Archived

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

g5jamz

Obama's world (sequestration)

206 posts in this topic

It isn't the size of the cut it is what the cuts are. They were purposely designed to be so bad that it forced the parties to negotiate. They could easily find this amount elsewhere and everyone agrees on that, that wasn't the point. The point was that it was supposed to hurt so bad that a real bipartisan deficit reduction plan could take place.

It may not be THEIR point, but it is the point of anyone else that wants to make sense. If politicians were actually serious about the welfare of those people getting the bad end of the cut, they would use the mouthpiece of every available news outlet to let America know that this 2% isn't coming out of THEIR dime but everyone else's for the purposes of political chicanery.

fug them. fug their antics. They can stew in their own fuging mess as far as I'm concerned. I would sooner let DC burn to the fuging ground than let them continue to run the rest of the country into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, most of the Republicans voted for the sequester as well. Obama can't just do it. He may have come up with the idea, but Congress voted on it and passed it.

That is like someone saying "Yeah I helped murder the guy but it was his idea therefore I should get off". Doesn't work that way.

The sequester was established to force both parties to negotiate on a real deficit reduction plan. Obama has sent a plan, the Congress hasn't done poo. As usual.

And by Obama "turning down the cuts" you are referring to the Toomey-Inhofe alternative, give me a fugging break. If you can't see the devious purposes for that then you are blind. That is Republicans actually admitting "Yeah we want cuts because spending is out of control, we just really don't want to cut anything, we want Obama to it so we can campaign against it"

Obama is forcing the Republicans to the table. They can either sit there and try to pretend they aren't knee deep in this poo, or they actually work with the president and get something done.

The ball really is in the republicans court. Obama doesn't own this. Both sides put us in this position and it appears that only one side has been serious about averting it. And the other is playing politics.

Republicans in the house have passed two budgets/plans to deal with the sequester. Show us Obama's. Show us Reid's. Obama's just angry that Toomey/Inhofe floated the idea to push to Obama what Reid refuses to do. No wonder he's angry. Republicans I've said has passed two bills. It's in Reid's court.

Honestly...we republicans/conservatives are perfectly fine with sequestration. It's the liberals that are balking and looking at all talk when it comes to protecting their special interests. If defense is seen as special interest for republicans...entitilement spending must be a special interest for democrats. Crazy thing is...entitlements (medicare/social security/Obama's blue ribbon commission suggestions) aren't even a part of this conversation.

When the sky doesn't fall...what's going to be the new scare tactic Obama is going to use. Release criminals that are legal into society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually borrow from China each month about the same amount as the "debilitating" cuts. What a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Senate democrats version of the bill would've ADDED $7.2 Trillion to the deficit in 10 years per the CBO.

The sequester replacement bill proposed by Senate Democrats, and endorsed by the White House, would add $7.2 billion to the federal deficit over ten years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

“CBO estimates that S. 388 would increase direct spending by $62.4 billion and revenues by $55.1 billion over the 2013–2023 period. Thus, the cumulative deficit would increase by $7.2 billion from those changes,” CBO wrote in a report.

The Democratic bill would replace the $85 billion in automatic cuts scheduled to take effect on Friday with a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts to defense programs and farm subsidies. However, those spending cuts would be phased in over a ten-year period, whereas the sequestration cuts would occur this year.

Good grief. Teeray...you need to have a sit down with Reid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to have one of these each qtr for the next 4 yrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it a rule that they have to call it something different every time? Because "fiscal cliff" sounded much more ominous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they like the drama. Sequester just doesn't sound scary enough. They are all politicians and need to be needed. We are helpless without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how Obama whines about having these apocalyptic incidents every month or so, but in this case he's the one wanting a continuing resolution and postponement of sequester. Republicans are letting it go.

Crap or get off the campaign trail Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites