Obama is the MOST to Blame for Sequester

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)

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.

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.

It's going to be interesting.

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.

You seem to have missed the point of my post. I am hoping for an informed electorite but not expecting one.

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.

Good rant, anyway. Like tax deductions; mine are deductions while yours are loopholes.

Who does Jay 'Goebbels' Carney blame for the sequester?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Obama presidency is responsible for hundreds of thousands of job losses and long term pain.

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.

One could make a good argument that America is winning.

not by any capitalist, as in that regime inefficiency is always a negative.

hawkeye says:


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.

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

What a guy

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?

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.

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.