It will be interesting to see how many Democrats will vote against Obama's budget in this election year to try to put some distance between themselves and The One. It will also be interesting to see if Harry Reid will bring Obama's vote to the Senate floor for a vote or if McConnell will have to do it again. Recall that Obama's last budget was unanimously defeated in the US Senate.
This is nothing but another Obama reelection campaign document but don't expect the 29 percent of Americans who cannot name their own Vice President to be able to distinguish it from a real budget.
Quote:[INDENT]Obama to unveil budget with higher taxes, more deficits
President Obama will release an election-year federal budget Monday that is loaded with deficit spending and tax increases on the wealthy but avoids tough choices on the soaring costs of entitlements, independent analysts and Republican lawmakers say.
The presidentâs budget request to Congress forecasts a deficit of $1.33 trillion in the current fiscal year â even higher than expected â and calls for at least $1.5 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade. By including $350 billion in short-term stimulus spending, Mr. Obama is submitting a plan that is ready-made for his re-election campaign but has no chance of passing a divided Congress.
âHonestly, my expectations couldnât be lower,â said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. âHe has put out budgets that lead to a death spiral. His budgets have never added up, and he has a propensity to use it as a very powerful campaign tool.â more[/INDENT]
What are the major differences between the Washington Times and the Washington Post? Which one is the HUGE newspaper?
Here is proof that President Obama's budget proposal is nothing but a campaign stunt. Recall that under Harry Reid's "leadership," the US Senate has repeatedly failed to pass a budget for more than 1,000 days. Now, Obama's Chief of Staff is blaming Republicans for Reid's failure to comply with the law. Reid has already gone on record saying that the Senate will not pass a budget this year.
Also, recall that when Obama sent his last budget proposal, Mitch McConnel forced the Senate to vote on it, and the budget did not receive a vote for passage from either one single Republican or a one single Democrat. Zero. Nada. Goose eggs. Shutout. That's right, even Harry Reid voted against Obama's last budget.
Now, Obama's Chief of Staff either mistakenly or dishonestly claims that 60 votes are required to pass a budget.
I think this budget proposal will once against splatter egg all over the president's face as Democrats run away from it and Republicans rightly portray them as incompetent cowards.
[INDENT]
Quote:WH Chief of Staff Errs on Senate Budget Rules
As President Obama prepares to unveil his FY2013 budget Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew this morning was asked by CNN to defend the Senateâs refusal to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.
âYou canât pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you canât get 60 votes without bipartisan support,â Lew said. âSo unless⦠unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.â
Thatâs not accurate. Budgets only require 51 Senate votes for passage, as Lew â former director of the Office of Management and Budget â surely must know. more
[/INDENT]
Senior administration officials said the fiscal 2013 budget will feature a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction, in part by ending the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more. The budget also will ask Congress to impose the president’s “Buffett rule,” named for billionaire Warren Buffett, that would require tax rates of at least 30 percent on income over $1 million.
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Senior administration officials said the fiscal 2013 budget will feature a âbalanced approachâ to deficit reduction, in part by ending the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more. The budget also will ask Congress to impose the presidentâs âBuffett rule,â named for billionaire Warren Buffett, that would require tax rates of at least 30 percent on income over $1 million.
The budget is nothing by a hoax. Unless Obama can convince Democratic Majority Leader to bring the budget to the floor for a vote, which Reid has said he will not do, or McConnell once again forces a vote on the Obama budget as he did once before, the budget has no chance of passing. If it comes to a vote, Senate Democrats are very unlikely to approve it.
Does it not trouble you liberals that Obama's Chief of Staff is lying about Republicans blocking the passage of a budget for the past 1,018 days? Do Democrats like being lied to or are they just not alert enough to notice?
Can one of you Obama supporters explain why anybody in Congress should vote for a budget containing these expenditures? Is this guy just plain crazy?
[INDENT]
Quote:Obama proposes $800 million in aid for "Arab Spring"
Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.
In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists. more
[/INDENT]
More new concerning Obama'sproposed budget for 2013.
(Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.
In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/1...C920120213
Sorry Hoot, I didn't notice your post about Arab Spring.
Old School Wrote:More new concerning Obama'sproposed budget for 2013.
(Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.
In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/1...C920120213
This is the kind of stuff that drives me up the wall. We're cutting our
own military down to bare bones because we supposedly can't afford to maintain it at present levels. We just spent billions to destablilize the middle east by helping to bring on the (give me a break) Arab Spring. So now, Obama wants to make sure the Muslim Brotherhood gets their yearly 1.3 billion dollar shot in the arm courtesy of, you guess it, YOU, and while we're at it lets give another 800 million to the murderous thugs who have managed to plunge the whole region into chaos. Brilliant!
Old School Wrote:Sorry Hoot, I didn't notice your post about Arab Spring.
No problem, Old School. It was an important point worth repeating. :biggrin:
TheRealThing Wrote:This is the kind of stuff that drives me up the wall. We're cutting our own military down to bare bones because we supposedly can't afford to maintain it at present levels. We just spent billions to destablilize the middle east by helping to bring on the (give me a break) Arab Spring. So now, Obama wants to make sure the Muslim Brotherhood gets their yearly 1.3 billion dollar shot in the arm courtesy of, you guess it, YOU, and while we're at it lets give another 800 million to the murderous thugs who have managed to plunge the whole region into chaos. Brilliant!
Don't forget that the Obama administration also tried to persuade the UN Security Counsel to intervene in Syria to topple its government, knowing that Al Qaeda in Iraq is supporting the rebels fighting to overthrow the al-Assad government. Whatever government emerges to take control of Syria, it is a safe bet that it will be as bad or worse than the one that it replaces - just as the scumbags who have risen to power in Egypt and Libya are worse that the governments that they overthrew.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Don't forget that the Obama administration also tried to persuade the UN Security Counsel to intervene in Syria to topple its government, knowing that Al Qaeda in Iraq is supporting the rebels fighting to overthrow the al-Assad government. Whatever government emerges to take control of Syria, it is a safe bet that it will be as bad or worse than the one that it replaces - just as the scumbags who have risen to power in Egypt and Libya are worse that the governments that they overthrew.
The once stable arab world has become a boiling cauldron of violence and upheaval. The only thing they are in agreement on that I know of is their shared hatred of Israel and the US. The arab spring came in like a lamb and is going out like a lion. Add Iran and Iraq to the mix and it would take a lot more than a police action to deal with them. War is coming by all indications, and may well be set in motion by Iran forcing our hand over something like closing the Strait of Hormuz. It wouldn't take a whole lot to imagine North Korea jumping in, with the outside chance of the Soviet Union or Red Chinese involvement. With our coffers nearly empty we'd be stretched to the breaking point unless Great Brittan and Israel allied with us, which, is likely. However, if Russia and/or China were to get involved, it could be lights out. We won't have precious months and years to tool up and manufacture the needed ordinance, and military equipment in the form of aircraft and naval vessels we would surely need to defend our nation, like we had at the onset of WWII. If it happens now, things will go much quicker and we had better be up for the challenge manufacturing wise, or we won't be able to supply our war effort. Which, of course, would mean certain defeat.
I sincerely believe that the novice Obama adminstration thinks they can just show up and reason with world leaders.This is a tremendous over estimation of our world influence today, in my opinion. I always think of Nancy Pelosi showing her naivity in her one woman quest to settle the middle eastern dispute in the early days soon after her ascention to the speakership. Liberals live in la-la land, and hope springs eternal with them. Where they saw an arab spring, I saw a very troubling destabilization of the region. With Obama at the helm, it's sort of like the rich man's spoiled son being handed full control of his daddy's company. Most of the time, the company doesn't last long. In days past, facing the full power of America's military might was out of the question for the rest of the world. And, likely we could have defeated planet earth is we'd had to. I don't see us in a position anything like that now a days. If we had to face the coalition mentioned above, I don't know if our chances would even be 50/50. And, before anyone mentions our nuclear armaments, I was talking conventional warfare when I said at one time we could have faced the greatest nations and still would have prevailed.
During times like these America needs experience in the White House, not the liberals dream come true, santa claus incarnate. This isn't funny anymore, we're inching ever closer to real trouble. Frankly, I wonder if Mitt is up to the challenge either. I'd be happier with Newt, but, given the choice between any of the Republican candidates or Obama, it truly is a no brainer. If we go into the next four years with Obama still president, the doomsday preppers are going to look like pure geniuses.
Im not sure why at this point we give foreign aid to anybody period.
how me the pictures all day long of how "for less than 1 dollar a day i can help a starving child in africa" and ill laugh all day long.
With a debt this big it makes no sense to give "aid" to anybody but ourself.
Get out of debt then "worry" about helping others.
We have our own problems here just like every other country and yes how about we help the starving families here tha dont rely on the system to pay there way by giving them aid before we give it away to a country or "charity" that will not spend it anyways.
TheRealThing Wrote:The once stable arab world has become a boiling cauldron of violence and upheaval. The only thing they are in agreement on that I know of is their shared hatred of Israel and the US. The arab spring came in like a lamb and is going out like a lion. Add Iran and Iraq to the mix and it would take a lot more than a police action to deal with them. War is coming by all indications, and may well be set in motion by Iran forcing our hand over something like closing the Strait of Hormuz. It wouldn't take a whole lot to imagine North Korea jumping in, with the outside chance of the Soviet Union or Red Chinese involvement. With our coffers nearly empty we'd be stretched to the breaking point unless Great Brittan and Israel allied with us, which, is likely. However, if Russia and/or China were to get involved, it could be lights out. We won't have precious months and years to tool up and manufacture the needed ordinance, and military equipment in the form of aircraft and naval vessels we would surely need to defend our nation, like we had at the onset of WWII. If it happens now, things will go much quicker and we had better be up for the challenge manufacturing wise, or we won't be able to supply our war effort. Which, of course, would mean certain defeat.
You realize that we've been at war for 10 years don't ya? We're already loaded on equipment, and have more than enough resources to get our troops anywhere on earth. That's something that no other Army on earth has, especially China.
vundy33 Wrote:You realize that we've been at war for 10 years don't ya? We're already loaded on equipment, and have more than enough resources to get our troops anywhere on earth. That's something that no other Army on earth has, especially China.
What has changed is that the very people who wanted to jail Bush and Cheney for approving of using waterboarding to save the lives of Americans are slashing the size of our military and have proposed giving hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists who are torturing their own citizens and arresting Americans. I have read that the Obama administration may use involuntary separations to speed up the reduction in force size. Apparently, some of the savings will be going to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Things are worse in the Middle East and northern Africa than were 10 year ago because what little stabiity that there was is gone and Obama's support of the "Arab Spring" has made things predictably worse. This is not a good time to be slashing our own force levels.
vundy33 Wrote:You realize that we've been at war for 10 years don't ya? We're already loaded on equipment, and have more than enough resources to get our troops anywhere on earth. That's something that no other Army on earth has, especially China.
Sure, that seems likely. We have been at war as you say. What I'm talking about is the all-in version where defeat is possible and the US could lose it's position as the world's leading superpower. Not to say that war could get any nastier than it was were your boots hit the ground but, we were fighting insurgents for the most part right? We had at least partial cooperation from Hamid Karzai to have bases and troops in Afghanistan. It would take an enormous investment in troops and equipment to subdue entire nations in classic WWII style military actions. I would envision fronts and fighting to secure chunks of land the size of Iran but, on several fronts at the same time, as well as all out naval action. Right now, we just steam all over the globe because nobody has the brass to try us on out there. During time of war our enemies would be forced to try to cut, or at least limit, our lines of supply.
Though I agree with your assessment of our mobility capabilities as they relate to China and others, we would still have to be alble to take the fight to them. Likely we'd need a lot more equipment. And, I would venture the number of troops and sailors would have to been increased four times or more, than our present strength levels.
TheRealThing Wrote:Sure, that seems likely. We have been at war as you say. What I'm talking about is the all-in version where defeat is possible and the US could lose it's position as the world's leading superpower. Not to say that war could get any nastier than it was were your boots hit the ground but, we were fighting insurgents for the most part right? We had at least partial cooperation from Hamid Karzai to have bases and troops in Afghanistan. It would take an enormous investment in troops and equipment to subdue entire nations in classic WWII style military actions. I would envision fronts and fighting to secure chunks of land the size of Iran but, on several fronts at the same time, as well as all out naval action. Right now, we just steam all over the globe because nobody has the brass to try us on out there. During time of war our enemies would be forced to try to cut, or at least limit, our lines of supply.
Though I agree with your assessment of our mobility capabilities as they relate to China and others, we would still have to be alble to take the fight to them. Likely we'd need a lot more equipment. And, I would venture the number of troops and sailors would have to been increased four times or more, than our present strength levels.
I feel you. You're correct. But that's the main reason I don't worry about China doing anything militarily really...their equipment is so far behind ours, and they supposedly make up for it with manpower. But, they don't have the resources to get all those men hardly anywhere, so it kind of takes away from their military prowess.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:What has changed is that the very people who wanted to jail Bush and Cheney for approving of using waterboarding to save the lives of Americans are slashing the size of our military and have proposed giving hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists who are torturing their own citizens and arresting Americans. I have read that the Obama administration may use involuntary separations to speed up the reduction in force size. Apparently, some of the savings will be going to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Things are worse in the Middle East and northern Africa than were 10 year ago because what little stabiity that there was is gone and Obama's support of the "Arab Spring" has made things predictably worse. This is not a good time to be slashing our own force levels.
That's happening right now...I was even offered to get out early before I re-enlisted this last time. We're slashing numbers, but not by all that much. The real crunch is equipment, and programs. But thankfully, Special Operations is getting more money these days...that's always good.
TheRealThing Wrote:[SIZE="3"] February, 2012
The once stable arab world has become a boiling cauldron of violence and upheaval. The only thing they are in agreement on that I know of is their shared hatred of Israel and the US. The arab spring came in like a lamb and is going out like a lion. Add Iran and Iraq to the mix and it would take a lot more than a police action to deal with them. War is coming by all indications, and may well be set in motion by Iran forcing our hand over something like closing the Strait of Hormuz. [/SIZE]It wouldn't take a whole lot to imagine North Korea jumping in, with the outside chance of the Soviet Union or Red Chinese involvement. With our coffers nearly empty we'd be stretched to the breaking point unless Great Brittan and Israel allied with us, which, is likely. However, if Russia and/or China were to get involved, it could be lights out. We won't have precious months and years to tool up and manufacture the needed ordinance, and military equipment in the form of aircraft and naval vessels we would surely need to defend our nation, like we had at the onset of WWII. If it happens now, things will go much quicker and we had better be up for the challenge manufacturing wise, or we won't be able to supply our war effort. Which, of course, would mean certain defeat.
I sincerely believe that the novice Obama adminstration thinks they can just show up and reason with world leaders.This is a tremendous over estimation of our world influence today, in my opinion. I always think of Nancy Pelosi showing her naivity in her one woman quest to settle the middle eastern dispute in the early days soon after her ascention to the speakership. Liberals live in la-la land, and hope springs eternal with them. Where they saw an arab spring, I saw a very troubling destabilization of the region. With Obama at the helm, it's sort of like the rich man's spoiled son being handed full control of his daddy's company. Most of the time, the company doesn't last long. In days past, facing the full power of America's military might was out of the question for the rest of the world. And, likely we could have defeated planet earth is we'd had to. I don't see us in a position anything like that now a days. If we had to face the coalition mentioned above, I don't know if our chances would even be 50/50. And, before anyone mentions our nuclear armaments, I was talking conventional warfare when I said at one time we could have faced the greatest nations and still would have prevailed.
During times like these America needs experience in the White House, not the liberals dream come true, santa claus incarnate. This isn't funny anymore, we're inching ever closer to real trouble. Frankly, I wonder if Mitt is up to the challenge either. I'd be happier with Newt, but, given the choice between any of the Republican candidates or Obama, it truly is a no brainer. If we go into the next four years with Obama still president, the doomsday preppers are going to look like pure geniuses.
- Fast forward to recent days; BLOOMBERG NEWS April 22, 2019
Alireza Tangsiri, head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps navy force.
“In the event of any threats, we will not have the slightest hesitation to protect and defend Iran’s waterway.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...se-it-fars
Since April, Iran shot down 2 US drones, shot gaping holes in at least 2 oil tankers and seized a half dozen more oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. Tensions over the mess means US forces are on full alert and according to Iran, we are within the blink of a military eyeball of war. Not to mention the fact that over and over again, Iran has threatened to cut off the oil supply in closing the Straits.
Without question IF not for the valiant entrepreneurial spirit of US oil frackers, gasoline prices would be through the roof right now. Obama's war on fossil fuels though rather devastating in it's heyday, failed. You may remember all those US off shore oil rigs shut down and the general "no drill" moratorium that the Obama misadministration imposed on the oil industry? Additionally, the clever and crushing blight imposed on US defense by Obama's sequestration plan, did manage to decimate
for all practical purposes, the capabilities of the US Armed Services--- Our new President however, (unlike the rabid inmates of the Obama romper room state and defense departments,) can clearly see the threats this world poses against our land and thus has managed single handedly to resuscitate the US Military. The Navy is once again vital, as are the Air Force, the US Marine Corps and the US Army; all recently supplied with new aircraft, ships, spare parts and armament of all types.
But as the above mentioned matters have now come to light, you'll certainly not hear people in the fake news business, or the Dems of the US Congress, address Obama's patently obvious dereliction regarding same. Nor will you hear a word about the subsequent clarity of thought and leadership of which President Trump is in possession, and which BTW, are SOLEY responsible for our safety during the near miss posed by present conditions in the Straits which to some degree, have been averted. Nor will you hear a word about conditions in our own back yard to the south, which in my mind are every bit as much the threat if not more so than Hormuz. The Panama Canal Zone and Venezuela. China is no friend of America but she controls the canal which of course is vital to US shipping. Additionally in Venezuela, Russia is fast depositing troops and all manner of military hardware to include submarines, and as such Venezuela is in the process of becoming a Russian military zone.