Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 22, 2014, 11:15:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Flashback: Obama threatens to veto any effort to remove the sequester  (Read 1121 times)
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


« on: February 22, 2013, 12:49:56 PM »

Obama pledges to veto effort to undo automatic spending cuts

President Obama is promising to veto any effort to undo the automatic spending cuts that are set to take effect now that the congressional supercommittee has announced its failure to strike a deal to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "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.," he added. (watch at left)
The president's statement came about an hour after the chairs of the bipartisan supercommittee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas., officially announced that they would be unable to reach a deal, citing an inability to bridge "significant differences."

"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," said Hensarling and Murray in a joint statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329146-503544/obama-pledges-to-veto-effort-to-undo-automatic-spending-cuts/
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25226


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 12:57:58 PM »

no shit

why would he cave in and undo the spending cuts the Republicans negotiated for and said they wanted

why would he let them off the hook
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8642


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 01:31:16 PM »

no shit

why would he cave in and undo the spending cuts the Republicans negotiated for and said they wanted

why would he let them off the hook

He is the one melting down w the fear tactics while on the golf course w oil executives and tiger woods.

Time to pay the piper O-TWINK! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25226


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 01:38:36 PM »

He is the one melting down w the fear tactics while on the golf course w oil executives and tiger woods.

Time to pay the piper O-TWINK! 

Anytime you say Obama/Libs are melting down it means that no one is melting down or Repubs are melting down

You, of course, are in a permanent 24/7 meltdown

You're allegedly a lawyer.  Is it common practice for you to negotiate a settlement or agreement and then immediately nullify it and give the other side whatever they want ?
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25220



« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 01:46:02 PM »

no shit

why would he cave in and undo the spending cuts the Republicans negotiated for and said they wanted

why would he let them off the hook
Lol so he said he wouldn't sign it without it bc he didn't want to let the reps off the hook for something they sai they wanted and now he is saying he doesn't want it?

Does that make sense in your feable mind?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25226


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 01:48:53 PM »

Lol so he said he wouldn't sign it without it bc he didn't want to let the reps off the hook for something they sai they wanted and now he is saying he doesn't want it?

Does that make sense in your feable mind?

if he doesn't want it then he would veto it

obviously what he wants it what was negotiated to begin with but that the Repubs are now backing off on (like the lying sacks of shit we've known them to be for years now)

Repubs want sequestration even less then Dems or Obama but Repubs are fine harming the country on the (very stupid) gambit that it will help their party

That shit just doesn't work any more

The public is too smart (not you and 333 of course) to fall for that crap again

Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 01:55:43 PM »

Lol so he said he wouldn't sign it without it bc he didn't want to let the reps off the hook for something they sai they wanted and now he is saying he doesn't want it?

Does that make sense in your feable mind?

the fucking sequester is a product of the gop forcing near default you twit.  Combined with massive GOP support in the house, in fact it was only GOP support in the house.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8642


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 02:11:34 PM »

the fucking sequester is a product of the gop forcing near default you twit.  Combined with massive GOP support in the house, in fact it was only GOP support in the house.

Maybe if O-TWINK was not spending us out of house and home we would not have to revisit this issue every few months?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25226


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 02:16:08 PM »

How can Repubs stop being the Stupid Party when most of the members are fucking morons

If you're a fucking moron you can't just stop and suddenly become smart or even just have normal intelligence

This thread is proof of that

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD18ybMDYiI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD18ybMDYiI</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 02:17:45 PM »

Maybe if O-TWINK was not spending us out of house and home we would not have to revisit this issue every few months?

Dude, you are out to lunch. The biggest source of said spending the the bush wars, which were passed via the budget of 2008 before Obama took office, massively increasing Obama's said spending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955561.html

Obama has actually cut the defecit significantly and is nothing like you portray. He spends far less then bush, way way less.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 02:24:50 PM »

Maybe if O-TWINK was not spending us out of house and home we would not have to revisit this issue every few months?

here you go sweety

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

"All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year for which we assign most of the increase to Bush the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent."

so what happened here is that bush spent like he was drunk, much higher then obama.

yet no debt issues? no showdowns? how many times did bush raise the ceiling? you hypocrite.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8642


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 02:40:03 PM »

here you go sweety

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

"All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year for which we assign most of the increase to Bush the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent."

so what happened here is that bush spent like he was drunk, much higher then obama.

yet no debt issues? no showdowns? how many times did bush raise the ceiling? you hypocrite.



So he kept spending at bush levels?   And if he ended the iraq war - where are the savings as the deficit is still over a trillion a year? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8642


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 02:48:48 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWQQVRTCeMk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWQQVRTCeMk</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16009


Getbig!


« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 02:59:03 PM »

if he doesn't want it then he would veto it

obviously what he wants it what was negotiated to begin with but that the Repubs are now backing off on (like the lying sacks of shit we've known them to be for years now)

Repubs want sequestration even less then Dems or Obama but Repubs are fine harming the country on the (very stupid) gambit that it will help their party

That shit just doesn't work any more

The public is too smart (not you and 333 of course) to fall for that crap again



Are you HIGH? Obama signed it into law over a year ago. He CANNOT veto it now.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 03:43:02 PM »

So he kept spending at bush levels?   And if he ended the iraq war - where are the savings as the deficit is still over a trillion a year? 

slightly lower actually. However, revenues were at an all time low accounting for the issues with the deficit. Not all the issues, spending needs to be cut but revenues are far to low. Tax loopholes and havens need to be removed, I can't think of one reason why not.

Bush had one year that was close to triple any of Obama's also.

Obama has cut into the debt and CBO projections indicate it to b3 500billion by the end of 2013.

He is not a spending mad man, he actual is a conservative on fiscal issues as far as I can tell with left leanings socially.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25220



« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 04:51:03 PM »

the fucking sequester is a product of the gop forcing near default you twit.  Combined with massive GOP support in the house, in fact it was only GOP support in the house.
if it was only a GOP idea and only had GOP support why did obama threaten to veto any bill without it?

doesnt make any sense
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6476



« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2013, 04:56:30 PM »

slightly lower actually. However, revenues were at an all time low accounting for the issues with the deficit. Not all the issues, spending needs to be cut but revenues are far to low. Tax loopholes and havens need to be removed, I can't think of one reason why not.

Bush had one year that was close to triple any of Obama's also.

Obama has cut into the debt and CBO projections indicate it to b3 500billion by the end of 2013.

He is not a spending mad man, he actual is a conservative on fiscal issues as far as I can tell with left leanings socially.




As usual, your 8 year old reading comprehension has gotten in your way.

Did you even read your own link moron?

Obama ADDED to 2009 spending and it's INCREASED every year since.


From your own link tard:

"Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly."



And claiming that he didn't increase as much as Bush increased as a percentage is a non-sense argument.  Bush was a big spender.  Obama is a big spender - and Barry isn't even fighting a war in Iraq.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2013, 05:57:56 PM »

if it was only a GOP idea and only had GOP support why did obama threaten to veto any bill without it?

doesnt make any sense

it is something that frankly I think was a good idea, it should have forced the super committee to get their shit together.

It's obama and the gop's issue as I have stated. It's not Obama's sequester as everyone is stating. This wouldn't have happened without the debt issues.

Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25220



« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2013, 06:00:56 PM »

it is something that frankly I think was a good idea, it should have forced the super committee to get their shit together.

It's obama and the gop's issue as I have stated. It's not Obama's sequester as everyone is stating. This wouldn't have happened without the debt issues.
no no no brain child up until now you have ranted and raved about how the sequester was the fault of the GOP...

so youre backing off that stance now?
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2013, 06:02:43 PM »




As usual, your 8 year old reading comprehension has gotten in your way.

Did you even read your own link moron?

Obama ADDED to 2009 spending and it's INCREASED every year since.


From your own link tard:

"Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly."



And claiming that he didn't increase as much as Bush increased as a percentage is a non-sense argument.  Bush was a big spender.  Obama is a big spender - and Barry isn't even fighting a war in Iraq.



"Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year."

read the total paragraph. My point for posting this which was lost on you, no wonder, was that 33 claimed the debt ceiling wouldn't have been needed if Obama wasn't spending the US out of house and home. He is not, he has spent similar to Bush's average years and this year appears to be significantly down.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8352


« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2013, 06:05:45 PM »

no no no brain child up until now you have ranted and raved about how the sequester was the fault of the GOP...

so youre backing off that stance now?

the sequester is the fault of the GOP, yes. The idea of the sequester and responsibility for it occuring now is both parties.

This issue wouldn't have occurred had the GOP not pushed the US to the brink. However, Obama supported it and so did the house.

I tend to think the issue is more complex then "Obama's sequester" or vice versa.

I have said in numerous threads this is truly a GOP created issue as the cause of it was the debt issue. Obama however by signing it into law requires blame. I think it was a good idea however.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25220



« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2013, 06:12:39 PM »

the sequester is the fault of the GOP, yes. The idea of the sequester and responsibility for it occuring now is both parties.

This issue wouldn't have occurred had the GOP not pushed the US to the brink. However, Obama supported it and so did the house.

I tend to think the issue is more complex then "Obama's sequester" or vice versa.

I have said in numerous threads this is truly a GOP created issue as the cause of it was the debt issue. Obama however by signing it into law requires blame. I think it was a good idea however.
LMFAO both parties pushed the country to the brink nit wit...the dems couldnt agree on spending cuts in order to compromise, thus the sequester....

youre the typical party hack, even worse b/c youre not part of the party...youre not even a citizen of this country
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25226


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2013, 06:24:31 PM »

the sequester is the fault of the GOP, yes. The idea of the sequester and responsibility for it occuring now is both parties.

This issue wouldn't have occurred had the GOP not pushed the US to the brink. However, Obama supported it and so did the house.

I tend to think the issue is more complex then "Obama's sequester" or vice versa.

I have said in numerous threads this is truly a GOP created issue as the cause of it was the debt issue. Obama however by signing it into law requires blame. I think it was a good idea however.

Let's not forgot that Boehner gloated that he got 98% of what he wanted and at that time he never said a peep about the sequester as something he didn't want or had a problem with
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6476



« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2013, 06:28:25 PM »


"Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year."

read the total paragraph. My point for posting this which was lost on you, no wonder, was that 33 claimed the debt ceiling wouldn't have been needed if Obama wasn't spending the US out of house and home. He is not, he has spent similar to Bush's average years and this year appears to be significantly down.





No, you need to read.  Spending is UP.  This year remains to be seen...but I think the sequester may drop it if it goes into effect.


The point going well over your head is that Bush was a BIG spender.  If Obama is ANYWHERE even near Bush...he too is a big spender.

Just because Bush drove it up (and yes, way faster than Obama) doesn't mean Obama shouldn't make meaningful cuts.  I know that's subjective, but at least 10% I think everyone could agree is meaningful
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6476



« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2013, 06:33:26 PM »

Let's not forgot that Boehner gloated that he got 98% of what he wanted and at that time he never said a peep about the sequester as something he didn't want or had a problem with



Why would he?  Or Obama for that matter?  The whole point of the sequester was to make it so bad that neither side wanted it and would be willing to come to an agreement.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!