obama on sequestration in 2011 & now ...
GBA

Westerville, OH

#21 Feb 22, 2013
The conservative media reports rumor as fact.

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#22 Feb 22, 2013
GBA wrote:
The conservative media reports rumor as fact.
I was not aware of that "fact." Why say you? Any examples?

I say The liberal media reports rumor as fact. And on top of that, the lib media just does not report if they deem the news to be bad for OBAMA.

Since: Oct 10

Lucas, OH

#23 Feb 22, 2013
DON W SOUTH wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not aware of that "fact." Why say you? Any examples?
I say The liberal media reports rumor as fact. And on top of that, the lib media just does not report if they deem the news to be bad for OBAMA.
Hey dummie,I 'll give you some, how about the friends of Hamas story, or the Gitmo prisoners getting special 911 GI benefits and we always have the real time Benghazi video feed. You guys are a joke and you are the head jokester. Everything you post has dumb written all over it.

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#24 Feb 22, 2013
Awoo wrote:
<quoted text> Hey dummie,I 'll give you some, how about the friends of Hamas story, or the Gitmo prisoners getting special 911 GI benefits and we always have the real time Benghazi video feed. You guys are a joke and you are the head jokester. Everything you post has dumb written all over it.
There was a live drone feed although it was not fed to the WH

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/...

Now imagine if we had a President who would have been interested in the on going events rather than jumping on a plane and going to Las Vegas. On his command such a feed could have been channeled to the WH.

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#25 Feb 22, 2013
GBA wrote:
The conservative media reports rumor as fact.
It would take someone who knew what a fact was to make such a statement and that wouldn't be you.

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#26 Feb 22, 2013
magictrix wrote:
<quoted text>
I watched the video. I also read many articles on the subject. The fact is that the video IS edited in that it shows only a snippet of the 2011 speech. Did the idea come from the White House? Yes. Did they ever intend it to come to fruition? No. Look it up on politifact. They will tell you this accusation is "half-true."
Well now Matrix, while it is true the snipet was edited I must disagree with you regarding the Prez wanting it to come to being. The line he followed with was the old "balanced" approach. Now we all know that "balanced" to him and the Democrats is raising taxes; but, in reality its really not balanced at all. The have this mysterious 2 Trillion in savings which goes to the old adage liars figure and figures lie. It all depends on what baseline you begin with. The sequestor was a cluster to begin with but two out of the three things did come from the WH - the idea and the Presidential signature. Of course, as with everything, he tries to blame everyone else. This is the 1st President in my lifetime that takes no responsibility for his actions. He is an excellent politician and his permanent campaign proves that but as a leader - frankly, he is more than lacking. He simply isn't one; however, those on the left swallow everything he says hook line and sinker because they are people who believe in words more than actions and of course. They probably cried when their parents told them there wasn't a Santa Claus but now they have found him again.

Since: Oct 10

Lucas, OH

#27 Feb 22, 2013
thud333 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a live drone feed although it was not fed to the WH
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/...
Now imagine if we had a President who would have been interested in the on going events rather than jumping on a plane and going to Las Vegas. On his command such a feed could have been channeled to the WH.
Imagine if you didn't say stupid things.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#28 Feb 22, 2013
thud333 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now Matrix, while it is true the snipet was edited I must disagree with you regarding the Prez wanting it to come to being. The line he followed with was the old "balanced" approach. Now we all know that "balanced" to him and the Democrats is raising taxes; but, in reality its really not balanced at all. The have this mysterious 2 Trillion in savings which goes to the old adage liars figure and figures lie. It all depends on what baseline you begin with. The sequestor was a cluster to begin with but two out of the three things did come from the WH - the idea and the Presidential signature. Of course, as with everything, he tries to blame everyone else. This is the 1st President in my lifetime that takes no responsibility for his actions. He is an excellent politician and his permanent campaign proves that but as a leader - frankly, he is more than lacking. He simply isn't one; however, those on the left swallow everything he says hook line and sinker because they are people who believe in words more than actions and of course. They probably cried when their parents told them there wasn't a Santa Claus but now they have found him again.
Hello thud. It seems we agree that Don's comment about the editing was incorrect. And we also agree that the sequestration plans originated with the White House. So, I guess our only point of contention here is whether or not the President wanting it to see the light of day, so to speak. Fair enough?

If you would care to read this article and give your further thoughts, I'd be happy to hear why you think Obama would ever want the sequestration to happen on his watch?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

" Some of the most detailed reporting on sequestration is from Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and his book The Price of Politics. Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.

The intention, however, was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect."

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#29 Feb 22, 2013
**...wanted it to see the light of day.**
Owebama

Mount Vernon, OH

#30 Feb 22, 2013
Don South for President!!!!!!!

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#31 Feb 22, 2013
Awoo wrote:
<quoted text> Imagine if you didn't say stupid things.
Ah, Woosie - did I hit home? Does the fact that the President received a briefing and then went of about his business of politicing without even inquiring of the SECDEF and SECSTATE (as per their testamony) about how things are going ruin your pristine image of the President as God incarnated?

Since: Oct 10

Lucas, OH

#32 Feb 22, 2013
thud333 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Woosie - did I hit home? Does the fact that the President received a briefing and then went of about his business of politicing without even inquiring of the SECDEF and SECSTATE (as per their testamony) about how things are going ruin your pristine image of the President as God incarnated?
The only thing you hit was your head and I'm guessing pretty damn hard.
Benghazi is a non issue, it is a dead issue. Where is your proof of anything?

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#33 Feb 22, 2013
magictrix wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello thud. It seems we agree that Don's comment about the editing was incorrect. And we also agree that the sequestration plans originated with the White House. So, I guess our only point of contention here is whether or not the President wanting it to see the light of day, so to speak. Fair enough?
If you would care to read this article and give your further thoughts, I'd be happy to hear why you think Obama would ever want the sequestration to happen on his watch?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
" Some of the most detailed reporting on sequestration is from Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and his book The Price of Politics. Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.
The intention, however, was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect."
Yea - and its not like the Democrats ever edited a video to make it say what they want, eh?

Negotiations is a two way street and all along the President was looking for nothing more than a tax increase - that's his idea of negotiations. He got it with the fiscal cliff deal with cuts to come. Now we see him going to the well again. The President nor the Democrats in Congress have no intentions of making any any reductions in the rate spending will increase and that's what we're talking about here - not cuts.

Question - the failure of the committee was almost a year ago. If this President was so concerned about it why didn't he do something before this? Congress passed two bills addressing the issue - the Senate -0- until now. Cong Skelton has a bill which would accomplish the same goal thru attrition but of course this President wants government to grow, not shrink. Currently, the money must be spent where allocated - they could pass a bill which would allow them to allocate resources differently so necessary programs will not be hurt as badly.

I believe the President fears these cuts, not because of all the dooms day scare tactics he's bee using; but, because when it happens most of America will not even notice it. Something like 83% believe we have a spending problem indicating they aren't buying into the left's line that its not a problem. If folks aren't affected then they will see that reductions in the rate of growth is not the worst thing in the world and it will affirm a view that more cuts wouldn't hurt. That will go counter to what this President wants to do which is to continue to grow government and spending. Lets face it - if a 2%+ reduction in the rate of growth will be the end of the earth as we know it according to the President and his minions, then we're probably doomed anyway for that means we can't do anything other than continue down the road of Greece...but of course, to the left that just wouldn't happen - reality is hard for them to face.

Since: Oct 10

Haines City, FL

#34 Feb 22, 2013
Awoo wrote:
<quoted text> The only thing you hit was your head and I'm guessing pretty damn hard.
Benghazi is a non issue, it is a dead issue. Where is your proof of anything?
Apparently to this President it was a dead issue on the night he was campaigning in Vegas.
Kalabash

Bellefontaine, OH

#35 Feb 22, 2013
magictrix wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello thud. It seems we agree that Don's comment about the editing was incorrect. And we also agree that the sequestration plans originated with the White House. So, I guess our only point of contention here is whether or not the President wanting it to see the light of day, so to speak. Fair enough?
If you would care to read this article and give your further thoughts, I'd be happy to hear why you think Obama would ever want the sequestration to happen on his watch?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
" Some of the most detailed reporting on sequestration is from Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and his book The Price of Politics. Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.
The intention, however, was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect."
Thanks, that explains it well. I copied/pasted it because some of these know- it- alls won't bother to open yur link up, so I did for them .
In search of a budget deal
In 2011, the federal government was nearing its legal debt limit, which meant Congress had to authorize a higher level for borrowing. Raising the debt limit (also called the debt ceiling) was in some ways symbolic: Congress has the power of the purse, and the decisions to spend the money had already been made.
But that didn’t stop a showdown in the summer of 2011. House Republicans insisted that actual spending cuts go along with an increase to the debt limit. House Speaker John Boehner led negotiations with the White House, and at first the sides seemed to be moving toward a wide-ranging overhaul of the federal budget, dubbed the "grand bargain."
The closed-door negotiations fell apart, though, and a flurry of finger pointing ensued. Some observers blamed Boehner for being unable to deliver his own Republicans on a deal, thanks to tea party opposition to any new taxes. Others blamed Obama for his inexperience, for not cultivating relationships with Republicans and for tactical mistakes at negotiating. Some blamed both.
At any rate, Republicans and Democrats came to a less ambitious agreement to raise the debt limit through the Budget Control Act of 2011. The law found approximately $1.2 trillion in budget cuts spread over 10 years. But it also directed Congress to find another $1.2 trillion through a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. This 12-member committee became known as "the super-committee."
The super-committee was supposed to meet and agree on a deficit reduction package by Nov. 23, 2011. Their proposal -- which could include tax increases, spending reductions or both -- would then get a filibuster-proof, up-or-down vote in Congress.
As an incentive to action, the law included an unusual kind of budget threat: If the super-committee couldn’t agree on a package, or if Congress voted it down, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would go into effect, with half of those cuts hitting defense. These automatic cuts are referred to as "sequestration."
Lo and behold, the super-committee didn’t agree on a deficit reduction package, so Congress never voted on it. More deadlines have come and gone, and smaller budget patches have been passed. But the sequester is looming again, with big cuts set to hit March 1.
Kalabash

Bellefontaine, OH

#36 Feb 22, 2013
Whose idea?
Some of the most detailed reporting on sequestration is from Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and his book The Price of Politics. Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.
The intention, however, was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect.
Woodward summarizes the thoughts of the Obama team: "There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense." Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want to see their favorite domestic programs cut.
As the negotiations proceeded, Republicans seemed to think the same thing.
"Boehner told the House Republican leadership and other key members not to worry about the sequester …‘Guys, this would be devastating to Defense,’ he said.‘This would be devastating, from their perspective, on their domestic priorities. This is never going to happen.’"
Yet even as the deadline nears (again), it’s clear neither side wants federal spending to plummet.
In August 2012, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a report detailing how sequestration will affect different departments. In its introduction, the OMB repeats the Obama administration’s opposition to the process.
"The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package.
"As the administration has made clear, no amount of planning can mitigate the effect of these cuts. Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It is not the responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction."
Still, some people we say that the Obama White House proposed sequestration, so that means Obama owns it.
Here's what experts told us last fall.
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome," said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense with the conservative American Enterprise Institute who advised the Romney campaign. "That is because he alone can lead by calling the party leaders together for a resolution today if he wanted as president."
Other see the two parties as co-owners of sequestration, especially since Republicans in Congress voted for the law that set up its possibility. In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it.(Final tally: Passed 269-161.) In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it.(Final tally: Passed 74-26)
"The logic that lays the blame for sequestration at Obama's feet, because he negotiated the BCA with GOP leaders in Congress, could just as easily apply to those other negotiators, or, indeed, any member of Congress who voted for the BCA in August 2011," said Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. Preble favors reductions to the defense budget.
Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense also noted that sequestration results from a law passed in the usual manner. "I think the fact that Congress passed it means it is not a presidential mandate. It was a law that originated in Congress and was sent to the president’s desk," she said.
Our ruling
Rubio said the defense cuts known that are part of sequestration were Obama’s "idea in the first place."
That doesn’t tell the whole story -- particularly the fact that Obama does not favor these cuts. The White House proposed them as a means of driving the two sides to a compromise over the deficit, not as a real-world spending plan.

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#37 Feb 22, 2013
Awoo wrote:
<quoted text> The only thing you hit was your head and I'm guessing pretty damn hard.
Benghazi is a non issue, it is a dead issue. Where is your proof of anything?
Can't get "proof" 'cause WH won't release the neccessary papers.
It'a cover up.

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#38 Feb 22, 2013
magictrix wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello thud. It seems we agree that Don's comment about the editing was incorrect. And we also agree that the sequestration plans originated with the White House. So, I guess our only point of contention here is whether or not the President wanting it to see the light of day, so to speak. Fair enough?
If you would care to read this article and give your further thoughts, I'd be happy to hear why you think Obama would ever want the sequestration to happen on his watch?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
" Some of the most detailed reporting on sequestration is from Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and his book The Price of Politics. Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House.
The intention, however, was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect."
What were the words "edited out" that would exonerate
POTUS?

Since: Oct 10

Lucas, OH

#39 Feb 22, 2013
DON W SOUTH wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't get "proof" 'cause WH won't release the neccessary papers.
It'a cover up.
You have no proof of a coverup, you are an ignorant bitter old man.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#40 Feb 22, 2013
thud333 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea - and its not like the Democrats ever edited a video to make it say what they want, eh?
Negotiations is a two way street and all along the President was looking for nothing more than a tax increase - that's his idea of negotiations. He got it with the fiscal cliff deal with cuts to come. Now we see him going to the well again. The President nor the Democrats in Congress have no intentions of making any any reductions in the rate spending will increase and that's what we're talking about here - not cuts.
Question - the failure of the committee was almost a year ago. If this President was so concerned about it why didn't he do something before this? Congress passed two bills addressing the issue - the Senate -0- until now. Cong Skelton has a bill which would accomplish the same goal thru attrition but of course this President wants government to grow, not shrink. Currently, the money must be spent where allocated - they could pass a bill which would allow them to allocate resources differently so necessary programs will not be hurt as badly.
I believe the President fears these cuts, not because of all the dooms day scare tactics he's bee using; but, because when it happens most of America will not even notice it. Something like 83% believe we have a spending problem indicating they aren't buying into the left's line that its not a problem. If folks aren't affected then they will see that reductions in the rate of growth is not the worst thing in the world and it will affirm a view that more cuts wouldn't hurt. That will go counter to what this President wants to do which is to continue to grow government and spending. Lets face it - if a 2%+ reduction in the rate of growth will be the end of the earth as we know it according to the President and his minions, then we're probably doomed anyway for that means we can't do anything other than continue down the road of Greece...but of course, to the left that just wouldn't happen - reality is hard for them to face.
OK, now I did not say anything regarding the Democrats editing a video. I am quite positive they have. In fact, if you noticed, I commented that I dislike all MSM, both left-leaning and right, that would perpetuate the falsehoods of any edited or taken out of context video clip.

You commented on my reply to Don, which is not surprising, as he usually has some difficulty following through with any debate ensued from his copy / pastes.(Does he have you on speed dial?)

I believe my contention with Don's post was clear, and also my response to yours.

If you would like to debate an issue other than whether or not President Obama wants the sequestration to take place (or, in point of fact ever did), then I am sure there are plenty of Democrats here who will oblige you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rushsylvania Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Final pretrial for O'Donnells held Tuesday 4 hr Good Old Boyz 2
Transforming the homosexual, to fit into the Am... (Jan '13) 4 hr Touch of Disgrace... 864
Trump and Stormy Clifford 4 hr caiaphas 31
Rush Limbaugh's contract is up, his benefactors... (Apr '16) 5 hr caiaphas 22
are the bellefontaine topix libs recovering fro... (Nov '16) 5 hr caiaphas 33
Trump is yours.......Deal with it! (Jan '17) Tue Mein Trumpf 2,280
gary w moore (Jun '09) Mon Simon 47

Rushsylvania Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rushsylvania Mortgages