson-Bowles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-debate-is-well-to-the-right-of-both-clinton-and-simpson-bowles/2011/07/11/gIQAElWRGI_blog.html

[Divernan]

26. Predicted spin: He has and will continue to cut MIC, but it's a secret

and it won't happen until 2014, for security reasons. Just like they were constantly prattling on about how Obama kept his promise and ended the Iraq war, and all of our troops would be out by the end of this year.

But, oh wait, O and Panetta and the State Department were BEGGING the Iraqi Parliament to vote to ask the US to stay, and State Dept. spokesman even said, if they ask us, we'll stay. When the Iraqi Parliament could not be bought off, Panetta just went over to strike a private deal with Maliki to keep 10,000 US troops (plus god knows how many privatized professional soldiers) on to conduct "training" at multiple forts across the country. Guess Panetta had to do it in person to deliver the crates full of cash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/panetta-makes-first-trip-to-iraq-as-defense-secretary/2011/07/10/gIQAmfRM7H_story.html

BAGHDAD — New Pentagon chief Leon Panetta made his first visit to Iraq as defense secretary Sunday to address several flare-ups in a fading war, including a rash of attacks on U.S. troops and continued indecision about whether the United States will completely withdraw its forces by the end of the year.

Unlike some senior Obama administration officials, who have made clear that they would like the Iraqi government to invite thousands of U.S. troops to stay in the country, Panetta demurred when asked if he favored the idea but said he would press Iraqi leaders to make up their minds.

“I’ll encourage them to make a decision so that we know where we’re going,” he told reporters traveling with him on a tour of the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. “If they do make a request, we ought to seriously consider it.”

Obama has pledged in an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw the remaining 46,000 U.S. troops in the country by Dec. 31.

[Divernan]

33. If US troops stay in Iraq past 12/31/11, armed resistance promised to escalate.

"The secretary’s visit also follows fresh statements from the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose political bloc last year provided the support needed to give Maliki a second term. In a statement posted late Saturday on his Web site, Sadr said he is “freezing the activities of the Mahdi Army” — a group that fought frequently with U.S. forces at the height of the Iraq war in 2006 and 2007 — even if American forces stay beyond December.

But Sadr said his Promised Day Brigade, a more elite unit established in 2008 to target U.S. troops, would continue operating if U.S. troops stayed in the country.

Sadr last month thanked his followers for offering to launch attacks on U.S. forces and earlier this year vowed to “escalate armed resistance” if the United States didn’t pull out troops as scheduled."

WOW! No wonder Obama has Panetta pushing to keep US troops in harm's way. He knows this will trigger greatly renewed attacks, and bob's-your-uncle, he can send in tens of thousands more troops and fire up the war there all over again! What a great Christmas gift O can give all his MIC donors/supporters. Will the MIC get a big fat return on their campaign donations, or what!?!?!?

[Tennessee Gal]

30. It is included.

Additional Discipline on Security Spending While Keeping America Safe:

While the President will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world, Secretary Gates has shown over the last two years that there is substantial waste and duplication in our security budget that we can and should eliminate—proposing savings of $400 billion in current and future defense spending.
As part of a comprehensive deficit reduction framework, the President is calling for pushing harder 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.
The framework sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023. (The President will make decisions on specific cuts after working with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on the comprehensive review.)
Note: this deficit reduction is in addition to the savings generated from ramping-down overseas contingency operations.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[Divernan]

39. No specifics given: "conduct a review", "pushing hard to eliminate waste"

"improve efficiency and effectiveness", etc. Somebody pulled that $400 billion estimate of current and FUTURE spending straight out of their nether regions. And there's the key BS I posted elsewhere to expect from O - the savings will be in the future. We don't know how far in future, and we don't know what, if any, foreign bases will be closed or what, if any, weapons systems ended.
In short, we don't know shit.

But when it comes to cutting funding affecting seniors and disabled, THEN we get the hard numbers in the various trial balloons/leaks to the press. Raise Medicare to age 67. Reconfigure the COLA formula to reduce COLAs. Introduce means testing. Cut funding to health care providers.

[Tennessee Gal]

47. Where are your specifics?

4. Health Care

Medicare and Medicaid Savings of $480 Billion by 2023 and At Least an Additional $1 Trillion over the Subsequent Decade, Providing Better Care at Lower Costs:

Building on the Affordable Care Act, the President is proposing additional reforms to Medicare and Medicaid designed to strengthen these critical programs by reducing waste, increasing accountability, promoting efficiency, and improving the quality of care, without shifting the cost of care to our seniors or people with disabilities.
The framework will save $340 billion over ten years and $480 billion by 2023 (including the proposals already included in the President’s Budget). This framework includes the same aggregate savings that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan proposed in his November 2010 plan with Alice Rivlin and an amount sufficient to fully pay to reform the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment formula while still reducing the deficit.
Over the subsequent decade, the President’s proposal will save well over $1 trillion by further bending the cost curve, doubling the savings from the Affordable Care Act.
The President’s framework offers a stark contrast with the House Republican plan that would increase seniors’ health costs by $6,400 annually starting in 2022, raise health insurance premiums for middle-class Americans and small businesses, cut Federal Medicaid spending by one-third by the end of the decade, and increase the number of uninsured by 50 million.

The President’s framework proposes specific reforms to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over the long term, including:

Addressing the long-term drivers of Medicare cost growth: The President’s framework would strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the Affordable Care Act. The IPAB has been highlighted by economists and health policy experts as a critical contributor to Medicare’s solvency and sound operations. Under the Affordable Care Act, IPAB analyzes the drivers of excessive and unnecessary Medicare cost growth. When Medicare growth per beneficiary exceeds growth in nominal GDP per capita plus 1 percent, IPAB recommends to Congress policies to reduce the rate of growth to meet that target, while not harming beneficiaries’ access to needed services. Congress must consider IPAB’s recommendations or, if it disagrees, enact policies that achieve equivalent savings. If neither acts, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to develop and implement a proposal to achieve the savings target.

The President’s framework will strengthen IPAB to act as a backstop to the other Medicare reforms by ensuring that Medicare spending growth does not outpace our ability to pay for it over the long run, while improving the program and keeping Medicare beneficiaries’ premium growth under control. Specifically, it would:
Set a new target of Medicare growth per beneficiary growing with GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent. This is consistent both with the reductions in projected Medicare spending since the Affordable Care Act was passed and the additional reforms the President is proposing.
Give IPAB additional tools to improve the quality of care while reducing costs, including allowing it to promote value-based benefit designs that promote proven services like prevention without shifting costs to seniors.
Give IPAB additional enforcement mechanisms such as an automatic sequester as a backstop for IPAB, Congress, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Reforming the Federal-State partnerships to strengthen Medicaid and promote simplicity, efficiency, and accountability: Under current law, States face a patchwork of different Federal payment contributions for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The President’s framework would replace the current complicated Federal matching formulas with a single matching rate for all program spending that rewards States for efficiency and automatically increases if a recession forces enrollment and State costs to rise.
In addition, the President has called on the National Governors Association (NGA) to make recommendations for ways to reform and strengthen Medicaid, and the framework will consider the ideas that its Task Force produces. The President also supports reform of Medicaid to incentivize more efficient, higher quality, care for high-cost beneficiaries, including those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. These nine million beneficiaries comprise 15 percent of Medicaid enrollment but consume nearly 40 percent of total Medicaid spending.
Improving patient safety: Together with employers, States, hospitals, physicians and nurses, the Administration has launched a new public-private partnership called Partnership for Patients that will help improve the quality, safety and affordability of health care for all Americans. The two goals of this new Partnership are: preventing patients from getting injured or sicker while they are in the hospital and helping patients heal without complication. Achieving the initiative’s goal would mean more than 1.6 million patients will recover from illness without a preventable complication, reducing costs by up to $50 billion in Medicare and billions more in Medicaid over the next 10 years.
Cutting unnecessary prescription drug spending: The framework would limit excessive payments for prescription drugs by leveraging Medicare’s purchasing power – similar to what was called for by the bipartisan Fiscal Commission. It would speed up the availability of generic biologics, and prohibit brand-name companies from entering into “pay for delay” agreements with generic companies. And, it would implement Medicaid management of high prescribers and users of prescription drugs.

Reducing abuse and increasing accountability in Medicaid and Medicare: The framework would clamp down on States’ use of provider taxes to lower their own spending while not providing additional health services through Medicaid; recover erroneous payments from Medicare Advantage; establish upper limits on Medicaid payments for durable medical equipment; and take other actions to improve program integrity.

A major contrast with the House Republican approach. The President’s framework rejects plans that would end Medicare as we know it or transform Medicaid into a dramatically underfunded block grant, putting at serious risk not only seniors but also the most vulnerable children and people with disabilities. Some of the major problems with the House Republican approach include:

The House Republican plan does nothing to reduce health costs. Instead it actually increases costs by doing nothing to reform the way health care is delivered in addition to putting a larger fraction of the burden on beneficiaries and States.
In the first year the Republican plan goes into effect, a typical 65-year-old who becomes eligible for Medicare would pay an extra $6,400 for health care, more than doubling what he or she would pay if the plan were not adopted.
States would get one-third less for Medicaid by 2021, potentially leaving 15 million people without coverage, including seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities, children and pregnant women.
The House Republican plan would no longer guarantee the same level of benefits and choices that seniors have today in Medicare, because the proposal allows private health plans to determine benefits, raise cost sharing, and limit choice of doctors and hospitals.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[Divernan]

69. You made my point beautifully, Thank you so much!

My point was that when it comes to cutting military expenditures, we get a brief statement that there will be $400 billion in cuts. But that huge number is not broken down at all. We are told that Obama will consult with the Joint Chiefs in the "future" to figure out specifics.

I posted that in contrast, we had heard specific proposals re effecting savings on Medicare/Social Security.
You proved my point by going on and on in detail about the specifics re Medicare/Medicaid (such as holding down costs re IPAB). But you failed to provide any details on cutting back the vast amounts of our national treasure being squandered by the Pentagon and Obama on the MIC and our endless wars.

So, my challenge to you, and the whole thrust of this thread, is to show us where the specifics are for Obama's cuts to Pentagon spending.

On edit: From one of your other posts on this thread: The President will make decisions on specific cuts after working with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on the comprehensive review.

Guess they didn't get around to that before Gates left.

[grahamhgreen]

40. $400 billion by 2023? As you can see, we need to reduce the budget by 2/3's PER YEAR,

just to get spending down to 1962 levels (which was the height of the cold war).



So, as far as I see it, defense is "mostly off the table", but going after grandma appears to be job 1.


This ultra-chicken-hawk right wing position has no place in our party, IMHO.

Why would he, as a Democrat, support this?



PS - Cost of the wars is 3.7 trillion and counting - almost - there's all the savings he's proposing, right there. (http://reut.rs/kN2vYj)

[Enthusiast]

216. "Why would he, as a Democrat, support this?"

That is the real question we should be asking.

[chill_wind]

44. Thanks TG. Even the uber hawkish *Simpson -Bowles* had deeper cuts

in proposing twice as much! -- $800 billion

The budget debate is well to the right of both Clinton and Simpson-Bowles
By Ezra Klein

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-debate-is-well-to-the-right-of-both-clinton-and-simpson-bowles/2011/07/11/gIQAElWRGI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein


The People's Budget (Progressive Caucus)

"Taken in conjunction with ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the realignment of
conventional and strategic forces would result in $2.3 trillion worth of savings relative to the
adjusted CBO baseline."

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf

The People's Budget (more)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1503372

[somone]

34. Who cares about useless eaters? Get rid of them and the deficits will disappear.

:sarcasm:

[Enthusiast]

217. Why sarcasm?

Why 'sarcasm' when they, TPTB, obviously consider the elderly and disabled nothing more than useless eaters.

[humblebum]

35. All talk of cutting any programs should be stopped as long as

our direct involvement in 3 wars is still going on. They have gone beyond the point of being ridiculous and no longer serve any useful purpose. The wars represent the most unnecessary spending.

[Ragnarok]

37. Because we're fighting...

...3 to 7 wars, depending upon what you count as a war? Not defending the wars, just pointing them out. End them and demand may go down?

[saras]

42. Why? That's answered in this other thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1508202">In A Nutshell-The World Is Being Prepared For "Neo-Feudalism"

[NNN0LHI]

43. When Vietnam ended we had streets lined with factories around here to employ them at

Most of those factories and the jobs that went with them are now gone. Therefore we have no jobs to bring them back to. Now all we have for our returning vets(our sons and daughters), is no job and homelessness.

All that imported stuff that everyone thought they were getting a great deal on is going to end up costing a whole lot more than originally planned.

Don

[L0oniX]

76. Yes ...war = jobs. It;s so nice of us tax payers to be paying for jobs.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[chill_wind]

48. ! Obama: Fiscal Commission Cut Defense Too Deep (July 15)

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7105829&c=AME&s=TOP

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a July 15 White House press conference on the ongoing budget and debt limit negotiations. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

"There were aspects of Bowles-Simpson that I said from very early on were not the approach I would take," Obama told reporters July 15. "On defense spending, a huge amount of their savings on the discretionary side came out of defense spending. I think we need to cut defense, but as commander in chief, I've got to make sure that we're cutting it in a way that recognizes we're still in the middle of a war, we're winding down another war, and we've got a whole bunch of veterans that we've got to care for as they come home."

[somone]

52. i.e. "Thou shalt not touch my golden calf"

[chill_wind]

55. And that was the most conservative call for cuts. He's way to the right of THAT.

From the link:

The Bipartisan Policy Center's deficit reduction proposal also called for a $1 trillion cut to defense spending over 10 years.

In September, the Cato Institute outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years in its report, "Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint."

And the People's Budget (I posted upthread) was around 1.3 trillion.

[Palmer Eldritch]

49. Cuts to Defense spending are on the table. Study up,

[chill_wind]

51. Let's see your numbers. n/t

[quaker bill]

57. Let's see yours

I am pretty sure no solid numbers for any of this have been published yet. I have seen some global ball park stuff, but no specifics on any of it.

[chill_wind]

59. We've got some upthread. Global ball park stuff. What have you got?

[grahamhgreen]

60. Hey, your stigmata are showing! 400 billion in cuts over 12 years on a war budget

of over 1.2 trillion per year is "mostly" off the table, IMHO.

[Bryn]

50. From the book "War is a Racket"

Of course the government will never tell us the truth:
The answer is:

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

~ from book "War is a Racket". It was written many years ago, but it's still true today.

You can read all about it online in full text: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Egalitariat]

53. I think it would be more informative to show a pie chart that included slices for both discretionary

and non-discretionary spending.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Not in my opinion. They are two separate pos of money

and should remain as such.

[grahamhgreen]

149. I mean two seperate POTS of money. (typo)

[azul]

54. Because of the same reason why the military was not drastically reduced

when the Cold War ended: Military/Business Empire controlling markets and resources around the globe in order that banks and businesses can secure profits. Using the military to prop-up capitalism.

And the strangest battle is now occurring with communists financing this capitalistic empire's debt. Will China end up being changed to capitalism, deferring to US military might, or will they end up owning the bankrupted US military's possessions, dictating the conditions of default? Will an arms race with China end for the US like it did for the Soviets, speeding up a collapse?

[grahamhgreen]

65. I think US business interests believe that they will be able to purchase

and manipulate the Chinese government much in the same way they have the US govt., and through it be able to use the debt and trade imbalance to profit further.

In the end, they think they can control both countries as business entities, IMHO.

[azul]

81. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the renminbi and China's

economy if the US credit rating is lowered, and how they would deal with the US henceforth.

[quaker bill]

58. I am pretty sure that SS and Medicare

"are mostly off the table" as well

[grahamhgreen]

67. I wish you were 100 % certain.

[quaker bill]

198. Me too

however, I am certain the hysteria about this is over the top. There have been similar trial ballons about defense cuts of late. Both things are likely on the table to a similar limited extent. Bottom line, these republicans were never going to buy a package that included higher taxes for the wealthy and a debt ceiling increase, regardless of what else it contained. They cannot gather the needed votes among themselves. The offer was made to put the question to them and in the process point out their internal divisions.

Fragmenting your opponent is good preparation for an election. A real gift would be for them to hose the economy over inflexible ideology and an inability to function as an effective majority. Both things are in play. The path out of this corner is for a bunch of the more senior Repug members to ally with the Dems to produce a clean bill which will either destroy the tea party or earn the senior Repugs tea party primary challenges from the right. They get to pick.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Um... because leaders who've never been to war think it's a video game?

:shrug:

[obxhead]

64. I feel it's self explanatory.

Obama lied when he checked the D on his political forms.

[great white snark]

Why are you asking just the Obama Supporters?

I'm sure the serial whiners can attempt to answer.

I haven't heard that it is off the table. Got a quote or link?


BTW nice false comparison. You could argue that anything funded is taking away from social programs. But, carry on with the Obama is a Republican meme.

[grahamhgreen]

72. $400 billion by 2023, on a total defense spending of over a trillion a year, is pretty much

off the table, IMHO.




This is a serious issue of priorities.

Why would any sane person continue to fund wars-for-profit at the cost of everything else?

Bin Laden is dead.

[Fearless]

66. Because Republicans are willing to "compromise" to rob us but not the military.

[Gregorian]

68. Because it takes a big effort to transition from destructive to productive jobs.

There is huge momentum behind factories that make bullets.

Furthermore, it's not just bullets. The military itself is a means by which many other areas of our economy are subsidized. Rubber, glass, oil, oil, oil, food, clothing, research, and pretty much everything.

It can be done. But we'd have to have a nation of people who ashcan Fox and Candidate Jesus Eyes before they ever grew to be in the spotlight. I always remember when COPS ran for more than several shows. I knew at that moment that America was dead. It's not just some frivolous observation. It was testament to what viewers tolerated, and what producers thought of Americans.

[ProSense]

74. Who

said they were off the table?

Obama on defense cuts.

<...>

It also requires cuts in defense spending, and I’ve said that in addition to the $400 billion that we’ve already cut from defense spending, we’re willing to look for hundreds of billions more.

<...>

Kent Conrad proposed to cut $800 billion from defense.

[grahamhgreen]

78. But that's only 400 billion over 12 years on total defense spending of over 1 trillion per year!

Actually, I said. "mostly".

[ProSense]

84. Oh brother

The $400 billion is what has already been cut, not the figure being discussed as part of the deal.

The statement clearly indicates that hundreds of billions more is being considered.

It also requires cuts in defense spending, and I’ve said that in addition to the $400 billion that we’ve already cut from defense spending, we’re willing to look for hundreds of billions more.

[grahamhgreen]

93. Simply. Not. Enough. There is no reason to cut any social spending until this problem is solved.

OR, make the rich pay for their wars by increasing taxes to 1950's levels.

[ProSense]

99. What's "Simply. Not. Enough."? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

105. The amounts of cuts he's proposing, We need trillions over 12 years.

[ProSense]

107. How much is he proposing?

Got a specific number?

"We need trillions over 12 years"?

Do you know what you're talking about? How many trillions?

[grahamhgreen]

109. He is proposing 400 billion by 2023, or 33 billion a year. We need 330 billion per year cut which

is only half the defense budget, at least. That would be 4 trillion, or equivalent to his entire package! Then we can re-tax the rich at the rate they can afford, the rate our grandparents taxed them at - say 94%.

"Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[ProSense]

113. .

"He is proposing 400 billion by 2023, or 33 billion a year."

No matter how often that's repeated, here are the facts.

[Vattel]

175. He hasn't cut defense spending.

He has increased it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_defense/
What are called cuts are really reduced increases.

[rhett o rick]

234. But he "might". Isnt that good enough? He "might". nm

[progressoid]

79. Which will trim a whopping 33 Billion a year.

[spooked911]

221. That's roughly the size of the National Institutes of Health budget

And ain't exactly chump change

[progressoid]

232. That's a great example of how fucked up this is.

The NIH is slated to get a 0.8% cut in funding.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/2011-spending-deal-spares-nih.html

The 33 billion in cuts from the Defense Budget represents a 0.047% cut in their budget.

[spooked911]

243. exactly-- how sick is this?

thank

[chill_wind]

80. Obama rejected that $800 bil amount (Conrad's proposal)

which is about what the uber conservative Fiscal Commission was calling for.

He was rejecting that even as recently as July 15. "Cuts too deep!"

See post #48.

Obama: Fiscal Commission Cut Defense Too Deep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1508170&mesg_id=1508643


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7105829&c=AME&s=TOP

Again, the cite there for his cut (so far) is for around $400 billion.

[ProSense]

85. That is not

Conrad's proposal, and the statement says nothing about the cuts are too deep. From your link

"There were aspects of Bowles-Simpson that I said from very early on were not the approach I would take," Obama told reporters July 15. "On defense spending, a huge amount of their savings on the discretionary side came out of defense spending. I think we need to cut defense, but as commander in chief, I've got to make sure that we're cutting it in a way that recognizes we're still in the middle of a war, we're winding down another war, and we've got a whole bunch of veterans that we've got to care for as they come home."

The President is not going to cut Veteran's benefits. Still, it's interesting to see the Fiscal Commission proposal being used to counter the President.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. Funny... Obama's never rejected the Commission's 22% cut of Social Security benefits

Must be an oversight.

[chill_wind]

110. Ezra Klein put the Simpson-Bowles proposed figure at $800 bil. Conrad- proposal $800 billion.

The DefenseNews link actually puts the Fiscal Commission's proposal at figure closer to $1 trillion.

Obama, you say and link, at $400 billion- Defense News says $400 billion. Ezra Klein says that's what getting from his sources too. That's an older number from spring, but that's all you have, that's all they and anyone seems to have for now.

July 15

In their final report, released in December, the commission recommended cutting security spending by roughly $1 trillion between 2012 and 2020. The Defense Department, along with other federal agencies, would be subject to strict spending caps. More specific recommendations included placing DoD civilians on a three-year pay freeze.

The president's fiscal commission was not alone in calling for cuts of this magnitude.

The Bipartisan Policy Center's deficit reduction proposal also called for a $1 trillion cut to defense spending over 10 years.

In September, the Cato Institute outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years in its report, "Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint."

The president has rejected these proposals and in April called for a $400 billion cut to security spending between 2012 and 2023.

And I linked somewhere up thread and in The People's Budget thread their proposed cutting budget for closer to $1.3 trillion.

As it stands for now, any way you look at it, the size of his cut as reported up to now puts him to the hawkish right of the cat food commission's, even, in terms of halving it.



ETA- and oops. I see he himself is still talking (July 15) $400 billion and "willing to look for billions more."

MAYBE he and Congress will come up with deeper cuts in the final edit. But if they don't, or it's not a lot more substantial, it's going to be very hard to avoid comparisons.

[rhett o rick]

172. Willing to "look" for billions to cut. LOL. All they promise is to "look".

I guess that's enough for you. Wow, at least they "looked", i feel so much better living in my fuking tent.

[Philippine expat]

83. Which reason do you want?

1. Military spending provides many civilian sector jobs that accounts for much of our manufacturing base
2. As the surge in Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya show, Obama is a war monger

[hack89]

86. Because Obama enjoys wars? nt

[krabigirl]

120. I do think he likes bombing and nation-building.

[Amonester]

88. Who's going to hire all the military-industrial-complex 'new' jobless...

before November 2012?

You? Me?

The 'new' 'green' startups? (Where are they?)

(This is not to say there are no 'jobs-slashing' cuts that can be made, albeit to some rather limited extents. 'Reality is...' as they say). :(

[grahamhgreen]

96. Put them to work

building windmills.

[Amonester]

98. I'm all for that. Problem is, the 'cuRRent' house hostage taker$...

R not.

[jeff47]

115. Doesn't solve the budget problem

If they are hired by the Department of Windmills, you haven't actually cut spending.

[Telly Savalas]

121. That's a great proposal

but to the extent that you're still paying people and providing materials, you're minimizing the spending cuts involved. I'm not saying this makes it a bad idea. I'm just saying that because of this defense cuts aren't the silver bullet of deficit reduction. The deficit is largely a revenue issue, not a spending one.

If there are massive defense cuts without any offsetting spending in other sectors that support jobs, then we're leaving things to the fate of "the invisible hand" of market forces, which sort of works, but not nearly with the speed and efficiency all those jackasses on CNBC claim. So to wean ourselves from the large amount of MIC spending, it makes sense to redirect those resources to a large scale infrastructure projects replace the wasteful goals of our current defense programs. And a green energy initiative including windmills is a splendid idea.

But given the ideological disposition and lack of forward-thinking on the part of most of the members of Congress, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to happen. Moreover, I'm not going to get pissed at Obama for failing to shoot magic lightning bolts from his fingers that make it happen. He could perhaps be a little more forceful in selling a liberal agenda, but the constraints he's facing render impossible the sort of policies desired at DU.

[Capn Sunshine]

90. Because it's not. Your premise is false.

President Obama has REPEATEDLY stated the need to cut the defense budget. Practically every time the budget comes up. I'm not sure hoe people get these notions, except from Right Wing talking points. Which leads me to the same conclusion about DU. There's an awful lot of RW talking points bandied about in posts here by purported "progressives". And my clothes dryer makes socks disappear. I may have found where they go.

[billh58]

97. Statements like

"Obama backers" makes one wonder doesn't it...?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[KittyWampus]

235. Obama Baggers- well, that says it all.

[grahamhgreen]

150. Seriously though,

I meant those who are actually still giving him money and support him with vigor.

[ClassWarrior]

164. I tend to qualify that by saying "unquestioning Obama supporters."

As opposed to the Obama supporters who believe it's healthy to challenge him when he strays from Democratic values.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

102. People get "these notions" from the President who spent the better part

of the last week focusing on cuts to social programs. I don't hear him telling the Pentagon to eat its peas, do you? Throwing in the obligatory disclaimer every 500 words is not a serious effort to cut the defense budget. If those are RW talking points (because we all know the RW is just drooling over cutting defense spending, right?) then take it up with the White House.

[Capn Sunshine]

108. If you haven't heard that it's because you don't want to. He's said it often , and loudly.

. But the war goes on. I know.

[Number23]

128. +100 Cap'n! The absurd thread title says all that need be said

[Occulus]

226. Obama is talking about PAPER cuts

and the defense budget can count those as a "cost of doing business".

Defense needs to be slashed annually. Minimum of thirty percent, and I'd happily put fifty percent on the table for discussion.

This ever-increasing defense budget is not sustainable in the short term. America is literally falling apart. Vast, far-reaching cuts need to be made now, not tomorrow or over time, and they need to stay that way for at least a decade.

[L0oniX]

92. Greedy scum bag savage war monger chicken hawks.

[BiggJawn]

94. Because the MIC has nice lobbyists with fat chequebooks

And an "in" with all the Matre D's at all the best eating establishments inside the Beltway.

Old people got a can of little Friskies and a pot of Ketchup Soup.

any more questions?

And yes, I'm voting for Obama.

[spanone]

95. this supporter says he's a president not a wizard

[grahamhgreen]

100. Yes, as Commander-in-Cheif, he can bring the troops home anytime.

[Akoto]

106. As you target "Obama supporters," I'll just say ...

I suspect that, once one wins the presidency and sits down in the big chair, one is quickly made to understand who is in control. What is practical, and what will never happen. The MIC is extremely powerful. I doubt that you'd see it heavily cut by any president, even a far left one, especially during wartime.

People seem to think that he can just make everything happen. Go around Congress, topple the corporate powers that be, pass bills without the necessary votes. He is, in fact, faced with remarkable opposition unlike anything Dubya had to deal with. SS is keeping the Republicans at the bargaining table, where they can continue to turn down offers and look bad.

To be clear, I do not support cutting SS or Medicare/Medicaid. It is more personal for me than some, because I am disabled at age 26 and rely upon SSI/Medicaid for much of my survival. However, I also realize the extraordinarily difficult position that the President is in. It's my belief that the Republicans will fold on the debt ceiling if we stand firm. They are seizing the importance of raising that ceiling (and it is very important) as an opportunity to try and slash things they don't want, while strengthening the position of things they do.

[harun]

111. He's either a sell-out to the MIC or afraid the MIC will take him out

if he goes against them.

I'm guessing he and the rest of the Dem's like the MIC $$$ they get.

[inna]

112. could not agree with you more.

what's taking place is indeed radically far-right and anti-democratic.

[Major Hogwash]

114. Why isn't the budget for Social Security broken out in your pie chart?

Would have made for a better chart.

[grahamhgreen]

148. Because SS comes from a seperate pool of money - look at your paycheck under FICA.

[JoePhilly]

116. You claim that Defense spending is "mostly off the table" ...

Can you back that up?

I listened to Obama's press conference Friday. He talked about defense cuts and that they are needed.

Did you miss it?

[grahamhgreen]

146. Here

"Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

That's 33 billion a year from over 1.2 trillion in spending per year.

[jeff47]

117. Because it's the only stimulus spending that can get through Congress

It would be better if we got some lasting benefit from the spending (such as some new infrastructure). But Defense money results in a lot of jobs. Cuts now would sever the last area of government stimulus.

Don't get me wrong, SS shouldn't be on the table either.

The appropriate response to the crappy economy is to shovel money out of the treasury as fast as possible into as many hands as possible. Then you return to financial restraint when the economy has improved.

[grahamhgreen]

145. But it's the worst kind of stimulus as it produces long term drain from health care costs, and

provides no benefits for the rest of society.

[jeff47]

212. The worst kind of stimulus is still stimulus.

Due to the various failures of the Obama administration to negotiate with Congress, we're not left with many stimulus options.

[Mimosa]

118. Arms manufacturing is all US has left besides service industries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Rank Country Spending ($ b.) World Share (%) % of GDP, 2010
— World Total 1630 100 —
1 United States 698.0 42.8 4.8
2 China 119.0a 7.3a 2.1
3 United Kingdom 59.6 3.7 2.7
4 France 59.3 3.6 2.3
5 Russia 58.7a 3.6a 4.0
6 Japan 54.5 3.3 1.0
7 Germany 45.2 2.8 1.3
8 Saudi Arabia 45.2 2.8 10.4
9 India 41.3 2.5 2.7
10 Italy 37.0 1.8 2.7

[grahamhgreen]

144. Yes, but if we swapped that out for producing the best wind turbines, and solar plants

we'd be on top of the world again.

[Jakes Progress]

123. No. They can't.

They can equivicate. They can redefine terms. The can pretend. They can change the subject.

But they can't explain why a Democratic president is backing radical far-right anti-Democratic (anti-democratic for that matter) republican agenda. Being willing to trade SS and Medicare cuts for the poor and elderly for tiny slices of the huge pie that the rich have is not a good policy. Especially because in the end, he will cave and not even get that little sliver of fat pork pie.

[NorthCarolina]

124. Attacking Social Security and Medicare are things conservatives have wanted since they were

instituted. This time they have not just the GOP, but conservative third-way New Dems and a New Dem president that will help them actually get it done once and for all. The economy is their common excuse, entitlements are their common target, and military spending is off the table. That's the end result of two parties working for the same Wall Street and Corporate interests, neither of which can give a flying f*%k about the common person out there. If any progressive/Liberal politician should dare to speak the truth or point out the obvious, they will be ridiculed or ignored outright by the MSM.

[DeSwiss]

125. No they can't. Or won't. - K&R n/t

[BrightSideOfLife]

126. Well, it's easy, see...

......Nope, can't think of a RATIONAL reason for this much spending on the military. I can think of alot of IRRATIONAL reasons, though......well. 9/11! and if you question that you want the terrorists to win.

[newspeak]

245. There was no reason to go to war with Iraq

unless you're doing it for the global oil corporations and the war profiteers like KBR. Why was Brewster-Jennings outed, a network that monitored WMDs? I wonder how much money Little Boots and his greedy comrades spent on PR SELLING the american people a bogus war? The "war on terror" could have been fought by strategic undercover strikes without warring with two countries, unless you want to funnel mass amounts of money.

OBL's intended goal was to bankrupt the US, I just didn't realize we had greedy people in this country willing to go along with his plan. After reading some statements by OBL after 9/11, my first thought of the guy was a controlling, theocratic wealthy pro capitalist. Even though his family stepped down from the board of the carlyle group, I wonder how much money his family made off of our madness?

[elleng]

127. Military spending is NOT off the table,

and SS 'cuts' are; SS rationalization is ON the table, as it should be.

'I voted to cut over seven billion dollars in everything from aid to Pakistan to infrastructure in Afghanistan and I said I was going to do that when I was running and I came here and I’m doing exactly that and many, many Democrats are subscribing to that as well that we do need to be more responsible to our spending, get that under control and everything is on the table including defense spending.”

CY: To those who are against the defense budget, as I want to mention to you and who are against those cuts, I want to bring that up. How much of the defense budget could realistically be cut without anyone being impacted? For those that don’t know, we spend more money on defense than every other nation combined.

CKH: “Well, that’s a problem and I think the awareness that we’re such a major player in funding NATO and let’s get back to the original premise behind NATO. It’s certainly to help our allies in Western Europe against a Soviet threat and the threats that are there, but at this point now when times are tough and we’ve gotta prioritize our spending, what’s going on with that and what’s going on at home, I think we need to take a fresh look at our financial obligations that are outside our boundaries and there are cuts that have been recommended by the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense that I support and I think more can be done. So I support cuts there. I’ve already voted and acted on those recommendations and I’m willing to do more.”'

http://www.cyinterview.com/2011/07/congresswoman-kathy-hochul-speaks-earnestly-wants-to-make-sure-congress-doesn%E2%80%99t-bring-nation-to-financial-ruin-%E2%80%93-pending-if-debt-ceiling-not-taken-care-of-health-care-costs-obscene/

[grahamhgreen]

142. Why should SS "rationing" be on the table? It DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE ONE NICKEL to the deficit!

Makes no sense.

They must, therefore, be trying to steal it.

[Kaleva]

151. Actually, the 116 billion paid in interest to the SS Trust Fund does contribute to the deficit.

Without the interest payment, SS would be opertating in the red by 45 billion this year.

"This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-01-27-social-security_N.htm

"In 2008, 14 percent of Social Security's total income—that was over $116 billion—was earned in interest alone. "

http://www-alpha.aarp.org/money/social_security/articles/financing_of_Social_Security.html

[Alcibiades]

158. The only logical solution

is to stop borrowing from social security, then. It doesn't follow that the raids the GOP has led on the trust fund over the years contribute to the deficit: as I understand it, these same interest payments would be made to some other lender.

[Kaleva]

165. I've wondered if the Trust Fund special issues bonds could be made non-interest bearing.

This would save the govt. over 100 billion a year.

[grahamhgreen]

181. With inflation, that would be stealing from the fund.

[Kaleva]

187. True but most any reduction would be thought of as "stealing".

I would argue that in return for not paying interest on the trust fund notes, that the cap be removed.

[grahamhgreen]

247. That may well be negotiable...!

[Alcibiades]

240. That would be theft

Those were not the terms when they started borrowing from the trust fund. Surpluses are now required by law to be held in US govt securities: failure to repay at a market rate of interest would undermine the confidence in those securities. It would also accelerate greatly the purported crisis, unless offset by something like raising the cap on income subject to the cap, applying it to non-wage income, etc.

[grahamhgreen]

183. When you borrow money from a bank, you are not CONTRIBUTING to the banks deficit.

Same is true for SS.

In fact, banks list all loans as assets.

It is the borrowers who have contributed to their own deficit, not Social Security.

[Kaleva]

186. However, the person who took out the loan as to count it as a debt.

[grahamhgreen]

246. Correct. SS does not contribute one nickel to the debt.

If you want to not pay someone back that we've borrowed money from, may i suggest starting with the war profiteers who have corrupted our congress.

[jtown1123]

231. Well SS recipients have paid extra for years. Not their fault the gov't spent it.

[elleng]

160. 'Therefore' nothing.

RATIONALIZING the program so it can endure for many years.

[grahamhgreen]

182. So, simply raise the cap so that people pay into it when they make more than $116,000/year.

A simple solution, the majority of Americans agree on. Not just Dems, Americans.

[elleng]

189. Yes

[Creideiki]

169. 7 billion out of 3 trillion--check my math--.5%

Ooh...I'm so impressed! Let's get Him another Nobel Peace Prize!

[udbcrzy2]

132. I guess the war profiteers have too much at risk for that

I thought Obama was going to end this shit.

[jzodda]

133. With regards to military I am disappointed with Obama

Just when it seemed likely that we would be ending the never-ending warfare we get huge escalation in Afghanistan and now Libya and why do we need so many troops all over the world? When will we see the post cold war savings?

Afghanistan is a problem not solvable by military force. They need to fight it out amongst themselves-not Nato. Much savings in ending that war. Let Europe handle Libya and if they can't then too bad. Most of Nato is not even helping. Also why 50k troops in Europe, 25k in South Korea, 50k in Japan, 50k in Iraq? Bring them all home.

Then cut the number of active duty troops and expensive weapon programs like the F-22, the Osprey, etc...

I never thought that military spending would get the nod over medicare and SS but it seems like that is exactly what will happen with these "cuts" if they take place.

[ZombieHorde]

135. When I asked the same question, I was told the reason is

cutting SS sounds worse to voters then cutting the military. President Obama wanted people calling and/or writing their representatives and share their opinions with them. He wants to scare people into acting.

The cynic in me says otherwise, but that was the reason offered to me. Could be true; I don't know.

[grahamhgreen]

141. What that would mean is he would rather try to manipulate us into calling rather than asking

honestly that we call, or asking that a million of us show up in DC for a rally to cut the military budget and tax the rich.

Not buying it.

[pasto76]

136. because repubs wont go for it either.

time for some of you youngens to grow up. We need serious concessions from the right. President Obama offered a serious cut in turn. Its how hardball is played.

HOWEVER... in case this bit has passed you - and it looks like it has - it was a bluff too. Look at what he said he would offer, and Cantor and the crazies wouldnt budge. In those few days, the tone of the discussion went from "liberals protecting big spending" to "republicans will not accept ANY DEAL that has any tax increase"

as Ive been saying for years now, any "discussion" about deficit reduction, that does not begin with military cuts, is just bullshit. However (again), like my high school social studies teacher said, "do you waste time with the people (or issue) who say I will absolutely not ever vote for this, or do you talk to the people (or about an issue) who is on the fence?" Right. Huge military cuts just arent happening right now. So lets not waste time trying to make that happen.

And you being a non veteran; Im guessing you missed the part where the #1 thing in "military cuts" is healthcare for veterans. Something that is woefully underfunded right now.

[grahamhgreen]

139. The #1 thing Obama can do, without any concessions from the chicken-hawks on the right,

is order the troops home tomorrow.

There would be nothing the Republicans can do about it.

It would save us billions of dollars every week..

I agree with you wholeheartedly, there is no need to waste time talking to people who will not vote your way. In hardball, you simply corner them into a position where they have no choice but to support you. All Obama has to say to convince the Republicons to raise revenues is: Raise taxes on the rich to the levels of the greatest generation, or I end all the wars tomorrow. That's hardball. Then, if you are actually serious about your hardball, when they raise taxes, you end their bullsh*t wars anyway.

What you're suggesting is certainly far from hardball, IMHO.

PS - no one, except for a few sick war profiteers who will stop at nothing to make money, wants to cut any benefits from of our military personnel.

[Recursion]

137. Well, since Gates himself came forward with billions in cuts...

...your whole premise is wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

140. The Pentagon need not cower from the budget fight - they are soldiers, after all. Let's put them

front and center in this debate.

400 billion over 12 years is "mostly off the table", IMHO. The Pentagon budget is 700b/year, the ancillary costs are over 1.2 trillion.

[swilton]

138. Go for It G2!

Kickety Rickety! :applause:

[madamesilverspurs]

153. As a recipient of both SS and Medicare

I've agitated for years to get some much needed cuts. And it's only during this presidency that I've heard those things addressed. In Medicare there are redundancies, overlaps, and inane barriers that create added expense; happily, those are the very things I've heard discussed. As for SS, there's some pruning in its administration that would help considerably.

Not the answer you were hoping for, but it is what it is.


-

[yardwork]

154. Do you have a link and citation for your graphics? I want to print them out and hand them around.

Thanks.

[Doctor_J]

163. right-click on the graph, and ask for "View image Info"

you will see the URL for the original

[yardwork]

238. thank you!

[grahamhgreen]

180. Link

http://defendingthepublicgood.org/2011/07/07/why-is-the-most-wasteful-government-agency-not-part-of-the-deficit-discussion/

[yardwork]

239. Thank you. I K&Red earlier. Thanks very much for posting this.

[indurancevile]

155. The stealth theft of social security is back on the table, it seems:

Lawmakers are considering changes to how Social Security is adjusted for inflation.

When inflation rises, retirees' social security checks keep pace with small increases. But if some lawmakers get their way, those raises may be a whole lot smaller in the future.

As part of the current deficit-reduction talks, White House officials and Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are advocating changes to the way inflation is calculated. The little-noticed proposal advocates measuring inflation with the "chained consumer price index," a metric that would likely make inflation look slower than the current measurement does. That would result in smaller Social Security increases for seniors, experts say. "Seniors cannot afford this," says Mary Johnson, a senior policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League, a non-profit seniors rights advocate. "This would negatively impact not just seniors, but also many families that end up helping out these seniors financially."

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113133/smaller-raises-for-seniors-smartmoney?mod=retire-planning


I joined this board because of social security & I am surprised how many GOP talking points I hear here on the subject.

[Veracious]

157. WHO YOU GONNA VOTE FOR The Republiklan?

I agree though military spending should be cut.

[whathappened]

159. looks like pnac is going

as planned , :kick:

[summerschild]

195. Yes, PNAC is alive and well

and still influential within the Defense Department and the
Republican party. The PNAC and its goals were born way back
under George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Dick
Cheney.  "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was already
updated and spitshined to provide to Baby Bush before he was
even inaugurated.  I'm troubled now because I've been hearing
the war drums beginning to roll again about Iran.  As I
recall, Syria and North Korea were also on their preferred
targets list when they achieved "sufficient forces able
to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale
wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated
contingencies".
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

With the recent confrontation with North Korea and the current
unrest in Syria, I don't expect cuts in Defense, I expect
increases.  

[Doctor_J]

161. The prez has spat on every Dem president of the 20th century

He's giving away SS, Medicare, has failed to weigh in on voter suppression in the states, has declared gay civil rights a "states' issue", has stayed away from the destruction of labor unions, and has applauded mass firings of teachers. He's a disgrace to the party of FDR, Truman, the Kennedys, and Jimmy Carter.

[roberto IS beto]

162. he's still pissed about the Nobel Peace Prize

He's still so pissed about the Nobel Committee soiling itself by giving him the Peace Prize that he wants to rub his warmongering in their faces.
Just a guess.

[JDPriestly]

167. And don't forget that the military budget may be larger than

it looks on this pie chart.

I remember reading during the Bush administration that some military expenses were hidden in the budget of the Dept. of Agriculture and other places.



edited due to factual errors

Sorry. JD Priestly

[Phlem]

168. you know....

the ignore function is very "telling" in the responses to this thread.

Just saying, very fascinating.

-p

[JDPriestly]

176. Check your ignore list.

I had people on my ignore list that I had never heard of.

Don't know how they got there.

You may be getting a lot of ignore notices because of some error.

[Maraya1969]

177. Listen to Lawrence O'Donnell. Just because the President says

SS is on the table does not mean it is. He is playing a chess game with these Republicans. O'Donnell said that as it is now Obama is going to get exactly what he originally wanted and that does not include any cuts to SS or Medicare or other entitlement funds.

[Deep13]

178. Um, yeah, why? nt

[Kaleva]

179. Defense spending, as a percentage of the budget, is less then it was in 1960

Going by the info available in the following link, I calculated defense spending accounted for 68% of the discretionary spending budget back in 1960.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?span=usgs302&year=2010&view=1&expand=30&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302

If one includes mandatory spending then defense accounts for half of what it did in 1960 (54.5% in 1960 vs. 24% today).

[SwampG8r]

184. the military has been an unemployment numbers reduction device since reagan

need people off the street?start shooting far away
we have a lot of people deployed in a lot of places that lost military signifigance 20/30 years ago
and the loading of the military will come in handy when they decide to finally turn it upon us

[Jim_Shorts]

190. There is no rational explanation for that chart unless your a alien

If we got to start a country from scratch and lay out a budget, would anyone suggest we spend 60% of our funds on defense? I am pretty sure it wouldn't fly. Our navy alone is larger than the next 13 navy's combined. Doesn't that seem like a little overkill?

And there is other hidden military income. When we give out foreign aid, it's given with the condition that they purchase X-amount of weapons from us.( us taxpayers would be better off just giving the $ directly to the contractors )

Defense to me is defending our country, not having 11 carrier groups and having the ability to fight 3 simultaneous wars.

And we need to cut programs for our poor & elderly? cmon

[farscape]

193. Easy answer

Obama is a conservative. He's a dyed in the wool Reagan conservative. I wish I had seen the "R" next to his name before I voted for him.

[yurbud]

194. because he is governing with a Republican and conservative Democrat working majority?

Which is why it looks so little different from Bush who relied on the same groups.

[Doctor_J]

224. Probably not.

80% of Americans want taxes raised on the hyper-rich. 70% want SS left alone. 70% want MIC welfare slashed. So this really has nothing to do with majorities and such - it has simply to do with the ruling class, of which the president is now a member.

[yurbud]

242. I agree, I was simply stating HOW he's doing that.

[Chisox08]

197. Helping seniors and poor people isn't profitable,

but blowing shit up and killing and maiming people all over the world brings in huge profits. We need to go back to being the United States of America instead of the United Empire of Earth.

[eilen]

199. Because that is his jobs program?

Seriously. Almost as popular as TFA positions. I hear there is a wait list.

[FlyByNight]

200. Simply, the MICC doesn't want the budget cut

Eisenhower warned us some 50 years ago. This has nothing really to do with "defense"; this is empire maintenance and force projection.

And the MICC contributes (legally bribe) to Congressional campaigns while bringing those jobs to many, many districts. In essence, it's a very, very narrowly targeted economic stimulus. The US citizenry goes broke and 3rd World peoples have to die, but hey...

President Obama's apparent fecklessness doesn't help. Shifting to the Beltway-meme-of-the-month ("debt/deficits") and not jobs/employment, etc., only worsens the current state of the middle class. (With due fairness, Obama can't do much with a House run by sociopaths and the Senate is undemocratic and dysfunctional.)

Time for a revolution?

[Butch350]

202. Please...with all the charts - you seem to be intelligent...

but doesn't it have something to with the Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower leaving office speech
back awhile ago - and the military has been the primary recipient of funds ever since?

Come on how many times will people continue to ask this question.

You don't have any clues what-so-ever?!

[David Gill]

203. Because Republicans control the House of Representatives?

[Hubert Flottz]

204. Would it be because folks on SS can't donate the cash that...

contractors/gun runners can?

[radhika]

206. Cuz Repugs LOVE military spending - HATE SS

It's just that simple.

[oldlib]

208. I suspect that the party leaders

in congress have to much influence and are protecting military spending. Dismissing this leadership would allow free expression of each member and would provide a more equitable procedure.

[blindpig]

209. It is monstrously profitable, and....

American capital depends upon it for securing resources and markets.

[OwnedByFerrets]

210. A perfect post.

[Enthusiast]

213. The big question should be:

Why would the president take the actions of cutting social security and medicare, an action that will certainly demoralize his supporters? This will obviously demoralize millions of those that would otherwise support the president. Why would Obama demagogue the issue of social security by threatening that the checks might not go out?

I can only come to one conclusion. These actions will cause the Democratic Party to lose the 2012 election. Why would the president do something to cause the Democrats to lose. How can this be? How can a president that we all loved and supported want this? I'll let you answer that.

[Amaya]

215. america is an empire

empires spend money on war... not so much for it's people.

:patriot:

[spooked911]

222. Not going to be an empire much longer at this rate

[spooked911]

219. Not an Obama backer but simply put, we are ruled by evil psychopaths

And 9/11 was an inside job.

[WatsonT]

223. If you're going to piss some segment of the population off . . .

old people in wheelchairs are preferable to young people with guns.

[chill_wind]

225. See what we're trading off in jobs and infrastructure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1513763

[karynnj]

230. Defense cuts have NEVER been off the table - Obama listed some in April and he has more now

Your thread has a false premise.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/07/15/incoming-more-defense-spending-cuts/

[rhett o rick]

237. You are soooo right. The OP should have said, "essentially off the table". nm

[chill_wind]

241. $400 bil and HOPES to get more

perhaps as much as an additional $400 bil. He came in at roughly half of what any of the budgets (to the right or left) proposed, other than the Ryan plan. Now he's going to have to negotiate for every new dollar. SS cuts and other safety nets for the sick, poor and elderly spending better not be part of those bargaining chips.

[grahamhgreen]

249. I said "MOSTLY" off the table, 33 billion per year is not really cutting

total military spending of over 1.2 trillion per year. it's the elephant in the room.

[TBF]

236. Military budget cuts are off the table because it is our only jobs program -

seriously, can you think of any other industry that is still in the states?

[Vinnie From Indy]

248. Three words...

John F Kennedy

[blackspade]

250. K&R

One of the reasons is the rampant graft and thievery of defense contractors and their republican lapdogs.

[The Hitman]

253. Isn't this DEMOCRATIC Underground?

I thought we were all supposed to be "Obama Backers".

Thanks for the subtle divisiveness.
:sarcasm: