| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Just to be sure I understand......In other words, Obama tried to blackmail and bribe congress by using the American people and government property as pawns. I just want to confirm this because it appears as though a solid amount of people have no idea what's going on. |
||
|
The Spin Stops Here... Remember the "Super-Committee" that met to resolve budget issues? The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (STA) (P.L. 112-155) requires the President to submit to Congress a report on the potential sequestration triggered by the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deicit Reduction to propose, and Congress to enact, a plan to re duce the deicit by $1.2 trillion, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). In August 2011, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted for the threat of sequestration as a mechanism to force Congress to act on further deicit reduction. The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy, and that Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package. www.whitehouse.gov Barack Obama says Congress owns sequestration cuts, according to Politifact... Obama said that the sequester -- and the defense cuts that would result from it -- was not his proposition. "It is something that Congress has proposed," he said in the debate. But it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality. Meanwhile, members of both parties in Congress voted for the legislation that set up the possibility of sequestration. Obama’s position is that Congress should now act to avoid those across-the-board cuts. Obama can’t rightly say the sequester isn’t his, but he did need cooperation from Congress to get to this point. We rate the statement Mostly False. www.politifact.com All parties of politics take responsibility for sequestation. Of course, as you can read above, the Republicans took the bluff. |
||
|
I'm not sure he is the most reliable source of information when it comes to what he is responsible for. I mean didn't he just say the other day that its not his fault that the White House was closed to tours? Just a few days after saying that the White House had to close its doors due to budget cuts? Also in fairly certain that there are at least 24 months worth of White House jobs reports which generally praise Obama yet end by cautioning that no one take any one job report seriously or at face value and instead to look at them in context with the bigger picture. So in other words, Obama took credit for things but then back pedaled in a sneaky way. Anyway, I need to look into this sequester issue more. I think we've learned that the White House isn't a trustworthy source of information right now. Which is strange considering that Obama came out and stated repeatedly that he wants his administration to be the most "open" in White House history. Looks like Ayn Rand was right! "Never trust a man who says he doesn't like money. It is the leppers bell of an approaching looter." |
||
|
The Spin Stops Here... I listen to Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi often and actually get sick to my stomach because of the "spin" they purposely put into their comments. It is the same feeling I also get when Hannity goes into a rant that is purposely partisan and completely right wing. That is why I would rather see debates between Rachel Maddow and say, Michelle Malkin. That would be a lot more interesting then the postured debates between politicians. I think media personalities are more dangerous than politicians. Bottom line, you (and I, and others who really want to know the truth) have to really work hard and study different sources to "see" reality. I am truly an advocate of any "fact check" site. |
||
|
The Ayn rand quote at the end was referring to Obamas repeated statements when he took office about how open he wanted HIS White House to be. The implication being that other administrations weren't open and were hiding things. Yet Obama appears to be the person who is least trustworthy. |
||
|
The Spin Stops Here... |
||
|
tat "...In August 2011, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted for the threat of sequestration as a mechanism to force Congress to act on further deicit reduction. The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy, and that Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package..." www.whitehouse.gov |
Log in 
