Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 23, 2014, 10:59:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama melting down now that his Sequester Plan might actually happen. LOL!!!!!  (Read 882 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« on: February 19, 2013, 02:09:56 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/obama-sequester-speech_n_2716921.html


LMFAO!!!

Blame blame blame blame 

blame blame 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2013, 02:21:55 PM »

.








WASHINGTON -- With less than two weeks until $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts will begin to take effect, President Barack Obama on Tuesday gave another push to Congress to pass his proposal to offset the sequester through spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy -- an approach that still lacks Republican support.

"Our top priority must be to do everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs," Obama said during remarks at the White House, standing alongside a group of emergency responders. "That's why it's so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite."

Obama ticked off how "brutal" the cuts would be if lawmakers allow "this meat cleaver approach to take place." Among other things, they would hurt military readiness, slash investments in energy and medical research, result in thousands of teacher layoffs, and degrade the ability of emergency responders to respond to disasters, he said, motioning to the people behind him.

The solution, he continued, is for Congress to pass his proposal to offset the sequester with targeted spending cuts and by closing tax loopholes through comprehensive tax reform. Senate Democrats unveiled a proposal last week that reflects Obama's plan.

If lawmakers can't get get an agreement by next Friday, "At minimum, Congress should pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms ... to give them time to work together on a plan that finishes the job of deficit reduction in a sensible way," he said.

Obama dismissed the alternative solutions Republicans have put forward because they don't include the "balanced" approach of spending cuts with new tax revenue. He reiterated that he won't sign any legislation that doesn't include both pieces.

Republicans "ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is all on first responders or seniors or middle-class families," Obama said. "They double down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that Ive outlined."

"Republicans in Congress face a simple choice," the president added. "Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations?"

But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed back on Obama's speech almost immediately, saying the president is putting forth a proposal that simply echoes old calls for higher taxes.

"Just last month, the president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he's already back for more," Boehner said in a statement, referring to the fiscal cliff deal that let the Bush-era tax cuts expire on income about $400,000.

"The American people understand that the revenue debate is now closed," he said. "We should close loopholes and carve-outs in the tax code, but that revenue should be used to lower rates across the board. Tax reform is a once-in-a generation opportunity to boost job creation in America. It should not be squandered to enable more Washington spending. Spending is the problem, spending must be the focus."


________________________ _____________


LMFAO - maybe is this kenyan scumbag did his job instead of partying w tiger woods, smoking pot, crack, choomes, drinking like a fish and laying about he would not be faced w this. 
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2013, 02:27:02 PM »

As usual, Obama whines about what he wants, GETS IT, then blubbers when his plan blows up in his face.

He wanted the sequester; he'll get it in a week and a half.

This is all about demonizing the Republicans, to help the Dems win the House back in 2014. Of course, should that actually happen, what will the Dems' excuse be for failing while they completely control Washington (as was the case Obama's first two years)?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2013, 02:37:40 PM »

As usual, Obama whines about what he wants, GETS IT, then blubbers when his plan blows up in his face.

He wanted the sequester; he'll get it in a week and a half.

This is all about demonizing the Republicans, to help the Dems win the House back in 2014. Of course, should that actually happen, what will the Dems' excuse be for failing while they completely control Washington (as was the case Obama's first two years)?

Th libs are even slamming Obama on HP over this.

Report to moderator   Logged
doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3015


Rum Ham


« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2013, 02:51:08 PM »

As usual, Obama whines about what he wants, GETS IT, then blubbers when his plan blows up in his face.

He wanted the sequester; he'll get it in a week and a half.

This is all about demonizing the Republicans, to help the Dems win the House back in 2014. Of course, should that actually happen, what will the Dems' excuse be for failing while they completely control Washington (as was the case Obama's first two years)?

That it will take more than a few presidential terms to fix what Bush caused.
Report to moderator   Logged

MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2013, 03:07:41 PM »

That it will take more than a few presidential terms to fix what Bush caused.

Obama said he could fix it in ONE term. And, if Bush cased it, he had plenty of help from the Democrats, particularly in the last two years of his presidency.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2013, 03:10:12 PM »

Obama said he could fix it in ONE term. And, if Bush cased it, he had plenty of help from the Democrats, particularly in the last two years of his presidency.

I think he was being sarcastic
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2013, 03:11:31 PM »

When this deal was done Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted so I have to assume Reps are happy with the sequester which is odd that they are trying to characterize as Obamas sequester"

I assume all the deficit hawks on this board are happy with it
too.

you've been screaming for spending cuts and now you are going to get them.

of course many/most of you claim that spending cuts are actually going to help the economy even though its almost certain it will hurt the economy but then we know Repubs are happy when they harm the economy so you should be happy either way.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2013, 03:12:53 PM »

When this deal was done Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted so I have to assume Reps are happy with the sequester which is odd that they are trying to characterize as Obamas sequester"

I assume all the deficit hawks on this board are happy with it
too.

you've been screaming for spending cuts and now you are going to get them.

of course many/most of you claim that spending cuts are actually going to help the economy even though its almost certain it will hurt the economy but then we know Repubs are happy when they harm the economy so you should be happy either way.

We need to reduce spending and reduce taxes.   

This mess is on obama - he recommended it and signed the bill. 

He can now eat it 
Report to moderator   Logged
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11975



« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2013, 03:46:44 PM »

That it will take more than a few presidential terms to fix what Bush caused.


Ha-ha...GOLD!! Wink
But, don't say that too loud. You don't want to give them any ideas.

Although, they're just as sure to concoct something that preposterous all on their own.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2013, 03:52:08 PM »

We need to reduce spending and reduce taxes.   

This mess is on obama - he recommended it and signed the bill. 

He can now eat it 

I know you believe that but try to keep in mind that you're a moron

If the sequester hurts the economy (which it will but again, I don't expect you to understand that or even care) the public will blame and punish Repubs

Since you hate this country I doubt you give a rats ass either way

The only good thing about the sequester is that the dumbfounded dipshits on the right will get a basic lesson in economics (although likely they won't be able to understand what happened)
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2013, 04:05:37 PM »

I know you believe that but try to keep in mind that you're a moron

If the sequester hurts the economy (which it will but again, I don't expect you to understand that or even care) the public will blame and punish Repubs

Since you hate this country I doubt you give a rats ass either way

The only good thing about the sequester is that the dumbfounded dipshits on the right will get a basic lesson in economics (although likely they won't be able to understand what happened)

You've consistently proven you know jack shit about economics, post office boy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2013, 04:11:41 PM »

You've consistently proven you know jack shit about economics, post office boy.

I've forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know sonny

have you managed to move out of your parents house yet?
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5547


Getbig!


« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2013, 04:12:30 PM »

If it hurts the economy the GOP will lose votes.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2013, 04:18:05 PM »

When this deal was done Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted so I have to assume Reps are happy with the sequester which is odd that they are trying to characterize as Obamas sequester"

I assume all the deficit hawks on this board are happy with it
too.

you've been screaming for spending cuts and now you are going to get them.

of course many/most of you claim that spending cuts are actually going to help the economy even though its almost certain it will hurt the economy but then we know Repubs are happy when they harm the economy so you should be happy either way.

No one is trying to characterize this as Obama's sequester. IT IS Obama's sequester. Now, he wants nothing to do with it. But, that's to be expected, Obama trying to escape responsibility for his policies.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2013, 04:24:14 PM »

No one is trying to characterize this as Obama's sequester. IT IS Obama's sequester. Now, he wants nothing to do with it. But, that's to be expected, Obama trying to escape responsibility for his policies.


Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted and plenty of Repubs voted for the sequester so if you want to believe it 100% Obama's then go right ahead

It would be par for the course with all your other delusions

You seem to have gotten even more detached from reality since the election

Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2013, 04:42:03 PM »

Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted and plenty of Repubs voted for the sequester so if you want to believe it 100% Obama's then go right ahead

It would be par for the course with all your other delusions

You seem to have gotten even more detached from reality since the election



Who signed the sequester into law, genius? OBAMA, not Boehner, OBAMA!!

President Barack Obama gave a press conference after the Supercommittee officially admitted it failed to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion in budget spending over the next 10 years.  Obama told reporters he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts which are set to kick in as a part of the sequester proposition, which will be triggered unless Congress reaches over the next year.

Obama's own words, "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/11/21/obama-i-will-veto-attempts-to-get-rid-of-automatic-spending-cuts/

The delusions fall on YOU, once again making excuses for yet another Obama policy, falling on its face.

Maybe you need to watch SchoolHouse Rock and review how bills become laws.  This idea of yours that Obama doesn't own laws he signed, if the GOP agree with him, is ludicrous.
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5563


« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2013, 04:47:45 PM »

When this deal was done Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted so I have to assume Reps are happy with the sequester which is odd that they are trying to characterize as Obamas sequester"

I assume all the deficit hawks on this board are happy with it
too.

you've been screaming for spending cuts and now you are going to get them.

of course many/most of you claim that spending cuts are actually going to help the economy even though its almost certain it will hurt the economy but then we know Repubs are happy when they harm the economy so you should be happy either way.

Government spending is only counted in GDP when it favors the sitting office to do so.  It accounts for little to zero "real growth" in the actually economy however.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2013, 04:53:21 PM »

Government spending is only counted in GDP when it favors the sitting office to do so.  It accounts for little to zero "real growth" in the actually economy however.

really, so they just selectively add/remove it from GDP as it pleases them ?

do you have any source for this claim
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25260



« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2013, 08:58:05 PM »

really, so they just selectively add/remove it from GDP as it pleases them ?

do you have any source for this claim
Who signed the sequester into law, genius? OBAMA, not Boehner, OBAMA!!

President Barack Obama gave a press conference after the Supercommittee officially admitted it failed to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion in budget spending over the next 10 years.  Obama told reporters he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts which are set to kick in as a part of the sequester proposition, which will be triggered unless Congress reaches over the next year.

Obama's own words, "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/11/21/obama-i-will-veto-attempts-to-get-rid-of-automatic-spending-cuts/

The delusions fall on YOU, once again making excuses for yet another Obama policy, falling on its face.

Maybe you need to watch SchoolHouse Rock and review how bills become laws.  This idea of yours that Obama doesn't own laws he signed, if the GOP agree with him, is ludicrous.
here you go straw and please dont try and lecture ppl on finance or economics youre a small step above jaguarenterprises in that area...and its a very small step
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2013, 08:59:24 PM »

So Obama signing this means he wants to harm the economy? 

I know you believe that but try to keep in mind that you're a moron

If the sequester hurts the economy (which it will but again, I don't expect you to understand that or even care) the public will blame and punish Repubs

Since you hate this country I doubt you give a rats ass either way

The only good thing about the sequester is that the dumbfounded dipshits on the right will get a basic lesson in economics (although likely they won't be able to understand what happened)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9291


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2013, 09:15:52 PM »

President Obama on the sequester cuts - November 21, 2011
 
My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.




Obama = Lying pofs 
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2013, 10:11:55 PM »

here you go straw and please dont try and lecture ppl on finance or economics youre a small step above jaguarenterprises in that area...and its a very small step

perfect example of why this board is a complete waste of my time

tell me what you think you are saying by this post

what are you implying

something about the sequester
govt spending
the gdp

be specific professor

Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2013, 10:52:32 AM »

perfect example of why this board is a complete waste of my time

tell me what you think you are saying by this post

what are you implying

something about the sequester
govt spending
the gdp

be specific professor

Basically, he's saying what I'm saying: Your attempts to absolve Obama from any responsibility for the sequester is pitiful.

HE signed it into law. HE said over a year ago that he would VETO any attempts to stop the sequester.

Now, he's going to get what he wants and he's panicking, because some of HIS constituents are going to get hit.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25521


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2013, 11:17:37 AM »

Basically, he's saying what I'm saying: Your attempts to absolve Obama from any responsibility for the sequester is pitiful.

HE signed it into law. HE said over a year ago that he would VETO any attempts to stop the sequester.

Now, he's going to get what he wants and he's panicking, because some of HIS constituents are going to get hit.

Emmortal is the one who wrote

Government spending is only counted in GDP when it favors the sitting office to do so.  It accounts for little to zero "real growth" in the actually economy however.

I still haven't see him or Tony or You explain what Emmortal meant by this statement.  Does he think that in the past the office of the POTUS can "take" spending in or out out of the calculation of GDP at their discretion ?   That's what he seems to be saying though he has yet to explain why he believes this to be true

Tony also has yet to explain what he thinks Emmortal was saying

You on the other hand haven't even attempted to explain what Emmortal said about the calculation of GDP and instead are making a totally different (though equally ridiculous claim) that when a POTUS signs a law (in this case The Budget Control Act of 2011) that he becomes the sole owner of that legislation and anyone else who helped write it, support it or voted for it no longer has any responsibility for it's creation

I guess with that logic we can put sole blame for the Patriot Act on President Bush

Now, back to the Budget Control Act of 2011.  Why would Obama simply choose to cave into Repubs who failed to reach an agreement on a way to reduce the deficit during the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.   That's what created sequestration in the first place so why would he reward their recalcitrance by simply vetoing the part they don't like

BTW - this all goes back to your DELUSION that Obama OWNS the sequestration.   I know you believe that but the rest of the country does not share you delusion (refer back to the last election as a point of reference).   If massive spending cuts go into place due to the Repubs unwillingness to DO THEIR JOB OF GOVERNING it will be their party that is harmed (along with the country of course but we know Repubs don't give a rats ass about the country)
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!