Backstage With the Band

[toddkuen]

Again, no one answers the question: What would you have done given you've SWORN to protect and uphold the Constitution?

Many people thought the US entering WWII was "aggression" as well.

Fewer (2,400) Americans died at Pearl Harbor than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by nchangin

What about the U.S. retaliation to 9.11? Do you not consider that an attack?

I don't know we could ask Saddam Hussain. Since Iraq had nothing to do with it but we went to war with them.

[toddkuen]

Of course, at the time the CIA thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (Washington Post) and that they would be used on us.

[kmart]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Of course, at the time the CIA thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (Washington Post) and that they would be used on us.

Yes, and so the logic was...
"Hey! SOMEONE (who is definitely NOT Saddam/Iraq) was responsible for flying two planes into the WTC, so let's go attack Saddam/Iraq in response as an excuse to eliminate those WMDs that we kinda-sorta think are there, even though we know it ultimately wasn't him/them, and aren't quite sure about those weapons, either."

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Last I checked US presidents "... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So what would you have done? Nothing?

No one is questioning the Constitutional obligations of the President. What IS in question is what is the most appropriate and effective response to any attack. His oath is to protect the people. That isn't a free-pass to do whatever to whoever at whatever cost all in the name of "protection".

So regarding the response to 9/11 I have two points:

1) Yes, 9/11 was a horrible tragedy. But is the proper response to a few lost buildings and a few thousand lives really to launch a WWII-scale attack against two soveriegn nations just to hunt down a few rogue terrorists scattered around the world at the cost of billions of dollars each week that is still ongoing over a decade later? We're firing at mosquitos with bazookas.

Part of bin Laden's STATED AGENDA was to try and lure us into such an attack and to defeat us by allowing us to spend ourselves into oblivion. His goal may still very well be realized when all is said and done. Yes, we probably should have gone into Afghanistan to "smoke him out" after the Taliban refused to give him up but the hell are we even DOING there now? Does ANYBODY actually know? And Iraq? Yes, great plan to invade a country that didn't harbor Al Qeada and served as a counter-balance to Iran in the name of hunting down terrorists. Brilliant!

2) I don't care WHAT plan we agree is best, it needs to be paid for. The idea that we'd launch 2 wars AND cut taxes at the same time was no only absurd, but unprecedented. But you wanna talk about "free stuff"? How about offering the people of the US "free" protection? What a deal! We'll launch two massive wars and your kids won't be drafted to fight it, you won't be taxed to pay for it, you won't be asked to buy war bonds or have your gas rationed or even be asked to do a tire drive! All YOU have to do is, at most, put a Yellow Ribbon sticker in the window of your gas-guzzling SUV and maybe go on the internet and brag about how much more patriotic you are and how much more you Support The Troops than the next guy! A win/win plan for everyone! (Except the evil terrorists, of course.) Go America!!

And then when the country ends up with massive debt 10 years later, you can just forget all about the spending that actually got us there and instead blame the unwashed masses who voted themselves all sorts of Free Stuff! No! It's not those new wars that cost a couple of billion a week that have run up the debt! It's that damned Food Stamps program that's been in place for 40 years....

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

No one is questioning the Constitutional obligations of the President. What IS in question is what is the most appropriate and effective response to any attack. His oath is to protect the people. That isn't a free-pass to do whatever to whoever at whatever cost all in the name of "protection".
...

Of course there are far, far less expensive responses. Look at Israel for example, no shortage of inexpensive and deadly replies in kind.

Except we don't have the balls here in the US to get it done for dirt any more - bin Laden knew this as well as the fact that no one here wants torture, no one wants "assassinations" and wet work, we have to get the hostages back, everyone wants to feel good that they did "the right thing..."

(The movie "Unthinkable" does a good job of addressing this - well worth watching - as is the scientific data on what people will or won't do in the name of "saving" loved ones. Just think "oath of office" while you watch it...)

If bin Ladin could inject five million poor into the country it would have had the same effect - devastating economic problems leading to our destruction.

Originally Posted by guido61

...Part of bin Laden's STATED AGENDA was to try and lure us into such an attack and to defeat us by allowing us to spend ourselves into oblivion. ...

So here we have A) Obama following bin Laden's STATED AGENDA by engaging in ruinous borrowing and B) you supporting him as long as its "in the name of the poor."

We get destroyed whether Bush had a war or Obama spends what's left on the charge card for opiates for the masses.

So Obama is spending trillions - its just okay to do it for the "poor."

(BTW: Islam has no "debt" like we do - its a sin to borrow money and pay/collect interest.)

My original numbers stand: Obama is spending at least a trillion a year more than his predecessors and has, according to you, at the same time also played right into bin Laden's hands in terms of destroying America...

[Kramerguy]

If bin Ladin could inject five million poor into the country it would have had the same effect - devastating economic problems leading to our destruction.

..>As evidenced by between 7-14 Million poor people arriving on Ellis island between 1910 and 1914 alone.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Of course there are far, far less expensive responses. Look at Israel for example, no shortage of inexpensive and deadly replies in kind.

Except we don't have the balls here in the US to get it done for dirt any more - bin Laden knew this as well as the fact that no one here wants torture, no one wants "assassinations" and wet work, we have to get the hostages back, everyone wants to feel good that they did "the right thing..."

I don't think that's necessarily true at all. A very good argument can be made that we've accomplished far more in the 'war on terror' with CIA activity, Special Ops and drone attacks than we've done with traditional warfare and most people support all that. Even IF it sometimes involves doing things they'd rather not publically acknowledge or want to know about.

So here we have A) Obama following bin Laden's STATED AGENDA by engaging in ruinous borrowing and B) you supporting him as long as its "in the name of the poor."

Except you have to look at the numbers and follow the money. The budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Now we're running up deficits of $1 trillion a year. What's changed since then? What's been the new spending? Why is there less revenue? It hasnt been spending on 'the poor' that has blown up the budget.

And further, it isn't the proponents of these sorts of programs who advocate them without paying for them. The left is fine looking for sources of funding for the programs they advocate. It's the RIGHT who wants to spend more on the things THEY like without paying for them. Again---fine. You want a massive defense department? You think it's necessary? That's a fair position to take. But what ISN'T fair is to say you want all that stuff but aren't willing to pay for it.

The math doesn't work. The right talks vaguely about cutting spending but never has any concrete plans on how to do it. I remain convinced that Mitt Romney would have walked away with the election if he would have come forth with a REAL deficit reduction plan. If he would have campaigned using Perot-style charts and graphs showing where the spending cuts would be made and how that would bring the budget into balance, many people would have been all for that.

But he couldn't do it. Because it isn't possible. All the right has is empty rhetoric about "out of control spending" but they don't have the numbers and plans to back it up. And after several years of listening to their nonsense, the American people are seeing through it.

Nothing can be for free. If you want all that ridiculous defense spending, then come up to the plate and pay for it. We've been running these wars on the credit card for over a decade now. It's time for the supporters of those wars to pay their bills now, doncha think?

Oh, but now. NOW that the bill is due---THIS is when they decide it's time to not pay the credit card. "Oh, we don't have to money to pay for it, and even though we can borrow the money from other sources to pay it, we're not gonna do that. Sorry!"

Yeah, the party of "fiscal responsibility" there, all right...

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by Kramerguy

..>As evidenced by between 7-14 Million poor people arriving on Ellis island between 1910 and 1914 alone.

Except when you arrived here and lived off family instead of the government, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical, no section 8 housing, nothing.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Many people thought the US entering WWII was "aggression" as well.

Few did. That was an outlier position. There's always those at the extremes.

Fewer (2,400) Americans died at Pearl Harbor than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.

It isn't about dollars spent vs. lives taken. It's about properly assessing the threats and responding accordingly. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Empire of Japan had invaded Manchuria and was advancing into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in pursuit of natural resources needed to fulfill their expansionist goals. They had allied themselves with Hitler who was doing similar things in Europe. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a shot-across-the-bow warning us to get out of their way in Southeast Asia and that our own soveriegnty might possibly be threatened in the future. And it involved using over 300 planes and six aircraft carriers.

The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...

The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.

Box cutters? No. passenger aircraft selected for full fuel loads.

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?

This is also an interesting rational to explain why Obama has not spent trillions more of our dollars.

The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.

As far as I can tell most of your arguments come from examiner.com. Which basically offers clever partisan excuses about why a table full of GAO numbers that confirms massive overspending can be spun as "wrong" or "someone else's fault".

Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

How is it STILL Bushes fault?

When does Obama man-up and take responsibility?

I always thought leadership and responsibility were about not making excuses for what is blatantly obvious.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point.

Yes, that is the point. So responding to the threat with a traditional military response was hamfisted, overblown, and threatens to bankrupt the economy. Which was their plan.

Why did they attack the World Trade Center anyway? Because it's the center and symbol of American and western ECONOMIC might. Their plan is to try and take us down ECONOMICALLY. Not to defeat us by killing us all off three-thousand at a swipe.

The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.

So the GOP House has nothing to do with it? How is it that it is OBAMA spending more when all spending bills originate in the House?

How is it STILL Bushes fault?

~sigh~ It's not about it being "Bush's fault". It's about understanding how the federal budget works.

I don't know how to make this any more simple for you. So I'll repeat it one last time: The majority of "Obama's out of control spending" is the result of policies, programs and fiscal accounting tactics that have been in place for decades. The only thing Obama could do to control any of that would be to propose budgets to Congress that decreased spending and increased revenues to close the shortfall. And he HAS proposed budgets that reduced the deficit. But the GOP didn't like his way of doing it so they proposed their own. Which didn't do it to any greater degree and which the Dems didn't like, so here we are with the deficits being carried forward year after year.

Is some of that trillion-a-year shortfall "Bush's fault"? Well, a lot of was inacted when he was president and signed off on it so yeah, to the degree a lot of it is. Some of it is Obama's as well. Some of it you can trace back much further.

But the bottom line is this---the right is blaming Obama for things that A) they hold just as much, if not more, responsibility for and B) have no plan to fix either.

Here's another way to look at it: the budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Since then, revenues have increased 12%. Meanwhile the defense budget has increased about 300%. So what's the plan for those who like the defense budget at that level to pay for all that? Obama didn't increase that spending. He's asked for defense cuts the GOP turned down. He's asked for revenue increases they turned down as well. So the deficit continues. "Continuing resolutions" and all that. Or do you expect him to veto those and have there be no funding for the defense whatsoever?

So what's THEIR plan to pay for it? Seems to me they have nothing except to keep borrowing and blame Obama for the "out of control spending".

[Potts]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?

I think you just made Guido's point.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

For Pete's Sake...THIS tired cannard again??

In case you've forgotten, we were in the depths of a huge recession from 2009 to 2010. What did you want Obama and the Dems to do during that period? Make massive cuts to spending? Massive increases to taxes? You think either of those would have helped the recession? Even Bush and the Pubs know you do the OPPOSITE of those things during a recession.

I suspect you aren't a Keynesian and that's fine. But that HAS been the basis of our economic policy for the last several decades. Problem is that while Keynesian economics dictates deficit spending during bad times and paying it back during good times, our government---especially when the GOP has been in control--has taken on the policy of deficit spending during BOTH bad times and good times. The dumbest thing I EVER heard was when Bush first took office and listening to him defend his tax cut plan because we "need to return to surplus back to the people". We had trillions of debt even then. Which surplus was he talking about returning, anyway?

[toddkuen]

Here:



The dip in 2009 is due to Bush's TARP and various activities that prevented the housing market collapse and subsequent financial failures, e.g., Lehman Brothers, etc.

But all of those programs stopped after that point and Obama continued on.

No giant Social Security nonsense, no new wars, nothing that hadn't been going on before. The wars had been going on for years previously.

So no, you are simply wrong.

Bush spent a lot in his last year, Obama simply kept up the spending.

[toddkuen]

Here's the debt-to-deficit ratio (red line is total debt):



So no, you can say whatever you like but there has been huge increase in debt and spending under Obama.

The wars went on for six years prior, no huge changes to Social Security, no giant budget changes, nothing. Bush hit up the spending for his final year which reflects in 2009 spending.

And it never went down...

[toddkuen]

And if you check the numbers you'd see that the 2008 recession nixed a huge portion of federal tax income: less business and employment = less tax receipts.

But Obama, upon entering office, didn't bother to respond to the revenue issue and continued to spend and borrow as if revenue were increasing as it had been prior to 2008.

Clinton's huge supposed surplus was actual due to dot com tax receipts and when that bubble burst so did the surpluses (actually Clinton at best didn't increase federal borrowing). Bush tried a tax cut and it would have worked had the real estate bubble not burst... (But that's another story.)

Obama is economically clueless.

You can't spend your way out of debt even if you are a government.

[Potts]

You win...you have charts and graphs. I'm glad I read your posts Todd because the people I've been listening to for the past 8 years just couldn't figure it out.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Bush spent a lot in his last year, Obama simply kept up the spending.

On what? What is all this "new spending" of Obama's? Who put it on his desk? You keep saying this has happened but you won't tell me what he's spending ON. Did he create some massive new entitlement program? Sending a bunch more money to Chile? What?

The difference in the deficits in pretty simple: revenues are down and we're suffering from the recession. Most of the "new" spending is stuff like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and helping out the states. Yeah, times are tough so the government is spending more. That's how it works. Wouldn't be nearly as bad if we hadn't run up such huge deficits when times were GOOD! THAT'S the problem!

And most of this stuff he couldn't stop most of it even if he wanted to. You keep wanting to ignore this simple fact, but the truth is the vast majority of the budget was put on the books long before Obama took office. He doesn't have to power to "stop the spending". The House holds the checkbook. All bills have to pass both houses of congress before they get to his desk.

And the reality is most of that stuff is way too big and way too in-motion to simply "stop". Which is why the GOP doesn't do it either. They can't just stop the wars. Or not send out SS checks. There's a massive reality check that BOTH parties need to have regarding the budget. Neither party is facing up to it.

And those who go on about "Obama's out of control spending"? Either don't understand how it works or are simply lying for the sake of playing politics. I don't know which is worse, but either way, they are much more part of the problem than part of the solution.

You can decide for yourself what side you'd rather be on.

[guido61]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

And if you check the numbers you'd see that the 2008 recession nixed a huge portion of federal tax income: less business and employment = less tax receipts.

But Obama, upon entering office, didn't bother to respond to the revenue issue and continued to spend and borrow as if revenue were increasing as it had been prior to 2008.

lol. What response was he supposed to have? Raise taxes? Cut spending? On what? Defense and put a bunch more people out of work? Assistance to the states and let them lay off even more people than they did? Eliminate social programs so all those who were out of work could starve in the streets? Would THAT have helped the economy? Is that what you think Bush would have done? Or John McCain? Or Mitt Romney?

Yeah, borrowing and deficits go up during bad times. Gee, the private sector even does the same thing. But I guess businesses that borrow some money to get from one down period to a more robust one are "economically clueless" as well?

Tell me, economic maestro. What was the PROPER response to the recession that Obama should have undertaken?