Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before you think this looks like a compromise, it's actually a ploy to shift more of the "blame" to the President for the Sequestration mess--at least in the public's eye. The problem is, the administration isn't buying what they're selling.
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are preparing to counter increasingly dire warnings from President Obama about the impact of automatic budget cuts with a plan to give the administration more flexibility in instituting $85 billion in cuts, a proposal they say could protect the most vital programs while shifting more of the political fallout to the White House.
Well, I guess it beats actually finding a real solution to the problem.
No, it is not to shift blame it is a go ahead and lead and if Obama had a ounce of leadership he would take the bull by the horns. He is not going to get any more tax increases, period. This is a good deal and he should take it, it is all he deserves and all he is getting.
Before you think this looks like a compromise, it's actually a ploy to shift more of the "blame" to the President for the Sequestration mess--at least in the public's eye. The problem is, the administration isn't buying what they're selling.
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are preparing to counter increasingly dire warnings from President Obama about the impact of automatic budget cuts with a plan to give the administration more flexibility in instituting $85 billion in cuts, a proposal they say could protect the most vital programs while shifting more of the political fallout to the White House.
Well, I guess it beats actually finding a real solution to the problem.
SSDD in Washington.
The power of the purse is with Congress. They can try to run from their duties and hand the purse to the White House, but the Constitution will not allow it.
The power of the purse is with Congress. They can try to run from their duties and hand the purse to the White House, but the Constitution will not allow it.
I see where you are coming from, the amount is staying the same but the percentages of cuts are moved around. It won't make it out of congress, anyway.
President Obama used the mentally ill, seniors, and other constituencies as wagering chips in this sequestration battle. He did so with the stroke of his pen in signing the Budget Control Act. Now he's running around complaining about the manufactured crisis he was complicit in, and all to score political points for a midterm election.
This isn't getting resolved by March 1. The battle will truly heat up with the CR deadline at the end of March.
It won't work. Obama has convinced the majority of Americans that this is all the Republicans fault because they won't allow "small taxes on the wealthy".
Before you think this looks like a compromise, it's actually a ploy to shift more of the "blame" to the President for the Sequestration mess--at least in the public's eye. The problem is, the administration isn't buying what they're selling.
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are preparing to counter increasingly dire warnings from President Obama about the impact of automatic budget cuts with a plan to give the administration more flexibility in instituting $85 billion in cuts, a proposal they say could protect the most vital programs while shifting more of the political fallout to the White House.
Well, I guess it beats actually finding a real solution to the problem.
SSDD in Washington.
The GOP has seen the polls - 53% of moderates/independents are blaming them for the sequester, 24% blaming Obama.
President Obama used the mentally ill, seniors, and other constituencies as wagering chips in this sequestration battle.
I don't know what that means, because it's the law. Congress wrote it, and Obama signed it. The only thing the WH could have done is veto it, but I don't think that was an option back then.
It won't work. Obama has convinced the majority of Americans that this is all the Republicans fault because they won't allow "small taxes on the wealthy".
LOL, I appreciate the humor. Most liberals have memories that don't go back 2 months. You know, when taxes on the wealthy were increased rather dramatically.
Managers in private industry learn to deal with budget cuts all the time. They learn to do more with less, by working a bit smarter. Automating things like payroll processing, bar codes for data entry, etc. If our mangers in the government sector aren't smart enough to manage with a rather small budget cut, they need to be replaced with someone that can do the job. Heck, the kid managing our local fast food joint has more experience with actually managing budgets than those in DC do.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 02-26-2013 at 10:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
