White House caught lying about sequestration
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/pol...story.html

The descriptions of the post-sequester landscape that have been coming out of the Obama Administration have been alarming, specific--and, in at least some cases, hyped.

“There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can’t come back this fall,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

When he was pressed in a White House briefing Wednesday to come up with an example, Duncan named a single county in West Virginia and acknowledged, “whether it’s all sequester-related, I don’t know.”

And, as it turns out, it isn’t.

Officials in Kanawha County, West Virginia say that the “transfer notices” sent to at least 104 educators had more to do with a separate matter that involves a change in the way West Virginia allocates federal dollars designated for poor children.





Whoops. I guess we'll find out soon what other tall tales are being told.

:lol:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gove...-Jobs-Lost

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) had a dire prediction for America about sequestration, claiming that 170 million jobs would be lost as a result of the across-the-board cuts. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only about 140 million jobs in the whole country. - See more at:

----------------------------------

We'll have negative total employment! OMG!

Things will get better because of the spending cuts, and bho will proclaim, "see, that is why I moved the goal posts!"

LMFAO

Krauthammer: Obama ‘overshot’ sequester consequences, only left out ‘pestilence, earthquake, brimstone and plague’ [dailycaller.com]

:lmao:

Media Turns Against Obama's Sequester Narrative [breitbart.com]

the lie is unraveling. This reminds me of a saying: "bullcrap can get you to the top, but it won't keep you there". Obama's bullcrap campaign got him to the top, but after a never-ending 6-year campaign, even the media leftists are starting to smell that something isn't quite right.

White House caught lying ... why is that news. That's just BAU for this Admin.

The big thing everybody needs to remember .. Sequester is all BUSH's Fault even if this Sequester was the Obama Administration's idea and they fully supported it and Obama signed itinto law. It is still Bush's fault. He who walks on water is NEVER to blame.

and don't forget, ho promised months ago to veto any attempts to remove the sequestration provisions, and just this week when the GOP offered a way out to make the cuts more flexible, he spat in their face.

Is there a utube I missed?

just happened today

http://www.defensenews.com/articl...y=nav|head
and back in nov 2011
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afont...ding-cuts/

And the Repubs give in again. No wonder they lost. No one can trust them to follow thru on what they say. At least the Dems tell you they're screwing you before they do. The Repubs just lie to their followers and cave in to the Dems.

In MA pretty much every non-tenure teacher gets a pink slip. Usually if there is space they bring you back, but the non-tenure folks are the only ones they can use to balance the number of teachers they have with the number of students.

no, I want to see the spitting?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo..._blog.html

“Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”



The Pinocchio Test

Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. Obama may have been correct about pay cuts suffered by the Capitol police but the bulk of the president’s comments referred to janitors — the people who are “going to vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage.”

It seems clear that, at least for the moment, janitors are not facing a pay cut — just less overtime.

Okay, you believe Obama is overplaying his hand?

Washington DC is the wealthiest per capita metro in the United States. That money comes from the rest of us. If he wants to bank his argument on some highly paid bureaucrats losing a bit of income, so be it.

EVERYONE with a job had a 2% pay cut starting January 1 this year, when SS taxes went up from 4.5% to 6.5%. Has the world ended in a catastrophe? has the economy crashed? no? (BTW that is another one of Obama's lies, remember when he promised that "there will not be any increase in any tax on those earning less than 250k, not one dime", but that is another thread)

If EVERYBODY with a job was able to adjust to a 2% cut, I find it arrogant, disgusting, and insulting to the rest of us to say that if the feds faces a 2% cut (which, again, is not really a cut, but a decrease in the pre-planned increase) the economy will turn to a recession, this will end, this will close down, etc etc with the Chiken Little fear mongering.

ALL OF US had to take a REAL 2% cut (not a decrease in the pre-planned increase), but Obama and the dems are saying they can't survive with a 2% decrease to the pre-planned increased (although they will STILL get MORE money than last year in number of dollars)....sorry Obama, we aren't all morons....your lies might work with the low-information voter, but that's about it.

simply fear mongering lies.

Every administration in the history of the nation has lied at some point. It's intellectually dishonest to try and make it seem like this one is somehow worse. They're all liars. It's how politics works.

Yes .. they all are self serving liars .. and YES this Administration is the worse .. to the point the last several administrations aren't even in the same league.

Chicago Politics at it's finest. A new low for our once great nation.

Really? The Bush Administrations dishonesty about Iraq lead us to a war which caused the deaths of thousands of american soldiers. Name 1 thing Obama did that you consider worse than that?

IF everything above is TRUE, Obama is indeed fear-mongering, IMO.

And over a MILLION IRAQI civilian DEATHS.

Thank you. Wasn't totally sure about the number.

It's interesting how the Republicans seem positively terrified at the prospect that people will come to realize that government is actually a good thing.

And we really appreciate it. People from other parts of the country should visit sometime to should see all of the McMansions we build around here and BMW /M3s and /M5s, etc., we buy with it. It's been a sweet gravy train for many years.

People would sh*t if they knew how much of the money that they think is going to education, the environment, defense, et. al., actually goes directly in the pockets of bureaucrats and contractors around here and how little productive benefit there is to those areas as a result of most of the "work" done.

http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2012...-1804.html


Top 10 richest counties - 7 in the DC area.

1) Got elected.
2) Continued that dishonest war.
"Gimme my Obamaphone!" - random Obama supporter
Twice as many Democrats voted for TARP bank bailouts as Republicans did.
Got hijacked by neocons. Starting to come back to small-government principles somewhat since then.
You make six figures and still need government/taxpayer funding? Lower taxes would help you keep more of the money you earn so you can spend it on your family as you see fit.

Yep. Recession? What recession?

Sadly, I don't really expect that anything is going to change much as far as all of that goes even with the sequester.

It's been more than a few years since I was still feeding at the Federal trough before moving on to completely private-sector work, but I still appreciate you all paying for a big portion of my houses, nice cars, several boats, etc. Even though the first agency where I worked for 5 years ended up doing virtually nothing at all with respect to its intended mission. The largely circle-jerk contracts that I and lots of others worked on (most of which consisted of simply hiring about 3 to 5 people to do unnecessary work that a Fed was supposed to be doing themselves), and the way too expensive consulting fees that we charged EPA, DOD, DOE, etc., etc., were worth every penny of the millions that you spent. Really. Promise. lol

Your tax dollars at work. *sigh*

Now we all know that the next 3 1/2 years of Economic shortfalls will be blamed on his own sequester cuts. Which he will blame on Republicans. The MSM will eat it up...

Faux News will chit it out tho :yummy:

the only lie here is that Bush lied. Unless, of course, you are also claiming that the UN lied, the UK lied, France lied, Germany lied, and Russia lied since they all reached the same conclusions about Iraq.

Do I need to link again to the quotes of Hillary, Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and numerous other democrats, also saying Saddam and Iraq are a threat?

now all of a sudden all of that is swept under the rug, and only Bush is left being the liar?

Sorry...that slanderous lie and outright propaganda might work in the lefty bubble and lefty blogs that all you circle-jerk group-think Bush haters surround yourselves with....but fantasy and selective rewriting of history does not equal reality.

Please provide evidence that all those entities you mentioned testified that Iraq was producing WMD or had deployable stockpiles.

Cause I only remember Powell making that presentation at the UN.

Saying that Iraq was a threat is not equivalent to saying he had stockpiles of deployable WMD.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/st...inton.html

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

I asked the question if I needed to link (again) to the democrat quotes about Iraq...you didn't answer directly, but your response is a clear answer that yes, I do, even though this has been presented on TP many times before...but the leftists lie about Bush lying keeps being repeated by those who are either unaware of history, or know very well that they are lying, but keep repeating it simply because it achieves a political agenda....so here it is...again

http://www.davidstuff.com/politic...quotes.htm

Fail. You only provided quotes from US politicians. Nothing from officials of foreign governments you asserted provided backup.

And few if any of your quotes are definitive declarations that Iraq had deployable WMD stockpiles.

The problem is, pols are not official intelligence sources. They only tell you what they want you to believe, not the totality of what the intelligence agencies know.

Which is a major reason no deployable WMD were found in Iraq.

Note that "weapons programs" are not weapons, and the future tense of "will develop."

Yes, we waited 5 years. Then we invaded.

Apparently not long enough for Clinton's prediction to come true....

here are some more, just for your pleasure.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quot...rsion-3-0/

as for the other countries, again, it has been done to death on TP and doesn't need to be rehashed from scratch. Intelligence from several countries were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003m including the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran...but the differences among them was on how to deal with it (wait longer (for what), more UN sanctions (10 years of them have already failed), invade, etc)

If it was true that Bush lied, which would be an impeachable offense, the democrat controlled congress under Pelosi, in the charged political atmosphere, would have impeached him immediately...but they did not...why? because they have no evidence

The fact that the collected intelligence turned out to be unreliable does not mean there were lies involved, unless you are pushing a conspiracy theory involving at least half a dozen countries.

BTW, WMD was found in Iraq, but not in large quantities...and we STILL don't know what was in those truck convoys going to Syria before the war started. Now that we know Syria has chemical and biological weapons, being a relatively poor country, brings up the serious possibility that the WMD in syria now is, at least partially, iraq's old wmd's

Here is the collective quotes from non-US pols in your cite:

IOW, these cites are full of weasel words, not definitive declarations of WMD existence.

Still nothing from Germans, or Russians, etc.

Go re-read my post. I said "bush administration". I didn't single out the president. And yes, several key members of their administration testified that there were WMD's in Iraq.

Wow, so Clinton and his administration lied, too?

The CIA was lying?

The UN was lying?

I mean, wow...why pin this only us Bush? I thought Bush was an idiot according to you people, yet, since 1995, at least, he successfully planned and coordinated this global conspiracy to create a justification to remove Saddam? I can't believe that you give Bush that much credit now.

You see there's a difference here:

With Bush, you people disagreed with him and as we now know about all liberals, if you disagree with a liberal, then you're lying. You cannot reasonably disagree with a liberal.

But, with Obama, well, he actually lied. He knew he was lying. His staff knew he was lying.

Oh, I see...if the weapons were "deployable" then, well, you'd be all for removing Saddam...LMAO!

Bush was hardly alone id declaring that Saddam has wmds. Hell, the UN had for years declared that Saddam wmds. Repeated inspections reports noted that tons of chemicals and bio-agents were missing and that munitions to deliver these were unaccounted for.

Do we really have to relive this? Are you that willfully ignorant?

Oh my goodness....Iraq never admitted to weaponzing bio-agents? The UN never shipped weapons-grade uranium from Iraq to Russia? None of this ever happened? NO anthrax or VX, right? Hans Bliz never declared that he and his teams could not verfify Iraq's declarations, right?

Are you serious?

Meh, they weren't doing a very good job anyway. They kept leaving behind garbage ... the Obamas.

Ran for president.

Yes, and no. I just don't take weasel words as evidence of what the CIA actually knew.
Not that I know of.

Absolutely. "Not verified" is not positive evidence.

Wow, just wow!! :shake:

I mean, come one...this is well-established stuff here. Lets see what Hans Blix (you know who he is, right? The UN weapons inspector...) had to say in his report to the UN in 2003, years after Iraq was supposed to have disarmed and complied fully with an inspections regime that it acquiesced to to end the first Gulf War [cnn.com]:

Chronology of inspections: [armscontrol.org]

Granted, this info immediately above was from the mid-90s. The point of presenting it, though, is to demonstrate that everyone knew that Iraq had a very active wmd program, including a nuke weapons program.


Sorry, but the burden was not on the United States to verify anything. The burden was absolutely on Iraq to account for its weapons, weapons systems, and weapons programs. It failed repeatedly to as we see both Blix & El Baradei reporting for years.

The burden was wholly on Iraq. If you do not now this, just admit it. If you did know this and yet maintain this charade that the US was on the hook for proving something, well, now you're just being dishonest.

Iraq acknowledged that it has these weapons, systems, and programs...the inspections regime was established to verify disarmament and that programs were completely dismantled. If you want the specific UN resolutions requiring this, I'll get them for you, but sheesh, I thought that since you were participating in this discussion you'd have some idea of what was happening.

None of what you presented is evidence that Iraq continued to possess deployable quantities of WMD after 1994.

And yes, the US was obligated to verify they possessed those weapons before committing American lives to that invasion. At least morally. As stated by Rumsfeld: [thinkprogress.org]

Hail Armageddon [washingtonpost.com]

Charles Krauthammer article on the faux calamity if sequestration.

Funny stuff

It's a shame that so many but the lies.

And many prominent democrats led us into that war too.
fark them all.

This deserves its own thread. I wasn't aware of how many democrats were pushing Bush to attack Iraq because of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I knew they supported it but that they were actively pushing for it, is not very well known IMO. All you hear is "Bush's war", "Bush's fault".

Apparently not. That could only be verified by invading. So, we invaded.

"Only"? Hardly.

OTOH, we could have gathered real intelligence instead of relying almost exclusively on a nut called "Curveball."

But they were just looking for an excuse, not real evidence.

:lol:

"The problem with sequestration, of course, is that the cuts are across the board and do not allow money to move between accounts. It’s dumb because it doesn’t discriminate.

Fine. Then change the law. That’s why we have a Congress. Discriminate. Prioritize. That’s why we have budgets. Except that the Democratic Senate hasn’t passed one in four years. And the White House, which proposed the sequester in the first place, had 18 months to establish rational priorities among accounts — and did nothing."

Douchebags.

You'd think Obama and Senate Democrat supporters would be embarrassed by now. Yet they say nothing.

not only are they not embarrassed, but they actually have the arrogance and disgusting lack of character to blame the republicans for their screw-ups, instead of taking responsibility for their failures....the House GOP passed TWO, not one, TWO, budgets that address sequestration...the Reid senate and WH just ignored them. Then the GOP offered a THIRD offer to allow the president the unprecedented (and imho unconstitutional) authority to decide where and how to make the cuts, and Obama spat in their face.

THREE offers from the GOP, and NOTHING in return from the dems, at least a counter-offer or start of negotiations, NOTHING...and then the liar-in-chief has the gall to have a press conference where he blames the republicans...

that's what happens when you have a president with ZERO leadership skills, and nothing but constant campaign mode, rather than actually even trying to run the country or actually do his job....he's too busy taking all the perks with vacations every 4 weeks (and separate ones for him and his wife at that, so we have to pay double for Secret service, etc), concerts at the white house, all at the tax-payers' dime, with no cuts, his salary and expense budget safe from sequestration, all the while raising taxes on EVERYONE by 2% after promising not a dime of increased taxes to anyone earning less than 250k, and crying wolf about a 2% reduction in the increase to spending.... a bigger loser and incompetent charlatan I have not seen in that office in my lifetime.

Agreed!

Lol! And that's not the funniest part. The funniest part is...there wouldn't be ANY passenger airline service in Western Kansas were it not for Federal spending (airlines get a subsidy to operate rural routes that are not economically feasible).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nat...story.html

The money saved by the feds spending less state money means the state can pay for those air traffic controllers if they choose.

Feel free to hold your breath! :P

telling someone they have no clue is not kosher here, my friend

I read another similar article this week.

Having no in-person ATCs at small airports isnt all that unusual, since many times the planes radio in and are guided by regional air traffic controllers or ones located in major nearby cities.

Having live people there is nice, of course, but its nowhere near a mandatory thing for tiny airports.

And besides, there have been ATC screwups which caused crashes before, so maybe letting the pilots do their own thing might be safer!

Care to explain why after a year and over 600 posts, you can't seem to follow the rules?

How do we maintain this environment of open conversation?

Some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. It is impossible to list every possible infraction so please remember this is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Moderators will remove posts that go against the above stated purpose even if not specifically mentioned in the below rules. If you question why a post is removed, private message (PM) a moderator. Do not make a post asking why.

Well?

Because I'm sick of politically disagreeable posts being removed for no reason simply because the mods don't like the post.

So because you don't like getting in trouble for not following the rules, you decide to break more rules? Sounds like a great plan...

:thumbsup:

Btw, one thing that has always been consistent here in TP are the posters who -- regardlesss of political ideology -- will cry about unfair treatment from the mods rather than actually choose to engage in meaningful debate. Enjoying that victimhood yet?

Hmm, I have been engaging in meaningful debate, it's just that posts filled with links about UN weapons inspections reports that clearly demonstrate 124nic8 has no idea what he is talking about keeps getting deleted.

The first time it was deleted the reasoning was that I told the poster he had no idea what he was talking about. Ironically, you see that very same comment strewn throughout threads here, like the current NRA thread, and they're not removed.

So I re-posted the same thread minus the offending language. And it is deleted with no reason, no warning, no pm.

So, yeah, I'm gonna carp about it here. However, it says nothing about the quality of my argument that I was putting forth.

I will re-post that entire post absent the alleged personal attack and lets see if it is deleted, again.

You are aware that Iraq, not the US, was responsible for proving that it had disarmed and dismantled it's weapons programs right? Right?

From Blix's report that I linked to above:
The inspections regime was always a twin-operation: disarm and dismantle.

Have you ever read the multiple resolutions establishing Iraq's responsibility and obligations to declare, verify, disarm, and dismantle? Have you ever read the UN inspections reports which uniformly reported that Iraq had failed all four phases?

Read Resolution 687. [fas.org]

In part:
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

In 2003, we have Hans Blix as I noted above, reporting to the UN that Iraq had failed to declare, verify, disarm, and dismantle. It was never the obligation or responsibility of the US to verify anything as resolution after resolution after resolution demonstrates. It was always Iraq's obligation to declare, verify, dismantle, and disarm as many UN resolutions required.

Why do you think that the US or the UN had some obligation to run around Iraq trying to figure out whether Iraq still had it's weapons and weapons programs? That is so clearly not the case as the resolutions demonstrate, so I am curious why you maintain this.

Hmmm, so Iraq submits 12,000 pages of documents as required by Resolution 687. Hans Blix attempts to verify the declarations made by Iraq of weapons and weapons dismantling and cannot as we see in his January 2003 report to the UN that I linked to before.

So we see Iraq telling us about their nerve gas, their VX, their enriched uranium.

But you want us to believe that the US only relied on info from a single source? Really?

And, again, it was never the obligation of the US to collect intelligence to prove anything. The ceasefire required, as did multiple successive resolutions require, that Iraq declare, verify, and dismantle. Why do you think Blix reported his struggles with verification to the UN? Why do you think Blix was using tens of thousands of pages of declarations from Iraq to conduct is verification activities?

But you want us all to believe that the US had an obligation to seek out intelligence about the weapons and programs that Iraq was required to declare and dismantle?

Seriously?

The quote from some general or something was always amusing. Something like: "We know Saddam had WMDs because we're the ones who sold them to him."

Anyway, in relation to the topic, I'm glad we are all able to still participate in this thread despite the sky falling and mass swarms of locusts and the end of the world due to not increasing spending next year quite as much as originally planned.

Resolutions sponsored by the US in the UN have no bearing on the morality of invading a foreign nation.

That would be like requiring a criminal to prove his innocence before executing him.

Completely foreign to the US concept of justice.

You are in error if you think the US did not suffer a huge black eye from the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. One for which we are still paying today.

Oh, I see...so after having your lunch eaten on the legal basis for which Iraq was obligated to act and under which the US acted, you move the goalposts to morality.

Except it's not.

Wow. This makes no sense at all. On so many level this is just wrong and silly.

Iraq is not an American citizen. As a consequence of it's war of aggression against Kuwait, Iraq agreed to the resolutions establishing the ceasefire. Why do you think this is at all similar to or analogous to an American citizen who has been stopped and detained?

America's image only suffered to people like you who would rather coddle or even empower countries like Iraq and Iran and North Korea. Sure, those governments hate the US, but so what? As if their perception of the world matters. You think they're equal to the US. That's a sickening thought.

And there was no false pretense. Had you any idea about the resolutions, Iraq's obligations, the actual inspections reports, you'd be disabused of this infantile notion that the US acted under false pretense.

No moving of goalposts. I never said Bush did not have the authority to invade.

In fact I specifically said that Congress gave him the authority to make that decision.


Yes, it is. :P



Not as silly as saying only "this is just wrong and silly."

The war was sold to the American people as defense against Iraq's WMD.

There were none, so the pretenses were false. Iraq was innocent of the charges used to justify the invasion.

"skyfall" sequestration remix :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/M5hlHI12Pfc?rel=0

There were no wmd's? So Iraq was lying when it declared that it had weaponized tons of bioagents and vx? Hans Blix lied when he reported to the UN that Iraq not just failed to verify that it had destroyed or otherwise dismantled this weaponized material, but Iraq was actively interfering with the inspections process?

I never knew how sympathetic you were toward Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people...oh, but he didn't have wmds.

LOL!

As long as the welfare continues ...... it's all OK for bho...

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539404578340730017454220.html%3Fmod%3Drss_US_News&r=

Major airports reported smooth operations Monday after the Obama administration called attention to delays at two big airports over the weekend, adding to other early indications that the impact on air travel from forced government spending cuts may be less abrupt and in some ways less dramatic than many feared.

Many?? That should say, than "what bho and his cronies" kept telling people.

stunning....simply stunning...nothing less than mob / mafia behavior coming from this administration

Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised [washingtontimes.com]

It wouldn't surprise me of this were true.
However, this really can't be verified.

Washington Times .. gives names and the people named doesn't come out and deny it. This is a LOT more verification than most of the Pro Obama (i.e. anonymous sources) gives.

If wrong or inaccurate I would think, if for no other reason than political they would rush t deny it.

Since it gave names until they deny it I have to lean toward believing it.

Mr. Sowell had a great article today which explains this.

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place...... "

http://townhall.com/columnists/th...page/full/


BTW .. I have seen this many many times over the years, especially atthe state and lo9cal level. It is practiced by both parties.

Fair enough.
I hope to hear more about it soon

Here's the latest hype...

Bush absolutely lied us into an unnecessary war over Iraq, and we can see the Orwellian FNC logical handsprings to the contrary are fully functional here: The Democratic Senate did have 51 votes for an alternative to the sequester. It would have passed except that the Republicans filibustered. Again. Their unprecedented abuse of that parliamentary procedure is what has prevented much of anything from getting done in the "Democratic Senate" during the Obama administration.

By Obama's "doing nothing," you apparently mean "not accepting 100% of the House wingnut Republicans' ever right-shifting, pro-rich, eat-the-poor agenda." Because excepting that, he has "done" plenty.

Did the WH exaggerate the immediate negative consequences of the sequester? Yes. I say, guilty--but it hardly compares to the torrential flood of lies and distortions from the other side.

BS....the GOP offered Obama THREE different options to the sequester...two in the form of house bills that passed, and one at the last hour to give him the flexibility (unconstitutionally i might add) to decide where to make the cuts...he and the dems turned down all three, and not once sat with them at the negotiating table to arrive at an agreeable compromise....all the wing nuts on the left wanted is more taxes more taxes more taxes...well, the dems can shove their taxes up their behinds...no more taxes...Obama got his tax increases already, including a 2% tax increase on EVERYONE, this after he lied about nobody making under 250k paying a single dime of more taxes....the tax debate is over...obama and the dems can go stuff themselves.

you mean like Obama's lies about 'common sense' cuts being that the GOP should accept 100% of his continuous never-ending left-shifting statist socialist demands for more taxes and more wasteful spending, which would have done nothing about the deficit, all the while he keeps spending like there's no tomorrow? oh yeah...he's a gem, aint he?

:lol: supreme irony !!! :lmao:

Agreed!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...z2Mn0Ma3Q4

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

LIES and fear mongering......

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_1...sequester/

BS. House bills from the previous Congress amount to absolutely zilch, even if they weren't absurdly tilted to the rich. Speaking of which, during the last Congress, the GOP was all about closing loopholes for billionaires, and did not consider this increasing taxes. Only raising tax RATES was increasing taxes. Now suddenly closing loopholes IS raising taxes. How exactly do you rationalize the change? I might remind you that you never rationalized your blaming a do-nothing Deomocratic Senate for the Senate Republican's filibuster of the budget. It seems the right wing response is simply parroting vacuous Bill O'Reilly talking points and talking about sitting on and shoving things up posteriors. Recently O'Reilly went on a bender about Obama refusing to offer one spending cut, which was ludicrously counterfactual.

And that statist socialist line is laughable. Look at the stock market.

wow..... yeah, bho is all about cutting spending. let's see....

12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436
12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,612
12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512
12/31/2010 OBAMA $14,025,215,218,709
12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397
12/31/2012 OBAMA $16,432,730,050,569


......and counting......http://www.usdebtclock.org/

you DO realize the stock market is being goosed by trillions of printed money, right? you DO realize that a devalued currency causes higher stock prices, just like devalued currency causes higher prices for all commodities and hard assets, right?

You DO realize that we are nearing the levels the market crashed last time, back when the fundamentals were MUCH better, and we are most likely nearing another crash, a bigger one this time due to the crappier fundamentals and soaring debt..

THEN AND NOW. [zerohedge.com]

Dow Jones Industrial Average: Then 14164.5; Now 14164.5
Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73
GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%
Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million
Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million
Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01 trillion
US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%
US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion
Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion
US Household Debt: Then $13.5 trillion; Now 12.87 trillion
Labor Force Particpation Rate: Then 65.8%; Now 63.6%
Consumer Confidence: Then 99.5; Now 69.6
S&P Rating of the US: Then AAA; Now AA+
VIX: Then 17.5%; Now 14%
10 Year Treasury Yield: Then 4.64%; Now 1.89%
USDJPY: Then 117; Now 93
EURUSD: Then 1.4145; Now 1.3050
Gold: Then $748; Now $1583
NYSE Average LTM Volume (per day): Then 1.3 billion shares; Now 545 million shares

Breibart? Krauthammer? Seriously, you might as well quote Alex Jones.

Of course most of Obama's debt increase was due to a collapse of revenues from the Bush recession, not increased spending.

One wonders why you talk about spending, but post figures for the debt.....

You know that you either have no plan or your plan is shit when someone gives you the opportunity to make the decisions and you slink away with your tail between your legs. I guess he wouldn't have anyone else to blame if be took their offer so he retreated.

When you are still in campaign mode, why would you do anything that might ruin your chances of being elected? :shrugs

no sh!t. he never turns it off.

Well he can't get elected again so I guess he is in legacy building mode now? I wonder when we will see the President emerge?

2017...

We could point fingers all day long. Look at the debt...All the more reason to have modest cuts now so we don't end up like Greece later on.

I'm not happy with either the Congress or the President right now. A lot of posturing and bs happening. The President might be ringing the end of the world sequester bell a bit louder. I think both sides are looking for the 2014 elections - Obama may be hoping to win enough seats to gain the House. The sequester is just a means to an end.

OK, let's look at the debt and point fingers:

http://direct.sddem.org/cartoons783/chart.jpg


You're assuming w/o evidence that cutting spending makes the debt go down, when if it results in a downward economic spiral, it could make the debt increase faster.

It is clear the majority want counter-cyclical spending over a downward spiral into depression. The Greece boogey man does not apply to the US as we have our own currency and are much much larger.

Greg Sargent [washingtonpost.com]

A little truth with a lot of BS. I guess he forgot the two proposals the Repubs made .. or I guess offsetting the sequester by cutting the federal workforce by 10 percent over the next decade through attrition and Congressional pay freezes doesn't count.

BTW .. did we forget the whole bit on the sequester was ALL BY CUTS and none by additional revenues.

Did we forget that the sequester was put in place cause the Republican would not agree to specific revenues demanded by Obama? There was no goal post shifting, revenues were always on the table.

Boehner even agreed to $800B, but balked when the Senate agreed to $1.6T.

The logical thing would have been to split the difference, but Boehner refused to compromise.

And what if cutting spending makes the debt go down?

That would be counter to the experience in Great Britain, but IF it works, it might be good policy.

Provided there are not other undesireable side effects like further expanding the wealth gap.

So the US = Great Britain?

Much closer than Greece.

Worked well enough after WW2 when federal spending was cut by, what, 40%?
Boehner doesn't actually want to cut spending either, so who cares.

It's a standard leftist meme to ignore portions of reality.

The White House's own documents somehow forget that he ordered $60 billion of fresh spending for Hurricane Sandy.

Why do spending cuts count as cuts, but spending increases do not count as increases?


Oh, right. This is Washington and its run by liars. :lol:

That might be comparable, if we currently had a huge amount of business rebuilding the destruction of Europe.

Quick question for anyone who wants to answer.

IF the Repubs cave again (and I say they will) and new revenue was allowed what percentage of the new revenue would be used to pay down our debt ... or if you want .. what percentage do you think would be used for new spending?

for paying down debt? 0%. For new spending? 100%

I suppose no one recalls the cancellation of the moon program because the money would be better spent on all the poor and starving people. Which we still seem to have.

Why would they cave?

I suppose no one remembers the engineering jobs that were created because of that "commie" Kennedy.

" I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure. 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 $1.2T."

Habit ... and the Dems have a much better PR outlet (MSM) than the Repubs have.

Yet we still have enough money to give Muslims who hate us 1/4 Billion Dollars.

you do realize that Kennedy's democrat party was more conservative right? today he would be a republican. There is no way the socialist-dominated democrat party today would have nominated him. In case you are not aware, he was a big-time tax-cutter, someone today the democrats would NEVER nominate, let alone vote for.

they conveniently forget things like that. same way they forget Lincoln was a republican.

I acknowledge what you said, but you didn't address whether or not Kennedy had a hand in the creation of engineering jobs in this country.

^^ Nice try... :lol:
but no cigar.

"Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. His column is syndicated to more than 275 newspapers and media outlets."

Im thinking more like 100% going as a 20% down payment for 500% more spending. :vomit:

Personally I think you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. But then again .. him not using any to pay down the debt is no surprise. After all .. his ONLY real experience before becoming President was promoting himself and spending (giving away) OTHER people's money. SO of course he needs more money.

Funny how I haven't seen any of the known liberals on here state what percentage they believe will go toward paying down the debt.

True .. but he doesn't believe in giving away other people's hard earned money so Libs don't like him and "try" to marginalize him like they do anyone who disagrees with the European socialistic agenda.

Its ridiculous how some people want to take us down the same paths that other people have gone down and said, oh crap!!, and have turned around.

Must be that whole "good intentions are what matter, damn the consequences" mentality.

Lets see ... how did that go ..


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

or

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” —Sir Winston Churchill

Cause you think cutting taxes when the top marginal rate is 90% is the same thing as cutting taxes when it's 39%?

Do you know the reason why the Laffer curve is a curve that tends toward zero revenues on both ends?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Sye1aNkMvn-41m

Are you guys talking about Reagan or Bush Jr.?

You know, the POTUS who set the precedents for record deficit spending....

So Bush increased spending by 100 percent and Obama by 30 percent.

I don't know about "would" but I say should be 100 or near 100 percent.

I wish republicans show some patriotism and for example agreeing to closing of the loopholes but with the stipulation that say at last 90 percent go to paying down our debt.

Dude, some of us have already said that before, however the chances of it not being blown on new spending is ridiculously low.

Thats why govt is going to have to take the first step to realize it has a problem and gain our trust in order to help them out.

We hate the debt and being controlled by other people and countries, however we're also not going to give a drunk a bottle of liquor and hope that he decides against drinking it.

I say Nixon and Reagan would be dems today except that Nixon corruption and chicanery would have made the GOP to keep him there. :lol:

Please stop this garbage. Bush (and congress) spent too much money, now Obama is spending Bush's money plus even more. I'm sick of the libs crying that Obama only raised spending by X amount. I thought Obama himself said Bush's spending was "unpatriotic"? So now he spends Bush money plus some? Own it.

Reagan was smart. He got out before the dems hit the path to full blown socialists/communists;).

'

:roll:Thanks .. I needed a good laugh to wake me up this morning. Imagine, a far left liberal talking about Patriotism to screw the rich more ... this has to be a classic.

As soon as the liberals start making spending cuts I will be more than happy to address the loopholes.

So far ALL the liberals have done to find any way they can to get more money for Obama to give away.since his only real world experiences before becoming President was to give away other people's hard earned money I guess the Libs would want to play to his strengths.

Again .. thanks for the laugh. I really needed it today.

Yes, please stop. You guys try to spin the 2% thing too.

bho has spent more in 4 years than bush did in 8, but bush was fighting terrorists and bho is only fighting for popularity.

There were more loopholes back during the 90% days and few people actually paid it. Data shows the rich pay more now than they did back then. I and others have posted links to such data before.

Just rebuild sand dunes instead like we've been doing.

Data also show that the rich make far more than average than they did back then, so a higher tax bill just comes from their much larger percent of the income. We have posted links to such data before.

And a big reason they garner a much larger share of the income is their much lower tax rate than before.

Good, Let's chisel it down. Woe is me... The rich are overburdened. If the Gov't gets its act together, everything will be A. OK

The real news is not that the White House lied again. The real news would be if someone in the White House actually told the truth. That would make the front page, in bold, for at least a year in every major newspaper.

He sure did.
There was a time when Obama bashed Bush for the way he spent...

i did not say "only" and what i said was as factual as the post i responded to.

i am sick and tired of selective whining.

that does not negate the claim that rwr could not remain a republican today.

Very true.
But I don't believe our so called "conservative" leaders are really interested in srinking government spending either.

Each side has its sacred cows, that they won't even consider cutting.
I would like to see X amount cut across the board. No exceptions.

then why that post?

again: bho has spent more in 4 years than bush did in 8--> bush was fighting terrorists and bho is only fighting for popularity.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/...save-money

If you're visiting Washington DC anytime soon, don't plan on taking a tour of the White House.

Starting Saturday the White House Visitor Center is canceling all tours, due to sequestration.
The move will help the federal government saves $74,000 a week or roughly $2 million a year.






Hah. Why don't they stop that guy from golfing in Florida instead?

This is extremely hilarious alternate reality misinformation. There are plenty of spending cuts. Plenty more on the table. You must be living in an Oreillian hole to be oblivious to them. Google "sequester," spending cuts. Google "chained CPI," spending cuts. Google "Federal budget [marketwatch.com]," spending cuts. Google "Federal jobs/employment," spending cuts. I'm very happy you inhabit such an entertaining parallel Universe, but it isn't real..

Have wh tours ever been cancelled before???????

His White House is so transparent, you can just look and don't need a tour.

Right?!

:lol:


“adding $4 trillion to the national debt is unpatriotic”

“We need to focus on what we need to move the American economy forward, not on what’s nice to have.”

“ . . . we’re gonna go through our books page by page, line by line, to eliminate waste and inefficiency.”

“I’m proud of our campaign because it’s based on telling the truth.”


:lmao:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-h...ntil-april

The Obama administration will release its 2014 budget more than two months late on April 8, according to congressional sources.

Pentagon officials have informed the House Armed Services Committee that the budget is coming on April 8, said Claude Chafin, a committee spokesman. A Democratic congressional source confirmed that is the planned release date.

The April release means President Obama's budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.





Law? Who cares about the law?

Kinda hard to make a budget when there's a sequester hanging over your head and you don't know what Congress will do about it.

But this year that process is reversed, as both House Budget Commitee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) are planning to release their 2014 budgets next week.





How did these 2 manage?

Newsflash: The sequester was resolved last week.

So where's the budget and why are they holding it illegally until April 8?

If you think it's illegal, call the FBI. I'm sure they'll jump right on it.

Shrug. I just read this sentence in plain English.


The April release means President Obama's budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

:rofl2: under Eric Holder? :lol: yeah right :vomit:

I presume you were this flippant about ignoring the law if it was Bush or Cheney who were doing it, right? :lmao:

If it were Bush or Cheney, I'd have them waterboarded, cause that's not torture. :P

Replying a second time to this...looks like the mods don't like it when you pick on 124nic8.

So what was Obama's excuse and the Democrats excuse over the past four years?

Obama's budgets can't even get his own party's support.

The Democrats in the Senate simply refuse to propose a budget these days, let alone actually pass one.

Meanwhile, the GOP was able to pass not one but two budgets just in the last two months to replace the sequester.

But Obama was unable to..really?

No one likes it when you break the rules with personal attacks.



It's called the filibuster.

Huh?

You mean that Obama's proposed budgets were never actually voted on?

Filibuster? Care to try again? Virtually NONE of the Dem Senators would vote for the "budgets" he presented and Harry wouldn't let the Obama budgets come uop for a vote because it would look bad so many Dems would vote against it.

You're claiming the Reps did not filibuster the Dem Senate's budgets?

Obama's not the only one who submitted budgets.

Really? I didn't know that .. son of a gun .. make that son of a cheesecake .. I NEVER knew that.

Are you aware " filibusters don’t apply to budgetary bills"? It hasn't even proposed a budget in almost 4 years (continuation is not proposing a new budget .. so don't even think about going there). So .. how does the egg on your face feel? Looks like you're relying on either the wrong Dem talking points or Bruce Braley.

No egg here. It's quite a bit more complicated [economist.com] than you imagine:

You don't need 60 votes for a budget. It's just an excuse used by the extreme left who are too radical to compromise.

Spin it anyway you like.

What's it like to always have to make excuses for the politicians you support?

Oh, so you're okay with selective prosecution, right?

Oh? That Mr. Jack Lew? The guy that LIED to all of us when he swore the sequester was a GOP idea?

Yeah, sorry if I offend you by noting that he has zero credibility.

Bho quote of the day:

"My goal is not to chase a balanced budget..."

Lew didn't write the analysis I cited.

It's easy cause the attacks are incompetent and uninformed.

As is any "attack" against the messiah correct?
I have never once seen you call this man out on anything, with out spinning it as somehow not his fault.

Do you expect anyone to discuss politics in any way besides "defensively" when you use terms like "messiah"?

Did you see who I was replying to?

and suddenly the outrage is apparently to much:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/polit...ol-groups/

turns out part of the problem was Secret Service getting OT.

the stupidity never ends... They could post a picture of Obama placing a closed sign on the WH and he'd still deny it (and people would still buy into it?)

Donald Trump offers to pay for the tours. White House rejects his money.

It is astonishing how they want him to pay more taxes for the handouts for the moochers but won't willingly take his money when he offers it.

No, any attack which is incompetent and uninformed.

So what? Apparently you don't see everything.

And even if you did, what is your point?

I've never seen you praise Obama or any mainstream pol, but I don't harp on that like you continually do.

My posting habits are not relevant to any discussion here.

It seems you only bring them up cause you have nothing to post wrt the issues.

I've got some news for you, there is always another side to any attack, and there is nothing wrong with me posting it.

Reid shamelessly dances on the graves of 7 marines, blaming an accident with seemingly defective mortar rounds on sequestration....more cries of "wolf"...i guess Obama sticking his foot in his mouth about this topic wasn't enough of a lesson for this genius.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2...estration/

Actually, your posting habit is quite relevant. As I expose time and again, while you sit here, pontificating on all sorts of issues, when tested on the facts, you fold. Despite your participation here, you have no command of the facts, whether it be about Iraqi wmds that you claim the US had an obligation to find despite nearly a dozen UN resolutions explicitly saying otherwise or when you mischaracterize Israel's reasoning for an attack against Iran, etc.

Now, this is not me attacking you personally. I am stating observable facts here about your posting habit. This habit necessarily undermines any legitimacy and validity that your comments and opinions might have because it;s shown time and again that you're arguing in bad faith.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep...le/2524837

The cuts have also affected the quality of life for congressional aides, said Wasserman Schultz, whose defense of Capitol Hill staffers amid budget cuts has won her unofficial den mother status among many. At the hearing, for example, she said prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being "priced out" of a good meal.





Wow. Apparently Washington is so addicted to the people's money that they can't cut a single member of their staff or afford a good meal on a 6 figure salary.

That doesn't fit today's standards of bare necessities.

I'm recalling news stories about the congressional restaurants being surprisingly expensive for no good reason, but I'm not going to bother looking it up because if these clowns can't even skip lunch now and then while spending a TRILLION DOLLARS a year we don't have, then we're all doomed anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo..._blog.html

Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.
We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct.




He continues to lie. What a thug.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack...-panicky-e

I mean, we have, we have to matter and the political element to all of this is, they want Obama to fail. Now you've got a budget of three and a half trillion dollars in this fiscal year. This will take $85 billion out of it. That's damn near a third.




Liberal mathematics at its finest.

Not sure what 6-figure salaries you are talking about. The actual congresscritters make that much, but the staffers make a _lot_ less.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/ne.../?page=all

It's not unreasonable to think that it would be a good idea to pack a lunch, but there are reasons why this may not always be feasible. I certainly wouldn't want to be living in DC on 30k.

And to think some people still look to him for the "facts"! LOL. I wish $85 billion was a third of the spending. That would be awesome!

DOD furloughs were also vastly overstated...but Obama wasn't lying. This was not a coordinated effort by Obama to create panic, to create anxiety, etc.? Nope, nothing to see here.

I just read in another thread that regardless of what anyone else says or does, the buck stops with the president and he is responsible for the final decision.

yep...

I remember Obama saying those very words.

Or did he say 850 billion? That would make sense, but its not in a single year!

Liberal math: cutting 850 billion out of a total of 35,000 billion of spending is cutting a third. :lmao: