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.

(Fox News)   This could be it, folks: Sequestergate. Leaked email shows that Obama has been deliberately trying to make the sequester a bad thing   (foxnews.com) divider line 469
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sequestergate, White House, Kristi Noem, Gene Sperling, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, austerities  
•       •       •

3443 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 10:49:56 AM  
So Obama has been deliberately trying to make the sequester what it was deliberately designed to be?
 
2013-03-06 10:50:27 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all.


I shouldnt keep reading, but Republican lies are so much fun:

Claim: Five first line U.S. aircraft carriers were recently all docked together in one place for the first time since World War II.

False
Link
Republicans love their FWD: FWD: FWD: Obama worse evar
 
2013-03-06 10:50:34 AM  

Grungehamster: tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/

No, the sequester is worded in such a way that the cuts must be done equitably across the board. They are legally unable to cut more from any program at the expense of another per the language of the bill itself. That's a big part of why it's a poison pill: it's designed to hurt based on the text of the law. Hell, McConnell said he was open to changing the law to give the executive more latitude in choosing cuts, but the House never took such legislation up for a vote. They can't claim the President already has a power they said they would need to pass legislation to grant him. You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.


Why should the house take up the bill when it could not pass the senate?
 
2013-03-06 10:51:33 AM  

sigdiamond2000: So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?


Yep. He's tedious, though. Cookie-cutter threadshiatter, no real responses, constantly relates everything to how liberals suck, doesn't even try to put up anything like an argument. Just dull.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:53 AM  

MattStafford: Your options are to continue spending until you face a serious borrowing/spending constraint, and are forced to scale back suddenly with very little flexibility, or scale down spending now, and apply targeted cuts more flexibly.

And the fact that our government refused to reasonably target the cuts doesn't suddenly make the former option better. An untargeted slow down in spending is still better than increased spending, when talking about the long term health of the economy.


How can you be concerned with inflexible, broad cuts in one paragraph and in the next consider it the best option in the next? This kind of logical inconsistency is disingenuous, at best.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:59 AM  
Why am I not shocked? I was telling my dad the other day that Obama would likely put the cuts in places that would let him do as much damage as possible. This, of course, is meant to be some arm-twisting on Congress, and especially the GOP, to get things done.The doom-and-gllom was overplayed, but it makes sense why Obama is doing this from a planning standpoint. The question is if the GOP will budge once the defense cuts start rolling.
 
2013-03-06 10:53:43 AM  

NateGrey: tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!

Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.


Two historically ignorant shills.

See, here's the thing with 'OF. ALL. TIME.' type statements: you actually have to compare them to past events for them to be valid. And even if every single thing the right says about Obama is true (it isn't) he  still would be better than:

William Henry Harrison: hard to be good in 30 days, especially when you spend most of them in bed dying of pneumonia
Herbert Hoover: totally unable to stop the Great Depression, despite an impressive financial background
Ulysses S. Grant: his administration was a hotbed of graft and corruption
Warren G. Harding: his administration was even more corrupt than Grant's, and he was probably complicit to boot
James Buchanan: utterly incapable of stopping the increasing factionalism that started the Civil War

And point in fact, W could be reasonably added to that list too - and probably will be in 50 years or so.

Against that context, Obama is a middle of the road President. He'll be remembered by history for being the first black President, and for having inherited the worst financial situation since FDR. He didn't fix it, but he didn't make it worse, either.

At a guess, historians of his Presidency will spend a lot more time talking about Congressional gridlock than about anything he did or didn't do. In that sense, he's about on a par with Grover Cleveland: not especially good, not especially bad, more a victim of his times than a determiner of them.
 
2013-03-06 10:54:11 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil. Meanwhile, teachers have to be furloughed, despite their being state, not federal employees, and the fact that more money could be saved by furloughing Administrators.

It's never been anything more than a Democratic temper tantrum over cutting their spending power. Hell, Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all. Thought we learned our lesson about that at Battleship Row, nearly 60 years ago.


But remember, taxing the rich more is bad and won't help our debt problems.
 
Bf+
2013-03-06 10:54:11 AM  

tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/



Shut the fark up, Donnie.
 
2013-03-06 10:54:34 AM  
People should be outraged by this!! Why aren't they!?!!

Now that I think about it, they aren't getting outraged over any of the things they should be... not this, not the threats to Woodward, not even the administration's malfeasance and lies in Benghazi!! And that's outrageous!!!

People should be getting outraged over the scandals, but something is suppressing that outrage!!! That's scandalous suppression of scandals!!! It's not the dead, it's the coverup!!!!

It's... it's...

SCANDALGATE!!!!
 
2013-03-06 10:55:05 AM  

Raharu: Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?

YES


Sweet. I just upgraded his tag from "Freeptard" to "Racist Freeptard."

/... but I repeat myself.
 
2013-03-06 10:55:40 AM  

Weaver95: theknuckler_33: Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.

how so?


Why would you respond to someone with 33 in their handle?

I expect better of you, Weavs.  Unless you're bored this morning, in which case, have fun!
 
2013-03-06 10:55:53 AM  

xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."


Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..
 
2013-03-06 10:56:05 AM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


those are non essential/frivolous expenditures. if he left them intact and instead cut something else you'd biatch about that too.   perpetual whiny baby
 
2013-03-06 10:56:42 AM  

Zasteva: People should be outraged by this!! Why aren't they!?!!

Now that I think about it, they aren't getting outraged over any of the things they should be... not this, not the threats to Woodward, not even the administration's malfeasance and lies in Benghazi!! And that's outrageous!!!

People should be getting outraged over the scandals, but something is suppressing that outrage!!! That's scandalous suppression of scandals!!! It's not the dead, it's the coverup!!!!

It's... it's...

SCANDALGATE!!!!


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-06 10:57:23 AM  

rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..


If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"
 
2013-03-06 10:57:33 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it


You mean someone actually reads the crap over at the FOX News site?

Isn't that expecting a bit much?
 
2013-03-06 10:58:09 AM  
Okay so does someone have an actual, factual breakdown of the sequester, what it is, what it does, and what the numbers mean? In the commotion I'm starting to lose sense of reality.
 
2013-03-06 10:58:55 AM  

steppenwolf: How can you be concerned with inflexible, broad cuts in one paragraph and in the next consider it the best option in the next? This kind of logical inconsistency is disingenuous, at best.


It's the difference between inflexibly cutting 1% of the budget, and inflexibly cutting 50% of the budget.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:20 AM  
clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...


somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?


clane:
You're being lied to everyday
by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truthTHE TRUTH
 
2013-03-06 11:02:28 AM  

Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it

A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.


It's been a long time coming, but it's official:
img9.imageshack.us

You said something that made coffee come out my faceholes.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"


Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital program is just asinine. And political.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:57 AM  

Saiga410: Grungehamster: tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/

No, the sequester is worded in such a way that the cuts must be done equitably across the board. They are legally unable to cut more from any program at the expense of another per the language of the bill itself. That's a big part of why it's a poison pill: it's designed to hurt based on the text of the law. Hell, McConnell said he was open to changing the law to give the executive more latitude in choosing cuts, but the House never took such legislation up for a vote. They can't claim the President already has a power they said they would need to pass legislation to grant him. You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.

Why should the house take up the bill when it could not pass the senate?


McConnell himself advocated such a policy, I would hope that would mean he wouldn't filibuster such a modification. If you mean "why didn't the Senate pass it first?" it's because the 113th House has yet to pass a single bill to correct the sequester that the Senate could modify to add the language to.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:01 AM  
Randomly bolding and capitalizing your sentences like a 90s comic book isn't going to make you any less tedious, <b>clane</b>.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:15 AM  

MattStafford: People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant. You're cutting 85 billion from the economy.


How much is that in coconuts?
 
2013-03-06 11:05:38 AM  
Still used to the raw HTML editor. Gah.
 
2013-03-06 11:07:22 AM  

clane: clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?

clane:
You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH


Clane: Wait until they dry to wrap their yappers around this one.
Cletus C.: You've blown your cover.
Clane: No, really.
 
2013-03-06 11:07:30 AM  

Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"

Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital ...


So you think that statements to Congress should be routinely ignored by federal bureaucrats.
 
2013-03-06 11:08:10 AM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.
 
2013-03-06 11:09:36 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"

Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the ...


Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.
 
2013-03-06 11:09:40 AM  
 
2013-03-06 11:10:13 AM  

Bloody William: Still used to the raw HTML editor. Gah.


Not sure if you saw already, there is an option in your profile to set raw HTML editor as default.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:30 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

But lazy government employees with outrageous perks paid for by people in the private sector are more important because FARK YOU.


FTFY, you tool
 
2013-03-06 11:10:31 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil. Meanwhile, teachers have to be furloughed, despite their being state, not federal employees, and the fact that more money could be saved by furloughing Administrators.

It's never been anything more than a Democratic temper tantrum over cutting their spending power. Hell, Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all. Thought we learned our lesson about that at Battleship Row, nearly 60 years ago.


The teachers that are in line to be furloughed are Federal employees. The teachers that are being referred to are teachers at schools on military bases, not the public school districts you are thinking of.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:32 AM  

clane: clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?

clane:
You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH




Oh clane:, clane: clane: clane:. Whatever are we going to do with you.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:35 AM  

MattStafford: It's the difference between inflexibly cutting 1% of the budget, and inflexibly cutting 50% of the budget.


Just looking at a snap shot of cuts for 5 major budgets, an average of approximately 7.4% is being cut by the sequester. The second number does not deserve to be rebuffed, as it was pulled out of your ass.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:07 AM  

Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.


Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:18 AM  

Bloody William: sigdiamond2000: So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?

Yep. He's tedious, though. Cookie-cutter threadshiatter, no real responses, constantly relates everything to how liberals suck, doesn't even try to put up anything like an argument. Just dull.


A troll without panache is truly a horrible thing to behold.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:19 AM  

Cletus C.: Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.


Yeah, the Republican Congressional delegation has shown it self to be nothing if not reasonable and understanding.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:33 AM  

clane: You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted. It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth. THE TRUTH


Dear god, you're serious, aren't you?

I've heard this point by a few right wingers and yet I can't place the origins or logic of it.

as to Fox telling us the truth, how's that Benghazi thing working out for ya? Romney winning the election? How about how all us liberals are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and only Reagan was a true conservative who never did anything like sell weapons to our enemies, give amnesty to illegals or destroy our mental health system so people like you can have access to the public
 
2013-03-06 11:13:20 AM  

steppenwolf: Just looking at a snap shot of cuts for 5 major budgets, an average of approximately 7.4% is being cut by the sequester. The second number does not deserve to be rebuffed, as it was pulled out of your ass.


Five major defense budgets you mean.  I'm sure the vast majority of us can agree that we spend far too much on defense.  We're going to have to cut a serious number of jobs in the MIC, it is just the way it is.  You can't fund an MIC via borrowing indefinitely, which is what people are trying to do.
 
2013-03-06 11:14:04 AM  

Cletus C.: Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.


i43.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 11:15:36 AM  
So, proof that Obama didn't want a sequester and the GOP did.

/MAXIMUM SPIN
 
2013-03-06 11:15:37 AM  

MattStafford: Five major defense budgets you mean.


No, that data included non-defense discretionary and mandatory budget.
 
2013-03-06 11:16:01 AM  

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.

Woohoo, other people who never did anything wrong to me got hurt!  Time for a happy dance!


If I'm suffering, it behooves me to make you suffer as well. It gives you an incentive to end my suffering, so I'll end yours.
 
2013-03-06 11:16:21 AM  

JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.


Welcome to the fark politics tab.  This is where you're supposed to pick a team (as long it's the Democrats) and beat dead horses while turning a blind eye to what's actually happening.  If you hang in this tab long enough you will learn;

A:  D=Good
B:  R=Bad
C:  Everything is still Bush's fault
D:  You will be assimilated
E:  You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:12 AM  
Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.:Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital ...

So you think that statements to Congress should be routinely ignored by federal bureaucrats.

Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.

Yeah, the Republican Congressional delegation has shown it self to be nothing if not reasonable and understanding.


Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side. Make it pain, or something like that. But realistically, any lawmaker who publicly criticized a federal agency for finding a less painful way to cut their budget would be chum.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:58 AM  

Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.


Your confusing money already spent and mandated to be spent with budgets that can actually be cut. The cut is approximately 9.5% from every single defense budget. You don't get to pick and choose. Where I work, contracting (that's right I buy those fictictional $1000 hammers you are referring to), 95% of our annual budget is labor. So tell me, where else is the cut going to come from? That's why this sucks. Most organizations do not have places to cut. There isn't nearly as much excess spending in most organizations as you seem to think there is. And besides, restructuring contracts takes time and money too. There is no time, hence the cuts in the quickest place possible. If this continues past this fiscal year, we won't be facing a furlough, we'll start facing a RIF. This will hurt, and it will hurt bad, just as it was intended to do. They called it a poison pill for a reason.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:50 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: A: D=Good
B: R=Bad
C: Everything is still Bush's fault
D: You will be assimilated
E: You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.


only those that don't actually have an educated sense of the world and know what the fark is going on comes to such near sighted conclusions

/moderate republican
//my party makes me sick
///does that make me a bad person?
 
2013-03-06 11:19:24 AM  

Cletus C.: Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side. Make it pain, or something like that. But realistically, any lawmaker who publicly criticized a federal agency for finding a less painful way to cut their budget would be chum.


What color is the sky on your world?
 
Displayed 50 of 469 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report