world

Obama puts new national security team in place

18 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

"His own re-election campaign approaching"

Does he actually have the audacity to run for re-election? Yes! He knows he's unbeatable!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the president has put together a good team. I think this will work well.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"burdened with crushing budget deficits"

Hey, it's going to take most of Obama's two terms to fix the mess left by GWB and the Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would like him a lot better if he had gotten us out of Bush's wars rather than expanding one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With his current projected defectives America would need 7 Pentagons and defund all of them to pay for all this social spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Toddo - Hey, we're going to be out of Iraq ( at least all combat troops ) by the end of the year, and we're going to be out of Afghanistan in, oh maybe by the end of the decade. Take heart!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1 Pentagon already equals any seven military central commands you can find on this planet and then some. Defunding it would cover a lot of bills. Yet all we ever get is talk and less. We can credit Obama for talking about it, which is more than anyone else did recently, but that is about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really feel sorry for people that actually thought Obama would defund the pentagon, surrender to bin laden, confiscate all the wealth of America and give it away to all the liberals in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel sorry for people think Obama supporters were expecting miracles and I also feel sorry for people who imagine enemies lurking around every corner with insane and devious intentions of comic book style proportion. One would think there are enough problems in the world without making wild stuff up as one goes along or trying to be a Rush Limbaugh knock off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hworta269 wrote:

With his current projected defectives America would need 7 Pentagons and defund all of them to pay for all this social spending.

At 24%, Defense is the biggest portion of the budget. Welfare is 11%. Where do you get "7 Pentagons" from those numbers?

The problem is both spending and revenue. Both can be improved by ending subisdy payments to oil companies (many billions of dollars every year) and at the same time increasing taxes on their massive profits. Do that and the problem is close to being solved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, wasn't the leftists calling him "General Betrayus" just 3-4 years ago?

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting choices, with Foggy Bottom's Panetta going Pentagon and the Pentagon's Petraeus going Foggy Bottom. It appears to be a push to rationalize the relationship between intelligence and action, and could also lead to great cost savings if redundancies are eliminated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Both can be improved by ending subisdy payments to oil companies (many billions of dollars every year) and at the same time increasing taxes on their massive profits. Do that and the problem is close to being solved."

Complete nonsense. Oil companies get about 4 billion/yr. Heck, ACORN now gets 3 billion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In Petraeus and Crocker, Obama will briefly reunite in Afghanistan a team viewed as highly successful working together in Iraq when Crocker served as ambassador there."

For a guy who opposed nearly everything Bush did Obama sure is cementing the man's legacy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"sure is cementing the man's legacy"

Oh bush's legacy is intact Old Friend.

Just not the one in your alternative reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wrote:

"Both can be improved by ending subisdy payments to oil companies (many billions of dollars every year) and at the same time increasing taxes on their massive profits. Do that and the problem is close to being solved."

@Lieberman2012 replied:

Complete nonsense. Oil companies get about 4 billion/yr. Heck, ACORN now gets 3 billion.

The 4 billion/year figure is tossed around a lot but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here are just a few examples of what I was referring to:

(1) BP is claiming a 13.3 billion US tax credit as a result of the Gulf oil spill. (Note: a credit is deducted directly from the tax unlike a deduction which is deducted from profit before tax is calculated.) I think a 13 billion fine would be more appropriate.

(2) in 2009, Exxon Mobil had $45.2 billion profit but paid ZERO to the IRS while also receiving subsidies to help them "find and extract oil."

In 2010 Exxon paid a tiny $156 million in US tax but that was still less than what they received.

(3) General Electric, which had $10.3 billion in profit and not only paid no US tax, they got a refund of $1.1 billion.

There are many other companies with similar stories. If the GOP and other conservatives want to cut welfare, then corporate welfare would be a good place to start.

The good news is that Americans are waking up the absurdity of the policies of the Republicans in congress. This week congress is in recess and the members are back in their home districts meeting voters. To their shock and dismay, Republicans are getting battered with complaints from angry voters, including Republican voters, who are outraged by the budget proposed by Paul Ryan and the tax cut extensions for the rich.

While the media is talking about how Obama is in trouble, it's clear that the Republicans are in trouble too.

As for Acorn, they are getting zero. In fact, they have been completely shut down due the loss of support not only from the government but also private donations. They were destroyed by public outrage over the phony documentary that made it seem they were willing to help a pimp get a 'business' loan and false charges that they were involved in voter fraud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

3) General Electric, which had $10.3 billion in profit and not only paid no US tax, they got a refund of $1.1 billion.

There are many other companies with similar stories. If the GOP and other conservatives want to cut welfare, then corporate welfare would be a good place to start.

You are aware that GE gets its corporate welfare precisely because they are on board with Obama's plans for cap and trade, right? I mean please, a rabid repub could not discredit the Democrats the way you just did, citing how the largest corporation in America was this last year able to avoid paying any taxes. CEO Immelt is in Obama's pocket.When governments basically coerce big business into mutually beneficial relationships it is generally regarded as corporatist or even 'fascist.'

Obama's gullible fans call it change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Lieberman2012 wrote:

You are aware that GE gets its corporate welfare precisely because they are on board with Obama's plans for cap and trade, right? I mean please, a rabid repub could not discredit the Democrats the way you just did, citing how the largest corporation in America was this last year able to avoid paying any taxes.

That's your response? You're ignoring the holes I found in your argument by picking one point and saying it's just Obama playing favorites? Methinks you're trying to run away from the discussion.

Why GE gets welfare is irrelevant. My point is that the solution to the budget problem isn't in making cuts in social welfare that are so small they will have only microscopic impact on the problem (while causing devastating social problems). The solution is cutting the big stuff that isn't necessary and collecting reasonable taxes from big corporations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites