House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office is apparently delighted with Charles Krauthammer's new column on the sequester. OK, I'll bite -- what makes the piece worthwhile?
For the first time since Election Day, President Obama is on the defensive. That's because on March 1, automatic spending cuts ("sequestration") go into effect -- $1.2 trillion over 10 years, half from domestic (discretionary) programs, half from defense.
The idea had been proposed and promoted by the White House during the July 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations.
Actually, the idea wasn't proposed and promoted by the White House, and Republicans are on the defensive since they're looking for a way out of the ditch they dug for themselves.
The political calculation was that such draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to offer concessions. It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions.
Actually, the calculation was that such draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to negotiate in good faith to avoid drastic consequences. Instead, as Krauthammer noted, Republicans have refused to compromise at all. Why the columnist considers this something worth bragging about is unclear.
Republicans should explain -- message No. 1 -- that in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts. Now it is time for a nation $16 trillion in debt to cut spending. That's balance.
Actually, it's not. In the 2011 debt-ceiling hostage crisis, Republicans already got major spending cuts with no corresponding tax hikes. The nation $16 trillion in debt has already cut spending. How can a high-profile pundit have forgotten these details?
The Republicans finally have leverage. They should use it.
Actually, that's not what "leverage" means.
The Republican message right now, in effect, is, "Give us spending cuts that will hurt the country or we'll hurt the country." I'm not sure how Krauthammer defines "leverage," but I don't think this is a meaning most dictionaries would use.
If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything.
Actually, the administration has already approved over $1 trillion in spending cuts, and $2.5 trillion in debt reduction. If Krauthammer doesn't know this, shouldn't one of his editors have reminded him of current events?
Of course, the sequester is terrible policy.... Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn't passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing.
Actually, the Democratic Senate, like the Democratic White House, has offered a sequester alternative. Meanwhile, at least in this Congress, neither House Republicans nor Senate Republicans have offered literally anything as a way out of this mess. If Krauthammer doesn't realize this, he should.
The GOP should reject it out of hand and plainly explain (message No. 2): We are quite prepared to cut elsewhere. But we already raised taxes last month. If the president wants to avoid the sequester -- as we do -- he must offer a substitute set of cuts.
Actually, Krauthammer is badly confused. In 2011, Democrats accepted $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, and in 2012, Democrats managed to get $650 billion in new revenue. Even if the sequester is replaced with a perfectly balanced deal, Republicans are still getting the better end of the deal. So why does Krauthammer think Republicans should get a 100%-to-0% agreement now? He doesn't say.
Obama is trying to sell his "balanced" approach with a linguistic sleight of hand. He insists on calling his proposed tax hikes -- through eliminating deductions and exemptions -- "tax reform."
Actually, as recently as last month, most Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, were offering new revenue through eliminating deductions and exemptions. If this is a linguistic sleight of hand, the White House isn't the one that came up with it.
Hence Republican message No. 3: The sequester is one thing, real tax reform quite another. The sequester is for cutting.
Actually, Krauthammer is just making this up as he goes along. When the sequester was crafted, there was no rule about it having to be made up entirely of spending cuts.
The country needs tax reform. But first it needs to rein in out-of-control spending.
Actually, spending is already down in the Obama era, and describing it as "out of control" is plainly at odds with reality and the demonstrable facts.
The larger point isn't that Krauthammer's column is conservative, it's that Krauthammer's column is filled with disconcerting errors of fact and judgment. Indeed, the columnist himself seems to have forgotten critical details that shape the debate itself.
That the Speaker's office finds this absurd column compelling does not speak well of the near future.
Leave a Comment:
The new and improved Grand Old Party! Now guaranteed 100% fact free!
* Offer not valid in CA, CT, DE, IL, NY, MA, RI, Puerto Rico, Guam Your millage may vary, terms and conditions subject to change without notice
C'mon, it's Charlie the Kraut Hammer, f'r chrissakes. Has he ever been right about anything? You could hammer his kraut from now till doomesday and never break through that solid granite skull.
Charlie the Kraut Hammer is a very very very ugly person, so very ugly. his expression and stoneface gaze belies a look of evil and deception and insincerity and stone cold death. doesnt smile, isnt mild, isnt modest, isnt kind, isnt generous, IS NOT HUMAN.
Speaking of facts... Some of the "cuts" seem to be illusionary. Gee what surprise.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/06/fact-check-harry-reid-deficit-reduction/1895903/
How can a high-profile pundit have forgotten these details?
By being willfully ignorant? More likely, by being a reich wing hack willing to write anything or tell any number of lies to promote the reich's message.
I can't prove it yet but I am sure that Charles Krauthammer is secretly The Red Skull...
Think about it, it explains Everything!
Not sure about the Red Skull, but I swear to God he looks exactly like a Jack Kirby Marvel Silver Age villain.
I mean, that's exactly what I was thinking the second I saw that photo. Marvel villain, no superpowers, inks by Jack Kirby, c. late 60s, early 70s.
Actually, a guy who has been making predictions for a living without having been right a single time in twenty years who continues to earn a living and have a national reputation as a pundit must have some kind of superpower. The ability to cloud the minds of half-witted editors, or something.
Well, Dragoon, I'm very doubtful your real name is either Steve Rogers or Nick Fury... Although I believe there's a Captain America imposter around here occasionally...
Speaking of the Red Skull, I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up in a sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger... Remember, the Cosmic Cube/Tesseract was actually a transporter, and the Red Skull disappeared holding the Cube when it shot a beam of energy up into space...
No heroics for me anymore. I prefer to sit in retirement and slowly become the guy Steve Rodgers was before the experiments. Besides I haven't got the legs for tights.
As for the Red Skull I am sure he will turn up again...Charles Krauthammer always seems to.
@Steve
A jack Kirby caricature of Krauthammer...now THAT I would Love to see!
Jack Kirby created the Red Skull .
No, Kraut-hammer is the Child Snatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!
I have never seen such a thorough debunking of a Faux News talking head in my life. That was awesome.
p.s. has anyone ever noticed that Krauthammer looks creepily a lot like a snapping turtle?
http://cdn2.arkive.org/media/C1/C1808703-4494-4FFE-82B6-9F02E0837219/Presentation.Large/common-snapping-turtle-with-mouth-open-side-profile.jpg
That's his supervillain persona. By day, he's deranged psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, a bitter man rejected by his profession who earns a meager living making predictions that never come true, but by night, he dons the green costume, beaked mask and turtle-shell helmet of the sinister Snapping Turtle.
Everything bounces off his shell... History, economics, math, logic, reason... He is impervious to facts...
The perfect Republican...
no more so than the turtle neck-face mc'coddled in senate who is the hump who gets humped by his pimps he loves soooooo much.
Mitch McConnell just makes the blood curdle.
He makes taxing the rich such a hurdle.
He adopts Norquist's pledge,
Using it like a sledge.
You'd expect that from a man who's a turtle..
Alva
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/
The old truthometer says that Obama's statements on this are mostly false.
Looks like they debunked the debunkers on this one.
You debunk nothing, inspekkktor,
You are just another idiot troll on this site.
A Republican's claims never have to be proven. They just have to be made, thus becoming Truth.
Republicans lie. That is what they do. The do it as a matter or course rather than that they have to. They don't have to but do prefer to whip up anger and hatred. Easier to do that with lies than truth so they lie.
and they steal. they lie to get elected, then they steal. they are deceivers and thieves that Jesus warned us about.
It is easy enough to mock the Republican penchant for stretching before the exercise of truth .
At least they don't pull their own legs ...
Or do they ?
Sweety any cuts to anything are gonna be deemed "draconian" by the left. All this post claims is that Charles is lying yet offers no proof.Baseline budgeting (a long used protocol in the beltway) will insure little real "cuts" to programs.
Obama has increased spending, Bush spent way too much, state and local governments spend (waste) way too much. When a bartender cuts off a staggering drunk, he's often none to happy about it.Washington needs to be cut off, they have a problem.The intervention can get ugly, until you admit your a spendaholic.
Government is grossly obese and intrusive. There is so much fraud they can't track it all and don't even want to.They feel that they have first dibs on all wealth created or earned.Yet all these programs don't have the desired effect.The "war on poverty" is gray and senile, if it worked we wouldn't be having this debate.How much private sector money is it gonna take to "change" and "fix" social problems? Give me a percentage, a number.I declare round it to the nearest billion, I say. Even with inflation the results for the money are like a buzzards breath, need I say more gentleman?
you dont seem to have a concept of what works. and your perceptions are as twisted as a pretzel. not complicated, convoluted. there is a difference. spending is not wasting, dear- it's RECIRCULATING. read your bible, understand HORDING, dear.
Historically Republicans have overspent more than the Democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiW5I95R5xg
This is entertaining as well.
REPUBLICANS MUST LIE to get their point across, i.e., they have no point.
magnolia my dear, of course you realize that we owe 11.5 trillion of our debt to ourselves! yes. to ourselves! now yesterday i saw a study that was done by a think tank. they claim, not me, that we have 140 trillion dollars worth of oil, natural gas, and other fuels located on government land. if they are even remotely close to a good estimate, i think you and i could figure out a solution blindfolded. so whats the big deal? we need to continue to grow the middle class so that america can get back on its feet. not investing or favoring foreign companies. if you buy locally, statewide, or u.s.a. businesses that is the formula for all of us to make the fastest recovery.
RANDPMILL
my dear
* At the close of the federal government's 2011 fiscal year (September 30, 2011), the federal government had roughly:
• $7.3 trillion ($7,319,000,000,000) in liabilities such as federal employee retirement and veterans benefits.[9]
• $18.8 trillion ($18,800,000,000,000) in unfunded obligations for current Social Security participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund.[10]
• $24.4 trillion ($24,400,000,000,000) in obligations for current Medicare participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll taxes, benefit taxes, premium payments, and assets of the Medicare trust fund.[11]
* The figures above are determined in a manner that approximates how publicly traded companies are required to calculate their liabilities and obligations.[12] [13] [14] The obligations for Social Security and Medicare represent how much money must be immediately placed in interest-bearing investments to cover the projected shortfalls between dedicated revenues and expenditures for all current participants in these programs (both taxpayers and beneficiaries).[15] [16] [17]
* Combining the figures above with the national debt and subtracting the value of federal assets, the federal government had about $60.9 trillion ($60,929,000,000,000) in debts, liabilities, and Social Security/Medicare obligations at the close of its 2011 fiscal year.[18]
* This $60.9 trillion shortfall is 106% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles.[19] [20]
* This shortfall equates to:
• $195,140 for every person living in the U.S.[21]
• $513,380 for every household in the U.S.[22]
Thanks Steve for taking it apart like I wish I could. I read this and scoffed, but line by line analysis is much appreciated!
and Magnolia, will please use an example of someone on the left deeming any cut draconian, will you "sweetie"?
I've seen quite a few from a leftward perspective making suggestions.
You seem to have a knowledge of what leftists think. Someone else must have told you what lefties think and you repeat it.
late addition
You said Obama has increased spending. That is not true. Someone is feeding you misinformation.
Did you read the article? Here, in Steve's words:
and
click the underlined part.
sounds like we have a rwnj infiltrator.... virus?
During the Obama administration, $6.3 trillion has been added to the federal debt. In 2008, public debt was 40.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is now 74.2 percent and growing.
President Obama has spent more than the five presidents before him combined. Total outlays in the four budget years ending and including Fiscal Year 2009 was $11.882 trillion. Total spending for the four years after that will total approximately $14.645 trillion. This is an increase of almost 24 percent.
When President Obama took office, the national debt was about $9 trillion. During his administration, the national debt has increased an astonishing $7 trillion at a rate of more than $4 billion per day. The national debt has passed the $16 trillion mark and is growing so fast that a current figure cannot be quoted here.
When G.W. Bush left office, the federal deficit was $459 billion. The deficit is now $1.3 trillion and growing. The White House predicts this year’s federal budget deficit will end up at $1.2 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year of trillion dollar-plus deficits during Obama’s administration.
All these figures can be verified at official government websites dealing with spending.
What you fail to mention is that he put the two wars and two tax cuts on the books that the previous administration failed to do. Remember Channey said to Treasury "Deficits don't matter": "Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised
objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more
aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals
because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget
deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to
the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't
matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms
(congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the
Treasury secretary he was fired.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who
replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration."
Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on
AOL News Jan 11, 2004
Lorr...if the two wars and the tax rate reductions were "not on the books", where were they?
just asking...
Answer the question YOURSELF, stormfront.
Just sayin...
Krauthammer is not confused. He's not so stupid as to believe this stuff. What he is doing is called LYING. Tell it like it is.
Boy, this is great. Say that it was the Republicans idea for the sequester and how do you source it? Link to other columns by you saying the Republicans were the originators of the sequester!
I tried following the series of links created but could not find one outside source saying the Republicans were the originators. Not one outside link! Please, correct me if I'm wrong, tell me the name of the Maddow blog posting and the outside link included.
Only in liberaland can you say, "It is so because I say it is so and said it was so before..."
Meanwhile, here's a lot of sourced references why the sequester falls on Obama's shoulders.
I call bullsh*t on your post, robtroll:
The link you cite is the website for the House Republican majority, the very same people putting the lie out that the sequester was Obama's fault.
Not very smart, robtroll.
You need to really find other crazy right wing sites to post.... I'm sure blanks could help you out with that.
RobDon, you recall the debt ceiling hostage taking? The fiscal cliff, now we have sequestration, right?
Who has the House majority? Who HAD the House majority?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/03/politics/obama-second-term
That's how I remember this, calling it Obama's is completely ridiculous, considering Congress does budgets. The president signs them.
Obama has said what he wants. A balanced approach. The Senate has alternate proposals.
People just are stuck on blaming Obama for what Congress (T-Pubs) do. They are torn, they can do nothing but point fingers, because they are led by a frustrated man who tries cat herding, not working well.
sandyc, this is not about the process of enacting law but where did the idea/proposal for such a sequester originate. Who wanted it, in other words. I'm unsure why you think the House majority is important or gives evidence. I believe the crafting of the specifics were done by a joint committee (House and Senate).
As to Ms Donna, if you would read the link you will see the items listed are linked to OUTSIDE sources, like Bob Woodward, the Tampa Bay Times, Politico, and even House bills. But, you aren't interested in the truth or others views, just your own.
Still no one is showing where the original posting above provides any outside proof to the sequester being a Republican proposal.
RobDon! President Obama is not on the joint committee, either. You said it was on Obama's shoulders.
I think you know the hostage taking on debt ceiling came from T-Pubs.
The link I posted seems to agree with the way things went down. The Rs are not serious, they do not want these cuts, they want those cuts and they used their majority as a crutch to push for that. Never mind the actual election results. They say the people voted them into majority, so they should get all their marbles and we, who voted nationally for a certain kind of budgeting get none.
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2011/08/04/what-does-the-debt-ceiling-agreement-mean-for-medicare/
I try to talk to you, but it's hopeless. There really is a good reason to say the Rs want to cut Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Aids aid, etc… look at the article. He says the military spending should not be cut, they can use it for leverage. Stuck on playing politics, all the time.
Again: I call bullsh*t on your post, robtroll.
You are trying to mask a sh*tty post with perfume, and it just won't work. The good folks on the House Republican website try to find bs to support their lie. A lie that sandy keeps calling you out for as well. And I wish you were as interested in the truth as you claim to be. If you were, you would know that you have been called out for bullsh*t regarding this(as well others) topic.
But the TRUTH is: you are not interested in the truth. You are blanks on this site trying to appear "moderate."
THAT is the truth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-lilly/mitt-romney-sequestration_b_1874854.html
A brief history of the sequester.
Sandy, we are talking about two different things. I don't disagree with some of what you are saying. About 70% of Hous Republicans and 50% of House Democrats voted for the sequester. About 60% of Senate Republicans and almost 90% of Senate Democrats voted for it, which gives even more evidence that it was an idea that came from the White House and pitched to Harry Reid.
Do you dispute any of these facts?
Donna, call bullsh*t all you want. Doesn't bother me. I feel sad for you.
I thank dkm for his link in 9.6
RobDon I recommend you read it and I think that is the true chain of events.
There was attempts to make a deal, but there were too many breakdowns to accomplish this. We keep piece-mealing something at the last minute after the T-Pubs were disagreeable.
It seems that there is an attempt to unchain these things, which I think should be seen as having been linked to each other, IMO. Even though they should never be linked. I want Congress to do what's right and work on budget without regard to debt ceiling, fiscal cliff. Do their job.
I'm saying the debt ceiling led to fiscal cliff, then sequestration.
Here is what I think, from the link dkm posted above in 9.6.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20086598/boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted/
With a brutal partisan fight over the debt ceiling drawing to an apparent close, Boehner said he understands why so many Americans are angry with what's happening in Washington.
( so the debt ceiling was obamas idea now? )
The following is a transcript of that interview:
Boehner: It really boiled down to two issues. President was insisting on more taxes. President never got serious about the kind of spending cuts that were necessary in order to get America back on a sound fiscal footing.
Boehner: We'll see what it ( the super committee ) does. But I'm confident their focus will be on reducing expenditures coming out of Washington.
Boehner: I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy.
Yes I will, robtroll, yes I will.
And you should be ashamed of yourself because despite all of your slapdowns that you get on this thread you still keep spouting the same right wing fox news talking points over and over again.
And I don't fee sad for you.
And you can keep your sad comment and shove it up your @ss.
"Even if the sequester is replaced with a perfectly balanced deal, Republicans are still getting the better end of the deal."
That is not correct. The domestic cuts leave Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid intact and those 3 programs are the ones Republicans want to cut more than any others. It is the cuts in defense spending that is going to hurt Republicans because they are against any cuts for various reasons. Dems have offered an alternative. If the sequester happens, Republicans get blamed for the those defense cuts putting them at odds with the image they would like to portray as being strong on defense. It also puts the Republicans in the position of putting their political aims above the security of the country. Maybe the Tea Party is crazy enough to allow this to happen, but it is not going to be a good campaign issue for next year when opponents use it against them and the Republicans.
I think you Marvel fans have it all wrong, to me he looks just like Pruneface from the old Dick Tracy comics.
charles krauthammer is a pile of crap.
When Boehner and other Republicans whine about the deficit, I think "But you were the ones who passed legislation with pork in it. Now you don't want to pay for it???"
Politicians on both sides of the aisle agreed to spend money on their states back home. When they turn around and whine about it, it just sounds stupid: they agreed to the spending in the first place. They probably campaigned on some of it. Now we should suffer because they overspent??
The idea is to always describe Democrats in negative terms regardless of any facts tot he contrary. Failed Policies! No passing of budgets! Unpopular Programs! Death Panels! (Pre-ACA healthcare was entirely made up of death panels with insurers canceling policies for patients who were too expensive to pay)
I would also like to say FISK YOU to Krauthammer.
Ah yes ...
Isn't it at least mildly ironic that generations of right wing conspiracy nuts ranting about the "Jewish Lobby" now have the principal ultra-right Zionist mouthpiece and apologist, Charles Krauthammer as their guiding light? Charlie will continue to bash liberals as long as they express the least hesitation to bomb the living daylights out of any Islamic country that criticizes Israel. How can that schmuck claim the slightest shred of credibility?
He doesn't claim any credibility. He just spews.
How can any of the pundits here on MSNBC claim the slighest shred of credilibilty with their attacks on anything, no matter how much sense it makes, by conservatives?
Their love affair with Obozo and making excuse, distorting the facts or non-reporting of his screw ups are a joke.
Excuse me sir, I want some more! How about some facts about his screw ups, instead of mouth breathing?
rws - Obozos whole term in office has been one big screw up. If you watched other Network News stations instead of MSNBC, you might have a clue!
LMAO
And elected twice to prove it,, may I get you a tissue?
What would happen if this column got printed as an op ed in the WaPo? If it were George Won't, he would throw the mother of all hissy fits, but I wonder how Ninnyhammer would react.
Jay Carney said in a press briefing that he had no updates on when President Barack
Obama will release his budget for the next fiscal year.
Republicans have blasted Obama for missing the deadline - his third
consecutive miss and the most of any president since the [Budget and Accounting
Act of 1921] was passed, according to data from the House Budget Committee.
Beyond his own laziness, Obozo’s hypocrisy is appalling.
Perhaps, Obozo should spend less time blasting Republicans, traveling
around the nation making campaign speeches after he won, spend less time on the
links, and actually do the that deluded Americans elected him to do.
Oh great! Another idiot troll on this site! Steve you know you have made it when the trolls crawl all over this site like the cockroaches that they are.
Congrats, Steve!
The House Of Representatives is the only part of the Federal government that has the authority to put together a budget. The most the Constitution has to say about the President is that "...and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary...". Not one word about the President being required to present a budget.
Only Congress can decide how taxes are to spent:
U.S. Contitution, Article I, section 8, para. 1: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for thecommone Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
and
Section 9, para. 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the receipts and expenditures of all public MOneyshall be published from time to time."
Certainly sounds to me as if Congress is the one on the hook to provide the blueprint for a budget.
Even should you be correct about the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (too often trolls don't get past the headline/title), there is nothing preventing the House Republicans from providing a budget that will pass the Senate and be signed into law.
Nothing, that is, except fear.
Doug...so you are agreeing that it was the Democrats who spent us into the huge deficits we experienced from Jan 2007 - Dec 2010 when they had control of the Congress? And it is the Republicans who are responsible for the Reduction in the deficit that has taken place over the last 2 years?
Congress has submitted a budget to the Senate, but Reid has refused to allow it to come to the floor for a vote. As I recall, the last couple of votes held in the Senate were for Obama's proposed budget and they were BOTH voted down UNANIMOUSLY!. That means even the Democrats didnt vote for the President's budget.
Obama is not submitting a budget because he wants to, he is required to. The problem is, that he has submitted it late 3 of the last 4 years.
Time for him to be a leader...the country needs someone they can look to for a positive example of how to handle an economic crisis.
just saying...
Stormfront's troll post translated:
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! OBAMA IS BLACK, BLAH BLAH BLAH....
Just saying....
Donna...
It would be nice if at least once you could dispute any of my FACTS with something other than more of your hyperbole. You might not like the FACTS, because they disrupt the utopian view you have of the President, but they are the FACTS.
Please show me any single place in that post or any other that I have ever made that has disrespected the President because of his race. Just one and I will be off this board forever.
The racist here is you...
just saying...
Donna - you're proof that liberals hate freedom of speech when it pertains to someone with an apposing view!
Sullyidiot,
You are proof that conservatards are ignorant @ssholes who can't spell opposing correctly.
Stormfront,
I don't need to dispute anything with you, because all you post are lies and debunked right wing talking points.
And you are still a racist troll.
Just sayin....
What am I missing with the Maddow blog comment section? How do you "vote"? And why do I have to log in every time? Why come to a blog if you have to jump through hoops to join the discussion?
What's disturbing is that everyone seems to be pretending he's simply out of touch or mistaken; he's LYING, the intent is to decieve by re-writing history!
Why don't we talk about THAT?
It's a Republican trait. Keep repeating something until even you believe it. George Castanza says "Its not a lie if you believe it."
Bring on the Sequester! The sequester is SOLELY Obama's creation, pure and simple. He requested it Democrats, whether you would like to believe this or not!! Maybe he (and the Senate) will finally pass a budget....the nation waits for both of them to fulfill their Constitutional duties.
Bull@!$%#, Mikkke.
The Sequester was a Republican idea and now they are choking on it like the dogs that they are.
ALSO: If the Republicans were against the Sequester in the House and Senate they could have voted AGAINST it. But they did not.
SO: are you saying that the Republicans are too stupid to know what's best for them or that Obama is smarter than the Republicans?
You'd be right on both counts.
Obama's fanciful claim that Congress 'proposed' the sequester
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 10/26/2012
"The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed."
— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012
As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan. And if there ever is an orphan in Washington these days, it is that odd duck known as "sequestration."
We've earlier written that there are bipartisan fingerprints over the looming defense cuts that Mitt Romney has sought to pin on President Obama. Now, in the final presidential debate, Obama sought to toss the hot potato of sequestration — the process that is forcing those defense cuts and reductions in domestic spending — into Congress's lap.
Fortunately, there is a detailed and contemporaneous look at the debt ceiling deal that led to the current budget crunch: Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics." The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president's statement.
The Facts
The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward's book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn't cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
"A trigger would lock in our commitment," Sperling explained. "Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We'd have to September to avert any sequester" — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
"Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform," Obama said optimistically.
"If this is a trigger for tax reform," [House speaker John] Boehner said, "this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it's too complicated. I'm very nervous about this."
"This would be an enforcement mechanism," Obama said.
Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an "automatic sequester," though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was "nervous" about using it as a budget tool.
Page 326 (July 26):
At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.
"We have an idea for a trigger," Lew said.
"What's the idea," Reid asked skeptically.
"Sequestration."
Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. "A couple of weeks ago," he said, "my staff said to me that there is one more possible" enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, "Get the hell out of here. That's insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?"
Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.
What would the impact be?
They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.
Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.
"This is ridiculous," Reid said.
That's the beauty of a sequester, they said, it's so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.
"I get it," Reid said finally.
Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html
.
Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.
This is how Channel 9′s website summarized the case:
Richardson insists she has done nothing wrong and promises to contest the charges: “I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States.”
That is a total load of crap. Everybody knows that only rebublicans commit voter fraud.
This case is a FACT and you Inspector can not dispute it
LMAO
But wtg in being in denial
SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.