5
   

Obama is the MOST to Blame for Sequester

 
 
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:05 pm
and all of the negative consequences which will surely follow:

Quote:
By Bob Woodward, Friday, February 22, 2:59 PM

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”
.
.
.
So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html

Obama and the dems assume that the GOP will be blamed regardless of the truth......

hopefully the truth wins over lies.
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
and Obama is not only dishonest but a supreme prick as well....... let's keep that in mind as well when we are deciding who to hurt more for ******* us over as this crowd plays their Washington games
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
Im sure both sides are digging trenches with just that kind of Bullshit.
The fact is that NEITHER side is gonn do a fuckin thing because they are stupid, and think that "fter all, were gonna get some cuts". Weve got an entire EU that demonstrates that you cant get out of a depression with austerity.
Obama's to blame but so is the GOP for not being able to get its head out of its ass and deal with its own membership in Congress.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:41 pm
@farmerman,
Woodward does not agree, and he has a lot more street cred than you do.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hes often been rong. Hes trying to peddle viewpoints and lately hes been using the internet too much.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 07:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
Why is it then that everyone is off and Out of town at this important juncture. BOTH SIDES want it to happen and youre just being played by an old fart who should be blogging
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:30 pm
a good opposing argument
Quote:
by Ezra Klein
I don’t agree with my colleague Bob Woodward, who says the Obama administration is “moving the goalposts” when they insist on a sequester replacement that includes revenues. I remember talking to both members of the Obama administration and the Republican leadership in 2011, and everyone was perfectly clear that Democrats were going to pursue tax increases in any sequester replacement, and Republicans were going to oppose tax increases in any sequester replacement. What no one knew was who would win

“Moving the goal posts” isn’t a concept that actually makes any sense in the context of replacing the sequester. The whole point of the policy was to buy time until someone, somehow, moved the goalposts such that the sequester could be replaced.
Think back to July 2011. The problem was simple. Republicans wouldn’t agree to raise the debt ceiling without trillions of dollars in deficit reduction. Democrats wouldn’t agree to trillions of dollars in deficit reduction if it didn’t include significant tax increases. Republicans wouldn’t agree to significant tax increases. The political system was at an impasse, and in a few short days, that impasse would create a global financial crisis.
The sequester was a punt. The point was to give both sides a face-saving way to raise the debt ceiling even though the tax issue was stopping them from agreeing to a deficit deal. The hope was that sometime between the day the sequester was signed into law (Aug. 2, 2011) and the day it was set to go into effect (Jan. 1, 2013), something would…change.
There were two candidates to drive that change. The first and least likely was the supercommittee. If they came to a deal that both sides accepted, they could replace the sequester. They failed.
The second was the 2012 election. If Republicans won, then that would pretty much settle it: No tax increases. If President Obama won, then that, too, would pretty much settle it: The American people would’ve voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.
The American people voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.
In fact, they went even further than that. They also voted for a Senate that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes. And then they voted for a House that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes, though due to the quirks of congressional districts, they didn’t get one.
Here in DC, we can get a bit buried in Beltway minutia. The ongoing blame game over who concocted the sequester is an excellent example. But it’s worth remembering that the goalposts in American politics aren’t set in backroom deals between politicians. They’re set in elections. And in the 2012 election, the American people were very clear on where they wanted the goalposts moved to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/23/on-the-sequester-the-american-people-moved-the-goalposts/?tid=pm_pop

except for the fact of oppinion surveys that show that the vast majority of people want the big government hand outs but they are unwilling to pay for them. the base of this political deadlock is the immoral and irresponsible demands of the people. the demands are also impossible to satisfy over the long term.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:40 pm
It is worth noting that Obama wants cost cutting that is about double the proposed new revenue.

Moreover, the revenue would come from egregious tax loopholes mainly benefiting the super-rich. Notwithstanding the loopholes are indefensible, it appears that the right is willing to fight revenue increases to the death of the country.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:50 pm
@Advocate,
that will not even come close to balancing the books. we need to tax the rich more, tax everyone more (national sales tax?), fix health care so that we can slash now much we pay for it, and then give most of the rest of the government a haircut.

let's be clear, health care will prevent the numbers from working until and unless we fix it, which Obama refused to attempt
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
another tax we should start even if we did not have a rev problem is taxing financial transactions..........the europeans are mostly onboard but the US refuses. this would go far in fixing our broken global economic system. where is Obama on this tax which falls mostly on the rich? why?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 03:05 pm
Quote:
The American people voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing the other guy's taxes.


fixed
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 03:09 pm
A2K is still struggling to be a place where serious people can talk about serious things:

Quote:
Obama is the MOST to Blame for Sequester
Forums: Politics, Consider The Source, Republican Idiot, Hawkeye The Pedophile]
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

that will not even come close to balancing the books. we need to tax the rich more, tax everyone more (national sales tax?), fix health care so that we can slash now much we pay for it, and then give most of the rest of the government a haircut.

let's be clear, health care will prevent the numbers from working until and unless we fix it, which Obama refused to attempt


Raising the income tax is better. The sales tax is regressive, unduly hurting the poor and middle class. We already have a dangerous and extreme plutocracy in this country, which should not be enhanced.

Balancing the budget is not everything. Cutting government costs too much will cost a lot of jobs, which will hurt the economy. We should instead be fixing the nation's infrastructure, and otherwise getting the economy humming. We can then concentrate on balancing budgets through pay-go, much like Clinton did.

It is interesting that the great depression didn't end until after the massive government spending during and after WWII.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 05:16 pm
@Advocate,
The economy will always be better when we are charging our consumption to our kids and grandkids, but we should have only the best economy that we can finance using our own money. What we are doing is immoral, and we should not do it for even a single minute more, regardless of what this responsible behaviour does to "the economy" .
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 05:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
It worked for us in the 40's, why not now?
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 06:02 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

It worked for us in the 40's, why not now?
because we are not financing important projects, we are not saving the world from the Nazi's or building American infrastructure so that this nation is ready to give our kids the good life. We are using our kids charge card to buy crap we don't need and to play. We are immoral.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 06:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Oh ya, we are also using the charge card to drive our health care system, which makes about as much sense as does driving a 1980's vintage conversion van.....does almost nothing well, costs a ton to operate, and is a maga carbon emitter. We could do better, and would be better if someone held our toes to the fire and made us pay for our stupid choices...but no.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 02:12 pm


Obama hates poor retarded kids, especially black ones.

There is nothing fair & balanced about Obama's plan.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 01:51 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Obama hates poor retarded kids, especially black ones.

There is nothing fair & balanced about Obama's plan.


Oh well, another baseless, stupid, post from H2O.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 08:05 pm

Obama's brain trust

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama is the MOST to Blame for Sequester
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 07:21:49