A controversial choice

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 10, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    "By nominating Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to start his second term with an ideological fight."

    Deseret News, if Obama finds himself in an ideological fight over this nomination, it will be because the GOP opposition makes that choice.

    The President has already been spared one fight by his apparent nominee for Secretary of State who withdrew her name from consideration. Rumor has it that the President's judgmental ability in picking someone for high office is being being questioned by a GOP Senator from Arizona, some guy who four years ago thought Sarah Palin should be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

    was readwhen backed off from one

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 10, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    @mountianman.... "Its hard to imagine that in the US last year we spent over $1.6 trillion on welfare, It just too much!"

    Yes it is.... because it isn't even close to that number. The US spent $451 billion usd total on welfare programs which includes everything from Family and Children through to workers comp and unemployment. I have no idea where you come up with such wildly wrong numbers.... but it explains a lot about your comments. BTW - defense 902 billion - about 1/3 the total budget - social services like welfare programs comes in under 1/6th of the budget.

    But in the end, I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with Hagel. We have had a failed foreign policy on several levels for decades now. We have been unilaterally sanctioning Cuba now for 50 years, and it hasn't worked one bit. We have had this Neocon attitude that we don't talk to our enemies.... and yet where we have held true to this, all we have is failure. On the other hand, where we had courage to talk with our enemies.... Nixon is a great example with China, we see progress.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    Why shouldn't 'neoconservative policy on foreign policy and defense' be attacked? It is a resoundingly foolish, stupid philosophy that should be on history's trash heap, along with the idiotic war it brought us. The president isn't giving us an ideological fight. Just a bit of sanity.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    @Mountanman -- Yes, but your envy is becoming tiresome.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 9, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    @ Wonder. Because I am not lazy nor do I think the world owes me a living. Apparently I am becoming a minority in America.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    right because that 8% that rely on it as their sole only source of income or as partial assistance are such a large voting block.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    @Mountanman -- Again, if it is so cushy to be on welfare, why don't you try it? I think you'd be disabused of your jealousy of the poor.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    "how many jobs do welfare payments create?"

    Obviously Obama does not care about jobs - his primary concern is creating dependents

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 9, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    California alone spent $42.1 billion last year on welfare. The difference between our numbers is that not everything is called "welfare" by the government reports. Medicaid, school lunch programs, housing subsides, unemployment benefits and other "aid to the poor" programs such as planned parenthood are usually not included in most welfare reports. In Pennsylvania it was recently reported that a person on welfare is better off financially than a person working for an annual salary of $50,000. We really do have a welfare state.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    you mean the twice elected president? the guy thats doing the job the majority of Americans twice hired him to do?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    "an attack on the neoconservative philosophy on foreign policy and defense"

    That's kinda exactly what I want from a Defense Secretary pick, to reject the failures from the previous administration and not think we need a defense budget larger than the 2nd-14th largest defense budgets in the world combined (most of whom are our allies anyway).

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    @Mountanman: Add up all federal spending that is devoted to the poor and it comes up to about 5-6% of the budget, or around 160 billion. And no, I'm not discussing state spending because the article is about the federal budget. But for your figure to be correct, states would have to spend ten times more on the poor than the federal government does. They don't.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 9, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Roland, Your forgot to add in the money each state spends. Google it!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    To Mountanman:"Its hard to imagine that in the US last year we spent over $1.6 trillion on welfare" Your figures are off by many orders of magnitude. TANF spending last year (the official name for welfare) was 16.5 billion, that's one hundred times lower than your figure. Unless you count social security and medicare as welfare you are way, way off.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 9, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    " But while such an approach can be refreshing, and even commendable, his nomination almost can't help but be seen as political." Really? I beg to differ. Chuck Hagel represents the thinking of the President. He looks at the world, and our place in the world, basically like the President does..so why is that policital..because it doesn't match your way of thinking?

    "Wait... King Hussein Obama is, once again, pushing his agenda on the United States?" Ahh, yes he's the President, and oh by the way I thought he was suppose to lead.

    "how many jobs do welfare payments create?" Actually quite a few. That money is spent in the economy. And if one of the purposes of defense spending was the creation of jobs, wouldn't that money be better spent on national infrastructure, rather than more bombs, and airplanes that are clearly overkill?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 9, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Its hard to imagine that in the US last year we spent over $1.6 trillion on welfare, It just too much! The money we spend on the military creates thousands of jobs, how many jobs do welfare payments create?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 9, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    Controversial because why?

    Is it because Hagel realized what a mistake Iraq was and spoke out against it?
    No sane person today can, in hindsight, think that Iraq was a good decision.

    No sane person can reasonably say, "knowing what I know today, I still would have invaded Iraq"

    Emphasis on sane.

    Hagel is controversial because he spoke the truth when it was not popular with Republicans.
    (kind of like Chris Cristie's problem today with the GOP)

    Hagel spoke out against a war that was clearly not in Americas best interest.

    I guess some think that nominating a Republican isn't enough. Did you really expect him to nominate a neocon?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 9, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    It's hard to imagine that we need to continue spending on the military than the rest of the world. We spend 700 billion at the DOD and another 200-300 among the other intelligence and security agencies. It's just too much.

  • md Cache, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    Wait... King Hussein Obama is, once again, pushing his agenda on the United States? I am stunned.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    A cross-party nominee who believes in multilateral negotiations, heavily criticized the botched management of the Iraq War, has ground experience in a war & is therefore less inclined to start another, and isn't beholden to the unduly influential Israeli lobby that has most of Washington wrapped around its little finger? Bunch of pluses there.

    And his nomination could be considered "an attack on the neoconservative philosophy on foreign policy and defense"? Since 2003, we've seen the damage that neocons like Donald Rumsfeld can accomplish, so this sounds great to me.

  • Why would I? Farmington, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 3:50 a.m.

    In this age of gridlock the only person not likely to receive opposition from both parties would be Obama himself. And he certainly would receive it from one party!