How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Obama True to Form   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama True to Form

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 05-08-2009 10:06 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Obama to Cut Slain Officer's Benefits in Half -- Where's Media Outrage?
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
May 8, 2009 - 02:48 ET

   In a hypocrisy sure to outrage, just as Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to attend a ceremony to honor fallen police officers, the Obama administration is proposing to cut almost in half a program that provides benefits to the families left behind.

Of the very few reporting on this, the Associated Press reported on May 7 that the president's proposed budget calls for cuts in the Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program. Obama wants to cut $50 million from the program, the budget to fall from $110 million to $60 million.

Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop.

    Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.

The director of a police survivors group begs to differ, however. They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year's numbers already.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/05/08/obama-cut-slain-officers-benefits-half-wheres-media-outrage

Ok, it's official. Obama, and the media that protects him, have just moved from distasteful to despicable.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 05-08-2009 10:22 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Less police officers dying is despicable, Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 05-08-2009 10:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's beneath you, Ron. I am really disappointed you would say that.

Obama is trying to use that as an excuse when records show that deaths are already up - or did you miss that in the article?
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


3 posted 05-08-2009 10:41 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

The worst part about it, Mike, is that the Republicans are going to approve the thing anyhow, and aren't going to say word one about this.

Politics has gone back to a "no partry" system. The differences between the two parties any more is so razor thin... well, in theory it isn't; however, in practice, the Democrats are in power and allowing Nancy Pelosi to set their agenda without saying anything against it.. and the Republicans are to scared to speak up. They have curled up into a ball in the corner and are begging, "please don't hurt us".

But this one goes to eleven...
http://www.hubpages.com/profile/RingoShort

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 05-08-2009 10:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Wish I could disagree, Ringo, but I can't. Faced with a liberal WHite House, a liberal congress and a liberal media, they have given up whatever testicular fortitude they may have had.

It's sad that even decent, ordinary citizens would not scream  bloody murder about this, regardless of their party affiliation. They scream loudly enough when they need those police officers to risk their lives for them.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


5 posted 05-08-2009 12:27 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Obama is trying to use that as an excuse when records show that deaths are already up - or did you miss that in the article?

What I see, Mike, is a disagreement about what is going to happen in the future. Do you really think the Federal government should budget our money based on a fringe group's numbers? Yea, like statistics never lie?

What I find despicable, Mike, is the intentionally misleading slant on this story. They are twisting the truth to suit their agenda, and not even twisting it very well. It would be almost laughable if the hate and divisiveness weren't so in danger of ruining this country.

A budget, whether set high or set low, doesn't "cut slain officer's benefits in half." Not unless you really think those benefits are set as a percentage of the budget? Does a police widow get one percent of the available money? Or does she get an amount determined by service and family size? I don't know the answer, but I seriously doubt survivor benefits are treated like a sales commission. It's not a lottery, to be evenly distributed among those left standing.

The budget doesn't determine the allocation. If the Administration's predictions are right, the budget will be sufficient to pay survivor's benefits just as they've been paid in the past. If the Administration is wrong, more money will have to be allocated from somewhere else. In neither case is there any indication the benefits will be reduced.

Personally, I hope the Administration is right.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 05-08-2009 12:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What I see, Mike, is a disagreement about what is going to happen in the future.

Allow me to repeat "Did you miss that in the article?"  They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year's numbers already.  That's not referring to the future. That's right now. Obama can look at the facts that deaths have already gone up  21% and determine that they will go down next year? That sounds reasonable to you?

A budget, whether set high or set low, doesn't "cut slain officer's benefits in half." Really? Then taking the budget from 110 to 60 is not really a cut? Well, it is slightly less than 50%, I'll grant you that.

The budget doesn't determine the allocation.  If the Administration is wrong, more money will have to be allocated from somewhere else.

Yes, and the Easter bunny lays brightly colored eggs and Santa comes down the chimney every December. Where have you read that the administration will allocate any shortages from anywhere else?

if the hate and divisiveness weren't so in danger of ruining this country.

What is in danger of ruining this country is Obama's policies. The divisiveness will not be between Democrats and Republicans - It will be against the current administration and the people. If you see nothing wrong with this action, then fine. Somehow I feel that if this were a Bush decision, you may have a different outlook because I cannot believe your thoughts do not come from a partisan direction.

When there is a bill or decision to cut VA  benefits, people go berzerk. WHy should this be any different? Police officers are our domestic soldier, putting their lives on the line every day they go to work.

Maybe Obama could take the 100 million going to repave a spare runway at Murtha's airport, which only has 4 flights a day, instead? Guess that's out of the question....
Klassy Lassy
Member Elite
since 06-28-2005
Posts 2181
Oregon


7 posted 05-08-2009 01:18 PM       View Profile for Klassy Lassy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Klassy Lassy

More people should be aware of the statistics.  I feel at a hopeless loss trying to keep up with what gets passed and what does not...sometime in the guise of an altogether other bill proposed. So much is unscrupulous and it goes right by without so much as a blink.

Thank you for the post.  I will read the link!  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


8 posted 05-08-2009 02:02 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


How much of last years budget allocation wasnít used Mike?

Iíll give you a clue.

Last year a total of 74.8 million was paid out.

What did they do with all that under spend?

The government reallocated it to a budget item that exceeded the budgeted amount so they could balance the books.

How much will be paid out this year?

Iíve no idea but the managers of the fund have projected (and requested) a total budget requirement of 55.8 million for 2009.

If theyíre right Obamaís allocation amount is about right.

If theyíre wrong theyíll over spend and the difference will be balanced from a budget item that under spends (like the Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program did last year).

.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


9 posted 05-08-2009 02:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Allow me to repeat "Did you miss that in the article?"

And please, Mike, allow me to repeat: "Yea, like statistics never lie?"

The Director of the police survivors group is probably not an unbiased source. And if your really think the numbers can't be manipulated to give any answer desired, Mike, then you're not even trying to think critically. Let me define "police officers" and/or "killed on duty" and I can probably triple his 21 percent number. Or cut it by an equal factor.

Why should I believe him?

quote:
A budget, whether set high or set low, doesn't "cut slain officer's benefits in half." Really? Then taking the budget from 110 to 60 is not really a cut? Well, it is slightly less than 50%, I'll grant you that.

Mike, if I set aside a hundred dollars to pay my electric bill and the bill comes in a week later at $150, I still have to pay the whole bill. My budget was wrong, but since that's probably not an excuse Consumer's Energy will accept, I'll have to pull the extra fifty bucks from somewhere else. You telling me you never had to make similar adjustments?

quote:
Somehow I feel that if this were a Bush decision, you may have a different outlook because I cannot believe your thoughts do not come from a partisan direction.

And you'd be absolutely wrong.

There have been quite a few Obama decisions with which I disagreed, Mike, and some few that have irritated the hell out of me. You should probably know my philosophies well enough by now to even guess which ones? However, I don't think you ever saw me start a thread in here bashing Bush, so why would you expect me to start one bashing the current President? And when I respond to someone else's thread, it's typically because I disagree; I don't usually do a lot of "me, too" posts.

Post an Obama rant that makes sense and I'll probably shut up.  

Grinch, thanks for looking up some hard numbers. I should have done that, I suppose, but frankly this argument was so full of holes I didn't feel it even warranted that much time.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 05-08-2009 07:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, it's always easy to say don't trust the statistics whenever the statistics don't agree with you. I would think those figures would be fairly easy to check by the right people and would be silly to lie about.

Yes, I would still have to pay my light bill but Obama has said nothing about making up the difference from somewhere else. For both you and grinch I have two scenarios...

(1) Obama cuts the benefits by almost half, stating he believes the figures will go down (even though figures state otherwise) and, if more money is needed, he will replace it with monies from somewhere else (which he has not stated he will do).

(2) Obama leaves the benefits the same and, if it turns out that he was correct, the surplus could be siphoned off to other areas that need it.

Please explain to me why 1 is more logical than 2, except that 2 gives Obama the chance to say "Look! I'm cutting budget costs!", which he actually is not doing if he is going to have to replace the money from somewhere else.

I can understand where you are coming from, Ron. You believe Obama is simply trying to put a realist figure on the expense and, if it is not realistic, benefits will still not be diminished. I could live with that. I simply don't believe it....first because he has not stated that any shortage in funds would be replaced and, second, his excuse given that he expects less deaths, stinks to high heaven, frankly. Why would he expect that in an economy that continues to sink and an unemployment rate that continues to rise? Maybe he thinks people won't be able to afford bullets to shoot cops with?

He wants to cut 50m there while he wants 100m to relocate detainees from Gitmo. So, with around 200 prisoners there, that would be about 5 million apiece to move them. Maybe he could get them to fly coach and save a few bucks??
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


11 posted 05-09-2009 06:48 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Obama has said nothing about making up the difference from somewhere else.


Yes he has Mike, youíre just ignoring it. The Administration has categorically stated that every eligible claimant in 2009 will receive the allotted payment of £365K, which is an increased amount from last year. Implicit in that statement is an undertaking to fund any overspend from other areas of the budget where a surplus is available.

Nobody is going to get less death benefit than they should get Mike, claiming that thereís going to be a 50% cut in payments is twaddle. Thereís going to be a 50% cut in the budget because the managers of the fund have estimated that they only require 50% to make full payments to all eligible claimants.

Last year the budget was $110 million but they only spent $74.8 million, this year the fund managers have estimated that total costs will be $55.8 million. The options are to allocate $54.2 million more than theyíre saying they need or allocate what theyíre asking for and increase the budgeted amount if required.

If the people running the fund are saying that they estimate a total spend of $55.8 million to meet all the valid claims why do you think itís a good idea to double the budgeted amount?

quote:
Please explain to me why 1 is more logical than 2


Thatís easy Mike.

Because if you doubled the expected spend on every budgeted item, and using your argument thereíd be no reason not to, your total budget would be twice the amount of actual spend and totally useless.

Actually thatís not really true. The reality is that your actual spend would increase in most areas to match the allocated budget. If my wife has an agreed budget of $600 for a new dishwasher sheíll spend around $600, if we double the budget to $1200 guess how much sheíll spend.

So the logical answer is 1. Set the budget at what you believe is a true reflection of what youíre actually going to spend and balance the difference between budgeted and actual spend by re-allocating funds where necessary.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 05-09-2009 09:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If my wife has an agreed budget of $600 for a new dishwasher sheíll spend around $600, if we double the budget to $1200 guess how much sheíll spend.

Not sure what you are saying, grinch. If they budget the 110 million, they will make sure that more police officers die to use the full amount, like your wife would do?

Ok, let's look at it in a logical manner. Obama has decided that police deaths will lessen in the coming budget year. What does he base that on. Less crime? Increased police security? Let's look at the figures...

So far in 2009 police deaths thru May 9th are at 46, up 18% over the same period last year. http://www.odmp.org/    
click on tab "statistics" on left hand side

Police deaths (on duty) in 2008 totaled 140 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-29-police-deaths_N.htm

74.8m was spent on survivor benefits in 2008.

Ok, those are actual facts. So Obama is looking at figures that are up over last year where 74.8m was spent and decides to reduce the budget by 19m over what was actually spent because he feels that deaths will decrease, even though they are going at a pace higher than last year. What area of that do you find logical?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


13 posted 05-09-2009 11:03 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Not sure what you are saying, grinch.


Itís not difficult Mike. Iím saying that if you simply double every area of the budget people will have a tendency to spend more than they need to.

quote:
Ok, let's look at it in a logical manner. Obama has decided that police deaths will lessen in the coming budget year.


Wrong Mike. Obama has asked the managers of the benefit fund how much they need to meet the estimated spend for 2009. Theyíve given him a figure of 55.8 million. Included in that estimate are all the administration costs to handle those claims and probably an estimate of expected claims based on historical data. From that the administration have set the budget and explained that the evidence supplied estimates a reduced number of claims for 2009.

quote:
So far in 2009 police deaths thru May 9th are at 46, up 18% over the same period last year.


Police officers are only one of numerous public employees eligible to claim.

Do you know whether the claims for the other eligible public safety officers are up or down Mike? I donít either, the people who do are the managers tasked with dealing with the claims and theyíre saying that 60 million is enough to meet estimated costs.

quote:
What area of that do you find logical?


All of it.

I might not agree with the fund managers figures if I had them in front of me but I havenít seen them, I donít know how much of the budget is made up of administration costs for instance and whether theyíre expecting savings in those areas. I donít know any of the mitigating factors that lead them to conclude that costs will be less this year, including any of the data for total claims to date. I do know that theyíre saying 60 million is enough based on their estimates and that I donít have any reason to doubt them, presumably neither has the Administration and they do have access to that data.

If youíre saying that the fund managers are wrong Mike, fine, say it, but slating Obama for setting the budget based on what theyíre asking for is a bit of a low blow and a very weak argument.

.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


14 posted 05-09-2009 12:37 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
It would be almost laughable if the hate and divisiveness weren't so in danger of ruining this country.


Do you not say this after every Presidential contest?  Is it not always like this directly after an election Ron?

Do the losers always tend to seize on every policy decision to fuel "I told you so"?

Or is there something different and unusual this time?
In there an ingredient in the election of this particular person that has caused more than usual pent up impotent frustration?  Or maybe feelings are simply overheated in the general economic turmoil and insecurity?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 05-09-2009 01:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Itís not difficult Mike. Iím saying that if you simply double every area of the budget people will have a tendency to spend more than they need to.

If that's the case, then why did they only spend 78 last year when they had 110 allocated?

With regards to your answer of wrong about my statement of "Obama has decided that police deaths will lessen in the coming budget year.",  I'll restate what is posted in my original entry...

Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop.
    Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.


Yes, I realize that, no matter how I present it, you will spin it the other way and that's fine. You have done the same on a number of items like the entitlements and perks, even to the point of agreeing with Obama while calling him a liar so I really don't expect anything less. I'll let others decide how they feel about it. Best to you....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


16 posted 05-09-2009 02:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
you will spin it the other way and that's fine.


Thatís a laugh Mike.

You spin a story to make it sound like the administration is cutting benefit to brave men and women who lose their life in the course of doing their duty and when I point out that youíre talking twaddle you say that Iím spinning a line.

Pot, kettle and black springs to mind.

Instead of discussing the facts Iíve put forward youíve once again wandered into the old defence of ad hominem attacks. It won't work Mike, people can see that your argument doesn't hold water

Nobody is going to have their benefits cut or denied Mike and Obama has budgeted to spend exactly what heís being told will be required.

So what exactly are we supposed to get so outraged about? The fact that he could double the budget and spend the money they donít need on something else Ė yeah heís really despicable for not doing that Mike.

The guy should be flogged, along with all those idiots writing inflammatory articles that ignore or twist facts to spin a non-issue into a major beef to incite people who should know better into outrage.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


17 posted 05-09-2009 04:55 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Why would Obama count this as a budget cut if it doesn't really cut actual spending? All claims submitted will be paid in full, as always, whether the injury/death rate goes up or down. Spending 'up to the budgeted amount' doesn't apply in this situation. If no claims are submitted for injury/death, nothing is paid out, no matter the budgeted amount.

I think it's all political smoke 'n' mirrors to garner press attention and to try to position himself as someone who is fiscally responsible, and possibly another political ploy to sabotage focused attention on other outrageous activities like the ongoing attempted nationalizing of banks and private industries.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


18 posted 05-09-2009 05:59 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Why would Obama count this as a budget cut


I donít know, call me crazy, but could it be that itís because heís cut it from the budget?

quote:
Spending 'up to the budgeted amount' doesn't apply in this situation. If no claims are submitted for injury/death, nothing is paid out, no matter the budgeted amount.


BINGO!

But putting nothing in the budget would be just as silly as putting double the expected spend in there, so that despicable, cunning, foxy-stoat Obama has put in exactly the amount that the managers of the fund reckon theyíre going to need.

How dare he! What sort of radical leftist accounting system is he using where your budget accurately reflects the exact amount youíre expecting to spend.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


19 posted 05-09-2009 07:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My point, Grinch, is that it doesn't cut spending. There are plenty of things on which he can actually cut spending that would actually reduce the deficit.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


20 posted 05-09-2009 07:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Where and when did Obama say it will cut spending Denise?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


21 posted 05-09-2009 08:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I create a household budget to control and cut, if necessary, my spending, to stay within my means. Should we demand less than that of our politicians?

In feeding the news to the media that he was making 'budget cuts', I believe that he intended to convey to people that he was attempting to cut spending, where possible, in order to appear fiscally responsible, since that is the meaning of budget cuts to the average person. A budget cut without an actual corresponding spending cut is just a political word game.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 05-09-2009 08:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Fine with me, grinch. I show you where deaths are up so far this year and you ignore it. I ask you how Obama can look at that fact and still claim that deaths will go down and you ignore it. I asked you why they didn't spend the 110m they were allocated last year if they are the type who spend whatever the budget allocates and you ignore it.The budget managers Obama gets figures from work for Obama. Out of the realm of possibility that the managers would work to make sure Obama gets the figures he wants? Ron doesn't think so. He questioned the figures from the police survivor's group because they could have been prejudicial. The Justice Department that reports to Obama could not be as prejudicial? "Yea, like statistics never lie.." was his thought, I believe.

Denise is right. It's simply a dog and pony show, claiming to cut the budget when the fact is they will simply have to replace the money from somewhere else if the rate of increase of deaths continues. That is, if they replace it. Why would I question that if Obama said it? BECAUSE Obama said it.

Obama has shown that he speaks with the expediency of the moment. When Bush wanted to cut 18 billion in spending from the government, Obama declared in a campaign speech that 18 billion only represented about one percent of the national debt and would have no signifigance whatsoever. Now Obama is announcing a 17 billion cut in spending, less than one half of one percent of the national debt, and Obama calls it a momentuous action. When challenged with the fact that there were over 8 billion in pork and earmarks in his stimulus package, he responded that that amount only amounted to around 5% of the package and focus should be on the other 95%, as if the 8 billion wasn't any big deal. When Obama announced a one hundred fifty million reduction plan in the budget, he and his trained dog spokesman called it a wonderful thing, As his spokesman put it, "A hundred fifty million sure is a lot of money to ME." Apparently the 8 billion, which he poo pooed isn't. Obama claims to not cut taxes for the middle class. Instead he will raise taxes on the things the middle class buys, causing the middle class to spend more, but in a way Obama can still claim he did not raise their taxes.

Now he is lowering the budget for police survivors, even though the figures show that the rate is increasing and he's telling them, "Don't worry. If you need it, I'll give it back to you."  You want to question why I take that with a grain of salt? Go ahead. I take it with a grain of salt.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


23 posted 05-09-2009 10:01 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I believe that he intended to convey to people that he was attempting to cut spending.


What did he say to make you believe that?

quote:
A budget cut without an actual corresponding spending cut is just a political word game.


You mean like the political word game thatís being played out in the article when it equates a budget cut to a cut in benefits?

Mike

quote:
I show you where deaths are up so far this year and you ignore it.


Did you miss the part where I pointed out that police officers are only one group eligible for payment? Or did you simply ignore it?

quote:
I ask you how Obama can look at that fact and still claim that deaths will go down and you ignore it.


Did you miss the part where I explained that Obama received a budget estimate from the fund managers? Or did you ignore it?

quote:
I asked you why they didn't spend the 110m they were allocated last year if they are the type who spend whatever the budget allocates and you ignore it.


This one Iíll give you, I ignored this because the answer seemed obvious. Iíll answer it if you like:

The spend is largely made up of benefits paid and the final spend is dependant on the number of claims.

Now Iíll save you the time asking your next question:

I didnít say that the budget for officer benefits would spend up to the limit of their budget I said that if all budgetary items were increased, as you suggested, it would increase actual spend in most areas. Or did you ignore that?

quote:
That is, if they replace it. Why would I question that if Obama said it? BECAUSE Obama said it.


Do you seriously believe that Obama wouldnít find the money to pay the benefits if they go over the budgeted amount? Come on Mike tell me you donít think heís that dumb, itíd be political suicide.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 05-09-2009 10:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I checked out the source you list in your initial post.  That would be the source with the ad posted next to it for conservative T-shirts making comments about socialists.  The source would be more creditable for me if it was proof read.  

     The headline reads:

quote:


Obama to Cut Slain Officer's Benefits in Half -- Where's Media Outrage?




     The statement, as you can see, is one which either states, on purpose, that there is a particular officer ó slain officer, mind you ó whose justified benefits for his family are in danger of being cut; or which says so through journalistic incompetence.  As one reads into the article, it turns out that there is no officer specifically being spoken about.  It turns out that that being slain in the line of duty is a half-truth that instead should speak about officers who die while on duty ó still deserving folk, mind you, but not officers being murdered by criminals as the article allows us to think, but also officers who have died to industrial accident and the natural hazards of a dangerous job.

     In fact, what the accurate statement would be is that the general fund from which the Federal government contributes to these officer's benefits is  being cut.  There are questions however that are not addressed in the article.  

     The article mentions, for example, a figure of 21%.  It says that the number of police deaths has increased this year by that amount over last year.  They do not say if this figure is an increase of 21% over the total number of deaths for all of 2008 or of some point thus far in the year.  They are in fact quite careless with the way they chuck the number around.  They are not terribly clear where the number comes from, how the computation was done and how it was arrived at.  Given their carelessness with their presentation, one should not be surprised.

     Nor does the article state what percentage of the benefits come from the police officer's union funds, what percentage may come from city funds and what may come from state funds.  Nor do they address if there has been any contribution from these sources in the past.  They act as if the sole source of the funding is from federal sources.  One would need to see this addressed before wanting to express the sort of outrage that various folks have felt free to express here, simply in order to make sure that one is not being mislead by a grotesquely ill written and biased news source.

     I'd like to know what unbiased sources Mike or Denise might suggest I use to find out these facts.  Sources as apparently misleading as this don't seem to provide much but confusion and misdirection as far as I can tell.  I would suspect that the media outrage would eventually follow on the believe that the media has believable facts to deal with.  They have been wrong before, of course, and will be again, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad; but they do like to point to things that they think of as being facts as justification for what they're saying, even when they're about weapons of mass destruction that aren't there.

     I simply think that this publication is doing more than trying to continue to stir up ill will about Obama at this point.  If Obama was going to try to withhold money from police or firefighters who were hurt on the job, even I'd be against him, and almost every other liberal I know.  I'm cautious about my civil rights; that doesn't mean I dislike police or that I want anything but safe and secure lives for them.  They want their civil rights, too, I've noticed; and for the most part, they're not all that thrilled about the number of guns on the street either.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Obama True to Form   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors