quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

The thing about a Representative Democracy is that once elected, you have to answer to constituents. When the voters do not agree with your stance or compromises, they have a strange tendency to wither vote you out or work really really hard to get reelected.

The greatest failures in US Legislature History are almost always compromises.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
What "teabagger's" would these be?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

The thing about a Representative Democracy is that once elected, you have to answer to constituents. When the voters do not agree with your stance or compromises, they have a strange tendency to wither vote you out or work really really hard to get reelected.

The greatest failures in US Legislature History are almost always compromises.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

In other words, The President is lying


Bob Woodward, Obama’s sequester deal-changer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
In other words, The President is lying
Bob Woodward, Obama’s sequester deal-changer

Oh..... so Obama is lying?
Then why do most Americans blame this mess on the republicans?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE8BQ0J620121227
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/december_2012/no_fiscal_cliff_deal_44_blame_gop_36_obama
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2012/12/28/blame-republicans-for-the-fiscal-cliff-and-washington-gridlock
Jesus....you cons created this mess from scratch......"you built that" in other words....
If you cons are going to lie to the American public......ya`ll better start getting better lies.....cuz these ain`t work`n.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


I have yet to see anyone in congress actually represent anyone but whatever lobby pays them the most to do what the lobby wants, then they go back and justify it to their constituents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Apparently, those would be the President and White House.
Apparently not, you see, this was a bill voted on by the house.   And Woodwards veiw is a little skewed.  Perhaps your remember the teabaggers skewering Obama on these very boards for the 'Don't call my bluff'. 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
The thing about a Representative Democracy is that once elected, you have to answer to constituents. When the voters do not agree with your stance or compromises, they have a strange tendency to wither vote you out or work really really hard to get reelected.
The greatest failures in US Legislature History are almost always compromises.

This is true......
Did you notice this President was actually re-elected ?
Were you aware that one of the core principals of his campaign was a determination to raise the rates of the higher tax brackets?

quote:

As for sequestration....it's progeny is not nearly as important as is the "why".
The why is simple.....republicans were holding the full faith and credit of the worlds largest economy hostage.
Once one understands that dirty little fact one realizes the ownership of this shitty compromise is shared.

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

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

In other words, The President is lying


Bob Woodward, Obama’s sequester deal-changer

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
The thing about a Representative Democracy is that once elected, you have to answer to constituents. When the voters do not agree with your stance or compromises, they have a strange tendency to wither vote you out or work really really hard to get reelected.
The greatest failures in US Legislature History are almost always compromises.

This is true......
Did you notice this President was actually re-elected ?
Were you aware that one of the core principals of his campaign was a determination to raise the rates of the higher tax brackets?

And, did those tax brackets go up?

quote:

As for sequestration....it's progeny is not nearly as important as is the "why".
The why is simple.....republicans were holding the full faith and credit of the worlds largest economy hostage.
Once one understands that dirty little fact one realizes the ownership of this shitty compromise is shared.

It takes two to tango, Mike. The Republicans weren't going to lie down and rubber stamp everything the Democrats wanted. They played ball. The Democrats didn't. The President wanted to get the deal done, so he and his administration rolled the sequestration out. And, while we're on the topic, I think it was a great idea. Half the cuts were to come from defense spending, something that was supposed to give incentive to the R's to play ball, while the other half was non-defense spending, which contain programs that Democrats want to cut less.

Sequestration was supposed to "force" the sides to hammer out a deal. Neither side was willing to compromise enough to reach a deal. There was a deal passed that pushed the decisions back 2 months. There was an equal mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. The deal to get the rest of the deal done wasn't supposed to include revenue increases, and now, the President is requiring them. And, if I understand negotiations correctly, it's typical for each side to get as much of their wants met without giving up as much, to reach a deal. A deal was reached. Now, it's a new negotiation with that last deal not even being counted, which it was supposed to count.