Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

[Kosh]

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

More far left propaganda not based on reality..

But then again where would these far left drones be without their programmed religious propaganda..

 

[Treeshepherd]

Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.

Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.

Washington spent $30,543 per household in 2010—$5,000 per household more than 2008.
The Federal budget was $3.1 trillion in 2009. They're asking for $3.9 trillion this year. Government spending has increased 25% under Obama.

The national debt has increased by at least $7 or $8 trillion under Obama. He has a ways to go too. Likely he'll set a record that may never be broken, or hopefully will never be exceeded if we are to remain solvent.

I'm not here to defend the Republicans in any way. They know how to spend too. But you can see clearly by the OP that the American public is incredibly ignorant on this subject.

Basically, you take a ridiculous figure like the unprecedented $1.5 trillion deficit of 2010 (that's almost $13,000 of debt per household in one year). Then, you reduce that number to a lesser but still astronomical number and hey, we reduced the deficit! The deficits during the Bush years were around $400 billion or less. That's still ridiculous, and the interest to be paid on that never goes away. But by comparison, the Obama deficits have ranged from over $1.5 trillion to about $600 billion (off the top of my head). It's not all his fault. It's more the fault of total American ignorance.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Got it YOU hate FACTS. that the top 1/10th of 1% % paid EFFECTIVE rates of over 70%

"The rich paid a lower % of their income than they do today"


lmaorog

ANTI Tax Foundation is the source Bubba, live in reality

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percentile

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.

Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.

 

[Dad2three]

Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.

Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.

Washington spent $30,543 per household in 2010—$5,000 per household more than 2008.
The Federal budget was $3.1 trillion in 2009. They're asking for $3.9 trillion this year. Government spending has increased 25% under Obama.

The national debt has increased by at least $7 or $8 trillion under Obama. He has a ways to go too. Likely he'll set a record that may never be broken, or hopefully will never be exceeded if we are to remain solvent.

I'm not here to defend the Republicans in any way. They know how to spend too. But you can see clearly by the OP that the American public is incredibly ignorant on this subject.

Basically, you take a ridiculous figure like the unprecedented $1.5 trillion deficit of 2010 (that's almost $13,000 of debt per household in one year). Then, you reduce that number to a lesser but still astronomical number and hey, we reduced the deficit! The deficits during the Bush years were around $400 billion or less. That's still ridiculous, and the interest to be paid on that never goes away. But by comparison, the Obama deficits have ranged from over $1.5 trillion to about $600 billion (off the top of my head). It's not all his fault. It's more the fault of total American ignorance.

"unprecedented $1.5 trillion deficit of 2010"



January 08, 2009 (12 days PRE Obama, you know Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009
CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year



We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important AND GUTTED REVENUES TO LESS THAN 15% OF GDP. . The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.


POLICIES MATTER, WHY WAS THERE A RECESSION AND DID DEFICITS EXPLODE AGAIN? WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED BETWEEN 2001-2007?





Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.

Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.

You mean when the GOP in Dec 2010 said they'd block ANYTHING if the Dems took the top 2% rates back up to where they were for Clinton??? You know that BLACKMAIL thing since the Dems didn't have 60 votes in the Senate? Need a link Bubba?

No they ONLY got the top tax rate back to those making $450,000+ a year as a family to increase, AND Obama's ALWAYS said we need more revenues!

Yes, GOP's political theater IS effective to their right wing base, gutting taxes on the rich like Ronnie did while increasing SS taxes on the workers, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.

Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.

Washington spent $30,543 per household in 2010—$5,000 per household more than 2008.
The Federal budget was $3.1 trillion in 2009. They're asking for $3.9 trillion this year. Government spending has increased 25% under Obama.

The national debt has increased by at least $7 or $8 trillion under Obama. He has a ways to go too. Likely he'll set a record that may never be broken, or hopefully will never be exceeded if we are to remain solvent.

I'm not here to defend the Republicans in any way. They know how to spend too. But you can see clearly by the OP that the American public is incredibly ignorant on this subject.

Basically, you take a ridiculous figure like the unprecedented $1.5 trillion deficit of 2010 (that's almost $13,000 of debt per household in one year). Then, you reduce that number to a lesser but still astronomical number and hey, we reduced the deficit! The deficits during the Bush years were around $400 billion or less. That's still ridiculous, and the interest to be paid on that never goes away. But by comparison, the Obama deficits have ranged from over $1.5 trillion to about $600 billion (off the top of my head). It's not all his fault. It's more the fault of total American ignorance.

WHERE did the debt come from? Hint:

GOP policy. Here's some:

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."


...Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the fucking growth?"


How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Rolling Stone

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Obama warned Tuesday about the "brutal" consequences of $85 billion in "meat cleaver" budget cuts set to take effect March 1 -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if they come to pass."

Obama Sequester meat cleaver will hurt economy

And now the Progs have been ordered to give Obama credit for it.

 

[Dad2three]

nice charts from a far left blog. But even those biased charts prove that when the corporate tax rate is reduced, govt revenue goes up because more people are working and paying taxes.

of course they use the term "payroll tax" which to libs means social security and medicare not income taxes.

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.

Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.

"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."

THE ACTUAL FACTS:




Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue



In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\

But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.


Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian

 

[Treeshepherd]

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

 

[Dad2three]

President Obama warned Tuesday about the "brutal" consequences of $85 billion in "meat cleaver" budget cuts set to take effect March 1 -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if they come to pass."

Obama Sequester meat cleaver will hurt economy

And now the Progs have been ordered to give Obama credit for it.

ONCE MORE TO YOU BUBBA


LIARFRANK SAID:
"Hilarious now they're giving Obama credit for the brutal sequester"



Says President Barack Obama is responsible for pending defense cuts.
— Mitt Romney on Friday, September 21st, 2012 in a campaign ad


Feb 8, 2013 - House Speaker John Boehner's office has even come up with an handy Twitter hashtag: #obamaquester

Speaker John Boehner
2013: The cuts are “Obama’s sequester.”…


Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida

2011: Miller voted for the sequester.

2013: The “Administration’s sequestration threatens to reduce our military’s readiness and throw our nation into another recession.”

Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois

2011: Roskam, too, voted in favor of the sequestration.

2013: “The sequester is the president’s sequester.”

Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia

In 2011: Cantor acknowledged the Budget Control Act was “not perfect” but praised the House for having “prevented default and boosted economic certainty by ensuring America pays its bills while we start getting our fiscal house in order…It will finally begin to change the way Washington spends its taxpayers dollars.”

In 2013: “The president, he’s the one that proposed the sequester in the first place.”


Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

In 2011: “What conservatives like me have been fighting for, for years, are statutory caps on spending, legal caps in law that says government agencies cannot spend over a set amount of money,” he told Fox News. “…And if they breach that amount across the board, sequester comes in to cut that spending, and you can’t turn that off without a super-majority vote. We got that into law. “On the House floor, he said the law was “a victory for those committed to controlling government spending.”

In 2013: The sequester “will probably occur” because “the president has not a proposal yet on the table…Don’t forget, it’s the president who first proposed the sequester. It’s the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed.”


Obamaquester They were for it before they were against it MSNBC



LOL

 

[Dad2three]

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

You mean IF we don't get revenues back to where Carter/Clinton had them? Why do you keep going back to 2008, when the deficit was directly related to Dubya's subprime meltdown AND Dubya/GOP gutting revenues from 20% to less than 15% of GDP, and the GOP's stated goal is to reduce it further? lol

 

[Treeshepherd]

LOL, What else are you going to pull out of your ass? Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, brought in more revenues? Or SS taxes Ronnie increased by over $2+ trillion that hid the REAL costs of his tax cuts, which is owed to the "BK" SS system?

PLEASE show ANY correlation to lowering Corp taxes and ANY growth in the US, EVER!!!


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.

Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.

"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."

THE ACTUAL FACTS:




Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue



In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\

But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.


Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian

Different parties spew different rhetoric. In my opinion, the outcomes are scripted. Politicians are just bad B grade actors cavorting on a stage. It's like pro wrestling where someone Hulk Hogan wins and Andre the Giant loses, but the outcome is scripted and they both get paid by McMahon at the end of the day.

You can quote a politician saying he wanted this or he wanted that. Reagan said in his speeches he wanted Congress to reduce spending, giving partisan Reps ammo to blame Dems.

The system is set up for deficits to continue, to build One Nation Under Surveillance, and for endless war. The differences in the parties are purely rhetorical and cosmetic.

 

[Dad2three]

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

AP? Oh you meant right wing big story who DISTORTED the CBO?

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections.

At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to
be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion,
largely because of changes in the economic outlook

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf

lol

 

[Dad2three]

Well holy shit-------------I guess we should raise everyone's taxes to 98%, then we would see real prosperity, right ya dumb shit?

lets tax the living shit out our every american and every american business---------punish those greedy bastards for daring to work hard and make money--------WTF. Put 100% of US money and wealth in the hands of the govt in DC-----------------yeah, then we would see some real progress.

you libs are such fuckin idiots. you make me vomit.

Well maybe the far left drones should set the example and give the government all their money and show us the path..

If it weren't for false premises, distortions and LIES, what else would right wingers EVER have???

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate.

Now that has reversed, and he says in the SOTU that we should raise taxes on the rich. That's what State of the Union addresses are for; empty political gestures to appease your base. Unfortunately, political theater is highly effective.

"Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a Dem majority in the House and Senate."

THE ACTUAL FACTS:




Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts
Allies say president 'blackmailed' into extending tax cut for wealthier Americans which may cost $4tn in lost revenue



In a bruising political battle that appears to set the tone for Obama's dealings with the Republicans in Congress following their victories in last month's midterm elections, the president had sought to extend a tax cut for middle-class Americans introduced by the Bush administration seven years ago which expires at the end of this month. But he wanted to see a return to pre-cut rates for households with an income above $250,000 a year, on the grounds that wealthier Americans could afford to pay more. The move would generate trillions of dollars for the financially-strapped treasury over the next decade.\

But Republicans blocked the legislation in the Senate at the weekend and said they would rather see everyone's taxes rise than agree to scrapping the cuts for the wealthy. Some Democrats called on Obama to stand firm and let the Republicans carry the blame for the inevitable middle-class backlash.


Barack Obama gives way to Republicans over Bush tax cuts US news The Guardian

Different parties spew different rhetoric. In my opinion, the outcomes are scripted. Politicians are just bad B grade actors cavorting on a stage. It's like pro wrestling where someone Hulk Hogan wins and Andre the Giant loses, but the outcome is scripted and they both get paid by McMahon at the end of the day.

You can quote a politician saying he wanted this or he wanted that. Reagan said in his speeches he wanted Congress to reduce spending, giving partisan Reps ammo to blame Dems.

The system is set up for deficits to continue, to build One Nation Under Surveillance, and for endless war. The differences in the parties are purely rhetorical and cosmetic.

Sure, 'both sides'

lol

Which party set US on pace to pay off the debt without a single vote from the opposing party?


Which party gave US 2 tax cuts, 1 while we are war? Gave US UNFUNDED MEDICARE expansion that costs as much this decade as the 100% funded Obamacares?



FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’


Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), May 24, 1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), July 13, 1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs. And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), May, 27, 1993: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H2949)

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.

Oh, and Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. On May 27, 1993, Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL) said “[Americans] will remember who set loose this dreadful virus into the economic bloodstream of our nation.” If only we could have a “dreadful virus” of that sort today.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

You mean IF we don't get revenues back to where Carter/Clinton had them? Why do you keep going back to 2008, when the deficit was directly related to Dubya's subprime meltdown AND Dubya/GOP gutting revenues from 20% to less than 15% of GDP, and the GOP's stated goal is to reduce it further? lol

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

AP? Oh you meant right wing big story who DISTORTED the CBO?

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections.

At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to
be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion,
largely because of changes in the economic outlook

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf

lol

Now the AP is a right wing think tank?

"But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024"
Updated Budget Projections 2014 to 2024 Congressional Budget Office

Of course current laws are not going to change, partly due to how easy it is for one party to take cover by what the other party says. Republicans/Democrats said this, so it's all the Republicans/Democrats fault [insert opposite party affiliation].

How easy it is to divide and conquer public opinion, when what a politician says in front of a camera is taken as genuine. How easy it is for people to fall for the Warren Buffet line that billionaires should be taxed more, when behind the scenes his lawyers and lobbyists are working to prevent a tax increase on billionaires.

LOL right back at ya.

 

[gipper]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?

"Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years "


Sure they did Bubba, sure. EXCEPT the 6 years the GOP had the Senate under Ronnie

PLEASE show me where the Dems had SUPER majorities in the Senate to get things done? Dubya had a GOP Congress for his first 6 years dummy. Under Obama the Dems had a super majority for 60 working days, AS the economy collapsed by 9%+ and was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.


The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:




I know in right wing world, REALITY is in not a normal thing



BUT FOR THE THIRD TIME:

DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

JUST KEEP MOVING THE GOALS POSTS, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE BUBBA

So now if a party has a super majority, that means they are responsible for income inequality and the national debt. What?

Yes Reagan had the Senate for six years.

The R party since Reagan, has contained many progressives and still does. The D party is entirely progressive. As such, using your theory, should you not blame progressives for income inequality and the national debt, since it is the overwhelming ideology in control of Congress and the WH?

 

[Treeshepherd]

And Clinton lifted the Glass Steigall Act, one of the root causes which led to the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Oh wait, don't tell me, the Reps held a gun to his head.

And it was all the Republican's idea to make credit easy, and to reduce the cost of borrowing money. Pooling mortgages to be used to back securities known as collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), and bribing rating agencies to give a grade A rating on them--- that was an evil Republican plot that Democrats fought tooth and nail.

Let's just all join a team. Go Republicans or Go Democrats! Yay Team! Let's spend our days picking out the ridiculous things that the other side does, and defend our party to the last. After all, one party has a monopoly on the truth and the other party is out to destroy America.

 

[Dad2three]

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

You mean IF we don't get revenues back to where Carter/Clinton had them? Why do you keep going back to 2008, when the deficit was directly related to Dubya's subprime meltdown AND Dubya/GOP gutting revenues from 20% to less than 15% of GDP, and the GOP's stated goal is to reduce it further? lol

The deficit hit $1.4+ trillion. Mostly thanks to stimulus which counted $200 billion in 2009 budget

The U.S. budget deficit will decline slightly to $468 billion this fiscal year

I'm on record on USMB holding Bush accountable for the 2009 deficit. Like I said, I'm not here to defend Republicans.

But, don't tell me that spending has decreased under Obama. The federal budget for fiscal year 2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. That's a 25% increase over 2008.

The $468 billion deficit projected this year is significantly more than the average of 2000-2007 (all but one were under $400 billion). The $468 billion deficit projected for 2015 is contingent on policy changes that will never happen. And, the CBO projects deficits to skyrocket after 2015 due to retirement of the baby boomers, Obamacare and mounting interest on the national debt.

"Despite A Reduction In The Short Term, Deficits Are Expected To Be Back Over $1 Trillion A Year By 2024. “CBO sees the deficit sliding to $478 billion next year before beginning a steady rise years through 2024 that would bring deficits back above $1 trillion a year.” (Andrew Taylor, “New Report: Budget Deficit To Drop To $514b,” Associated Press, 2/4/14)"

AP? Oh you meant right wing big story who DISTORTED the CBO?

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections.

At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to
be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion,
largely because of changes in the economic outlook

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf

lol

Now the AP is a right wing think tank?

"But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024"
Updated Budget Projections 2014 to 2024 Congressional Budget Office

Of course current laws are not going to change, partly due to how easy it is for one party to take cover by what the other party says. Republicans/Democrats said this, so it's all the Republicans/Democrats fault [insert opposite party affiliation].

How easy it is to divide and conquer public opinion, when what a politician says in front of a camera is taken as genuine. How easy it is for people to fall for the Warren Buffet line that billionaires should be taxed more, when behind the scenes his lawyers and lobbyists are working to prevent a tax increase on billionaires.

LOL right back at ya.

Good little rightie YOUR link wasn't AP Bubba, lol



ALL you have is the usual right wing nonsense. Don't try to refute the Dems got US revenues back to Carter's levels under Clinton OR the GOP blocking EVERY attempt by Obama to get more revenues, no it's 'both parties' BS

More talking points with Buffett, nothing more, next you'll trot out the meme on his Corp tax fight with the IRS, lol


Your link

"from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024—mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt."


Weird, I thought Ronnie saving SS took care of that and his tax cuts for the rich brought in more money? lol

The posit of the thread, one you haven't even attempted to refute, is Obama is having the slowest growth of any Prez in generations!



I KNOW, LET'S GO BACK TO THE TIME WHEN GREENSPAN TESTIFIED TO THE GOP CONGRESS THAT BILL CLINTON'S POLICIES WERE IN DANGER OF PAYING OFF THE DEBT TO FAST? YOU KNOW WHEN THEY HAD THEIR FIRST TAX CUT, BEFORE THEY WENT TO WAR AND GUTTED REVENUES EVEN MORE???

lol

 

[Dad2three]

I do not disagree with much of your posts, your problem is thinking the Rs are conservative, Ds are not also owned and controlled by the wealthy, and that the Ds hold no responsibility. You seem to think conservatives have had total control of the central government for the last 40 years, which is most absurd.

The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing. Why?

"The Ds had numerous opportunities to correct this problems, yet did nothing"

PLEASE give me some details, rather than talking points?



"You seem to think conservatives"




ARE THE PROBLEM, BE THEY R OR D

Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years and all of Bush I. Some of BJs eight years and some of W's and BO's years. So how is it they are not responsible for the debt and income inequality?

One would think if the Ds are so wonderful and caring, when they had the WH and Congress they should have fixed all our problems. No?

"Ds controlled both houses during most of Reagan's years "


Sure they did Bubba, sure. EXCEPT the 6 years the GOP had the Senate under Ronnie

PLEASE show me where the Dems had SUPER majorities in the Senate to get things done? Dubya had a GOP Congress for his first 6 years dummy. Under Obama the Dems had a super majority for 60 working days, AS the economy collapsed by 9%+ and was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.


The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:




I know in right wing world, REALITY is in not a normal thing



BUT FOR THE THIRD TIME:

DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

JUST KEEP MOVING THE GOALS POSTS, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE BUBBA

So now if a party has a super majority, that means they are responsible for income inequality and the national debt. What?

Yes Reagan had the Senate for six years.

The R party since Reagan, has contained many progressives and still does. The D party is entirely progressive. As such, using your theory, should you not blame progressives for income inequality and the national debt, since it is the overwhelming ideology in control of Congress and the WH?

Yes Bubba, keep arguing your own FALSE premise, don't worry about the original posits or anything. And YES, Unless the opposing party allows votes in the Senate, the minority party RIGHTFULLY cvan be blamed

Just because YOU say they are progressive in the GOP, no such evidence exists for mist of the past 20+ years Bubba. Of course to you extreme right wingers, Goldwater was liberal, lol

FOR THE FIFTH TIME:

DON'T WORRY ABOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE POINTS I POSIT, AS YOU NEVER DO, JUST CREATING A FALSE PREMISE AND ARGUE FROM THAT POINT INSTEAD, lol

JUST KEEP MOVING THE GOALS POSTS, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE BUBBA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

President Obama warned Tuesday about the "brutal" consequences of $85 billion in "meat cleaver" budget cuts set to take effect March 1 -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if they come to pass."

Obama Sequester meat cleaver will hurt economy

And now the Progs have been ordered to give Obama credit for it.

ONCE MORE TO YOU BUBBA


LIARFRANK SAID:
"Hilarious now they're giving Obama credit for the brutal sequester"



Says President Barack Obama is responsible for pending defense cuts.
— Mitt Romney on Friday, September 21st, 2012 in a campaign ad


Feb 8, 2013 - House Speaker John Boehner's office has even come up with an handy Twitter hashtag: #obamaquester

Speaker John Boehner
2013: The cuts are “Obama’s sequester.”…


Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida

2011: Miller voted for the sequester.

2013: The “Administration’s sequestration threatens to reduce our military’s readiness and throw our nation into another recession.”

Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois

2011: Roskam, too, voted in favor of the sequestration.

2013: “The sequester is the president’s sequester.”

Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia

In 2011: Cantor acknowledged the Budget Control Act was “not perfect” but praised the House for having “prevented default and boosted economic certainty by ensuring America pays its bills while we start getting our fiscal house in order…It will finally begin to change the way Washington spends its taxpayers dollars.”

In 2013: “The president, he’s the one that proposed the sequester in the first place.”


Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

In 2011: “What conservatives like me have been fighting for, for years, are statutory caps on spending, legal caps in law that says government agencies cannot spend over a set amount of money,” he told Fox News. “…And if they breach that amount across the board, sequester comes in to cut that spending, and you can’t turn that off without a super-majority vote. We got that into law. “On the House floor, he said the law was “a victory for those committed to controlling government spending.”

In 2013: The sequester “will probably occur” because “the president has not a proposal yet on the table…Don’t forget, it’s the president who first proposed the sequester. It’s the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed.”


Obamaquester They were for it before they were against it MSNBC

LOL

So Obama was against his own sequester????

"President Obama warned Tuesday about the "brutal" consequences of $85 billion in "meat cleaver" budget cuts set to take effect March 1 -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if they come to pass."