If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   $3.6 trillion is the gaudiest austerity program in the history of gaudy   (reason.com) divider line 412
    More: Obvious, Mercatus Center, Nick Gillespie, The Declaration of Independents, National School Lunch Program, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, deficit spending  
•       •       •

3139 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2013 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



412 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 10:12:05 AM
unimg1.fark.netable.com
 
2013-02-26 10:43:13 AM
OOOH BIG NUMBER
 
2013-02-26 10:43:47 AM
So what we're talking about is trimming $44 billion from total federal spending expected to be $3.6 trillion this year. If you use the $85 billion number, that's about 2.4 percent of the budget. If you use the $44 billion, you're looking at 1.2 percent. For The New York Times, the sequester signals "an era of government austerity." For the White House, it's the end of the world.

What else is there to say?  This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along.  This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country.  We are spending $3.6T for FY2013 and he is ashamed that people in this country believe it will go to hell in a handbasket if $44B is cut.  And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.
 
2013-02-26 10:46:39 AM
When the US austeres we do it with bling!


/uses austere as a verb
//extra points
 
2013-02-26 10:51:26 AM

SlothB77: This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along. This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country.


Oh for the love of God, someone please post a picture of the pondering tard with that quote in the thought bubble.
 
2013-02-26 10:53:27 AM

SlothB77: So what we're talking about is trimming $44 billion from total federal spending expected to be $3.6 trillion this year. If you use the $85 billion number, that's about 2.4 percent of the budget. If you use the $44 billion, you're looking at 1.2 percent. For The New York Times, the sequester signals "an era of government austerity." For the White House, it's the end of the world.

What else is there to say?


A lot, actually. There are many things to learn from it.

On the one side (presumably your side), what you take away is that the political class is hopelessly corrupt and actually loves to spend money and grow more powerful.

On the other side (my side), what you take away is that for all the talk about how spending is too high, the reality is that almost all government spending is 'useful' and 'important' to enough people to make it really painful to cut even a little of it. The idea that the government is just wasting tons of money that everyone can agree on is a lie.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-26 11:01:21 AM
DamnYankees:
On the other side (my side), what you take away is that for all the talk about how spending is too high, the reality is that almost all government spending is 'useful' and 'important' to enough people to make it really painful to cut even a little of it. The idea that the government is just wasting tons of money that everyone can agree on is a lie.

I think it's more that the waste is going into the pockets of people influential enough to protect their interests so any cuts fall on important spending (to ordinary people).
 
2013-02-26 11:12:35 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-26 11:22:43 AM

DamnYankees: On the one side (presumably your side), what you take away is that the political class is hopelessly corrupt and actually loves to spend money and grow more powerful.

On the other side (my side), what you take away is that for all the talk about how spending is too high, the reality is that almost all government spending is 'useful' and 'important' to enough people to make it really painful to cut even a little of it. The idea that the government is just wasting tons of money that everyone can agree on is a lie.


What makes your side so special? My 'side'...if my voting patterns were ever consistent enough to place me on a 'side'...is not so special. Power corrupts, no matter who's wielding it. Increase the power, and you increase the likelihood of corruption. Lord Acton was on to something.

Following up, let's say for argument's sake that my side and yours were diametric opposites with no positions in common. I don't think you'd be comfortable at all with the situation should your side lose an election and thus the power, especially any new power your side had demanded and gotten because, well, my side is teh evil.

I have no illusions about the people I vote for, or against - there may be selfless people on small local governing bodies, but there are plenty of petty dictators as well. Move up the political food chain and it is obvious to the casual observer that that they are increasingly in it for themselves first and foremost, secondmost, thirdmost and hindmost.

'Speak truth to power' is a meaningless catchphrase unless you're also speaking truth to the power you happen to agree with.
 
2013-02-26 11:32:50 AM
We're back to "the sequester is no big deal" again. This wheel is spinning fast so pay attention.
 
2013-02-26 11:42:20 AM
The sequester is a big deal.  Cutting spending 2% in an intelligent way is no big deal.
 
2013-02-26 11:47:42 AM

Gulper Eel: DamnYankees: On the one side (presumably your side), what you take away is that the political class is hopelessly corrupt and actually loves to spend money and grow more powerful.

On the other side (my side), what you take away is that for all the talk about how spending is too high, the reality is that almost all government spending is 'useful' and 'important' to enough people to make it really painful to cut even a little of it. The idea that the government is just wasting tons of money that everyone can agree on is a lie.

What makes your side so special? My 'side'...if my voting patterns were ever consistent enough to place me on a 'side'...is not so special. Power corrupts, no matter who's wielding it. Increase the power, and you increase the likelihood of corruption. Lord Acton was on to something.

Following up, let's say for argument's sake that my side and yours were diametric opposites with no positions in common. I don't think you'd be comfortable at all with the situation should your side lose an election and thus the power, especially any new power your side had demanded and gotten because, well, my side is teh evil.

I have no illusions about the people I vote for, or against - there may be selfless people on small local governing bodies, but there are plenty of petty dictators as well. Move up the political food chain and it is obvious to the casual observer that that they are increasingly in it for themselves first and foremost, secondmost, thirdmost and hindmost.

'Speak truth to power' is a meaningless catchphrase unless you're also speaking truth to the power you happen to agree with.


What the hell are you talking about.
 
2013-02-26 12:01:28 PM

SlothB77: What else is there to say? This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along. This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country. We are spending $3.6T for FY2013 and he is ashamed that people in this country believe it will go to hell in a handbasket if $44B is cut. And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.


It's not the amount that's the problem, its how we're going about cutting it. Across the board cuts are terrible and do more harm than good. If you really wanted to cut the budget in a meaningful way, you tell the departments that you have to cut by x% and let them decide what needs to be cut in what proportions, but to go 15% across everything at once is a terrible plan.
 
2013-02-26 12:04:12 PM
DamnYankees:  What the hell are you talking about.

They don't even know anymore.  They just prattle on about whatever their angry, white, gun-owning overlords have told them to be enraged about today.
 
2013-02-26 12:05:06 PM
I see that the Freeper modmin is online.
 
2013-02-26 12:06:01 PM
I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.
 
2013-02-26 12:08:29 PM

DamnYankees: Gulper Eel: DamnYankees: On the one side (presumably your side), what you take away is that the political class is hopelessly corrupt and actually loves to spend money and grow more powerful.

On the other side (my side), what you take away is that for all the talk about how spending is too high, the reality is that almost all government spending is 'useful' and 'important' to enough people to make it really painful to cut even a little of it. The idea that the government is just wasting tons of money that everyone can agree on is a lie.

What makes your side so special? My 'side'...if my voting patterns were ever consistent enough to place me on a 'side'...is not so special. Power corrupts, no matter who's wielding it. Increase the power, and you increase the likelihood of corruption. Lord Acton was on to something.

Following up, let's say for argument's sake that my side and yours were diametric opposites with no positions in common. I don't think you'd be comfortable at all with the situation should your side lose an election and thus the power, especially any new power your side had demanded and gotten because, well, my side is teh evil.

I have no illusions about the people I vote for, or against - there may be selfless people on small local governing bodies, but there are plenty of petty dictators as well. Move up the political food chain and it is obvious to the casual observer that that they are increasingly in it for themselves first and foremost, secondmost, thirdmost and hindmost.

'Speak truth to power' is a meaningless catchphrase unless you're also speaking truth to the power you happen to agree with.

What the hell are you talking about.


Both sides are bad.
 
2013-02-26 12:10:31 PM

somedude210: SlothB77: What else is there to say? This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along. This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country. We are spending $3.6T for FY2013 and he is ashamed that people in this country believe it will go to hell in a handbasket if $44B is cut. And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.

It's not the amount that's the problem, its how we're going about cutting it. Across the board cuts are terrible and do more harm than good. If you really wanted to cut the budget in a meaningful way, you tell the departments that you have to cut by x% and let them decide what needs to be cut in what proportions, but to go 15% across everything at once is a terrible plan.


This. On the other hand, the leadership level of all the various organizations that will see funding cuts should have been preparing by making sure the reductions were targeted in a way that causes the smallest impact on services. It's been obvious for some time that republicans would force the sequester to happen, praying that the impact is bad enough to cripple the economy. If it turns out to be too small to destroy the country, they can always hold the debt ceiling hostage again. That's probably the longer term plan.
 
2013-02-26 12:10:51 PM

SlothB77: And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.


Comments like that are why I don't take you seriously.
 
2013-02-26 12:11:44 PM
It's the shoes. Maybe a higher heel is needed.
 
2013-02-26 12:13:29 PM

DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.


Why would they be shorting themselves in the foot though? Their base is entirely too stupid to connect cause to effect, and if they do, the reps will just blame Obama for not preventing the sequester. It's not as though republicans have any idea how our government functions. Common clay of the new west and all that.
 
2013-02-26 12:13:47 PM

DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.


Obama is making the GOP shoot themselves in the foot by saying, "Whatever you do, don't shoot yourself in the foot."
 
2013-02-26 12:15:13 PM

somedude210: SlothB77: What else is there to say? This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along. This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country. We are spending $3.6T for FY2013 and he is ashamed that people in this country believe it will go to hell in a handbasket if $44B is cut. And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.

It's not the amount that's the problem, its how we're going about cutting it. Across the board cuts are terrible and do more harm than good. If you really wanted to cut the budget in a meaningful way, you tell the departments that you have to cut by x% and let them decide what needs to be cut in what proportions, but to go 15% across everything at once is a terrible plan.


What we did here in Canada was to require all federal departments to come up with detailed plans for cutting 5%, 10% and 15%.  Then you can pick your cutting scenario based on good information.
 
2013-02-26 12:16:21 PM
www.globalsecurity.org
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike -f ighter-program-2012-07501/

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history.
 
2013-02-26 12:18:06 PM
I like how a few days ago they were all "this is Obama's idea ... all his fault ... Why is Obama trying to destroy the country with sequester". Now when they've realized they are gonna be blamed its " not that big of a deal really."
 
2013-02-26 12:18:07 PM
I see we're including social security and other mandatory spending that won't be cut in there to make the $85 billion look like a smaller percentage of the programs to be cut.

It was nice to see them use a chart that shows Obama has spent less every year than Bush did in his last budget and that spending is slowly trending down.
 
2013-02-26 12:19:40 PM

SlothB77: So what we're talking about is trimming $44 billion from total federal spending expected to be $3.6 trillion this year. If you use the $85 billion number, that's about 2.4 percent of the budget. If you use the $44 billion, you're looking at 1.2 percent. For The New York Times, the sequester signals "an era of government austerity." For the White House, it's the end of the world.

What else is there to say?  This is all political posturing and the media is happy to play along.  This is what Rush Limbaugh was talking about when he said he was ashamed of this country.  We are spending $3.6T for FY2013 and he is ashamed that people in this country believe it will go to hell in a handbasket if $44B is cut.  And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.


Is it just me or did anyone else that this would turn into satire by then end. I mean there is repeating GOP talking point but this is like cutting and pasting it.
 
2013-02-26 12:20:01 PM
I ignore articles that cite Social Security and Medicare as part of the budget.

They are not. They have their own source of funding and their own reserves (SS has a couple trillion in the bank). The discretionary spending on 2012 was $1,338 billion. Still a lot, but NOT $3.6T. Which is why the percentages being cut are 5-6% across the board.
 
2013-02-26 12:22:01 PM
Doesn't the budget cut scene from the movie Dave need to happen here?
 
2013-02-26 12:22:04 PM

SlothB77: So what we're talking about is trimming $44 billion from total federal spending expected to be $3.6 trillion this year. If you use the $85 billion number, that's about 2.4 percent of the budget. If you use the $44 billion, you're looking at 1.2 percent.


Good point it doesn't save us shiat so why should we bother with it now when all economists say it will hurt the economy?
 
2013-02-26 12:23:14 PM

jigger: [www.globalsecurity.org image 800x600]
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike -f ighter-program-2012-07501/

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history.


Ah yes because I think we had one of the F-16s shot down 20 years ago so clearly we need to upgrade past the F-16 to the F-18 then F-22 then F-35. And because China.
 
2013-02-26 12:23:17 PM

madgonad: I ignore articles that cite Social Security and Medicare as part of the budget.

They are not. They have their own source of funding and their own reserves (SS has a couple trillion in the bank). The discretionary spending on 2012 was $1,338 billion. Still a lot, but NOT $3.6T. Which is why the percentages being cut are 5-6% across the board.


Republicans like to pretend it is so they they can raid it to pay for the tax cuts. The sad part is the Democrats don't correct them.
 
2013-02-26 12:24:09 PM

Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.

Why would they be shorting themselves in the foot though? Their base is entirely too stupid to connect cause to effect, and if they do, the reps will just blame Obama for not preventing the sequester. It's not as though republicans have any idea how our government functions. Common clay of the new west and all that.


It's just another wedge between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party types.  If things get a whole lot worse in the south while blue states seem modest economic gains over the next year, what's that going to do to the political landscape?  It's going to invite the even more extreme elements of the GOP to run for office in depressed states -- and maybe, just maybe, speed up the swing status of places like Texas as the kooks keep kicking people out of their tent.
 
2013-02-26 12:27:49 PM

Poopspasm: This. On the other hand, the leadership level of all the various organizations that will see funding cuts should have been preparing by making sure the reductions were targeted in a way that causes the smallest impact on services. It's been obvious for some time that republicans would force the sequester to happen, praying that the impact is bad enough to cripple the economy. If it turns out to be too small to destroy the country, they can always hold the debt ceiling hostage again. That's probably the longer term plan.


And most have. I know the DoD has been cutting down all unnecessary stuff for the last couple of months and are preparing for furloughs

/woo, my first furlough
//lets hope I still have my job when all is said and done
///private companies are way too stuck up sometimes
 
2013-02-26 12:32:20 PM

DarnoKonrad: Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.

Why would they be shorting themselves in the foot though? Their base is entirely too stupid to connect cause to effect, and if they do, the reps will just blame Obama for not preventing the sequester. It's not as though republicans have any idea how our government functions. Common clay of the new west and all that.

It's just another wedge between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party types.  If things get a whole lot worse in the south while blue states seem modest economic gains over the next year, what's that going to do to the political landscape?  It's going to invite the even more extreme elements of the GOP to run for office in depressed states -- and maybe, just maybe, speed up the swing status of places like Texas as the kooks keep kicking people out of their tent.


I'm not sure the tent currently holds anything but kooks to be honest. Seriously, "moderate republican" becomes an oxymoron when the candidates they put forth for high office spend the bulk of their campaign praising rapists and babbling about an embassy attack halfway around the world.

It just so happens that America has a higher than normal number of kooks thanks to our crappy mental health system (thanks Reagan!).
 
2013-02-26 12:33:07 PM

Corvus: madgonad: I ignore articles that cite Social Security and Medicare as part of the budget.

They are not. They have their own source of funding and their own reserves (SS has a couple trillion in the bank). The discretionary spending on 2012 was $1,338 billion. Still a lot, but NOT $3.6T. Which is why the percentages being cut are 5-6% across the board.

Republicans like to pretend it is so they they can raid it to pay for the tax cuts. The sad part is the Democrats don't correct them.


They used to, and still sometimes do, but the American citizenry is just too dumb to know the difference. Working with the GOP in Washington (or probably most other places) is probably a lot like working at a day care. They are children that just want what they want when they want it.
 
2013-02-26 12:33:11 PM
I am confused, just a couple of days ago the sequester was "Obama's plan" according to the GOP. Now they are all saying Obama is the one making shiat up to stop it?

Can you at least pretend to be consistent?
 
2013-02-26 12:36:06 PM
It was supposed to be so horrible that it couldn't be considered an option.  Now the Party above Country wants it to happen and wants us to blame Obama.
 
2013-02-26 12:36:23 PM

brandent: jigger: [www.globalsecurity.org image 800x600]
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike -f ighter-program-2012-07501/

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history.

Ah yes because I think we had one of the F-16s shot down 20 years ago so clearly we need to upgrade past the F-16 to the F-18 then F-22 then F-35. And because China.


And the sunk cost fallacy is just a liberal theory so we should keep shoveling pallets of $100s onto the bonfire that is this project.
 
2013-02-26 12:36:39 PM

Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.

Why would they be shorting themselves in the foot though? Their base is entirely too stupid to connect cause to effect, and if they do, the reps will just blame Obama for not preventing the sequester. It's not as though republicans have any idea how our government functions. Common clay of the new west and all that.

It's just another wedge between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party types.  If things get a whole lot worse in the south while blue states seem modest economic gains over the next year, what's that going to do to the political landscape?  It's going to invite the even more extreme elements of the GOP to run for office in depressed states -- and maybe, just maybe, speed up the swing status of places like Texas as the kooks keep kicking people out of their tent.

I'm not sure the tent currently holds anything but kooks to be honest. Seriously, "moderate republican" becomes an oxymoron when the candidates they put forth for high office spend the bulk of their campaign praising rapists and babbling about an embassy attack halfway around the world.

It just so happens that America has a higher than normal number of kooks thanks to our crappy mental health system (thanks Reagan!).


However you want to characterize it, I can't see any positives in the GOP cutting off its nose to spite Obama, which is what sequestration amounts to.  GOP governors have got to be tearing their hair out right now.
 
2013-02-26 12:40:06 PM

tricycleracer: brandent: jigger: [www.globalsecurity.org image 800x600]
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike -f ighter-program-2012-07501/

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history.

Ah yes because I think we had one of the F-16s shot down 20 years ago so clearly we need to upgrade past the F-16 to the F-18 then F-22 then F-35. And because China.

And the sunk cost fallacy is just a liberal theory so we should keep shoveling pallets of $100s onto the bonfire that is this project.


Yes, "liberals."  They build those things in Texas.  Notorious hot bed of liberals who love to blow money on high tech weaponry.
 
2013-02-26 12:42:47 PM

DarnoKonrad: Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: Poopspasm: DarnoKonrad: I honestly think Obama is daring red state politicians to shoot themselves in the foot.  This isn't about weatherizing houses, it's about Alabama's dependence on the military industrial complex, among other red state corporate-welfare programs.

Why would they be shorting themselves in the foot though? Their base is entirely too stupid to connect cause to effect, and if they do, the reps will just blame Obama for not preventing the sequester. It's not as though republicans have any idea how our government functions. Common clay of the new west and all that.

It's just another wedge between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party types.  If things get a whole lot worse in the south while blue states seem modest economic gains over the next year, what's that going to do to the political landscape?  It's going to invite the even more extreme elements of the GOP to run for office in depressed states -- and maybe, just maybe, speed up the swing status of places like Texas as the kooks keep kicking people out of their tent.

I'm not sure the tent currently holds anything but kooks to be honest. Seriously, "moderate republican" becomes an oxymoron when the candidates they put forth for high office spend the bulk of their campaign praising rapists and babbling about an embassy attack halfway around the world.

It just so happens that America has a higher than normal number of kooks thanks to our crappy mental health system (thanks Reagan!).

However you want to characterize it, I can't see any positives in the GOP cutting off its nose to spite Obama, which is what sequestration amounts to.  GOP governors have got to be tearing their hair out right now.


I actually do agree with you about the governors. They bear the blame for the local economy and it's hard for them to shake that. I just think the republicans holding national office will blame Obama because they know their idiot followers will lap it up.
 
2013-02-26 12:44:39 PM

Citrate1007: It was supposed to be so horrible that it couldn't be considered an option.  Now the Party above Country wants it to happen and wants us to blame Obama.


You see the teacher who designates a time out corner does it because she WANTS her students to be in time out, not to deter them from misbehaving and furthermore,
 
2013-02-26 12:45:08 PM

Corvus: I am confused, just a couple of days ago the sequester was "Obama's plan" according to the GOP. Now they are all saying Obama is the one making shiat up to stop it?

Can you at least pretend to be consistent?


Wow, it is like there are many different people thinking and reacting to an issue not as a monolithic block but as if they are only related together because of some ovararching ideology... an umbrella manybe.
 
2013-02-26 12:48:14 PM

Saiga410: Wow, it is like there are many different people thinking and reacting to an issue not as a monolithic block but as if they are only related together because of some ovararching ideology... an umbrella manybe.


Sorry, but if you oppose anything Obama does, you're a racist Tea Party Patriot lifetime member of the GOP. Sad, but true.
 
2013-02-26 12:49:34 PM
So, this is the new talking point, right?  "We're not cutting that much.  In fact, we're still spending more than last year so it will be painless.  Also, it's all Obama's fault."

Yes, we'll spend more raw dollars, but government spending as a percentage of GDP will go down and discretionary spending will be cut to an historic low.
 
2013-02-26 12:51:19 PM

Stile4aly: So, this is the new talking point, right?  "We're not cutting that much.  In fact, we're still spending more than last year so it will be painless.  Also, it's all Obama's fault."

Yes, we'll spend more raw dollars, but government spending as a percentage of GDP will go down and discretionary spending will be cut to an historic low.


The GOP is hooked on spin like it was heroin.
 
2013-02-26 12:53:00 PM

Mrtraveler01: SlothB77: And the state-controlled media doesn't question or contradict the White House's threats, but happily foment hysteria.

Comments like that are why I don't take you seriously.


What he meant to say was corporate controlled media, which also happens be the same people who own most of the people running the state.  It's certainly not a media that is an effective check or balance as the 4th estate and often is just a press release service for politicians and corporations.
 
2013-02-26 12:53:29 PM

madgonad: (SS has a couple trillion of IOUs in the bank).


/fixed

And while SS and Medicare are not part of the discretionar part of the budget, they are a big chunk of total goverment spending.
 
2013-02-26 12:54:11 PM

Ring of Fire: I like how a few days ago they were all "this is Obama's idea ... all his fault ... Why is Obama trying to destroy the country with sequester". Now when they've realized they are gonna be blamed its " not that big of a deal really."


Yep.

If you didn't see this coming you don't know the Republicans. "Sequester is all Obama's fault!"

"Wait it's OUR fault? Well then it's not really that big a deal..."

Tomorrow - "Sequester is great! It's all our idea!"
 
Displayed 50 of 412 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report