Liberals who complain about the NDAA remind me of conservatives who complain about Benghazi.
He couldn't not sign it. It funds the goddamn military. It also contained exactly zero changes to US government policy that has existed for longer than most of us here have been alive.
Don't like it? Good. Get better people into Congress.
It's absolutely fair to point out the Obama administration's less than stellar record on national defense, not on the success of it so much (because much as I may bemoan the methods, they have been successful,) more so in that he's simply continued the Bush era laws and then some. Yeah the NDAA was some big omnibus bill, but you're blowing smoke up your ass if you think anything in it was something Obama didn't support. Or did we all forget when he bitched about the retro-active immunity granted to the teleco's as then Senator Obama, before realizing he had a shot at the presidency and voting for it. Or when the NDAA gave deeply troubling and vague language about material support of terrorism, and when journalists sued over it, had the administration's lawyers bizarrely refusing to clarify the language any further. This is also the administration using Bush era reasoning for why police should get to plant tracking devices on your car without a warrant-it's for terrorism, and it's secret.
So I think we can let cut liberals and other non-hawks some slack when they point out Obama's record in this area, as it's definitely becoming a pattern. I like him as a president, but I think he's letting the paranoid security types in his cabinet control him or something.
Edited cause I grabbed the wrong comment.
Dark_Side on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is the military's budget. It contains within it a variety of amendments and clauses that say how and why the military can do certain things, some specifics that bothered people were trotted out to say Oh You Love Obama? Well WHAT ABOUT THIS.
It is one of those things that not many people actually understand, but we all feel like we should have Opinions about it. So I wouldn't feel too bad, urahonky.
It's absolutely fair to point out the Obama administration's less than stellar record on national defense, not on the success of it so much (because much as I may bemoan the methods, they have been successful,) more so in that he's simply continued the Bush era laws and then some. Yeah the NDAA was some big omnibus bill, but you're blowing smoke up your ass if you think anything in it was something Obama didn't support. Or did we all forget when he bitched about the retro-active immunity granted to the teleco's as then Senator Obama, before realizing he had a shot at the presidency and voting for it. Or when the NDAA gave deeply troubling and vague language about material support of terrorism, and when journalists sued over it, left the administration's lawyers refusing to clarify the language any further. This is also the administration using Bush ear reasoning for why police should get to plant tracking devices on your car without a warrant-it's for terrorism, and it's secret.
So I think we can let cut liberals and other non-hawks some slack when they point out Obama's record in this area. I like him as a president, but I think he's letting the paranoid security types in his cabinet control him or something.
Meh, this year's NDAA is something that has changed literally nothing. If you want to bitch about that being somehow Obama's fault you know nothing about America.
My only gripe with the drones it seems like they are using them as easy mode. I understand reducing military casualties is important (as it should be), but we used to want to capture terrorist suspects, now we just blow them the fuck up. Supposedly there is a cost benefit analysis going on there, but I'm still a little leary because we can, doesn't mean we should.
Besides there comes a point with terrorism people we reach a magnum force argument of escalation. Sure we are getting names now, but what about two years from now and we are blowing up cow thieves or someone who might have looked at a bomb I'm totally sure. Hopefully Brennan carries through on his promise and the CIA turns Drones back over to the military where they should have always been.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
1) It makes the use of force easier. If you're not risking lives, you're going to be more willing to blow some shit up. Even more than with a conventional bombing run. Or cruise missiles, as a Hellfire is a tad cheaper.
2) Psychologically, by not giving the opponent a chance to fight back, it's ... I dunno, unsporting? And that seems to piss people off. Even more than normal bombings.
But the major issue is how you feel about the general conduct of the war on terror as... a war.
Anyway, this administration's major failures are a refusal to look back, to borrow their formulation, and their quixotic quest for a Grand Bargain.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My only gripe with the drones it seems like they are using them as easy mode. I understand reducing military casualties is important (as it should be), but we used to want to capture terrorist suspects, now we just blow them the fuck up. Supposedly there is a cost benefit analysis going on there, but I'm still a little leary because we can, doesn't mean we should.
Besides there comes a point with terrorism people we reach a magnum force argument of escalation. Sure we are getting names now, but what about two years from now and we are blowing up cow thieves or someone who might have looked at a bomb I'm totally sure. Hopefully Brennan carries through on his promise and the CIA turns Drones back over to the military where they should have always been.
We have been doing this since at least reagan. It is just the tools we use have been changing. It went from dumb bombs to fighter dropped smart bombs to tomahawks now to drones. Pretty much since george senior and clinton started flipping cruise missiles at people we have been drone striking. We just do it in a more cost effective way but in the end is the same no americans directly endangered and a killer robot sends some more people to allah.
Yeah ease of use is definately up there, though prior to drones we did use to cruise missle and use air strikes the same way. I remember during the Clinton years he got shit for doing that in hilariously Iraq to influence the no fly zone. So we've blown shit up at our whim before, Drones just are the big scary way of doing it now because its a lot cheaper.
Personally I think the admin's biggest fault is believing the GOP was ever operating in a mutual interest in america. An easy mistake to make because it would never occur to me personally prior to the bullshit of the last 4 years, a political party in a country would work entirely against that country all the while claiming to love it. They are the abusive boyfriend of america.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
1) It makes the use of force easier. If you're not risking lives, you're going to be more willing to blow some shit up. Even more than with a conventional bombing run. Or cruise missiles, as a Hellfire is a tad cheaper.
2) Psychologically, by not giving the opponent a chance to fight back, it's ... I dunno, unsporting? And that seems to piss people off. Even more than normal bombings.
But the major issue is how you feel about the general conduct of the war on terror as... a war.
Anyway, this administration's major failures are a refusal to look back, to borrow their formulation, and their quixotic quest for a Grand Bargain.
Those are both pretty stupid things to take issue with. That is the natural evolution of warfare over 150,000 years of human history.
The issue with drones is that we violate airspace and don't really follow due process with them, not that they are easier to use.
1) It makes the use of force easier. If you're not risking lives, you're going to be more willing to blow some shit up. Even more than with a conventional bombing run. Or cruise missiles, as a Hellfire is a tad cheaper.
2) Psychologically, by not giving the opponent a chance to fight back, it's ... I dunno, unsporting? And that seems to piss people off. Even more than normal bombings.
But the major issue is how you feel about the general conduct of the war on terror as... a war.
Anyway, this administration's major failures are a refusal to look back, to borrow their formulation, and their quixotic quest for a Grand Bargain.
Those are both pretty stupid things to take issue with. That is the natural evolution of warfare over 150,000 years of human history.
The issue with drones is that we violate airspace and don't really follow due process with them, not that they are easier to use.
Airspace, due process, and lack of oversight are all legal concerns, but ease of use is a greater philosophical/moral concern. And honestly, it's one that we need to start coming to grips with in terms of how we inflict violence upon others. The advancement of technology that makes it easier to kill people is why we're having a gun debate in America right now. It's why the Cold War put us "10 minutes" away from global annihilation. It's why the Holocaust was able to be a thing that happened.
We're not beating rival tribes to death with pointed sticks and heavy rocks anymore. We can wipe out entire cities with a single bomb, murder a group on the other side of the planet with a push of a button, mow down a crowd of people in under 60 seconds.
We all love to romanticize violence. We hold on to ideal notions of justice and honor. But it is absolutely a massive problem that this shit is getting way too fucking easy to do. Drones are a part of this problem, just like semi-automatic guns, chemical weapons, and cruise missiles. When technology outpaces our moral and critical understanding of how/when/why we use it, very bad things happen.
1) It makes the use of force easier. If you're not risking lives, you're going to be more willing to blow some shit up. Even more than with a conventional bombing run. Or cruise missiles, as a Hellfire is a tad cheaper.
2) Psychologically, by not giving the opponent a chance to fight back, it's ... I dunno, unsporting? And that seems to piss people off. Even more than normal bombings.
But the major issue is how you feel about the general conduct of the war on terror as... a war.
Anyway, this administration's major failures are a refusal to look back, to borrow their formulation, and their quixotic quest for a Grand Bargain.
Those are both pretty stupid things to take issue with. That is the natural evolution of warfare over 150,000 years of human history.
The issue with drones is that we violate airspace and don't really follow due process with them, not that they are easier to use.
The fact that they are easier to use means we violate airspace and due process much more often, which is the sentiment most people are expressing with the technology concerns.
Yes technology changes. And it seems obvious that the problems people have with that are the implications of that change; no need to dismiss the sentiment as stupid just because they don't express it in your preferred way.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Drones may be easier to use, but they're significantly more targeted. We went willy-nilly with drones for a couple of years and fired them off hundreds if not thousands of times. Result: a few thousand people died. We went willy-nilly with full-blown fucking wars once in the 2000s.
The average number of people killed in a drone strike is 6.6.
The number of people killed in the Iraq War: 4,486 US soldiers and almost 173,000 Iraqis* over 9 years. That's 54 people a day, on average. So GW could have pushed the drone button seven times a day for the last 5 years of his presidency, and then handed the button over to Obama so that he could push it seven times a day for his entire first term, and fewer people would have died.
So fuck "ease of use."
*(according to the Iraq Body Count Project, by way of Wiki)
Well its not fair to compare drones to war, because they are completely different in exeuction from each other to the point of not being in the same ball park. You'd be better off comparing cruise missle strikes and traditional bombing runs.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Good lord, so Brietbart, in its consistent drive to find the very bottom of political news coverage, has decided to drop a "breaking" story that the Obama daughters are vacationing in the Bahamas for spring break. They're doing this in some sorry attempt to link the secret security detail for the girls as a gross violation of the people's money since they chose to cut those same resources from white house tours.
Sasha and Malia both attend Sidwell Friends School, which is currently on its spring break. That break continues through Friday. It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers.
Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.
According to Judicial Watch, Malia Obama's trip to Mexico last spring break, during which she was apparently accompanied by Secret Service protection, cost taxpayers $115,500.87. Sasha did not accompany Malia on that trip.
It's also worth noting that this trip wasn't publically announced, although apparently was a hot topic on social media. I imagine Brietbart may be getting a rather angry phone call about this one.
Fucking muck rakers. Just because they are the presidents kids does not mean they necessarily want to use the resources, but we as a sane country realize peoples families want to go on vacation, and we also realise WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR LEADERS CHILDREN KIDNAPPED!
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Fucking muck rakers. Just because they are the presidents kids does not mean they necessarily want to use the resources, but we as a sane country realize peoples families want to go on vacation, and we also realise WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR LEADERS CHILDREN KIDNAPPED!
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
Its only a waste of resources to the right wing when a Democratic president does it. They never had a problem when Dubya was off sweeping bushes at his "ranch" 9/10th of the year.
I mean, I'm a realist. I figure there was likely political calculation involved in canceling the white house tours, and in a lot of ways I applaud the administration for doing it. I wish they would have just come out and said, you wanted cuts, well you got em, but whatever.
But this ain't the way to win your cuts argument guys. Not a single (sane) person in the US is going to say the president's kids shouldn't have SS protection. It's a non-issue and no matter how much you try, it isn't going to shift the story one iota.
People on your facebook have been proven... unworthy honky.
Actually I'm pretty sure I'm only down to a select few idiots on my Facebook. I keep them to remind me that there are stupid people in the world... And they continue to breed.
They complain about Obama playing golf, when literally the last GOP president spent almost an entire term on vacation. On top of that its a dumb argument, because even when you're on vacation as president you aren't really on vacation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Frankly, I'd like the guy who has the power to singlehandedly wipe out all life on Earth to be as relaxed as possible but what do I know, I'm from Florida.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I can't recall the last time a president played golf by himself.
Yea, in the US the budget is basically each groups wish list for the appropriation bills to follow. It's not binding or anything.
There a reason why you'd do things in this manner, or is it just an unfortunate case of the word budget not meaning what it historically did?
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
Fair enough, though is there actually anything stopping you doing it backwards - especially since the Executive has control of the departments doesn't it? Do appropriations bills require a budget other than to provide guidelines as to what a sort of a budget they're working with?
Presumably it's not possible to give the departments a draft budget (what you did last time +/- X) and then deal with appropriations on a first come first serve, since this sounds to be the same as it is anyway if the budget itself isn't binding? Terrible precedent, but it seems a way to get some departments/services that everyone can agree on as being necessary funded. Change things from being 'more spending on the military!' to 'we still need Firetrucks, yes?"
Wouldnt this just result in basically only the military getting funded?
Yeah, we're trying to change things, Tastyfish.
I thought that most of Obama's policies were pretty popular (and would have thought most social services are) - if the problem with the budget is largely one side wanting to grandstand about spending cuts but not wanting to get too much into the specifics, seems like the way around that is to go through section by section so they can highlight the waste they keep talking about. Separate the out Government (which clearly needs to tighten it's belt and start spending less) from the services government provides (which are obviously vital and could probably do with some more money), rather than people forgetting that the first doesn't really exist and that the second actually does.
They'd still be a 'budget', as someone would have to let the department's know how much they've got to work with, but since that's impossible to do in congress they can focus on the actual role of these departments and decide what they want them to do. So exactly the same thing but with more visible consequences for being an idiot and playing to the crowd.
Tastyfish on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Fucking muck rakers. Just because they are the presidents kids does not mean they necessarily want to use the resources, but we as a sane country realize peoples families want to go on vacation, and we also realise WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR LEADERS CHILDREN KIDNAPPED!
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
Its only a waste of resources to the right wing when a Democratic president does it. They never had a problem when Dubya was off sweeping bushes at his "ranch" 9/10th of the year.
This.
Every "complaint" the GOP has about Democrats can be tied back to disingenuous bad faith, ill will, and an uncanny amount of cognitive dissonance. I don't even argue with them in regular terms anymore, because I know damn well they aren't concerned with being correct- they just want to "win" the argument. Hell even when they DO have a point to make (due process with drones) they find a way to cock it up and argue the right thing for the very wrongest of reasons.
Just call them on their hypocrisy and have done with it.
Fucking muck rakers. Just because they are the presidents kids does not mean they necessarily want to use the resources, but we as a sane country realize peoples families want to go on vacation, and we also realise WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR LEADERS CHILDREN KIDNAPPED!
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
Its only a waste of resources to the right wing when a Democratic president does it. They never had a problem when Dubya was off sweeping bushes at his "ranch" 9/10th of the year.
The man spent a little over 1,000 days of his 2,920 days in office on vacation.
That's almost three years on vacation. Close to one entire Presidential term
[if the problem with the budget is largely one side wanting to grandstand about spending cuts but not wanting to get too much into the specifics, seems like the way around that is to go through section by section so they can highlight the waste they keep talking about.[/b]
Many have tried. This funny thing happens when you start asking for specifics about the budget, suddenly the republicans don't want to talk about it anymore. (Beyond cuts to PP and other talk radio greatest hits.) This is the same party who's budget golden boy relies on removal of tax loopholes he can't even name.
And that's not even getting into the truth that in fact govt, along with spending, has shrunk under Obama. (though a big part of that is states going broke.) I get that the GOP needs their demon to point to, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Well...we passed ridiculous years ago, now we're at like I don't know...plaid status or something.
[if the problem with the budget is largely one side wanting to grandstand about spending cuts but not wanting to get too much into the specifics, seems like the way around that is to go through section by section so they can highlight the waste they keep talking about.[/b]
Many have tried. This funny thing happens when you start asking for specifics about the budget, suddenly the republicans don't want to talk about it anymore. (Beyond cuts to PP and other talk radio greatest hits.) This is the same party who's budget golden boy relies on removal of tax loopholes he can't even name.
And that's not even getting into the truth that in fact govt, along with spending, has shrunk under Obama. (though a big part of that is states going broke.) I get that the GOP needs their demon to point to, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Well...we passed ridiculous years ago, now we're at like I don't know...plaid status or something.
And that's not even getting into the truth that in fact govt, along with spending, has shrunk under Obama. (though a big part of that is states going broke.) I get that the GOP needs their demon to point to, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Well...we passed ridiculous years ago, now we're at like I don't know...plaid status or something.
And that's not even getting into the truth that in fact govt, along with spending, has shrunk under Obama. (though a big part of that is states going broke.) I get that the GOP needs their demon to point to, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Well...we passed ridiculous years ago, now we're at like I don't know...plaid status or something.
The 2009 budget was passed under bush. So in the deficit graph if you take the other 3 bars (2010,2011,2012) that were passed under Obama then yes those bars are smaller than the 2009 bar.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm actually surprised to see 2012 up...I wonder where that's coming from, and I wonder what it will look like now that the sequester took hold?
And yes, you can't really compare the Bush admin deficits because those cheeky fuckers had the balls (as preacher already stated) to keep 2 wars off of the books.
Fucking muck rakers. Just because they are the presidents kids does not mean they necessarily want to use the resources, but we as a sane country realize peoples families want to go on vacation, and we also realise WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE OUR LEADERS CHILDREN KIDNAPPED!
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
Its only a waste of resources to the right wing when a Democratic president does it. They never had a problem when Dubya was off sweeping bushes at his "ranch" 9/10th of the year.
The man spent a little over 1,000 days of his 2,920 days in office on vacation.
That's almost three years on vacation. Close to one entire Presidential term
That's a very working-class-like weekends + 20 days of vacation per year!
Hey guys my father is watching some bullshit "documentary" about central banks. Its claiming that because the central bank lends money to the government at interest central banks are only a scam to create debt. I'm trying to remember the refutation.
Posts
It's absolutely fair to point out the Obama administration's less than stellar record on national defense, not on the success of it so much (because much as I may bemoan the methods, they have been successful,) more so in that he's simply continued the Bush era laws and then some. Yeah the NDAA was some big omnibus bill, but you're blowing smoke up your ass if you think anything in it was something Obama didn't support. Or did we all forget when he bitched about the retro-active immunity granted to the teleco's as then Senator Obama, before realizing he had a shot at the presidency and voting for it. Or when the NDAA gave deeply troubling and vague language about material support of terrorism, and when journalists sued over it, had the administration's lawyers bizarrely refusing to clarify the language any further. This is also the administration using Bush era reasoning for why police should get to plant tracking devices on your car without a warrant-it's for terrorism, and it's secret.
So I think we can let cut liberals and other non-hawks some slack when they point out Obama's record in this area, as it's definitely becoming a pattern. I like him as a president, but I think he's letting the paranoid security types in his cabinet control him or something.
Edited cause I grabbed the wrong comment.
Meh, this year's NDAA is something that has changed literally nothing. If you want to bitch about that being somehow Obama's fault you know nothing about America.
Besides there comes a point with terrorism people we reach a magnum force argument of escalation. Sure we are getting names now, but what about two years from now and we are blowing up cow thieves or someone who might have looked at a bomb I'm totally sure. Hopefully Brennan carries through on his promise and the CIA turns Drones back over to the military where they should have always been.
pleasepaypreacher.net
1) It makes the use of force easier. If you're not risking lives, you're going to be more willing to blow some shit up. Even more than with a conventional bombing run. Or cruise missiles, as a Hellfire is a tad cheaper.
2) Psychologically, by not giving the opponent a chance to fight back, it's ... I dunno, unsporting? And that seems to piss people off. Even more than normal bombings.
But the major issue is how you feel about the general conduct of the war on terror as... a war.
Anyway, this administration's major failures are a refusal to look back, to borrow their formulation, and their quixotic quest for a Grand Bargain.
We have been doing this since at least reagan. It is just the tools we use have been changing. It went from dumb bombs to fighter dropped smart bombs to tomahawks now to drones. Pretty much since george senior and clinton started flipping cruise missiles at people we have been drone striking. We just do it in a more cost effective way but in the end is the same no americans directly endangered and a killer robot sends some more people to allah.
Personally I think the admin's biggest fault is believing the GOP was ever operating in a mutual interest in america. An easy mistake to make because it would never occur to me personally prior to the bullshit of the last 4 years, a political party in a country would work entirely against that country all the while claiming to love it. They are the abusive boyfriend of america.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Those are both pretty stupid things to take issue with. That is the natural evolution of warfare over 150,000 years of human history.
The issue with drones is that we violate airspace and don't really follow due process with them, not that they are easier to use.
Airspace, due process, and lack of oversight are all legal concerns, but ease of use is a greater philosophical/moral concern. And honestly, it's one that we need to start coming to grips with in terms of how we inflict violence upon others. The advancement of technology that makes it easier to kill people is why we're having a gun debate in America right now. It's why the Cold War put us "10 minutes" away from global annihilation. It's why the Holocaust was able to be a thing that happened.
We're not beating rival tribes to death with pointed sticks and heavy rocks anymore. We can wipe out entire cities with a single bomb, murder a group on the other side of the planet with a push of a button, mow down a crowd of people in under 60 seconds.
We all love to romanticize violence. We hold on to ideal notions of justice and honor. But it is absolutely a massive problem that this shit is getting way too fucking easy to do. Drones are a part of this problem, just like semi-automatic guns, chemical weapons, and cruise missiles. When technology outpaces our moral and critical understanding of how/when/why we use it, very bad things happen.
The fact that they are easier to use means we violate airspace and due process much more often, which is the sentiment most people are expressing with the technology concerns.
Yes technology changes. And it seems obvious that the problems people have with that are the implications of that change; no need to dismiss the sentiment as stupid just because they don't express it in your preferred way.
The average number of people killed in a drone strike is 6.6.
The number of people killed in the Iraq War: 4,486 US soldiers and almost 173,000 Iraqis* over 9 years. That's 54 people a day, on average. So GW could have pushed the drone button seven times a day for the last 5 years of his presidency, and then handed the button over to Obama so that he could push it seven times a day for his entire first term, and fewer people would have died.
So fuck "ease of use."
*(according to the Iraq Body Count Project, by way of Wiki)
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's also worth noting that this trip wasn't publically announced, although apparently was a hot topic on social media. I imagine Brietbart may be getting a rather angry phone call about this one.
Fuck this bullshit about the god damn white house tours.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its only a waste of resources to the right wing when a Democratic president does it. They never had a problem when Dubya was off sweeping bushes at his "ranch" 9/10th of the year.
But this ain't the way to win your cuts argument guys. Not a single (sane) person in the US is going to say the president's kids shouldn't have SS protection. It's a non-issue and no matter how much you try, it isn't going to shift the story one iota.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Forget the fact that he's from there.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Actually I'm pretty sure I'm only down to a select few idiots on my Facebook. I keep them to remind me that there are stupid people in the world... And they continue to breed.
He could vacation in North Dakota and they would bitch.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought that most of Obama's policies were pretty popular (and would have thought most social services are) - if the problem with the budget is largely one side wanting to grandstand about spending cuts but not wanting to get too much into the specifics, seems like the way around that is to go through section by section so they can highlight the waste they keep talking about. Separate the out Government (which clearly needs to tighten it's belt and start spending less) from the services government provides (which are obviously vital and could probably do with some more money), rather than people forgetting that the first doesn't really exist and that the second actually does.
They'd still be a 'budget', as someone would have to let the department's know how much they've got to work with, but since that's impossible to do in congress they can focus on the actual role of these departments and decide what they want them to do. So exactly the same thing but with more visible consequences for being an idiot and playing to the crowd.
This.
Every "complaint" the GOP has about Democrats can be tied back to disingenuous bad faith, ill will, and an uncanny amount of cognitive dissonance. I don't even argue with them in regular terms anymore, because I know damn well they aren't concerned with being correct- they just want to "win" the argument. Hell even when they DO have a point to make (due process with drones) they find a way to cock it up and argue the right thing for the very wrongest of reasons.
Just call them on their hypocrisy and have done with it.
The man spent a little over 1,000 days of his 2,920 days in office on vacation.
That's almost three years on vacation. Close to one entire Presidential term
Many have tried. This funny thing happens when you start asking for specifics about the budget, suddenly the republicans don't want to talk about it anymore. (Beyond cuts to PP and other talk radio greatest hits.) This is the same party who's budget golden boy relies on removal of tax loopholes he can't even name.
And that's not even getting into the truth that in fact govt, along with spending, has shrunk under Obama. (though a big part of that is states going broke.) I get that the GOP needs their demon to point to, but it's getting pretty ridiculous. Well...we passed ridiculous years ago, now we're at like I don't know...plaid status or something.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The GOP went past ridiculous years ago.
And here's the spending chart from 2001-2012.
And here are the employment numbers.
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
I don't see any of this shrinkage you are talking about, not the deficit, spending, or federal employment.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The 2009 budget was passed under bush. So in the deficit graph if you take the other 3 bars (2010,2011,2012) that were passed under Obama then yes those bars are smaller than the 2009 bar.
And yes, you can't really compare the Bush admin deficits because those cheeky fuckers had the balls (as preacher already stated) to keep 2 wars off of the books.
forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Edit: Also Hsu, the employent numbers you cite show decline in federal employees from 2009 on. Granted they are small declines, but nevertheless....
That's a very working-class-like weekends + 20 days of vacation per year!
pleasepaypreacher.net