Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama/Dems COULD be in better negotiating position in 2 months (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's also 500 billion in Defense cuts. (9+ / 0-)

    Nobody wants them to go through, but the President can play like he won't mind if they do.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:05:02 PM PST

    •  The dems wanted that delayed... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not really sure why they wanted to remove that bit of leverage we had.  

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:06:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or have a new SecDef with an [R] after their name (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jay1c, HappyinNM, Creosote

      saying that there is room for some DoD cuts.  Panetta undercuts the very idea of any more DoD cuts like he's reading from McCain's talking points.  

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:11:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two issues here related to DOD (4+ / 0-)

        First,, DOD has a problem not formally considered here, namely several hundred billion bucks in off the books war costs which still have to be dealt with because off the books does not mean not borrowed for and paid as they went without the publicity. One of the thinks DOD will have to be made to deal with is this off the books stuff, which adds IIRC a third or more without disclosure to the DOD budget. Depending on the security classification, this is the toughest DOD cut to deal with.

        The other is that Obama has already made clear that any budget fixers have to be balanced between revenue and cuts, and that cuts have to be balanced between domestic discreationary and defense. And that as to SS at least there is already a known option, raising the contribution cap which now stops at about 110K, which would given the years involved resolve the SS issue, and has taken steps to deal with the COSTS of Medicare which have already begun to kick in. The trick with those may be keeping hospitals and docs from bailing, but one method for that is to provide that those in the medical professions who get Federal money have to do Medicare. It wouldn't kick in immediately, because there are a lot of oldies who did not have this as conditions to their financing, but on a rolling basis it might well work. Or refiguring the doc fix so it starts to kick in in 2015 and does not carry over from year to year and grow like fungus.

    •  Nobody wants defense cuts? I do! (7+ / 0-)

      As mentioned elsewhere, that $700 billion a year we spend on "defense" is 41% of the entire world's military budget, about 5 times the amount of the next country, which is China.

      The cuts you're talking about are over 10 years. I believe the figure you give, $500 billion is for both domestic and defense combined, with defense being half the amount. If that's correct then we're talking about cutting the defense budget by $25 billion a year.

      Looking back at that comparison to China, we could still spend three times as much as the Chinese and save $280 billion a year so the cuts you're concerned about are pretty insubstantial, relatively speaking.

      •  What I worry about is that they will make the cuts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shahryar

        on the backs of those serving, by taking it out of their pay, or their medical benefits, or other benefits they have worked for.
                            Just my two cents,
                                 Heather

        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

        by Chacounne on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 12:26:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  IIRC The defense cuts don't come from Military (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          big mouth

          benefits.

          Right man, right job and right time

          by Ianb007 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 12:32:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Current sequester cuts have military benefits (0+ / 0-)

            walled off.  But that doesn't mean they couldn't be discussed as cuts to reach the cuts threshold and not trigger the sequester cuts.  However given the emphasis the President has put on the troops since he's been in office, and how Michelle has made it one of her FLOTUS priorities I can't see the President signing off on anything that would negatively impact soldiers and their families.  Cuts would be made from weapons programs, troop levels, and the MIC.  

            President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

            by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:29:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  that would be typical (0+ / 0-)

          it would, of course, be the absolute worst way to cut the budget but yes, I see your point.

      •  cut 30% on defense and don't look back (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shahryar

        $210 billion per year, $2.1 trillion over 10. republicans either believe deficits are an issue or they are not.......cheney, fo example, famously said deficits do not matter after all.

        call their bluff. this is their not so back door approach to gut  earned benefits and they can't get away with it.

        eliminate oil subsidies
        eliminate farm subsidies
        close corporate tax loopholes
        implement corporate capital gain tax increases on money held not reinvested in business.
        shut down off-shore tax havens

        end all corporate welfare and cut defense and then come back and talk about what's left.

        mccain and graham will scream about defense cuts they can save some of the defense by offsets in corporate welfare reductions,,,,,they cannot have both.

        it is beyond outrageous to even consider cutting earned benefits when corporations and the 2% would not be hurt proportionately.

        Bill Gates said defense cuts needed to be made. I trust him.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:15:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I guess that makes me a nobody. (nt) (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site