"Obamaquester"?

[Charles Kozierok]

So the new talking point on the right is that Obama "owns" the sequester, and they even came up with the awkward, not-very-clever contraction in the title to go with the accusation.

Let me see if I remember this correctly.

In 2011, we reach the debt ceiling.

Obama says we need to raise the debt ceiling. Period. That it should be raised "cleanly".

Republicans say no, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless there are spending cuts.

Ds and Rs sit down to try to find cuts they can agree on. Unsurprisingly, they can't. So they pass the Budget Control Act, which includes a "poison pill" called "sequestration" that is meant to be so awful neither will want it, to ensure they come up with a plan to avoid it.

Once again, Congress fails to reach a deal, and sequestration is triggered.

And somehow this is Obama's fault?

Really not seeing it.

 

[GreenMeters]

Americans in general agree with you.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...op-guns-energy-immigration-sequester/1934233/

 

[highland145]

Flip the mirror. If B were there, there'd be a firestorm.

Subject to the "news" agency reporting.

 

[waggy]

Obamaquester


sounds like a crappy RPG game.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Obamaquester


sounds like a crappy RPG game.

Okay, I actually LOLed at that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And somehow this is Obama's fault?

Really not seeing it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

Obama can’t rightly say the sequester isn’t his, but he did need cooperation from Congress to get to this point. We rate the statement Mostly False.

 

[Sonikku]

I've said before the way you deflect, shift and move around blame is an important life skill. It is not enough to simply keep your head down and work hard, others will attempt to mask their failures in redirecting it to you or your coworkers. Planting seeds and deflecting as a defensive measure is thus essential in rising up through office politics hell.

I see it everywhere. I see it in company politics at the job, I've seen it in the sort of sordid politics that go on with officers in the military. It stands to reason Washington is no different in regards to the blame game. Ours is a society with no accountability.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's clearly a consequence of the 2010 and 2012 elections.

What's the sum $ of the cuts anyway, $20 billion?

 

[randomrogue]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

That's a really interesting read. However this issue of owning it is stupid. The reason we are in this position is because Congress is unable to get anything done.

Our ruling

Obama said that the sequester -- and the defense cuts that would result from it -- was not his proposition. "It is something that Congress has proposed," he said in the debate.

But it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality.

Meanwhile, members of both parties in Congress voted for the legislation that set up the possibility of sequestration. Obama’s position is that Congress should now act to avoid those across-the-board cuts.

Obama can’t rightly say the sequester isn’t his, but he did need cooperation from Congress to get to this point. We rate the statement Mostly False.

 

[chucky2]

Are they even true cuts? Or, are they merely reductions in what would have been spent, i.e., instead of punching you in the face, kicking you in the crotch, and then clubbing you, I'm only going to punch you in the face and kick you in the crotch...see, we've reduced assault!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Clearly not a propaganda term.

Wait, people are actually using this? I thought Charles was just being snarky. Don't expect it to be around long.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/21/why-the-obamaquester-label-wont-last/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a really interesting read. However this issue of owning it is stupid. The reason we are in this position is because Congress is unable to get anything done.

The reason I posted that was to show the hypocrisy of Obama for blaming Congress for the sequestration issues we are now facing. He takes zero responsibility for his administration's direct role in creating this problem and no real leadership to get it resolved.

Republicans believe that this sequester is the wrong way to cut spending and have pushed for more responsible spending cuts with nearly zero cooperation from the White House...who happens to be hell-bent on more tax increases.

 

[K1052]

The reason I posted that was to show the hypocrisy of Obama for blaming Congress for the sequestration issues we are now facing. He takes zero responsibility for his administration's direct role in creating this problem and no real leadership to get it resolved.

Republicans believe that this sequester is the wrong way to cut spending and have pushed for more responsible spending cuts with nearly zero cooperation from the White House...who happens to be hell-bent on more tax increases.

It's political brinksmanship at this point. When one side thinks they have the advantage they're going to press it...the Republicans did the same thing in the couple years leading to the election when they put minimal effort into real bipartisan debt/spending reform assuming they'd control the situation after November. Now after the election power has shifted back to Obama to shape the public's perceptions of the situation and consequently blame the whole sequester on the Republicans. Based on the polling from the previous showdown earlier this year it seems the public is more than willing to just blame congress, mostly Republicans, for the outcome.

 

[Craig234]

Are they even true cuts? Or, are they merely reductions in what would have been spent, i.e., instead of punching you in the face, kicking you in the crotch, and then clubbing you, I'm only going to punch you in the face and kick you in the crotch...see, we've reduced assault!

A better analogy would be a company saying they were going to halve the amount of annual raises in the future to reduce spending. Yes, it's a legitimate description.

 

[Lithium381]

It's not so much that the republicans are trying to blame obama that the sequester is happening, but they're trying to put him on the chopping block for deciding WHAT gets cut as part of the sequester so they can sit back and say "see, we didn't CHOOSE to let that get cut, Obama did!"

as craig and chucky are saying, they're not even cuts to this year(maybe even this decades) spending. . . .theyre empty political promises do not raise them as much this time around. Who's to say in 6 months they don't decide they need to fund ANOTHER program which wipes out the "savings" . . . ?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not so much that the republicans are trying to blame obama that the sequester is happening, but they're trying to put him on the chopping block for deciding WHAT gets cut as part of the sequester so they can sit back and say "see, we didn't CHOOSE to let that get cut, Obama did!"

Link? Or is this all just idle speculation on your part? I think it's pretty safe bet that no link or proof will be provided to back up what you imagine to be true.

Let's look at the flip side. Do you think it's OK for Obama to sit back and play the blame game? Are you happy with Obama's leadership on this issue? Are you OK that he's doing nothing meaningful to help resolve the problem?

 

[Lithium381]

Link? Or is this all just idle speculation on your part? I think it's pretty safe bet that no link or proof will be provided to back up what you imagine to be true.

Let's look at the flip side. Do you think it's OK for Obama to sit back and play the blame game? Are you happy with Obama's leadership on this issue? Are you OK that he's doing nothing meaningful to help resolve the problem?

I heard it on the radio earlier this week, not a news segment, but one of the hosts was taking about it., i looked briefly for a link but couldn't find one, I'll keep looking for a bit more.

I think it's sickening that they all just want to pass the buck. . . nobody wants the blame but they're all to blame. It's whoever maneuvers better to present it to the populace that its' 'the other guys fault'. . .
In terms of obamas leadership? He's creating strawmen.

“That’s the choice,” Obama said Tuesday while surrounded by first responders, a constituency that neither party wants to be seen as hurting. “Are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to Head Start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs just because you want to protect a special tax interest loophole that the vast majority of Americans don’t benefit from? That’s the choice. That’s the question.”

why is it ALWAYS either teachers/educators/ohgodthinkofthechildren or emergency personal that are on the block for cuts? See how he's offering that as what the republicans want? he's offering a false choice.
it's dishonest and NOT leadership. His posturing is embarrassing. Do I think we need to cut out "loopholes" and some ridiculous deductions for the wealthy? of course. . . but for him to frame it this way is . . . . sad.





http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obamas-sequestration-strategy-shame-87829.html
​

 

[GreenMeters]

I heard it on the radio earlier this week, not a news segment, but one of the hosts was taking about it., i looked briefly for a link but couldn't find one, I'll keep looking for a bit more.

I think it's sickening that they all just want to pass the buck. . . nobody wants the blame but they're all to blame. It's whoever maneuvers better to present it to the populace that its' 'the other guys fault'. . .
In terms of obamas leadership? He's creating strawmen.

why is it ALWAYS either teachers/educators/ohgodthinkofthechildren or emergency personal that are on the block for cuts? See how he's offering that as what the republicans want? he's offering a false choice.
it's dishonest and NOT leadership. His posturing is embarrassing. Do I think we need to cut out "loopholes" and some ridiculous deductions for the wealthy? of course. . . but for him to frame it this way is . . . . sad.





http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obamas-sequestration-strategy-shame-87829.html
​

If that's not what the Republicans want, the House should pass legislation to eliminate the sequestration cuts that impact those areas. The Senate would pass it and the President would sign it.

 

[Craig234]

It should be noted that it's recently been reported about some new information that a group of over 100 CEO's have an agenda - surprise, surprise - to slash the spending done for average Americans in Social Security and Medicare, and they're trying to push that agenda by using the 'debt crisis'.

Billionare Pete Peterson is the face of the movement - but a lot of the money has been found to be being spent secretly to fund 'astroturf' marketing to make it look like it's grass roots and hide the real backers and their agenda, of course proclaiming only more sellable goals like 'for the good of the nation'.

I'll try to find a link to more info if there's interest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

why is it ALWAYS either teachers/educators/ohgodthinkofthechildren or emergency personal that are on the block for cuts? See how he's offering that as what the republicans want? he's offering a false choice.

it's dishonest and NOT leadership. His posturing is embarrassing. Do I think we need to cut out "loopholes" and some ridiculous deductions for the wealthy? of course. . . but for him to frame it this way is . . . . sad.

I couldn't agree with you more as I'm very disappointed in his lack of leadership. Personally I think he comes off as a partisan hack at times. Hillary Clinton called him an "empty suit" a while ago and I'm beginning to think she wasn't far off the mark. I don't think history will be kind to Obama if he doesn't start taking a leadership role in addressing our fiscal issues.

 

[Fern]

So the new talking point on the right is that Obama "owns" the sequester, and they even came up with the awkward, not-very-clever contraction in the title to go with the accusation.

Let me see if I remember this correctly.

In 2011, we reach the debt ceiling.

Obama says we need to raise the debt ceiling. Period. That it should be raised "cleanly".

Republicans say no, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless there are spending cuts.

Ds and Rs sit down to try to find cuts they can agree on. Unsurprisingly, they can't. So they pass the Budget Control Act, which includes a "poison pill" called "sequestration" that is meant to be so awful neither will want it, to ensure they come up with a plan to avoid it.

Once again, Congress fails to reach a deal, and sequestration is triggered.

And somehow this is Obama's fault?

Really not seeing it.

The term "Obamaquester" sounds stupid to me.

You're not remembering it correctly from what I've read. The Ds and Rs did sit down and did reach an agreement. It was Obama who killed it and then proposed sequestration.

IMO, this is why:

1. The deal was worked out between Reid and Bohner, however Obama was not involved, and according to reports this greatly angered Obama. Obama's big objection was that the deal was short-term. That meant another discussion about an increase in the debt ceiling shortly before the election. I.e., the national debt would be to the forefront again near election time. Obama didn't want that.

IMO, Obama killed the deal for campaign reasons.

2. Now, on the Repub side: The Dems weren't going to do a deal without a tax increase. The Repubs are adamantly opposed to a tax increase without spending cuts. No way the Dems were going to do spending cut before an election and no way the Repubs were going to do only tax increase w/o a spending cut before the election (I'm referring to Congressional members up for reelection, that would, of course, include the entire House). For campaign/election purposes a compromise could not be reached. IMO, this is why Reid and Bohner chose a short-term deal at that time. It was all that could be accomplished by both parties who were each looking out for their (own) campaign interests.

So, no way Congress could reach a deal, campaign reasons doomed a long-term from the start. I believe only a short-term deal had a prayer, and Obama refused to allow that. To accommodate him, his sequestration proposal was the only thing left to do.
--------------

Since more info has come available, I think the whole thing is mostly 'much adoo about nothing'.

$85 billion?

Are you fricken kidding me?

Govt spending will still go up, just appears that discretionary programs (e.g., military) will not go up as much as was scheduled under the normal base-line budgeting increase.

If that is correct - the military will receive more money this fiscal year than last - I don't understand the claims of a bunch of layoffs' etc.

I think it's all being hyped for political games. "Let's make it look like a freaking disaster and hang it on the other party".

$85 billion?

Give me a break.

Fern

 

[Lithium381]

The term "Obamaquester" sounds stupid to me.

Since more info has come available, I think the whole thing is mostly much adoo about nothing.

$85 billion?

Are you fricken kidding me?

Govt spending will still go up, just appears that discretionary programs (e.g., military) will not go up as much as was scheduled under the normal base-line budgeting increase.

If that is correct - the military will receive more money this fiscal year than last - I don't understand the claims of a bunch of layoffs' etc.

I think it's all being hyped for political games. "Let's make it look like a freaking disaster and hang it on the other party".

$85 billion?

Give me a break.

Fern

yes yes and more yes. It's a very small slice of the pie but there has to be SOMETHING to argue about to divide the country. . .

 

[chucky2]

A better analogy would be a company saying they were going to halve the amount of annual raises in the future to reduce spending. Yes, it's a legitimate description.

Not really, because raises are a positive thing while what I described are negatives. The Fed spending insane amounts of money is a negative, not a positive. Also, raises are earned, whereas the Fed blowing said insane amounts of money is not earned, it's taken and borrowed. My analogy really is correct. The Fed is promising to lessen the amount of negative not eliminate it.

If you need another simpler analogy here you go: Instead of pissing all over your wife and kid, I'll just piss on your wife. What is your level of happiness?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Obamaquester


sounds like a crappy RPG game.

BushQuster sounds like a MUCH better RPG!


The complaint about the debt doesn't follow logically if the productive capacity of the private sector is in permanent decline. In truth, a socialist state is the only logical outcome once we have 3-d printers that will print out a car. The debt is just our slide into this glorious future.

The Fed spending insane amounts of money is a negative, not a positive. Also, raises are earned, whereas the Fed blowing said insane amounts of money is not earned, it's taken and borrowed.

This is not how money works.

The money in the economy each year is = to the dollar bills (digital or not) * the number of times the average dollar changes hands each year.

This means that if our total potential employment of folks falls, then increased debt can potentially have no impact on the economy as, in the above equation, if the number of times dollars change hands each year decreases then increasing total dollars can balance the equation and maintain economic activity.

 

[Craig234]

Not really, because raises are a positive thing while what I described are negatives. The Fed spending insane amounts of money is a negative, not a positive. Also, raises are earned, whereas the Fed blowing said insane amounts of money is not earned, it's taken and borrowed. My analogy really is correct. The Fed is promising to lessen the amount of negative not eliminate it.

If you need another simpler analogy here you go: Instead of pissing all over your wife and kid, I'll just piss on your wife. What is your level of happiness?

No, that's just your irrationally expressing your bias, not more accurate.

It does illustrate some of the problem though, the level of 'hate' involved, where some people just hate government spending so much viewing it as that 'negative'.

So, of course those votes are going to reflect that - things like cheering the shutdown of the government and not paying our bills, just to 'mess with the system'.

Stockholders can view the paying of raises as 'negatives' the same way you do spending.