Sequestration: Blame goes to GOP

[Sallow]

Except, as you know, Reich is lying.

We do need some austerity.

And we need to start imposing some damn fiscal discipline immediately.

You're going to 'not spend' your way out of a recession?

You're suggesting that going much more massively into debt has no adverse consequences?

You engage in magical thinking.

If you have been reckless and/or unfortunate in life and have debt over your eyes, you can't even pay all of your monthly bills every month like your mortgage and food bills and phone bills and utilities and gas for the car (which you need to go back and forth to work and to buy food, etc). So you pick and choose which of your necessities you WILL pay for this month. Then it dawns on you!

You say, "Hey! I know! I can borrow against my credit cards! I'll use Visa to borrow a bit more to pay for Mastercard. I'll use Matercard to pay at least something on the Amex. I'll max out the Amex to buy gas and food this month. And, I'll worry about next months bills next month!" Except next month (or eventually), you now have even larger bills, all coming due, and no available credit left.

Borrowing and spending SURE worked you out of your recession, eh?

What "magical thinking"?

A country is not a person.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The sequester is not in itself all that bad.

The WAY Obama CHOOSES to use it is pretty lousy.

The original notion of the sequester (this time around) came from the Obama team with plenty of responsibility also at the feet of Boehner and the GOP Congressmen.

As for that last "question," I call bullshit. Since when have the GOP and its leadership NOT caved in to the bullshit tactics and PR jobs of Obama and his ilk? It's not like Boehner isn't perfidious and a cheese dick self serving politician. President Obama may not be all that smart (nowhere near as smart as the Obamaphiles love to believe), but he doesn't have to be all that smart to lead chicken-shit like Boehner around.

 

[Sallow]

You're going to 'not spend' your way out of a recession?

Obama has blown $6 trillion, with nothing to show for it (save that the bribes to the unions bought the election for Obama.) Spending like drunken monkeys sure hasn't done anything to boost the economy. Spending that exceeds the increase in GDP growth must by nature harm the economy. And don't show your ignorance of Keynesian economics by spouting off about deficit stimulus, 5 years in and it has nothing to do with Lord Keynes formula.

Blown 6 trillion, eh?

What should he have done..cancelled Bush's debts?

You folks would have had a field day with that one.

 

[Sallow]

The sequester is not in itself all that bad.

The WAY Obama CHOOSES to use it is pretty lousy.

The original notion of the sequester (this time around) came from the Obama team with plenty of responsibility also at the feet of Boehner and the GOP Congressmen.

As for that last "question," I call bullshit. Since when have the GOP and its leadership NOT caved in to the bullshit tactics and PR jobs of Obama and his ilk? It's not like Boehner isn't perfidious and a cheese dick self serving politician. President Obama may not be all that smart (nowhere near as smart as the Obamaphiles love to believe), but he doesn't have to be all that smart to lead chicken-shit like Boehner around.

Oh the sequester is pretty bad.

And the "original" notion came from the GOP. Who suggested it.

Obama wanted a clean budget.

And then tried a grand bargain.

Both things the GOP balked on.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You just put words in my mouth. Shall I defend myself for something I never even came close to saying?

But you just implied it. You can't have it both ways, kid.

Look daddy oh, you can cut a billion dollars and spend a dollar and you are still 'spending'. The problem with austerity/sequestration is that not only does it not effectively cut the deficit, it also stops spending. That is not a recipe for chicken soup. That is a recipe for disaster in a bowl. Kids like chicken soup. We don't like disaster in a bowl.

Look, Mom, old empty is spouting nonsense again. If you were going to spend 1.8 trillion but got cornered into spending only 1.3 trillion, you may be spending way too much, but at least you are starting the process of turning off the spigot.

Sequestration is nothing. In an economy with the kind of deficit spending we have, trimming the claimed $85 billion COULD be a mere trifle. Cut the waste this year alone and it can be done, easily and with almost no pain. But the President has no sense of responsibility and sadly, neither does the GOP leadership.

The GOP if it had balls and sense would call-out the President on his endless lies. Sequester away. And they should come back with authorization for even much less spending next fiscal year. The President and the Senate may not give a shit since they are too irresponsible to pass "budgets" anyway.

But without the House stamp of approval, they can not spend anything and what that means is that for whatever they WANT to spend, they would require HOUSE approval.

The GOP led House HAS much more power than they care to utilize. That's one of the problems with them being chicken shits.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The sequester is not in itself all that bad.

The WAY Obama CHOOSES to use it is pretty lousy.

The original notion of the sequester (this time around) came from the Obama team with plenty of responsibility also at the feet of Boehner and the GOP Congressmen.

As for that last "question," I call bullshit. Since when have the GOP and its leadership NOT caved in to the bullshit tactics and PR jobs of Obama and his ilk? It's not like Boehner isn't perfidious and a cheese dick self serving politician. President Obama may not be all that smart (nowhere near as smart as the Obamaphiles love to believe), but he doesn't have to be all that smart to lead chicken-shit like Boehner around.

Oh the sequester is pretty bad.

And the "original" notion came from the GOP. Who suggested it.

Obama wanted a clean budget.

And then tried a grand bargain.

Both things the GOP balked on.

No. The sequester is just an Obama plaything. Make things LOOK all dire and bleak to get the lapdog media to portray the GOP as the heartless badguys.

And the "original" notion as you have been shown came from the Obama team. Just ask the President's own communications director or his press secretary.

Nothing Obama wanted was "clean." He likes to spend far more than we have. But he's fine with taxing the snot out of everything that moves. And he plays class warfare to get it, too.

The GOP balked for good and sufficient reason. The Obama notion of bargaining (grand or otherwise) in good faith is NON-existent.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're going to 'not spend' your way out of a recession?

You're suggesting that going much more massively into debt has no adverse consequences?

You engage in magical thinking.

If you have been reckless and/or unfortunate in life and have debt over your eyes, you can't even pay all of your monthly bills every month like your mortgage and food bills and phone bills and utilities and gas for the car (which you need to go back and forth to work and to buy food, etc). So you pick and choose which of your necessities you WILL pay for this month. Then it dawns on you!

You say, "Hey! I know! I can borrow against my credit cards! I'll use Visa to borrow a bit more to pay for Mastercard. I'll use Matercard to pay at least something on the Amex. I'll max out the Amex to buy gas and food this month. And, I'll worry about next months bills next month!" Except next month (or eventually), you now have even larger bills, all coming due, and no available credit left.

Borrowing and spending SURE worked you out of your recession, eh?

What "magical thinking"?

A country is not a person.

No. A country is not a person. Nor is it a business. But spending all of the money we do spend when we do not have anywhere near the actual funds to pay for it requires borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. And that does have consequences.

You can't pretend it away. The debt and deficit is toxic and the actual amounts are much more massive and scary than the irresponsible President would admit.

 

[emptystep]

The sequester is not in itself all that bad.

The WAY Obama CHOOSES to use it is pretty lousy.

The original notion of the sequester (this time around) came from the Obama team with plenty of responsibility also at the feet of Boehner and the GOP Congressmen.

As for that last "question," I call bullshit. Since when have the GOP and its leadership NOT caved in to the bullshit tactics and PR jobs of Obama and his ilk? It's not like Boehner isn't perfidious and a cheese dick self serving politician. President Obama may not be all that smart (nowhere near as smart as the Obamaphiles love to believe), but he doesn't have to be all that smart to lead chicken-shit like Boehner around.

Panetta, Dempsty, most military head, DoT, FAA, organizations around the country, governors, and on and on and on.

There have been budget cuts in all sectors many times before. Why are so many people all of a sudden trying desperately to get someone's, anyone's, attention? One chicken little, bah. Two chicken littles, nah. Three chicken littles. ? Four chicken littles. hhmmm Five chicken littles. What? Six chicken littles. Did you say something? Seven chicken littles. What was that? Eight chicken littles. .... This is about as classic 'intelligence failure' as I have seen.

This was designed to be too bad to happen. It would also help if every time a Republican opened his or her mouth they didn't reference Woodward's book.

 

[Sallow]

The sequester is not in itself all that bad.

The WAY Obama CHOOSES to use it is pretty lousy.

The original notion of the sequester (this time around) came from the Obama team with plenty of responsibility also at the feet of Boehner and the GOP Congressmen.

As for that last "question," I call bullshit. Since when have the GOP and its leadership NOT caved in to the bullshit tactics and PR jobs of Obama and his ilk? It's not like Boehner isn't perfidious and a cheese dick self serving politician. President Obama may not be all that smart (nowhere near as smart as the Obamaphiles love to believe), but he doesn't have to be all that smart to lead chicken-shit like Boehner around.

Oh the sequester is pretty bad.

And the "original" notion came from the GOP. Who suggested it.

Obama wanted a clean budget.

And then tried a grand bargain.

Both things the GOP balked on.

No. The sequester is just an Obama plaything. Make things LOOK all dire and bleak to get the lapdog media to portray the GOP as the heartless badguys.

And the "original" notion as you have been shown came from the Obama team. Just ask the President's own communications director or his press secretary.

Nothing Obama wanted was "clean." He likes to spend far more than we have. But he's fine with taxing the snot out of everything that moves. And he plays class warfare to get it, too.

The GOP balked for good and sufficient reason. The Obama notion of bargaining (grand or otherwise) in good faith is NON-existent.

Oh bullshit.

The GOP spends like crazy when they are in power..then whine like brats when they aren't.

Bush came into power with a surplus. He could have paid down debt but chose, instead to give rich folks a huge tax cut.

Then cut interest rates to zero.

Then he started not one but 2 wars.

Then gave a new entitlement to seniors and a gift to big pharma.

Then started a whole new department of "Homeland Security".

Then bailed out banksters and the high stake gamblers in the financial sector.

Obama came into a shitstorm and was able to make lemonade.

And FYI..spending has been going DOWN..

 

[emptystep]

It?s as if the election never happened

House Republicans held a quick session with the press this afternoon to mainly make one point: They have no responsibility for sequestration. Speaker Boehner:

“Republicans have acted twice…to replace with the sequester with what we would argue are smarter cuts. Listen, the president says we have to have another tax increase in order to avoid the sequester. Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase.

“The House has acted twice. We shouldn’t have to act a third time before the Senate begins to do their work.”

This standoff isn’t going to be resolved by rhetoric. But it’s worth noting the extent to which Republican spin simply ignores that there was an election in November.

First of all, whether Boehner and the Republicans like it or not, Barack Obama was in fact re-elected on a platform of “balanced” deficit reduction — that is, new revenue and new spending cuts. Republicans have of course every right to oppose that, but it’s a little strange hearing them talk as if that campaign and election never happened.

But more to the point: claiming to have “acted twice” is nonsense. The expired 112th House may have passed things, but that’s entirely irrelevant now. The current 113th House, with a smaller Republican majority, has passed absolutely nothing to replace sequestration. And as Roll Call points out, the two measures Boehner refers to won by narrow margins last year; it’s quite likely that Republicans don’t have the votes to pass them now.

I just watched that press appearance. Some of those Republicans looked like someone just shot their dog. Eric Cantor looked incredible uncomfortable waiting to speak. Sucks to be bought and paid for and unable to return the check.

 

[Sallow]

You're suggesting that going much more massively into debt has no adverse consequences?

You engage in magical thinking.

If you have been reckless and/or unfortunate in life and have debt over your eyes, you can't even pay all of your monthly bills every month like your mortgage and food bills and phone bills and utilities and gas for the car (which you need to go back and forth to work and to buy food, etc). So you pick and choose which of your necessities you WILL pay for this month. Then it dawns on you!

You say, "Hey! I know! I can borrow against my credit cards! I'll use Visa to borrow a bit more to pay for Mastercard. I'll use Matercard to pay at least something on the Amex. I'll max out the Amex to buy gas and food this month. And, I'll worry about next months bills next month!" Except next month (or eventually), you now have even larger bills, all coming due, and no available credit left.

Borrowing and spending SURE worked you out of your recession, eh?

What "magical thinking"?

A country is not a person.

No. A country is not a person. Nor is it a business. But spending all of the money we do spend when we do not have anywhere near the actual funds to pay for it requires borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. And that does have consequences.

You can't pretend it away. The debt and deficit is toxic and the actual amounts are much more massive and scary than the irresponsible President would admit.

Hookay.

What part of the country are you willing to give up?

Or how many citizens do you want to pack their bags?

We have a huge country..lots of infrastructure and lots of people.

That's

Not

Cheap.

 

[emptystep]

Oh the sequester is pretty bad.

And the "original" notion came from the GOP. Who suggested it.

Obama wanted a clean budget.

And then tried a grand bargain.

Both things the GOP balked on.

No. The sequester is just an Obama plaything. Make things LOOK all dire and bleak to get the lapdog media to portray the GOP as the heartless badguys.

And the "original" notion as you have been shown came from the Obama team. Just ask the President's own communications director or his press secretary.

Nothing Obama wanted was "clean." He likes to spend far more than we have. But he's fine with taxing the snot out of everything that moves. And he plays class warfare to get it, too.

The GOP balked for good and sufficient reason. The Obama notion of bargaining (grand or otherwise) in good faith is NON-existent.

Oh bullshit.

The GOP spends like crazy when they are in power..then whine like brats when they aren't.

Bush came into power with a surplus. He could have paid down debt but chose, instead to give rich folks a huge tax cut.

Then cut interest rates to zero.

Then he started not one but 2 wars.

Then gave a new entitlement to seniors and a gift to big pharma.

Then started a whole new department of "Homeland Security".

Then bailed out banksters and the high stake gamblers in the financial sector.

Obama came into a shitstorm and was able to make lemonade.

And FYI..spending has been going DOWN..

What? Are you saying two wars for eleven years half a world away are expensive? Nonsense. Let's not forget a 'threat level orange' every other week, although that might have been another one of those unfunded mandates.

 

[Bigfoot]

This whole thing is about 2.5% or so of the budget. There is no crisis there is only the political football created by Obama trying to gain a political coup. Any business or family can deal with a 2.5% change in their budget, Obama is trying to sell a phoney governmental disaster of epic proportions. As usual Obama is full of shit. It has gotten to the point that if the fucking guy is breathing he is lying.

 

[Sallow]

No. The sequester is just an Obama plaything. Make things LOOK all dire and bleak to get the lapdog media to portray the GOP as the heartless badguys.

And the "original" notion as you have been shown came from the Obama team. Just ask the President's own communications director or his press secretary.

Nothing Obama wanted was "clean." He likes to spend far more than we have. But he's fine with taxing the snot out of everything that moves. And he plays class warfare to get it, too.

The GOP balked for good and sufficient reason. The Obama notion of bargaining (grand or otherwise) in good faith is NON-existent.

Oh bullshit.

The GOP spends like crazy when they are in power..then whine like brats when they aren't.

Bush came into power with a surplus. He could have paid down debt but chose, instead to give rich folks a huge tax cut.

Then cut interest rates to zero.

Then he started not one but 2 wars.

Then gave a new entitlement to seniors and a gift to big pharma.

Then started a whole new department of "Homeland Security".

Then bailed out banksters and the high stake gamblers in the financial sector.

Obama came into a shitstorm and was able to make lemonade.

And FYI..spending has been going DOWN..

What? Are you saying two wars for eleven years half a world away are expensive? Nonsense. Let's not forget a 'threat level orange' every other week, although that might have been another one of those unfunded mandates.

You mean like "No Child Left Behind"?

 

[Rambunctious]

Crises governing...it's all just white noise to me. Obama can take his Sequester scare tactics and stick them up his ass. If anyone needs to downsize it's Government. Three cheers for the Sequester...

 

[Sallow]

This whole thing is about 2.5% or so of the budget. There is no crisis there is only the political football created by Obama trying to gain a political coup. Any business or family can deal with a 2.5% change in their budget, Obama is trying to sell a phoney governmental disaster of epic proportions. As usual Obama is full of shit. It has gotten to the point that if the fucking guy is breathing he is lying.

Suddenly cutting that much spending is going to lead to a mini recession.

You folks are sorta hoping for that I guess..because you think there is going to be a repeat of 2010.

There won't.

Republicans are going to get slaughtered in 2014 if they keep this up.

 

[EriktheRed]

It?s as if the election never happened

House Republicans held a quick session with the press this afternoon to mainly make one point: They have no responsibility for sequestration. Speaker Boehner:

“Republicans have acted twice…to replace with the sequester with what we would argue are smarter cuts. Listen, the president says we have to have another tax increase in order to avoid the sequester. Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase.

“The House has acted twice. We shouldn’t have to act a third time before the Senate begins to do their work.”

This standoff isn’t going to be resolved by rhetoric. But it’s worth noting the extent to which Republican spin simply ignores that there was an election in November.

First of all, whether Boehner and the Republicans like it or not, Barack Obama was in fact re-elected on a platform of “balanced” deficit reduction — that is, new revenue and new spending cuts. Republicans have of course every right to oppose that, but it’s a little strange hearing them talk as if that campaign and election never happened.

But more to the point: claiming to have “acted twice” is nonsense. The expired 112th House may have passed things, but that’s entirely irrelevant now. The current 113th House, with a smaller Republican majority, has passed absolutely nothing to replace sequestration. And as Roll Call points out, the two measures Boehner refers to won by narrow margins last year; it’s quite likely that Republicans don’t have the votes to pass them now.

I just watched that press appearance. Some of those Republicans looked like someone just shot their dog. Eric Cantor looked incredible uncomfortable waiting to speak. Sucks to be bought and paid for and unable to return the check.

Did they have the "#obamaquester" sign in front of them?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This whole thing is about 2.5% or so of the budget. There is no crisis there is only the political football created by Obama trying to gain a political coup. Any business or family can deal with a 2.5% change in their budget, Obama is trying to sell a phoney governmental disaster of epic proportions. As usual Obama is full of shit. It has gotten to the point that if the fucking guy is breathing he is lying.

If it's no big deal why assign blame? If nothing bad will happen why blame?

Cognitive dissonance runs rampant through the conservative noise machine

 

[Uncensored2008]

What "magical thinking"?

A country is not a person.

An economy is not Aladdin's magic lamp.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on, man. Seriously, move on. You claim to know the inner works of the Oval Office? You honest think Obama was sitting at his desk kicked back with his feet up or on the links and all of a sudden he was like, "I know! I am going to write up a sequestration!" Why don't blame the real villain, some underpaid overworked intern try to get through polly sci.

Look, it's not hard to know what obama did when he said what he said during his press conference here's the Video in full shown by CNN
[ame=http://youtu.be/VxegPMvxgEA]President Obama Super Committee Statement (November 21, 2011) - YouTube[/ame]
And here's the text if you want too read it.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE SUPERCOMMITTEE

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

5:44 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. As you all know, last summer I signed a law that will cut nearly $1 trillion of spending over the next 10 years. Part of that law also required Congress to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion by the end of this year.

In September, I sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal. It's a plan that would reduce the deficit by an additional $3 trillion, by cutting spending, slowing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

In addition to my plan, there were a number of other bipartisan plans for them to consider from both Democrats and Republicans, all of which promoted a balanced approach. This kind of balanced approach to reducing our deficit -- an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share -- is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans -- Democrats, independents, and Republicans. It’s supported by experts and economists from all across the political spectrum. And to their credit, many Democrats in Congress were willing to put politics aside and commit to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of Medicare, as long as they were part of a balanced approach.

But despite the broad agreement that exists for such an approach, there's still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington. They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost, even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research. Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare.

So at this point, at least, they simply will not budge from that negotiating position. And so far, that refusal continues to be the main stumbling block that has prevented Congress from reaching an agreement to further reduce our deficit.

Now, we are not in the same situation that we were -- that we were in in August. There is no imminent threat to us defaulting on the debt that we owe. There are already $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that are locked in. And part of the law that I signed this summer stated that if Congress could not reach an agreement on the deficit, there would be another $1.2 trillion of automatic cuts in 2013 -– divided equally between domestic spending and defense spending.

One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. That's going to happen, one way or another. We've got $1 trillion locked in, and either Congress comes up with $1.2 trillion, which so far they've failed to do, or the sequester kicks in and these automatic spending cuts will occur that bring in an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.

My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.

We need to keep the pressure up to compromise -- not turn off the pressure. The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. That’s exactly what they need to do. That’s the job they promised to do. And they've still got a year to figure it out.

Although Congress has not come to an agreement yet, nothing prevents them from coming up with an agreement in the days ahead. They can still come together around a balanced plan. I believe Democrats are prepared to do so. My expectation is, is that there will be some Republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place. And, as I have from the beginning, I stand ready and willing to work with anybody that’s ready to engage in that effort to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction.

Now, in the meantime, we've got a lot of work left to do this year. Before Congress leaves next month, we have to work together to cut taxes for workers and small business owners all across America. If we don’t act, taxes will go up for every single American, starting next year. And I’m not about to let that happen. Middle-class Americans can’t afford to lose $1,000 next year because Congress won’t act. And I can only hope that members of Congress who've been fighting so hard to protect tax breaks for the wealthy will fight just as hard to protect tax breaks for small business owners and middle-class families.

We still need to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges. We still need to put our teachers back in the classroom educating our kids.

So when everybody gets back from Thanksgiving, it’s time to get some work done for the American people. All around the country, Americans are working hard to live within their means and meet their responsibilities. And I know they expect Washington to do the same.

Thanks.

END 5:50 P.M. EST

Obama Subcommittee Speech Transcript: No Easy Off Ramps to Cutting Deficit

I will also add for your reading pleasure the bill obama signed into law. Notice who sponsored it was a democrat with no cosponsors
S. 365 (112th): Budget Control Act of 2011
Introduced:
Feb 16, 2011 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Sponsor:
Sen. Thomas “Tom” Harkin [D-IA]
Status:
Signed by the President
COSPONSORS: NONE
Budget Control Act of 2011 (2011; 112th Congress S. 365) - GovTrack.us

37 pages and the left is stilkl defending ob ama's sequester? Even after it has been proven obama owns it.