Democrats reject chance to avoid sequester

[Trajan]

So when you say the Democrats "reject[ed] chance to avoid sequester", what you really mean is that they didn't give you you're way, so now you want to whine like a child.

Not at all, I mean they rejected a chance to avoid the sequester and all the indiscriminate cuts they are whining about. If I had my way we would be cutting actual spending by at least 25%, not spending more money than we did last year and running around like Chicken Little because we are going to spend 2% less than we planned on spending this year.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't intelligent enough to deal with me on this subject.

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

you're such a ...jesus, I have run out of adjectives to describe your hackery...



right becasue in the wild woolly world of moronic liberal pathology, a bill to reduce spending has to tax and.........spend.:rolleyes


“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.

CBO | S. 388, the American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Democrats reject chance to avoid sequester. Nutballs run around crying "The sky is falling. The sky is falling..."

At least one of the two worst parties in America seems to be waking up. And based on the header claim, it ain't the nutball party.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So when you say the Democrats "reject[ed] chance to avoid sequester", what you really mean is that they didn't give you you're way, so now you want to whine like a child.

Not at all, I mean they rejected a chance to avoid the sequester and all the indiscriminate cuts they are whining about. If I had my way we would be cutting actual spending by at least 25%, not spending more money than we did last year and running around like Chicken Little because we are going to spend 2% less than we planned on spending this year.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't intelligent enough to deal with me on this subject.

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

How about because I actually included it in the OP of this thread?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not at all, I mean they rejected a chance to avoid the sequester and all the indiscriminate cuts they are whining about. If I had my way we would be cutting actual spending by at least 25%, not spending more money than we did last year and running around like Chicken Little because we are going to spend 2% less than we planned on spending this year.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't intelligent enough to deal with me on this subject.

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

you're such a ...jesus, I have run out of adjectives to describe your hackery...



right becasue in the wild woolly world of moronic liberal pathology, a bill to reduce spending has to tax and.........spend.:rolleyes;


“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.

CBO | S. 388, the American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013

I was questioning the OP's pretending to be one of those both-parties-are-bad guys, and yet he always attacks liberals and Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not at all, I mean they rejected a chance to avoid the sequester and all the indiscriminate cuts they are whining about. If I had my way we would be cutting actual spending by at least 25%, not spending more money than we did last year and running around like Chicken Little because we are going to spend 2% less than we planned on spending this year.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't intelligent enough to deal with me on this subject.

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

How about because I actually included it in the OP of this thread?

You know who really caused the sequester? The Republicans, way back in the spring of 2011, when they refused to pass a clean debt ceiling bill.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

you're such a ...jesus, I have run out of adjectives to describe your hackery...



right becasue in the wild woolly world of moronic liberal pathology, a bill to reduce spending has to tax and.........spend.:rolleyes;


“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.

CBO | S. 388, the American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013

I was questioning the OP's pretending to be one of those both-parties-are-bad guys, and yet he always attacks liberals and Democrats.

I believe government is bad, remember?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

How about because I actually included it in the OP of this thread?

You know who really caused the sequester? The Republicans, way back in the spring of 2011, when they refused to pass a clean debt ceiling bill.

Good for them, I like the sequester.

 

[Trajan]

The Democrats' bill to end the sequester was killed by the Republicans. Why don't you start a thread about that, entitled,

Republicans rejected chance to avoid sequester...

How about because I actually included it in the OP of this thread?

You know who really caused the sequester? The Republicans, way back in the spring of 2011, when they refused to pass a clean debt ceiling bill.

right, boehner made obama burp it up..... comedy gold....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama gets his sequester

 

[Polk]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Republicans wanted to handle the cuts the way any normally developed adult would: Prioritize and eliminate the unnecessary. Obama, the man child, who never had a real job insisted that thinking was too hard for him and DEMANDED the Sequester

It's Obama's Sequester

Are you still confused about the difference?

 

[Polk]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Republicans wanted to handle the cuts the way any normally developed adult would: Prioritize and eliminate the unnecessary. Obama, the man child, who never had a real job insisted that thinking was too hard for him and DEMANDED the Sequester

It's Obama's Sequester

Are you still confused about the difference?

The problem is that none of that is true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Once again, the sequester was Obama's idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Republicans wanted to handle the cuts the way any normally developed adult would: Prioritize and eliminate the unnecessary. Obama, the man child, who never had a real job insisted that thinking was too hard for him and DEMANDED the Sequester

It's Obama's Sequester

Are you still confused about the difference?

The problem is that none of that is true.

Obama proposed the sequester in order to force a deal on spending cuts that included both defense and social programs that made more sense. Now he is taking the position that any cuts to social programs is totally unacceptable.

He owns the sequester, and the results, good or bad.

 

[Polk]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Once again, the sequester was Obama's idea.

Not in any substantive way. He brought it up first as a mechanism, but that was due to the Republican demand for cuts in return for not defaulting on the national debt. The analogy I made earlier in this thread (may have been in one of the other sequester threads) still holds. If you give someone who is about to be killed the option of being shot or stabbed, it would be really bizarre to say they chose to be killed because they chose the implement used to do it.

 

[Polk]

Republicans wanted to handle the cuts the way any normally developed adult would: Prioritize and eliminate the unnecessary. Obama, the man child, who never had a real job insisted that thinking was too hard for him and DEMANDED the Sequester

It's Obama's Sequester

Are you still confused about the difference?

The problem is that none of that is true.

Obama proposed the sequester in order to force a deal on spending cuts that included both defense and social programs that made more sense. Now he is taking the position that any cuts to social programs is totally unacceptable.

He owns the sequester, and the results, good or bad.

That would be a great story, if only it were true. The reality is that the Republicans demanded budget cuts in exchange for not defaulting on the national debt.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

"The sequester is Obama's idea"

If that is true, then he has finally got something right.

My question is, why are nutballs braying like nutted calves about cutting spending? Shouldn't wild-eyed librals be the ones claiming the sky is falling?

How pathetic is it that the human cattle populating the party of NeoCon Ron and his unholy disciple Junebug Bush, were silent while the first tripled the national debt and the second doubled it, then raised hell as Clinton balanced the budget and now squeal like stuck pigs as Obama cuts back spending INCREASES, for Christ's sake?

Which is it, my nutball amigos - do you want spending reduced, or do you just want to whine and thrash around because your corporate lords and masters gave you another touch of the prod?

 

[lukelk]

Just remember, it is the Republicans fault, Obama said so.

The U.S. Senate failed to pass both Republican and Democratic alternatives to head off across-the-board spending cuts, nearly guaranteeing Washington will blow past a Friday deadline to avoid or replace $85 billion in cuts that threaten economic growth, military readiness and jobs.The Democratic alternative would have replaced the cuts, known as the sequester, with a combination of a minimum 30% tax on millionaires and cuts to defense and farm programs. It failed 51-49.
"I really believe that the American people deserve better than what the Republicans in this building believe is the right thing," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The Republican alternative would have transferred sweeping authority to President Obama to force him to determine how to implement $85 billion in cuts instead of the across-the-board spending cut affecting most reaches of the federal government. The sequester exempts military personnel accounts and the social safety net including Social Security and Medicare. The GOP measure also failed, 38-62.

Senate rejects sequester alternatives

The republicans have refused any deals, yawn your putting me to sleep op.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Obama gets his sequester

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Republicans wanted to handle the cuts the way any normally developed adult would: Prioritize and eliminate the unnecessary. Obama, the man child, who never had a real job insisted that thinking was too hard for him and DEMANDED the Sequester

It's Obama's Sequester

Are you still confused about the difference?

You can't be serious? Medicare and SS are unnecessary? Yet they have no problem keeping hundreds of bases open around the world, giving money to nations that don't like us, keeping us at war level spending even though the wars are over, subsidizing businesses who don't need it instead of letting the free-market decide who succeeds, ect. ect.

The only difference between the two parties in regards to spending cuts is what their sacred cows are. But they both have a plethora of them, and they will both let the country sink into bankruptcy before touching their own.

 

[Trajan]

His sequester? Once again, the spending cuts are what the Republicans wanted.

Once again, the sequester was Obama's idea.

Not in any substantive way. He brought it up first as a mechanism, but that was due to the Republican demand for cuts in return for not defaulting on the national debt. The analogy I made earlier in this thread (may have been in one of the other sequester threads) still holds. If you give someone who is about to be killed the option of being shot or stabbed, it would be really bizarre to say they chose to be killed because they chose the implement used to do it.

you're response is pure mitigation and you are using an extreme analogy that is total bunk.

and that doesn't exactly square with obamas comments, or jay carneys comments, if obama was so damn hostile to the sequester why did he say, back in November ( pre- tax revenue) that he would veto any deal to abrogate it?


he was all over it when HE could use it as a hammer for affect, once the sequester became unnecessary (and a liability), useless as he got his tax revenue.

he now in effect wants his cake and to eat it too, let me mix metaphors further- he got to use the stick to get what he wanted and then took away the carrot too, by not cutting.

and to top it off, he wants to do what the gop suggested way back, close loopholes and drop certain deductions. he did his you-tube BS yesterday and said that exactly, more revenue by way of closing loopholes and deductions, this is not opinion it is fact.

AND, this is exactly why too, the gop will no longer NOT use 'normal order' going forward, he cannot be trusted, at all, he is pretending what he said before jan 3 when he signed that new tax revenue bill doesn't exist.