Sperling Admits . . . The President Did Propose the Sequester

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I've always found honesty as the best policy. I'm glad to see we're all being up front and open about who came up with this nightmare and made this happen from it's inception.


(Source)

Now the problem would seem to be agreement on this basic fact of who thought this up. When they can get everyone in official Washington to at least agree on that initial point, perhaps progress can be made? The way the White House has talked and characterized sequestration over recent days and weeks though, you'd think it was as much a surprise to them as it was to so many Americans who never really looked into it.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added Source Link




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No, No, No . . . It was the Republicans idea to cut . . . the WH just came up with the way to do it.

It's important to remember (stated three times) that it was the Republicans that wanted the cuts . . . but, look it's not a win for the Republicans 'cuz they wanted funding for border and defense. Look the WH just came up with the way to do . . . so the President was right in the debate . . . but, but, but . .
/sarcasm


I wonder if this press secretary will last through the summer . . . he reminds me of the character Martin Short used to play on Saturday Night Live . . . "I'm not the one lying, you're the liar . . . sweating? I'm not sweating. You're sweating . . . would you like me to get you some water? Well, do you have any for me?"


edit on 3/3/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I am tired of the president blaming everyone but himself for the mess we're all in. Yes, there is a big fight between himself and the GOP but please take some responsibility. You are the president, after all.

When I was a manager it didn't matter what happened that seemed out of my control. I had to take responsibility for everything because I was the manager. Blaming things on others only made me look bad. (And weak)

Blaming others make you look bad, Mr. President.
edit on 3-3-2013 by texasgirl because: Added on



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I've seen it stated somewhere where the president wants all the power, yet none of the responsibility.

I'm not sure what personality type that defines that type of behavior, nor do I really care at this point.

It just rings very true to me.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 



Blaming things on others only made me look bad. (And weak)


This is essentially the biggest problem I have with the current President.

I would be equally disgusted if Romney were in office acting the same.

Wouldn't it be a game-changer if the President at at least acted like a leader? I mean, he is a made-for-TV President and he has the acting skills. He should put them to some good use.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Is the tie that he is wearing in the video a colored gang flag?

"He said this... he said that... I like donkeys... I like elephants... all answers come down to black and white, and there are no such things in debate as gray areas."

How can any of these close minded people in federal government expect the American public to take them as seriously caring for the well being of Americans?

There are 2 obvious absurdities in all of these policy issues: the fact that citizens of this country would allow for these idiots to even have a platform to debate these policy issues, and the fact that there are 300,000,000 of us citizens letting less than 1,000 of these idiots take the reigns of such critical issues.

It's time to wake up, stop joining a red or blue colored gang, and oust them all!
edit on 3-3-2013 by ttobban because: grammar



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This will put some perspective on the level of hype about the Sequester...





posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I've seen it stated somewhere where the president wants all the power, yet none of the responsibility.

I'm not sure what personality type that defines that type of behavior, nor do I really care at this point.


The personality type is called "effeminate".




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
It is a drastic cut, any cuts at this point are negative to an economy that is run by an ever increasing demand of funny money. The QE that the FED is running at this point will be implemented until everything collapses.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No, No, No . . . It was the Republicans idea to cut . . . the WH just came up with the way to do it.

It's important to remember (stated three times) that it was the Republicans that wanted the cuts . . . but, look it's not a win for the Republicans 'cuz they wanted funding for border and defense. Look the WH just came up with the way to do . . . so the President was right in the debate . . . but, but, but . .
/sarcasm


I wonder if this press secretary will last through the summer . . . he reminds me of the character Martin Short used to play on Saturday Night Live . . . "I'm not the one lying, you're the liar . . . sweating? I'm not sweating. You're sweating . . . would you like me to get you some water? Well, do you have any for me?"


edit on 3/3/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)


Liar Liar, pants on fire

Related Bill: S. 365 (112th): Budget Control Act of 2011 (On Passage of the
Bill) House Vote #690 [primary source: house.gov]
Aug 01, 2011 (112 Congress)
Passed
S. 365 (112th): Budget Control Act of 2011
Introduced by Sen. Thomas “Tom” Harkin [D-IA] on February 16, 2011

95 dems voted for it, 95 dems voted against it, 3 didn't vote. If the 95 dems had voted Nay instead of Aye, it wouldnt' have passed. I just hate it when people don't accept responsibility.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
It is a drastic cut, any cuts at this point are negative to an economy that is run by an ever increasing demand of funny money. The QE that the FED is running at this point will be implemented until everything collapses.


Really? Any cuts are negative?

Im sure he could have done w out that 998,000 dollar golfing trip with Tiger woods....

or his wifes million dollar trip to aspen that she CANCELLED.....and it still cost us money......

I could start making a list...........

so no........not all cuts would be negative..........

Tell him to keep his presidential ass, and his family either at the white house or at friggin camp david........and stop hopping around the world like pop stars..........

That would take a pretty nice chunk out of it.......
edit on 3-3-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Sure it's negative. Think off the lost revenue associated with not renting those skiis and all that Pizza Hut that would have been ordered by her security detachment. Can't forget that they didn't rent out a few floors of a hotel. So yeah, Aspen lost out on a lot of revenue.

Nevermind who foots the bill for that...




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


You don't get it though, the system at this point is dependent on SPENDING. If you want to get the house in order you are pretty much going to have to cut a lot of social programs that millions feel they are entitled to, the defense budget that the industrial military complex feeds off of and the bankers / corporations who suck at the public tit.

Now tell me how you do that without complete chaos. Also tell me how to go about it when just about everyone that is supposed to represent the people are on the take.


Though I guess my post could be read that I actually support spending......I don't - I just realize that once you take the money away the illusion of a healthy economy fades pretty damn fast.


edit on 3-3-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Well, as I've noted several times in the past. The devil is in the details and the pain of sequester was never about the dollar amounts. Between that idiot running the Treasury Department and Bernanke, they added 80 Billion PER MONTH to debt spending on an indefinite basis since September. Bernanke was off defending it within the last week, too. So if dollar amounts were the direct problem it wouldn't BE a problem.

The problem is the dollars aren't generally aimed to departments or even generalized programs. They are SPECIFIC. They target the most visible and most felt things one might imagine 10's of billions in cuts could impact. This was the design of the White House with the purpose (I really do believe) of making a consequence so severe, Congress wouldn't fail at making a deal. Oops... Bad bluff and we're screwed in some ways now, since he followed through on it.

Now we see how much 85 Billion can really be when each dollar has been calculated and thought out for maximum impact. I'm thinking it could seem like A LOT of money, depending on how long this drags out.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

The problem is the dollars aren't generally aimed to departments or even generalized programs. They are SPECIFIC. They target the most visible and most felt things one might imagine 10's of billions in cuts could impact. This was the design of the White House with the purpose (I really do believe) of making a consequence so severe, Congress wouldn't fail at making a deal. Oops...


Oh yes, I do agree. And...if I remember correctly, on top of this The White House was hungry
for more tax revenue increase, which they did not get either.

I remember when the super committee took this on, and they failed...likely that was all
a grand scheme to delay this beyond the election. (Which worked by the way! )
Suprise, suprise, suprise!



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


where you are wrong is that only an idiot would not be talking about cutting. You have revenue in one hand, and then you spend in the other. If the spend weighs more than revenue, you must make cuts. This would be a bit more clear if the President ever published a budget. By the way, he is the only president to not have a budget five years in a row. You need to stop drinking the coolaid and realize what the reality of the situation is. We are going broke. I could care less abouit polotics, but bankruptcy I do care about. I would hate to see the entire goverment shut down for an extended period of time over this.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tattiio
reply to post by solomons path
 


where you are wrong is that only an idiot would not be talking about cutting. You have revenue in one hand, and then you spend in the other. If the spend weighs more than revenue, you must make cuts. This would be a bit more clear if the President ever published a budget. By the way, he is the only president to not have a budget five years in a row. You need to stop drinking the coolaid and realize what the reality of the situation is. We are going broke. I could care less abouit polotics, but bankruptcy I do care about. I would hate to see the entire goverment shut down for an extended period of time over this.


What the hell or you talking about . . . where I am wrong. So, the press secretary wasn't back tracking in order to not admit it was the president's idea . . ?

That's all I was talking about. Where did I say I didn't think we should cut anything. . . My whole post was quoting and making fun of the interview.

Did you even watch the interview?

Personally, I'm in favor of cutting all of it once and in no way support this president (of the last 4 for that matter).

So how am I wrong again?
edit on 3/3/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


You need to actually watch the video and realize what sarcasm is . . . Unless, I totally misunderstood your post, you seem to think I'm backing the WH position on this?

Comprehension is your friend.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I don't really care who put the idea forward, the fact remains that both sides of the aisle agreed on it almost unanimously .. the idea was good if you ask me, it was there to try to force them to work out a better solution and that's where both sides failed.

This is a failure where neither side is free from blame.. inaction on both sides caused this sequester that both sides agreed on to kick in... and I think probably on purpose.. the right wants to make the left look bad and vice versa.. they were pointing fingers before it even kicked in while in reality they all look like clowns.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
So Obama proposed the spending cuts.....that republicans keep saying we need....and now Republicans are mad about the spending cuts, or mad it was his idea?

What are we supposed to be mad about?
That he proposed something that Republicans want? And Republicans are now mad about that? Isn't this something Democrats should be getting mad about?


I've been saying it for sometime, Obama is a closet Republican, who has just enough liberal viewpoints to keep his base happy.

# man, if Obama had an R next to his name, Republicans would be claiming he was the savior for killing Bin Laden, and they'd have shirts with Drones on them.

They'd have shirts.





top topics
 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join