Obama forces goverment to make most painfull cuts

[Charles Kozierok]

Ah...so it's actually the GOP's fault that the Obama administration is choosing to make this as visible and painful to the American public as possible. Got it.

Once again, the underlined is your opinion, and I won't accept it as a premise.

That said, even if it is true, then yes -- it is the GOP's fault, for creating this mess in the first place.

That's the thing about ultimatums, they don't always turn out the way the extortionist planned.

Old saying: "be careful what you ask for -- you just might get it".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Once again, the underlined is your opinion, and I won't accept it as a premise.

That said, even if it is true, then yes -- it is the GOP's fault, for creating this mess in the first place.

Old saying: "be careful what you ask for -- you just might get it".

Tell me something please...if we're so broke that we can't afford food inspection, how is it that we suddenly have enough money to give Egypt $250mm and Syria $60mm just a couple days ago?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Tell me something please...if we're so broke that we can't afford food inspection, how is it that we suddenly have enough money to give Egypt $250mm and Syria $60mm just a couple days ago?

I can't answer that, because I don't know what the rules are for various types of spending.

I'll even concede that Obama may well be playing this to score political points. That's what you do when you're forced into a situation you don't like by unreasonable opponents -- you use it against them as much as possible.

But maybe you can tell me something. If the Republicans had approved the debt ceiling increase as every prior Congress had done, instead of extorting concessions -- and let's remember that Congress makes the budget and is therefore responsible for debt anyway -- would we be having this conversation right now?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I can't answer that, because I don't know what the rules are for various types of spending.

I'll even concede that Obama may well be playing this to score political points. That's what you do when you're forced into a situation you don't like by unreasonable opponents -- you use it against them as much as possible.

But maybe you can tell me something. If the Republicans had approved the debt ceiling increase as every prior Congress had done, instead of extorting concessions -- and let's remember that Congress makes the budget and is therefore responsible for debt anyway -- would we be having this conversation right now?

I'll reply in like kind "rationale":

If the Democrats hadn't reneged on their original agreement by insisting on additional tax increase concessions -- would we be having this conversation right now?

 

[TallBill]

Once again, the underlined is your opinion, and I won't accept it as a premise.

That said, even if it is true, then yes -- it is the GOP's fault, for creating this mess in the first place.

That's the thing about ultimatums, they don't always turn out the way the extortionist planned.

Old saying: "be careful what you ask for -- you just might get it".

I dont see republicans on TV crying about the sequester though.

 

[Incorruptible]

What a surprise that pos obama wants to put ideology first. He would rather try to inflict "pain/suffering" than be a man. He is a pathetic coward

 

[monovillage]

I'll reply in like kind "rationale":

If the Democrats hadn't reneged on their original agreement by insisting on additional tax increase concessions -- would we be having this conversation right now?

There is nothing you can say to people that are being so intellectually dishonest that when cuts have to be made, make sure those cuts are the most damaging and painful as possible to the citizens they're supposed to be serving.

 

[michal1980]

I can't answer that, because I don't know what the rules are for various types of spending.

I'll even concede that Obama may well be playing this to score political points. That's what you do when you're forced into a situation you don't like by unreasonable opponents -- you use it against them as much as possible.

But maybe you can tell me something. If the Republicans had approved the debt ceiling increase as every prior Congress had done, instead of extorting concessions -- and let's remember that Congress makes the budget and is therefore responsible for debt anyway -- would we be having this conversation right now?

Obama proposed the idea. The sequester started with him.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Does Obama get to choose where cuts are made? If so we have every right to bitch about it. The sequester itself is not at issue here, at least thats not this threads intention.

He does have some discretion as to how the money is spent. So, yes he could reduce the pain that will be felt.

 

[BoberFett]

"Kids, your mother and I have some bad news. I got a pay cut at work. It's not going to be easy, but we know we can get through this as a family. We've talked about where we could cut back. Cancel HBO. Cancel the data plans for your phones. But in the end we've decided the best option is for you kids to stop eating. Now here's a new stack of video games we just bought for you. Be good for the babysitter while mom and dad go out for lobster."

 

[Double Trouble]

As already mentioned, this entire situation only came about because the GOP wanted to play politics with the debt ceiling.

They demanded cuts -- they're getting cuts.

So you're pointing the finger of blame over cuts. I don't have a problem with that. That still doesn't absolve the president from playing politics with the cuts instead of being a leader and minimizing the impact of the cuts. They're making the cuts as visible and painful as possible, as a political hammer. I'm very disappointed with the president. Even though I don't like his policies, I didn't think he'd sink to the same level as those who simply oppose him no matter what he does.

Net result, our country is screwed, from both sides.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I dont see republicans on TV crying about the sequester though.

Really? I hear them whining on talk radio every day.

Obama proposed the idea. The sequester started with him.

You mean the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was passed by the Republican House, with the entire margin of passage coming from Republicans? That one?

Which was only necessary because the Republican held the debt ceiling hostage?

There is nothing you can say to people that are being so intellectually dishonest that when cuts have to be made...

Cuts that only happened because of Republican extortionists.

So sorry that it didn't work out the way you planned. Actually, not.

So you're pointing the finger of blame over cuts.

No, I'm saying that the Republicans manufactured this entire mess, and for them now to be whining about exactly how it is implemented makes them lying, hypocritical assholes.

Obama never wanted these cuts. Only the most dishonest or stupid of people would claim that this was his fault.

Net result, our country is screwed, from both sides.

Bah. Business as usual.

 

[nehalem256]

Really? I hear them whining on talk radio every day.



You mean the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was passed by the Republican House, with the entire margin of passage coming from Republicans? That one?

Which was only necessary because the Republican held the debt ceiling hostage?

So the Senate and President have no say in what bills become law?

Cuts that only happened because of Republican extortionists.

This is an interesting point. Which is entirely true. I mean Obama wanted to renege on the cuts and replace them with tax increases even after he agreed to them.

If you think the government needs to cut spending it seems like the Republicans accomplished them in the only way possible.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Tell me something please...if we're so broke that we can't afford food inspection, how is it that we suddenly have enough money to give Egypt $250mm and Syria $60mm just a couple days ago?

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
This list goes on for several pages.

 

[Double Trouble]

No, I'm saying that the Republicans manufactured this entire mess, and for them now to be whining about exactly how it is implemented makes them lying, hypocritical assholes.

Obama never wanted these cuts. Only the most dishonest or stupid of people would claim that this was his fault.

You're talking about the reason the sequester exists. Lets say for a second that's all on the gop (I don't agree with that, but lets pretend). That still doesn't mean Obama should try to make the cuts more visible and painful, a real leader would play the cards he's dealt and take steps to minimize the impact, not amplify it for political gain.

Cutting the tours of the white house is an example of it. Disgraceful to needlessly impact the people just to try to score political points.

This whole episode has really downgraded the president IMO.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That still doesn't mean Obama should try to make the cuts more visible and painful...

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.

Cutting the tours of the white house is an example of it. Disgraceful to needlessly impact the people just to try to score political points.

Why exactly is that "disgraceful"? It's not really anything necessary. And it only "impacts" a handful of people a year.

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

The leaked email from the department of agriculture sure seems to support that position. I take washington times with a big grain of salt, but the very public cuts (like white house tours, cuts to TSA to cause long delays at airports and the like) support their position as well.

It's not always the president himself either, it could simply be his surrogates, but the effect is the same.

It's basically straight out of the local school district playbook. If the people don't approve a new levy, cut the visible things that people notice and like first (bus routes, sports activities), instead of the other things that could be cut that the public might not feel.

The president painted himself into a corner, going on for weeks about how much of a horrible impact this would have, and now he has to have as much impact visible as possible to retain credibility.

Why exactly is that "disgraceful"? It's not really anything necessary. And it only "impacts" a handful of people a year.

You seriously don't think there are other ways to cut the pittance (in terms of the budget) spent on white house tours that won't be as visible? It's an obvious ploy intended to make sure people see as much direct impact as possible (especially since it will inevitably end up on the evening news, giving the "impact" even more publicity).

In terms of leadership, the less visible the impact of the cuts is, the better for the economy. Negative outlooks can snowball into a self fulfilling prophesy. Instead, we're seeing the opposite, make it as public and visible as possible.

I think it's shameful, and I (probably naively) thought the president was above this.

If you have anything that might signal some other dynamic at play, I'll listen. Unlike some of the hacks around here I don't have my mind made up about the good and evil 'sides' in everything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Obama never wanted these cuts. Only the most dishonest or stupid of people would claim that this was his fault.

Nobody wanted these cuts the way they were configured. The deal was intentionally structured to incent both sides to negotiate more a reasonable spending cut composition. This agreement was never about tax increases.

By insisting on tax increases, Dems reneged on their 2011 agreement. They effectively moved the goal posts and then dug their heals in. And, to add insult to injury, Dems had the audacity to blame Republicans for their refusal to "compromise".

Only the most dishonest or stupid of people would claim that Dems are blameless on this issue.

 

[thraashman]

The leaked email from the department of agriculture sure seems to support that position. I take washington times with a big grain of salt, but the very public cuts (like white house tours, cuts to TSA to cause long delays at airports and the like) support their position as well.

It's not always the president himself either, it could simply be his surrogates, but the effect is the same.

It's basically straight out of the local school district playbook. If the people don't approve a new levy, cut the visible things that people notice and like first (bus routes, sports activities), instead of the other things that could be cut that the public might not feel.

The president painted himself into a corner, going on for weeks about how much of a horrible impact this would have, and now he has to have as much impact visible as possible to retain credibility.

You seriously don't think there are other ways to cut the pittance (in terms of the budget) spent on white house tours that won't be as visible? It's an obvious ploy intended to make sure people see as much direct impact as possible (especially since it will inevitably end up on the evening news, giving the "impact" even more publicity).

In terms of leadership, the less visible the impact of the cuts is, the better for the economy. Negative outlooks can snowball into a self fulfilling prophesy. Instead, we're seeing the opposite, make it as public and visible as possible.

I think it's shameful, and I (probably naively) thought the president was above this.

If you have anything that might signal some other dynamic at play, I'll listen. Unlike some of the hacks around here I don't have my mind made up about the good and evil 'sides' in everything.

What leaked email? The article mentions an email but never provides the text of it. It quotes a person who is paraphrasing his interpretation of the email, that's it. The article is total bullshit and I recognized that the first time I read it and I've now read it several times. This entire thread is based on an entirely false premise from an article that clearly appears to be a lie.

 

[EagleKeeper]

another thing w/ respect to visible cuts vs under the table is that the DC tours may be free; but the extra $$ they pump into the local economy is a decent size.

The tour is something that people will plan for 3-12 months in advance - getting tickets is not liking walking up to a kiosk.

those tourist may take a pass and go to another tourist area instead.

 

[trenchfoot]

So here we have the party that had loudly and proudly announced to do every single thing possible to get rid of Obama after his first term, the party that used total obstruction in the House, and record filibustering in the Senate, the party that used/attempted to use disenfranchisement and voter suppression to win elections and the party that wholeheartedly agreed to the sequester when it was politically favorable for them now blaming it all on Obama to hide their own intransigence and culpability in having the sequestration taking effect.

Yeah, nope, not gonna happen. If I recall correctly, Obama offered up a balanced plan and, because it contained closing unfair loopholes that only the rich and big businesses enjoy, the Repub leadership, who in so many words openly admitted they were going to protect the rich no matter what, walked away from the deal with their purposely vague "no new taxes" mantra and then claimed Obama didn't do a damn thing to stop the sequester, right? lol

Here we have the Repub party leadership that publicly says they want to save our social assistance programs with cutbacks without also admitting the only reason they're saying so is to keep from losing votes from their middle class and poor base, all while not so openly doing everything they can to destroy or privatize <---(read profiteer) these programs (vouchers, anyone?)

Here we have the party that keeps veering further and further right, the party that threw most or all of its moderates under the bus in favor of Tea Party extremists in 2010 now slamming Obama for no other reason other than his refusing to move further and further right along with them, which is after all, the Repub leadership's interpretation of "compromise", amiright?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The leaked email from the department of agriculture sure seems to support that position.

Well, I can't seem to find anyone talking about this supposed email other than the usual right-wing propaganda outlets. One had a link to what was supposed to be this email, and what little of it I could even understand hardly struck me as a smoking gun.

I take washington times with a big grain of salt, but the very public cuts (like white house tours, cuts to TSA to cause long delays at airports and the like) support their position as well.

Why is that? Why shouldn't some of the cuts be "public"? Where's the evidence of nefarious intent on Obama's part here?

You seriously don't think there are other ways to cut the pittance (in terms of the budget) spent on white house tours that won't be as visible?

Are there ways? Maybe. But I thought the entire point was everything got cut across the board.

If Obama took special steps to ensure things like White House tours didn't get cut, then the same right-wing-nuts whining about him "being too public" would be whining about him "giving preferential treatment to White House programs".

Because that's all it is ever about with these people -- no matter what happens, whine about Obama.

If you have anything that might signal some other dynamic at play, I'll listen. Unlike some of the hacks around here I don't have my mind made up about the good and evil 'sides' in everything.

You strike me as reasonable. But I think you've accepted the underlying premise of this thread without really digging into it. I simply see no evidence of a specific effort to make cuts "look worse" here.

Nobody wanted these cuts the way they were configured.

For me, this whole thing is sort of like a political "felony murder rule". When the Republicans decided to hold the country hostage for political reasons to try to undermine Obama's chances of being re-elected in 2012 -- and that's all the debt ceiling extortion was really about, because the GOP doesn't really give a damn about the debt and never has -- they set in motion a series of events that led to the current mess. Therefore, they are responsible for what is transpiring.

You broke it, you bought it. Period.

As for the persistent allegations that this is the Democrats' fault for "reneging on a 2011 agreement", you'll have to back that up with a credible source.

ETA: 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.

 

[nehalem256]

f
ETA: 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.

I think fiscal realities made it necessary.

Given how Obama wanted to call take backs on the deal to reduce spending by replacing the spending cuts with tax increases are you really going to say there was any other way for the Republicans to reduce spending?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

There is nothing you can say to people that are being so intellectually dishonest that when cuts have to be made, make sure those cuts are the most damaging and painful as possible to the citizens they're supposed to be serving.

This +1

Obama refused the offer to further smooth out these cuts when Congress made the offer to deal with his sequestration deal which he himself came up with and orchestrated.

Of which 85.4 billion in cuts even as it stands today (without any attempts to smooth out the cuts to make them easier to swallow) is a drop in the bucket in the 2013 budget deficit (aprox. 901 billion according to the CBO) we are running with our 3.7-3.8 billion budget.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

In the end having a discussion with someone who is ethically/morally challenged/bankrupted and who continues to shift responsibility away is a pointless endeavor.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/cbo-omb-gop-budget-estimates.html

 

[cybrsage]

Reasonable? Why would we expect Republican cheerleaders to be reasonable?

I know, right? All the dem cheerleaders and those who "claim" to be neutral are the only reasonable ones...right?