- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obama wanted this because he didn't want to raise taxes before an election, end of story.
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:
Excellent post, Pero!
All this drama for a one-half of one percent reduction in spending, in a trillion dollar plus budget? Games....
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?
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?
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.
Obama wanted this because he didn't want to raise taxes before an election, end of story.
Around 3.5 to 3.8 trillion and we are quibbling over a measly 85 billion. Go figure.
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?
I've had a bad day, I couldn't care less about grammar right now.
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.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.
Ugh, sorry. I had a crappy day too.
I'll take all three for the win, Alex.
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 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.
Its easy to say both parties but I want the lefties maybe for the first time in their life make a choice......
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.