General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is the Obama administration considering another war?
but not a jobs program? Yes we know that the Republicans have been obstructing but the other side of that equation is that the Obama administration already had a military adventure with Libya that cost precious U.S. dollars. So, now even more money will be used for this other war...imagine such money and resources if it was thrown towards a jobs program? By circumventing apparent Republican obstructionism and showing you can still accomplish the formation of a jobs program it would win huge votes of confidence with the American public regardless of political affiliation. It would also undercut the strategy of the Republican party acting like an opposition party as they would be forced to make a choice. Either come up with an alternative jobs program, or oppose a very popular measure, and it would really sink the party before the mid term elections.
However, in the Obama administration's zeal to prove that they are just as tough on security and global defense as Republican predecessors, they are sacrificing what the Democratic party was known for in the past. Social programs have defined the party and what has led to great economic booms under Democratic presidencies. What confounds me is that the Obama administration has nothing left to prove when it comes to the war on terror as they have been ultra aggressive compared to the previous administration with their drone program. Is it because of the red line comment? Probably, and it was a mistake to let it reach that point because diplomacy and diplomatic channels go up in smoke once such ultimatums are made.
What even further perplexes me is the crown jewel of the administration, ACA, will become an afterthought if this war rages on. What needs to be happen is the Obama administration to change the messaging about the ACA and educate the public the next four months or so. If it comes down to the news channels covering a U.S. intervention in Syria and Summers as the new Federal Reserve Chairman this doesn't bode well for the administration.
Let me point out that this isn't about purity, or idealism as it is the hard cold, pragmatic truth. That is, there isn't much of a logical reason for something like this to be even entertained. The general public is pretty much against any intervention with Syria and even the most pragmatic of Democratic voters are bewildered with what is about to happen next.
Why?
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)People would be "firing up" Draft Cards right and left !!
And what about making women eligible for the draft (For those "non combat jobs" ?
spanone
(135,636 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)How are you going to stoke the flames of rabid indignation with an attitude like that?
spanone
(135,636 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)If you can so loosely define war as to exclude the military actions being contemplated, how do you define "peace"?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and points to the reality that they are moving towards that direction.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)It is the only thing that is well funded and fully functional. Apparently it is time to take it out again and show it off.
Why can't we just have a parade like they do in China, N. Korea and Russia?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... gives a shit about us little people.
Hello.
He doesn't.
At all.
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)We get ACA-crumbs
Banks/Wall St. get trillions and no jail time.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)they will gut the GI bill, too.
razorman
(1,644 posts)been stung by accusations that he is weak. He may be goaded into attacking Syria in an effort to prove something. For crying out loud, they are even using 'WMDs' as an excuse, without actually using the term. Iraq redux.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)LukeFL
(594 posts)It's just stupid for the op to even bring up the job bill and blame Obama for not "doing anything"
Really....
LukeFL
(594 posts)( we are in a democratic site) who needs the repubs?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)If he can't DO anything because the big bad GOP won't let him, why didn't he resign and give someone else an opportunity?
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)LukeFL
(594 posts)People would go and vote for the right congress. You know there were other elections in 2012, not just the presidential one--Looks like you are one of those he was counting for
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)when we thought slaughtering thousands of civilians via chemical weapons was a bad thing. After all, there was a post just yesterday talking about how terrible it was for Reagan to support Saddam's gassing of Iran.
But apparently Syrians fall into the groups of people we do not give a damn about. They can take take a seat next to the Rwandans.
What should we do? Hell if I know. None of the rebel groups should take power, so we can't intervene to such an extent that one of them "wins". But that doesn't mean Assad should gas his people and only receive a sternly-worded letter.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just flip the TV back to the Miley Cyrus controversy so we don't have those icky pictures of piles of dead babies.
Should we invade? Hell no. There is no rebel group that should "win". All of them are awful in their own way. But chemical weapons should not be used with impunity.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Yes, many civilians will die, including children, but Obama drew a red line in the sand....MIC profits cannot be allowed to fall into the red. So what if Assad falls and AQ groups then gain control of chemical weapons stockpiles? That is just another golden opportunity for Obama to show he won't back down on war. And it pushes NSA spying off the front page...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)targeted for invasion?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)here are the first few words in the first paragraph
a continuation of the thread title-
"but not a jobs program?"
Saying Obama does not have a job program is factually inaccurate. Heck, it's a flat out lie.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . Cf. Clinton, William Jefferson; NAFTA; Graham-Leach-Bliley
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)In the first sentence of my first paragraph. That is not a 100% excuse for why the Obama administration can not find a way to create a jobs program. That is the pragmatic truth that many refuse to embrace.