Obama to GOP Congress: Don’t Jeopardize Our National Security

Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years ago to Politics
132 comments | Share | Flag

Obama made a budgetary threat regarding DHS. If the Congress doesn't fund this, then DHS will continue working at their jobs without pay.

Wait a second - isn't that slavery?
I guess BHO is not down for the struggle.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by jimslag 11 years ago
    Doesn't O know that slavery was done away with in the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution? Oh wait, isn't he a Constitutional scholar? My bag. Maybe he can work his budget and do away with something that we really don't need, like his next vacation or golf outing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, the Baby Boomer generation is generally accepted to be those born from 1946 to 1963. Robbie, you and I (born 1961 here) are in the last cohort of the Boomers.

    And much good it has done us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 11 years ago
    A fine thing for him to say. He has our national security in jeopardy, through weakening the military and his disastrous foreign policy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    New Zealand had this problem in the early 80's and they got the job done. Although they have since taken steps back, they did right the ship, and repair the hull. Getting the rats off the ship is even harder. Perhaps someone should study that history.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago in reply to this comment.

    Many, for sure, will. Not all will have that option, or will get discouraged dealing with the angst. People that age have a lower threshold for mental anguish...I am testimonial to that!

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago in reply to this comment.

    Unless I am mistaken, the 'cuts' are actually reductions in the scheduled increases. There is still government growth...just not as much.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with your argument, but I think people will mostly rise to the occasion and scrape together their own monies if needed to save their lives.

    This argument, BTW, was one made Democrats critical of Republican plans to cut Medicare. Republicans made the exact same argument a few years ago. This is when I realized the whole D/R ideological divide is mostly a sham.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Margaret Thatcher said"
    I know I and critics of socialism say that. It's weird to hear someone defending a program by saying the system only works with a new supply of people putting money in. They're accidentally defining a Ponzi scheme.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure that you are a Baby Boomer, at all!

    I have always heard that the boom in babies came right after WWII...when the returning soldiers had a lot of 'catching up' to do. The math gives you around 69, or so.

    You must be one of those Flower Childs! ;-)

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
    "Obama also insisted that the budget sequester must go, calling it “mindless across-the-board cuts.”

    “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration,” he said."

    I really disagree with this. Mindless across-the-board cuts are a good thing. Everyone says we need to cut but not the really important programs. Everyone thinks different things are important, so nothing happens. In a country where people agree we need to cut gov't spending but can't agree what to cut, we need *mindless across-the-board cuts*.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You're saying there will be a sudden spike in the death rate because people can't afford medicine. I don't see that happening at all. There are always people who can't afford things. There's no spike in the death rate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago in reply to this comment.

    The Baby Boomers are pushing 70 years old, and with the health care field quickly becoming Federal workers per se, the strain on SS could be easing up sooner rather than later. Death panels will play their part by denying procedures...all under the umbrella of necessary cost cutting.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Via comprehensive immigration reform, the looters plan on comprehensively ensuring that they never run out of other people (to drain their money like the financial vampires that they are).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
    This sounds like desperation thinking: "On the Social Security trust fund, one of the fundamental problems we are facing is the number of workers that we have relative to the number of retirees we have has been shrinking,” said Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. “So comprehensive immigration reform is actually one of the most critical things we can do to shore up the longterm solvency of Social Security and as a result to improve our deficit challenges in the long term.”

    The pyramid will only work as long as there are new people buying into it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought that was a rounding error. Who was it that said "A billion here. A billion there. Pretty soon you start talking about real money?" I think it was Lloyd Bentsen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
    How cute that the budget is $3.999Trillion so that they can say it's not a $4Trillion dollar budget.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo