Sequester Was Obama’s Idea; Make Him Own It!

President Obama is good at spending money and very adroit at blaming Republicans for the many failures of his presidency.  Four years under his belt and another four to go and Obama continues the blame game with gusto. Now Obama is topping his own standard of hypocrisy and blaming the $1.2 trillion sequester on Republicans when the idea was Obama’s in 2011.

“And 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,” declared his Royal Highness Obama.

Let’s get this straight, it’s Congress’ fault sequestration, also known as the automatic spending cuts, is about to happen even though it was Obama’s idea? Apparently, Obama also never said in November 2011: “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts, domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”

Oh, well he’s Obama and the media doesn’t hold him accountable to a record much less his words. The first round of $85 billion in yearly automatic cuts for the next ten years is set to rip March 1, 2013. In his usual haughty tone of denying culpability, Obama continued:

“So these cuts are not smart.  They are not fair.  They will hurt our economy.  They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.  This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs.  The unemployment rate might tick up again. “

If the sequester isn’t “fair”, why didn’t the president get serious about solving the problem of government spending and debt in 2011 during the debt ceiling talks? Instead, Obama proposed the sequester to which Republicans in Congress objected in favor of serious budget belt-tightening?

In the summer of 2011, Obama waged a PR war demanding Republicans in Congress raise the nation’s debt ceiling (its ability to borrow) so Obama could spend more money. Republicans said they would only raise the debt ceiling (now $16.5 trillion) if Obama agreed to cut government spending. When the two sides couldn’t agree to significant cuts and Obama rejected House Speaker Boehner’s offer to raise $800 billion in taxes, the White House proposed “sequestration.”

If the sequester, again OBAMA’S IDEA (see page 326, The Price of Politics), isn’t “smart” and “will hurt our economy” why didn’t Obama deal with it in January 2013 instead of demanding $600 billion in tax increases on higher earners over 10 years. This amounts to $60 billion a year, which will pay down less than 5% of Obama’s $1trillion yearly deficits/over spending habit.

Obama didn’t want to deal with the sequester in January so Congress kicked the can down the road until March 1, 2013. Voila, here we are less than 10 days away from sequestration with the Commander in Chief once again demanding action from Congress, as if he is a bystander to government not part of it. Half of the $85 billion in cuts would come from Defense and the other half from discretionary domestic spending, which is only a 5% cut. The Wall Street Journal calls it The Unscary Sequester, reminding readers Hurricane Sandy aid was $60 billion to put things in perspective.

We’ve seen this act before from Obama: 2012 and 2010 Bush tax cut stand off, 2009 stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd Frank, etc. His script is always the same, “Congress do it, do it now. Republicans you are getting in my way, you are bad. I’m the first black president. I deserve anything I want and will not be held to the same standards of my predecessors.”

This is what Obama is saying and he’s getting away with it. Why? Because Obama enjoys a “fawning media” who perpetuates his preposterous narrative and because Republicans are lousy at PR.

Republicans fail to stay on message. Instead of telling their own story, Republicans always chase Obama’s narrative of himself and the GOP. Over the past four years, particularly during the 2012 presidential race, Obama was deft at changing the subject from his failures to the gender, race and class wars, Bush, Romney’s taxes, etc.

How does the GOP beat a media maverick like Obama? First, Republicans need to let sequestration happen and force Obama to take responsibility for the mess  he’s created. Second, House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell need create a consistent message and tell their team to stick with it!

For example: “This president refuses to get serious about the real issues facing this country and instead wants to play the blame game, passing the buck like he’s not a part of the problem but a bystander to it.”

“The sequester makes no cuts to mandatory or entitlement spending which according to the Congressional Budget Office are the main drivers of our unsustainable debt for the next 75 years.”

“Since he became president in 2009, Obama has added $6 trillion to our debt, which stands at $16.5 trillion. He has refused to cut government spending even though the Congressional Budget Office warns our debt threatens the country’s future.”

“If unemployment remains above 7.5%, as the Congressional Budget Office projects through 2014, it will be the longest period in 70 years and the sixth straight year under Obama’s presidency the jobless rate has stayed above 7.5%.”

With a lousy record like Obama’s: persistently high unemployment, largest debt since World War II, and a faltering economy, Obama shouldn’t have gotten re-elected much less be blaming Republicans for anything. But Obama is better at spinning his version of reality. It’s time for the GOP to step up its game or stay in the corner and get punched.




If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

44 Responses to “Sequester Was Obama’s Idea; Make Him Own It!”

  1. Tim says:

    Not only was the sequester Mr. Obama’s idea, but he signed it in to law, he had every right to veto the bill and force a compromise but he CHOSE to sign on the dotted line. Judging from his rhetoric recently he wanted the sequester, because he knew that the mainstream media would allow him to play the blame game. The sequester happened because democrats in the senate would not pass a bill that cut entitlement spending, and even if they had done so, the bill would have been DOA in the oval office. Taxes are evil, they are the governments way of controlling a populace by spending that populations money for them. We had a welfare system before welfare was efen a thought, itt was the community and the churches. Welfare has only allowed the citizen to pass on their responsibility to their communities. Before welfare if there was an unemployment problem it was handled by the community, homeless people, people living in poverty affect a community through low property values, increased crime, and many other factors, therefore it was in the communities best interest to assist those in need. Welfare is the byproduct of the depression, a time of fear when people had to worry about themselves more than their communities, now welfare is the cause of the recession, there is no place for it, and it should go. I appreciate your article and applaud you for standing by your convictions, when some people in the black community may think less of you for it, in actuality it shows great integrity, much more than the average newscaster displays. I do not think less of people who agree with the presidents decisions however I reserve the right to consider them ill informed or wrong. For all those dying to know, I am 28 year old white male with a college degree living at the poverty level, I have never taken advantage of any kind of welfare, and I am damn proud that I am independent of government assistance, and if I can do it why can’t you? (Directed at people on welfare not the author of this blog.)

  2. gaming says:

    Nearly 50% of this money is being used. Names of high definition picture and online gaming very, very interesting. Plans were in thousands for this online game development company. A good guild leader can be played by Angel Rose and Cesar Polini. Life as a Online Gaming tester – takes time to develop for its contribution to make more sense the more popular. This leads to video game can be termed as a gamer!

  3. Franklin says:

    Adlai E. Stevenson was actually a very smart guy and maybe the best qualified to be Potus at that time.

    However, he was a sore loser and a high brow that resented having to ask voters to vote for him.

    He though he should have just been appointed Potus because he had experience.

  4. S L R says:

    That is a good one Truvoice. I might have to steal that and use it.

  5. S L R says:

    Scott, is that all you got! Answer the question. I see that you and non of the other Republicans have answered the question.

  6. John says:

    Great post and don’t let the liberals get you down. It’s seems Obama blame game is back firing on him as his job approval went down this week.

  7. Scott says:

    I guess I should point out my prior comment was pointed at @SLR

  8. Scott says:

    Well, we have a new liberal using name calling “ignorant low self esteem” and shouting “WHY SHOULD” to contribute to the discussion in a simplistic manner.

    Thanks for your insights and helping me realize why I think with two bad choices, conservatism is the better one.

  9. Michael says:

    Actually Paul Ryan was advocating for the Sequester since he first came to Congress in the 90’s lol and theres video proof of it, so no it was not Obama’s idea lol it was actually a republican ideal.

  10. wes says:

    @ Scott
    A law that has no enforcement behind it provides a road map for those inclined to follow guidelines. Obviously others who are either ignorant of the law or undaunted will do what they do when enforcement is lacking. I bow to your insight into the medical industry, as I work to find ways to make healthcare affordable for all (or at least a bit more than the 1% who can currently afford it).

    The beautiful of the separation of powers is of course that one branch makes the law, a second enforces it and a third not only judges the law itself, but also the innocence or guilt of the accused perpetrator. It is a slow due process, unlike the more efficient NDAA where they write the law, target the accused and carry out the sentence all before the hypothetical transgression is actually committed. Talk about saving time, healthcare problem solved. If you get too ill, take one drone and don’t call me in the morning.

    I think the press is driven by ratings (which equals sponsorship) and also access to politicians. Knowledge is power and the electorate doesn’t get power for free. You sharing your knowledge for free is a public service even if you don’t think so. Unfortunately people don’t trust everything they read on the internet (I guess that could be a good thing too). I think compelling arguments are good and oratory, not so good. The successful politician uses oratory well. I can tell you love your country. I wish there was something we could do besides pray.

  11. S L R says:

    Its amazing how you ignorant conservatives that vote against your own self interest, never look at the facts.

    In regard to the debt, MOST of the debt that has accumulated under Obama’s tenure, is the result of Bush continuing policies that Obama is trying to stop. For example, the Bush tax cuts to the rich, two wars (one completely of choice), and a Medicare drug program where the drug prices are not negotiated are the biggest contributors to the increasing deficit.

    Obama’s biggest contribution to the deficit so far has been the stimulus, and that was necessary because of Bush also. Therefore, almost ALL of the deficit is still because of Bush.

    If you have evidence of policies that Obama has implemented that has significantly contributed to the deficit, I want to see it. Don’t try to use Obamacare because most of it has not been implemented and would not be part of that $16.5 trillion you quoted above.

    You conservatives never break down numbers and what they consist of because you would have to face the real truth of who is responsible for them.

  12. S L R says:

    What is much more important than whose idea the sequester was is the following question.


    Tax deductions for sending American jobs overseas is WRONG and
    “Anti-American” whether the US has a SURPLUS or a DEFICIT, because it sucks money and jobs out of the American economy.

    The Republicans use words like “revenue, spending cuts and entitlement reform” which are terms, to sanitize the moral WRONGS of taking from elderly and poor Americans to give to the wealthy corporations.

    Even if there has to be changes to medicare or social security insurance, why should it supercede or co-exist along with Anti-American policies that are detrimental to our nation.

    Money spent on programs for the poor and elderly is almost always put right back into the American economy while tax deductions to ship jobs overseas is NEVER put back into our economy.

    Finally, there is no such thing as a conservative black chick but instead, an ignorant, low self-esteemed black chick with a mental problem.

  13. Scott says:

    @Wes – thinking about all this nearly renders me submissive.

    I agree about how our Founders thought. But the execution has really never been great. The influence of the “career politician” and lobbies is overwhelming.

    I fully agree intelligent regulation is needed. However, appropriate regulations really were in place for the financial crisis, just not implemented. Regulation is in place for trading firms, but look what Jon Corzine got away with. Regulation of the medical industry will do nothing either – they have strong ethical standards – and regulation.

    To me, the press is failing to do its job. As a child, I remember studying the “Yellow Press” and the “Tweed Ring” in New York. It seems the same is happening today. Regulations are pointless if the villains ignore them and they are selectively enforced.

    The medical care problem is not an ethics problem, it is a focus problem. Human nature is to accept the prevailing paradigm until it is overthrown. Right now medicine accepts the “treat the current problem” paradigm. I actually think the next paradigm is being discussed. Our children or maybe grandchildren will have true prevention and maintenance as the primary goals for medicine.

    Thanks for your stimulating discussion. It helps me get my thinking more rational.

  14. wes says:

    @ Scott,
    I think I get the general thrust of your post, and I say I am more optimistic. The founding fathers were well aware of the human nature component of the problem and that is why the separation of powers, I presume. The government is nothing more than a big ball of regulation. The fact that the three branches appear to be bought off doesn’t mean the model itself is flawed. The checks and balances should work if the courts are not controlled and we elect statesmen who act on behalf of their constituents, rather than on behalf of their campaign financers and lobbyists. I think it is doable. We just need an electorate that is informed instead of an electorate that trusts the media to keep it well informed.

    To regulate the medical industry sounds like we need yet another system of checks and balances. I suppose that is so daunting that I don’t want to think about that either. I guess you win this, until I come up with something other than a regulation monstrosity. Perhaps that is what you are trying to show me (that Obamacare is nothing but a regulation monstrosity).

  15. Scott says:

    @Wes – Bush was an extremely poor propagandist. He did investigate other health plans, he did try to point out the problems with the mortgage industry and actually he funded a good bit of HIV work in Africa. Today I feel that he probably wanted to fight a war in Iraq and mis-read the military info. Compare that to what TrueVoice correctly brought up about Eisenhower, who realized the the military wanted a war. In the end Bush was a poor president.

    And indeed I can see how this argument leads to the need for regulation. It is not that the physicians are immoral, they truly believe what they are doing and in many ways it is the best possible thing. However, they are educated to accept authority and that means if someone presents a study, you accept the results. Really there is no choice. If you do not accept a study, then you are using hearsay or anecdotal evidence. Problem is who is studying what and why?

    When antibiotics were discovered, that was great and companies went off and tried to develop new ones. Still do. Now apply that model to diabetes (Type II, adult onset) for instance. On the surface diabetes is a problem with insulin and initial evidence seemed to say a diabetic person needed more insulin to lower blood sugar. To some degree, this is true. But that is the only solution currently being offered. (To be fair there is some change going on with this particular problem.)

    What about other thoughts? What is the role of diet – lowering the insult to the pancreas? What is the role of gluten and genetically modified wheat and corn? What is the role of grain fed-beef? Is cardio-vascular exercise helpful vs heavy weights? Artificial sugars, etc. These are just some questions I have read about.

    Some of it comes down to the fact that diabetic people don’t want to change their lifestyle also.

    Back to regulation: how do you tell a company to spend money on research about something else? What is the something else?

    I do think the government should fund basic research.

    Oh, the heck with this. I also know of researchers who have had success and block efforts to change their “empire.” So success begets power begets self-interest begets abuse. Same with the regulators. We need a strike and 50 separate nations.

    Humans, including regulators, are not moral, so we are screwed.

  16. wes says:

    Any time a problem or situation has a political component, there is generally a certain amount sleight of hand or misdirection that must be peeled away in order to reveal the actual problem and viable solutions to that problem. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this in a way offers me (and others) the opportunity to look at this on a comprehensive level.

    Since you have insight into areas that I do not, correct me if I am reaching conclusions that might seem bogus to you. This industry has inefficiencies and people who tend to profit from these inefficiencies. If this is true, then yet another level of bureaucracy is needed to bring the industry into a state of efficiency, that we can realistically dream of affording. Perhaps a private sector watchdog industry that could somehow profit from exposing poor prognosis strategies and downright fraud would be more viable that yet another level of governmental regulation and red tape that might gum up the process is the answer, but the regulation is needed IMHO.

    I’m all for unions, but again unions protecting workers rights are good and unions protecting a worker’s “right” to get paid for not working are bad. Doctors deserve to be compensated well for what they do and what they can do. I certainly don’t want to put a cap on how much doctors make and the principles of capitalism suggest that they should make as much as they can make. However doctors should not be in positions where they are urged to marginalize the interests of the patients in favor of profit margins. That runs counter to the spirit of the Hippocratic oath or something. A person who is capable of playing professional baseball or basketball or being a doctor should never choose professional sports or acting in movies because the money is more attractive. A society that puts that much emphasis on entertainment is doomed. Pay the doctors well, but give them the incentive to heal above the other overall strategies.

    I have major problems with GW Bush as a president in general, however when you say Bush investigated the Holland model, I’m assuming you mean W did this and not his dad. If he did this, I believe in giving credit where it is due. Even if he never followed through, I find it extraordinary that he had the vision to do the study. Budget constraints and political entanglements can always generate unfunded mandates, let alone killing an idea before it gets going. Obama could pick up where Bush left off, but I suspect he could run into similar road blocks should he decide to advance ideas that Bush “inexplicably” abandoned.

  17. Scott says:

    @Wes – seeing the problem and coming up with the answer are two things. I think a major reform is in order when the most profitable drug groups have not been proved to do any good.

    In other words, there has never been a study to demonstrate that cholesterol lowering drugs reduce the chances of a heart attack. Another study on diabetic medications was stopped because the people who were most meticulous about following directions died sooner.

    Another problem is that the union of the physicians – called the AMA – has effectively created a monopoly and reduced entry into the profession. The American legal system has added to the cost through high insurance rates. And yet, someone who does not make a good salary until they are in their mid-thirties (schooling) does deserve to earn a good living, but how good?

    1) amazingly Bush actually investigated the model used in Holland where relative costs are much lower. Why not follow up?
    2) in most of the rest of the world, pharmacists are allowed to dispense routine meds which require an office visit and prescription here.
    So, in most countries, you have a sore throat and the pharmacist sells you some Clavamox or whatever. Cost $15.00. In the USA, that’s a perfunctory office visit for $100 plus the prescription. Not only is the cost greater, but the office visit takes hours to complete, costing you more. The saddest part of this is that the physician is so pushed doing the routine things, he is hard pressed to be thorough on the less routine things.
    3) I do know that veterinary medicine uses the same drugs and equipment and performs the same tests and procedures, but owners pay out of their pockets. DVMs make a good living, but not like some surgeons etc. Insurance is a minimal issue for DVMs. How to carry that over?

    I think about it, but don’t really have an answer.

  18. wes says:

    @ Scott
    Those are all excellent questions.

    Hypothetically, (I have not crunched the exact numbers) but assuming only the 1% can afford healthcare, then only the 1% will get healthcare, unless of course the 1% pays for the rest. It’s the ugly truth but yes the 1% would have to pay for the 99% under this hypothetical scenario. The 99% don’t have the right to demand such a thing, but when the numbers are so disproportionate in terms of how poorly the wealth is distributed, it is a simple fact that only certain people can afford healthcare regardless whether the rest deserve it or not. The wealthy may want to do what is necessary to cook up a good recipe for pacifying the masses or they may prefer to roll the dice and bank on the prospect that the masses will drop into a state of capitulation not unlike those depicted in the movie “The Hunger Games”. It is quite possible. Already the masses still think they have a choice with the dems and reps when it seems all too clear to me that they don’t.

    Clearly people who engage in risky behavior put a strain on the system and clearly it is unfair to those who make more healthy choices. I have no answer for this and I am glad you brought it up. I don’t think getting into a “big brother” mode where the food police are watching what people eat, drink and smoke is a way to decide who deserves what level of healthcare is the answer. I saw a guy smoking while he was dragging an oxygen tank around with him. I guess I’ll have to get back to you on this.

    Reforming the healthcare model is obviously necessary. We might be able to actually afford the program if the waste is cleaned up and the focus is to cure rather than control.

  19. Scott says:

    Public healthcare does sound good, until one thinks about it. Yes, I think everyone deserves health care.

    But: why do you have the right to take my money for your health care?
    Why should I pay for the health care of some fool who smokes, drinks, eats wrong and does nothing for himself? In fact the public option would reward that behavior (much like many other progressive ideas.)

    Next but: a healthy population would probably make business better and certainly there would be less suffering, an emotional but worthwhile goal.

    Next but: the medical model needs to be reformed. Physicians still treat diseases rather than make people healthy. It is the model. Today we are on the verge of creating health, but the drug companies and physicians are still wanting to use the old
    highly profitable model: treat each problem, and if we create another one, charge the patient for that, too.

  20. wes says:

    @ Scott
    I agree with everything in your post. I’d like to add that I think a women’s right to choose is at odds with a fetus’s right to life. I think this devalues the preciousness of life in society at large, which in turn contributes to violence. I also think a person has the right to destroy his own life with drugs, if that makes him happy. I think this will also have a negative impact on society, but his right to do it trumps the negative impact it imposes. However, if he pays a heavy tax for his reckless behavior, he could at least help with the debt problem. Since our biggest problem with debt comes from healthcare, I’d apply the tax to healthcare. Since the person doesn’t value his own life, he could, at least, help others who do.

    I know public healthcare doesn’t sound good on paper, but considering the alternatives, well let’s just say at the moment, I’m open for ideas.
    If letting people die at a certain age sounds cold, then letting people die regarless of age sounds downright frigid.

  21. wes says:

    @ Noel
    “ If the man “failed to fix what was broken”, why is he still there??”

    When it comes to president, this nation has been in a “lesser of two evils” mode, for better than 20 years. Obama still being president is a failure on the part of the GOP to effectively challenge has record. If you want the answer to why he is still president you’ll have to ask someone who believes voting for dems and reps makes sense.

    Your statement that socialism doesn’t work, is correct in my opinion. Capitalism is the best economic system, bar none. Socialism is intrinsically flawed. However, just because capitalism is the best system, one should not assume deregulation will work. History proves a lot of things and deregulation leading to problems is one example among many that the GOP tries to pass off on the public as ideas that will lead to prosperity for society as a whole. Instead, it leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and that in turn leads to social unrest.

    Healthcare is a unique commodity. When 99% of the population can’t afford to pay for their own, the hard truth is that somebody must pay. If you want to say we are a capitalistic society, and if a person can’t afford healthcare, too bad, that is of course, your choice. The fact is medicare is a form of socialism and a lot of people will die if it doesn’t endure in some form. So from a purely idealistic perspective, let them all croak. However from a more practical perspective, come up with something that will improve life expectancy for the 99% or don’t call them stupid or leeches because they won’t vote for you. The GOP is selling poison and putting the skull and cross bones on the bottle. Then they act baffled when thinking people don’t want to drink it.

  22. Scott says:

    Kind of occurs to me that I may be a microcosm of society. I frequently find I am swept up in the latest trend.

    Before you call me a rich SOB, I will flat tell you I am concerned about my money running out before I die, so it is not that much. And I am healthy.

    Anyway: I have significant profits in my stock investments. If I sell them and take the profit, I could spend some money. But, if I sell them Uncle Sam will take, say 20% and I will lose some dividends. The result: I will take no profits and I will spend less money. How many times is that being repeated around the country?

    Taxes and the present administration are affecting my behavior and therefore the economy. How typical am I?

  23. Scott says:

    @Noel and Wes
    You are getting to what I see as the nub of things.

    Republicans talk about conservatism; however, what they practice looks more like a feudal society without the royal titles. Then again, the Democrats do the same. As do the heads of large corporations, labor and charitable organizations.

    Someone needs to pay the bills: the capitalists. Liberals and government create nothing. However, capitalists need to recognize that a large middle class gives them a better market. So really it is self-serving to help the average guy succeed. They need to recognize that fact and they need to sell the fact that capitalism is the best route for the average guy to get his needs filled.

    And they need to denounce racism. It is stupid and no longer profitable.

    CBC hits at some of the problems, but there is no positive sales effort from her or really any Republican.

  24. Noel says:

    His rhetoric does create uncertainty; one of the reason companies are still sitting on cash. If the man “failed to fix what was broken”, why is he still there??

    This is not about Obama. This is about Capitalism vs Socialism.
    Socialism doesn’t work. In a way it is the fault of the party that is supposedly for Capitalism (the Republican party) that the capitalist empire is falling. The Republicans don’t know how to defend capitalism; on a moral basis.

  25. wes says:

    @ Noel
    “Companies are sitting on trillions of cash, which means he has succeeded in making America a magnet for repelling jobs.”

    This was the condition that started when the housing bubble burst and the credit market froze. That means Obama didn’t actually repel anything. It was his predecessors that did the repelling. That means he failed to fix what was broken when he arrived. The right is always blaming Obama for stuff he didn’t do, then when black people don’t throw Obama under the bus for it, we get accused of supporting him because he is liberal or black. If Obama claims the problem was there before he got into office, he gets blamed for not taking responsibility. If Obama doesn’t wear a flag on his suit jacket lapel, he is accused of not being for America. If Obama doesn’t produce a birth certificate, he is accused of not being from America. Why would any rationally thinking black person, embrace the stuff the GOP is putting out there? The dems may be stabbing us in the back, but the GOP is peeing on us and telling us it is raining.

    The GOP’s propaganda machine needs an overhaul, IMHO.

  26. Noel says:

    Every job helps, at least some families would benefit from those temporary jobs and could use them as stepping stones to something better. Those jobs would do something for them. Plus, more oil means less dependence on Middle East oil.

    Besides “making America a magnet for repelling Americans…”, he has succeeded in repelling cash away from the economy.

    Companies are sitting on trillions of cash, which means he has succeeded in making America a magnet for repelling jobs.

    Socialist policies always achieve the opposite of their good intentions.

  27. Scott says:

    @Truevoice – I still chose to differentiate between power and right. I understand, that is why I am so afraid.

  28. Scott says:

    @Truevoice methinks it is just as disingenuous for the President as for the opposition.

    International Living is constantly touting the benefits of going overseas and giving statistics on the numbers. The number of Americans giving up their passports is rising in a dramatic percentage fashion. However, the actual numbers are low allowing small changes to show up as large percentages. We are not in danger of a significant population – or even talent – drain.

  29. wes says:

    Smooth! {g}

  30. Noel says:

    @ Wes

    I agree. Obama could at least approve the Keystone XL pipeline to stimulate the economy.

  31. Sue says:

    Congress always has and will continue to be the one who controls the purse strings in Washington

  32. Wes says:

    @ Noel
    I admit that raising the minimum wage isn’t a good idea for creating jobs. However, the dynamics of the global market are simple. It isn’t good business for a multinational corporation to hire US workers @ $15/hr when they can hire somebody in India to do the same job (either on the phone or in a plant in India) for $3/hr. Why pay someone $15/hr plus healthcare in the US when you can pay someone $15/hr in Europe where you won’t be on the hook for any healthcare costs. As I see it, Obama’s only way to create jobs in the private sector is to deplete our natural resources (like dug up all of the oil, coal and natural gas and sell it). That would kick the can down the road as long as our natural resources hold up, assuming the fossil fuel burning isn’t killing the planet and dragging us toward some theoretical point of no return. Climate change is real. I’m not yet convinced that burning fossil fuel is the reason for it. However if I had to bet, I’d bet it has something to do with it. I think cutting down the rain forests is more responsible, but I’m drifting off topic…

  33. James says:

    @ Truevoice Great Overview of the issue as usual.

  34. Noel says:

    “Making America a magnet for good jobs” will never happen under his watch.

    Instead Obama is succeeding in making America a magnet for repelling Americans working abroad. The number of Americans giving up their passports is growing dramatically. Case in point: Tina Turner.

  35. Scott says:

    From today’s Christian Science Monitor:

    “My extensive reporting for my book ‘The Price of Politics’ shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of [then-budget director] Lew, during the negotiations and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors – probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government,” Woodward wrote. “Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid…. Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise.”

    As someone said, the Democrats have a better propaganda machine.

  36. JEFF TURNER says:

    Very good comments as usual.

    I thought that President Obama stated in one of the debates that “sequestration will NOT happen”. How can this be happening? I guess that is like him saying that he will cut the national debt in half in his first 4 years. How did that come out?

    Hold onto your hat, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, here we come. Let’s hope the Republicans grow a pair and do not cave this time, as they have in the past.

    If it takes sequestration to get real spending cuts, then so be it. Our Country is strong we will survive, sequestration. If we survived 8 years of Bill and Hillary, we can survive anything.

  37. Wes says:

    Thank you for the substantive contribution to this discussion. The research behind it is evident. When I can say I learned something, I can call it a good day. Clearly it matters who gets blamed for this because it will impact who will be in control going forward. However I maintain that it is very telling that the focus of our leaders is more about who will be blamed and less about what can be done. In a hearing about this very subject rebroadcasted on CSPAN, rep Elijah Cummings mentioned something about “playing a game”. The game is who can get elected and they are wagering the lives of the 99%, yet our focus is who gets to play and who wins the game.

  38. Wes says:

    @ Pam
    It should go without saying that healthcare is the number one issue driving our debt, but the way Obama was attacked for zeroing in on it in his first term, I thought I should state it at the outset. There is supposed to be an interesting read in the Mar 4 Issue of Time Magazine (I haven’t found it yet in hard copy but you can google time magazine or
    if you want to get an idea of what is in the time magazine special report).

    The chances that Obama will cut where it would benefit the nation most, is of course unlikely because it is more likely that he is bought and paid for just like his republican colleagues are. Still, information is out there for people who have open minds and want to have informed opinions. It’s funny how MSNBC only notices the things the reps do wrong, and FOX News is better at noticing what the dems do wrong.

  39. Scott says:

    Wasn’t there, did he really say: “I’m the first black president.” ??

    The rest of CBC’s article is so good, why make it easy to criticize with something to invite hate mongering??

    Wish the press would see the duplicity of the liberals, and report on what is really happening to poor people and the middle class as a result of progressive policies.

  40. Jethro says:

    “….this is the day that the rise of the oceans began to recede; this is the day that we began to fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Who in their right mind would say these kinds of things, implicitly ascribing these results to himself in the process? If he speaks, I lunge to change the channel, faster than sh*t through a goose. And our would-be “emperor” (he lamented earlier this month that he is but our President, not our emperor) said these things to an adoring crowd of low information (“I voted black”-yay!) voters after being declared the winner of the ’08 election. Not the greatest day in U.S. history, ain’t?

  41. Pam says:

    Two problems – The media doesn’t fawn, they take it all the way to whoring. Outside of a communist country, there has never been more lies told to support a miserable regime.

    Secondly, Obama is such a snake, he will use the most painful cuts in order to hurt the Republican party. (I hear he is going to close the bathrooms in the national parks) instead of cutting the fat in the budgets of the various social programs that is obviously there. He is a hateful, devious man who only cares about himself.

  42. LD Jackson says:

    I completely agree about the sequester. It is Obama’s baby and he should have to own it. I just hope the Republicans stand their ground and refuse to budge.

    You are also right about Obama and the way he seems to believe he deserves to get anything he wants, just because he won a couple of elections. He is a political bully and it is time for him to be slapped down. It remains to be seen if that will happen.

  43. Vinny says:

    Great summation, CBC! Now I get it.

  44. Wes says:

    With your statement that Obama should have never been reelected, I presume you are implying that the GOP failed to nominate a candidate that could beat him. My original reaction was that you were inferring that anybody could have beaten Obama. Since that was illogical, I figured my take was on it was all wrong. However the context of your post doesn’t actually imply that the fault was with the GOP. Instead it implies that the electorate failed to do what an informed electorate could, should and would do. If that is what you meant, then I guess I can see your point, sorta.

    It must be difficult to write that Romney would have been a better president when Romney ran a very mysterious campaign. Romney’s “I’m not him but I can do what he does, if that’s what you want” campaign was really one of the all time strangest strategies I’ve ever seen. It almost seems like he was trying to help get Obama reelected, doesn’t it? I mean think about McCain. He probably could have won if he picked a ticket with a clue.

Leave a Reply