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.
Sure, they all voted for it, but it was 0bama who decided to ignore making any preparations for the possibility that he might have to follow thru on his plan to make these cuts. Neither 0bama or the heads of the various administrative agencies made any preparations for cuts in their departments. It was their responsibility to make those preparations, but the failed to do so.
I think he was caught off guard, personally. I think his past success in getting public opinion to force Republicans to do what he wants made him completely confident that sequestration was going to force Republicans to agree to tax increases he wanted, not force him into agreeing to spending cuts he didn't actually want even though he publicly supported it at the time. I think is why they ended up with no real plants to make intelligent cuts, because they had no intention of having to make any cuts to begin with. And that's why he's making speeches now against a bill that he actually helped enact. It was never intended to happen, it was intended as a bargaining chip and it failed and he's scrambling to avoid taking responsibility for it.
I think he was caught off guard, personally. I think his past success in getting public opinion to force Republicans to do what he wants made him completely confident that sequestration was going to force Republicans to agree to tax increases he wanted, not force him into agreeing to spending cuts he didn't actually want even though he publicly supported it at the time. I think is why they ended up with no real plants to make intelligent cuts, because they had no intention of having to make any cuts to begin with. And that's why he's making speeches now against a bill that he actually helped enact. It was never intended to happen, it was intended as a bargaining chip and it failed and he's scrambling to avoid taking responsibility for it.
The election went to his head. The man thinks he's infallible and just needs to get Americans riled up against the Republicans and he can do whatever he wants.
I think he was caught off guard, personally. I think his past success in getting public opinion to force Republicans to do what he wants made him completely confident that sequestration was going to force Republicans to agree to tax increases he wanted, not force him into agreeing to spending cuts he didn't actually want even though he publicly supported it at the time. I think is why they ended up with no real plants to make intelligent cuts, because they had no intention of having to make any cuts to begin with. And that's why he's making speeches now against a bill that he actually helped enact. It was never intended to happen, it was intended as a bargaining chip and it failed and he's scrambling to avoid taking responsibility for it.
I could agree with the idea that 0bama never thought he would have to follow thru on his sequester, but that does not excuse him from properly preparing for the possibility that he might have to do so.
This is like a sick joke, where we send an unarmed guard to provide security, and when he actually come face to face with a criminal he says "Halt" and the criminal says "Or what?" and the guard says "Or, I'll say 'halt' again."
This is exactly how I feel about "Bush's wars" and "Bush's recession". Liberals constantly refer to both, completely ignoring all the Democrats who supported the housing bubble fully and supported Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't have the exact figures cause I don't feel like doing the counting but in the House 81 Democrats voted for the war and 126 voted against it. That's a difference of 45 votes so in the Senate they would have had to voted for it by a margin of 46 votes. There was at that time 50 Democrats in the Senate so there's only room for 4 no votes but as can be seen there's more than 4 no votes. Therefore more Democrats voted against the Iraq war in 2002 than voted for it.
UMMMM...
You left out one minor little item...
WHO had the choice to sign the bill into law, or veto it? WHO chose to sign it into law?
Only one person has/had that power...
I believe his name was barack hussein obama.
Seems to me his job title is President of The United States of America.
Regardless of what Congress did, once he signed the bill into law it is HIS responsibility!
Does that same logic also apply to Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights act?
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.
