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.
The cuts to defense aren't smart. In fact, they were intentionally put in place because of the magnitude of their harmfulness. Indeed, the President's sequester was a bargaining chip of the highest order. In a fit of Amateur Leadership, he had no idea how entrenched both Democrats and Republicans were when he set out on the sequester journey.
I implore you to understand this before throwing blind support behind budget buffoonery.
The cuts may not be smart, but they were voted into being by a majority of House Republicans, something that no one here from the right wants to admit. You blame the president on one hand for attempting to bargain, and on the other you absolve the GOP 100% of any responsibility for the sequester. Buffoonery is voting for a bill and then blaming the president for signing it.
Yep. This whole, "It was all HIS idea!" crap is just that, crap. Ideas get introduced all the time. What matters is what is voted on and passed, and by whom.
The fact is that 174 House Republicans, a number that includes the entire leadership, voted for the sequester. And a majority of Senate Republicans--again, including the entire GOP Senate leadership--voted for it.
So tell me again, who owns the sequester?
Obama.
It was his idea, his plan and he led Congress to pass it. And then he signed it.
Good, because it is about to become all yours. I hope the president stands firm and lets the sequester move forward. I'm happy with the big cuts to defense, and once the other cuts start to kick in, it will become the Republicans' sequester, 100%. Works for me.
There are NO big cuts. Not to defense nor anything else.
I hope he stands firm too. Even a miniscule reduction in the spending increase is a good step.
You think 8% unemployment is bad, but you are fine with the sequester pushing unemployment up to 9%?
Since this "cut" isn't really a cut at all, why is ANYONE losing their job? Except to prove a point, and for Obama to play politics.
Well, except the grossly overpaid dog handler in the WH. They need to lose their job. Michelle can start scooping the poop herself, instead of showing up at hollywood galas.
I say let the sequestration take place and have the Krackers who post here have their government welfare payments the first to be cut. Then let's see how holier than thou they are.
So Obama is only going to cut welfare for "krackers"?
The cuts may not be smart, but they were voted into being by a majority of House Republicans, something that no one here from the right wants to admit. You blame the president on one hand for attempting to bargain, and on the other you absolve the GOP 100% of any responsibility for the sequester. Buffoonery is voting for a bill and then blaming the president for signing it.
Actually, the president threatened to veto. So you're absolving Obama of all responsibility, for a bill that came from his camp, and which he bullied into being voted for?
Yep. 174 Republicans voted for it because they thought Romney would win in November and it would never come to pass. But the fact remains, it would never have landed on the president's desk without those 174 House Republicans voting for it, unless you're suggesting that somehow the president passed the bill himself.
If President Obama owns it because he signed it, then the Republicans own it as well because they passed it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
I agree, they BOTH own it.
What I find amusing is some of the same dems claimming Bush "owns" the 2 wars when the dems co-sponsored it and voted for it.
I say let the sequestration take place and have the Krackers who post here have their government welfare payments the first to be cut. Then let's see how holier than thou they are.
A little racist, are we?
One might say that maybe those "Krackers" wouldn't have their "welfare payments" cut if there were fewer illegal Mexicans feed at the government trough.
I, for 1 do. It is the ONLY way we can get ANY spending decreases. The repubs have tried just about everything else with the dems with no success.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-26-2013 at 02:16 PM..
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.
