Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 03, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
-
Sperling Admits Obama Misled in Debate: The President Did Propose the Sequester
weekly standard ^ | 3/3/13 | Daniel Halper
Posted on March 3, 2013 11:01:17 AM EST by Nachum
White House economic adviser Gene Sperling admits that, yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama's plan:
White House economic adviser Gene Sperling admits that, yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama's plan:
"We put forth the design of" the sequestration, Sperling finally admits after a long back-and-forth.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: lyingliar; obama; obamaliedeconomydied; obamalies; obamascandals; sequester; sperling; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
-
BFD
Repubs voted for it so they must have wanted it too
-
BFD
Repubs voted for it so they must have wanted it too
Repubs are not the ones melting down daily like Obama is over this.
-
Repubs are not the ones melting down daily like Obama is over this.
The only person having daily meltdowns is you
-
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester
Forbes ^ | 3-3-2013 | Paul Roderick Gregory
Posted on March 3, 2013 9:10:32 PM EST by smoothsailing
March 3, 2013
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester
Paul Roderick Gregory
Is the press corps getting some balls (to put it crudely but graphically)? Are they finally prepared to challenge the President’s untruthful assertions on facts that are crucial to understanding policy?
None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”
Sperling actually admitted nothing new as I chronicled in my With the Sequester, President Obama Argues With President Obama. Jack Lew, in his confirmation hearings, conceded on February 13 that the sequester originated in the White House. On Tuesday February 19, press spokesman Jay Carney admitted “The sequester was something that was discussed… and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”
Of course, these clear admissions that Obama parented the sequester are being furiously spun (The Republicans made him do it), but the words are not subject to misinterpretation. So it is true. Obama is fighting against his own program, while blaming his opponents! It can’t be clearer than that.
Despite this conclusive evidence that Obama himself proposed the sequester, the media sat on its hands as the President falsely excoriated the Republicans...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
-
Obama is fighting against his own program, while blaming his opponents! It can’t be clearer than that.
Despite this conclusive evidence that Obama himself proposed the sequester, the media sat on its hands as the President falsely excoriated the Republicans...
Finally the press showing a bit of character. Someone willing to stand up to the dictator.
-
Finally the press showing a bit of character. Someone willing to stand up to the dictator.
Explain how Obama is a dictator
-
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester
Forbes ^ | 3-3-2013 | Paul Roderick Gregory
Posted on March 3, 2013 9:10:32 PM EST by smoothsailing
March 3, 2013
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester
Paul Roderick Gregory
Is the press corps getting some balls (to put it crudely but graphically)? Are they finally prepared to challenge the President’s untruthful assertions on facts that are crucial to understanding policy?
None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”
Sperling actually admitted nothing new as I chronicled in my With the Sequester, President Obama Argues With President Obama. Jack Lew, in his confirmation hearings, conceded on February 13 that the sequester originated in the White House. On Tuesday February 19, press spokesman Jay Carney admitted “The sequester was something that was discussed… and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”
Of course, these clear admissions that Obama parented the sequester are being furiously spun (The Republicans made him do it), but the words are not subject to misinterpretation. So it is true. Obama is fighting against his own program, while blaming his opponents! It can’t be clearer than that.
Despite this conclusive evidence that Obama himself proposed the sequester, the media sat on its hands as the President falsely excoriated the Republicans...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The better question is: when has Obama ever told the truth about anything? The man is a chronic liar.
-
The better question is: when has Obama ever told the truth about anything? The man is a chronic liar.
Check out my thread about what Obamacare is about to do to Connecticut. Obama lied like he always does.
There is not a truthful thing EVEr from that piece of shit.
-
This is the fourth day of the sequester. So far, no lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn.
What gives?
-
This is the fourth day of the sequester. So far, no lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn.
What gives?
Obama lied like he always does.
-
:D
-
This is the fourth day of the sequester. So far, no lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn.
What gives?
typical fundie
-
typical fundie
No sense of humor and without a clue....typical libbie.
-
No sense of humor and without a clue....typical libbie.
only a MORON would expect to see any kind of results (negative or positive) in 4 days
maybe that was your joke though something tells me you were actually expecting lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn.....just like you expected Romney to win the election
-
only a MORON would expect to see any kind of results (negative or positive) in 4 days
Only a DOOFUS would try to absolve the president from any responsibility, even though he signed the sequester into law and threatened to veto any attempts to revoke it....UNTIL it was perceived to bite him in the behind.
maybe that was your joke though something tells me you were actually expecting lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn.....just like you expected Romney to win the election
Again, clueless and humorless....typical libbie. Up to February 27th, Obama was wailing and gnashing his teeth about the effects of the sequester. When the reality hit that the GOP (this time) was not going to cave, he dialed it back. There would be no "apocalypse", as he said Friday.
-
Only a DOOFUS would try to absolve the president from any responsibility, even though he signed the sequester into law and threatened to veto any attempts to revoke it....UNTIL it was perceived to bite him in the behind.
Again, clueless and humorless....typical libbie. Up to February 27th, Obama was wailing and gnashing his teeth about the effects of the sequester. When the reality hit that the GOP (this time) was not going to cave, he dialed it back. There would be no "apocalypse", as he said Friday.
so you're saying he had previously said there would be an "apocalypse" (not to mention slaying of first born) and it would happen in a matter of a few days
Is that what he said?
-
so you're saying he had previously said there would be an "apocalypse" (not to mention slaying of first born) and it would happen in a matter of a few days
Is that what he said?
Yes, he did. Or, at the very least, his surrogates did (with no challenge or refutation from him).
He only backtracked that statements on late Thursday and Friday, when it was obvious his smear campaign didn't get the GOP to crack.
-
Yes, he did. Or, at the very least, his surrogates did (with no challenge or refutation from him).
He only backtracked that statements on late Thursday and Friday, when it was obvious his smear campaign didn't get the GOP to crack.
nice backpedal all in one sentence
please post the quote where he (oh wait, his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen within a few days of the spending cuts taking place
we'll ignore the slaying of children part
-
nice backpedal all in one sentence
please post the quote where he (oh wait, his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen within a few days of the spending cuts taking place
we'll ignore the slaying of children part
GMAFB - he was out daily saying everything under the sun was going to collapse.
-
GMAFB - he was out daily saying everything under the sun was going to collapse.
how many times have a I told you I don't waste my time on your clips
post a quote and a link where Obama said the "sun was going to collapse" and that it would happen within days of spending cuts commencing
You and McWay sound like the obese man who cuts down on his twinkies and wonders why he hasn't dropped 50 pounds in 4 days
-
how many times have a I told you I don't waste my time on your clips
post a quote and a link where Obama said the "sun was going to collapse" and that it would happen within days of spending cuts commencing
You and McWay sound like the obese man who cuts down on his twinkies and wonders why he hasn't dropped 50 pounds in 4 days
In other words, he doesn't "waste" his time, looking at actual footage from the proverbial horses' mouths that shoot his silly quips to pieces.
Obama was the one doing the BACKTRACKING on Friday, saying that there wouldn't be an "apocalypse", when just up to 48 hours prior, he claimed all manner doom, gloom, and destruction would take place, if it were not stopped.
Every timie Obama says something is going to happen (as a result of his policies) but it doesn't, you go into full knee-padding excuse-making mode.
-
In other words, he doesn't "waste" his time, looking at actual footage from the proverbial horses' mouths that shoot his silly quips to pieces.
Obama was the one doing the BACKTRACKING on Friday, saying that there wouldn't be an "apocalypse", when just up to 48 hours prior, he claimed all manner doom, gloom, and destruction would take place, if it were not stopped.
Every timie Obama says something is going to happen (as a result of his policies) but it doesn't, you go into full knee-padding excuse-making mode.
I don't look at 333 clips because it doesn't matter what is being said on the clip to 333. He just makes up whatever he wants to hear
Also, this is a clip from Hannity so I assume it will be edited to death to make whatever false point he is trying to convince the morons who watch him to believe
speaking of morons, I'm still waiting for you to post the quote where Obama (or his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen within a few days of the spending cuts taking place
what's taking so long
-
The immediate impact of sequester is “absolutely overhyped,” says Steve Bell, senior director for economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee. “A sequester will occur and, the next day, the likelihood is that almost no one will know that it started.”
The only guaranteed effect over the next few days, Bell and his colleagues say, is that federal employees across agencies will likely start receiving 30-day furlough-warning notices. The 150,000 federal employees, represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, still have little guidance on the timing or structure of those furloughs, says Colleen Kelley, the union’s national president.
So why all the shouting about these disastrous spending cuts? Well, in the long run (i.e., the next six months), they will put a drag on the economy, cost us jobs, and cut money from the federal budget in a blunt -- rather than careful -- manner. But for now, much of the doomsday talk is old-fashioned politics.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-overhyped-overblown-overly-politicized-sequester-fears-20130227
And who was leading all the doom-and-gloom, can't-deploy-carriers, no-daycare-for-kids-of-government-workers, no-money-for-first-responders, no-meat-inspectors, lice, boils, pestilence, etc. charge for weeks on end?
OBAMA!!
-
The immediate impact of sequester is “absolutely overhyped,” says Steve Bell, senior director for economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee. “A sequester will occur and, the next day, the likelihood is that almost no one will know that it started.”
The only guaranteed effect over the next few days, Bell and his colleagues say, is that federal employees across agencies will likely start receiving 30-day furlough-warning notices. The 150,000 federal employees, represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, still have little guidance on the timing or structure of those furloughs, says Colleen Kelley, the union’s national president.
So why all the shouting about these disastrous spending cuts? Well, in the long run (i.e., the next six months), they will put a drag on the economy, cost us jobs, and cut money from the federal budget in a blunt -- rather than careful -- manner. But for now, much of the doomsday talk is old-fashioned politics.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-overhyped-overblown-overly-politicized-sequester-fears-20130227
And who was leading all the doom-and-gloom, can't-deploy-carriers, no-daycare-for-kids-of-government-workers, no-money-for-first-responders, no-meat-inspectors, lice, boils, pestilence, etc. charge for weeks on end?
OBAMA!!
still waiting for the quote where he (or his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse"and that it would happen within days of the cuts beginning
If he (or his surrogates) never said that to begin with then just go ahead and admit it and move on
-
I don't look at 333 clips because it doesn't matter what is being said on the clip to 333. He just makes up whatever he wants to hear
Also, this is a clip from Hannity so I assume it will be edited to death to make whatever false point he is trying to convince the morons who watch him to believe
speaking of morons, I'm still waiting for you to post the quote where Obama (or his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen within a few days of the spending cuts taking place
what's taking so long
You're late again. Panetta wailed about Pentagon employees getting whacked. And, apparently, you need Q-tips, because Obama himself is spewing the same doom-and-gloom routine.
If Obama were making the point that the pain would not be immedate, he would have done so LONG BEFORE the day the sequester actually hit. Obama simply backtracked, having to admit what many knew from jump. That's these cuts would not be the Armageddon that Team Obama claimed it would be.
Or, did you miss Maxine Waters blunder that 170,000,000 jobs would be lost (which her own staffer had to help her correct, knowing how utterly stupid Waters made herself look).
Once again, your excuse-making kneepadding for yet another Obama policy, not working as advertised, is beyond pathetic.
-
You're late again. Panetta wailed about Pentagon employees getting whacked. And, apparently, you need Q-tips, because Obama himself is spewing the same doom-and-gloom routine.
If Obama were making the point that the pain would not be immedate, he would have done so LONG BEFORE the day the sequester actually hit. Obama simply backtracked, having to admit what many knew from jump. That's these cuts would not be the Armageddon that Team Obama claimed it would be.
Or, did you miss Maxine Waters blunder that 170,000,000 jobs would be lost (which her own staffer had to help her correct, knowing hos utterly stupid Waters made herself look).
Once again, your excuse-making kneepadding for yet another Obama policy, not working as advertised, is beyond pathetic.
please post quote of "apocalypse" starting within days after cuts commence
that was your claim so let's see it
-
still waiting for the quote where he (or his surrogates) said there would be an "apocalypse"and that it would happen within days of the cuts beginning
If he (or his surrogates) never said that to begin with then just go ahead and admit it and move on
Late and clueless again.
Now, cue your continued excuses and pathetic attempts to absolve Obama from any responsbility for this mess.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-in-gallup-tanks-2013-3
Obama's rating in collapse as he gets more blame for his lies.
-
please post quote of "apocalypse" starting within days after cuts commence
that was your claim so let's see it
Wrong again, genius. What I said, regarding the "apocalypse" quote was that Obama was backtracking on Friday, claiming there would be no "apocalypse", when it became obvious that he couldn't get the GOP to crack on this one.
Now, what manner of disasters was he saying were supposed to hit America, PRIOR to Friday?
How about listening to the man's OWN WORDS, along with those of his former SECDEF and one of his lib congresswomen.
-
Wrong again, genius. What I said, regarding the "apocalypse" quote was that Obama was backtracking on Friday, claiming there would be no "apocalypse", when it became obvious that he couldn't get the GOP to crack on this one.
Now, what manner of disasters was he saying were supposed to hit America, PRIOR to Friday?
How about listening to the man's OWN WORDS, along with those of his former SECDEF and one of his lib congresswomen.
Obama looks like absolute garbage here. Kerry handing out hundreds of million to the Muslim Bros in Egypt while cutting off things that impact people the most.
F obama!
-
Obama looks like absolute garbage here. Kerry handing out hundreds of million to the Muslim Bros in Egypt while cutting off things that impact people the most.
F obama!
Did I mention that Obama rejected being given the authority to specifically manage where the cuts would hit?
Cue Straw Man with more excuses.
-
Wrong again, genius. What I said, regarding the "apocalypse" quote was that Obama was backtracking on Friday, claiming there would be no "apocalypse", when it became obvious that he couldn't get the GOP to crack on this one.
Now, what manner of disasters was he saying were supposed to hit America, PRIOR to Friday?
How about listening to the man's OWN WORDS, along with those of his former SECDEF and one of his lib congresswomen.
so Obama (or his surrogates) never actually said to begin with that there would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen in a matter of days after the cuts started
you're now willing to admit that ?
-
Did I mention that Obama rejected being given the authority to specifically manage where the cuts would hit?
Cue Straw Man with more excuses.
http://news.usni.org/2013/03/04/budget-cuts-could-pull-navy-out-of-the-war-on-drugs
I guess Obama is trying to give more F&F guns away out of site and mind now.
-
so Obama (or his surrogates) never actually said to begin with that their would be an "apocalypse" and that it would happen in a matter of days after the cuts started
you're now willing to admit that ?
Just when I think your comprehension can't be any more shot.......
Obama led the charge about how awful and devastating the sequester would be (which HE SIGNED INTO LAW and thwarted any attempt to rescind, initially). By his own words, the cuts would be "IMMEIDATE, painful, and arbitrary".
I actually cited some of the doom-and-gloom claims (and who made those claims). Yet, here you continue to squawk your kneepadding stupidity, all to duck the obvious.
Obama walked back his claims and those of other libs, because they didn't get the GOP to crack, pure and simple.
"We will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse I think, as some people said. There won't be an apcalypse as others have claimed".
What he leaves out is that the "others" were from HIS PARTY. And, Obama did ZILCH to walk back those claims of his surrogates....UNTIL the day the sequester was to hit, when he could do nothing to stop them.
-
http://news.usni.org/2013/03/04/budget-cuts-could-pull-navy-out-of-the-war-on-drugs
I guess Obama is trying to give more F&F guns away out of site and mind now.
Obama on Friday called the sequester "dumb" and "unnecessary". Yet, he signed it into law nearly two years ago and threatened to veto any attempt to retract it.
-
Obama on Friday called the sequester "dumb" and "unnecessary". Yet, he signed it into law nearly two years ago and threatened to veto any attempt to retract it.
Obama got busted w his pants down and has nowhere to hide now.
-
Obama got busted w his pants down and has nowhere to hide now.
Well, he still has Straw Man and his wall of excuses.
;D
-
Well, he still has Straw Man and his wall of excuses.
;D
The Cult of Faithful will never question their messiah.
-
The Cult of Faithful will never question their messiah.
BTW, it may be too late. But, you wouldn't happen to have any lamb's blood handy. My doorpost is pretty dry.
-
BTW, it may be too late. But, you wouldn't happen to have any lamb's blood handy. My doorpost is pretty dry.
O-Twink knows his flock of sheep and lemmings will believe anything he says.
-
O-Twink knows his flock of sheep and lemmings will believe anything he says.
I'm aware of that. But, I'm more concerned about my house. The Angel of Death may not wait until the ten spot, this time.
-
I'm aware of that. But, I'm more concerned about my house. The Angel of Death may not wait until the ten spot, this time.
The Angel of Death is already at your house, mine, and everyone elses and is residing at 1600 PA Ave.
-
Just when I think your comprehension can't be any more shot.......
Obama led the charge about how awful and devastating the sequester would be (which HE SIGNED INTO LAW and thwarted any attempt to rescind, initially). By his own words, the cuts would be "IMMEIDATE, painful, and arbitrary".
I actually cited some of the doom-and-gloom claim (and who made those claims). Yet, here you continue to squak your kneepadding stupidity, all to duck the obvious.
Obama walked back his claims and those of other libs, because they didn't get the GOP to crack, pure and simple.
"We will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse I think, as some people said.There won't be an Apocalypse as others have claimed".
What he leaves out is that the "others" were from HIS PARTY. And, Obama did ZILCH to walk back those claims of his surrogates....UNTIL the day the sequester was to hit, when he could do nothing to stop them.
all fine and dandy but you still can't show me any quote claiming "Apocalypse" or that it would happen within days
wasn't that your hilarious joke ?
It's only been a few days and no one is slaying children and other such nonsense?
btw - you said in a prior quote that I was trying to absolve Obama of all blame when I've never done any such thing
I've said EVERYONE shares the blame
I've also said I welcome this because if it does put us back into a recession (or a economic contraction or whatever you want to call it) then at least we can all finally agree that when we cut government spending while we are still coming out of a recession that it actually hurts the economy
We won't need to hear any more bullshit about how austerity will be good for the economy
Let's just all sit back and see what happens and try to be a little patient
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/keller-obamas-fault.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print
Even the NYT realizes its Obama's FAULT
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/keller-obamas-fault.html?_r=0
The cult of personality are in meltdown now that the Emporer has been exposed.
-
all fine and dandy but you still can't show me any quote claiming "Apocalypse" or that it would happen within days
wasn't that your hilarious joke ?
It's only been a few days and no one is slaying children and other such nonsense?
Obama claimed the cuts would be "immediate, painful, and arbitrary". Last time I checked, four days count as immediate, in the scheme of policy and its effects.
Obama used the apocalypse term to walk back his previous claims. He said there would be no apocalypse, as others have claimed (those others, being from his party, with his leading the drum-beating charge).
He said that March 1. So, what were those claims from Feb. 28 on back?
btw - you said in a prior quote that I was trying to absolve Obama of all blame when I've never done any such thing
I've said EVERYONE shares the blame
I've also said I welcome this because if it does put us back into a recession (or a economic contraction or whatever you want to call it) then at least we can all finally agree that when we cut government spending while we are still coming out of a recession that it actually hurts the economy
We won't need to hear any more bullshit about how austerity will be good for the economy
Let's just all sit back and see what happens and try to be a little patient
We can't be patient. Per Obama's own words, it's immediate, painful, and arbitrary.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/opinion/keller-obamas-fault.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print
Even the NYT realizes its Obama's FAULT
In weather news today, the temperature in the lake of fire hits 20 below zero.
-
;)
-
Obama claimed the cuts would be "immediate, painful, and arbitrary". Last time I checked, four days count as immediate, in the scheme of policy and its effects.
Obama used the apocalypse term to walk back his previous claims. He said there would be no apocalypse, as others have claimed (those others, being from his party, with his leading the drum-beating charge).
He said that March 1. So, what were those claims from Feb. 28 on back?
We can't be patient. Per Obama's own words, it's immediate, painful, and arbitrary.
so still no original claim of "apocalyse" ?
You're just trying to equate "immediate, painful, and arbitrary" as apocalypse
gotcha
like I said, at least when the cuts finally effect the economy we will all be able to agree that cutting government spending hurts the economy though I when that happens you'll have an excuse on why it's not really due to cut in govt spending
-
so still no original claim of "apocalyse" ?
You're just trying to equate "immediate, painful, and arbitrary" as apocalypse
Do you need Lasix or something? I made it clear what Obama said. I quoted the guy, in fact.
gotcha
like I said, at least when the cuts finally effect the economy we will all be able to agree that cutting government spending hurts the economy though I when that happens you'll have an excuse on why it's not really due to cut in govt spending
Wrong again!
Cutting spending helps or hurts, DEPENDING on where the cuts are made. Obama doesn't want to take responsbility to make sure the adverse effects are minimized for one reason: He wants to blame the GOP for his failure of leadership.
He was given the authority to make sure that neither the "poor kid" nor the "disabled kid" would have any government funding cut from them. HE REJECTED IT!!
That tells me he doesn't care how much pain gets inflicted as long as he doesn't get the blame for it.
-
Do you need Lasix or something? I made it clear what Obama said. I quoted the guy, in fact.
Wrong again!
Cutting spending helps or hurts, DEPENDING on where the cuts are made. Obama doesn't want to take responsbility to make sure the adverse effects are minimized for one reason: He wants to blame the GOP for his failure of leadership.
He was given the authority to make sure that neither the "poor kid" nor the "disabled kid" would have any government funding cut from them. HE REJECTED IT!!
That tells me he doesn't care how much pain gets inflicted as long as he doesn't get the blame for it.
feel free to show actual proof of your claims above regarding cuts
btw - I assume since there has been no reported economic damage in last last 4 days that you believe therefore there will be no negative effects on the economy (of course we'll ignore the fact that all economic indicator are historical references by prior months or quarters)
If there have been no "lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn" in the first 4 days then there will obviously be no impact
was that what your joke was meant to imply (btw - I'm not a bible guy like you are so I'm curious is that how the apocalyse is described in the bible)
are you sure there have been no lice, boils or slaying of first born children in the last 4 days?
-
feel free to show actual proof of your claims above regarding cuts
btw - I assume since there has been no reported economic damage in last last 4 days that you believe therefore there will be no negative effects on the economy (of course we'll ignore the fact that all economic indicator are historical references by prior months or quarters)
If there have been no "lice, boils, pestilence, or slaying of the firstborn" in the first 4 days then there will obviously be no impact
was that what your joke was meant to imply (btw - I'm not a bible guy like you are so I'm curious is that how the apocalyse is described in the bible)
NOPE!! What you missed in all of this is the obvious fact that my statements (and others) are shots at Obama and his administration, failing miserably at trying to get the GOP to cave into stopping the sequester and giving them another tax hike.
are you sure there have been no lice, boils or slaying of first born children in the last 4 days?
Not that I've seen and my kids are still alive, well, and boil-free.
But, why tempt fate. If you'llexcuse me, I have some Angle-of-Death prevention to do.
Honey, pass the lamb's blood, please!!
;D
-
Obama looks like absolute shit in this because its his plan, he threatened to veto any changes to it, then fear mongered as if a biblical catastrophe were upon us, and now nothing at all changes but his excuses.
-
NOPE!! What you missed in all of this is the obvious fact that my statements (and others) are shots at Obama and his administration, failing miserably at trying to get the GOP to cave into stopping the sequester and giving them another tax hike.
Not that I've seen and my kids are still alive, well, and boil-free.
But, why tempt fate. If you'llexcuse me, I have some Angle-of-Death prevention to do.
Honey, pass the lamb's blood, please!!
;D
so I guess if no boils or lice on your kids = no apocalyse = no negative impact from spending cuts
is that about how the thought process bubbled up in your head
btw - do you think Obama should take the Repubs offer to control the spending cuts
Isn't it Congress's job to control the "purse strings"
do you see any downside for Obama if he accepts the responsibility for their job?
-
Obama looks like absolute shit in this because its his plan, he threatened to veto any changes to it, then fear mongered as if a biblical catastrophe were upon us, and now nothing at all changes but his excuses.
Yes he does....BUT....
Nobody wants furloughed Federal workers.
Now I know that's self-serving, but the everybody who was around the last time it happened is telling me that when they finally got things hammered out, they got paid for that time anyway.
Meaning...it's a free vacation....or should I say could be.
I understand it's a different time and political climate...but you don't risk the chance of that happening again.
-
Yes he does....BUT....
Nobody wants furloughed Federal workers.
Now I know that's self-serving, but the everybody who was around the last time it happened is telling me that when they finally got things hammered out, they got paid for that time anyway.
Meaning...it's a free vacation....or should I say could be.
I understand it's a different time and political climate...but you don't risk the chance of that happening again.
I bet 333 would
btw - are you a government employee?
-
Explain how Obama is a dictator
If you don't already see it, then there is no point.
-
Maxine Waters:
“Yesterday we did have Mr. Bernanke and our committee, and he came to tell us what he’s doing with quantitative easing and that is trying to stimulate the economy with the bond purchases that he’s been doing because he’s trying to keep the interest rates low and create jobs. And he said that if sequestration takes place, that’s going to be a great setback. We don’t need to be having something like sequestration to cause these job losses. Over 170 million jobs that could be lost.”
http://economiccollapsenews.com/2013/03/04/did-the-sequester-cost-over-170-million-jobs-maxine-waters-says-it-will/
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Maxine Waters:
“Yesterday we did have Mr. Bernanke and our committee, and he came to tell us what he’s doing with quantitative easing and that is trying to stimulate the economy with the bond purchases that he’s been doing because he’s trying to keep the interest rates low and create jobs. And he said that if sequestration takes place, that’s going to be a great setback. We don’t need to be having something like sequestration to cause these job losses. Over 170 million jobs that could be lost.”
http://economiccollapsenews.com/2013/03/04/did-the-sequester-cost-over-170-million-jobs-maxine-waters-says-it-will/
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
This proves that she and her fellow Congressmen have absolutely zero clue about what is really going on with the economy, jobs and this nations finances. Zero clue, there isn't an actual informed thought in her head about these things.
Reading the bold portion of the quote makes me think of a 5 year old child asking their parents about where babies come from or a child going home after school and trying to explain something very simple they learned at school:
-"Uh, momma, Mr. Teacher told us today that, uh, uh, butterflies are really, just, caterpillers that go into these things called, uh, cacoo-somethings and then they, BOOM, come out and are butterflies! yeah!"
This is so very, very sad.
-
"Let me make it clear that this uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively all of our missions," Hagel said.
-
"Let me make it clear that this uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively all of our missions," Hagel said.
Then start getting rid of worthless staff generals, their staff, their limos, their perks and cut back on the DoD's redundant bureaucracy.
-
Feds keep hiring with sequesters in place: 400 jobs posted on first day back
The sequester cuts are now officially in place, but many government agencies appear to be hiring freely anyway.
The U.S. Forest Service on Monday posted help-wanted ads for a few good men and women to work as “recreation aides” this summer, the Internal Revenue Service advertised for an office secretary in Maryland, the U.S. Mint wanted 24 people to help press coins, and the Agriculture Department said it needs three “insect production workers” to help grow bollworms in Phoenix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Democrats pull out race card in sequester game
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday marked the first regular workday under sequestration, and federal agencies posted more than 400 job ads by 6 p.m.
At a time when nearly all of those agencies are contemplating furloughs, the help-wanted ads raised questions about how agencies should decide between saving through attrition or letting people go.
“Every position you don’t fill that isn’t absolutely necessary is one less person that needs to be furloughed,” said Steve Ellis, vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense — though he said some positions that people leave need to be filled in order to meet agencies’ core missions.
Part of the problem is it’s often unclear exactly what those core missions are, said Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University who has studied government organization extensively.
“When you say mission critical, it’s a phrase without meaning,” he said. “Everything’s mission critical. Therefore, we have no way of knowing what would be mission critical in a job description versus what is not.”
He said agencies become “very artful” in writing job descriptions to justify why they are hiring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Even at 2.3%, sequester cuts can cause some pain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Homeland Security Department, which just days ago announced it was releasing some low-priority illegal immigrants from jails to await removal, the agency in charge of deportations advertised for an assistant to help with deportations.
The annual salary for the job is $60,765, enough to detain one immigrant for about 500 days.
An official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency is filling only mission-critical positions and may not end up hiring for every job it advertises.
The sequesters — $85 billion in spending cuts — were set into motion by the 2011 debt deal and imposed across-the-board cuts to most federal agencies. Social Security was spared, and other big entitlements such as Medicare face only minor trims.
Homeland Security officials warned that they would have to furlough airport screeners, and the Defense Department has canceled deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region to save money.
But the Obama administration also faces a decision about how painful it wants the cuts to be. Ahead of the sequesters, when the White House was still hoping for a deal, officials painted the most dire picture possible. Now that the cuts are a reality, the administration must grapple with the possible downside of cutting something critical while spending on something that voters might see as less important.
When it comes to furloughs, Mr. Light, the NYU professor, said it would make sense to use job appraisals to decide which employees to furlough — except that the appraisals aren’t particularly useful anymore.
He said it makes more sense to furlough senior managers and those near retirement, while keeping lower-level workers — those who are doing the enforcement or services such as air traffic controllers — on the job.
“What’s amazing to me about all this is you’ve got the furloughs going on in the agencies and they don’t seem to be linked to anything other than an across-the-board strategy,” Mr. Light said.
About a quarter of the job openings posted by Monday evening were in medical or public health, 67 were in management or clerical services, and another 21 were in information technology.
The Defense Department led the way with 123 jobs posted as of Monday evening, while the Department of Veterans Affairs was close behind with 119 jobs.
The Justice Department, which has issued furlough notices to 115,000 employees, had a handful of job openings, including one to hire “several” law librarians, with annual salaries up to $115,742, and another posting for a student intern to answer phone calls and sort documents for up to $18.97 an hour.
There was one opening for a professor at the Army War College in Pennsylvania, at a salary of up to $115,811 a year. A War College spokeswoman said the professor’s post was deemed critical for their academic mission.
The lowest-paying jobs were working at swimming pools, golf courses and bowling alleys on Army bases. Each of those began at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
An Army spokesman said those jobs are funded through fees paid to those facilities and don’t get taxpayer money.
But that explanation didn’t wash with some watchdogs.
“All money is fungible,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and Congress’s top waste-watcher. “Mobilizing our nation’s aircraft carriers seems to be a more pressing priority than mobilizing our nation’s taxpayer-funded bowling alleys. The administration’s refusal to set priorities continues to make a mockery of their doomsday predictions.”
Mr. Coburn last week called for the government to stop filling low-priority jobs, pointing out a number of openings such as a museum director and 10 new drivers for State Department cars.
The White House at first seemed cool to the idea, but then issued a memo urging offices to be careful about any hires they made. The White House budget office also warned against hiring outside contractors to try to make up for the lost work from federal employees.
The budget office didn’t return messages seeking comment Monday, nor did the U.S. Forest Service or the Army Corps of Engineers.
One decision agencies face is how to handle internships. A number of intern openings were posted Monday, with duties ranging from answering phones to taking part in intensive engineering programs.
The federal Office of Personnel Management said agencies are allowed to make all hiring decisions and furlough decisions and that includes hiring interns, which the office said “is still an important part of an agency meeting its mission.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/4/feds-keep-hiring-with-sequesters-in-place/?page=2#ixzz2MgVYgs8T
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
If you don't already see it, then there is no point.
I'm curious how your brain decided that a democratically elected POTUS is a dictator
If you think he is a dictator then why is he not doing whatever he wants.
Why is he not raising taxes for example. What kind of pussy dictator sits around trying to negotiate with ANYONE in his own country. What kind of dictator acts like that? Why not just take Boehner and McConnell out and have them shot and hang them from the flag pole in front of the White House
fucking moron
-
I'm curious how your brain decided that a democratically elected POTUS is a dictator
If you think he is a dictator then why is he not doing whatever he wants.
Why is he not raising taxes for example. What kind of pussy dictator sits around trying to negotiate with ANYONE in his own country. What kind of dictator acts like that? Why not just take Boehner and McConnell out and have them shot and hang them from the flag pole in front of the White House
fucking moron
-
Let me guess, Bad Boy Dazza is one of your gimmicks?
how is the new job going?
-
Let me guess, Bad Boy Dazza is one of your gimmicks?
how is the new job going?
No gimmicks.
O-twink looks like absolute shit in this sequester thing.
-
Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Updated: 1:38 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Obama administration denied an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester’s effects, with an email this week appearing to show officials in Washington that because they already had promised the cuts would be devastating, they now have to follow through on that.
In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Democrats pull out race card in sequester game
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain,” said Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas Republican.
Mr. Brown, the official who sent the email and who is eastern regional director for wildlife services at APHIS, didn’t immediately return a call Tuesday afternoon seeking comment.
APHIS is an agency within the Agriculture Department, and on Tuesday department Secretary Tom Vilsack was challenged on the email at a House committee hearing by Rep. Kristi Noem, who said she hoped the department wouldn’t tie agencies’ hands.
Mr. Vilsack said he hadn’t seen the email, but said agencies are supposed to be trying to find ways to manage the impact of the cuts.
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way,” the secretary testified. “There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Airports to Janet Napolitano: You’re wrong about delays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration earlier had warned that supplies of beef, pork and poultry could drop this year because slaughterhouse inspectors will have to be furloughed, and under federal law meat can’t be processed without inspectors present.
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing flexibility in order to justify dire predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward,” the South Dakota Republican congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.
The $85 billion in sequesters began Friday, and have hit most of the federal government, where employees will face furloughs.
But even amid the cuts, APHIS is still hiring new employees and interns.
Since Sunday the agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads including 22 student internships, one ad seeking a clerk in a New York office, and one ad seeking three “insect production workers” to grow bollworms in Phoenix.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2Mh991rdE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
The Angel of Death is already at your house, mine, and everyone elses and is residing at 1600 PA Ave.
Just smear a little blood on your door and it will move on... ;)
-
Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Updated: 1:38 p.m. on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Obama administration denied an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester’s effects, with an email this week appearing to show officials in Washington that because they already had promised the cuts would be devastating, they now have to follow through on that.
In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Democrats pull out race card in sequester game
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain,” said Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas Republican.
Mr. Brown, the official who sent the email and who is eastern regional director for wildlife services at APHIS, didn’t immediately return a call Tuesday afternoon seeking comment.
APHIS is an agency within the Agriculture Department, and on Tuesday department Secretary Tom Vilsack was challenged on the email at a House committee hearing by Rep. Kristi Noem, who said she hoped the department wouldn’t tie agencies’ hands.
Mr. Vilsack said he hadn’t seen the email, but said agencies are supposed to be trying to find ways to manage the impact of the cuts.
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way,” the secretary testified. “There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Airports to Janet Napolitano: You’re wrong about delays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration earlier had warned that supplies of beef, pork and poultry could drop this year because slaughterhouse inspectors will have to be furloughed, and under federal law meat can’t be processed without inspectors present.
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing flexibility in order to justify dire predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward,” the South Dakota Republican congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.
The $85 billion in sequesters began Friday, and have hit most of the federal government, where employees will face furloughs.
But even amid the cuts, APHIS is still hiring new employees and interns.
Since Sunday the agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads including 22 student internships, one ad seeking a clerk in a New York office, and one ad seeking three “insect production workers” to grow bollworms in Phoenix.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2Mh991rdE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
I thought Obama and his buddies cared about the middle-class. I thought they wanted to save them from famine, pestilence, and plague.
Now, they're telling folks to INTENTIONALLY make the American people suffer, all for Obama's glory.
-
March 5, 2013
The Powerless Presidency
Posted by Ryan Lizza
Last Friday’s press conference by Barack Obama marked the end of an era. It was March 1st, the day that the sequester was set to kick in, and the President had just come from a meeting with congressional leaders in the Oval Office. On the eve of previous fiscal deadlines, the White House and Congress often found a way to reach a deal, even if it was only a patchwork solution or a temporary fix. Not this time.
A deal on the sequester was never really possible. Back in January, in return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for a few months, conservative House Republicans demanded that their leaders, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, allow the trillion dollars of cuts in the sequester to take effect. The White House, which wanted additional revenue as part of the replacement for the sequester, saw the G.O.P.’s all-cuts approach as a nonstarter, which means that sequestration is likely here to stay. (I wrote about the House G.O.P.’s road to the sequester in an article about Cantor last week.) When one considers that the alternative scenario was for House Republicans to precipitate a government default and a potential global financial crisis, the sequester cuts and the estimated three-quarters of a million jobs that they will cost this year are not so bad.
At Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.
Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”
Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.
A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:
I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….
This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.
The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!
The pundits are not alone in assuming that the President is all-powerful. Indeed, the fact that Barack Obama now so appreciates the limits of his office and his lack of Jedi powers is rich with irony. As I’ve written about before, the premise of Obamaism— from his famous convention speech in 2004, through his primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, in 2008, right up until the later half of his first term—was that Obama was a politician uniquely suited to transform American politics by breaking through the polarization in Washington and bringing the two parties together.
Obama’s theme of post-partisanship and unity as a substitute for political ideology has always had its critics. Sean Wilentz, writing in The New Republic, in 2011, noted that Obama
had arrived on the national stage, after all, with his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 proclaiming that there was “not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America.”
As president, Obama would not only reach across the aisle, listen to the Republicans, and credit their good ideas, but also demonstrate that the division between the parties was exaggerated if not false, as many Americans, younger voters above all, fervently believed. Divisive and hot-tempered partisanship would give way to healing and temperate leadership, not least by means of Obama’s eloquence, rational policies, and good faith.
Needless to say, that didn’t happen. In reviewing the history of the politics of post-partisanship, Wilentz argues that Presidents who have used post-partisanship as merely a rhetorical device have been more successful than those who truly believed in the idea.
That Obama, who started his Presidency as a true believer, has now given up on the idea that he has any special powers to change the minds of his fiercest critics is probably a good thing. His devotion to post-partisan governance has long fed two mistaken ideas: that the differences between the parties are minor, and that divided government is inherently good for the country.
A fundamental fact of modern political life is that the only way to advance a coherent agenda in Washington is through partisan dominance. When Obama had large Democratic majorities in Congress during his first two years in office, he led one of the most successful legislative periods in modern history. After he lost the House, his agenda froze and the current status quo of serial fiscal crises began. Like it or not, for many years, Washington has been most productive when one party controlled both Congress and the White House.
The boring fact of our system is that congressional math is the best predictor of a President’s success. This idea is not nearly as sexy as the notion that great Presidents are great because they twist arms in backrooms and inspire the American people to rise up and force Congress to bend to their will. But even the Presidents who are remembered for their relentless congressional lobbying and socializing were more often than not successful for more mundane reasons—like arithmetic.
Lyndon Johnson’s celebrated legislative achievements were in reality only a function of the congressional election results—not his powers of persuasion. In 1965 and 1966, after the enormous Democratic gains of the 1964 election, Johnson was a towering figure who passed sweeping legislation. In 1967 and 1968, after he lost forty-eight Democrats in the House, he was a midget.
Each President is conflicted about how much to advertise the limits of his power. On one hand, pretending the office is more powerful than it is can have some benefits; in politics, perception is often reality. But, as Obama seems to have learned, reminding the public of the limits of the office can also help keep expectations more realistic.
Given all this, it’s depressing but not entirely surprising that there are already stories about the White House looking beyond the current Congress, and focussing on winning back the House in 2014, so that Obama’s last two years in office can be spent working with a Democratic majority. At his press conference on Friday, Obama hinted as much. He told reporters that while he can’t “force Congress to do the right thing,” perhaps “the American people may have the capacity to do that.”
Photograph by Charles Dharapak/AP.
.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/03/the-powerless-presidency.html#ixzz2MhYQMReM
-
“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way,” the secretary testified. “There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Airports to Janet Napolitano: You’re wrong about delays
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration earlier had warned that supplies of beef, pork and poultry could drop this year because slaughterhouse inspectors will have to be furloughed, and under federal law meat can’t be processed without inspectors present.
Ms. Noem told Mr. Vilsack the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing flexibility in order to justify dire predictions.
“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward,” the South Dakota Republican congresswoman told Mr. Vilsack.
The $85 billion in sequesters began Friday, and have hit most of the federal government, where employees will face furloughs.
But even amid the cuts, APHIS is still hiring new employees and interns.
Since Sunday the agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads including 22 student internships, one ad seeking a clerk in a New York office, and one ad seeking three “insect production workers” to grow bollworms in Phoenix.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2Mh991rdE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
So with a reduced supply, the prices will go up = less purchasing power for your dollars.
Time to go vegetarian. :D
-
March 5, 2013
The Powerless Presidency
Posted by Ryan Lizza
Last Friday’s press conference by Barack Obama marked the end of an era. It was March 1st, the day that the sequester was set to kick in, and the President had just come from a meeting with congressional leaders in the Oval Office. On the eve of previous fiscal deadlines, the White House and Congress often found a way to reach a deal, even if it was only a patchwork solution or a temporary fix. Not this time.
A deal on the sequester was never really possible. Back in January, in return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for a few months, conservative House Republicans demanded that their leaders, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, allow the trillion dollars of cuts in the sequester to take effect. The White House, which wanted additional revenue as part of the replacement for the sequester, saw the G.O.P.’s all-cuts approach as a nonstarter, which means that sequestration is likely here to stay. (I wrote about the House G.O.P.’s road to the sequester in an article about Cantor last week.) When one considers that the alternative scenario was for House Republicans to precipitate a government default and a potential global financial crisis, the sequester cuts and the estimated three-quarters of a million jobs that they will cost this year are not so bad.
At Obama’s press conference, after he explained the negative effects of sequestration, he cast blame on the Republicans, and a reporter challenged his analysis. “It sounds like you’re saying that this is a Republican problem and not one that you bear any responsibility for,” she said to the President.
Obama seemed taken aback. “Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do.”
Obama’s slightly testy response is worth considering. I don’t remember a President ever publicly expressing a similar sentiment. All Presidents come to appreciate the limits of the power of their office, and there are reams of quotes from Presidents privately expressing disdain for Congress’s unwillingness to bend to their will. But rarely do they ventilate such thoughts in public.
A little later, Obama, using a reference from “Star Wars” (with some “Star Trek” mixed in), went even further, giving a short lesson on the separation of powers:
I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right. Well, they’re elected. We have a constitutional system of government. The Speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate and all those folks have responsibilities….
This idea that somehow there’s a secret formula or secret sauce to get Speaker Boehner or Mitch McConnell to say, You know what, Mr. President, you’re right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and spending cuts of programs we don’t need. I think if there was a secret way to do that, I would have tried it. I would have done it.
The tendency of many Washington pundits, especially those who cover the White House, is to invest the Presidency with far more power that the Constitution gives it. The idea that the Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government is the most basic fact of our system, and yet it is often absent from political coverage of standoffs between the two branches. If only Obama would lead, this fiscal mess would be solved! If only he would socialize more with legislators the way L.B.J. did, his agenda would pass!
The pundits are not alone in assuming that the President is all-powerful. Indeed, the fact that Barack Obama now so appreciates the limits of his office and his lack of Jedi powers is rich with irony. As I’ve written about before, the premise of Obamaism— from his famous convention speech in 2004, through his primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, in 2008, right up until the later half of his first term—was that Obama was a politician uniquely suited to transform American politics by breaking through the polarization in Washington and bringing the two parties together.
Obama’s theme of post-partisanship and unity as a substitute for political ideology has always had its critics. Sean Wilentz, writing in The New Republic, in 2011, noted that Obama
had arrived on the national stage, after all, with his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 proclaiming that there was “not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America.”
As president, Obama would not only reach across the aisle, listen to the Republicans, and credit their good ideas, but also demonstrate that the division between the parties was exaggerated if not false, as many Americans, younger voters above all, fervently believed. Divisive and hot-tempered partisanship would give way to healing and temperate leadership, not least by means of Obama’s eloquence, rational policies, and good faith.
Needless to say, that didn’t happen. In reviewing the history of the politics of post-partisanship, Wilentz argues that Presidents who have used post-partisanship as merely a rhetorical device have been more successful than those who truly believed in the idea.
That Obama, who started his Presidency as a true believer, has now given up on the idea that he has any special powers to change the minds of his fiercest critics is probably a good thing. His devotion to post-partisan governance has long fed two mistaken ideas: that the differences between the parties are minor, and that divided government is inherently good for the country.
A fundamental fact of modern political life is that the only way to advance a coherent agenda in Washington is through partisan dominance. When Obama had large Democratic majorities in Congress during his first two years in office, he led one of the most successful legislative periods in modern history. After he lost the House, his agenda froze and the current status quo of serial fiscal crises began. Like it or not, for many years, Washington has been most productive when one party controlled both Congress and the White House.
The boring fact of our system is that congressional math is the best predictor of a President’s success. This idea is not nearly as sexy as the notion that great Presidents are great because they twist arms in backrooms and inspire the American people to rise up and force Congress to bend to their will. But even the Presidents who are remembered for their relentless congressional lobbying and socializing were more often than not successful for more mundane reasons—like arithmetic.
Lyndon Johnson’s celebrated legislative achievements were in reality only a function of the congressional election results—not his powers of persuasion. In 1965 and 1966, after the enormous Democratic gains of the 1964 election, Johnson was a towering figure who passed sweeping legislation. In 1967 and 1968, after he lost forty-eight Democrats in the House, he was a midget.
Each President is conflicted about how much to advertise the limits of his power. On one hand, pretending the office is more powerful than it is can have some benefits; in politics, perception is often reality. But, as Obama seems to have learned, reminding the public of the limits of the office can also help keep expectations more realistic.
Given all this, it’s depressing but not entirely surprising that there are already stories about the White House looking beyond the current Congress, and focussing on winning back the House in 2014, so that Obama’s last two years in office can be spent working with a Democratic majority. At his press conference on Friday, Obama hinted as much. He told reporters that while he can’t “force Congress to do the right thing,” perhaps “the American people may have the capacity to do that.”
Photograph by Charles Dharapak/AP.
.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/03/the-powerless-presidency.html#ixzz2MhYQMReM
so he's a powerless president yet somehow also a ruthless communist dictator
do you see now why people think you're crazy?
-
This post just helped me determine that you have a very low IQ. Please do not talk to me.
I'm curious how your brain decided that a democratically elected POTUS is a dictator
If you think he is a dictator then why is he not doing whatever he wants.
Why is he not raising taxes for example. What kind of pussy dictator sits around trying to negotiate with ANYONE in his own country. What kind of dictator acts like that? Why not just take Boehner and McConnell out and have them shot and hang them from the flag pole in front of the White House
fucking moron
-
This post just helped me determine that you have a very low IQ. Please do not talk to me.
LOL - I'll make you a deal
If you stop saying moronic shit then I'll stop asking you to explain the moronic shit that you said
deal?