Sequester?

[Buzz]

Congress voted it in. I'm not blaming any one person. It takes many to get in this position.

Washington is broken.

Congress didn't choose what to cut the President did. Congress give the President discretion to lessen the impact of the sequester. the blame for what is cut lies squarely on the shoulders of the White house.

Sequester wouldn't have to be in the picture if the repubs would agree to closing tax loopholes for the rich. They don't want to piss off their rich friends though. So, that's not going to happen.

What happened to the balanced approach? All the repubs want is cuts. Obama is willing to give lots of cuts, but he wants something back too. The Bush tax cuts ended is not an increase. That would have happened no matter who was president. We need more than that for a balanced approach.

If the GOP was offering closing the tax loophoes, and the dems didn't want to do any cuts. I'd be jumping on them, but that's not the case. That's the problem right now.

[Darkhorse]

Congress voted it in. I'm not blaming any one person. It takes many to get in this position.

Washington is broken.

+1

[CUDA]

Congress voted it in. I'm not blaming any one person. It takes many to get in this position.

Washington is broken.

Congress didn't choose what to cut the President did. Congress give the President discretion to lessen the impact of the sequester. the blame for what is cut lies squarely on the shoulders of the White house.

Sequester wouldn't have to be in the picture if the repubs would agree to closing tax loopholes for the rich. They don't want to piss off their rich friends though. So, that's not going to happen.

AH YES are you sure you're not a democrat??? that was never part of the original sequester plan by the President. he added that AFTER the fact. cmon Buzz try to keep up

What happened to the balanced approach? All the repubs want is cuts. Obama is willing to give lots of cuts, but he wants something back too. The Bush tax cuts ended is not an increase. That would have happened no matter who was president. We need more than that for a balanced approach.

name one. because the President has never said what he is willing to cut. he only says give me more taxes and then we'll talk about cuts

If the GOP was offering closing the tax loophoes, and the dems didn't want to do any cuts. I'd be jumping on them, but that's not the case. That's the problem right now.

they did offer to close the loophole. but the President said NO I want a higher tax rate. then the president comes back and says that he wants to close the loop holes too. why didnt he accept that when it was first proposed by the GOP. Cmon Buzz try and keep up

[callmeslick]

You get dumber by the day.

impossible.

Here's a tip for you that might influence what you say to me from now on. Probably not, but maybe.

I have no respect for your opinion anymore. Especially, about me.

you're wising up every day, Buzz.....

[callmeslick]

that was never part of the original sequester plan by the President. he added that AFTER the fact. cmon Buzz try to keep up

actually, Buzz is the one keeping up just fine. The sequester became the option AFTER the Republicans rejected deficit reduction which included any increase in revenues, when the supercommittee was meeting. So, Buzz is correct, and you are starting to look and sound like Pud....in other words lacking both perspective, and awareness of reality.

name one. because the President has never said what he is willing to cut. he only says give me more taxes and then we'll talk about cuts

not paying attention again, are we? Because the president has mentioned cuts to both the Dept of Education and long-term Medicare spending, as well as openness to consider others.....which the GOP cleverly doens't propose, because they know the electorate doesn't want the cuts to be made.

they did offer to close the loophole. but the President said NO I want a higher tax rate. then the president comes back and says that he wants to close the loop holes too. why didnt he accept that when it was first proposed by the GOP. Cmon Buzz try and keep up

they only offered with the offset being a continuation of a tax break to millionaires that was originally supposed to expire in 2010. What a deal, way to take the little guy into consideration. Once again, Buzz is closer to reality that you seem to be, CUDA.

[Pudfark]

and if the tax loop holes for the rich had been closed?
How much was/would that be?

C'mon Slick...step it up a bit. You're getting boring.

[callmeslick]

and if the tax loop holes for the rich had been closed?

a question?

How much was/would that be?

hundreds of billions.

C'mon Slick...step it up a bit. You're getting boring.

get up to speed intellectually, and it wouldn't be....

[Pudfark]

Hundreds of billions.......
Over, how many centuries...

[callmeslick]

annual, there are a LOT of tax writeoffs in the code.

[CUDA]

that was never part of the original sequester plan by the President. he added that AFTER the fact. cmon Buzz try to keep up

actually, Buzz is the one keeping up just fine. The sequester became the option AFTER the Republicans rejected deficit reduction which included any increase in revenues, when the supercommittee was meeting. So, Buzz is correct, and you are starting to look and sound like Pud....in other words lacking both perspective, and awareness of reality.

off in La La land again huh slick. the sequester was about spending not about tax increases. stop listening to the Presidents lies

They blasted Woodward, however, for writing that Obama "is moving the goal posts" by requiring that additional revenues be part of a sequester substitute. The sequester was about spending. Failure by a bi-partisan "super committee" to identify alternative reductions in November, 2011 caused the budgetary hacking that Obama now seeks to avoid to be triggered.

White House officials protested the notion of moving the goal posts, since—regardless of the terms of the agreement—revenue increases have always been part of Obama's negotiating position on budget issues.