Obama's Budget Betrayal - Questions and Answers

[autorank]

Obama's Budget Betrayal - Questions and Answers

Q: The national debt is at $14 trillion. Doesn't Obama have to do something decisive now?

A: If you assume that reducing the national debt is the primary challenge facing the nation, yes. But why do we have out of control spending? Social Security pays for itself. If Obama truly wanted to help Medicare, he would lift the ban on medicare negotiating 40% to 60% discounts on prescription drugs.

If the president wanted to cut the budget now,everything would be on the table. He would cut military spending and end the wars. He would demand an end to outsourcing and the multilevel scheme to give away the jobs of the citizens of the United States. He won't even consider and discuss these high yield options. Without any doubt, the president would never have allowed the Bush tax cuts to carry forward, if he wanted new revenue from those who could pay. He is not serious about lowering the national debt.

[MineralMan]

1. Unrecced for unsupported editorial statements.

Why should I trust this source? Why should I believe its author? Who is Michael Collins, anyhow?

Why is this posted here?

Well, I still don't know who Michael Collins is, but he sure has a lot of stuff on that blog in your signature line. I still have no idea who he is though, or why I should listen to him. Any information you can provide in that regard would be helpful.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Nevermind who Collins is - what about what he SAYS?

Please, feel free to debunk his facts, and the conclusions he draws from those facts.

[MineralMan]

10. No thanks. I say lots of things, too.

Anyone can write garbage these days and see it online instantly. Who is this person? Lots of people are writing. Some are qualified to write on subjects they address. Some are not. I don't credit anonymous writers.

You may do as you please.

[EFerrari]

12. The OP is not anonymous. Maybe you should consult a dicitonary. n/t

[MineralMan]

15. The irony is amusing.

I will comment as I see fit. If the OP is this Collins character, then my question remains the same.

[EFerrari]

19. I'm glad you are able to amuse yourself. That's a good skill to have. n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And he's hardly anonymous - he's been doing this for a long time.

http://electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm

[autorank]

24. It's me

It's about content not personality, evidence not individual authority. Explain Tim Geithner and you win the day. But you can't, other than
Geithner's appointment and influence represent the "cancer on this administration" to quote John Dean.

[MineralMan]

66. OK, thanks. I will avoid your OPs in the future, then, so as not

to step on your posts. I was not aware that you were that person. Thank you.

[autorank]

85. No problem.

[Dappleganger]

39. And who are you?

It is small-minded to use an ad hominem attack rather than address the issues, as others have said.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. It is a signed piece, not anonymous.

You do know what that word means, don't you?

[inna]

80. Pretty vile attack/series of posts there. Fail, needless to say.

[Forkboy]

84. "Anyone can write garbage these days and see it online instantly"

They sure can...

[Union Scribe]

94. ...yes, yes you do...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wilms]

28. What do any of your questions have to do with the OP?

Is there something in the article you think the author got wrong? Then say so.

You're kind of in character attack mode, you claim because you don't know who the author is. So? Are authors supposed to introduce themselves to you? Do they need to apply for certification from Mineral Man's List of Approved Bloggers?

Address the issues.

[autorank]

40. Certification

Good points, although I'm obviously biased. For licensing exams, particularly when there are written sections, the names are separate from
the written text, so even certs are anonymous for a while anyway;)

It's all here, mostly, http://themoneyparty.org/main/

[damntexdem]

36. Don't worry about the source -- just open your eyes. What is said IS true.

We watched Obama doing it over three years. We could all be witnesses for the prosecution.

[mod mom]

38. Well if YOU don't know who MC is, then surely he is not worthy to read/

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[Hatchling]

72. Recc'd becasue I DO know who MC is.

[rucky]

58. Recc'd to counter the unrec.

And because I clicked the links in the article.

And because I found them to be informative.

[H2O Man]

74. Recommended

for a variety of good reasons, including those you listed.

[mike_c]

2. that is EXCELLENT analysis....

I mentioned earlier that the real fiscal problems are straightforward and the solutions rather simple and obvious-- cut the military budget by 75% or more, end the stupid and immoral wars of aggression, pay back the money borrowed from SS, and return taxes to, oh- how about 1960s levels, when the U.S. was demonstrably a world economic powerhouse and we could afford to wage war on POVERTY? Obama's unwillingness to address the real problems and everyone in Washington's insistence on manufacturing a fake "crisis" instead of discussing simple solutions points to their real motives, or at least shows that they are not at all motivated by desire to actually address the real problems instead of creating more smoke screens.

You know what people use smoke screens for? To hide behind.

[sabrina 1]

6. I couldn't agree more with your post, mike_c

It really is not hard, unless there are ulterior motives for not taking those simply and obvious steps. I was thinking cut the military budget in half, but I like your cut better.

[autorank]

14. Smoke screens and other distractions

Keep us from offering a decent life for every citizen.

The national debt boils down to the Bush era tax cuts and the wars. Why aren't they at the top of the list for cuts?


Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Why do we continue t be defined by Bush tax cuts and wars?

[mike_c]

20. the answer to that question is rather obvious, isn't it...?

It's because the national leadership-- in both major political parties-- wants it that way. The people empowered to have that dialog are having precisely the one they want to have. Reality is meaningless to them.

[msongs]

3. lol obama is sacrificing nothing. he will be filthy rich after he gets out of office nt

[Hawkowl]

33. Rich no matter what.

That is what is infuriating. He could do the right things, the moral things, the great things, and still retire filthy rich and famous. Yet, he chooses to do the opposite. Not because it is hard, but because it is easy. The antithesis of JFK.

[autorank]

37. There's no success like failure

when failure is a winner too!

[Doctor Hurt]

4. BBBBBBB OOOOOOOO RRRRRRRRRR IIIIIIIIIIIII NNNNNNNNN GGGGGGGG

[sudopod]

29. Looks like someone put on their grouchypants this morning.

Enjoy 15 minutes in time out young man.

[EFerrari]

5. Very good, clear summary, autorank.

Pelosi and Reid seem to be trying to temper the damage, though. On that level, do you think they can?

[autorank]

18. Somebody better tell the public what default means

I hope Pelosi and Reid can fix it. Default is a total disaster, everything goes up, we go broke, it's all over for the US as a global
power. Not many citizens would support this. It must be a priority to get this message out. Needs to come from the top, don't you think.

[EFerrari]

21. Obama seems willing to sign a suicide pact for Democrats

in order to avoid default (and, incidently, to continue down his privatizing road).

I'm thinking, the bankers won't let this go that far. Is that wrong?

[RebelOne]

63. More like a suicide pact for seniors. n/t

[EFerrari]

70. Well, for seniors but also all kinds of other people.

That's why I went with Democrats as the larger category. But I keep asking about Wall Street because I don't think they'd let this happen if they can stop it.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, autorank.

[autorank]

41. Thanks for the vote

As always, happy to see you!!!

[dennis4868]

11. it's rather funny...

how people here seem to think there are repubs in congress, a dem in the WH and no dems in the congress...Obama gets blamed for the weak dems in congress all the time...this place is too funny I swear....hahaha!

[sabrina 1]

22. Maybe you missed it, but the problem is not with the Dems in

Congress who have made their feelings known to this WH. The problem is with this administration who can't seem to bend over far enough to try to please the teabaggers.

But your point is a good one. We have the WH, the Senate and a large number of Dems in Congress. So, how come a few teabaggers are calling the shots?

If Republicans had this kind of power, what do you think would be happening right now? Look what they can accomplish without it!

[mmonk]

16. Good analysis.

What are you saying about the debt ceiling? Technically, there is no hostage taking?

[autorank]

27. Thanks

The debt ceiling is a done deal. It will get raised but the triangulation is an opportunity for cuts in entitlements amidst the "panic."

I am somewhat worried, as I think is normal knowing the situation, that they'll fool around with the nonsense and a panic will ensue that
does some real damage, unintended consequences. It should just be raised and the budget should be dealt with in an intelligent fashion, over
enough time for the public to get the truth and have input. It's always a "crisis" or a "war" on this or that. How about a dialog?

[mmonk]

56. I agree it is all being done in shock doctrine fashion.

But is there any coordination in awareness in the two parties that it will be raised?

[autorank]

77. Shock Doctrine Engenders Gratitude

I think that's what they're after. They are perfectly capable of screwing everything up and blowing us all into a huge mess.

This is by far and away the very worst ruling elite in the history of the world. They can't even get their tricks right.

[TBF]

17. K&R nt

[autorank]

101. THNX TBF!

[ProSense]

25. Wow

"The president is not in office to represent thosepeople. He was selected, funded and carried over the finish line by corporate America"

Seriesly?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

31. Top contributors:

University of California $1,642,735
Goldman Sachs $1,012,841
Harvard University $862,604
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $807,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $623,118
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,548
WilmerHale Llp $549,918
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Columbia University $536,202
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $528,180
US Government $517,908
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $502,045

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[Starbucks Anarchist]

42. Wow, those crooked CEOs at the University of California will be the end of us!

:rofl:

And you conveniently forgot to include the massive amount contributed from much smaller donations from millions of regular people.

[EFerrari]

44. I didn't edit what OpenSecrets has up.

:)

ETA, and as someone who protested for divestment for a year at Cal, your corrupt CEO comment is hilarious.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. Still a sin of omission.

But I'm curious as to how the University of California will wreak havoc on us middle-class and working-class people.

[EFerrari]

47. No, it's not. The category is "top contributors".

And you must be pretty young to ask that about the UC Regents. :)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

54. And the total amount donated by small contributors vastly outweighs any of these "top contributors."

And considering the animosity towards Goldman because of their contributions, it must mean UC Regents is doing far more damage to this country, so pray tell, what was/is their big sin perpetrated against us little people?

[EFerrari]

67. Since they diversted from the Apartheid government in South Africa

I haven't looked at their portfolio but I'm sure it's on line if you need the details. The UC Regents aren't nuns, you know. They don't wear letter sweaters.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

69. I didn't claim they were.

I also know that they didn't wreck the economy or were ever at the forefront of the pillaging of the middle and working class.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. Your juvenile and condescending terminology prevents me from responding.

If you want to engage in an adult conversation, the ball is in your court.

[Wilms]

55. Pardon, Mr. "crooked CEOs at the University of California will be the end of us!".

I put up a link. Don't click it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

57. That was sarcasm replying to Obama's alleged horrible corporate ties.

Because as we all know, UC wrecked the economy. :eyes:

I didn't refer to the poster or similarly-minded people with anything the equivalent of "cheerleaders" or "milk money," like you did. I simply refuted their argument with humor without insulting them directly, something you clearly don't know how to do. There's the difference.

[Wilms]

59. I dare you to click my link. n/t

[ProSense]

61. So

everyone who works for the those organizations, including the University of California, are Republicans who contributed to the conspiracy?

Jon Corzine was a CEO of Goldman Sachs. He voted against the IWR, protected public employee jobs and supported marriage equality.

Of course, a significant number of New Jerseyans were convinced he was no different from Chris Christie, and voila!!!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[grahamhgreen]

26. Rec. - Can you post some of the article in your OP? Like... "Q: The national debt is at $14 tril

Q: The national debt is at $14 trillion. Doesn't Obama have to do something decisive now?

A: If you assume that reducing the national debt is the primary challenge facing the nation, yes. But why do we have out of control spending? Social Security pays for itself. If Obama truly wanted to help Medicare, he would lift the ban on medicare negotiating 40% to 60% discounts on prescription drugs.

If the president wanted to cut the budget now,everything would be on the table. He would cut military spending and end the wars. He would demand an end to outsourcing and the multilevel scheme to give away the jobs of the citizens of the United States. He won't even consider and discuss these high yield options. Without any doubt, the president would never have allowed the Bush tax cuts to carry forward, if he wanted new revenue from those who could pay. He is not serious about lowering the national debt.

[autorank]

30. Just did, exactly that:)

[Donnachaidh]

34. kick and frigging REC!

Thank you autorank.

[autorank]

35. Thank you Donnachaidh!

[Agony]

43. Good one! The Grijalva/Ellison People's Budget includes a proviso "Negotiate Rx payments with

pharmaceutical companies" Among other things that will never see the light of day as the Plutocrats are having their way!

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf

Keep it up, autorank! someday...

Cheers!
Agony

[autorank]

73. That's one fine piece of legislation

And its written in plain English too!

Someday, for sure, sooner wold be better but ya know...

[JoePhilly]

46. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

I heard he kicks puppies competitively, for distance.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Repetitvie non responses indicate a lack of substance

in your counter arguments. Your posts are like spam. They never respond to the topic in any way. This is a mark of the ardent, snark without content, whinging without meaning, pointless, distracting comments that have nothing to do with the topic, which serve only as ugliness in the discussion. If that is what Obama inspires and it seems to be, well, that is not so good. What he brings out in his ardent followers is everything my parents taught me not to be.

[JoePhilly]

65. Actually ...

Lots of my posts respond directly to the topic.

I respond with that particular response to knee jerk "Obama is evil" OPs. Those which take complex issue and try to position them as simple issues.

As in ... "just end the wars!!!" Its nonsense.

Obama is not a dictator. And most of the nonsense that the OP demands Obama can't simple DECLARE.

What my parents taught ME is to learn some CIVICS. Learn how the government works. And then not babble incoherently about what any elected official can and can not do.

btw ... if you think my posts are spam, feel free to add me to your ignore list ... I get the sense it is large and that I'd make friends there.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

90. "What he brings out in his ardent followers is everything my parents taught me not to be."

I'm not big on Smilies, but... :thumbsup:

[inna]

92. could not agree with you more; and very well said

[Ignis]

68. Obama can do no wrong Obama can do no wrong Obama can do no wrong

:boring:

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Extra kick to balance the top o' thread distraction attempt

Excellent article.

[Mnemosyne]

53. And another in gratitude for Michael's continuing efforts to educate and enlighten. K&R n/t

[autorank]

76. It's a pleasure

It's like the UK, some of the leaders are following the people. The folks know what the score is,
too much for too few and nothing for the rest of us. Nobody want's a handout, just a fair deal, which
is not the case when the top 1%, actually, the top fraction of 1% grab all the net new income.

[Mnemosyne]

99. Just keep it up, Michael, you rock.

:hug:

[Starry Messenger]

60. k&r

[myrna minx]

62. Thanks for posting, my friend.

:hi:

[Me.]

64. K & R

[autorank]

93. It's you!

No, it's Me!

[slipslidingaway]

71. knr nt

[Stinky The Clown]

75. Mikey! Waytago! You're pissing off the right morons, as you should. K&R

How ya doin'?

[inna]

79. lol, exactly. +1, nt

[autorank]

82. Well, you know stinkey

It's always something!!!

And then again, it's the same as it ever was...

:shrug:

[inna]

78. K&R, always looking forward to the Michael Collins posts!

:yourock:

[autorank]

91. There will be one soon

Just after I hit the number to pay the outrageous self-employed health insurance rates;) But at least I have it. Small favors, very expensive too.

[autorank]

98. psst, inna

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/if-you-declare-bankruptcy-will-everything-be-ok-few-days-weeks-later

:hi:

[leftstreet]

81. K&R

[Kaleko]

83. Recommended

[PufPuf23]

86. Thank you Autorank kr

DUers who question Michael Collins have not been paying much attention for years at DU.

sheesh.

[autorank]

89. THNX!

DU is a great place to learn. Vast quantities of valuable information!

[Pooka Fey]

87. Good post. Thanks autorank.

Nice succinct, clear. I already knew we were completely FBAR, but it's nice to review the details because it's a complex subject. I bookmarked the website.

[autorank]

88. Thanks Pooka Fey

We've been at this a long time. But we'll get there.

[avaistheone1]

95. k&r

[treestar]

96. Whoever wrote that thinks the President has all the power to himself

They need to learn more before their opinions are worth reading.

[autorank]

97. Are you "the decider" as to who gets to write and who doesn't

My take on Obama is in the larger context of the ruling financial elite, the top percent of the top 1%, you know the people who hoard all the money
and leave the scraps for us. I think Obama has some power but not much. I see him as beholden to Wall Street because that's exactly how he
behaves. I have nothing personal against him and I'm sure he is admirable in a number of ways. But there is no way that his leadership
represents anything more than work for his true constituents, The Money Party

[treestar]

100. He is not "beholden to Wall Street" he is stuck with a Republican House

This is basic civics. The wording of the article "Obama did this" and "that" instead of "Washington did this" or that.

[bobthedrummer]

102. Time to kick this before it's archived n/t