Is there a financial explanation for President Obama’s national security and foreign policy choices?
It is difficult to put a positive spin or find a logical explanation for the current Administrations’ actions and attitudes towards the growing threats facing the United States, and the diminished influence Washington has in global matters. The list of failures and missteps, which have emboldened America’s enemies and alientated its allies, is considerable:
The Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia produced completely unfavorable results. Moscow is now considerably more aggressive than when the President first took office. The Kremlin’s military spending has skyrocketed, and it has not been shy about using its new muscle. Ukraine has been invaded, Russian forces have become active in the Middle East, Eastern Europe is increasingly threatened, the Arctic has been militarized, and the nation’s nuclear bombers and submarines have resumed cold war patrols near American coastlines, a task made easier by deals made with Cuba and Nicargua. Moscow now holds, for the first time, a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, as well as a ten to one lead in tactical atomic devices.
The failure to confront China either diplomatically or with a show of force when it invaded the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone encouraged further aggressive actions by a Beijing regime convinced it would pay no penalty for unlawful expansionist moves. China has become a military superpower, the technological and numerical equivalent of U.S. forces. It already has more submarines than the Amrican navy, and will outnumer the U.S. fleet in four years.
Since Mr. Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq, Radical Islam has exponentially increased, with particular power being gained by ISIS. At almost every step, the current Administration chose to not confront the problem, and, indeed, it did much to make it worse. The White House supported “Arab Spring” movements which empowered extremist elements throughout the region, and did not respond even when Americans were directly attacked in Benghazi. It has abandoned a long-held policy of not negotiating with terrorists and opened talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The White House concluded an agreement that restored vast wealth to Iran in return for a shaky pledge to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, in a deal that a key Administration official now admits to misleading the U.S. public about. The President has deflected public anger and concern over terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by focusing his blame on gun rights, imagined bias towards Islam, and, incredibly, workplace violence.
If one assumes that Mr. Obama is not content with the dismal results of his policies, then a reason must be found why, despite substantial and repeated failures, he continues to pursue the same course of reducing American strength and influence, with a particular hesitancy to actively support American allies such as the Philippines, Israel, moderate Arab regimes, and, at least before Moscow’s Ukraine invasion, Europe.
The answer might have much to do with the President expensive and expansive domestic agenda.
Common side effects may include : warmth or redness in your face, neck, or chest;* runny or stuffy nose;* headache, dizziness;* upset stomach; or* back tadalafil cheapest downtownsault.org pain. Such issues basically arise after the age of 40 suffer from erectile dysfunction, on cialis line a condition in which men are not able to achieve satisfaction with their Partner due to improper erections. Charlotte Bobcats buy viagra professional (24) – Raja Bell’s return sparked a few needed wins, this team is very happy to bring J.R. One can continue taking the buy viagra overnight capsules as long as they think it necessary to fix the issue. Although the current White House has been singularly cold towards the needs of regular social security recipents, providing less cost of living increases than any other Administration in modern times, and has also been criticized for lack of attention to veterans benefits, spending on entitlements and welfare programs accounts for 70% of the federal budget (Defense is a comparatively small 16%.)
A Washington Times study found that the latest government reports estimate more than 23 percent of Americans lived in a family that received some form of welfare help under Obama, up 17.1 from the last year of the Bush presidency. The number of those on Social Security disability ballooned from 7.4 million at the start of the Obama presidency to 10.9 million in 2015.
Obamacare proved to be devastatingly expensive.“About 87 percent of people who selected health insurance plans through HealthCare.gov for coverage beginning Jan. 1, 2015, were determined eligible for financial assistance to lower their monthly premiums,” notes the Department of Health and Human Services.
This demands massive infusions of cash. Major Increases in taxes are unpopular and politically difficult, and the debt has already jumped beyond reasonable limits (A CNSNews study found that “the portion of the federal government’s debt that is held by the public…has more than doubled during President Barack Obama’s time in office” up by 113.8 percent.) All of this debt occurred despite the reality that Washington has taken in record amounts of revenue.U.S. Government Revenue estimates that federal “direct revenue” collected last year amounted to $3.3 trillion.
All of this means that the dollars for the ambitious domestic agenda must come from someplace else. That someplace else may be the defense budget.
According to a 2015 politifact analysis,”military spending decreased every year for [the past]four straight years by a cumulative 15%…In 2010, national security spending made up 20.1% of the federal budget, but in 2015 it was roughly 15.9%. Over that same period, spending declined from 4.6% of gross domestic product to 3.3%.”
Obama’s reduction in spending on a military that is now sharply diminished (the army is the smallest it has been since before World War 2, the Navy has less ships than at any time since before World War 1, and the Air Force is the smallest in history, with some aircraft so old they were flown by the grandparents of today’s pilots) means that conflicts must be avoided—even when vital interests are at stake, and supremacy in weaponry must be conceded to potential foes, no matter the potential danger.