GOP’s sequester shenanigans carry risks for 2014

[nhboy]

Link to original source.

"A few moments ago, President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester — one that contains a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, rather than just the spending cuts Republicans want. Obama pointedly noted that the GOP position was akin to Democrats demanding that we avert the sequester only through tax hikes.

This is a difficult political position for Republicans to sustain, for the reasons Greg pointed out this morning. But judging by the immediate Twitter response to Obama’s remarks, House Republicans are convinced they can blame the sequester on Obama, or at least, certain they can avoid political blowback for any economic slowdown that comes as a result of implementing large, across-the-board spending cuts. Their reasoning is straightforward: The public is results-oriented and unconcerned about the particulars of congressional procedure. Americans neither know nor care about how created the sequester, they are just looking for Washington to get something done. And since, for most Americans, the president is representative of Washington, any gridlock will harm Obama far more than it does Congress, and Republicans in particular."

.....

"Indeed, if Republicans miss anything about the political dynamics of the sequester, is that the public’s blame is indiscriminate. Yes, by allowing the sequester to go through, they’ll damage the president’s standing. But Obama isn’t running for reelection in 2016, and there’s only so much the GOP can gain from harming his approval rating. By contrast, midterm elections are fast approaching, and this is a strategy guaranteed to stoke public discontent with incumbents. And as we saw in last year’s Senate elections, Democrats are skilled at directing that anger towards Republicans.

If the GOP is interested in expanding its House majority, and taking back the Senate, it might want to think twice about manufacturing another stand-off with the president. It’ll satisfy the Republican base, at the cost of alienating everyone else."

 

[BOP]

Carol whatsherface on the Communist News Network this morning was beside herself that the republicans were blaming teh Won for the sequester. She never denied that he was, she was only pissing and moaning because the republicans were saying out loud that it was his fault.

Libs; they deny the facts until that becomes untenable, then they attack because the facts were shown to be true.

 

[Toxick]

 

[Tilted]

"A few moments ago, President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester — one that contains a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, rather than just the spending cuts Republicans want. Obama pointedly noted that the GOP position was akin to Democrats demanding that we avert the sequester only through tax hikes.

Not really. 'Noting' that is akin to 'noting' that wanting to replace a deli tray of pastrami and liverwurst with a deli tray made up of ham, turkey, pastrami, and roast beef is akin to wanting to replace that same deli tray with one made up of various meats and, I don't know, trash bags.

Is the sequester not made up entirely of spending cuts as it is? So putting a different mix of spending cuts in its place is rather different than adding tax hikes to the mix in place of some of the spending cuts. I mean, a party might need trash bags as well as deli meats; but I can understand where someone who favored deli meats and who had already gotten agreement on having an amount of deli meat might be resistant to making room on their deli tray for trash bags even though they'd be happy to make room for some roast beef in place of the liverwurst.

 

[edinsomd]

Exactly which Commander-In-Chief first proposed sequester, and signed the idea into law?

 

[MMDad]

President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester —

The sequester WAS a temporary solution. How about showing just a nanogram of leadership and get this thing solved? Did you stupid lemmings hire this moron four years ago just to have him continually kick the can down the road? Why do you mouth breathing window lickers keep falling for this?

 

[PsyOps]

Not really. 'Noting' that is akin to 'noting' that wanting to replace a deli tray of pastrami and liverwurst with a deli tray made up of ham, turkey, pastrami, and roast beef is akin to wanting to replace that same deli tray with one made up of various meats and, I don't know, trash bags.

Is the sequester not made up entirely of spending cuts as it is? So putting a different mix of spending cuts in its place is rather different than adding tax hikes to the mix in place of some of the spending cuts. I mean, a party might need trash bags as well as deli meats; but I can understand where someone who favored deli meats and who had already gotten agreement on having an amount of deli meat might be resistant to making room on their deli tray for trash bags even though they'd be happy to make room for some roast beef in place of the liverwurst.

:iwantahoagie:

 

[tommyjo]

Link to original source.

"A few moments ago, President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester — one that contains a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, rather than just the spending cuts Republicans want. Obama pointedly noted that the GOP position was akin to Democrats demanding that we avert the sequester only through tax hikes.

Temporary??!! We don't need any more damn temporary fixes. We need a 20-30yr plan to reduce spending on Medicaid/Medicare. We need a 10 year plan to get tax revenues up. We need near term stimulus to help get people back to work...spend a few hundred billion on our crumbling infrastructure...a large enough program that will take 3-4 years to complete.

Leaders lead...Mr. Obama is not a leader...never has been.

Temporary? The only thing that is temporary to Mr. Obama is his commitment to "jobs, jobs, jobs" and/or the economy....his committment last about as long as it takes him to say the word jobs 3 times.

Of course the idiot Republicans and completely clueless Tea Partiers only serve to create a trifecta of incompetence manning a rudderless ship.

 

[GURPS]

His Idea: Why Did Barack Obama Propose It?


Today, Barack Obama spoke out about the pending sequestration flanked by first responders and others. What he did not mention was that sequestration was President Obama’s idea.

Today, President Obama said:

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.​

But sequestration was his idea.

Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.​

Why then did he propose sequestration?

FBI agents will be furloughed.​

So, Mr. President, if it is so bad, why did you propose the idea?

Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go​

.

Again, why did your team propose the idea?

Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.​

Why then did you propose it?

Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.​

Why then did you propose it?

Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids.​

Why did you propose it if that would happen, Mr. President?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.​

Try Again ...........

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Of course the idiot Republicans and completely clueless Tea Partiers only serve to create a trifecta of incompetence manning a rudderless ship.

You forgot Dingy Hairy and his inability to get a budget passed (temporarily, of course!).

Botox Pelosi is another moron who doesn't give a rat's azz about her employers, as she's so dignified.