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.

(The Daily Caller)   President Barack Obama, November 2011: "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts"   (dailycaller.com) divider line 123
    More: Obvious, obama, vetoes  
•       •       •

1760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 12:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 11:54:55 AM
As everyone now knows, it was his idea first, so it is his fault.
 
2013-03-04 12:10:25 PM
Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.
 
2013-03-04 12:10:39 PM
I'm not surprised he said that, since they were there to act as an incentive for Congress to reach a sensible solution first.
 
2013-03-04 12:13:35 PM
For context, here's the entire statement from that day:

Statement by the President on the Supercommittee
 
2013-03-04 12:13:40 PM

RexTalionis: Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.


Came here to say this, leaving satisfied.

/GOP goes round n' round, round n' round ...
 
2013-03-04 12:20:45 PM
The reasonable compromise was that O'Bama would get his tax increases at end of December 2012 - which he did, and the Republics would get the spending cuts he promised - which they did not because O'Bama lies, lies, lies.
 
2013-03-04 12:24:35 PM

HoustonNick: and the Republics would get the spending cuts he promised - which they did not


Budget Control Act, 2011.
 
2013-03-04 12:28:34 PM

RexTalionis: Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.


Because when they proposed spending cuts, the democrats, media, special interest groups, and Obama all screamed bloody murder.  How can you work together when you are cast as demon possessed evil rich white guys?

Yep, the democrats made this mess and they wouldn't let the other guys attempt to fix it.

/finds it funny that the government didn't give a single shiat about how it would impact us when they raised payroll taxes 2%.  Now they are being asked to do with 2% less, it is sequestergeddon.
 
2013-03-04 12:28:39 PM

HoustonNick: The reasonable compromise was that O'Bama would get his tax increases at end of December 2012 - which he did, and the Republics would get the spending cuts he promised - which they did not because O'Bama lies, lies, lies.


Please, what are the lies? As for tax increases, yes, they went up for some. But, I concur with the President and the Democrats that we cannot cut our way to prosperity, especially after two long wars and the Great Recession. I'm cool with my taxes going back up to pre-2003 and pre-2001 levels while increasing the capital gains tax rate, plus closing loopholes for the rich.

If you consider yourself a patriot, put up or shut up. Supporting your country in crisis is a lot more than just wearing an American flag pin on your business suit lapel.
 
2013-03-04 12:32:11 PM

EnviroDude: Because when they proposed spending cuts


What spending cuts did the GOP propose?
 
2013-03-04 12:33:21 PM
EnviroDude:/finds it funny that the government didn't give a single shiat about how it would impact us when they raised payroll taxes 2%.  Now they are being asked to do with 2% less, it is sequestergeddon.

Awww, you poor baby. SSI payroll taxes returned to their pre-Great Recession levels after being lowered by Democrats and the President to provide more money in people's pockets. Did you honestly think that would last forever, child.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-04 12:34:44 PM
So its okay to promise spending cuts, but then change your mind after you got what you want, and if the other guys have a problem with that (here the Republicans), then they are the one's being unreasonable.  Is that your stance?

This is not the first time that Dems promised spending cuts, but then reneged, because Dems lie, lie, lie and liberals think that is okay as long as they get what they want.  Gimme a break - Patriot
 
2013-03-04 12:36:31 PM
Gee, it's almost like he didn't want to kick the can down the road and give the GOP yet another opportunity to hold the nation hostage in 6 months.
 
2013-03-04 12:38:24 PM

HoustonNick: Is that your stance?


Who are you talking to? Spending cuts weren't just proposed by Obama, they were signed into law by Obama in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

$1.5T ($1.7T w/ interest savings) in spending cuts in exchange for NO revenue increases. Then we had about $700B in revenue increases with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013. So with regards to the spending cuts/revenue ratio, if you include the sequester, we're at a 4:1 ratio. That's to the right of Simpson-Bowles. One would think the GOP would be happy about this.
 
2013-03-04 12:45:51 PM

HoustonNick: So its okay to promise spending cuts, but then change your mind after you got what you want, and if the other guys have a problem with that (here the Republicans), then they are the one's being unreasonable.  Is that your stance?

This is not the first time that Dems promised spending cuts, but then reneged, because Dems lie, lie, lie and liberals think that is okay as long as they get what they want.  Gimme a break - Patriot


Naw, you're not a patriot. You're a typical delusional Republican. You cannot quote facts. You only quote your own opinion.

Dusk-You-n-Me made some good points. Address them by reviewing timelines and the sequence of events over the years, instead of claiming the latest GOP spin.
 
2013-03-04 12:48:53 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: EnviroDude: Because when they proposed spending cuts

What spending cuts did the GOP propose?


Repeal of the ACA

AirForceVet: EnviroDude:/finds it funny that the government didn't give a single shiat about how it would impact us when they raised payroll taxes 2%.  Now they are being asked to do with 2% less, it is sequestergeddon.

Awww, you poor baby. SSI payroll taxes returned to their pre-Great Recession levels after being lowered by Democrats and the President to provide more money in people's pockets. Did you honestly think that would last forever, child.

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x318]


If you remember, Bush would send your family an annual rebate check.  If Obama had maintained the same policy, the people hurt most by the increase (the poor the democrats use as shields whenever they propose any tax legislation) wouldn't have been adversely impacted.
 
2013-03-04 12:50:34 PM

Type_Hard: For context, here's the entire statement from that day:

Statement by the President on the Supercommittee


Pfffftt... context.
 
2013-03-04 12:51:12 PM

EnviroDude: Repeal of the ACA


That's not a spending cut.

EnviroDude: If you remember, Bush would send your family an annual rebate check


what? Do you know the meaning of the word "annual"? We got 1 check. One.
 
2013-03-04 12:53:42 PM

EnviroDude: Repeal of the ACA


Repealing the ACA would increase the deficit.

But repeal of ACA has been on the GOP to-do list since it was first passed three years ago. After the last election and the SCOTUS hearing the GOP has pretty much given up this battle (this years CPAC will be the first since ACA was passed where there isn't a panel(s) about how to repeal/replace).

That's not a new spending cut, and was never part of any negotiation over the sequester/debt limit/fiscal cliff.

So I'll ask again, what spending cuts has the GOP proposed? The answer is none. Obama wants revenue increases, he's named them. Boehner hasn't and won't name any cuts. And Obama is the one not leading here? H'okay.
 
2013-03-04 12:54:18 PM
www.zennie62blog.com

Jim Treacher is the nom de plume of American political pundit Sean Medlock.

Treacher is best known for starting the "Obama Eats Dogs" meme after his 2012 discovery of an anecdote in Barack Obama's 17 year old autobiography discussing how he ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia.
 
2013-03-04 12:58:10 PM
2011 subby?
Are there no teleprompter or Rev. Wright articles to link to?
 
2013-03-04 12:58:23 PM

EnviroDude: Dusk-You-n-Me: EnviroDude: Because when they proposed spending cuts

What spending cuts did the GOP propose?

Repeal of the ACA.


Don't forget repeal soicalisms, Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obama has to go dig a hole in the Mohave desert and sit in it for the balance of his term.
 
2013-03-04 12:59:03 PM
Here we go again.
 
2013-03-04 12:59:34 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HoustonNick: and the Republics would get the spending cuts he promised - which they did not

Budget Control Act, 2011.


Obama also didn't get "his tax increases", since he wanted an income tax increase on the top two tiers, instead of half of the top tier.
 
2013-03-04 01:00:00 PM

HoustonNick: So its okay to promise spending cuts, but then change your mind after you got what you want, and if the other guys have a problem with that (here the Republicans), then they are the one's being unreasonable.  Is that your stance?

This is not the first time that Dems promised spending cuts, but then reneged, because Dems lie, lie, lie and liberals think that is okay as long as they get what they want.  Gimme a break - Patriot


Does not play well with reality.

/Plonk.
 
2013-03-04 01:00:44 PM

Alphax: Here we go again.


On on our own.
 
2013-03-04 01:01:37 PM

AirForceVet: HoustonNick: So its okay to promise spending cuts, but then change your mind after you got what you want, and if the other guys have a problem with that (here the Republicans), then they are the one's being unreasonable.  Is that your stance?

This is not the first time that Dems promised spending cuts, but then reneged, because Dems lie, lie, lie and liberals think that is okay as long as they get what they want.  Gimme a break - Patriot

Naw, you're not a patriot. You're a typical delusional Republican. You cannot quote facts. You only quote your own opinion.

Dusk-You-n-Me made some good points. Address them by reviewing timelines and the sequence of events over the years, instead of claiming the latest GOP spin.


At least he aged his account... Holy SHIAT... TEN YEARS!?  Damn man.  You'd think a decade would give him some time to work on his material.
 
2013-03-04 01:03:41 PM

RexTalionis: Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.


So, the fact that the sequester is just a 2.4% decrease in projected spending increases, and has not, in fact, caused major catastrophy, is completely beside the point because WAHHH the GOP didn't negotiate something different? I'm failing to see why we're being butthurt about it.
 
2013-03-04 01:03:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Alphax: Here we go again.

On on our own.


Seems like we keep going down this road.

After all, its the only one we've ever known.
 
2013-03-04 01:04:19 PM

HoustonNick: So its okay to promise spending cuts, but then change your mind after you got what you want, and if the other guys have a problem with that (here the Republicans), then they are the one's being unreasonable.  Is that your stance?

This is not the first time that Dems promised spending cuts, but then reneged, because Dems lie, lie, lie and liberals think that is okay as long as they get what they want.  Gimme a break - Patriot


Here's Obama's plan to head off the sequester that was rejected,it included additional spending cuts as well as closing some loopholes to increase revenue:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction _t able_bucketed_r8.pdf

He didn't change his mind about anything.
 
2013-03-04 01:04:23 PM
Of course the most sensible course of action after the fact is finding someone to blame.  Voters will love that.
 
2013-03-04 01:05:01 PM
He only promised to veto any plan by the supercomittee to get rid of the cuts altogether.

They were required to propose budget corrections to avoid the poison pill. They weren't allowed to just remove the poison pill.
 
2013-03-04 01:05:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HoustonNick: Is that your stance?

Who are you talking to? Spending cuts weren't just proposed by Obama, they were signed into law by Obama in the Budget Control Act of 2011.


........

I somehow recall that the house also voted for them as well. In fact I seem to vaguely recall that the Speaker said he got 98% of what he wanted. My feeling is a pox on all of them.
 
2013-03-04 01:09:29 PM

EnviroDude: RexTalionis: Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.

Because when they proposed spending cuts, the democrats, media, special interest groups, and Obama all screamed bloody murder.  How can you work together when you are cast as demon possessed evil rich white guys?

Yep, the democrats made this mess and they wouldn't let the other guys attempt to fix it.

/finds it funny that the government didn't give a single shiat about how it would impact us when they raised payroll taxes 2%.  Now they are being asked to do with 2% less, it is sequestergeddon.


I mean, sure--spending may need to be reeled in, but let's be realistic about raising taxes as well. And don't act like Republicans have done nothing to be any part of this, if you believe it you are dumb, and if that's not the case you are a liar. Republicans didn't for a second propose anything out of good faith, it was all bullcrap that catered only to what they wanted. No matter who pissed the bed, now we all have to sleep in it instead of it being cleaned up.

The problem wasn't about when they raised payroll taxes anyway, that needs to happen, and with the economy where it is, shaky at best, removing government investments in infrastructure or military spending or whatever can and will remove some of that money from the economy. The timing is horrific. I honestly wouldn't ask you to actually try no parroting Fox News talking points, I've seen the absolutest of right wing BS on here, completely blind to anywhere near considering that the answer is usually somewhere in the middle. But you may want to try being rational.

And if you are just trolling, I apologize that you exist and I misunderstood you.
 
2013-03-04 01:10:03 PM

HoustonNick: The reasonable compromise was that O'Bama would get his tax increases at end of December 2012 - which he did, and the Republics would get the spending cuts he promised - which they did not because O'Bama lies, lies, lies.


What about the $1.7 trillion in spending cuts that happened before all that, when Boehner got "98% of what he wanted"

Someone is certainly telling lies, and I think it's you.
 
2013-03-04 01:10:51 PM
Are we still pretending he was speaking of any congressional attempt to just cancel them rather than Congress cutting with a scalpel instead of a chainsaw?
 
2013-03-04 01:11:11 PM

sdd2000: . My feeling is a pox on all of them.



Then the GOP has done it's job.  The whole purpose of this is to create cynicism for governance -- which Republicans then exploit to get elected.  It's a dangerous feedback loop.


This mess is the House's doing and specifically how Boehner chooses to do business.
 
2013-03-04 01:12:11 PM

vernonFL: [www.zennie62blog.com image 334x344]

Jim Treacher is the nom de plume of American political pundit Sean Medlock.

Treacher is best known for starting the "Obama Eats Dogs" meme after his 2012 discovery of an anecdote in Barack Obama's 17 year old autobiography discussing how he ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia.


Looks like you typical swarmy College Republican.
 
2013-03-04 01:12:54 PM

Grungehamster: He only promised to veto any plan by the supercomittee to get rid of the cuts altogether.

They were required to propose budget corrections to avoid the poison pill. They weren't allowed to just remove the poison pill.


Apparently, this is too complex of an idea for conservatives to understand.

We should put conservatives in charge of the economy. They're simple people. They'll come up with a simple plan. Something that rhymes with max butts.
 
2013-03-04 01:12:58 PM

Bravo Two: So, the fact that the sequester is just a 2.4% decrease in projected spending increases, and has not, in fact, caused major catastrophy, is completely beside the point because WAHHH the GOP didn't negotiate something different? I'm failing to see why we're being butthurt about it.


"[H]as not, in fact, caused major catastrophe" in all 72 hours it's been en force. Clearly, that means it can't harm us between now and September. (The fark? Are you a real person?)

The whole point of a poison pill clause is that it's something neither side wants, so both will look for a way to avoid (i.e. hammer out some compromise in advance of the pill's effects). In that sense, sequester is not a "poison pill" since the GOP is now gleeful over its enactment.

I think the Dems should have made the bill a bit more "poison-y" for the GOP, but that's Monday-morning QBing.
 
2013-03-04 01:13:50 PM

Bravo Two: RexTalionis: Because it was intended to be the impetus (i.e. the stick) for reasonable people to get together and actually negotiate a deficit reduction plan. The GOP wants to remove the impetus so they would have no pressure to negotiate in good faith, which is why Obama threatened to veto it.

See, the reasonable outcome would be that the Sequester will be so painful that the GOP and the Democrats will have to come together and work together to find a compromise solution. Instead, the GOP decided that they'd rather have the sequester instead, despite every economist in the country telling them that that is a bad idea.

So, the fact that the sequester is just a 2.4% decrease in projected spending increases, and has not, in fact, caused major catastrophy, is completely beside the point because WAHHH the GOP didn't negotiate something different? I'm failing to see why we're being butthurt about it.


It hasn't really started yet.  Furloughs start up in April, I think.  At which point a million working people make 20% less until this shiatshow is over.  If we assume average salary for government works is median US salary (which is generous it's actually lower), these people all go from 45k/year to 36k/year.  Put another way, they go from getting paychecks of $1,730 ea. every two weeks to getting $1,384 ea every two weeks.  This boils down to a decrease in aggregate consumer income of $346,000,000.00 PER MONTH.  I don't feel like breaking that down into some kind of statistically meaningful decrease in consumer spending, but the furloughs alone are going to stall the recovery.  That's not going to happen today, or tomorrow.  Or next month, or even the very first month of the furloughs.  It will happen after a couple months of this shiat, and it WILL be problematic if these million government employees all decide to buckle down as a result and consumer spending for a million people simply dries up.

That's a bad thing.

So quit trying to farking downplay it, you retards.  Frankly, the right wing should be hamming this up as a disaster if they want to pin it on Obama, or they should be taking credit for cutting spending if it's not a disaster.  That they are saying BOTH things means they have no god damned idea what the fark they are talking about and are hoping I don't either.
 
2013-03-04 01:15:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EnviroDude: Repeal of the ACA

That's not a spending cut.

EnviroDude: If you remember, Bush would send your family an annual rebate check

what? Do you know the meaning of the word "annual"? We got 1 check. One.


He's on ignore, so I don't know the context, but is he really saying the rebate check was a good thing? I'd think he'd consider that a socialist government handout. I'd consider it a poor use of resources that, in good times, should have gone towards paying down the debt.
 
2013-03-04 01:16:48 PM

Type_Hard: For context, here's the entire statement from that day:

Statement by the President on the Supercommittee


bah!  you and your context!
 
2013-03-04 01:18:11 PM

Lando Lincoln: Grungehamster: He only promised to veto any plan by the supercomittee to get rid of the cuts altogether.

They were required to propose budget corrections to avoid the poison pill. They weren't allowed to just remove the poison pill.

Apparently, this is too complex of an idea for conservatives to understand.

We should put conservatives in charge of the economy. They're simple people. They'll come up with a simple plan. Something that rhymes with max butts.


Max Butts is my porn name.
 
2013-03-04 01:18:20 PM
How are you all holding up after the spending cuts kicked in? It's rough, I know. I am struggling to make it through the day. It's like trying to climb Everest.
 
2013-03-04 01:19:04 PM

AirForceVet: Supporting your country in crisis is a lot more than just wearing an American flag pin on your business suit lapel.


Don't forget the yellow ribbon magnet. Can't be a patriot without a yellow ribbon magnet for the old trunk.

/Symbolism
//That's all they got.
 
2013-03-04 01:20:18 PM

vernonFL: Sean Medlock


that is a very punchable mug...
 
2013-03-04 01:20:21 PM
I can't keep my spin straight. I thought the GOP was now embracing the sequester because it shows they are the only ones brave enough to make real cuts in government spending. I haven't fully studied it out, but now it seems I am suppose to believe Obama created the sequester and is responsible to all DOD cuts but the GOP gets credit for cutting Head Start and programs for non-military government positions and funding the poors.

i47.tinypic.com

I'm putting on my thinking cap!
 
2013-03-04 01:22:32 PM

Dahnkster: I can't keep my spin straight. I thought the GOP was now embracing the sequester because it shows they are the only ones brave enough to make real cuts in government spending. I haven't fully studied it out, but now it seems I am suppose to believe Obama created the sequester and is responsible to all DOD cuts but the GOP gets credit for cutting Head Start and programs for non-military government positions and funding the poors.


The GOP is being intentionally incoherent in their messaging in the hopes that any specific pain felt by their constituents will be blamed on Obama while they simultaneously take credit for cutting spending on the whole.
 
2013-03-04 01:25:10 PM
Farking context, how does it work?
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report