Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama's world (sequestration)


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#71 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:53 AM

Woodward is now in the crosshairs of Obama and his minions.

#72 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,043
  • Reputation: 239
  • LocationFlorida
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

The Left-Right paradigm is ripping our country apart.

The Republicans stand for the 10% of the wealthiest people, and the Democrats stand for the bottom 15-20% of the poor(plus higher taxes for all). When the 70-75% of the people in the middle realize there is no one standing up for them we will finally be able to end this non-sense.

What we need is someone who will stand up for our individual liberties, and someone who will spend our tax dollars on 'us' instead of the globalist ambitions of the people behind the curtain who have everyone fighting with each other instead of bringing us together. 53 percent of our tax dollars go to building the Military Indusrial Complex, and the money that is being thrown around by the lobbyists has too much control over our representatives.

Quit participating in partisan politics. We have to unite as a people before we can make any real progress. As long as people continue to vote straight ticket politics in these 'gerrymandered' zones, we continue to reward these same career politicians who have gotten us into this position to begin with.

Real change starts at the bottom. Look at us. Why are we fighting each other instead of for change. Open a history book and give me one example of a divided populace that ever accomplished anything... In fact, they usually end up conquered or their nation split in two. I think that is where we are headed if we dont turn the TVs off and start participating with our neighbors, then our communities and then the states... Next thing you know, we will be rebuilding our nation instead of getting robbed.

Start to demand representation for your taxation.

#73 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,915
  • Reputation: 8,835
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:27 PM

The balanced approach is already one sided as Obama got his tax increase. Now he is balking on wanting cuts. Woodward has called him out on deceipt. You are still carrying the water for him however. Continue on,


He isn't proposing new income tax laws.

He wants to close loopholes. For instance, a hedge fund manager making millions and millions of dollars and only paying 15% in taxes.

It is just making sure that everyone pays their fair share. Isn't that what republicans want??

It s amazing how Republicans find it despicable that someone would game the unemployment or welfare benefits but when rich people game the system through tax loopholes it is, "Derp, that is because they are smart and know how to work the system... derpa derpa"

It isn't just about the rich. Simple yes or no question. Do you think it is fair for someone making 1 million dollars through payroll should have to pay more taxes than someone else making a million dollars through a hedge fund?

Do you think one millionaire should pay more taxes than another millionaire? And if so, why?

#74 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:39 PM

The sequestration was a deal Obama made to get the debt limit increase. Obama's making this about tax revenues now just after getting the largest tax increase in history. That's why the Senate doesn't want to do anything...they can't. Tax REVENUE bills cannot originate in the Senate, that's the house. Sequestration is about spending cuts....ONLY.

President proved he's incapable of doing what needs to be done when he balked at being responsible for choosing where the cuts should be.

#75 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:41 PM

He isn't proposing new income tax laws.

He wants to close loopholes. For instance, a hedge fund manager making millions and millions of dollars and only paying 15% in taxes.

It is just making sure that everyone pays their fair share. Isn't that what republicans want??

It s amazing how Republicans find it despicable that someone would game the unemployment or welfare benefits but when rich people game the system through tax loopholes it is, "Derp, that is because they are smart and know how to work the system... derpa derpa"

It isn't just about the rich. Simple yes or no question. Do you think it is fair for someone making 1 million dollars through payroll should have to pay more taxes than someone else making a million dollars through a hedge fund?

Do you think one millionaire should pay more taxes than another millionaire? And if so, why?


Closing loopholes has nothing to do with spending cuts.

Want to close loopholes? Have at it...but it has nothing to do with sequestration. Like I said...Reid cannot propose that because it's not the Senate's authority. Enough of the tax fairness crap. That's another discussion entirely.

#76 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,915
  • Reputation: 8,835
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

The sequestration was a deal Obama made to get the debt limit increase. Obama's making this about tax revenues now just after getting the largest tax increase in history. That's why the Senate doesn't want to do anything...they can't. Tax REVENUE bills cannot originate in the Senate, that's the house. Sequestration is about spending cuts....ONLY.

President proved he's incapable of doing what needs to be done when he balked at being responsible for choosing where the cuts should be.

Closing loopholes has nothing to do with spending cuts.

Want to close loopholes? Have at it...but it has nothing to do with sequestration. Like I said...Reid cannot propose that because it's not the Senate's authority. Enough of the tax fairness crap. That's another discussion entirely.


Obama on multiple occasions has offered serious cuts to entitlements, he has a plan out right now that Congress won't even consider that has over a 800 billion dollars in entitlement cuts.

The reason Congress won't act on it is because it closes loopholes primarily for the wealthy and John Boehner would lose his speakership.

But, Obama has already offered legitimate cuts in his plan. All the republicans have to do is accept it or come back with a counter that is serious and close the loopholes that the wealthy take advantage of to avoid paying taxes.

That is why the Republicans are losing the public debate. They see a party that is finally getting the cuts they always wanted, but won't even come to the table because they want to protect the rich and their loopholes.

#77 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,915
  • Reputation: 8,835
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

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.

#78 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 388
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:29 PM

Exactly what is it about a cut in spending that is so offensive to people? Are we to think that 3.8 trillion annually is not enough? Sequestration should be a beginning, not a disaster. Even if we were to believe that sequestration would actually "drop" the budget (which it almost always isn't a drop, but a reduction of an increase in spending) of 85 billion annually (in which it is actually closer to 45 billion annually) that still accounts for a measly 2 freaking percent of just the current rate.

DC has MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY to do everything they need. They don't need more cash to recklessly spend on something other than what they promised AGAIN. The Tea Party SHOULD hold this fuging thing hostage and let those assholes sit in the corner and cry about a smaller increase in their allowance like a petulant child.

Posted Image

Edit: While the infographic states that "Obama is calling this a catastrophic cut", it should actually read "DC and mainstream media is calling this a catastrophic cut"

#79 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,915
  • Reputation: 8,835
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:41 PM

Interesting article about the Bob Woodward stuff. Clearly he wasn't threatened. And every major reporter in Washington seems to agree.



Bob Woodward has suggested that the White House threatened him. Many of his colleagues in the press corps aren't buying it.

By the standards of this White House, a statement like the one senior White House official Gene Sperling wrote to Woodward last week -- "I think you will regret staking out that claim" -- is both mild and familiar, reporters who have dealt with the Obama administration say.

"It's not a big deal. You've been yelled at by people in the White House, I've been yelled at by people in the White House -- I'm sure this has happened to a thousand people in Washington," Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, who deals with the White House frequently, told POLITICO. "The whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

"I get emails like this almost every hour, whether it's from the White House or Capitol Hill," said Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director and senior White House correspondent. "For better or worse, flacks get paid to push back."

Since POLITICO published the full email exchange between Woodward and Sperling, journalists from across the political spectrum have voiced skepticism over Woodward's decision to paint himself as the victim of White House pressure.
(Also on POLITICO: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed)

"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaro's radio show today. "It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."

“I’m not saying the White House doesn’t pressure reporters all the time and put the heat on reporters covering the White House. I’ve heard many, many stories that they do," Baier continued. "But this particular incident and this particular email, I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”

Harold Maass, the online executive editor of The Week, likewise noted on Twitter that "the email that scared [Woodward] was sort of cordial." Outside the Beltway, Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget even wrote a post titled, "Oh, Please, The White House Didn't 'Threaten' Bob Woodward."

White House press secretary Jay Carney also weighed in on the exchange today, and said Sperling was being "incredibly respectful."

"You cannot read those emails and come away with the impression that Gene was threatening anybody," Carney said at Thursday's press briefing.
(WATCH: White House: Bob Woodward was not threatened)

The exchange between Sperling and Woodward started with a heated phone exchange after Woodward told Speling he was going to challenge President Obama’s account of how sequestration came about. But in his subsequent email to Woodward, Sperling begins and ends by apologizing for raising his voice.

In the middle, he writes: "I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

"I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different," Sperling goes on to write. "Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously."

In his interview with POLITICO, Woodward said Obama would probably caution his staff against telling any reporter "you’re going to regret challenging us.’"

But Goldberg called it "a traditional wave-off."

"When people say that sort of thing to me, I don't take it as a veiled threat. I don't take it as a pesron saying there will be consequences if you write that," he said. "I take it to mean, 'You shouldn't go down that road, because you'll be emarrassed when you find it it's wrong.' That, or they're trying to wave you off the story."

Todd took issue with Woodward's decision to make himself a central part of the story.
"I hope the lesson young journalists take away from this is: This is not about you," he told POLITICO. "The story you are covering is not about yourself, and the minute you make it about yourself, the minute personal feelings get involved, that's when mistakes are made, and that's when there can be an appearance of bias."

National Journal editorial director Ron Fournier, who wrote today that he has received several White House e-mails and telephone calls "filled with vulgarity [and] abusive language," said the exchange was evidence of an ongoing decline in civility between politicians and the press, but likewise called it a "snowflake" in the larger story.

"This is part of a bigger systematic problem: Go up to the Hill and see how long you go before a press secretary tells you to 'F-off.' I bet you don't make it to lunch. And if you're a press secretary, you may not make it to brunch before a reporter tells you to 'F-off,'" he told POLITICO. "I only see the Sperling and Woodward exchange as interesting and relevant in the bigger story, which is that we need to start treating each other with more respect."

http://www.politico....72.html?hp=t1_3



#80 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,915
  • Reputation: 8,835
SUPPORTER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:51 PM

Exactly what is it about a cut in spending that is so offensive to people? Are we to think that 3.8 trillion annually is not enough? Sequestration should be a beginning, not a disaster. Even if we were to believe that sequestration would actually "drop" the budget (which it almost always isn't a drop, but a reduction of an increase in spending) of 85 billion annually (in which it is actually closer to 45 billion annually) that still accounts for a measly 2 freaking percent of just the current rate.

DC has MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY to do everything they need. They don't need more cash to recklessly spend on something other than what they promised AGAIN. The Tea Party SHOULD hold this fuging thing hostage and let those assholes sit in the corner and cry about a smaller increase in their allowance like a petulant child.

Posted Image

Edit: While the infographic states that "Obama is calling this a catastrophic cut", it should actually read "DC and mainstream media is calling this a catastrophic cut"


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.

For example, lets say you were cutting your families spending. Although it might not be a large part of your families overall spending you decided to cut your babies food and water.

It wouldn't be a large part of your spending so you would think it wouldn't be that big of deal, but it would be devastating when your baby dies.

That is a crude example and no one is going to die, but it is just making a point that it isn't the size of the cut, it is where the cut is taking place.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users