Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

g5jamz

Obama's world (sequestration)

206 posts in this topic

whoa wait a minute i thought the sequester is obama's fault. what do the defense cuts have to do with republicans

No...sequester was Obama's idea. Deal was 50-50 defense/other spending. Republicans were determined to cut rate in growth. It's still not a "cut".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so because republicans haven't cut defense spending through sequestration, why does this make any sense:

For every liberal that used the "republicans won't touch their special interests (defense)", well...they can sthu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For every liberal that used the "republicans won't touch their special interests (defense)", well...they can sthu.

Obama proved he's incapable of making hard decisions regarding spending cuts. It's more taxes...not two months after the largest tax increase in history.

You know what Obama has offered in his plan in regards to the cuts to medicare and social security are what the Republicans have been asking for for years.

Ezra Klein had an interesting article about this whole thing and how the Republicans are playing politics and some legislators don't even know what the President has proposed.

First there was the idealistic view that there was just a breakdown in communications and that a deal could be worked out.

http://www.washingto...to-communicate/

But he quickly came to this realization. The Republicans have no desire to negotiate a balanced debt reduction plan

http://www.washingto...th-republicans/

File this under “Jonathan Chait is right.”

My column this weekend is about the almost comically poor lines of communication between the White House and the Hill. The opening anecdote was drawn from a background briefing I attended with a respected Republican legislator who thought it would be a gamechanger for President Obama to say he’d be open to chained CPI — a policy that cuts Social Security benefits — as part of a budget deal.

The only problem? Obama has said he’s open to chained CPI as part of a budget deal. And this isn’t one of those times where the admission was in private, and we’re going off of news reports. It’s right there on his Web site. It’s literally in bold type. But key GOP legislators have no idea Obama’s made that concession.

The question my column left open was whether improving the lines of communication would actually change anything. Chait’s view is no, it wouldn’t. He begins by quoting Upton Sinclair’s famous line: “It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.” Chait continues:

If Obama could get hold of Klein’s mystery legislator and inform him of his budget offer, it almost certainly wouldn’t make a difference. He would come up with something – the cuts aren’t real, or the taxes are awful, or they can’t trust Obama to carry them out, or something.

What happened next on Twitter proved Chait’s point in every particular.

Mike Murphy is one of the top political consultants in the Republican Party. He’s been a top strategist for Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeb Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other Republicans. He’s also, as his client list would suggest, from the party’s more pragmatic, even moderate, wing. Over the past few years, as he’s transitioned into doing more punditry, he’s emerged as an invaluable guide to what reasonable Republicans think of the rightward lurch in the GOP.

On Feb. 13, Murphy wrote in Time that “six magic words can unlock the door to the votes inside the Republican fortress: Some beneficiaries pay more and chained CPI, budgetary code for slightly lowering benefit increases over time.” The only problem? Obama has said all these words, as John Harwood of the New York Times quickly pointed out:

harwood-tweet.jpg

Murphy responded by suggesting that sure, Obama has called for more means-testing in Medicare, but he’s not put chained CPI — CCPI, if you’re hamstrung by Twitter’s 140-character limit — on the board:

murphy-tweet-1.jpg

Obama never refused chained CPI as part of a cliff deal. In fact, he did the opposite: He endorsed it as part of a cliff deal, and he’s kept endorsing it, as his sequestration plan clearly says, since the cliff deal fell apart. This was quickly pointed out to Murphy on Twitter, at which point, he promptly proved Chait’s thesis correct:

murphy2.jpg

Then Murphy retweeted this:

murphy6.jpg

So let’s back up. Murphy’s initial view was that to unlock GOP votes for a budget deal, Obama just needed to endorse chained CPI and more means-testing in Medicare. Then it was pointed out that Obama has endorsed means-testing in Medicare, so Murphy wondered why he didn’t endorse chained CPI as part of a deal. Then it was pointed out that Obama did endorse chained CPI, at which point Murphy called chained CPI “a gimmick,” and said Obama had to endorse raising the Medicare age, drop his demands for more revenue as part of a deal and earn back the GOP’s trust.

Recall what Chait said would happen if the Republican legislator in my column was forced to react to the fact that Obama has endorsed chained CPI: “He would come up with something – the cuts aren’t real, or the taxes are awful, or they can’t trust Obama to carry them out, or something.” Check, check, and check.

“It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it."

You Republicans would be better served if you just reaized the fact that Republicans are trying their best to cause another recession so they can campaign against it in 2014 and 2016. That is the real reason there was no negotiation and they are willing to play Russian roulette with our economy (yet again) in the interest of winning some elections.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned this to people in the past, but like the people they vote for, they refuse to acknowledge it and send me things that say unnamed officials are sending memos telling government people to make things as painful as possible for citizens. This is, of course, because Republican leaders have "kind of" said that these cuts are not any big deal, so in case they are they can BLAME OBAMA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuts aren't a big deal. Government should not be immune to recessions. Obama signed the legislation that called for sequestration. It's his baby.

Remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it."

.

what an excellent quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this going to be the biggest "income" year in history for the gov? I think I read that tax receipts were going to top 2.7 Billion. So, if this is more money than has ever been brought in, why are will still spending a billion more per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And barely two months from having the largest tax increase in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And barely two months from having the largest tax increase in history.

That is patently false.

You look at the largest tax increases and it has been primarily Republican presidents who have been in office. This is in order of biggest to smallest tax increases by % of GDP in "recent" years

1968- Johnson (this was a one year, temporary tax hike)

1982- Reagan

1993- Clinton

1990- Bush

1980- Reagan

1984- Reagan

2012- Obama's ACA

1986- Reagan

1969 Nixon

1987- Reagan

1983- Reagan

ACA_Tax_Percent_GDP.png

Yeah, Reagan and Bush account for 7 of the 11 biggest tax hikes in history.

But that was back when being a Republican was more about fiscal responsibility and not just the no tax party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that when something such as sequestration takes effect most presidents would be trying to reassure the public that the sky is not falling, telling us everything will be OK, that we can get thru this together.

Why is this president doing the exact opposite of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites