5
   

Obama is the MOST to Blame for Sequester

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 07:12 pm
@mysteryman,
Sequester Day came and went. The world did not end like some suggested it would. But did we actually settle anything? The "collateral damage" from this charade is only beginning.
(Hi. MM)
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 07:28 pm
Yes, Sequester Day came and went. And no, the world did not end like Obama suggested it would. Yes indeed, the "collateral damage" from his charade is only beginning. Get ready for some old school Chicago style collateral damage.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 08:33 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Wait for the 2014 elections.

I wouldn't get overly optimistic about Dem chances. The Repubs are in disarray and will have to spend time resolving family feuds rather than expanding the party's appeal. But the numbers work against the Dems picking up many seats in the House or Senate.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 08:37 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

Wait for the 2014 elections.

I wouldn't get overly optimistic about Dem chances... the numbers work against the Dems picking up many seats in the House or Senate.

It's going to be interesting.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 08:47 pm
@H2O MAN,
33 of 100 Senate seats will come up for vote in 2014. 20 (or 22?) are now held by Dems. I see the Senate staying narrowly Dem.
Thanks to gerrymandering the House will see some hotly contested primary races. Neither party will win or lose many seats come November.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 02:49 pm
@realjohnboy,
You seem to have missed the point of my post. I am hoping for an informed electorite but not expecting one.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 06:36 pm
@RABEL222,
I may indeed have missed the point. It wouldn't be the first time.
I was simply getting in training for the 2014 elections. I am a bit of a political junkie.
Not meaning to pick nits, but talk of an "informed electorate" scares me. The "dumbasses" who vote opposite of the way I vote should be subject to some kind of litmus test to prove they are not too stupid to be trusted with a ballot?
I know you didn't mean it that way, but it is a phrase that I don't like.
End of rant. Sorry to digress.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 07:19 pm
@realjohnboy,
Good rant, anyway. Like tax deductions; mine are deductions while yours are loopholes.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 07:43 am


Who does Jay 'Goebbels' Carney blame for the sequester?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 11:32 am


This sequestration is being driven not by Republicans refusing to raise taxes yet
again, but by Obama’s obsessive and intense resentment and dislike for the rich.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 12:13 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

It will force the govt to actually spend less, and thats always a good thing.

I disagree with this. The only mechanism we as a people have to invest in ourselves on a large scale is through government action. Businesses borrow to invest in themselves all the time and it's recognized as a good thing when done well. Unlike businesses who measure the value of a project in terms of dollar returns, government has to mesaure the value in terms of economic and social return, but that's not impossible. Should the government invest in early childhood education when the proven return is 13 to 1? Sure. No business would pass up that payback. Roads, bridges, electrical infrastructure? Absolutely. Even military spending pays back by providing training, driving technology advances, etc even if it is lower than some other investments. Failure to invest in ourselves in never a good thing.
mysteryman wrote:

If those numbers are correct, that means that every dept and agancy in the govt will simply have to trim some fat.

But some of those agencies have been trimming for years and are already under resourced. On the military side, they can't decide to make one less fighter and allocate that $100,000,000 to veterans' care because that's not how sequestration works. Everyone takes the hit evenly. When 5% of the people directly or indirectly employed by the government end up unemployed, you need to increase social spending on things like unemployement, but the budget just got cut instead. Sequestration will end up costing the government more revenue due to reduced economic activity and increased social benefits than it will save on paper.
mysteryman wrote:

Yes, there will be some adjustments made, and yes there will be some short term pain, but it wont be forever and it wont be fatal to the US or its citizens.

By short term pain, do you mean hundreds of thousands of job losses? For the millions who keep their jobs, it means higher prices and longer waits in lines for government services. Maybe that is short term pain. For those who lose their jobs, they might not use different terms. They will take your tax dollars in unemployment checks though.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 12:40 pm


The Obama presidency is responsible for hundreds of thousands of job losses and long term pain.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 06:41 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Sequestration will end up costing the government more revenue due to reduced economic activity and increased social benefits than it will save on paper.
the main cost is inefficiency, we have made it impossible for government managers to effectively manage, which the true believers in small government are fine with. this battle in the what the proper size of government is has only just begun, sequestration is but one chess move of many. one could make a good argument that the GOP is winning based upon movement in the public opinion of government.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 06:47 pm
@hawkeye10,


One could make a good argument that America is winning.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 07:22 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



One could make a good argument that America is winning.

not by any capitalist, as in that regime inefficiency is always a negative.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 08:29 pm
hawkeye says:
Quote:
one could make a good argument that the GOP is winning based upon movement in the public opinion of government.


Considering that the polls show favorable opinion of Republicans in government is only a little over 1/3 the favorable opinion of Obama, I wouldn't say that the Reublicans are winning anything.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 11:32 am


Obama structured his sequester plan in such a way that just
about everyone (except the political class) gets punished.

What a guy Rolling Eyes
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 12:29 pm
@H2O MAN,
I am curious how Obama was able to force the majority of the GOP to vote for the sequester plan if it was so bad Spurt. Is Obama that powerful or are Conservatives that stupid?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 12:30 pm


Why is it that Obama has been unable to fix a single problem during his presidency?

Obama has been quite successful at creating numerous problems and crisis situations, but he never fixes anything.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Mar, 2013 12:38 pm
@H2O MAN,
So answer the question Spurt....

Why were the majority of the votes for the sequester in the House from the GOP? Is Obama that powerful or are conservatives that stupid?

House vote for Sequester
GOP - 174 affimative
Dem - 95 affirmative


You want to blame Obama so how did he convince the Conservatives in the House to vote the way they did? Is Obama that powerful or are Conservatives that stupid? It must be one or the other or both if you want to blame Obama for the sequester.
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 09:21:09