It shows that 27% of the increase in debt measured against the 2010 GDP came from tax cuts, and 41% from spending increases, including spending for the great recession responses, the war and added baseline war spending.
The unanticipated Afghan/Iraq war spending is $1055B and the added baseline spending is around $400B (total around $4000B between 2001 and 2010 inclusive).
The growth debt is war, tax cuts and recession.
At least comparing CBO projections of 2001 when there were surpluses forever.
Seeing how badly CBO called the last 10 years should we listen to them?
Given that the CBO is an arm of the Congress with senior management appointed by Congress, why should we not assume that the product of their work is in some part influenced by ppolitical considerations? Science and measurement are not immune from the bias of one’s perspective and expectations. This is a well established finding in the science of psychological testing and measurement. The researcher is perfectly capable of finding what he is looking for and/or proving what he knows to be the facts.
**** Beware this is unconfirmed, so take it as such! ****
Part 1
Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates […]
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the […]
This may also explain the overuse of the “I” pronoun in his speech.
The “White House Insider” purportedly represents powerful factions in the Democratic Party that are seeking to remove BHO because they fear his incompetence will take down the party. We may have a “situation” on our hands.
Is this the same guy that just yesterday was crying about being insulted in the course of AB commentary? I read through Part I, but only skimmed the beginning of Part 2 noting that there was no reference to the origin of the described scenario. Is the Open Thread here at AB now a place of outright speculation and rumor mongering? I don’t agree with our government carrying out such extra-judicial murders. I don’t agree with wars of Empire initiated under false pretenses. Most of all I don’t agree with speculative bullshit being posted to either support or denigrate any process or activity, even those I disagree with. The partisan and uncorroborated character of CoRrev’s comments is so blatant as to qualify for insult and degradation.
I guess this is the updated version of the criticism of Gore’s style, dress, etc. It must really sting remembering Dubya’s offhand “I don’t really think much about him” comment.
Jack, I put it up in hopes that a reader would back it up from a better source. Just you don’t like the content, it does not digress from your comments re: all the misinformation put out there by the administrations.
BTW, it might explain the difference in releases of information between Pannetta and the Prez. The latest example is the we will/will not release the photo(s). Panetta obviously feels pretty insulated from Presidential pressure, having just been nominated for SecDef. There’s something going on there, even if it is just really, really bad internal communications. It feels more like dithering and mind changing since the Great Event.
At least I tried to caveat the article, unlike much of the snark we see too often.
ILSM, that’s what we have been saying for weeks/months now. Mandatory spending is formulaic and not controlled by annual budgets. They are growing, and reaching an out of control tipping point.
Found a link — don’t know if there is anything to story. Written by some guy named Ulsterman on May 2, 2011 in US Politics (not even sure of original posting).
I like “pitiful tabloid crap” even better than “speculative bullshit” although both are appropriate descriptions. Looking for any redeeming value within this horseshit gossip, I see one candidate tidbit: maybe Jarrett served in the role of the primary advocate of caution. IF that is accurate, good for her, she earned her pay even if nobody appreciates it.
You see some similarity between my pointing out that what isn’t made self evident may not be accurate and you supplying multiple paragraphs of a description of a scenario out of the now defunct TV drama West Wing. You’re getting further off the wall with each comment. Without insider attribution, that is someone who can absolutely verify by their own presence on the scene, the entire script is rumor mongering at its worst. Your caveat is worthless and typical of someone like Breitbart or the asshole that made the cotcha films for him.
The guy has correctly predicted a lot of Administration goings on a couple of weeks before they happened. And he either writes like Tom Clancy, or there is truth to it.
” formulaic”, I have not seen you use this term before.
Is the fact the “authorization” process for entitlements is done like the ways GAO said don’t work in trying to lower deficits why you are negative to “entitlements”?
I am reviewing the HASC authorization marks, very interesting should have something by the next “open thread”.
There is one thing in one of the marks I won’t write about because it is very close to my observations and I am happy the HASC is on to a little bit of what I have been saying.
after a while it is hard for me to remember exactly what you said, but i thought we had reached the point where we agreed, say, with CBO saying that the Trust Fund was not a pile of cash waiting to pay for Social Security.
where we differ is in what that means.
No one who knows anything ever thought the Trust Fund, or any trust fund, is a pile of cash that the borrower has sitting around waiting to pay it back. But your double talking friends have managed to make a large part of the population believe that if it’s NOt a large pile of cash sitting around waiting to pay it back, SOMETHING is WRONG,
nothing is wrong. and what’s an entitlement and whats not discretionary etc don’t have any ultimate meaning at all… since as you are the 39th to point out, the Congress can change any of that on a slow day on the Hill.
The words don’t matter. It is the facts that matter: people have been paying their Social Security tax on the understanding.. and the law… that their contributions would be used to pay them a retirement benefit when they reached a normal retirement age. Of course the Congress can change this. Some of us are trying to get enough people to understand the facts so that they will stop the congress from changing it.
and your cutsey little owlish replies that you appear to have learned in a training session on how to sound like you have knowledge and he other guy is just too dumb to understand.. are annoying and destroy any credibility you might have if you just offered an honest argument.
the perhaps ironic thing is that if not in a training session you might well have picked up the style from the kind of answers people have given you over the years.. people who actually had a reason to believe they knew something you didn’t. but using a put down because it was effective against you doesn’t work if the rest of your argument gives the reader no reason to believe you aren’t faking it.
ILSM, I’ll try to answer what I think this not too clearly written question is: “Is the fact the “authorization” process for entitlements is done like the ways GAO said don’t work in trying to lower deficits why you are negative to “entitlements”?”
Yes, their spending is not able to be controlled. As those who qualify for the laws’ formulas mandate added spending. Today’s total for mandatory spending, entitlements and interest on debt, approaches and may exceed available revenues. All or nearly all discretionary spending is borrowed.
To change the qualification formulas the basic law must be amended for each entitlement. As we can see with the SS discussions there are many passions and misinformation produced. And, SS is the easiest to fix.
Dale, let me repeat the first paragraph from the other thread: “Some folks just can’t stand the notion that another person might not agree with them and that person could, in fact, be both quite sane and reasonably intelligent. For some reason, those poorly tolerant folks, seem especially fond of saying mean things….”
Proof positive that you’re a blind man in a world of ideas. And regarding your recent complaint regarding name calling, there is no need to attach a derogatory word to a description of your ideas. They stand out on their own as being vacuous and lacking any originality save for their being totally fanciful.
“..seem especially fond of saying mean things….” CoRev complaining about others not showing hin a level of respect that he tries hard not to earn, as noted immediately below.
“————–-Our Ditherer and Chief ——” CoRev, yet again throwing stones without a basis.
Yet another milestone in the ongoing turning of Nice Polite Republican radio into a corporate conservative platform for underwriters today features this pitifully useless profile of former Pennsylvania senator Man-On-Dog: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/135749337/santorum-a-talent-for-politics-honed-in-college
Remind me again why NPR is this supposedly left leaning institution staffed by socialist baby killers?
But maybe it’s all a commie plot! By elevating this punchline to national prominence as a serious GOP presidential candidate they actually intend to finish destroying the GOP by killing it from within! Yeah that must be it.
Mandatory spending is perennially authorized by formulas contained in their originating legislation. No anti-deficiency, little to no Congressional oversight, automatic formulaic spending once standards are met.
So, for all intents and purposes, they meet both the letter and intent of the US Constitution: Article One, Sec 9, clause 7, and 31 USC 1341. As always YMMV, and your not understanding this is still telling.
and some people seem especially fond of repeating words that make them feel good so they don’t have to think about the words that don’t.
CoRev, you will not understand, but i need to say it for the record, nothing I have said here was meant to be mean. On the contrary, it was another desperate attempt to explain to you why you are annoying people and not convincing them.
i quite often enjoy being disagreed with, and convinced that i was wrong. in your case not so much because your style of argument is that of the nasty little brother who just repeats some taunt endlessly hoping to provoke his big sister into hitting him so he can cry “mommy, she hit me!”
In the movie, as instances of Capn. Queeg’s (Humphrey Bogart) incompetence piled up, the officers and crew began to doubt his fitness for command. Finally, during a storm when the ship became in imminent danger, the XO reiieved Capn. Queeg of his command.
Barack Obama is a weak and incompetent leader, and power abhors a vacuum. Unlike Capn Queeq, who “lost it” it is likely Obama “never had it.” We’ll see how this plays out, but I don’t think it’s going to be good.
In my military circle we analyzed that film thoroughly, part of training if I recall, also part of really seeing a movie. We also analyzed “Twelve O’Clock High”.
It was not that simple.
In the end, Jose Ferrar’s character the winning defense attorney had it right the mutineers were wrong.
They followed the agenda of one of the reserve officers who felt disdain toward Queeg a regular Navy type, who had come up through the peace time Navy.
Surpressing personal agendas when serving is why the military maintains discipline.
been a long long time since i saw the movie. but i wonder if a military circle training class could come up with any other conclusion.
i have always been the insubordinate type myself, so i would not trust my judgement on this. but as i recall, along with the “instances of” instability piling up, including abandoning landing craft at the beach that he was supposed to provide covering fire for, Captain Queeg put his boat in danger by “losing it” during a storm.
Hard as hell to be a good soldier when your captain is incompetent, but unless the soldiers are willing to obey and die you can’t hope to run an army much less win a war. so i would probably agree with your military circle….
as for the obama flabble… the President has a duty to weigh all sides. the “other side” is always going to feel that they are being ignored or the Pres is dithering. Especially if they have political friends who know how to shade a point.
I have know way of knowing if Obama is a good leader. On some issues I care about I have my doubts… but given the nature of his opposition, I’d have to say I’d trust him before I’d trust them.
After the war the German officers liked to paint Hitler as a ditherer. Funny that they followed that ditherer all the way to Stalingrad.
What we have here is Obama succeeding.. by whatever process… where Bush failed. And the very evil people running the hard right will twist any “fact” they can to deny or denigrate that fact.
The hard right are not patriots in any sane meaning of the term. They are enemy agents attempting to take over the country and destroy America. Destroy the whole American Idea which they have hated since the Revolution, Hated more since Lincoln, Hated since Roosevelt… both Roosevelts. Even hated with Eisenhower.
These are evil people. They hate you. they hate humanity. they hate the whole idea of people living in some peace and security and freedom from having to smile and shuffle and doff their caps at them when they walk by them on the street.
And they are perfectly capable of lying to the masses and promising the PFreedom and low taxes too. Only vote for our man and learn to hate your neighbors and we will show you the true meaning of freedom as it is understood in Hell.
As I have made abundantly clear in the recent past on AB, I have no great love for Obama as the President. I am disappointed that he has not taken a much harder and more rigid line with the obnoxious Republicans who claim to be conservatives, but in fact are no better than panderers to big business. In that light the comments of both sammy and CoRev are still seen to be the bleating of wounded sheep. What Obama has done or not done is certainly not a measure of his competence or lack of it. It is his approach to governing through compromise, though he may be beginning to better understand that compromise with the current Republican leadership is useless and wasteful. Neither sammy nor CoRev are competent to judge the competence of anyone else. Frankly they both measure high on the asshole scale.
Check the chart at The Big Picture: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/what-drives-the-deficit/ For the details.
This shows a recap: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf
It shows that 27% of the increase in debt measured against the 2010 GDP came from tax cuts, and 41% from spending increases, including spending for the great recession responses, the war and added baseline war spending.
The unanticipated Afghan/Iraq war spending is $1055B and the added baseline spending is around $400B (total around $4000B between 2001 and 2010 inclusive).
The growth debt is war, tax cuts and recession.
At least comparing CBO projections of 2001 when there were surpluses forever.
Seeing how badly CBO called the last 10 years should we listen to them?
Since we’re almost always at war with someone, we should probably be averaging wars into these projections …
Given that the CBO is an arm of the Congress with senior management appointed by Congress, why should we not assume that the product of their work is in some part influenced by ppolitical considerations? Science and measurement are not immune from the bias of one’s perspective and expectations. This is a well established finding in the science of psychological testing and measurement. The researcher is perfectly capable of finding what he is looking for and/or proving what he knows to be the facts.
————–-Our Ditherer and Chief ——
**** Beware this is unconfirmed, so take it as such! ****
Part 1
Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates […]
Part 2
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the […]
ILSM, regarding the chart, the Bush tax cuts are double counted. The double counting has little affect.
ADP jobs report is mediocre, 179K.
not really surprising.
CoRev,
Check out this picture of the situation room: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383279/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Picture-Obama-US-security-team-hes-shot.html
O looks out of the loop and angry.
This may also explain the overuse of the “I” pronoun in his speech.
The “White House Insider” purportedly represents powerful factions in the Democratic Party that are seeking to remove BHO because they fear his incompetence will take down the party. We may have a “situation” on our hands.
Is the point that the US constitution is not operative?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11626t.pdf
Interesting testamony check out pg 7 on differences between discretionary and “entitlements”.
The history is okay too.
“————–-Our Ditherer and Chief ——” CoRev
Is this the same guy that just yesterday was crying about being insulted in the course of AB commentary? I read through Part I, but only skimmed the beginning of Part 2 noting that there was no reference to the origin of the described scenario. Is the Open Thread here at AB now a place of outright speculation and rumor mongering? I don’t agree with our government carrying out such extra-judicial murders. I don’t agree with wars of Empire initiated under false pretenses. Most of all I don’t agree with speculative bullshit being posted to either support or denigrate any process or activity, even those I disagree with. The partisan and uncorroborated character of CoRrev’s comments is so blatant as to qualify for insult and degradation.
Don’t forget the descent into pitiful tabloid crap. Genuinely embarrassing.
I guess this is the updated version of the criticism of Gore’s style, dress, etc. It must really sting remembering Dubya’s offhand “I don’t really think much about him” comment.
Jack, I put it up in hopes that a reader would back it up from a better source. Just you don’t like the content, it does not digress from your comments re: all the misinformation put out there by the administrations.
BTW, it might explain the difference in releases of information between Pannetta and the Prez. The latest example is the we will/will not release the photo(s). Panetta obviously feels pretty insulated from Presidential pressure, having just been nominated for SecDef. There’s something going on there, even if it is just really, really bad internal communications. It feels more like dithering and mind changing since the Great Event.
At least I tried to caveat the article, unlike much of the snark we see too often.
Would you mind telling us — or supplying a link to — where the story was published. Thank you.
AS, Gore wears a dress?!!!???? 🙂
ILSM, that’s what we have been saying for weeks/months now. Mandatory spending is formulaic and not controlled by annual budgets. They are growing, and reaching an out of control tipping point.
So what’s your point?
The rest of the testamony is the main point. The definition matches what you have said?
Really.
Found a link — don’t know if there is anything to story. Written by some guy named Ulsterman on May 2, 2011 in US Politics (not even sure of original posting).
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/05/skulking-towards-bin-laden-obama-overridden-by-military-and-intel-officials-in-takeout-of-obl.html
Very existence of “Insider” disputed here: http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/proof-that-ulsterman-is-a-liar-and-his-white-house-insider-does-not-exist/
???
Your questioning that it is different from what has been presented here before is telling.
I like “pitiful tabloid crap” even better than “speculative bullshit” although both are appropriate descriptions. Looking for any redeeming value within this horseshit gossip, I see one candidate tidbit: maybe Jarrett served in the role of the primary advocate of caution. IF that is accurate, good for her, she earned her pay even if nobody appreciates it.
You see some similarity between my pointing out that what isn’t made self evident may not be accurate and you supplying multiple paragraphs of a description of a scenario out of the now defunct TV drama West Wing. You’re getting further off the wall with each comment. Without insider attribution, that is someone who can absolutely verify by their own presence on the scene, the entire script is rumor mongering at its worst. Your caveat is worthless and typical of someone like Breitbart or the asshole that made the cotcha films for him.
ddrew,
There is a whole series of these “White House Insider” interviews. Here’s
the second one, aptly titled “Something Was Not Right with This President”:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/white-house-insider-something-was-not-right-with-this-president/
The guy either writes like Tom Clancy, or there is truth to it.
ddrew,
There is a whole series of these “White House Insider” interviews. Here’s
the second one, aptly titled “Something Was Not Right with This President”:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/white-house-insider-something-was-not-right-with-this-president/
The guy has correctly predicted a lot of Administration goings on a couple of weeks before they happened. And he either writes like Tom Clancy, or there is truth to it.
Yup! I do “… see some similarity between my pointing out that what isn’t made self evident may not be accurate…”
” formulaic”, I have not seen you use this term before.
Is the fact the “authorization” process for entitlements is done like the ways GAO said don’t work in trying to lower deficits why you are negative to “entitlements”?
I am reviewing the HASC authorization marks, very interesting should have something by the next “open thread”.
There is one thing in one of the marks I won’t write about because it is very close to my observations and I am happy the HASC is on to a little bit of what I have been saying.
Stopped watches: Are they really only right twice a day? We’ll take a look after these messages!
CoRev
after a while it is hard for me to remember exactly what you said, but i thought we had reached the point where we agreed, say, with CBO saying that the Trust Fund was not a pile of cash waiting to pay for Social Security.
where we differ is in what that means.
No one who knows anything ever thought the Trust Fund, or any trust fund, is a pile of cash that the borrower has sitting around waiting to pay it back. But your double talking friends have managed to make a large part of the population believe that if it’s NOt a large pile of cash sitting around waiting to pay it back, SOMETHING is WRONG,
nothing is wrong. and what’s an entitlement and whats not discretionary etc don’t have any ultimate meaning at all… since as you are the 39th to point out, the Congress can change any of that on a slow day on the Hill.
The words don’t matter. It is the facts that matter: people have been paying their Social Security tax on the understanding.. and the law… that their contributions would be used to pay them a retirement benefit when they reached a normal retirement age. Of course the Congress can change this. Some of us are trying to get enough people to understand the facts so that they will stop the congress from changing it.
and your cutsey little owlish replies that you appear to have learned in a training session on how to sound like you have knowledge and he other guy is just too dumb to understand.. are annoying and destroy any credibility you might have if you just offered an honest argument.
the perhaps ironic thing is that if not in a training session you might well have picked up the style from the kind of answers people have given you over the years.. people who actually had a reason to believe they knew something you didn’t. but using a put down because it was effective against you doesn’t work if the rest of your argument gives the reader no reason to believe you aren’t faking it.
ILSM, I’ll try to answer what I think this not too clearly written question is: “Is the fact the “authorization” process for entitlements is done like the ways GAO said don’t work in trying to lower deficits why you are negative to “entitlements”?”
Yes, their spending is not able to be controlled. As those who qualify for the laws’ formulas mandate added spending. Today’s total for mandatory spending, entitlements and interest on debt, approaches and may exceed available revenues. All or nearly all discretionary spending is borrowed.
To change the qualification formulas the basic law must be amended for each entitlement. As we can see with the SS discussions there are many passions and misinformation produced. And, SS is the easiest to fix.
Dale, let me repeat the first paragraph from the other thread: “Some folks just can’t stand the notion that another person might not agree with them and that person could, in fact, be both quite sane and reasonably intelligent. For some reason, those poorly tolerant folks, seem especially fond of saying mean things….”
Proof positive that you’re a blind man in a world of ideas. And regarding your recent complaint regarding name calling, there is no need to attach a derogatory word to a description of your ideas. They stand out on their own as being vacuous and lacking any originality save for their being totally fanciful.
“..seem especially fond of saying mean things….” CoRev complaining about others not showing hin a level of respect that he tries hard not to earn, as noted immediately below.
“————–-Our Ditherer and Chief ——” CoRev, yet again throwing stones without a basis.
Yet another milestone in the ongoing turning of Nice Polite Republican radio into a corporate conservative platform for underwriters today features this pitifully useless profile of former Pennsylvania senator Man-On-Dog: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/135749337/santorum-a-talent-for-politics-honed-in-college
Remind me again why NPR is this supposedly left leaning institution staffed by socialist baby killers?
But maybe it’s all a commie plot! By elevating this punchline to national prominence as a serious GOP presidential candidate they actually intend to finish destroying the GOP by killing it from within! Yeah that must be it.
Only congress can appropriate money for an executive agency to “obligate”.
US Constitution: Article One, Sec 9, clause 7. Power of the Purse
And 31 USC 1341 idiomatically called “anti deficiency”.
As well as a prohibition in accepting volunteer services
Mandatory spending is perennially authorized by formulas contained in their originating legislation. No anti-deficiency, little to no Congressional oversight, automatic formulaic spending once standards are met.
So, for all intents and purposes, they meet both the letter and intent of the US Constitution: Article One, Sec 9, clause 7, and 31 USC 1341. As always YMMV, and your not understanding this is still telling.
and some people seem especially fond of repeating words that make them feel good so they don’t have to think about the words that don’t.
CoRev, you will not understand, but i need to say it for the record, nothing I have said here was meant to be mean. On the contrary, it was another desperate attempt to explain to you why you are annoying people and not convincing them.
i quite often enjoy being disagreed with, and convinced that i was wrong. in your case not so much because your style of argument is that of the nasty little brother who just repeats some taunt endlessly hoping to provoke his big sister into hitting him so he can cry “mommy, she hit me!”
Jack,
Do you remember The Caine Mutiny?
In the movie, as instances of Capn. Queeg’s (Humphrey Bogart) incompetence piled up, the officers and crew began to doubt his fitness for command. Finally, during a storm when the ship became in imminent danger, the XO reiieved Capn. Queeg of his command.
Barack Obama is a weak and incompetent leader, and power abhors a vacuum. Unlike Capn Queeq, who “lost it” it is likely Obama “never had it.” We’ll see how this plays out, but I don’t think it’s going to be good.
MMV’ed
sammy,
In my military circle we analyzed that film thoroughly, part of training if I recall, also part of really seeing a movie. We also analyzed “Twelve O’Clock High”.
It was not that simple.
In the end, Jose Ferrar’s character the winning defense attorney had it right the mutineers were wrong.
They followed the agenda of one of the reserve officers who felt disdain toward Queeg a regular Navy type, who had come up through the peace time Navy.
Surpressing personal agendas when serving is why the military maintains discipline.
ilsm
been a long long time since i saw the movie. but i wonder if a military circle training class could come up with any other conclusion.
i have always been the insubordinate type myself, so i would not trust my judgement on this. but as i recall, along with the “instances of” instability piling up, including abandoning landing craft at the beach that he was supposed to provide covering fire for, Captain Queeg put his boat in danger by “losing it” during a storm.
Hard as hell to be a good soldier when your captain is incompetent, but unless the soldiers are willing to obey and die you can’t hope to run an army much less win a war. so i would probably agree with your military circle….
as for the obama flabble… the President has a duty to weigh all sides. the “other side” is always going to feel that they are being ignored or the Pres is dithering. Especially if they have political friends who know how to shade a point.
I have know way of knowing if Obama is a good leader. On some issues I care about I have my doubts… but given the nature of his opposition, I’d have to say I’d trust him before I’d trust them.
After the war the German officers liked to paint Hitler as a ditherer. Funny that they followed that ditherer all the way to Stalingrad.
What we have here is Obama succeeding.. by whatever process… where Bush failed. And the very evil people running the hard right will twist any “fact” they can to deny or denigrate that fact.
The hard right are not patriots in any sane meaning of the term. They are enemy agents attempting to take over the country and destroy America. Destroy the whole American Idea which they have hated since the Revolution, Hated more since Lincoln, Hated since Roosevelt… both Roosevelts. Even hated with Eisenhower.
These are evil people. They hate you. they hate humanity. they hate the whole idea of people living in some peace and security and freedom from having to smile and shuffle and doff their caps at them when they walk by them on the street.
And they are perfectly capable of lying to the masses and promising the PFreedom and low taxes too. Only vote for our man and learn to hate your neighbors and we will show you the true meaning of freedom as it is understood in Hell.
As I have made abundantly clear in the recent past on AB, I have no great love for Obama as the President. I am disappointed that he has not taken a much harder and more rigid line with the obnoxious Republicans who claim to be conservatives, but in fact are no better than panderers to big business. In that light the comments of both sammy and CoRev are still seen to be the bleating of wounded sheep. What Obama has done or not done is certainly not a measure of his competence or lack of it. It is his approach to governing through compromise, though he may be beginning to better understand that compromise with the current Republican leadership is useless and wasteful. Neither sammy nor CoRev are competent to judge the competence of anyone else. Frankly they both measure high on the asshole scale.