• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama forces goverment to make most painfull cuts

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Juddog said:
I love some of the right-wingers on this board for years who complain that Obama is spending too much, is a tax & spend "librul", etc. then bitch about him making budget cuts. You're the same people that a year ago were going on and on about how he needs to cut the budget, now when he finally does it you whine about it? You got what you wanted, you should be happy for a change!

You all made your bed, now lie in it.
Click to expand...

We are not complaining about the cuts - we are complaining about how he is blaming the republicans for his own idea and how he is making the cuts as painful as possible on purpose.

I voted against Obama - those who voted FOR him are the ones who made this bed. Are you one of those we should blame for him being reelected and causing this mess?
 
cybrsage said:
True, and we are calling Obama and the dems out for making it necessary at all. I am very surprised you posted this.
Click to expand...

So not raising the debt ceiling which caused all of this was Obama and the dems fault? Despite the fact that the debt ceiling has been raised under every president?

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/underselling-the-sequester-cuts/

I'll quote the relevant part for you

The sequester was part of a negotiated compromise to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Included in the Budget Control Act of 2011, its intent was to act as a poison pill to encourage deeply divided lawmakers to forge a compromise that would result in savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Click to expand...

Compromise means both parties agreed to it. Having to strike a deal just to raise the debt ceiling, something that's been done under every president? There is only one party to blame for that and it's not the dems or Obama. You can't spin it any other way unless reality is foreign to you.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Who says he is? The Washington Times? Hacks like michal1980 and Matt1970?

Show me some proof that he's making cuts "more painful" than necessary, and I'll agree with you.
.
Click to expand...

so the Washington time is now a hack?


Then again when you have no defense for Obama's behavior, call people hacks, so that you don't have to actually think about an answer. Typical liberal behavior, label your opponent so you don't have to debate.
 
I love insanity like this:

"Included in the Budget Control Act of 2011, its intent was to act as a poison pill to encourage deeply divided lawmakers to forge a compromise that would result in savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years."

If I were to seriously plan to cut off both of someones arms and legs where they attached to the body, but then, instead, only cut off both their arms, I could then tell them, 'Hey, look what I did, I saved you grief!'

Only in politics where money is a fictional property does this type of "logic" fly...

Chuck
 
ivwshane said:
So not raising the debt ceiling which caused all of this was Obama and the dems fault? Despite the fact that the debt ceiling has been raised under every president?

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/underselling-the-sequester-cuts/

I'll quote the relevant part for you



Compromise means both parties agreed to it. Having to strike a deal just to raise the debt ceiling, something that's been done under every president? There is only one party to blame for that and it's not the dems or Obama. You can't spin it any other way unless reality is foreign to you.
Click to expand...

Wow, do you want me to point out all the logical fallacies in your failed argument? Should I start with the Obama quote about failed leadership and debt ceiling increases? Or how about how you pretend not compromising over Obama's sequester idea does not exist because there was a compromise over something else?
 
michal1980 said:
so the Washington time is now a hack?


Then again when you have no defense for Obama's behavior, call people hacks, so that you don't have to actually think about an answer. Typical liberal behavior, label your opponent so you don't have to debate.
Click to expand...

That is him being unbiased...
 
cybrsage said:
Wow, do you want me to point out all the logical fallacies in your failed argument? Should I start with the Obama quote about failed leadership and debt ceiling increases? Or how about how you pretend not compromising over Obama's sequester idea does not exist because there was a compromise over something else?
Click to expand...

Are you asking if you can respond by making stuff up? Leadership regarding the debt ceiling? Lol!
 
I'm not sure it was Republican obstructionism alone that caused the sequester. A quick review of the matter shows that not only does the president bear responsibility for insisting on automatic cuts as part of the August 2011 deal from whence all this sprang, both parties are up to their arses in obstructionism. And when it comes to exaggerating the effects of the sequester, the Obama administration is doing its best to make the Pinocchio industry the top sector of the American economy. In just the past seven days, the "Fact Checker" at The Washington Post - no ardent enemy of Obama's general agenda - has awarded the president and his pals three separate "four Pinocchio" ratings (the worst possible) for wild claims about the sequester's effects on congressional janitors and public school teachers.
Click to expand...

It's not just Obama and his administration that are doing the lying, it's all his little supporters that ask "Show me some proof that he's making cuts "more painful" than necessary, and I'll agree with you."
and when they get shown the nasty little spiteful ass of a President closing off the White House to visitors, lie and say it doesn't count it's not derp, derp, derp nasty and unnecessarily painful derp a derp.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/06/5-scenes-from-a-sequestered-america

http://politicker.com/2013/03/iowa-...se-not-to-cancel-their-tour-due-to-sequester/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-wh-saves-18k-week-canceling-tours_706552.html
 
michal1980 said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/



Seems that Obama wants would rather people be fired to make his point, then allow some reasonable spending cuts.


Along the same lines

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...ore-sequester-pain-white-house-cancels-tours/

Obama cancels white house tours.

Truly phatic, I wonder how many gold trips get canceled.
Click to expand...

I have been hearing mainly Republicans screaming about the deficit, usually when a Democrat is in the White House, and that budget cuts have to be made. Okay, they have their budget cuts.

Why are they surprised that budget cuts would result in job lost and shut down of government activites?
 
Siddhartha said:
I have been hearing mainly Republicans screaming about the deficit, usually when a Democrat is in the White House, and that budget cuts have to be made. Okay, they have their budget cuts.

Why are they surprised that budget cuts would result in job lost and shut down of government activites?
Click to expand...

I don't think most republicans are surprised. I'm not, I'm OK with the cuts.

But like Obama says there are smart ways to make cuts, and stupid ways. So if some section of government has a way to make cuts that minimize their impact why shouldn't they do it that way?

Why is Obama now telling them to make cuts the stupid way? hmm.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Both sides agreed to this poison pill. Both sides are going to have to swallow it. But only one side made it necessary at all.
Click to expand...

Yep, one side made it necessary, the side that can't understand the simple concept of spending within your means. The fiscal realities have made cuts necessary, and the spending-addicted fools are throwing a kicking and screaming hissy fit tantrum over even the tiniest reduction in spending increases. I'd hate to see how they're going to react when actual cuts have to be made.
 
michal1980 said:
so the Washington time is now a hack?
Click to expand...

Always has been. It's barely better than the Weapon of News Destruction.

michal1980 said:
Then again when you have no defense for Obama's behavior...
Click to expand...

Oh, but I have plenty of defense for Obama's behavior.

Congress spent money it didn't have. They incurred debts that required them to borrow. So he went to them at the appropriate time and said "hey guys, we need to raise the debt ceiling".

Instead of doing that, a bunch of Republican assholes decided to hold the country hostage so they could try to make Obama look bad to hurt his re-election chances. Obama offered multiples of spending cuts for each dollar of tax increases, which they refused.

Obama was forced to participate in this stupidity. It was the Republicans who wanted it.

Now they can choke on it.

If it were me, I'd make 100% of the cuts directly target our so-called "defense" department and any other programs that Republicans favor.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Always has been. It's barely better than the Weapon of News Destruction.



Oh, but I have plenty of defense for Obama's behavior.

Congress spent money it didn't have. They incurred debts that required them to borrow. So he went to them at the appropriate time and said "hey guys, we need to raise the debt ceiling".

Instead of doing that, a bunch of Republican assholes decided to hold the country hostage so they could try to make Obama look bad to hurt his re-election chances. Obama offered multiples of spending cuts for each dollar of tax increases, which they refused.

Obama was forced to participate in this stupidity. It was the Republicans who wanted it.

Now they can choke on it.

If it were me, I'd make 100% of the cuts directly target our so-called "defense" department and any other programs that Republicans favor.
Click to expand...

And this is whats wrong with the country. Too much partisan hackery and ideology over common sense. The government isn't even suppose to be spending this much money on these programs which shouldn't even exist. This is not the role of government and is violating the US Constitution.

The spending must be cut or else its over for the US.

And that POS obama never wanted real spending cuts since even in his SOTU he called for more spending but the POS called it "investing"
 
michal1980 said:
And you call me a partisan hack?
Click to expand...

Only because you are.

(If I'm so partisan, why did I just start a thread commending Rand Paul's filibuster?)

You guys can whine and lie and twist as many times as you like. But the bottom line is always the same: the sequester only exists because the Republicans tried to exploit the debt ceiling for political purposes. They own everything that happened after that.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
If it were me, I'd make 100% of the cuts directly target our so-called "defense" department and any other programs that Republicans favor.
Click to expand...

So you put partisan politics before country?

This is the classic school board / local government "you didn't vote for our levy, so we are going to screw you" BS.

They knew these cuts were coming for awhile, how about a hiring freeze, pay freeze, looking for new suppliers, cutting special projects, cutting management, etc. All things a business would do if they knew they were going to budget cuts.

Really all the have to do is look at what is adding cost this year over last year and trying to eliminate the cost creep. I've gone through a similar process at every company I've ever worked at and my own personal budget.

BTW: I agree that this is because the republicans are play politics with everything possible and are trying to block Obama every chance they get. But Obama is making a choice to make these cuts more painful for political goals as opposed to what is the best for the country.
 
Last edited:
Charles Kozierok said:
Only because you are.

(If I'm so partisan, why did I just start a thread commending Rand Paul's filibuster?)

You guys can whine and lie and twist as many times as you like. But the bottom line is always the same: the sequester only exists because the Republicans tried to exploit the debt ceiling for political purposes. They own everything that happened after that.
Click to expand...
I'm shocked that anyone would think you're highly partisan....shocked I tell you! 🙄

The sequester was agreed to by Democrats if deficit reduction negotiations failed...yet for some reason you don't feel they deserve any blame for their failure to live up to their agreement. The failure of deficit reduction negotiations initiated the sequester process that was entirely related to spending cuts (agreed to by Democrats and signed into law by Obama). In fact, Obama stated that he would veto any attempt by Congress to cancel the sequester agreement! Tax increases were not part of that agreement. Dems reneged on their agreement by insisting on tax increases as a premise for any negotiations regarding a more sane approach to minimize impact of the sequester cuts. They had their chance to negotiate tax increases as part of deficit reduction negotiations which failed. They agreed to the sequester spending cuts if negotiations failed.

Although both parties agreed to the sequester, the structure of the cuts didn't make sense to either party. Instead of negotiating a better structure for the American people, Dems exploited the situation and refused to negotiate unless they could also increase taxes. They moved the goal posts and failed to honor their agreement.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. How would you feel if Republicans did something similar...such as refusing to negotiate to minimize impact of the sequester cuts unless they got more spending cuts than previously agreed to? Do you think Republicans would be blameless if Democrats refused to negotiate with them based on their demand that goes well beyond what they previously agreed to?

You keep going back to an argument that this wouldn't have been a problem if Republicans hadn't used the debt ceiling to leverage spending cuts. Using your "logic", this wouldn't have been a problem if Democrats just agreed to everything the Republicans wanted.
 
Zorba said:
So you put partisan politics before country?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't do anything that I felt would actively harm the country, no.

But having been put in this ridiculous position by a bunch of assholes, I sure wouldn't bend over backwards to accomodate them in how the cuts were made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top