• 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!

Whose fault is sequestration?

Whose fault is sequestration?

  • Total voters
    39
Since I believe the sequester is a good thing I wouldn't use the word "fault". In the 24 February Washington Post, Bob Woodward settled the question of paternity. The sequester is BHO's baby; I think it's some of his best work.:good_job::good_job:
 
Any poll on any subject needs to have any participant level-set before asking any question.
e.g. If the participant doesn't know who's idea sequestration was they have no business answering a question.
Or at a minimum, make that the first question.
Even a DP poll.
 
Jack Hays said:
Since I believe the sequester is a good thing I wouldn't use the word "fault". In the 24 February Washington Post, Bob Woodward settled the question of paternity. The sequester is BHO's baby; I think it's some of his best work.:good_job::good_job:
Click to expand...

Good evening, Jack.

I have a question...why do you think the sequester is a good thing? Because it is at least a small step in the right direction?
 
polgara said:
Excellent post, Pero!

All this drama for a one-half of one percent reduction in spending, in a trillion dollar plus budget? Games.... :(
Click to expand...

Around 3.5 to 3.8 trillion and we are quibbling over a measly 85 billion. Go figure.
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack.

I have a question...why do you think the sequester is a good thing? Because it is at least a small step in the right direction?
Click to expand...

Yes, because a stupid, automatic cut is better than no cut at all.:agree:yes:
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack.

I have a question...why do you think the sequester is a good thing? Because it is at least a small step in the right direction?
Click to expand...

I think it's a good thing even if it had only served to expose the perp in the WH for what he is.
It's also a good thing because it's a start.
 
Both of their faults, but people act like cuts are horrid and they aren't. We need a lot more than 85 Billion in proposed increases to be cut.

I'll say it again...we need a spending freeze, Federal balanced budget amendment, cuts across the board, and an audit (at the very least) of The Federal Reserve and Pentagon.
 
AreteCourage said:
Both of their faults, but people act like cuts are horrid and they aren't. We need a lot more than 85 Billion in proposed increases to be cut.

I'll say it again...we need a spending freeze, Federal balanced budget amendment, cuts across the board, and an audit (at the very least) of The Federal Reserve and Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Sounds like common sense to me. But there is one problem, there is no common sense in Washington D.C. When ever common sense is mention in Washington, everyone pulls out their change purses to make sure all the cents are there.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Obama wanted this because he didn't want to raise taxes before an election, end of story.
Click to expand...

You poll is flawed with only two choices, you should also have C. None of the above and D. Both major parties. I would have chosen D.
 
How can anyone not say it was Obama when Jay Carney said the idea originated with Obama and his administration
 
Perotista said:
Around 3.5 to 3.8 trillion and we are quibbling over a measly 85 billion. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Too easy....BHO knows perfectly well what he said about the sequester...so what is it that we're not supposed to be thinking about? :(
 
polgara said:
Too easy....BHO knows perfectly well what he said about the sequester...so what is it that we're not supposed to be thinking about? :(
Click to expand...

I do not think the president cares on iota whether sequester goes into effect or not. I think he is just using this as a means to try to force the Republicans to give him another tax rate increase. If I understand sequester right, the president as CINC has the authority to move those funds around to meet the needs of national security. On the domestic side, I am not so sure but I would assume that too he can shift funds around.
 
Perotista said:
I do not think the president cares on iota whether sequester goes into effect or not. I think he is just using this as a means to try to force the Republicans to give him another tax rate increase. If I understand sequester right, the president as CINC has the authority to move those funds around to meet the needs of national security. On the domestic side, I am not so sure but I would assume that too he can shift funds around.
Click to expand...
You're right. Obama has far, far more latitude than either he or the media have mentioned. He has chosen those he parades in front of the camera intentionally.
 
Josie said:
Ugh, sorry. I had a crappy day too.
Click to expand...

I third that notion on a poopy day.


BTW I think both sides voted for sequestration, so how is it only one sides fault?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Me too! Great post! What it shows us is that Obama and congress critters (BOTH parties) know that federal spending is way too high, yet making those "tough choices" (actually governing?) is really hard to do - it may cost you *gasp* votes and popularity (campaign cash?). ;)
Click to expand...

*tough choices* ,*gasp* , and popularity were the three best choices available..and you used them all! Kudos.... :thumbs:
 
Perotista said:
You poll is flawed with only two choices, you should also have C. None of the above and D. Both major parties. I would have chosen D.
Click to expand...

Its easy to say both parties but I want the lefties maybe for the first time in their life make a choice......
 
It's only taken these 2 parties 232 years to figure out how to screw the public to near death...and then make the public feel guilty for getting screwed.

Keep watching that bouncing ball...and bend over just a little bit more. I guess there's 300 million suckers born every day.
 
Navy Pride said:
Its easy to say both parties but I want the lefties maybe for the first time in their life make a choice......
Click to expand...

This is one of those, "I was for sequester before I was against it." I say let it happen, if you can't cut 85 billion out of 3.8 trillion in spending, you can't cut one red cent. These numbers are too big for most people to understand, but look at it this way, all sequester does is cut 85 dollars out of every 3,800 dollars. We are asking the government to get along on 3.715 trillion instead of 3.800 trillion or on 3,715 dollars instead of 3,800.
 
Wait a minute...let me get this straight for a second..

The OP (a known conservative) is asking who is at fault and point his finger to the President and the Democrats.

However, don't Republicans always talk a big game about spending cuts? Wouldn't you want to take credit for any cuts (even these on proposed increases)?

Or is this just more mud slinging and an attempt to defile the other side at the cost of your own ideals?

We should be demanding more cuts...actual cuts. Nobody ever said it would be easy and people wouldn't struggle...that is the price we're going to have to pay in order to get things under some sort of control.

I've seen for a long time that both parties are in favor of big government spending (just in different sectors)...and this whole argument proves that point.
 
Perotista said:
This is one of those, "I was for sequester before I was against it." I say let it happen, if you can't cut 85 billion out of 3.8 trillion in spending, you can't cut one red cent. These numbers are too big for most people to understand, but look at it this way, all sequester does is cut 85 dollars out of every 3,800 dollars. We are asking the government to get along on 3.715 trillion instead of 3.800 trillion or on 3,715 dollars instead of 3,800.
Click to expand...

Good one, Pero!

The nerve of us! Just who do we think we are..... :lamo
 
AreteCourage said:
Wait a minute...let me get this straight for a second..

The OP (a known conservative) is asking who is at fault and point his finger to the President and the Democrats.

However, don't Republicans always talk a big game about spending cuts? Wouldn't you want to take credit for any cuts (even these on proposed increases)?

Or is this just more mud slinging and an attempt to defile the other side at the cost of your own ideals?

We should be demanding more cuts...actual cuts. Nobody ever said it would be easy and people wouldn't struggle...that is the price we're going to have to pay in order to get things under some sort of control.

I've seen for a long time that both parties are in favor of big government spending (just in different sectors)...and this whole argument proves that point.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, the sequester is a good thing, some of BHO's best work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom