The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

T-5

Debt committee: 11th-hour cheat sheet - Nov. 18, 2011

At T-minus five days to Wednesday's deadline, the chance that the committee will reach a "grand bargain" appears to be on life support, and the priest is on his way to deliver last rites.

Instead, the parties, if they can strike a deal at all, are more likely to produce a plan that cuts deficits by $1.2 trillion or less. The plan would likely include a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases.

If they manage to seal a deal on $1.2 trillion, that would stave off what some call "devastating" automatic spending cuts to defense and nondefense spending in 2013.

But if all they do is $1.2 trillion, that means U.S. debt would continue to grow faster than the economy. And lawmakers will get to have this painful debate over and over until they get it right.

[JPhillips]

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.

[Edward64]

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

Members of the "super committee" charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are focused on how to announce failure to reach a deal, Democratic and Republican aides confirmed to CNN Sunday.

While aides said no final decision had been made, they acknowledged that -- barring an unforeseen development -- an announcement of an end to negotiations is the most likely scenario.

Talks on trying to reach a deficit reduction agreement are essentially over and discussions are focused on a Monday announcement, a senior Democratic aide said.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

It's more of the same. Most would have been surprised if a deal was actually reached. That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

Doing anything the super committee could complete is a waste. Just let the spending cuts trigger and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and we'll be in far better shape than any compromise.

[miked]

I don't understand...the dems still control the senate, so what's preventing them from just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You would think they would have some leverage as the tax cuts can't increase without their votes...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

Why come to a compromise though when you can do nothing? I am sure this will end up being a D vs R reason or because they want to avoid "economic collapse". At least more people seem to see through this bullshit this time around. (I also credit Obama if he follows through and doesn't allow them to play this game)

Congress may try blocking cuts if debt panel fails - Yahoo! News

[flounder]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.

It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flounder

It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

Sure, but it's all the things they'll do that will increase the deficit. There's no reason to panic if they do nothing.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flounder

It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

Are there spending measures that would expire as well? If the answer is "do nothing", then wouldn't the extra war spending go away, the extensions to unemployment, and the like? No COLA increases for federal wages or social security? No pay raises for Congress? Etc?

[flounder]

I'm pretty sure all of that is included in the CBO numbers that graph is based on. Note that even with the sequestration cuts, total federal spending will still increase, just not by as large an amount. I assume that "doing nothing" means leaving already budgeted increases in place.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

The triggers will get rolled back though. They're toothless.

[JPhillips]

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

[Edward64]

T-2 ... it's official now. The post mortem analysis should be fun.

'Super committee' fails to reach agreement - CNN.com

Facing harsh reaction from financial markets and a frustrated public, the congressional "super committee" negotiating a possible deficit reduction agreement announced Monday it has failed to reach a deal.

A statement from the panel's co-chairs said that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."

Despite their failure, the committee's co-chairs said "we remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee's work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy."

President Barack Obama scheduled a 5:45 p.m. statement. Other reaction arrived swiftly.

Markets dropped as news spread of the panel's expected failure. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 248 points Monday, with a minor recovery after being down more than 300 points earlier in the afternoon.

Initial reaction had Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for the inability of the bipartisan committee to negotiate at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures.

[JediKooter]

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program?

What a great question, actually.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

I don't like a flat 10% cut. There are areas, say food inspectors for one, that are already severely understaffed.

Of course a 10% cut to discretionary spending won't do much anyway. Defense and healthcare are the problems going forward. Without plans to deal with those anything else is purely window dressing.

[stevew]

This idea of cutting the military by a ton is a good thing. I have a feeling these 10% cuts will primarily come from salary and other things that affect the "little guys". The large scale defense contractors are protected I bet

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

Not all Federal programs are alike. Some have been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years since they don't have the lobbying interests to support them.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

The only way Flair would win is if he snuck in some brass knucks in his tights. He'd have to get his ass beat for about 20 minutes first though, then he would lay em all out and figure four their asses one by one while they all rolled around pretending they were exhausted all of a sudden.

[SirFozzie]

Come on.. these are senators we're talking about. THey'd be sucking wind after two minutes. But that's ok, cuz Flair's the sixty minute man.... WHOOO!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

This is even funnier if you didn't read the Grantland piece from a few months ago detailing Flair's financial problems with people and paying taxes.

[sterlingice]

I was trying to go with a wrestler about the age of most Senators

And, no, didn't know he had financial issues so that does make it even funnier

SI

[flounder]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not all Federal programs are alike. Some have been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years since they don't have the lobbying interests to support them.

Can you give an example of a program that has been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years?

[JPhillips]

I'll go with the aforementioned food inspectors. I don't know if there have been cuts, but they certainly haven't grown at the rate food producers have over the past three decades.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll go with the aforementioned food inspectors. I don't know if there have been cuts, but they certainly haven't grown at the rate food producers have over the past three decades.

Officer I was only going 80, at least I wasn't going 100!

[Edward64]

I'm good with this. Haven't seen any polls yet but suspect Obama comes out of this looking better than Congress.

Obama To Veto Any Attempt To Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability To Reach Debt Deal | Fox News

President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span.

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference where he laid blame squarely on Republicans who refused to bend in their defense of tax cuts for the wealthy during debt talks. “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure.”

He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.” He included the roughly $1 trillion in cuts approved in August.

"The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion," he said. "They've still got a year to figure it out."

These automatic spending cuts are designed to fall evenly on the military and domestic government programs beginning in 2013.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by article

He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.”

I love these commitments. He may only be in office for another year or so, but by golly he can promise what's going to happen 10 years from now. Presidents love to pull this garbage, from both sides of the aisle.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I love these commitments. He may only be in office for another year or so, but by golly he can promise what's going to happen 10 years from now. Presidents love to pull this garbage, from both sides of the aisle.

You just have to translate his "promises" into "vague statements of preference that will happen if there is zero opposition from anyone." The latter phrasing is more honest, but not very useful in a campaign.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

If it comes down to the last two standing are Ric Flair and Roddy Piper...oh man! I'd pay to see that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

You just have to translate his "promises" into "vague statements of preference that will happen if there is zero opposition from anyone." The latter phrasing is more honest, but not very useful in a campaign.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. He's honestly taking the easier of two roads by not vetoing. If he vetoes, he'd look silly.

[panerd]

My favorite Presidential montage was on the Daily Show where they showed every President since Nixon promising to get off foreign oil in the next 10 years. (The perfect number to not happen at any time during their presidency) Its hilarious watching Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, W Bush, and Obama all make almost the exact same empty promise.

[Edward64]

Possibly too good to be true but interesting read.

Al-Qaeda targets dwindle as group shrinks - The Washington Post

The leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network, once expansive enough to supervise the plot for Sept. 11, 2001, have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.

Aymen al-Zawahiri and his second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, are the last remaining “high-value” targets of the CIA’s drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, U.S. officials said, although lower-level fighters and other insurgent groups remain a focus of Predator surveillance and strikes.

Al-Qaeda’s contraction comes amid indications that the group has considered relocating in recent years but that it ruled out other destinations as either unreachable or offering no greater security than their missile-pocked territory in Pakistan, U.S. officials said.

Still, U.S. officials who described al-Qaeda as being on the verge of defeat after Osama bin Laden’s was killed said they have been surprised by the pace and extent of the group’s contraction in the six months since then.

“We have rendered the organization that brought us 9/11 operationally ineffective,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said. Asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: “Not very much. Not any of the world-class terrorists they once had.”

[Edward64]

Some fact checking on the GOP candidates/accusations on Obama.

NBC Politics - FACT CHECK: Hyperbole on terror interrogations

Michele Bachmann did not intend to be taken literally when she told the Republican presidential debate Tuesday that civil-liberties activists have taken over the interrogation of terrorists from the CIA. But even as a rhetorical point, it didn't hold water.

Her hyperbole on the American Civil Liberties Union was one of the more notable stretches in the national security and foreign policy debate. A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts:

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some fact checking on the GOP candidates/accusations on Obama.

NBC Politics - FACT CHECK: Hyperbole on terror interrogations

Right, if I'm running for President, I don't try and convince anybody that Obama isn't willing to kick some foreign ass for the safety of our country.

[SirFozzie]

Because all he has to do is point at Bin Laden and the other members of Al-Qeda killed and you look like an idiot. Not that it's unusual for Bachmann to look like one, mind you!

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Because all he has to do is point at Bin Laden and the other members of Al-Qeda killed and you look like an idiot. Not that it's unusual for Bachmann to look like one, mind you!

Not to mention his successful continuation of our nation building efforts in Iraq, his strong determination to keep Gitmo open and away from here, and the continuation of the Patriot Act. He's done much better than expected. I've no idea what she's talking about.

[Edward64]

This came out of the blue for me. Didn't know we were still working on star wars missile defense - not sure if ground, satellite or combo. I remember reading about alot of failures in the 90's ... hopefully its more robust now.

Medvedev: Russia may target US missile shield - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

MOSCOW — Russia's president threatened on Wednesday to deploy missiles to target the U.S. missile shield in Europe if Washington fails to assuage Moscow's concerns about its plans, a harsh warning that reflected deep cracks in U.S.-Russian ties despite President Barack Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with the Kremlin.

Dmitry Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal with the U.S. on missile defense, but he strongly accused Washington and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries. He said that Russia will have to take military countermeasures if the U.S. continues to build the shield without legal guarantees that it will not be aimed against Russia.

The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, and it did that again Wednesday.

"I do think it's worth reiterating that the European missile defense system that we've been working very hard on with our allies and with Russia over the last few years is not aimed at Russia," said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. "It is ... designed to help deter and defeat the ballistic missile threat to Europe and to our allies from Iran."

[Edward64]

Government website on missile defense. No lasers used that I saw, too bad.

The Ballistic Missile Defense System

[Edward64]

This is the most interesting GOP primary I can recall.

Georgia Woman Claims 13-Year Affair With Cain, As Candidate Denies Latest Allegations | Fox News

A new woman has come forward with allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, this time claiming the two had a 13-year extramarital affair, but Cain and his advisers deny the claims, just as they have denied the sexual harassment claims that have set back his campaign.

Cain, in an apparent effort to get ahead of the story, appeared Monday afternoon in a cable news interview before the Georgia woman's story aired and said she is "someone who I know, who is an acquaintance, who I thought was a friend," though he denied an affair.

[Edward64]

I think we can quibble on whether all combat troops are out of Iraq but I think Obama has fufilled his promise. Only time will tell if Iraq was worth the price.

Obama and Iraq Leader, Maliki, Mark Shift to Postwar Ties - NYTimes.com

In a few weeks, the American military force that invaded almost nine years ago, and still numbered 150,000 when the president took office, will have shriveled to a vestigial presence of military liaison officers and embassy guards. Mr. Obama acknowledged that the embassy in Baghdad would maintain a larger-than-normal security force — a decision that has aroused criticism among some Iraqis. He said that measure was necessary to protect diplomats or American civilians working in the oil sector who might be targeted by militant groups.

[Edward64]

Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).

I did not see any opinions from the GOP candidates.

Obama, Boehner square off in payroll tax fight - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- The congressional impasse over extending the payroll tax cut became a showdown Tuesday between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

After the Republican-controlled House passed a measure calling for more negotiations, Boehner made public a letter to Obama that urged him to order the Senate back from its holiday break to take part in further talks.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled Senate reject that idea, and Obama agreed with them, telling reporters in a previously unscheduled appearance that the House must approve a two-month extension passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate.

"The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1," Obama said. "It's the only one."

The House motion, passed Tuesday with no Democratic support on a 229-193 vote, expressed the chamber's disagreement with the Senate plan and called for the dispute to be immediately taken up by a House-Senate conference committee -- something already ruled out by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

However, Boehner and the Republican leadership prevented a direct vote on the Senate's two-month extension, signaling they may lack enough GOP support to defeat it in the face of unrelenting pressure from the White House, Democrats and some Senate Republicans.

Instead, the House approved a separate resolution supporting a yearlong extension of both the payroll tax cut and emergency federal unemployment benefits. House Republicans are also pushing for a new, two-year "doc fix," or delay in significant scheduled pay cuts to Medicare physicians.

All three measures are set to expire December 31.

Meanwhile, House members headed out of town for their holiday break after legislative business ended Tuesday.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).

I think its more about trying to screw up the economy before the elections tbh than any 'standing behind their beliefs' .... the more they can mess things up before the election the better their chance of getting into power, at the moment things are starting to look like they're improving so expect spanners to be thrown at the works as often as possible imho ...

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think its more about trying to screw up the economy before the elections tbh than any 'standing behind their beliefs' .... the more they can mess things up before the election the better their chance of getting into power, at the moment things are starting to look like they're improving so expect spanners to be thrown at the works as often as possible imho ...

If that's the case, the Republican Party should be banned.

[miked]

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them. I agree with Boehner that it sucks to pass a 2-month bill to just start the same negotiations. I don't agree with a 1% surcharge on rich people, but I don't think the Republican party is offering anything on their side to cut (defense, etc), rather just expecting the removal of regulations to somehow spur the economy and equal more revenue.

But it's a stupid game of chicken because the R's think Obama has more to lose in an election year.

[Mike D]

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them.

There are legal ways to do this though. That's my point. If they are actively trying to tank the economy, they should be banned as a party.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by miked

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them. I agree with Boehner that it sucks to pass a 2-month bill to just start the same negotiations. I don't agree with a 1% surcharge on rich people, but I don't think the Republican party is offering anything on their side to cut (defense, etc), rather just expecting the removal of regulations to somehow spur the economy and equal more revenue.

But it's a stupid game of chicken because the R's think Obama has more to lose in an election year.

It's a two month extension because the GOP won't agree to a year extension. The Dems would take a clean year extension if they could get it, but the GOP will only go for a year if a bunch of non-related riders are included.

Of course I don't believe the House freshmen would even agree to that. Obama is for it, so they have to b against it. It would be interesting to see Obama embrace a Tea Party platform just so the freshmen could abandon it entirely.