The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

I tend to agree a lot with Daniel Larison, this included.

The truth is that ISIS and its affiliates don’t pose an “existential threat” to Western societies, and it is laughable to think that they ever could. They arguably don’t pose an “existential threat” to anyone except the people that have unfortunately fallen under their control and possibly their immediate neighbors. At the very least, the threat they pose to us and to other Western nations remains a relatively small and manageable one. The only real “existential threat” that Western nations have faced since WWII was the Soviet Union and their satellites, and in the end the threat from them proved to be a manageable one that the U.S. and its allies successfully faced down and outlasted. ISIS poses a much smaller threat to the U.S. and its allies than the Soviets ever did, and we should not inflate that threat into something that it clearly isn’t. The problem isn’t just that threat inflation is bad analysis (though it is), but that it often leads to reckless and irresponsible policies that aren’t even required to address the danger. Threat inflation prompts us to favor unnecessary and excessive measures here and overseas, and it causes us to obsess over combating certain adversaries to the detriment of other more important interests. Describing something as an “existential threat” is the worst and most irresponsible kind of threat inflation. It is a phrase that ought to be reserved to describe only the most dire threats to our very survival. That doesn’t apply to ISIS or indeed to any terrorist group.

[Dutch]

We know.

[ISiddiqui]

Know... that JPhillips agrees with a conservative blogger? Yes, Larison is a conservative, just the older more isolationist sort.

[JPhillips]

Well, you know how radical left the American Conservative can be!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well, you know how radical left the American Conservative can be!

Actually, I know a bunch of GOP folks who like to call them RINOs, even though they represent an older conservative though (Paleoconservativism). They don't even know their ideological history!

[Warhammer]

It's funny that in order to finally end the Soviet threat, we had to rattle our saber quite a bit and not go the route of detente.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Know... that JPhillips agrees with a conservative blogger? Yes, Larison is a conservative, just the older more isolationist sort.

So is this interesting because Larison agrees with JPhillips or because JPhillips agrees with himself (hence, the "We know" comment)?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's funny that in order to finally end the Soviet threat, we had to rattle our saber quite a bit and not go the route of detente.

We outlasted the Soviet system more than anything, and when the opportunity to negotiate a real change presented itself Reagan took it even though the far-right objected.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually, I know a bunch of GOP folks who like to call them RINOs, even though they represent an older conservative though (Paleoconservativism). They don't even know their ideological history!

This is what's frustrating about the linear left-right viewpoint. My foreign policy views are generally closest to traditional conservatives, but somehow that's now far left.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We outlasted the Soviet system more than anything, and when the opportunity to negotiate a real change presented itself Reagan took it even though the far-right objected.

Indeed. Quite a bit of right-wing conservatives started calling Reagan a Neville Chamberlain for negotiating with the enemy (Gorbachev) in the mid 80s.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is what's frustrating about the linear left-right viewpoint. My foreign policy views are generally closest to traditional conservatives, but somehow that's now far left.

You think you are frustrated? Think about how Pat Buchanan feels

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is what's frustrating about the linear left-right viewpoint. My foreign policy views are generally closest to traditional conservatives, but somehow that's now far left.

Post some of your views that are traditional conservative foreign policy and I'll probably agree. Post far left opinions like above, and I won't. This isn't that hard, JPhillips.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Post some of your views that are traditional conservative foreign policy and I'll probably agree. Post far left opinions like above, and I won't. This isn't that hard, JPhillips.

You mean like... a more isolationist foreign policy? This is the bedrock of conservatives in the early part of the 20th Century. Heck, Eisenhower campaigned (in his re-election bid) on "He Got Us Out of Korea".

[Dutch]

You mean, President/General Eisenhower of WWII fame? Good thing he didn't have that stance 10 years prior or we'd all be starring in this show on Amazon Prime...the reality TV version of it...

There's a time and a place....this isn't one of those times to sit back and let it come to us.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes that Eisenhower, who could adequately assess a threat and realized that war was the last option. Someone who would look at people who compared ISIS's threat to the Nazis and scoffed at them for their complete lack of perspective.

[Dutch]

With all the Trump coverage, I guessed Ive missed the Eisenhower sound bites where he agrees we should back-pedal from ISIS. What did Lincoln say?

[cartman]

He said he was looking forward to the play. JFC

[Dutch]

I learned about Anachronisms playing MP FOF....guess not everybody does...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

With all the Trump coverage, I guessed Ive missed the Eisenhower sound bites where he agrees we should back-pedal from ISIS. What did Lincoln say?

Your backpedels are adorable. You were the one who seemingly indicated that a more isolationist philosophy was not traditional conservative foreign policy. If you can't handle that, then maybe you shouldn't make such insinuations in the future?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's funny that in order to finally end the Soviet threat, we had to rattle our saber quite a bit and not go the route of detente.

Did we have to? It's not like the Soviets were more powerful and we bluffed them into giving in. I'd compare it to dropping the atomic bombs in WWII - clearly the right play and something that saved lives and money long-term because it sped up the conclusion, but both were already foregone conclusions and a matter of when, not if.

Originally Posted by Dutch

There's a time and a place....this isn't one of those times to sit back and let it come to us.

I don't think ISIL/Daesh is much more of a threat than the borderline terrorists who control Somaliland or parts of Mali, or even the tribal regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan. They're annoying for sure, but they're not a real threat to us. Even if they ever do launch a chemical/biological/nuclear attack it'll be because they acquired the materials from a corrupt or failing state elsewhere (or knew where Saddam hid some), not because they're actually producing or researching anything there.

If you're just talking about Islamic Radicalism in general, that's not something that can be solved by our military, and using them super-aggressively (or pushing an insane anti-Muslim stance) will just as likely create more terrorists here in the US than would ever be able to sneak into our country from over there.

[Edward64]

Didn't even realize the deadline was here. Com'on Ryan, I'm rooting for you and your leadership.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politi...use/index.html

On the day the federal government is due to run out of money, Congress did what it does best -- punted the deadline for a few more days to avoid a shutdown.

Negotiators crafting a massive spending bill are still debating the final contours of a deal, so the House on Friday sent a bill to President Barack Obama giving congressional leaders until Wednesday night.

The President signed the bill into law late Friday afternoon.

[RainMaker]

I don't know if looking back for ideology means anything these days. Seems the sides just care about opposing what the other one does. If Obama was for ground troops and a massive war to wipe out ISIS, the right would be against it and vice versa.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Your backpedels are adorable. You were the one who seemingly indicated that a more isolationist philosophy was not traditional conservative foreign policy. If you can't handle that, then maybe you shouldn't make such insinuations in the future?

From my understanding, times change, and was clowin' you for bring up 1949 or whatever. But in any event, I was just having fun with ya for your standard over-reaction. Relax.

[PilotMan]

If the Obama administration can't put an end to this my career is going down the drain. Nothing like the government awarding government flying to a middle eastern carrier.

United cites Gulf rivals in axing Dubai flights

As for United, it also pointed to a decision by the federal government to award the U.S. government contract for flights on the Dubai-Washington route to JetBlue. JetBlue does not fly the route, but its codeshare partner Emirates does. JetBlue is able to sell tickets on Emirates’ flights thanks to a codeshare partnership between the carriers.
In its statement, United estimated that Emirates “will be carrying an estimated 15,000 U.S. government employees, including active duty military personnel, whose official travel is funded by U.S. taxpayers."
“It is unfortunate that the GSA (General Services Administration) awarded this route to an airline that has no service to the Middle East and will rely entirely on a subsidized foreign carrier to transport U.S. government employees, military personnel and contractors,” Steve Morrissey, United’s Regulatory and Policy Vice President, says in United’s statement.
“We believe this decision violates the intent of the Fly America Act, which expressly limits the U.S. government from procuring commercial airline services directly from a non-U.S. carrier. For the Washington to Dubai route, JetBlue merely serves as a booking agent for Emirates,” Morrissey adds.
JetBlue spokesman Doug McGraw confirmed to Today in the Sky that the airline had been chosen as the government’s contract carrier for the route, adding: "The GSA awards contracts that deliver the best value to the U.S. taxpayer and JetBlue is honored to have this traffic with Emirates, our codeshare partner."

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If the Obama administration can't put an end to this my career is going down the drain. Nothing like the government awarding government flying to a middle eastern carrier.

United cites Gulf rivals in axing Dubai flights

I'd rather it be an American carrier doing it. But the administration would just get busted in the chops if they didn't go with whomever was offering the best deal.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[miked]

I don't know why they are losing money, the ATL-DUB flights are always full. The airlines are also making lots of money now that oil/gas prices are down, hard to feel too badly about this and maybe they should have partnered with some of these airlines before JetBlue.

Also, it's one route and I'm not sure what that does to the bottom line.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'd rather it be an American carrier doing it. But the administration would just get busted in the chops if they didn't go with whomever was offering the best deal.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Except that's not true at all. You're making the assumption that all things are equal, when the government of the UAE has been subsidizing Emirates to allow them to operate at the revenue rate they operate at. It's not a matter of them providing a superior product at a lower price. If I've got the treasury behind my P&L I've got no fear of failure.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't know why they are losing money, the ATL-DUB flights are always full. The airlines are also making lots of money now that oil/gas prices are down, hard to feel too badly about this and maybe they should have partnered with some of these airlines before JetBlue.

Also, it's one route and I'm not sure what that does to the bottom line.

So it's one route. Emirates is one of the big 3 middle east carriers that are owned by the government of that country. US airlines are the most regulated, deregulated, industry in the US. The full intention of the foreign carriers is to water the market down with so many seats in the international market that no other carrier can keep up. Flight being full makes no difference when your losing money on the route. International routes are very valuable. I don't know the numbers exactly but the bread and butter of major airlines is in the international market.

The government run airlines are allowed to operate at a loss to grab market share, which is a violation of the current Open Skies agreement that states that they aren't allowed to do that.

The consequences to the U.S. airline industry and its employees of these subsidies are severe. Every widebody frequency served by U.S. carriers supports 982 jobs. In contrast, frequencies served by the subsidized foreign carriers of the Persian Gulf only support 161 jobs, a negative impact of over 800 jobs lost or forgone per frequency.

[Edward64]

I'm actually okay with more competition from foreign carriers in domestic travel.

I sometimes get upgraded but I generally travel economy, even internationally. I see a world of difference in service, attitude etc. between domestic and foreign air travel.

I know there are a lot of reasons for this (some valid, some not, some airlines are better than others etc.) and don't know if Emirates can continue their level of service in the US but let's see what happens.

I'm tired of being treated like cattle.

[Edward64]

TBH, I guess this is a big deal and a win for Obama if it passes but I don't really understand what this means for us ... how/what needs to happen to operationalize this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/...ote/index.html

Paris (CNN)President Barack Obama praised a landmark climate change agreement approved Saturday in Paris, saying it could be "a turning point for the world."

"The Paris agreement establishes the enduring framework the world needs to solve the climate crisis," the President said, speaking from the White House. "It creates the mechanism, the architecture, for us to continually tackle this problem in an effective way."

He praised American leadership but noted that all participating nations will have to cooperate.

"I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world," Obama said, calling the agreement "the best chance we have to save the one planet that we've got."

Though the plan was hailed as a milestone in the battle to keep Earth hospitable to human life, critics say it is short on specifics, such as how the plan will be enforced or how improvements will be measured.

The accord achieved one major goal. It limits average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures and strives for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) if possible.

[JPhillips]

If the NYPD story is correct, it really sounds like the LA school closure was a substantial overreaction.

[Edward64]

I'm willing to give LA a bye. They were unprepared on how to "qualify" how real this was. I'm sure they'll do better next time.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the NYPD story is correct, it really sounds like the LA school closure was a substantial overreaction.

Given what just happened in California, I'd rather they overreact than not take it seriously enough.

[JPhillips]

But we can't close down things for every threat. Overreaction gives all the power to those who want to disrupt things.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But we can't close down things for every threat. Overreaction gives all the power to those who want to disrupt things.

And I would agree with you normally. Maybe I don't feel like it was as much on an overreaction given what just happened in San Bernadino. They didn't want to have to say again they missed something, or we didn't react when we should have. NYC didn't just have a terrorist attack take place or they might have reacted the same way LA did.

[Edward64]

Reducing our oil dependence on the ME and helping our domestic shale industry for now is pretty important to me. Assume Obama resisted removing the oil export ban because of environmental reasons.

Telsa and Solar City popped today because of the renewal of tax breaks. Good to see a good old compromise.

White House Announces Support for Plan Allowing Oil Exports - Bloomberg Politics

The White House announced its support for a deal reached by congressional leaders on a package of spending and tax legislation that would avert a U.S. government shutdown and lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports.

The deal would pair a $1.1 trillion spending bill for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 with a separate $622 billion measure to revive a series of expired tax breaks. The spending plan would fund the government through September 2016.

President Barack Obama and many congressional Democrats oppose lifting the ban on oil exports, but White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the fiscal package, H.R. 2029, was a success for the administration.

“We feel good about the outcome,” Earnest said. Democrats deflected a number of Republican proposals, he said, including prohibiting federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the women’s health provider, curbing the Dodd-Frank financial law and blocking Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

[Edward64]

A little fallout for Ryan "the Muslim" on the bill.

Fury of the right falls on Ryan | TheHill

Outside the Beltway, the right is livid with new Speaker Paul Ryan’s trillion-dollar spending deal with Democrats.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter says Ryan, just seven weeks on the job, is ripe for a primary challenge. “Paul Ryan Betrays America,” blared a headline on the conservative site Breibart.com. And Twitter is littered with references to the Wisconsin Republican’s new “Muslim beard.”

Ryan is refusing to let the attacks go unanswered and is using his megaphone as the nation’s top elected Republican to try to drown out the chorus of conservative critics.
After Congress passed the nearly $2 trillion government funding and tax-cuts package last week, Ryan touted conservative victories in a roundtable with Capitol Hill reporters, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, and again during a trio of interviews with friendly conservative talk radio hosts Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and his old political mentor, Bill Bennett.

“He will continue to talk directly to conservatives throughout the country as he has always done,” a Ryan aide said.

Ryan has repeatedly stressed that the bipartisan funding agreement lifted the 40-year federal ban on crude oil exports and renewed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for U.S. businesses and families.

But in a nod to the critics, Ryan has also emphasized that he “inherited” the flawed omnibus from his predecessor, ousted Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and that the cake was “already baked” by the time he was handed the reins in late October.
:
But that anger has become especially vitriolic and personal recently.

As Ryan and Obama were putting the final touches on the spending deal, the now-bearded Speaker told the president that some on the right have accused him of being a Muslim, Al Hunt recounted in a Bloomberg View column.

“The president, who has long faced the same absurd allegation, chuckled,” Hunt wrote.
:
Conservative hard-liners in Congress were disgusted with the $1.1 trillion spending deal, which boosted funding for most federal agencies. Almost all Freedom Caucus members voted against it.

But those same conservatives were aware the top-line funding levels had been set by the budget deal Obama negotiated with Boehner before Ryan came on board. And most held their fire as Ryan pushed the spending and tax-cuts package past the finish line.

“I think most Freedom Caucus members hated the omnibus product but acknowledge that Speaker Ryan could only do so much within the parameters that he had to work with,” one Freedom Caucus leader told The Hill.

[NobodyHere]

A lot to be pissed off about really. How can you call yourself fiscally conservative if you raise government spending and raise the deficit.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, President Reagan raised government spending and raised the deficit. Was he not fiscally conservative enough for you?

[NobodyHere]

Not in the slightest

[JPhillips]

So we should have a budget at the same level as 1980? 1950? 1900?

[NobodyHere]

We should have a budget that we actually can pay for in full.

[PilotMan]

Like all good corporations everywhere?

[molson]

So conservatives say spending is bad and dangerous, except if its the military, and the liberals say spending is good and helps the the economy, except if it's the military. It's interesting to me the military is so polarizing in that way. So when I see something like that, I have to think the truth is in the middle. Military spending does stimulate and support the economy, but there's also definitely a ton of waste

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So conservatives say spending is bad and dangerous, except if its the military, and the liberals say spending is good and helps the the economy, except if it's the military. It's interesting to me the military is so polarizing in that way. So when I see something like that, I have to think the truth is in the middle. Military spending does stimulate and support the economy, but there's also definitely a ton of waste

But non-military spending doesn't stimulate and support the economy, is that what you are inferring?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But non-military spending doesn't stimulate and support the economy, is that what you are inferring?

Nah, it certainly does, it's just interesting to me how military spending doesn't follow the same "rules" as other kinds of spending, for either side.

Edit: I think a big strong military is essential for the U.S., and it also happens to provide great economic stimulus and life opportunities/employment for so many young people. So I'm not a fan of the general vilification of defense spending you see sometimes from the far-left. But like anything else in government, there's also plenty of waste and plenty of backroom dirty politics that benefits the defense contractors (who surely do not pay enough taxes). So I'm all for a moderate, middle-ground approach to improve things.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We should have a budget that we actually can pay for in full.

In a general sense I agree. There are, though, other ways to balance the budget than cutting spending.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In a general sense I agree. There are, though, other ways to balance the budget than cutting spending.

Agreed, but raising spending w/o raising revenue isn't one of them.

[JPhillips]

In this budget I think the much bigger problem is the 650 billion in new tax cuts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We should have a budget that we actually can pay for in full.

We can, through a combination of revenue and financing.