Remember all those discussions of Obama playing multi-dimensional chess?

Yesterday was the checkmate!

Quite a picture :-)

50% of which are non defense related spending

I think President Obama would also like to know.

Thanks.

obama says he will veto it anyway.

If obama doesnt think congress would give him a law preventing domestic spending cuts from happening why does he say he will veto it?

now even if they work out an agreement say to not cut military spending nor cut domestic spending he will still veto it.

obama is to the right of the keynesians on this one

Be tough, like LBJ!

Make threats!!!!

Twist arms.!!!!!!!!!


:sarcasm:

the people do not want cuts in public spending, and you cheer for a democrat who says they will veto any bill which would stop cuts to public spending.

plus, even if by some miracle a bill made it which kept defense cuts but got rid of the other 50% of the cuts HE WOULD VETO IT! that is what he just promised.

And the protests in the streets have nothing to do with it. They don't even say what they want Obama to do on this issue.

No, it's who gets elected to Congress, not who "protests in the streets" that will have the effect of how much there is in taxes and how it gets spent.

in the fantasy scenario where congress passes a bill halting the spending cuts but preserving the defense cuts and/or actually hiking taxes, do you really think obama would veto it anyway? he gains a lot and loses nothing by making a veto threat NOW, while there's no alternative to sequestration.

congress WILL revisit this issue, probably not until after the election, and making a veto threat gives him greater leverage in terms of getting the best deal possible.

i don't like sequestration for the same reasons you don't like it, but i don't think it will happen, at least not for long. the new congress will quickly get to work on a deal. i don't think it will be a particularly "grand" deal, but it will be something and i want obama in there fighting with whatever resources he has. we certainly don't have enough friends in congress to be assured of getting a good deal; we need whatever help we can get.

if he didnt veto it he would be labled a liar

and what if there were a bill stopping all the spending cuts from happening, wouldnt that be better than cutting a shitload of domestic spending just to get cuts in military spending?

obama could safely sign it. but your premise is so wrong it's just plain false. we are simply NOT going to get a bill that gives us everything we want, and it's not helpful for anyone for obama to go into details regarding fantasies.

veto threats, historically, are rarely absolutes. they're negotiating positions. ESPECIALLY when issued a year in advance.

the possiblity that with continued strikes, economic disruptions and the like that congress, out of fear of losing elections, passes a law stopping the cuts in spending from happening?

why not just say "i will veto any bill that blocks defense cuts from happening"?

why because HE WANTS TO CUT PUBLIC SPENDING TOO

right of keynes he is.

really?...fact or fiction? because I have not seen this speculation from anywhere but the Right as a fear factor tid bit. If it's a fact, some linkies would be nice. If it's just your assumption, why is your assumption to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt?

i see that the whole idea that obama says we all need to pay our part on the debt is a right wing premise

why is their a debt? because right wingers so dramatically cut taxes starting with reagan, and then left them low, while blowing money on wars.

a left wing president, even if the right has half of the legislature, would point this out and would say that those creating the debt need to pay for it, that the rich have not been paying their share (this last part he is saying now)

does it seem normal to you that obama, by balencing the budget with spending cuts (because the right is blocking tax hikes) is by proxy working under the right wing premise that defecit and debt reduction must come from spending reduction, not increased taxes. that he so willing goes along with the spending cuts parts makes me think that that is what he really wants.

and yes, if the political environment shifts markedly over the next year, then things could be different.
i still think that's fantasy, but for the moment let's accept that that happens.

obama is in a fine position having made his veto threat to help drive a good deal. he can insist on tax increases on the wealthy and/or defense cuts. if there's that much popular uprising against spending cuts that congress actually passes a bill that doesn't cut spending, obama's fine signing it.

after a week of having every major city stuck in hundreds of miles of gridlock the state caves pretty quick, i have helped make it happen here in france already.

the public rising against spending cuts is occupying all over the usa this very moment

occupy people want SOCIAL JUSTICE not SOCIAL SPENDING CUTS

the protests are there already

it's also logistically much easier for a relatively small number of vehicles to bring traffic to a standstill in france. the u.s. has much greater interconnectivity, and a stonger police state. much more difficult for workers to launch effective protests.

that said, i certainly hope some of that esprit francais rubs off on americans. washington will do NOTHING until the PEOPLE lead them.

you go to a place where traffic stops on its own in the middle of rush hour and just stand there and close the expressway

we have plenty of interconnectivity in france

you just block all the expressways and have waves of people to do it, wave one gets busted, wave 2 comes in then 3 4 5 6

you only need about 30 people to block a 6 lane road.

train lines you block in the stations when the trains are stopped. same idea.

the usa is having fucking awesome protests right now, outprotesting france on the occupy hands down.

the potential is huge in the usa now, i have NEVER in my 8 years in france NEVER seen an occupy movement like there is in the usa.

you are already protesting way radical style. like tahir square style.


"washington will do NOTHING until the PEOPLE lead them." few capital cities in the world will....

i didn't realize pedestrians could block a highway there.

they'd be run over here for sure!




where in france are you? i lived in strasbourg for a year when i was a kid.

when the truckers go on strike they do as you explain

when people block roads you must study traffic maps to find out where the "red jams" are, that is where traffic is already stopped

so from mid rush hour on the road is closed by human chains stepping in front of already stopped cars.

the best is when it is jr high, high school and uni studetns doing it. no one wants to run over a kid. (not in france anyways)

the police then close the roads for hours at a time to protect the kids from the cars (and it really is to protect the kids, the cars are fucked and traffic is fucked, the protest is successful.....)

farmers park their tractors when they strike or drive them 10 mph on the expressway

garbage workers just park on important streets all over town

the strikes here really are beautiful, the french have taught me much.

i live in the southeast, over the first range of hills from st tropez (where rent is WAAAAAY cheaper) i am in between Marseille and Nice

i vaguely remember visiting a friend in arles. goodness, that was nearly 40 years ago.

that ought to help the canabis cause! :sarcasm:

if cannabis legalization were all i cared about i would support ron paul

obama is anti pot

how is being anti obama hurting the cannabis cause seeing as he is anti pot? we wont even discuss legalization, he laughs off the question

and what does that have to do with my being opposed to a so called left wing president saying he will veto any bill that would halt pre ordained cuts in domestic spending?

i have watched several video clips of it

if you have one longer than a minute and a half please put it up

i will watch it.

you think i criticize the president based on what someone else says they heard him say without looking for the primary source document myself?

that was one of the first things i did when i read the headline, i couldnt believe he would actually say that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/11/21/president-obama-makes-statement-about-supercommittee

And here's why it's a GOOD thing that it failed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=818336#818388 (post #3)

i never once said that.

i am pissed off that obama would veto any bill stopping cuts in social spending .

since when do left wing presidents care more about balencing the budget on cuts in spending? if the wealthiest americans paid their fair share, as obama suggests, we would not need to cut a damn thing

he just said that everyone has to give a little bit and that that idea is supported by most people

funny, i thought most people wanted the rich to pay more like they should have been doing for years

look at what sanders is saying about this, he will be damned if he goes along with making the working people pay for this defecit.

why not have a law in which if congress didnt agree there would be massive tax hikes on the rich?

the whole debate is skewed to the right.

who started already in congress?? who started wanting to stop spending cuts??? SANDERS! Sanders said the defecit should be balenced on the backs of the rich, not the working people

obama would veto a sanders plan which stopped all domestic spending cuts.

don't affect Medicare or Social Security, so vetoing it doesn't hurt them:

* Sequestration Will Use Balanced Approach to Spending Cuts.

* 50% of Sequestration Will Come From Defense. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, 50% will come from defense spending (Function 050), with the remaining 50% coming from non-defense spending. The spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending programs with important exemptions (below). The amount of the defense spending cuts each year is estimated to be over $50 billion if sequestration is triggered.

* Social Security, Medicaid, Veterans Benefits, and Other Essential Benefits Are Exempt From Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, the following will be exempt: Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and pensions, payments to federal retirement funds, civilian and military retirement, and the child nutrition, and Supplement Security Income, among others.

* Medicare Savings Are Capped at 2% and Are Limited to Providers Only – No Benefit Cuts. If across-the-board cuts are triggered, any cut to Medicare would be limited to no greater than 2% of the program’s cost. Any such cut would come from payments to providers and insurance plans. There will be NO Medicare benefit cuts or increases in seniors’ costs.

there are cuts to what medicare pays to providors, those costs are going to be made up by whom in your opinion?

50% is from domestic spending, lots of programs losing money in this one

and why not cite the argument of the person instead of just simply citing their name.

he is an economist how does that anwer my post, you replie "tell it to krugman" because i said this
"there are cuts to what medicare pays to providors, those costs are going to be made up by whom in your opinion?

50% is from domestic spending, lots of programs losing money in this one"


so if i asked krugman the same question i would be interested in who he said would make up the costs of the cuts to medicare providers.

i think he would also agree that 50% of the cuts progammed come from domestic programs.

he probably has alread read that as I have.

so what actually would i be telling krugman?


try to stay on task, you are not even refuting what i say and just throwing up names that dont address my idea.

the costs are going to have to be absorbed by the providers. They have a lot more money to spare than the patients.

but do you honestly think that is what is going to happen?

i see them passing the costs down to the people.

but maybe there's a way that the Obama admin. can make sure it isn't passed down to the patients.

it is rare that i can be criticized by so many people incapable of formulating a premis and logically explaining it.

i see the trees and the forest, i live in the damn woods
what does that have to do with obama promising to veto a bill that stopped social spending cuts?

We are going to sequestration. The cuts start in 2013 - after the next Congress is seated.

We have an election coming. I don't like the cuts, you don't like the cuts, NOBODY likes these cuts... what can we do?

IMHO that casts a stark relief on what candidates might say in order to attract the majority of votes.

What set of solutions to this quandary do you think will attract a majority?

jberryhill thanks for the substance, you thought and wrote out something interesting instead of insulting me like some other posters, i actually have to think about this one

if a political party pitched tax cuts as a solution to the defecit and said "look, our income tax rate is too low for the top earners. this regressive tax is not good for our economy, it will be remplaced by a progressive tax topping out at 70% (the rate being at least that high from the 1930s to reagan) and that will enable the country to pay down its debt and enable the government to use these increased revenues to create jobs modernizing our infrastructure and to give us single payer national health insurance. yes the markets will panic, but they panic when countries elect right wings too as happened in spain this fall. we dont even need to cut military spending, we just need to stop spending extra on costly wars (contractors rape us for a shitload of money in wars after all). there will be no military base closures with our plan as we want to have state of the art defense capabilities, but we want to use them more wisely than in recent years."


fucking landslide vitory, executive and legislature, the party that says this and convinces people they will do it gets a landslide victory, like fdr kind of victory, in my humble opinion.


i just dont see how the veto promise from obama fits in with what soultion i see the majority of americans prefering. we dont want cuts so i dont understand our president saying he would veto any bill that would stop the cuts, i was really let down by that comment

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

and you think he is awesome

you must not be part of the working class wing of the democratic party

to take the blame. However, he did that in a way that placed him with them. This time they are standing there alone unless they can implicate the 6 Democrats who refused to deal.

Thanx Prez O!!



NGU.

you CAN'T be serious

The idea that Obama has somehow out-smarted the MIC to secure a huge cut to defense spending is silly beyond belief. Set aside that the triggered cut to defense comes with a huge cut to domestic spending as well. (We are supposed to celebrate that?) The bottom line is that Obama doesn't want a huge cut to defense. His own budget requests for defense have asked for the largest defense spending since WWII. He loves defense spending.

To be fair to Obama, the threatened cuts to defense give the Dems better leverage in Budget talks this year, as pointed out by Barney Frank. Theoretically, that could be a very good thing. We'll see how it goes.

it's not as bad as it could be but to call it some kind of fucking CHECKMATE is just plain IGNORANT

given the circumstances and the alternatives.

:shrug:

Seems we surrendered our basic premise when it is needed most.

That isn't winning by any rational definition, mitigating defeat is not victory. Yes, thank goodness matters aren't worse but we aren't even close to a draw.

"Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn't take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that's the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-dual-trigger-nightmare/2011/11/23/gIQA1BmxnN_blog.html

Of course it is possible new legislation could be passed to undo/modify some of this... but thats unlikely given the intense partisan divide in congress at the moment.

Every once in a while he does it. Always makes them look like dunces.

I do wish he was more progressive though. Maybe now he will be since he knows they're simply not going to give an inch even when it's the right thing to do.