Obama: Making SURE it hurts
- Thread starter Jen
- Start date
Mytzlplk
Governor
insanely dishonest nonsense.
Republicans are to blame, starting with their hostage taking that led to all of this. http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/04/the-sequester-is-a-republican-inflicted-wound/#ixzz2Mb2Wa94R
Republicans are to blame, starting with their hostage taking that led to all of this. http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/04/the-sequester-is-a-republican-inflicted-wound/#ixzz2Mb2Wa94R
Dino
Russian Asset
I don't see how Obama's inability to see reason and total unwillingness to compromise is the GOP's fault.
And I bet you'd have an insanely hard time trying to explain it.
Obama already gave up the game on this one. Instead of expressing how his ideas are the right ones, he explained that "most people agree" that he was being "reasonable". That's it? Polls say people are on your side, so it's ok to renege, back down on promises, outright lie, and just sit on the ball and let people get furloughed until the opposition feels enough political pressure to cave in to you??
That's not leadership. It's the continuing pattern of intimidation and stubbornness even in the face of holding out for the WRONG thing.
Everyone knows and agrees that this economy needs cuts to spending if ever there's a hope for a balanced budget. Obama doesn't have the courage or the foresight to do it- or simply prefers the consequences if he doesn't.
And I bet you'd have an insanely hard time trying to explain it.
Obama already gave up the game on this one. Instead of expressing how his ideas are the right ones, he explained that "most people agree" that he was being "reasonable". That's it? Polls say people are on your side, so it's ok to renege, back down on promises, outright lie, and just sit on the ball and let people get furloughed until the opposition feels enough political pressure to cave in to you??
That's not leadership. It's the continuing pattern of intimidation and stubbornness even in the face of holding out for the WRONG thing.
Everyone knows and agrees that this economy needs cuts to spending if ever there's a hope for a balanced budget. Obama doesn't have the courage or the foresight to do it- or simply prefers the consequences if he doesn't.
Why the hell should he compromise with a bunch of idiots who have been determined to bring him down from day one? And of course him winning TWICE really gets their dander up as well as yours.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Two sides to every story
EatTheRich
President
Obama isn't against cuts. The heart of the controversy is that Obama insists on tax increases to go with the cuts, and Republicans refuse to agree to that. I'd also point out that a balanced budget isn't considered desirable by most economists, who believe the state should always operate on a slight deficit, balancing its budget only at the peak of the business cycle when revenue is highest and outlays are lowest.
Dino
Russian Asset
Because they know better what the economy needs now, and have been proving it for two years. Listening to the GOP would have prevented a credit rating drop and would have inspired the economy with a friendlier corporate tax rate and the ability to compromise prevents the well from being tainted for future deals. Reneging has a way of causing bad blood, hurting deal-making.
Remember the deal-making engaged in by Reagan and Clinton? Didn't that produce the best economic terms you can remember? Of course it did. Obama is not willing to reason, hurting our bottom line.
Wake up.
Remember the deal-making engaged in by Reagan and Clinton? Didn't that produce the best economic terms you can remember? Of course it did. Obama is not willing to reason, hurting our bottom line.
Wake up.
EatTheRich
President
The U.S.'s credit rating was dropped--according to the agencies themselves--because of the political inability to reach a compromise. Most of that came from the Republicans in Congress who openly declared that their ONLY goal for 2009-2013 was to prevent Obama's re-election and played political chicken with raising the debt ceiling, something that has been done as a matter of routine since the Reagan administration and something that added nothing to the debt itself, only represented the choice not to default on the country's bills. A lower corporate tax rate won't do much to stimulate the economy if money can't be profitably invested because products are priced out of the average consumer's range. I know that rightists think it's clever to refer to Obama as the "head reneger in charge," but it seems to me for the most part he has been much more open in his budget negotiations with the Republicans than they have been with him (proposing the "fiscal cliff" as a means to force compromise, and then refusing to compromise). Where do you think he has reneged on what he has promised?
At any rate, the compromises reached by Reagan and Clinton did include tax increases. Republicans may think they know better about what's good for the economy--although economists tend to agree more with the president--but that doesn't mean that an alternative such as the president's proposed $4 of spending cuts for $1 of tax increases would be as catastrophic as sequestration is.
At any rate, the compromises reached by Reagan and Clinton did include tax increases. Republicans may think they know better about what's good for the economy--although economists tend to agree more with the president--but that doesn't mean that an alternative such as the president's proposed $4 of spending cuts for $1 of tax increases would be as catastrophic as sequestration is.
Dino
Russian Asset
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-41-1-in-tax-increases-to-spending-cuts-ratio
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.
When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.
“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_boehners_version_of_debt_ceiling_talks.html Obama reneged on his White House deal with Biehner, McConnell and Harry Reid present.
Matt Bai also writes that Boehner thought he had worked out a deal with Obama, a deal which included $800 billion in additional revenues, largely from future growth. This would be worked out through projections involving a "macro estimate":
"(T)he macro estimate was essential to Boehner; he needed it to make the argument that a decent chunk of the additional revenue could come through growth and stepped-up compliance, and thus Congress wouldn't need to actually raise anybody's rates to get it done. Boehner left that Sunday meeting convinced that Geithner, in particular, understood and accepted this condition.
But in his counteroffer, Obama had reversed the formulation so that the tax revenue figure - now at $1.16 trillion - would be the minimum that rewriting the code could achieve (a floor), rather than a maximum (a ceiling). With a slight turn of phrase, he rejected Boehner's entire premise that growth could be counted on to deliver some of the revenue.
This is not the only time Obama reneged. He reneged on deals with both Republicans and some Dems in order to pass the health care bill, and bring its accompanying tax increases to American people. This was documented by Kent Conrad.
http://www.greatplainsexaminer.com/...ma-administration-reneged-on-healthcare-deal/
Obama is a bad-faith deal maker, changes the terms of agreed-upon deals, and doesn't fulfill his promises. He got his tax increases in two forms this year, and has yet to agree to make any entitlement or spending cuts that were not forced on him.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.
When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.
“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_boehners_version_of_debt_ceiling_talks.html Obama reneged on his White House deal with Biehner, McConnell and Harry Reid present.
Matt Bai also writes that Boehner thought he had worked out a deal with Obama, a deal which included $800 billion in additional revenues, largely from future growth. This would be worked out through projections involving a "macro estimate":
"(T)he macro estimate was essential to Boehner; he needed it to make the argument that a decent chunk of the additional revenue could come through growth and stepped-up compliance, and thus Congress wouldn't need to actually raise anybody's rates to get it done. Boehner left that Sunday meeting convinced that Geithner, in particular, understood and accepted this condition.
But in his counteroffer, Obama had reversed the formulation so that the tax revenue figure - now at $1.16 trillion - would be the minimum that rewriting the code could achieve (a floor), rather than a maximum (a ceiling). With a slight turn of phrase, he rejected Boehner's entire premise that growth could be counted on to deliver some of the revenue.
This is not the only time Obama reneged. He reneged on deals with both Republicans and some Dems in order to pass the health care bill, and bring its accompanying tax increases to American people. This was documented by Kent Conrad.
http://www.greatplainsexaminer.com/...ma-administration-reneged-on-healthcare-deal/
Obama is a bad-faith deal maker, changes the terms of agreed-upon deals, and doesn't fulfill his promises. He got his tax increases in two forms this year, and has yet to agree to make any entitlement or spending cuts that were not forced on him.
Obama wants smart cuts and tax increases.
The House wants just smart cuts.
The sequester = dumb cuts (all parties agree)
So which party "played" politics and added in tax increases?
A bill with smart cuts would have fixed sequester. So the person who added tax increases to the talks is the one that stopped the fix for sequester.
EatTheRich
President
Because the Republicans refuse to vote for ANYTHING he proposes, EVEN when it's the same plan they'd just proposed. How many times has Obama offered Boehner 100% of what he wants, only to have Ryan turn around and say, "Wait! I want 120% of that!"?
Because the Republicans insist on major cuts to Medicare and Social Security, but also refuse to take direct responsibility for proposing those. So they hold up any other deals that are laid on the table to try to force Obama into being the one who proposes Medicare and Social Security cuts. And if he doesn't, they'll make sure any compromise (like the fiscal cliff deal) really twists the knife in.
I'm not saying Democrats aren't on a trajectory leading to austerity budgets or that they aren't playing politics with our lives in the meantime; but Republicans are the ones who are refusing to play by the same tacit rules that Washington lived by for the last 30 years.
You say Congress's compromise with Reagan saved the economy. You also say that the compromise called for smaller spending cuts than Obama is proposing now (proportional to tax increases), and that those spending cuts were not in fact fully achieved. So a smaller spending cut than Obama is proposing, plus a tax increase, is what saved the economy then. Now, you are saying that to save the economy we need a major spending cut--much bigger than the one Obama is proposing--and no tax increase. What has changed between Reagan's time and now--the fundamentals of economics or your party's increasing defiance of basic economic sense?
Cotton2226
Mayor
Throwing us all under the bus in order to blame Republicans.
While ignorant Democrats cheer.
Shameful.
Republicans deserve to be "thrown under the bus!" You folks earned it. Republicans, as a rule, have done NOTHING to help the economy....just status quo...lie about President Obama and blame everything on him. Only goal Republicans had since day one was to make Pres. Obama a one term President. TALKING ABOUT SHAMEFUL...........
Dino
Russian Asset
What Obama bills haven't they voted on? What proposals in the House have been tabled, what has the Senate produced that they're not voing on?
I gave you facts, don't snow me.
What has Boehner been granted 100% on, then changed the deal?? That's a huge bunch of nonsense.
Obama doesn't need to "recommend" anything. The House needs to put together a bill to get voted on. It may or may not have cuts to Medicare or SS in it. Obama doesn't propose or recommend a bill to get passed, so that's just more enabling flapdoodle from you.
And Obama, you left this part out very conveniently, already got a large tax increase passed for this year- bigger than the amount the Dems have been declaring the end of the world for that we'll see in cuts due to sequester.
You've been lied to by this entire admin, and you've bought into it so much, you're responding to me with more lies. Don't try that, it looks bad,
I gave you facts, don't snow me.
What has Boehner been granted 100% on, then changed the deal?? That's a huge bunch of nonsense.
Obama doesn't need to "recommend" anything. The House needs to put together a bill to get voted on. It may or may not have cuts to Medicare or SS in it. Obama doesn't propose or recommend a bill to get passed, so that's just more enabling flapdoodle from you.
And Obama, you left this part out very conveniently, already got a large tax increase passed for this year- bigger than the amount the Dems have been declaring the end of the world for that we'll see in cuts due to sequester.
You've been lied to by this entire admin, and you've bought into it so much, you're responding to me with more lies. Don't try that, it looks bad,
Mytzlplk
Governor
there is no good reason for him to do so, there's just idiotic BS coming from rightwingers about how he should just give them their spending cuts absent any tax increases.
That's the ONLY way he can compromise with them -- give them everything they want.
That's what the modern rightwingnut idiot calls "compromise".
That's the ONLY way he can compromise with them -- give them everything they want.
That's what the modern rightwingnut idiot calls "compromise".
Latest posts
-
-
Georgia missing votes found of memory card
- Latest: sensible don
