• 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
Slateriesling said:
YOU!! The ones who continue to vote for any candidate aligned with either of the parties. They will destroy us all for their own gain.

Don't change the way you vote, just keep blaming the ones you elect. That's rational!!
Click to expand...

Ditto...

The electorate like to take themselves out of the equation. But the electorate continue to maintain the same voting behaviors...over and over and over expecting different results.

Somethings wrong with that picture.

We have a self-will-run-riot government...and there's only one way to stop a government who has made its self-importance bigger than the intent of it being there.
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, AP.

I wish you had been one of my professors! :)
Click to expand...

I actually had very good professors, but that was a loooong time ago. Good day pg...

As to the topic of the thread, there appears to be only one party doing a bit of irrational fear mongering about sequestration, and it is led by the one who threatened a veto of any legislation that would change its terms...
 
IDK my BFF Jill

In seriousness, I would say Obama/Dems, but really it was driven by the divide from both parties.

im Westen Nicht neu.
 
Gipper said:
I chose Jif.
Click to expand...

Actually it was both parties. It is my understanding Obama proposed it, that both parties went along with it and passed it into legislation which President Obama signed into law. I also know that the president vowed to veto any legislation that would abrogate the sequester. Now he changed his mind, that happens and I don't hold that against him. People change their minds all the time. But a mind change does not mean he can now blame someone else for the sequester since it originated in his office and he signed it into law.

85 billion is a pittance when compared to the approximate 3.8 trillion spending. If 85 billion can't be cut, then nothing can be cut and we might as well get ready for the next huge big depression.
 
voted Obama and the Dems. I would have prefered an option of all of the above.

Neither party is willing to budge. I would like to throw the whole lot out and start over.
 
It was his idea, therefore it's Obama's fault. It was a good idea until it wasn't. We're in for it now. The world's gonna get hotter, women will suffer, and we'll have some humongous hurricanes and deadly lightening buried in tornadoes all caused by sequestration. Can't wait to hear all about it.
 
Perotista said:
Actually it was both parties. It is my understanding Obama proposed it, that both parties went along with it and passed it into legislation which President Obama signed into law. I also know that the president vowed to veto any legislation that would abrogate the sequester. Now he changed his mind, that happens and I don't hold that against him. People change their minds all the time. But a mind change does not mean he can now blame someone else for the sequester since it originated in his office and he signed it into law.

85 billion is a pittance when compared to the approximate 3.8 trillion spending. If 85 billion can't be cut, then nothing can be cut and we might as well get ready for the next huge big depression.
Click to expand...

You've kind of hinted on one of the reasons why I call sequestration a good thing. It needs to be a "pittance" for the deficit (which it is) because that is a real and ever-present issue we need to tackle, regardless of which side of the aisle someone is on.

To me, this is akin to knowing you have to jump in the pool, but putting your big toe in the kiddie end to acclimate yourself to the temperature - knowing that you have to eventually head into the deep end.

America can't just cannonball into the deep end because they'd panic and start thrashing for a lifesaver - which has been its problem for far too many years.
 
humbolt said:
It was his idea, therefore it's Obama's fault. It was a good idea until it wasn't. We're in for it now. The world's gonna get hotter, women will suffer, and we'll have some humongous hurricanes and deadly lightening buried in tornadoes all caused by sequestration. Can't wait to hear all about it.
Click to expand...

Do you think California will actually slide into the Pacific Ocean this time?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I actually had very good professors, but that was a loooong time ago. Good day pg...

As to the topic of the thread, there appears to be only one party doing a bit of irrational fear mongering about sequestration, and it is led by the one who threatened a veto of any legislation that would change its terms...
Click to expand...

I, and many others, remember when he threatened to veto that legislation, and he seemed to be quite adamant about it! So what changed? The Repubs have agreed to the reduction in the defense budget, so what is the problem now? :(
 
Where is "all of the above"?
 
polgara said:
I, and many others, remember when he threatened to veto that legislation, and he seemed to be quite adamant about it! So what changed? The Repubs have agreed to the reduction in the defense budget, so what is the problem now? :(
Click to expand...

There isn't a problem. There never was a problem. Political scaremongers invented a "problem" that the sheep of the populace bought.

They essentially played the part of Chicken Little, fooling the gullible.
 
ocean515 said:
Do you think California will actually slide into the Pacific Ocean this time?
Click to expand...
Hey Ocean. Hope you are well. No. California won't quiteslide in, but it will be a very close call. I would get to higher ground though, because the water will surely rise. I do expect a litany of adverse effects on real people as well as the environment for a good while. Obama will need to get every special interest group involved, because this does appear to be one political ploy that isn't a slam dunk.
 
humbolt said:
Hey Ocean. Hope you are well. No. California won't quiteslide in, but it will be a very close call. I would get to higher ground though, because the water will surely rise. I do expect a litany of adverse effects on real people as well as the environment for a good while. Obama will need to get every special interest group involved, because this does appear to be one political ploy that isn't a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

I'm well my friend. Close call? Dang Humbolt, I live about 10 feet above mean high tide.

I agree on the slam dunk thoughts. Not going down as planned.
 
Gipper said:
You've kind of hinted on one of the reasons why I call sequestration a good thing. It needs to be a "pittance" for the deficit (which it is) because that is a real and ever-present issue we need to tackle, regardless of which side of the aisle someone is on.

To me, this is akin to knowing you have to jump in the pool, but putting your big toe in the kiddie end to acclimate yourself to the temperature - knowing that you have to eventually head into the deep end.

America can't just cannonball into the deep end because they'd panic and start thrashing for a lifesaver - which has been its problem for far too many years.
Click to expand...


I agree
 
No vote, of course ; where is "other" ?
I will NOT be controlled into such narrow and incorrect options.
I feel that only children of all ages play this "blame game".
Its high time we grew up and learned to be honest and truthful....libs and cons !
 
In terms of deficit reduction coming to a head in this manner? Congress as a whole. In terms of actually designing the trigger itself? Lew and Rob Nabors primarily.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm well my friend. Close call? Dang Humbolt, I live about 10 feet above mean high tide.

I agree on the slam dunk thoughts. Not going down as planned.
Click to expand...
I guess engineered fill and a sea wall are out of the question. A boat maybe? I'd go for a steel hulled sailboat in the mid-forty foot range. I happen to know of one north of you......We're in for a real circus in the coming weeks. The media will be all over this, and we're about to find out just how horrific this 2% cut in the increase really is.
 
"Fault"?!

Who deserves more credit for the only device available currently that could make any dent in the ever-accelerating piling up of the debt?
 
Perotista said:
Actually it was both parties. It is my understanding Obama proposed it, that both parties went along with it and passed it into legislation which President Obama signed into law. I also know that the president vowed to veto any legislation that would abrogate the sequester. Now he changed his mind, that happens and I don't hold that against him. People change their minds all the time. But a mind change does not mean he can now blame someone else for the sequester since it originated in his office and he signed it into law.

85 billion is a pittance when compared to the approximate 3.8 trillion spending. If 85 billion can't be cut, then nothing can be cut and we might as well get ready for the next huge big depression.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Pero!

All this drama for a one-half of one percent reduction in spending, in a trillion dollar plus budget? Games.... :(
 
Gipper said:
There isn't a problem. There never was a problem. Political scaremongers invented a "problem" that the sheep of the populace bought.

They essentially played the part of Chicken Little, fooling the gullible.
Click to expand...

Does he hope to convince the "gullible" that it's not his fault if things get cut? I appreciate the fact that he "evolves" on many issues, but to buy this latest drama is asking a lot, when we know what the facts of the matter are. Ridiculous, in fact! :thumbdown
 
It would be so much more interesting to people if sequester were really about sex with an equestrian .......

The Speaker seems pretty intent the House will take up nothing until the senate puts forth something. I kind of agree with him. It is a good strategy to keep the ball in the WH's court.
 
polgara said:
Does he hope to convince the "gullible" that it's not his fault if things get cut? I appreciate the fact that he "evolves" on many issues, but to buy this latest drama is asking a lot, when we know what the facts of the matter are. Ridiculous, in fact! :thumbdown
Click to expand...

I think you assume too much of the ignorant American populace. We're a nation of idiots who use a moving picture box to think for us.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I'll take all three for the win, Alex.
Click to expand...

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?). ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom