Bob Woodward: Yes, the sequester was totally the White House's idea

[giblets]

So the Republicans could just agree to those trivial tax increases, right? Then it wouldn't look like they're beholden to rich people.

[Hauldren Collider]

Many of the "trivial tax increases" like capital gains tax for instance have a major effect on the economy without having much in the way of revenue.

[Dinner]

Ahh, Drake... The Republicans are just deflecting now as you well know. They were the ones who pushed for massive (and completely unnecessary) cuts not the President who Republicans claimed was such a big spender (while in reality spending has risen the least since WW2 under Obama). As part of the negotiations, where Republicans held the global economy hostage and threatened to cause the country to default on its debts for no particular reason, the President demanded that the bloated military budget also be cut if social spending was to be cut. Sadly, Boehner couldn't deliver as his tea baggers refused to ever go on the record as voting for military cuts. Thus was revived sequestration which was originally invented in the 1980's and used repeatedly in the 1990's where cuts would be made automatically without the pesky need for individual congressmen to go on record as actually voting for them.

It should be noted that the people who kept pushing for these unnecissary cuts were Republicans, they're ENTIRELY the ones who forced this issue (even threatening national default if it didn't happen), so it is hilarious that they're now trying to run away from it and blame it on Obama. Yet dullards like Drake suck up their nonsense. No surprise there, I guess. Also, this goes to show Republicans know these massive cuts WILL push the country back into recession and cause the lose of up to 1 million jobs. They know this and that's why they're flailing around trying to blame everyone else for their own actions (as if they didn't all vote for it; not to mention demand draconian cuts to begin with).

[Dinner]

RTFA. There's even a helpful "Why does this matter?" sentence to focus the attention of retards like yourself.

You're the real retarded here, Drake. As always. They all voted for it, they were the ones demanding such massive cuts (for no good reason as the deficit is already been halved and borrowing costs are now the lowest in history), and now they're trying to run away from it & blame others because they know their policies are crap. They know it will tank the economy and that's why they're now trying so desperately to blame anyone else for their massive ****-up.

There is no one who will be fooled by the Republican lies. Not even you are stupid enough to truly believe their nonsense and instead you're just playing along because you're the same partisan tool we've all known for over a decade. The polls are in and everyone knows it was the Republicans who caused this retarded move to austerity and they're the ones who are going to get the blame for it when it causes a recession. That's just reality, Drake.

[DinoDoc]

So the Republicans could just agree to those trivial tax increases, right? Then it wouldn't look like they're beholden to rich people.

They did taxes in January.

[DaShi]

I hope the sequester goes though because then the army would not only massively expand National Guard units because the states pay for them, but they would receive less training and therefore the time commitment would be way way less. So more openings and promotion opportunities for junior officers + less work to actually do. It's pretty much a win for me across the board.

You won't be promoted.

[DaShi]

I hope the sequester goes though because then the army would not only massively expand National Guard units because the states pay for them, but they would receive less training and therefore the time commitment would be way way less. So more openings and promotion opportunities for junior officers + less work to actually do. It's pretty much a win for me across the board.

You won't be promoted.

[DaShi]

3/10

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/wh-woodward-willfully-wrong-157678.html?hp=l2

W.H.: Woodward 'willfully wrong'
20
367 By DONOVAN SLACK | 2/23/13 1:14 PM EST
The White House is fighting back against an assertion by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that President Obama is "moving the goal posts" by asking that tax revenue be included in a deal averting the sequester cuts.

Woodward argued in an op-ed that the initial agreement creating the sequester did not include revenues and so trying to include them now is a changeup.

But press secretary Jay Carney says the goal was always to replace them with something of a grand bargain that included revenue and cuts, something the congressional supercommittee had been charged with reaching in fall 2011.

"Super Committee's mandate was not to replace sequester w/spending cuts alone," Carney tweeted. "To suggest otherwise is willfully wrong."

Carney also held up as evidence a letter signed by 40 House Republicans at the time signifying they were open to including tax revenue in a deal.

Jesse Lee, the White House director of progressive media and online response, also took issue with Woodward's premise, and pointed to a speech the president delivered upon signing the Budget Control Act that included the sequester.

"Obama, signing BCA: 'This is, however, just the first step...you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts,'" Lee tweeted. "'...It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share.'"

Here's the full cititation:

"This compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long-term health of our economy," Obama said. "And since you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts, we’ll need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations. It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. And it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses."

[DaShi]

3/10

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/wh-woodward-willfully-wrong-157678.html?hp=l2

W.H.: Woodward 'willfully wrong'
20
367 By DONOVAN SLACK | 2/23/13 1:14 PM EST
The White House is fighting back against an assertion by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that President Obama is "moving the goal posts" by asking that tax revenue be included in a deal averting the sequester cuts.

Woodward argued in an op-ed that the initial agreement creating the sequester did not include revenues and so trying to include them now is a changeup.

But press secretary Jay Carney says the goal was always to replace them with something of a grand bargain that included revenue and cuts, something the congressional supercommittee had been charged with reaching in fall 2011.

"Super Committee's mandate was not to replace sequester w/spending cuts alone," Carney tweeted. "To suggest otherwise is willfully wrong."

Carney also held up as evidence a letter signed by 40 House Republicans at the time signifying they were open to including tax revenue in a deal.

Jesse Lee, the White House director of progressive media and online response, also took issue with Woodward's premise, and pointed to a speech the president delivered upon signing the Budget Control Act that included the sequester.

"Obama, signing BCA: 'This is, however, just the first step...you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts,'" Lee tweeted. "'...It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share.'"

Here's the full cititation:

"This compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long-term health of our economy," Obama said. "And since you can’t close the deficit with just spending cuts, we’ll need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations. It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. And it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses."

[Tuberski]

Nice posts, DaPhi.

ACK!

[DinoDoc]

6/10

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...678.html?hp=l2

So?

[DaShi]

I really wish you could read. But I suppose my post was too subtle for you.

[Hauldren Collider]

So?

[Sava]

I was watching Fox News last night.

Well there's your problem.

[Tupac Shakur]

(while in reality spending has risen the least since WW2 under Obama).

Don't ever change, Oerdin.