Sequester in Perspective

Chris81 said:

What does this snarky comment have to do with the sequestration discussion?

I'm still have not a clue as to what democrats propose that we do as an alternative to sequestration. All I have heard is that the Republicans better do what the President wants or they are to blame if the sequestration goes through!

Click to expand...

The polls seem to support the idea that Republicans are to blame. Or rather: they will be blamed.

Chris81 said:

What does this snarky comment have to do with the sequestration discussion?

I'm still have not a clue as to what democrats propose that we do as an alternative to sequestration. All I have heard is that the Republicans better do what the President wants or they are to blame if the sequestration goes through!

Click to expand...

A lot if you read the last few comments and others throughout this thread. Who do you think will be paying the price for cuts in social security defense spending where the VA budget comes from and of course medicaid and HHS for the food stamp program. It is never the well off that pay the price it is always those who cannot fight back and are least able to bear the brunt of cuts. I would support this if the taxes were raised to cover some of this, say the cuts Obama wanted originally and if they searched the budget for wwaste, I beleive that these two measures if not watered down would save a lot more than what people are discussing

Merope said:

The polls seem to support the idea that Republicans are to blame. Or rather: they will be blamed.

Click to expand...

Yes they would, and rightfully so. The republicans control the House, and that is where the budget is approved and the laws are passed. Notice how the conservative/republicans in this thread have made great efforts to blame Obama for the idea but continue to give the House a pass even though this is their job? This is the same disingenuous attacks Obama has had to face since day 1.

JCSr said:

Yes they would, and rightfully so. The republicans control the House, and that is where the budget is approved and the laws are passed. Notice how the conservative/republicans in this thread have made great efforts to blame Obama for the idea but continue to give the House a pass even though this is their job? This is the same disingenuous attacks Obama has had to face since day 1.

Click to expand...

Well that's what's so funny about this whole thing. They like to whine and complain about "low-information voters" but curiously enough these low-information voters seem informed enough to see through their smoke and mirrors...

Steve Petersen said:

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, THESE ARE NOT CUTS!.

THEY ARE REDUCTIONS IN THE INCREASE.

Click to expand...

So...why are the Republicans freaking out about "defense" spending? It is still being "increased" just not as fast as they don't need. Those ingrates!

This administration are masters at their main objective - devide and conquer. Obama set this up and then goes out and says they are stupid ideas and will veto anything the Republicans try to stop - speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He has succeeded in splitting our country down the middle and splitting the republican party.

We look weak in the eyes of our enemies because of what is happening in our government. The picture developing is not a pretty one. Russia speeding up their plans, saying Obama is either clever at destroying the US or just plain stupid. Muslim Brotherhood laughing at us because they got Obama to be on their side and now have turned after getting billions of dollars, jets and tanks and now won't even let us talk to the person they are holding for Libya disaster. North Korea pushing us to the limit knowing there will be no holding them accountable, China pushing us to the limits and laughing at us because nothing is done.

We are going down the tube so fast and people can't even see it because they are so busy pointing fingers - they all should turn those fingers to point to themselves because all this is a man made disaster and this administration all wipe the smiles off their faces when they go to sleep at night because they are succeeding in bringing this nation to it's knees.

JCSr said:

Yes they would, and rightfully so. The republicans control the House, and that is where the budget is approved and the laws are passed. Notice how the conservative/republicans in this thread have made great efforts to blame Obama for the idea but continue to give the House a pass even though this is their job? This is the same disingenuous attacks Obama has had to face since day 1.

Click to expand...

The republicans have proposed a number of alternatives to the sequester, but they have been rejected by the democrats and Obama. The democrats seemingly have no interest to come up with their own alternative set of cuts. As the head of State, I would think that Obama would want to provide some leadership and broker some sort of comprised deal. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Chris81 said:

The republicans have proposed a number of alternatives to the sequester, but they have been rejected by the democrats and Obama. The democrats seemingly have no interest to come up with their own alternative set of cuts.

Click to expand...

psalms 91 said:

A lot if you read the last few comments and others throughout this thread. Who do you think will be paying the price for cuts in social security defense spending where the VA budget comes from and of course medicaid and HHS for the food stamp program. It is never the well off that pay the price it is always those who cannot fight back and are least able to bear the brunt of cuts. I would support this if the taxes were raised to cover some of this, say the cuts Obama wanted originally and if they searched the budget for wwaste, I beleive that these two measures if not watered down would save a lot more than what people are discussing

Click to expand...

Tax increases were negotiated during the first half of the fiscal cliff negotiations. So talking about additional tax increases is a non-starter. We are talking about cuts. We need $85 billion in identified strategic cuts in place of the $85 billion proposed in the sequester.

Now the question is can the democrats come up with no less than $85 billion worth of cuts as an alternate to the sequester.

Steve Petersen said:

Obama own this. The sequester was the White House's idea according to Bob Woodward. Obama himself defended the sequester in 2011. Make him decide on what to cut.

Course, the Liar-in-Chief will STILL blame the Republicans for HIS decisions and his sycophants and LIVs will buy into it.

Click to expand...

pol·i·tics

[pol-i-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) 1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
4. political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
5. political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.

Also
cry·ba·by

[krahy-bey-bee] noun, plural cry·ba·bies, verb, cry·ba·bied, cry·ba·by·ing.
noun 1. a person, especially a child, who cries readily for very little reason.
2. a person who complains too much, usually in a whining manner.

verb (used without object) 3. Also, cry-ba·by. to cry or complain easily or often.

Merope said:

So...why are the Republicans freaking out about "defense" spending? It is still being "increased" just not as fast as they don't need. Those ingrates!

Click to expand...

Yeah, and if we are bringing tropps home shouldnt there be cuts?

Chris81 said:

The republicans have proposed a number of alternatives to the sequester, but they have been rejected by the democrats and Obama. The democrats seemingly have no interest to come up with their own alternative set of cuts. As the head of State, I would think that Obama would want to provide some leadership and broker some sort of comprised deal. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Click to expand...

Lets see who holds the majority in the house, of thats right the Republicans, so they could push through their plan if they really wanted to and give people an alternative to discuss

Chris81 said:

The republicans have proposed a number of alternatives to the sequester, but they have been rejected by the democrats and Obama. The democrats seemingly have no interest to come up with their own alternative set of cuts. As the head of State, I would think that Obama would want to provide some leadership and broker some sort of comprised deal. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Click to expand...

So have democrats:
A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit | The White House

Republicans, however, are simply proposing getting everything they want.

Chris81 said:

Tax increases were negotiated during the first half of the fiscal cliff negotiations. So talking about additional tax increases is a non-starter. We are talking about cuts. We need $85 billion in identified strategic cuts in place of the $85 billion proposed in the sequester.

Now the question is can the democrats come up with no less than $85 billion worth of cuts as an alternate to the sequester.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier give Obama all his program and then you can blame him if it fails. The Republicans block everything and vote for nothing, you can argue with that all you want and the american people will still see through it, the next election for congress will be interesting

Steve Petersen said:

Obama own this. The sequester was the White House's idea according to Bob Woodward. Obama himself defended the sequester in 2011. Make him decide on what to cut.

Course, the Liar-in-Chief will STILL blame the Republicans for HIS decisions and his sycophants and LIVs will buy into it.

Click to expand...

There it is

Merope said:

pol·i·tics

[pol-i-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) 1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
4. political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
5. political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.

Also
cry·ba·by

[krahy-bey-bee] noun, plural cry·ba·bies, verb, cry·ba·bied, cry·ba·by·ing.
noun 1. a person, especially a child, who cries readily for very little reason.
2. a person who complains too much, usually in a whining manner.

verb (used without object) 3. Also, cry-ba·by. to cry or complain easily or often.

Click to expand...

Excellent post. Crybaby Democrats in Washington, Obama being the crybaby-in-chief, are plying politics with America's future, placing political power and control ahead of what is best for America.

Merope said:

So...why are the Republicans freaking out about "defense" spending? It is still being "increased" just not as fast as they don't need. Those ingrates!

Click to expand...

I thought it was Obama freaking out about defense spending. He was crying to us about an aircraft carrier has already been delayed because of the potential effects of sequestration.

[serious];62477796 said:

So have democrats:
A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit | The White House

Republicans, however, are simply proposing getting everything they want.

Click to expand...

While I agree with what is cut in the democrats budget it simply is not enough. Only about half of the 110 billion proposed reduction in deficit spending involves cuts that happen later in the future. The other half of the deficit spending involves tax increases. This is getting frustrating because the we have already gone through the negotiations regarding to tax increases. Why can't we just talk about spending cuts.


On another note after reading the alternative plans republicans have proposed to the sequester, I am not too satisfied. Republicans are falling short in the debate on fiscal responsibility.

In the end I think $85 billion in sequester cuts falls short of the cuts in spending that we need but at least it is a start.