"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
@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.
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
@Mountanman -- Yes, but your envy is becoming tiresome.
@ Wonder. Because I am not lazy nor do I think the world owes me a living.
Apparently I am becoming a minority in America.
@CIright because that 8% that rely on it as their sole only source of
income or as partial assistance are such a large voting block.
@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.
"how many jobs do welfare payments create?"Obviously Obama
does not care about jobs - his primary concern is creating dependents
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.
@mdyou mean the twice elected president? the guy thats doing the job the
majority of Americans twice hired him to do?
"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).
@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.
Roland, Your forgot to add in the money each state spends. Google it!
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.
" 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?
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?
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?
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.
Wait... King Hussein Obama is, once again, pushing his agenda on the United
States? I am stunned.
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.
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