Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:25 AM ET, 02/14/2011

Obama invokes specter of Eisenhower

By Greg Sargent

President Obama, unveiling his budget just now, said:

As a start, I called for a freeze on annual domestic spending over the next five years. This freeze would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, bringing this kind of spending -- domestic, discretionary spending -- to its lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

Let me repeat that. Because of this budget, this share of spending will be at its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

I think there's more to this rhetorical move than meets the eye. It's about painting today's GOP as extreme, by reminding people that there was a time when Republicans had a far more moderate view of the proper role and scale of government than today's crop of GOPers do. After all, under Eisenhower, the federal government launched construction of what Michael Tomasky recently described as the "largest public works project in the country's history," i.e., the interstate highway system.

What's more, Eisenhower famously said it was folly for anyone to deny that the American public envisions a central and robust role in defending ordinary Americans from the vagaries of the economy, and strongly defended Social Security, unemployment and labor laws:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this -- in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one.

But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything -- even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution.

This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.

Obama's invocation of Eisenhower reminds us that back before the modern conservative movement launched a decades-long campaign to demonize the federal government, there was a far greater degree of consensus between the two parties over government's proper role in our lives. As I've noted here repeatedly, Obama and Dems hope to move the debate beyond one over "big" versus "small" government, and believe that once the debate turns to specifics, the public will decide it prefers Obama's vision -- a mix of fiscal discipline in some areas and targeted investment in America's future in others -- over the GOP's doomsday call for downsizing government everywhere or else.

In the quest to reclaim and redefine the reasonable middle ground and to paint today's Republican vision as radical and extreme in advance of the budget fight, Obama's invocation of Eisenhower was no accident.

UPDATE, 12:00 p.m.: Obviously the main reason Obama invoked Eisenhower here was to suggest that his budget is more responsible than those of the four preceding GOP presidents. My point is that there's an added historical irony here that one assumes Obama was well aware of.


By Greg Sargent  | February 14, 2011; 11:25 AM ET
Categories:  House GOPers, Senate Republicans, budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Boehner shows off the other kind of post-birtherism
Next: House GOPer against big government health care enjoys taxpayer-funded state government insurance

Comments

In A Nutshell:

Obama more frugal than Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One, and Bush Two.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Liam -- that's another way to put it. ;)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 14, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Eisenhower:

"But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything -- even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

Greg: Forget subtlety. Why didn't Obama just say exactly what Eisenhower said? If we haven't learned anything else the past couple of years we certainly learned that. O-Man: just say what's on your mind. Spit it out, Dude. We can handle it. The time for "subtle reminder[s]" is long past.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

This is silly.

Over the decades since Eisenhower's presidency we've seen repeated massive failures of the government at all levels.

Massive failure. Massive fraud. Massive abuse.

We've had enough. It is that simple.

My advice for the liberals is that they buy stock in Avon or Mary Kay. You are going to need a massive amount of lipstick for this pig of a government.

Want a perfect example? Here's one. In Ohio the sitting Attorney General prior to the election was William Cordray. He assumed the role after the original winner of the office a Democrat, was thrown out of office for sexually abusing his staff.

Cordray seemed like a decent guy and his Republican opponent in 2010 was Mike DeWine, a defrocked Senator that the conservatives in the state turned their back on.

Well Cordray wouldn't join the suit against Obamacare. DeWine pledged to do so.

DeWine won. I was surprised. Heck I thought so little of DeWine and so much of Cordray's chances that I voted for the libertarian candidate, thinking that Cordray was a lock.

Instead, he's gone, gone, gone. Over a single issue: stop the rise of the federal government.

A fight is coming. We on the right are more than ready. The Liberals have all the problems. They have to prove to the angry taxpayers that every penny confiscated from them is spent wisely. They can't do that. Heck they can't even convince some that Obama is an American Christian!

So cuts are coming. The question we on the right are asking is this: Why not cut deeper?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 14, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"White House budget plan cuts EPA, but GOP wants more"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/obama_claims_mantle_of_eisenho.html#comments

Let's just eliminate EPA. It's not like we're destroying the planet or anything. Our corporate citizens-of-the-world have bent over backwards to protect out land, air and water and I think it's safe to assume they will continue to do just that.

Because that's the kind of guys they are. Hey! If you can't trust BP and EXXON-Mobil, who CAN you trust?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Over the decades since Eisenhower's presidency we've seen repeated massive failures of the government at all levels.

Massive failure. Massive fraud. Massive abuse."

Same can be said for the massive private sector failures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyways, remember that Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, was a big Obama supporter during the campaign and spoke during the DNC convention in CO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fMi_BTqpUo


Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 14, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Over the decades since Eisenhower's presidency we've seen repeated massive failures of the government at all levels.

Massive failure. Massive fraud. Massive abuse.

----------------------------------------
Yet despite these "massive failures" our country has managed to become and continues to be the greatest and most affluent country in the world. Here I thought you Conservatives believed we were exceptional.

The problem that is coming for Conservatives is that given the proposals by Obama you are going to have an awfully difficult time painting him as a tax and spend liberal. I'm not sure how successful you all are going to be calling for even more cuts, particularly if Medicare, Social Security and Defense is off the table. And if those aren't off the table, then good luck winning on a cutting Social Security platform. How exactly are you any different than Democrats again?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 14, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

If you can't trust BP and EXXON-Mobil, who CAN you trust?
----------------------------------------------------
Why not just privatize the EPA? Maybe Walmart could do it. No, I have a better idea. How about BP? They do have some experience in pollution control in the Gulf. Think about the shareholder value that could be created! I will definitely **definitely** buy some BP stock.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

from two threads ago of Dems being slightly better than the GOP.

Would you rather Dems have failed at trying to pass better bills or pass the imperfect bills they did pass. Because that is the option I see here. I'd love single payer too, but there's no political scenario where that was possible. Maybe you consider the fight more important than the outcome, but I don't. Results matter. The PPACA isn't perfect, but I'd much rather take the passage of an imperfect bill than some idyllic moral victory of failing to pass single payer.

Same thing with the tax cuts. Extension of the Bush tax cuts isn't Dem policy. It was a compromise in which Democrats got a whole bunch of other stuff that will have an immediate economic benefit. Yeah, the tax cuts aren't great, but if you lose the tax cuts, you also lose the unemployment extensions and so forth. I don't like the tax cuts, but I don't hate them so much as to lose the other things that came with it.

I'll concede that the Dems could have put up a better fight than the GOP, but that's more of a matter of being worse at the game than having a similar ideology. And single payer - there's no way in hell that gets passed no matter how much of a fight the Dems put up. That's the problem when you require a 60 vote supermajority to pass anything. And yeah, there are Conservative Dems like Nelson, but you can hardly blame the entire party for his sins.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 14, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Greg - your article makes zero sense - what were you smoking this weekend?

___________________


There is a larger context here - what is coming on the budget. The real question is what the House does on spending - that will affect the Presidential field. The House Republicans should put forth major cuts - and keep the deficit to below $300 Billion. JUST DO IT.

Send that budget to the Senate.

Obama and the Senate democrats can decide whether to agree or shut down the government.

Simple

THAT IS THE BUDGET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR. The democrats lost the election. Case closed.

Posted by: AllSpendingMustBeCut | February 14, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is this: discretionary spending is 12% of the budget. That's it. You can't restructure the federal government spending in any meaningful way unless you open up the other 88%.

And not even Tea Partiers will go for that.

The pattern has been set for the political commentaries for the next two years. The R's chorus will be "we're broke" and so forth, but they will not, repeat NOT, touch entitlement programs. There will be some dramatic announcements about this or that program, but not the big fish. They will complain about the president and so forth, but what you will increasingly see is no real fundamental plan coming from them. It's easier to criticize than to lead.

As an example, the president has already proposed more cuts than the new House R's can come up with. So when he cuts defense spending, they spin and complain - but they can't match his cuts. Will they? Sure, by doing something like eliminating NASA entirely - until they realize that it will cost them Texas and Florida.

It is actually to Obama's benefit that the R's have the House. They now have the burden of producing legislation, and cannot credibly just sit back and complain and wait for the president to make proposals.

Eric Cantor and John Boehner - you want health care reform? Introduce a bill that accomplishes reform, and everyone can assess it. Just saying "we'll come up with one" is fine for a while, but nobody believes that they will. Perform, guys.

Same pair - you want to dramatically reduce federal spending? Introduce a bill that affects entitlement spending. Go ahead. It's your constitutional prerogative to initiate spending bills. You are the leaders of the House. The ball is in your court, and you can bet that the White House will keep reminding everyone about that.

It's become obvious in almost any interview that the conservatives - sometimes boldly and other times more just in vague generalities - will hit the sound bites about "being broke" and "liberty", but then when the interviewer asks the Medicare and Social Security question, all you see is squirming and eyes-down hemming and hawing.

Expect to see a lot of hemming and hawing and more pressure on those points.

I see the White House framing the issues that way. The previous arguments just didn't resonate to the average person, that 2 unfunded wars, an unfunded tax cut for the wealthy and TARP left us with a $3 trillion bill - and were all the proposals of the House Rs. Obama was never able to sell that, because of the stimulus funds that he pushed (which by the way saved a large number of local governments and school systems - so it is really unfair to say nothing happened).

It sure will be interesting.

Posted by: aclearview | February 14, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

What do they call those drugs for people who have lost all touch with reality??


Liam writes:

"In A Nutshell:

Obama more frugal than Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One, and Bush Two."

_________


Greg somehow thinks that there is one person out there who will read this garbage and believe it

What is wrong with you Greg?

This garbage doesn't pass the smell test - it is so far from reality.

You are out of touch with reality.


There is a budget battle coming - and you are clowning around with Eisenhower in the side ring. Give us a break.

.

Posted by: AllSpendingMustBeCut | February 14, 2011 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Actually I think the best person (as in corporate personhood) to run the world is BofA. At least that way we wouldn't have to bail them out again, they could just print their own money.

It's so funny how liberals are suddenly at fault for the mess we're in, while the real culprits continue to slither through dark alleys. We're getting all sorts of budget cuts at both the state and federal levels, but no one bothered to clip the wings of the bad guys.

If Obama can manage to hang on to a couple of investment proposals for the future in this climate, I'll have to give him credit. 100,000 more and better math, science and engineering teachers could make a real difference even if their student loan interest accrues while they're in grad school.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 14, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

All, this has to be the funniest House GOP repeal moment yet:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/house_goper_who_said_no_to_con.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 14, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, Ike was a Socialist. Who knew?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | February 14, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, thanks for weighing in on the medical question on the other thread. Fascinating if grim stuff.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 14, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Ashot used le mot juste: despite.

We have succeed DESPITE the expensive failure that is the government. So why should we continue to fund its massive interference in our lives?

Should we really consider a government that fails repeatedly and costs us 20% of the GDP to be worth it? Why?

To Mike:

If the private sector fails, it should cost the folks who invested. That's why so many of us on the right were bitterly opposed to the bailouts. Where is the moral hazard if the taxpayers rescue foolish investors? Among the many things that capitalism does well is weed out the weak.

I believe that SS, Medicare, Defense and Medicaid are all in play. I believe that we can keep our fundamental promise to today's retiree's while planning better for the future.

it is amusing that Mr Sargent invokes a cherry picked memory of Eisenhower. I wonder why he didn't use this quote, from a president the left greatly admires:
"A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness."

I guess its because the above aptly describes what the America citizens are angry about.

When the liberal athiests here wish to turn their bigotry toward people of faith they often rely on quotes from the late great George Carlin. Here's one just for wbgone:

"The planet's not going anywhere, we are."

Closing the EPA would have many salubrious consequences. Among them are:
(1)Fewer nipple sucking, unaccountable over paid, under performing gummint workers to feed.
(2) The endless assault on our freedom from an unelected and unaccountable bureau comes grinding to a halt.
(3) Fewer pages of contradictory CFR's (that were never legislated) every year with which Americans must comply.
(4) The extra constitutional assault on private property engendered by the EPA is eliminated.
(5) We save teh EPA's annual budget of 10.5 billion.

Yeah wbgone, let us pull the plug on these people today.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 14, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The real message is that entitlements are crowding out all other spending, regardless of necessity or merit. Soon, interest on the debt will be up there as well.

The Republicans focus on discretionary spending is relatively insignificant from a long term deficit standpoint, but on the other hand, there's no good reason that rolling back to 2008 spending levels should automatically equal a catastrophe, especially if the agencies were given more discretion to reallocate funds from the various programs they administer as they see fit. I didn't see anything reported about Obama's budget targeting corporate welfare or farm subsidies.

Also, you shouldn't lump G.H.W. Bush in with the rest of the Republican presidents. For better or for worse, he cut a deal with the Democratic Congress to raise taxes to help reduce the deficit that in part cost him his reelection. Based on his reaction to his own commissions deficit reduction proposal (Bowles-Simpson) see little evidence that Obama would do the same.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 14, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I disagree with your political analysis.

But you probably knew that already.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I disagree with your political analysis. But you probably knew that already.

I like the idea of Big Oil running the EPA. Oh wait, that already happened. What's that you say? It didn't work out so well. Whatsamatter? You don't like Sweet Crude in your shrimp? We call that a lagniappe. I believe.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

jnc4p:

What do you think of Obama's opening gambit? It's cute the way he's making the GOP pull the trigger on the Welfare State. My fear (I'm not sure where you stand) is that Obama will accede to the GOP if it makes the first move, saying -- like on taxes -- they made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

@ aclearview:
Can you support this statement:
"And not even Tea Partiers will go for that. "

What proof can you provide?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 14, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Renews Vow To Repeal Tax Cuts For High Incomes"

"President Barack Obama said he would fight for his long-held pledge to reverse tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers after 2012, in a safe budget blueprint that doesn't stray far from tax proposals he has made since before he took office. Obama struck a compromise with congressional Republicans in December that allowed all the Bush-era individual tax cuts to continue for two more years, including those for wealthy households. But on Monday he framed that as a temporary setback. Obama said he had to accept the extension of the high-end tax cuts in order to preserve the middle-class tax cuts, but "these policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today," according to a statement in his fiscal year 2012 budget documents.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110214-709864.html

Good grief! There is NOTHING to repeal. The tax cuts expire and the end of the year. All Obama has to do is do nothing. I smell a rat with this deceptive language.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne "jnc4p:

What do you think of Obama's opening gambit? It's cute the way he's making the GOP pull the trigger on the Welfare State. My fear (I'm not sure where you stand) is that Obama will accede to the GOP if it makes the first move, saying -- like on taxes -- they made him an offer he couldn't refuse."

I think that he has decided to punt any real reform until after 2012. I basically agree with Ezra Klein:

"2012 Budget: Like the Fiscal Commission never happened"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/2012_budget_no_fiscal_commissi.html

The sad thing is that there was some real space to take on corporate welfare, tax expenditures, farm subsidies, etc at this time if he was willing to be bold. But much like the failure to change the actual cost drivers in health care because the ACA continues and extends the system of employer provided health care rather than reforming it, this is another status quote extension act.

I also like Ezra's take on the Federal Government (from Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee):

"The U.S. Government: An insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/the_us_government_an_insurance.html#more

Also:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_the_federal_government_ac.html

I also predict there will be no reform of the Federal tax system in the next two years either. We have elected to wait for a crisis to compel us to act.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 14, 2011 1:15 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne "Good grief! There is NOTHING to repeal. The tax cuts expire and the end of the year. All Obama has to do is do nothing. I smell a rat with this deceptive language."

He does if he still wants to split off the cuts from couples making more than $250,000 jointly from those that make less than $250,000.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 14, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

jcn4p:

You don't think the GOP will propose entitlement cuts? Why not? If the GOP does, how do you think Obama will respond?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

So Greg, you're agreeing here that Barack Obama is in essence a moderate Republican. "Domestic spending lowest since Ike" is not exactly the slogan I'd expect from the party of FDR, if I hadn't seen most Democratic politicians devolve into Eisenhower Republicans my entire life. (Nor is "Expand wiretapping" or "cut fuel aid for poor people in winter", BTW.)

Posted by: stonedone | February 14, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

@"jnc4p:

You don't think the GOP will propose entitlement cuts? Why not? If the GOP does, how do you think Obama will respond?"

At this point, probably not (although Paul Ryan could surprise me).

I also don't expect President Obama's revenue proposals to get very far either.

"However, Obama also would rely heavily on new taxes, to a degree unacknowledged by administration officials in recent days. His budget request calls for well over $1.6 trillion in fresh revenue over the next decade, much of it through higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses.

Households with income of more than $250,000 a year would immediately see new limits on the value of their itemized deductions. And starting in 2013, they would lose the lower tax rates and other breaks that were enacted during the George W. Bush administration and recently extended.

The president proposes to hit businesses with an array of proposals he has offered in the past, including an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies, new taxes on hedge fund managers and a $30 billion fee on financial institutions aimed at repaying taxpayers for the federal TARP bailout. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021400906.html?hpid=topnews

The compromise will no significant spending cuts or tax increases and instead just let the deficit grow.

I also can't square this with Greg's quoting of Obama's comparing himself to Eisenhower in terms of lower spending:

"Obama's deficit-reduction strategies would do little to improve the immediate budget outlook. Obama projects that the deficit will hit a record $1.6 trillion this year - which, at nearly 11 percent of the economy, would be the largest since World War II."

Again, who cares if you've lowered domestic, discretionary spending to the lowest level since Eisenhower if you are defending a budget proposal with the largest deficit in the history of the United States, both in terms of dollar amount and size of the economy. I also expect that the overall effect of the ACA will be to increase deficits, not reduce them as the CBO has predicted because of the size of the subsidies the Federal government offering for the exchanges, and the ability of the health care providers to successfully lobby against anything that would impact their payments.

In short, we're doomed.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 14, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I find it both funny and sickening how this government including Mr Obama,the congress and the senate can talk about budget cuts and at the same time not want to pass the tier#5 unemployment extension.Incase the president,you people in the senate,the people in congress and you other people who are against a tier#5 havent noticed there are hardly any jobs to be find out there.Another thing is most of the people on unemployment are innocent victims of our goverment selling our jobs to third world countries or allowing companys to do the same which inturn has kept the rich rich in America.3trillion dollars spent to fight 2 wars based on lies and greed along with countless lifes lost all to line the rich mans bank accounts.The only way to get the government to care about the people of this country is to do the same things the people of Egypt and other countries around the world did to make our leaders take notice of the people who need help.The people on unemployment are not bums,crackheads or lazy they are victims of the governments greed and lies.You people on unemployment need to stand up and be heard!Do not allow the country you have worked in,paid taxes in and fought wars for to screw you over during the time you need them the most.This is supposed to be a government for the people and by the people so start speaking up people!

Posted by: thehellyoucreated | February 14, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It didnt take almost 10 years to take saddam out of power and find Bin Ladin.Our troops had Bin Ladin surrounded and traped more than once and was told to let him go isnt that something!America went and destroyed 2 countries and murdered 100s of thousands of innocent civilians while doing so.Dont try to tell me everyone in Iraq or Afganistan hated America because thats a bunch of crap!Dont try to tell me everyone in those countries were terrorists either!America calls itself a Christian nation yet it is Americans who are the first to yell"nuke Iraq,nuke Iran"or what ever the country of the day is at the time.You can not want to nuke an entire country or countries and call yourselves"christians"at the same time.I never heard JESUS CHRIST say"It is ok to kill when you feel like it"Jesus said"thou shall not kill"I dont think Jesus would approve of allowing millions of people to go homeless and hungry either like our government is doing.Its kind of sad how when another country is in need of help or aid America runs to give them help but wont help its own people.Where are those countries now?Where is the money for Americans from other countries?The money the government spends is money from tax payers who worked for that money yet the government just gives it away or spends it who ever they see fit with no concern for the working American.Americans need help and they need it now.Dont tell me you are concerned about the next generations dept when you are allowing them to go without rigth now.The child who have parents on unemployment or are jobless need help today not 20 or 30 years from now.Wake up America and stand up for your rights!

Posted by: thehellyoucreated | February 14, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Our government officials in America make hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars a year from their pay which comes from the American tax payer and throw in the money they make by giving big buisnesses in America tax breaks plus the money they steal while in office and they are all set for life!The people in office have no idea what its like to work a 9 to 5 job.Their children will never go fight in a war.these people in the government sit back in their million dollar homes,drive their 2 hundred thousand dollar cars,go on vacation every time we turn around then have the nerve to speak about the unemployed Americans.What do these people know about real life?These government people were born with silver spoons in their mouths and then pass it down to their children.I say things need to change in America and right now now 20 years from now.Rise up America and be heard!

Posted by: thehellyoucreated | February 14, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"The real message is that entitlements are crowding out all other spending, regardless of necessity or merit. Soon, interest on the debt will be up there as well."

THAT's the real message? Wow jcn4p glad to know that you think more of foreigners than your own American neighbors. Glad to have you in our community.

How about DEFENSE?
Again to beat just one clear example to death...the Koreans have eaten our lunch with Samsung, Hyndai..the LPGA..and more..
Why do we maintain a large force to defend them?

Is it your contention jcn4p that Korean security which they can clearly afford to pay for themselves is more important than the well being of your own neighbors?

Is THAT the real message?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 14, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Who is the real terrorist when it comes to America?I am sure it is the American government itself.Sure George Bush told you that the people in the middle east hate Americabecause"We are free,In America you can go to the movies or Mcdonalds and they hate us for that"I think that idiot said something like that after 9/11.I am one of the people who think Mr Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.I dont think Mr Bin Ladin acted without Georges blessings.Would the president of America kill thousands of people you ask me?I say yes he would if it meant the American people backing his wars.The government is killing people right now by denying them the unemployment they need inorder to eat and keep a roof over their heads.Who are the real terrorists?Go to Washington Dc you will see them there.

Posted by: thehellyoucreated | February 14, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

We are not doomed, jnc4p. So far, Obama's proposed budget cuts the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. Let's see now if the Republicans can cut even more.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 14, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding7 ""The real message is that entitlements are crowding out all other spending, regardless of necessity or merit. Soon, interest on the debt will be up there as well."

THAT's the real message? Wow jcn4p glad to know that you think more of foreigners than your own American neighbors. Glad to have you in our community.

How about DEFENSE?
Again to beat just one clear example to death...the Koreans have eaten our lunch with Samsung, Hyndai..the LPGA..and more..
Why do we maintain a large force to defend them?

Is it your contention jcn4p that Korean security which they can clearly afford to pay for themselves is more important than the well being of your own neighbors?

Is THAT the real message?"

I don't see any evidence that either Obama or the Republicans are proposing to reduce U.S. Forces on the Korean peninsula, or anywhere else in the world, beyond the already scheduled draw downs in Iraq. I'm perfectly happy to reduce U.S. defense spending and obligations to the rest of the world, but I don't see it being on the table, aside from the proposal of Ron Paul & Barney Frank. These reductions will have real consequences though, and we need to be prepared to live with the results of say a successful invasion of South Korea by North Korea or another Middle East war against Israel if we eliminate or substantially reduce our overseas presence.

More significantly, Obama's claim that his budget has the has the lowest amount of domestic discretionary spending since Eisenhower isn't worth much if the exact same budget also has the largest deficit both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP since World War II. Unless and until entitlements are addressed, all the budget fights are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by: jnc4p | February 14, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Which means that The Bush Tax cuts did not increase revenues or jobs, like The Republicans have claimed they would.

Just another part of their Big Lie Tactics, in order to turn the nation over to The Oligarchs.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

don't be fooled by statistical tricks. When he says "share" all that means is that the other shares are growing faster. It doesn't mean he's cutting anything.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | February 16, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company