Obama's sequestration that he OF COURSE blames others for

[Procrustes Stretched]

some things deserve repeating

Obama: I Will Veto Attempts To Get Rid Of Automatic Spending Cuts - Forbes

President Barack Obama gave a press conference after the Supercommittee officially admitted it failed to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion in budget spending over the next 10 years. Obama told reporters he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts which are set to kick in as a part of the sequester proposition, which will be triggered unless Congress reaches over the next year.

“I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts,” said Obama from the White House’s briefing room, adding “the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal.”

Now I guess the Democrats will start asking Harry Reid about the House passed Budgets that have been passed and sat in Senate without a vote for the past year....

Oh wait a minute.. Democrats question Reid as to why he refused to bring House Passed bills to vote... The moon will turn blue while a pig and a cow fly over it first.

Jump to: navigation, search

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

..............

Jay Carney Admits Sequester Was The President's Idea | RealClearPolitics

Shit. I wonder why Obama doesn't just fire Carney.

Heck. I wonder why he didn't just correct him.

Lifted from a post of mine in a different thread.

Sequestration is a Congressional thing. GOP needs to take responsibility for it's own actions and stop shilling for the wealthy elites as it salivates over the possibility of cutting programs.

GOP: name the programs you want to cut.

JAY CARNEY: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president's team. (Special Report, February 12, 2013)

The PowerPoint That Proves It?s Not Obama?s Sequester After All - The Daily Beast

Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.

But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”

It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled: “Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”

It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration&#8217. Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”

 

[Seawytch]

So gramps, if this was all the President's idea, why did the Boehner say he got 98% of what he wanted after it was decided upon? That 2% is the sequestration?

Why did the Boehner produce a Power Point, in 2011, extolling the virtues of the sequester?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

..............

Lifted from a post of mine in a different thread.

Sequestration is a Congressional thing. GOP needs to take responsibility for it's own actions and stop shilling for the wealthy elites as it salivates over the possibility of cutting programs.

GOP: name the programs you want to cut.

JAY CARNEY: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president's team. (Special Report, February 12, 2013)

The PowerPoint That Proves It?s Not Obama?s Sequester After All - The Daily Beast

Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating.

But here’s the thing. I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.”

It’s a PowerPoint presentation that Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled: “Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.”

It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

The presentation lays out the deal in clear terms, describing the spending backstop as “automatic across-the-board cuts (‘sequestration’). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.”

Why did Congress and the White House agree to the sequester in the first place?
The government was approaching its debt limit, which needed to be raised through a congressional vote or else the country would default in early August 2011. While Democrats were in favor of a “clean” vote without strings attached, Republicans were demanding substantial cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
President Obama and congressional leaders ultimately agreed to the BCA, which would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.1 trillion in exchange for the establishment of the supercommittee tied to the fall-back sequester, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains. The deal also includes mandatory spending reductions on top of the sequester by putting caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending that will reduce funding by $1 trillion by 2021.
Who supported the debt-ceiling deal?
Party leaders, the White House and most members of Congress supported the debt-ceiling deal: The BCA passed on a 268-161 vote in the House, with about one-third of House Republicans and half of House Democrats opposing it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26, with six Democratic senators and 19 Republican senators opposing it.
Can the sequester be avoided?
Yes, but only if Congress passes another budget deal that would achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Both Democrats and Republicans have offered proposals to do so, but there still isn’t much progress on a deal. The political obstacles are the same as during the supercommittee negotiations: Republicans don’t want to raise taxes to generate revenue, while Democrats are reluctant to make dramatic changes to entitlement programs to achieve savings.
The sequester, explained

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The majority of the blame most definitely goes to GOP.

"Obama has said he wants Congress to end tax loopholes enjoyed mainly by the wealthy to buy lawmakers enough time to pass a budget but Republicans are insisting on deeper spending cuts to reduce the $16 trillion national debt."

What does the GOP see wrong with closing loopholes for the wealthy? Their stick-in-the-mud attitude on this one only makes it look like (or for some people it validates the argument), the GOP is shilling for the wealthy elites.

If the GOP wants cuts to programs the American people deserve an explanation. The GOP needs to name the cuts it so desperately wants?

When Obama wanted taxes raise -- he named them. Why won't the GOP just be honest and open with the American people, and name the cuts they would hold America hostage for?

The latest GOP con game is now saying sequestration will not eb so bad, after they said it would be.

They GOP is hedging bets -- betting against the American people, and betting that both parties and the President will share blame with the GOP.

This isn't governing, it's electioneering.

Dante

dD

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

..............

Sequestration is a Congressional thing. GOP needs to take responsibility for it's own actions and stop shilling for the wealthy elites as it salivates over the possibility of cutting programs.

GOP: name the programs you want to cut.

JAY CARNEY: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president's team. (Special Report, February 12, 2013)

Why did Congress and the White House agree to the sequester in the first place?
The government was approaching its debt limit, which needed to be raised through a congressional vote or else the country would default in early August 2011. While Democrats were in favor of a “clean” vote without strings attached, Republicans were demanding substantial cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
President Obama and congressional leaders ultimately agreed to the BCA, which would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.1 trillion in exchange for the establishment of the supercommittee tied to the fall-back sequester, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains. The deal also includes mandatory spending reductions on top of the sequester by putting caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending that will reduce funding by $1 trillion by 2021.
Who supported the debt-ceiling deal?
Party leaders, the White House and most members of Congress supported the debt-ceiling deal: The BCA passed on a 268-161 vote in the House, with about one-third of House Republicans and half of House Democrats opposing it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26, with six Democratic senators and 19 Republican senators opposing it.
Can the sequester be avoided?
Yes, but only if Congress passes another budget deal that would achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Both Democrats and Republicans have offered proposals to do so, but there still isn’t much progress on a deal. The political obstacles are the same as during the supercommittee negotiations: Republicans don’t want to raise taxes to generate revenue, while Democrats are reluctant to make dramatic changes to entitlement programs to achieve savings.
The sequester, explained

Some Conservative media have been saying, and now some very influential Republicans are now saying, sequestration will not be so bad.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

..............

Why did Congress and the White House agree to the sequester in the first place?
The government was approaching its debt limit, which needed to be raised through a congressional vote or else the country would default in early August 2011. While Democrats were in favor of a “clean” vote without strings attached, Republicans were demanding substantial cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
President Obama and congressional leaders ultimately agreed to the BCA, which would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.1 trillion in exchange for the establishment of the supercommittee tied to the fall-back sequester, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains. The deal also includes mandatory spending reductions on top of the sequester by putting caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending that will reduce funding by $1 trillion by 2021.
Who supported the debt-ceiling deal?
Party leaders, the White House and most members of Congress supported the debt-ceiling deal: The BCA passed on a 268-161 vote in the House, with about one-third of House Republicans and half of House Democrats opposing it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26, with six Democratic senators and 19 Republican senators opposing it.
Can the sequester be avoided?
Yes, but only if Congress passes another budget deal that would achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Both Democrats and Republicans have offered proposals to do so, but there still isn’t much progress on a deal. The political obstacles are the same as during the supercommittee negotiations: Republicans don’t want to raise taxes to generate revenue, while Democrats are reluctant to make dramatic changes to entitlement programs to achieve savings.
The sequester, explained

Conservative media and some very influential Republicans are now saying sequestration will not be so bad after all.

You shouldn't have a problem with it After all it was what obama suggested

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why did Congress and the White House agree to the sequester in the first place?
The government was approaching its debt limit, which needed to be raised through a congressional vote or else the country would default in early August 2011. While Democrats were in favor of a “clean” vote without strings attached, Republicans were demanding substantial cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
President Obama and congressional leaders ultimately agreed to the BCA, which would allow the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.1 trillion in exchange for the establishment of the supercommittee tied to the fall-back sequester, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains. The deal also includes mandatory spending reductions on top of the sequester by putting caps on non-entitlement discretionary spending that will reduce funding by $1 trillion by 2021.
Who supported the debt-ceiling deal?
Party leaders, the White House and most members of Congress supported the debt-ceiling deal: The BCA passed on a 268-161 vote in the House, with about one-third of House Republicans and half of House Democrats opposing it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26, with six Democratic senators and 19 Republican senators opposing it.
Can the sequester be avoided?
Yes, but only if Congress passes another budget deal that would achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Both Democrats and Republicans have offered proposals to do so, but there still isn’t much progress on a deal. The political obstacles are the same as during the supercommittee negotiations: Republicans don’t want to raise taxes to generate revenue, while Democrats are reluctant to make dramatic changes to entitlement programs to achieve savings.
The sequester, explained

Conservative media and some very influential Republicans are now saying sequestration will not be so bad after all.

You shouldn't have a problem with it After all it was what obama suggested

So the GOP is not responsible for taking suggestions?

The President and the GOP said sequestration would force them to act responsible. Now it is only the conservatives and the GOP saying sequestration will not be so bad a thing/

It is you who should be happy...your side has lied


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html#post6850377

 

[nodoginnafight]

A simple question: Who controlled Congress - where all spending has to be approved - during those years?

Same people who control congress EVERY year - people who want to spend more and more of our money.

The only difference between the parties is what they want to spend it on.

Since the GOP controls the House - where all spending bills originate - are THEY the ones responsible for our current spending?

Don't get sucked into playing the blame game. They are ALL responsible and if the cliff is the only way to get any meaningful reform - and history teaches us that it is - then I'm all for doing a little cliff diving.

The GOP didn't control the house until 2011 try again.

Oh please.
The GOP has controlled the House of Representatives 16 out of the last 20 years.
You saying all the damage was done in those other four?

Don't get sucked into their blame game - if you do, you are simply letting one side off the hook.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now it is only the conservatives and the GOP saying sequestration will not be so bad a thing

Not true - I've been called liberal on these boards too often for me to count.
I'm ready to take the plunge.
I'm not saying it won't be difficult - it will.
But if you wanna have a dance, you gotta pay the band.
And we've been dancing without paying for way too long now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Same people who control congress EVERY year - people who want to spend more and more of our money.

The only difference between the parties is what they want to spend it on.

Since the GOP controls the House - where all spending bills originate - are THEY the ones responsible for our current spending?

Don't get sucked into playing the blame game. They are ALL responsible and if the cliff is the only way to get any meaningful reform - and history teaches us that it is - then I'm all for doing a little cliff diving.

The GOP didn't control the house until 2011 try again.

Oh please.
The GOP has controlled the House of Representatives 16 out of the last 20 years.
You saying all the damage was done in those other four?

Don't get sucked into their blame game - if you do, you are simply letting one side off the hook.

The GOP since Reagan has refused to take responsibility for it's own actions. Reagan started with ...

"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." - Ronald Reagan, denying the Iran-Contra Affair, November 198654

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan, admitting the Iran-Contra Affair, March 198755

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same people who control congress EVERY year - people who want to spend more and more of our money.

The only difference between the parties is what they want to spend it on.

Since the GOP controls the House - where all spending bills originate - are THEY the ones responsible for our current spending?

Don't get sucked into playing the blame game. They are ALL responsible and if the cliff is the only way to get any meaningful reform - and history teaches us that it is - then I'm all for doing a little cliff diving.

The GOP didn't control the house until 2011 try again.

Oh please.
The GOP has controlled the House of Representatives 16 out of the last 20 years.
You saying all the damage was done in those other four?

Don't get sucked into their blame game - if you do, you are simply letting one side off the hook.

12 years

2005-2007

Republicans, 232 Seats
Democrats, 202 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2005-01-03): 10783.75
Dow Close (2006-12-29): 12463.15
GDP: 3.1% (2005), 2.7% (2006)
Surplus/Deficit: -319 Billion$ (2005), -248 Billion$ (2006)
Inflation Rate: 3.4% (2005), 2.5% (2006)

--

2003-2005

Republicans, 229 Seats
Democrats, 205 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2003-01-02): 8342.38
Dow Close (2004-12-31): 10783.01
GDP: 2.5% (2003), 3.5% (2004)
Surplus/Deficit: -374 Billion$ (2003), -413 Billion$ (2004)
Inflation Rate: 1.9% (2003), 3.3% (2004)

--

2001-2003

Republicans, 221 Seats
Democrats, 212 Seats
Independents, 2 Seats

Dow Open (2001-01-02): 10790.92
Dow Close (2002-12-31): 8341.63
GDP: 1.1% (2001), 1.8% (2002)
Surplus/Deficit: 127.3 Billion$ (2001), -157.8 Billion$ (2002)
Inflation Rate: 1.6% (2001), 2.4% (2002)

--

1999-2001

Republicans, 223 Seats
Democrats, 211 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1999-01-04): 9212.84
Dow Close (2000-12-29): 10787.99
GDP: 4.8% (1999), 4.1% (2000)
Surplus/Deficit: 125.6 Billion$ (1999), 236.4 Billion$ (2000)
Inflation Rate: 2.7% (1999), 3.4% (2000)

--

1997-1999

Republicans, 228 Seats
Democrats, 206 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1997-01-02): 6448.27
Dow Close (1998-12-31): 9181.43
GDP: 4.5% (1997), 4.4% (1998)
Surplus/Deficit: -22 Billion$ (1997), 69.2 Billion$ (1998)
Inflation Rate: 1.7% (1997), 1.6% (1998)

--

1995-1997

Republicans, 230 Seats
Democrats, 204 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1995-01-03): 3834.44
Dow Close (1996-12-31): 6448.27
GDP: 2.5% (1995), 3.7% (1996)
Surplus/Deficit: -164 Billion$ (1995), -107.5 Billion$ (1996)
Inflation Rate: 2.5% (1995), 3.3% (1996)

But do you want too go down that road with who controlled what for how many years?

 

[cereal_killer]

Thread cleaned and re-opened. Guys quit the off topic bickering in here. I have C4 planted in here and I will use it. Thanks!

 

[nodoginnafight]

The GOP didn't control the house until 2011 try again.

Oh please.
The GOP has controlled the House of Representatives 16 out of the last 20 years.
You saying all the damage was done in those other four?

Don't get sucked into their blame game - if you do, you are simply letting one side off the hook.

12 years

2005-2007

Republicans, 232 Seats
Democrats, 202 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2005-01-03): 10783.75
Dow Close (2006-12-29): 12463.15
GDP: 3.1% (2005), 2.7% (2006)
Surplus/Deficit: -319 Billion$ (2005), -248 Billion$ (2006)
Inflation Rate: 3.4% (2005), 2.5% (2006)

--

2003-2005

Republicans, 229 Seats
Democrats, 205 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2003-01-02): 8342.38
Dow Close (2004-12-31): 10783.01
GDP: 2.5% (2003), 3.5% (2004)
Surplus/Deficit: -374 Billion$ (2003), -413 Billion$ (2004)
Inflation Rate: 1.9% (2003), 3.3% (2004)

--

2001-2003

Republicans, 221 Seats
Democrats, 212 Seats
Independents, 2 Seats

Dow Open (2001-01-02): 10790.92
Dow Close (2002-12-31): 8341.63
GDP: 1.1% (2001), 1.8% (2002)
Surplus/Deficit: 127.3 Billion$ (2001), -157.8 Billion$ (2002)
Inflation Rate: 1.6% (2001), 2.4% (2002)

--

1999-2001

Republicans, 223 Seats
Democrats, 211 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1999-01-04): 9212.84
Dow Close (2000-12-29): 10787.99
GDP: 4.8% (1999), 4.1% (2000)
Surplus/Deficit: 125.6 Billion$ (1999), 236.4 Billion$ (2000)
Inflation Rate: 2.7% (1999), 3.4% (2000)

--

1997-1999

Republicans, 228 Seats
Democrats, 206 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1997-01-02): 6448.27
Dow Close (1998-12-31): 9181.43
GDP: 4.5% (1997), 4.4% (1998)
Surplus/Deficit: -22 Billion$ (1997), 69.2 Billion$ (1998)
Inflation Rate: 1.7% (1997), 1.6% (1998)

--

1995-1997

Republicans, 230 Seats
Democrats, 204 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1995-01-03): 3834.44
Dow Close (1996-12-31): 6448.27
GDP: 2.5% (1995), 3.7% (1996)
Surplus/Deficit: -164 Billion$ (1995), -107.5 Billion$ (1996)
Inflation Rate: 2.5% (1995), 3.3% (1996)

But do you want too go down that road with who controlled what for how many years?

Of the last 10 congresses, Republicans have held the majority 8 times. Democrats twice.

Neither party has shown a proclivity for cutting spending.

Period.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Republicans asked for (and got) the automatic spending cuts trigger in return for their approval of raising the debt ceiling.

But by all means ... let's just punt the real issues and challenges in favor of finger-pointing. It's so productive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who dares say most all of the blame does not lie squarely at the feet of the GOP?

Obama wants Congress to end tax loopholes enjoyed mainly by the wealthy and to come back to the table

The PowerPoint That Proves It’s Not Obama’s Sequester After All

www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh please.
The GOP has controlled the House of Representatives 16 out of the last 20 years.
You saying all the damage was done in those other four?

Don't get sucked into their blame game - if you do, you are simply letting one side off the hook.

12 years

2005-2007

Republicans, 232 Seats
Democrats, 202 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2005-01-03): 10783.75
Dow Close (2006-12-29): 12463.15
GDP: 3.1% (2005), 2.7% (2006)
Surplus/Deficit: -319 Billion$ (2005), -248 Billion$ (2006)
Inflation Rate: 3.4% (2005), 2.5% (2006)

--

2003-2005

Republicans, 229 Seats
Democrats, 205 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (2003-01-02): 8342.38
Dow Close (2004-12-31): 10783.01
GDP: 2.5% (2003), 3.5% (2004)
Surplus/Deficit: -374 Billion$ (2003), -413 Billion$ (2004)
Inflation Rate: 1.9% (2003), 3.3% (2004)

--

2001-2003

Republicans, 221 Seats
Democrats, 212 Seats
Independents, 2 Seats

Dow Open (2001-01-02): 10790.92
Dow Close (2002-12-31): 8341.63
GDP: 1.1% (2001), 1.8% (2002)
Surplus/Deficit: 127.3 Billion$ (2001), -157.8 Billion$ (2002)
Inflation Rate: 1.6% (2001), 2.4% (2002)

--

1999-2001

Republicans, 223 Seats
Democrats, 211 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1999-01-04): 9212.84
Dow Close (2000-12-29): 10787.99
GDP: 4.8% (1999), 4.1% (2000)
Surplus/Deficit: 125.6 Billion$ (1999), 236.4 Billion$ (2000)
Inflation Rate: 2.7% (1999), 3.4% (2000)

--

1997-1999

Republicans, 228 Seats
Democrats, 206 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1997-01-02): 6448.27
Dow Close (1998-12-31): 9181.43
GDP: 4.5% (1997), 4.4% (1998)
Surplus/Deficit: -22 Billion$ (1997), 69.2 Billion$ (1998)
Inflation Rate: 1.7% (1997), 1.6% (1998)

--

1995-1997

Republicans, 230 Seats
Democrats, 204 Seats
Independent, 1 Seat

Dow Open (1995-01-03): 3834.44
Dow Close (1996-12-31): 6448.27
GDP: 2.5% (1995), 3.7% (1996)
Surplus/Deficit: -164 Billion$ (1995), -107.5 Billion$ (1996)
Inflation Rate: 2.5% (1995), 3.3% (1996)

But do you want too go down that road with who controlled what for how many years?

Of the last 10 congresses, Republicans have held the majority 8 times. Democrats twice.

Neither party has shown a proclivity for cutting spending.

Period.

The only real majority was after clinton sign the assault weapons ban

 

[PredFan]

Let the sequestration happen.

We will face serious cuts at some point, why not now? Will someone stop kicking the can down the road?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The only real majority was after clinton sign the assault weapons ban

Oh, I see. Now you amend to say "real" majority.

Go right ahead and play the hyper-partisan game - you seem to be totally invested in that.

I'm invested in my country - not a party.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let the sequestration happen.

We will face serious cuts at some point, why not now? Will someone stop kicking the can down the road?

Predfan - we disagree early and often. But on this one, I totally agree.