Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Just remember, it is the Republicans fault, Obama said so.
Senate rejects sequester alternativesThe 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.
The republicans have refused any deals, yawn your putting me to sleep op.
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.
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 seem confused. First you say it was his idea, then you say it wasn't, then you go off into an absurd discussion about getting shot or stabbed. Come back when you are sober.
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.
No, they demanded budget cuts in exchange for the power to borrow more money. There would have been no default on the national debt if we had not borrowed more money because the government actually takes in more than enough money to pay the bills it has already run up.
Feel free to keep rewriting history though, I know it makes you feel smart.
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 seem confused. First you say it was his idea, then you say it wasn't, then you go off into an absurd discussion about getting shot or stabbed. Come back when you are sober.
It wasn't his idea in any meaningful sense. The Republicans demanded budget cuts and threatened to force the nation to default if they didn't get them. You can plug your fingers in your ears and shout for the rest of time, but it won't change that fact, which is key to this whole dispute.
You seem confused. First you say it was his idea, then you say it wasn't, then you go off into an absurd discussion about getting shot or stabbed. Come back when you are sober.
It wasn't his idea in any meaningful sense. The Republicans demanded budget cuts and threatened to force the nation to default if they didn't get them. You can plug your fingers in your ears and shout for the rest of time, but it won't change that fact, which is key to this whole dispute.
I asked you to come back when you are sober, not repeat the same stupid, self contradictory, lie.
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.
No, they demanded budget cuts in exchange for the power to borrow more money. There would have been no default on the national debt if we had not borrowed more money because the government actually takes in more than enough money to pay the bills it has already run up.
Feel free to keep rewriting history though, I know it makes you feel smart.
The result of not borrowing more money is default, so that is a distinction without a difference. And who spend the money in the first place? That would be the Republican-lead House, which any appropriations had to go through.
No, they demanded budget cuts in exchange for the power to borrow more money. There would have been no default on the national debt if we had not borrowed more money because the government actually takes in more than enough money to pay the bills it has already run up.
Feel free to keep rewriting history though, I know it makes you feel smart.
The result of not borrowing more money is default, so that is a distinction without a difference. And who spend the money in the first place? That would be the Republican-lead House, which any appropriations had to go through.
Only if you think not paying your cable bill is worse than not paying your mortgage.
Come to think of it, that could explain the who housing crisis thing, maybe we should have just cut off everyone's cable, the money saved would have instantly paid off all the mortgages.
It wasn't his idea in any meaningful sense. The Republicans demanded budget cuts and threatened to force the nation to default if they didn't get them. You can plug your fingers in your ears and shout for the rest of time, but it won't change that fact, which is key to this whole dispute.
I asked you to come back when you are sober, not repeat the same stupid, self contradictory, lie.
The only lies being told are the whoppers you're telling. I get it though. Your crackpot positions are deeply unpopular, so when you do get your way, you're quick to blame the other side for the damage caused by your harebrained ideas.
The result of not borrowing more money is default, so that is a distinction without a difference. And who spend the money in the first place? That would be the Republican-lead House, which any appropriations had to go through.
Only if you think not paying your cable bill is worse than not paying your mortgage.
Come to think of it, that could explain the who housing crisis thing, maybe we should have just cut off everyone's cable, the money saved would have instantly paid off all the mortgages.
Except that you can't compartmentalize the budget like that. The President is constitutionally required to spend the money as Congress appropriated it.
I asked you to come back when you are sober, not repeat the same stupid, self contradictory, lie.
The only lies being told are the whoppers you're telling. I get it though. Your crackpot positions are deeply unpopular, so when you do get your way, you're quick to blame the other side for the damage caused by your harebrained ideas.
Deeply unpopular? Are you aware that at least 40% of the population thinks that the sequester won't be noticeable, and that a significant portion of the rest of the people think we need to do it even if it hurts?
Like I said, keep rewriting history, it makes you feel smart.
Only if you think not paying your cable bill is worse than not paying your mortgage.
Come to think of it, that could explain the who housing crisis thing, maybe we should have just cut off everyone's cable, the money saved would have instantly paid off all the mortgages.
Except that you can't compartmentalize the budget like that. The President is constitutionally required to spend the money as Congress appropriated it.
No he isn't. He is required, by law, to follow the budget that Congress passes, but Congress hasn't passed a budget in 4 years now. The continuing resolutions we have been operating under are not nearly as binding, and the Constitution actually requires that he pay the debt before he pays for his golf outings with Tiger Woods.
Nice try though, you probably felt really smart after that little rewrite.
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.
.......................................
