Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[Craig234]

It is Obama's second term. He should be concerned with getting shit done, not what the mean Republicans will say about him.

Pretty much every time I hear the phrase 'get shit done', it's for some uninformed and wrongheaded point.

He IS concerned with getting things done, which the sequester he OPPOSES prevents. Nothing about not giving Republicans an easy political weapon to attack him with for every cut prevents him from getting anything done - quite the opposite, if he let them do that, he'd get less done. So your point is completely wrong about 'getting things done'.

I find it a bit appalling how often obstructionists get away with putting the blame on the other side.

Republicans can go to extremes to prevent anything - and then blame Obama for it.

 

[Agent11]

The sequester was the administrations creation.

In case you are googling like mad looking for validation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011...isan-deal-reduce-deficit-and-raise-debt-limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

This all happened in an environment with blame to be had on both sides of course, but it is obvious that you are wrong.

 

[Craig234]

The sequester was the administrations creation.

In case you are googling like mad looking for validation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011...isan-deal-reduce-deficit-and-raise-debt-limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

This all happened in an environment with blame to be had on both sides of course, but it is obvious that you are wrong.

Nope. The sequestration was an alternative to a disaster forced by thr Republicans. A majority of Democrats would remove it today; Republicans won't.

 

[Fern]

Yes, priorities for Republicans - keeping the perk they get of handing out White House tours is more important to them than furlouging Secret Service on other duties - nevermind food for children, in the sequestration they caused, they're happy to have the poor take the hits - but not their perks. And a chance to attack Obama, can't pass up that.

It's well documented that Obama caused sequestration.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Well, if you followed any of the sequestration news, you would know that the SS had to make cuts because of the sequester, ...
-snip-

Honest question:

Did the sequestration go into such detail as mandate cuts down to the granular level of the SS?

The articles on sequestration I read never indicated that.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Honest question:

Did the sequestration go into such detail as mandate cuts down to the granular level of the SS?

The articles on sequestration I read never indicated that.

Fern

The reports I've seen don't let me give you a clear yes or no, but they did say the cuts were required in pretty specific areas; that there isn't flexibility about that; that Republicans did want to pass a bill giving Obama some more flexibility, implying it's very low; and that Obama was told by the Secret Service that the sequestion meant that they would have to furlough Secret Service personnel doing other things, and the tour cancellation would help reduce that impact (Obama gave that explanation).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's well documented that Obama caused sequestration.

That's only true if one decides to ignore the start of the chain of causation.

It's well-documented that sequestration only occurred because of the Republicans' decision to hold the country hostage over the debt ceiling. Once they made that choice, IMO they lost the right to complain about anything that happened as a result.

 

[Craig234]

It's well documented that Obama caused sequestration.

Fern

No, it's not. It's well documented that Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, threatening a massive harm to our economy; that the Simpson-Bowles commission was a compromise to get them not to do that; and that in order to get them to accept the deal, Obama suggested the sequestration, never intending for it to go into effect.

And that Obama offered options to avoid the sequestration, Republicans refused if there was any revenue, including closing loopholes for the rich; or Dems will just cancel it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Did the sequestration go into such detail as mandate cuts down to the granular level of the SS?

The OMB report to Congress seems to include some rather detailed appendices.

 

[fskimospy]

It's well documented that Obama caused sequestration.

Fern

Yeah I'm going to be the third person to call BS on that. It was in response to incredibly irresponsible behavior by the Republicans in holding the world financial system hostage in exchange for domestic spending cuts.

If you stick up a bank and someone hands you a bag of cash, it's like saying to the cops after you're caught "hey, he's the one who gave the money to me!"

 

[Fern]

The OMB report to Congress seems to include some rather detailed appendices.

Thanks. I'll check it out in more detail later (it's pretty long).

Fern

 

[Fern]

That's only true if one decides to ignore the start of the chain of causation.

It's well-documented that sequestration only occurred because of the Republicans' decision to hold the country hostage over the debt ceiling. Once they made that choice, IMO they lost the right to complain about anything that happened as a result.

No, it's not. It's well documented that Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, threatening a massive harm to our economy; that the Simpson-Bowles commission was a compromise to get them not to do that; and that in order to get them to accept the deal, Obama suggested the sequestration, never intending for it to go into effect.

And that Obama offered options to avoid the sequestration, Republicans refused if there was any revenue, including closing loopholes for the rich; or Dems will just cancel it.

Yeah I'm going to be the third person to call BS on that. It was in response to incredibly irresponsible behavior by the Republicans in holding the world financial system hostage in exchange for domestic spending cuts.

If you stick up a bank and someone hands you a bag of cash, it's like saying to the cops after you're caught "hey, he's the one who gave the money to me!"

Reid and Boehner had made a deal, and that included raising the debt ceiling.

It required two votes.

Obama refused demanding only vote or, in the absence of that proposed sequestration.

It was Obama's choice. He chose sequestration over a two vote deal between Reid and Boehner.

And he chose it purely for political/campaign reasons.

Sequestration is Obama's baby.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Reid and Boehner had made a deal, and that included raising the debt ceiling.

It required two votes.

Obama refused demanding only vote or, in the absence of that proposed sequestration.

It was Obama's choice. He chose sequestration over a two vote deal between Reid and Boehner.

And he chose it purely for political/campaign reasons.

Sequestration is Obama's baby.

Fern

So because Reid had a different solution to the Republicans holding the world economy hostage, suddenly sequestration is Obama's baby. Why don't you put any blame on the people who caused the issue to begin with?

You are absolving the Republicans of incredibly irresponsible behavior, which in effect enables more irresponsible behavior on their part.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama brought it to the table.

the Democrats supporters want to go further back in time and state that he was forced.

No he was in a position and it was an out for him.
He and everyone else did not think it would happen.

It did and now they want to state he was forced into it.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama brought it to the table.

the Democrats supporters want to go further back in time and state that he was forced.

No he was in a position and it was an out for him.
He and everyone else did not think it would happen.

It did and now they want to state he was forced into it.

You guys can't seriously believe what you're saying.

Did the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to domestic spending cuts? Yes or no?

Would Obama have put forward the sequester without the Republicans' acting so irresponsibly in that way? Yes or no?

Republicans demanded the cuts and are now trying to run away from the consequences of their preferred policies. We all know that their preferred outcome would be for the cuts to happen and for Obama to be blamed for the pain that comes with them. They are simply unwilling to stand up for the consequences of their ideology.

 

[werepossum]

So because Reid had a different solution to the Republicans holding the world economy hostage, suddenly sequestration is Obama's baby. Why don't you put any blame on the people who caused the issue to begin with?

You are absolving the Republicans of incredibly irresponsible behavior, which in effect enables more irresponsible behavior on their part.

You are assuming that borrowing 40% of what we spend is NOT incredibly irresponsible behavior. I do not think that is a valid assumption when one's national debt exceeds one's national GDP and the recession is supposedly long over.

Isn't this when we should be exercising that fiscal responsibility I keep hearing about but never quite get to see?

 

[fskimospy]

You are assuming that borrowing 40% of what we spend is NOT incredibly irresponsible behavior. I do not think that is a valid assumption when one's national debt exceeds one's national GDP and the recession is supposedly long over.

Isn't this when we should be exercising that fiscal responsibility I keep hearing about but never quite get to see?

No, of course not. Who told you the economy was suddenly in good shape? Certainly not me, and certainly not any economist that I'm aware of. I'm unaware of the Obama administration saying it is in good shape either, it is simply in better shape than it was before. Our economy might look good in comparison to countries that were so irresponsible and foolish as to cut spending in a depression, but remember our modest austerity over the last several years only looks good in comparison to the disastrous results of more severe spending cuts in other western nations. Oh but yes, the behavior of the Republicans towards our economy has been nothing less than utterly irresponsible.

That being said, if you believe that the sequester is good fiscal policy then why not own it? You're doing the right thing for the economy, so why not be proud of your accomplishments?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Did the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to domestic spending cuts? Yes or no?

Would Obama have put forward the sequester without the Republicans' acting so irresponsibly in that way? Yes or no?

This was going to be my reply, almost word-for-word.

Are any of the righties here going to give a straight answer?

 

[werepossum]

No, of course not. Who told you the economy was suddenly in good shape? Certainly not me, and certainly not any economist that I'm aware of. I'm unaware of the Obama administration saying it is in good shape either, it is simply in better shape than it was before. Our economy might look good in comparison to countries that were so irresponsible and foolish as to cut spending in a depression, but remember our modest austerity over the last several years only looks good in comparison to the disastrous results of more severe spending cuts in other western nations. Oh but yes, the behavior of the Republicans towards our economy has been nothing less than utterly irresponsible.

That being said, if you believe that the sequester is good fiscal policy then why not own it? You're doing the right thing for the economy, so why not be proud of your accomplishments?

The media has been telling me since 2011 that the economy is doing great. How many stories have played just in the last two months about how we don't have enough construction workers? President Obama himself told us long ago that he had fixed the private sector and now only needed to work on the public sector. (I'm sure we all know scads of government workers who have been laid off, right guys? Um, guys? Anybody?)

I actually do believe the sequester is good fiscal policy. It spreads the pain, forces fiscal restraint where none would otherwise be imposed, and may even spur some government agencies to look for ways to not waste money. I don't "own it" because since it was not my idea, that would be rude to President Obama. And austerity? Please! Total federal spending in 2003 was $2.16T (2012 equivalent dollars, 19.7% of GDP) with two wars going full blast. Total federal spending in 2011 was $3.60T (2012 equivalent dollars, 24.1% of GDP) with one war ended and one winding down. There is no rational definition of austerity that fits that behavior.

Obligatory link to the very liberal Brookings/Urban Institutes' Tax Policy Center from whence came my data: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Perhaps Obama should have been more clear in proposing the sequester. Something like "I have a proposal, but I don't want to do it, and if we do do it then I want you guys to take the blame for anything bad, m'kay?"

 

[Agent11]

This was going to be my reply, almost word-for-word.

Are any of the righties here going to give a straight answer?

That isn't how politics work. You cannot just say 'If they wouldn't be such meanies and just let us do what we want it would all be fine!' Unless you have enough of a majority to do what you want and ignore the opposition.

They found their middle ground, it's the sequester. They just lacked the testicular fortitude to own up to it on both sides of the aisle, so now we are playing the blame game.

Obama had some high ground on this issue, he has since squandered it.

 

[Craig234]

That isn't how politics work. You cannot just say 'If they wouldn't be such meanies and just let us do what we want it would all be fine!' Unless you have enough of a majority to do what you want and ignore the opposition.

They found their middle ground, it's the sequester. They just lacked the testicular fortitude to own up to it on both sides of the aisle, so now we are playing the blame game.

Obama had some high ground on this issue, he has since squandered it.

That's not what they said. They said 'the Republicans support the sequester and vote to keep it, while the Democrats vote to end it. So they're responsible for it'.

Is that so complicated?

WHen one side uses their votes and abuse of the filibuster to obstruct, they get the credit or blame for doing so.

Republicans like to play the game of blocking something and then saying 'you didn't get it done'.

It's a cynical and dishonest practice, unfortunately it works on many people.

The REPUBLICANS found their 'middle ground' of the sequester.

What was Obama's 'high ground'? To let the debt ceiling not be raised, the US credit rating be lowered, the economy take major damage? That's what you say he should have done?

 

[Agent11]

So you are saying that the fact the Democrats were for the sequester before they were against it means nothing, and we should just call time out and go back in time 2 years and start all over.

-It-Does-Not-Work-That-Way-

What was Obama's 'high ground'? To let the debt ceiling not be raised, the US credit rating be lowered, the economy take major damage? That's what you say he should have done?

No.

After the bill containing the sequester was initially signed Obama had the high ground. He averted a crisis and insisted on not having a duplicate crisis down the road.

Since that point however he has squandered that position and seemed content to let the sequester go into effect, yet reserve the right to try to pin it on the Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

So you are saying that the fact the Democrats were for the sequester before they were against it means nothing, and we should just call time out and go back in time 2 years and start all over.

-It-Does-Not-Work-That-Way-

No.

So you're saying the Democrats should not have accepted the lesser evil of the sequester and should have decided to let the greater evil of not raising the debt ceiling happen?

So you're saying the fact that Democrats supported simply increasing the debt ceiling to pay our bill AND NO SEQUESTER then and now, and Republicans forced this, means nothing.

 

[Craig234]

No.

After the bill containing the sequester was initially signed Obama had the high ground. He averted a crisis and insisted on not having a duplicate crisis down the road.

Since that point however he has squandered that position and seemed content to let the sequester go into effect, yet reserve the right to try to pin it on the Republicans.

What did he do to 'let the sequester go into effect'?

It was going to go into effect unless the law changed, and Republicans have the votes to block any change to the law, and used it.

The only way they'd consider a change was with massive entitlement cuts and cuts to programs for the poor, with zero revenue raised while the rich were protected.

So you're saying he should have jumped at the chance to let Republicans dictate the national policy and radically shift wealth to the top even more?

Bad plan.

When Democrats support 'just get rid of sequestration' and Republicans refuse, they deserve the blame.

When they deserve the blame and you call that 'games', you're playing games.

 

[Agent11]

He signed it. And assuming Obama and Reid are on speaking terms I suppose they spoke on the matter, and Reid didn't seem too enthusiastic about avoiding the sequester either.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/boehner-hopes-senate-gets-off-their-ass/

“Until there’s some agreement on revenue, I believe we should just go ahead with the sequester,” Reid said.

The sequester has been a forgone conclusion for a while now, put down the pompoms.