• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans aim to call Obama's 'bluff' on spending cuts

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
With just four days remaining until automatic budget cuts kick in, Republicans are looking to call President Obama's "bluff" -- by giving him the flexibility to spread around the budget-ax pain in a way that would prevent the kind of fiscal doomsday his administration is predicting.

snip

Republicans reportedly are working on a bill this week that would grant Obama's Cabinet more leeway to target the cuts in a responsible way.


Read more: Republicans aim to call Obama's 'bluff' on spending cuts | Fox News

This is all such bull! Obama came up with this sequester crap, because he couldn't negotiate honestly with the GOP on a debt ceiling increase some year and a half ago. Now, not only does he want to blame his idea on repubs dishonestly, but want's to use typical fear tactics to get his way...I am so tired of this tin pot wanna be, repubs should ram these cuts right down his throat, and use every chance to make sure that America knows it was HIS idea.
 
...they're gonna cooperate?

Holy ****.
 
You call it cooperation, I call it caving....I think it is a HUGE mistake.

Cuts are cuts - why does it matter how they are implemented? It's only caving if they take sequestration off the table or delay it - if that happens, Republicans can kiss elective office goodbye.
 
It does not matter. Obama won his goal, since these "cuts" are simply reductions in the "baseline budget" process increases, not any real deficit reduction at all. He staved off any serious reductions in domestic "discretionary" spending, half of these "cuts" are in defense. Obama got his tax "the rich" for $60 billion yet was allowed to add $90 billion in new spending ($30 billion for UI extension and $60 billion for Sandy storm relief) in that "deal" - a net federal deficit increase of $30 billion in one month, without any "pay as you go" nonsense. Note that the $85 billion figure discussed will likely end up being about half that since the 2013 fiscal year started on 10/1/2012 and the "cuts" start on 4/1/2013 (only 6 months remain in fiscal year 2013).

Just where is that Obama 2013 "budget"? Yep, he got away without one again!

As long as the "budget debate" is only about old stuff, that keeps any new spending cuts from being proposed, meanwhile Obama is scheming up more domestic spending increases on all fronts, gun control (bans/BG checks), immigration reform (amnesty) and education (free daycare). Obama wants to force the republicants to make entitlement cut proposals, you can rest assured that he will NEVER do so, so that the sheeple will demand that he "protect" them from that mean old party of the rich. ;)
 
Cuts are cuts - why does it matter how they are implemented? It's only caving if they take sequestration off the table or delay it - if that happens, Republicans can kiss elective office goodbye.

I agree, but instead of letting Obama play games with the cuts, I say hands off, let it go through, and hang it around Obama's neck where it should be. After all, these aren't real cuts anyway...They are to proposed increases in future spending...Only in DC can a reduction in the proposed increase of spending be called a cut.
 
Cuts are cuts - why does it matter how they are implemented? It's only caving if they take sequestration off the table or delay it - if that happens, Republicans can kiss elective office goodbye.

How about with a razor blade? Do you want America to be emo?
 
This is all such bull! Obama came up with this sequester crap, because he couldn't negotiate honestly with the GOP on a debt ceiling increase some year and a half ago. Now, not only does he want to blame his idea on repubs dishonestly, but want's to use typical fear tactics to get his way...I am so tired of this tin pot wanna be, repubs should ram these cuts right down his throat, and use every chance to make sure that America knows it was HIS idea.

Quite monstrous of him. Obama owes the Republican Party every consideration for their cooperative behavior over the course of his Administration.

Not sure if I see the big deal. Someone has to soften the blow and Congress is incapable of doing it, so per usual the president winds up with the power.
 
I agree, but instead of letting Obama play games with the cuts, I say hands off, let it go through, and hang it around Obama's neck where it should be. After all, these aren't real cuts anyway...They are to proposed increases in future spending...Only in DC can a reduction in the proposed increase of spending be called a cut.

Yep. The cuts are fake, yet the tax increases are real, thus Obama demands "balance"; for every $1 of not increasing spending he gets $1 of new tax revenue - brilliant! ;)
 
It does not matter. Obama won his goal, since these "cuts" are simply reductions in the "baseline budget" process increases, not any real deficit reduction at all. He staved off any serious reductions in domestic "discretionary" spending, half of these "cuts" are in defense. Obama got his tax "the rich" for $60 billion yet was allowed to add $90 billion in new spending ($30 billion for UI extension and $60 billion for Sandy storm relief) in that "deal" - a net federal deficit increase of $30 billion in one month, without any "pay as you go" nonsense. Note that the $85 billion figure discussed will likely end up being about half that since the 2013 fiscal year started on 10/1/2012 and the "cuts" start on 4/1/2013 (only 6 months remain in fiscal year 2013).

Just where is that Obama 2013 "budget"? Yep, he got away without one again!

As long as the "budget debate" is only about old stuff, that keeps any new spending cuts from being proposed, meanwhile Obama is scheming up more domestic spending increases on all fronts, gun control (bans/BG checks), immigration reform (amnesty) and education (free daycare). Obama wants to force the republicants to make entitlement cut proposals, you can rest assured that he will NEVER do so, so that the sheeple will demand that he "protect" them from that mean old party of the rich. ;)

Our "tool of the status quo" President is far from my favorite leader, but I have to admit that when it comes to politics, he sure knows his stuff

He beat the hands on favorite (Hillary) in '08, and won re-election despite high unemployment and slow growth, and now he's running political circles around the woe-begotten GOP and all they can do is whine "it's not our fault. *HE* started it!"
 
Who cares who's "fault" it is. Complete and utter waste of time, blaming others. Of course the current occupier of the White House only knows how to do one thing, blame others. Bottom line, with as much demagoguing over a 2.4% reduction in the GROWTH of federal spending (as TTWTT78640 so accurately describes above) and not actual CUTS, the salient point is we will never avoid the real financial catastrophe hurtling our way. Think about it, we're speaking of about 85 billion when the yearly deficit is over a trillion. They pork filled a Sandy relief bill that amounted to almost this amount.

Put a fork in America, we're done. The sooner the reset hits the sooner we can cease the nonsense of federal deficit spending and get to work on financial sanity.

Batten down the hatches ladies and gentlemen it's going to be a rough couple of decades.
 
Our "tool of the status quo" President is far from my favorite leader, but I have to admit that when it comes to politics, he sure knows his stuff

He beat the hands on favorite (Hillary) in '08, and won re-election despite high unemployment and slow growth, and now he's running political circles around the woe-begotten GOP and all they can do is whine "it's not our fault. *HE* started it!"

Yep. Obama is no fool, a very good liar, but certainly not a fool. Obama, with MSM help, has managed to make the 20% increase in federal spending (attained between 2007/8 and 2008/9) into "Bush" spending (even though demorats controlled congress then), thus becoming the Obama "baseline" and has us in a permanent "crisis mode" (waving that "pay as you go" nonsense) with federal spending at 24% of GDP and taxation at 17% of GDP running contant 40% deficts. When was the last spending bill subject to "pay as you go"?
 
Yep. The cuts are fake, yet the tax increases are real, thus Obama demands "balance"; for every $1 of not increasing spending he gets $1 of new tax revenue - brilliant! ;)


Where and when did the President put out a plan of $1 cut for $1 tax? I seem to remember a rather different statement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

The CBO says the sequester will cut job growth by 750,000 jobs and reduce already dismal economic growth by 0.6 percent, but for some reason Republicans continue to rant on about how cutting government spending will create jobs - yeah, in some fantasyland they will.

A few months ago, we had Paul Ryan and his plan to cut the deficit by "closing loopholes", less than two months past, Boehner said his plan for "closing loopholes" would increase federal revenues by $800 billion but for some strange reason, none of the Republicans would ever state just which "loopholes" they planned to close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-republicans-congress-wont-name-one-tax/
 
This is all such bull! Obama came up with this sequester crap, because he couldn't negotiate honestly with the GOP on a debt ceiling increase some year and a half ago. Now, not only does he want to blame his idea on repubs dishonestly, but want's to use typical fear tactics to get his way...I am so tired of this tin pot wanna be, repubs should ram these cuts right down his throat, and use every chance to make sure that America knows it was HIS idea.

So the whole sequestration idea didn't pass the House? Pretty sure that would require some GOP votes...
 
Where and when did the President put out a plan of $1 cut for $1 tax? I seem to remember a rather different statement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

The CBO says the sequester will cut job growth by 750,000 jobs and reduce already dismal economic growth by 0.6 percent, but for some reason Republicans continue to rant on about how cutting government spending will create jobs - yeah, in some fantasyland they will.

A few months ago, we had Paul Ryan and his plan to cut the deficit by "closing loopholes", less than two months past, Boehner said his plan for "closing loopholes" would increase federal revenues by $800 billion but for some strange reason, none of the Republicans would ever state just which "loopholes" they planned to close.

PolitiFact | Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal

Nice try, but the GOP says it is cutting taxes that creates jobs, not cutting spending......
 
Where and when did the President put out a plan of $1 cut for $1 tax? I seem to remember a rather different statement.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

The CBO says the sequester will cut job growth by 750,000 jobs and reduce already dismal economic growth by 0.6 percent, but for some reason Republicans continue to rant on about how cutting government spending will create jobs - yeah, in some fantasyland they will.

A few months ago, we had Paul Ryan and his plan to cut the deficit by "closing loopholes", less than two months past, Boehner said his plan for "closing loopholes" would increase federal revenues by $800 billion but for some strange reason, none of the Republicans would ever state just which "loopholes" they planned to close.

PolitiFact | Obama says Republicans in Congress won't name one tax exemption they want to repeal

Closing "loopholes", Obama style, is simply a tax increase (targetted to "the rich"). Closing "loopholes", Ryan style, is always coupled with rate reductions - remaining revenue neutral.

President Obama's "Balanced Approach" to Spending Cuts Means Tax Hikes

Obama Weekly Address: "Spending Cuts Must Be Balanced With More Reforms To Our Tax Code" | RealClearPolitics

Obama urges Congress to balance spending cuts, tax reform - Xinhua | English.news.cn
 
Nice try, but the GOP says it is cutting taxes that creates jobs, not cutting spending......


Actually the GOP says doing both will increase jobs but would they increase the GDP? More people working for less money does not result in great increases in the economy.
 
Closing "loopholes", Obama style, is simply a tax increase (targetted to "the rich"). Closing "loopholes", Ryan style, is always coupled with rate reductions - remaining revenue neutral.

Yes, because plans which increase tax revenue by $800B are "revenue neutral"
 
Yep. The cuts are fake, yet the tax increases are real, thus Obama demands "balance"; for every $1 of not increasing spending he gets $1 of new tax revenue - brilliant! ;)

Given inflation and population growth, yearly spending increases is most certainly a baseline.
 
Closing "loopholes", Obama style, is simply a tax increase (targetted to "the rich"). Closing "loopholes", Ryan style, is always coupled with rate reductions - remaining revenue neutral.

President Obama's "Balanced Approach" to Spending Cuts Means Tax Hikes

Obama Weekly Address: "Spending Cuts Must Be Balanced With More Reforms To Our Tax Code" | RealClearPolitics

Obama urges Congress to balance spending cuts, tax reform - Xinhua | English.news.cn


"revenue neutral" will not decrease the national debt.
 
Closing "loopholes", Obama style, is simply a tax increase (targetted to "the rich"). Closing "loopholes", Ryan style, is always coupled with rate reductions - remaining revenue neutral.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
 
Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

That depends on what your purpose is. If your purpose is to take more money, out of the private economy, for gov't redistribution then that is bad, but if your purpose is to let businesses/people spend that money as they see fit, rather than to minimize taxation due on it, then it can help the economy grow. ;)
 
I really have no problem with letting departments make the cuts as long as the cuts actually do happen. It is actually kind of the responsible way to do it. What I think is awesome is that if Obama actually keeps the cuts, he will to the fiscal right of the neo-cons. Who knew the liberals would elect such a fiscal paleoconservative.
 
Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Actually he was kind of wrong. The idea was to be revenue enhancing with part of the money offset by rate cuts to foster velocity. It probably wouldn't work in this upside down recession, but in a normal recession it would have.
 
Back
Top Bottom