Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is moving the goal posts"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is moving the goal posts" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/24/2013 2:55:23 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/24/2013 3:32:12 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

It is lot of noise about a small thing. The country is bankrupt, at some point the ability to borrow will end. As there are no serious efforts to reform the economy the budget cuts are necessary to avoid the collapse and fade away (as the superpower) slowly. This 5% cut is just a beginning.

Bullshit......all of it,nothing more than a false dichotomy offered by false prophets of economic doom.
One only need look to Britain to see the effect of government retrenchment upon a faltering recovery.
An economy barely ably to move the needle of growth is not likely to withstand cuts in the public sector.



Please... Why are you comparing us with Great Britian?

Face facts, the President put the Sequester into law... why are you bitching about it? Why is he lying about it?


First off ,I'm not "bitching" about anything.
This is your whiny assed thread ,not mine
I am not "comparing us with Great Britain",but I'll be dammed if I do not take note of the results they suffered when imposing austerity upon a "recessed" economy.
How many examples do you need ?
Seriously ?When did Simpson Bowles predict that our deficit would cause run away inflation ?
According to them we should now be in the grip of a depression as a result of not adopting the deficit reduction cuts they claimed were necessary ?

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/24/2013 4:08:49 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The "r"s held our nation`s full faith and credit and historical AAA rating hostage, and ended up ruining it.

This has never been an issue before President Obama.

The blame for it all is on the "r"s.



Well then tell me... in a down economy... regardless of who's "fault" it is... why President Obama increased spending almost $1,000.00 per person since he took office?



Perhaps he wished to avoid a horrible depression ?
Just a guess

Has it still not occurred to you that this is what you do in a "down economy" ?

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/24/2013 7:14:32 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		"How Bob Woodward's Book Debunks His Big Washington Post Op-Ed"


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/23/how_bob_woodward_s_book_debunks_his_big_washington_post_op_ed.html



"The difference between "cuts" and "deficit reduction" is vital and obvious. Most of the supercommittee's proposed deals included tax revenue as a way to get the reductions. And that was the White House's goal. Woodward, page 327:



The idea was to make all the theatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.



To argue that the White House is "moving the goal posts" when it now asks for revenue in a sequestration replacement, you have to toss out the fact that the White House always wanted revenue in the supercommittee's sequestration replacement. This isn't confusing unless reporters make it confusing."




_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 6:38:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

No it's not...

You guys are really good at spending other people's money.


Waltz me thru the big borrowings and the historic debt piled up by this our republican house, in the face of this seemingly dishonest allgegation you make.....must have missed something here.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 10:37:37 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		No,no ,no Owner.....what you are "supposed" to do in a recession is cut government spending to the bone.....than sit back and wait for what Krugman has characterized as the "confidence fairy" to show up and induce all of that private sector money to circulate.
I hear it's all coming to fruition in Italy these days

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 10:47:24 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Everyone know(who doesn`t watch fox) that austerity during and economic downturn makes the recovery harder longer and might even cause another downturn.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 11:13:31 AM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

No it's not...

You guys are really good at spending other people's money.


Waltz me thru the big borrowings and the historic debt piled up by this our republican house, in the face of this seemingly dishonest allgegation you make.....must have missed something here.



So.... it OK now.... is that what you are saying?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 11:16:14 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It must e difficult to live here in america, a country that speaks the english language, and you having no comprehension of it.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 4:03:41 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		Clever as always...

Blame Blame Blame... its always someone else's fault.

Well... Both Parties agreed to the sequester and President Obama promised to carry it out last November.

It is a mere $44 billion out at a 2013 fiscal budget of $3.6 TRILLION! That's a paltry 1.2 percent. Tell me, how in the world is a needed spending cut of $44 billion, going to derail a National Economy of $16 TRILLION? It's time to stop spending money we don't have. President Obama said last November, if the Congress won't do , he will.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 5:24:37 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		The President promises to VETO any bill that tries to stop the sequester cuts... Good job, Mr President. Hold him to his word Joe, we're counting on ya.

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 5:47:57 PM   
fmfclwu


Posts: 74
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

The President promises to VETO any bill that tries to stop the sequester cuts... Good job, Mr President. Hold him to his word Joe, we're counting on ya.


Perhaps you should give the full context for that statement. Unless you think deceptive editing makes your case stronger somehow.

RNC's New Ad Takes Obama Wildly Out of Context

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 6:12:27 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fmfclwu
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
The President promises to VETO any bill that tries to stop the sequester cuts... Good job, Mr President. Hold him to his word Joe, we're counting on ya.

Perhaps you should give the full context for that statement. Unless you think deceptive editing makes your case stronger somehow.
RNC's New Ad Takes Obama Wildly Out of Context


How is the ad taking the President's words out of context?

Is it because he meant he would veto any bill that stops the sequester so as to maintain the pressure on both sides to come to a deal? Is that it? I think it is.

But, if that were true, then wouldn't he veto any bills that got rid of the sequester without the $1.2T deficit reduction, even now?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fmfclwu)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 7:05:30 PM   
fmfclwu


Posts: 74
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: fmfclwu
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
The President promises to VETO any bill that tries to stop the sequester cuts... Good job, Mr President. Hold him to his word Joe, we're counting on ya.

Perhaps you should give the full context for that statement. Unless you think deceptive editing makes your case stronger somehow.
RNC's New Ad Takes Obama Wildly Out of Context


How is the ad taking the President's words out of context?

Is it because he meant he would veto any bill that stops the sequester so as to maintain the pressure on both sides to come to a deal? Is that it? I think it is.

But, if that were true, then wouldn't he veto any bills that got rid of the sequester without the $1.2T deficit reduction, even now?


As of yet, no one is seriously proposing to just cancel the sequester. (That would be the best option, but it would make too much sense for Congress.) The question is whether Obama's demand that the replacement be "balanced" is somehow "moving the goalposts." And that's why it's so convenient for the rightwingers to cut out the part of the speech that makes it clear Obama has always said the point of the sequester was to force a compromise into a balanced approach. "The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion." That's from just a few seconds after the RNC ad claiming that Obama never indicated he wanted tax increases in the replacement cuts off.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/25/2013 7:27:06 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fmfclwu
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: fmfclwu
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
The President promises to VETO any bill that tries to stop the sequester cuts... Good job, Mr President. Hold him to his word Joe, we're counting on ya.

Perhaps you should give the full context for that statement. Unless you think deceptive editing makes your case stronger somehow.
RNC's New Ad Takes Obama Wildly Out of Context

How is the ad taking the President's words out of context?
Is it because he meant he would veto any bill that stops the sequester so as to maintain the pressure on both sides to come to a deal? Is that it? I think it is.
But, if that were true, then wouldn't he veto any bills that got rid of the sequester without the $1.2T deficit reduction, even now?

As of yet, no one is seriously proposing to just cancel the sequester. (That would be the best option, but it would make too much sense for Congress.) The question is whether Obama's demand that the replacement be "balanced" is somehow "moving the goalposts." And that's why it's so convenient for the rightwingers to cut out the part of the speech that makes it clear Obama has always said the point of the sequester was to force a compromise into a balanced approach. "The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion." That's from just a few seconds after the RNC ad claiming that Obama never indicated he wanted tax increases in the replacement cuts off.


I thought the idea of the sequester was to put in mandatory cuts to "sacred" programs from both sides to motivate them to come to a $1.2T deficit reduction deal. And, if they didn't, these cuts would automatically happen. In pushing the cuts back 2 months, they passed a bill that had a $12B revenue increase and a $12B spending cut.

What I don't understand is how these cuts are really going to have such a damaging effect. The classic political move of threatening to have to cut police, fire, teachers, etc. (both parties do it) is ridiculous, as it's simply an emotional ploy.

The automatic spending cuts were supposed to be $109B each year for 10 years, resulting in about $1.2T in deficit reduction. With an estimated $900B deficit for 2013, how is that even enough of a reduction? I'm not even sure that $109B/year reduction is going to reduce any of Obama's estimated budget deficits to less than $500B through 2017. Just checked, and the 2015 estimate would be just barely (<$1B) over $500B, and that's the lowest estimated deficit through 2017.

A balanced approach isn't going to fix our problems, anyway. Spending is ridiculous while revenues are nearing record highs (2013 revenue estimate would be the new highest all-time) while deficits are staying in the Top 10 all-time.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fmfclwu)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/26/2013 6:18:40 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html

Dump this teabagger sponsored corporate welfare, and we are in business, no cuts whatsoever, and any agreement on cuts would be icing on the cake. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/26/2013 7:30:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html
Dump this teabagger sponsored corporate welfare, and we are in business, no cuts whatsoever, and any agreement on cuts would be icing on the cake. 


Oh, shaddap about it being "teabagger-sponsored." Are you claiming Bush was a Tea Party member?!? ROTFLMAO!

Now, that we have that out of the way (okay, not quite completely... you do know that Dodd-Frank wouldn't have prevented the meltdown had it been in effect before the meltdown, right?)...

33 - 1 ?!?!? Holy shit! I thought it was limited to 10 - 1! I would have absolutely no problem supporting a 5 - 1 limit. None.

That still doesn't solve the spending issue. $83B isn't enough of a cut at all.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/26/2013 7:43:24 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		No, why do you have such issues with the English language?  Having lived here, I thought you might have at least a 2nd grade comprehension of it, but it is clear you do not.

Yeah, I know Dodd-Frank wouldn't have prevented the meltdown as Glass_Steagall would have done much to ameliorate it.  But what the fuck is that red herring?

I know that 85 bill aint enough of a cut, but low hanging fruit and all, and its the number the sequestration shoots at, right?  And I am sure there are alotta defense toys, overpriced contractors and whatnot, that could easily be cut, and all sorts of reforms, but we only got a week now until the inept teabaggers implode down there.

You remember what they were saying about Obama Care.......we gotta repeal this and then start over, we gotta research and hold meetings and re do the whole thing, (some 40 or more years after FDR and this nationalization issue not sneaking up on them since we been talking about that since FDR) (it was a way in which corporations could get workers to provide 'free' health benefits during WW2.........but I bet you knew that.



The Tea Party is all but vanished, its all teabaggers now. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/26/2013 8:11:38 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
No, why do you have such issues with the English language?  Having lived here, I thought you might have at least a 2nd grade comprehension of it, but it is clear you do not.


No issue with the English language here. And, I'm not even sure why you would impugn that.

quote:

Yeah, I know Dodd-Frank wouldn't have prevented the meltdown as Glass_Steagall would have done much to ameliorate it.  But what the fuck is that red herring?


Not a red herring. Simply shows that the R's aren't the only ones that support Corporate Welfare.

quote:

I know that 85 bill aint enough of a cut, but low hanging fruit and all, and its the number the sequestration shoots at, right?  And I am sure there are alotta defense toys, overpriced contractors and whatnot, that could easily be cut, and all sorts of reforms, but we only got a week now until the inept teabaggers implode down there.


Inept? See what you do there? The House has passed bills that would take care of the sequester. The Senate hasn't passed them. So, who is doing something and who isn't? You can make the claim that the House isn't passing anything the Senate majority would support. Well, that's likely true, but isn't the idea, then, for the Senate majority to pass a bill okay with them and send that back to the House? At some point in time, there has to be some sort of compromise, and waiting for the House to pass a bill the Senate will agree to without the Senate's involvement is ridiculous to expect.

quote:

You remember what they were saying about Obama Care.......we gotta repeal this and then start over, we gotta research and hold meetings and re do the whole thing, (some 40 or more years after FDR and this nationalization issue not sneaking up on them since we been talking about that since FDR) (it was a way in which corporations could get workers to provide 'free' health benefits during WW2.........but I bet you knew that.
The Tea Party is all but vanished, its all teabaggers now. 


Actually, yes, I knew that. It was because of wage controls set by the Federal Government. Business couldn't pay more than a certain amount, so they started adding in perks, like health care, retirement, etc.

Probably not the answer you expected, though.

So, any attempt to show that the Democrats aren't supporting Corporate Welfare themselves?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is... - 2/26/2013 8:18:08 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Are you claiming Bush was a Tea Party member?!? ROTFLMAO!


No impugnment (although I think the word you are actually casting about for is impugnation....)

You are slobbering like Cujo and laughing like Woody Woodpecker over some asswipe in your head.

I'm being impugned by innuendo here with that bit of asswipe, and for the record before we get there with your impugnations and innundo?  I have never said nor will I ever say in the as you are fond of of saying 'Are you claiming.....' (and then assigning some asswipe projection on me)

Let me be clear about this.  I have never and will never accuse you of saying that you fuck sheep.

We clear?  


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bob Woodward on Sequester: President Obama "is moving the goal posts" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109