<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>BREAKING: Obama signs order to begin $85 billion in spending cuts that he opposed but couldn't avert - SM</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/307665492750004224" data-datetime="2013-03-02T01:35:44+00:00">March 2, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> AP bias is incredible, Obama opposed cuts he signed into law? WTF!
What is so hard to understand about it? He opposed them but signed them into law to avoid the US defaulting. Lots of people voted for TARP too, despite opposing it - because the alternative was worse. It's not terribly complicated.
This is false. Already posted the video where Obama vowed to veto any attempt to get rid of the sequester.
the sequester was a gun placed to the Republicans' face and not an actual policy solution. Not even a gun can make the Republican economic policy thinkers make sense though. "let's cut spending!' "what was the cause of the recent massive deficit again? Subprime mortgages, excess Wall Street risk?" "REREGULATION IS DEATH" "but it solves the problem of why---" "LET'S CUT SPENDING!"
That doesn't disprove anything. He decided that there had to be a Sequester in place to provide inspiration to get a deal done. I'm not sure why you're bent on the wrong idea that it was something anybody really wanted when it's been shown to be false over and over.
Yeah, in case you've already forgotten, we also discussed the whole "out of context" problem with that. It's all posted here, so you're welcome to re-read it. Or you can just play stupid and keep repeating the talking points the right gives you.
Imagine that. The nerve to think of cutting spending when there is a $16 trillion dollar debt, a huge annual budget shortfall and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in years. Simply unthinkable. There needed to be reasonable tax increases, but we aren't going to get anywhere without also reasonable spending cuts.
There is no point of cutting spending if you don't properly address the original problem in the first place. It's like shoveling snow off your roof to alleviate a leak, instead of plugging the leak in the roof itself. Eventually, you're just going to be one exhausted dude.
The point in spending cuts coupled with tax increases is a matter of simple addition and subtraction.
Why be such a simpleton with respect to this issue? The economic + fiscal case for the sequester is not very good- and obviously far more nuanced than this type of "UH DUH TRILLION DEBT MUST CUT SPENDING" herpaderp pseudo logic. You're smarter than that.
If you go back and read my posts in this thread, I never said that the sequester was a good thing. I was responding to a poster who took a pot shot at spending cuts generally. While I believe that spending cuts are needed, they should be carefully tailored to minimize the impact on people. To sum it up, I think you read my posts without the context of the post to which I originally responded.
LOL. So it is surreal when someone from the media takes time off from blindly supporting Obama and reports the facts? Kodus to Woodward for doing the job that all the media should be doing.
The point of doing anything when the crux of the issue and the origin of the excessive deficit lies in crappy financial products and bloated balance sheets is essentially nothing if those original issues are not properly addressed.
I used to give him some significant credibility, but after calling his cuddle-fest emails with the whitehouse "threats" (ROFLMAO), he sadly leaves a lot of his cred on the curb. That was beyond embarrassing -- it looks a lot like senility to me. This is not to say the Whitehouse and Obama don't deserve some blame, IMO.
I never had anything but respect for the guy. I wish I could say it was senility that caused the episode with the emails. But I fear it was just a calculated way to try and build on his image as a "fearless" journalist/writer who could somehow inspire so much fear in this administration that they would threaten him. I think he was just trying to build on his image. Maybe he feared it was slipping. Or slightly better for him he felt that's what people expected and he was trying to live up to the image and try to give people what he thought they wanted. Actually, I don't know if that's slightly better since that would indicate his ego was way out of balance. These are all my guesses of course, but the bottom line is, as you said he left his credibility out on the curb. I haven't heard any comment from him since the emails were released showing that they were anything but a threat.
I don't think it's a wise idea to cut much domestic spending such as transportation. Roads, rail, and air shouldn't be cut IMO. That's what needs money the most.
