|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Obama cries "wolf"|
Obama cries "wolf"
Posted - 2/25/2013 11:36:23 AM | show profile | flag this post
once too often.
The drumbeat of negative consequences of the $85 billion sequester being trumpeted by Obama as economic ruin is eliciting a big "ho-hum" from the American public.
This is the third time in a couple months the administration has warned of a plunge over the "economic cliff" if Obama's tax and spend agenda is not implemented. And Americans see right through it. Forty percent say they are comfortable with the spending cuts and most of the rest, presumably, don't see it as a major problem.
ABC News is calling it "cliff fatigue." I say most are just weary of Obama's bullsh*t.
Posted - 2/25/2013 8:16:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Good Point cruiser!
Hundreds of thousands of people facing lay offs and furloughs is NOTHING to a hero like cruiser.
He'd face anything to make Obama look bad. Especially while he lives off the government. Which he DOES.
Smart move you OLD son of a gun
Posted - 2/25/2013 10:30:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
There is some "cliff fatigue."
I'll buy that. A good part of it is based in reality though. And it's closer to $1.2 trillion over decade. A lot of that would come from the Pentagon, and I don't have a real big problem looking for cuts over there.
I like it when the experts say 'I don't know'. Good piece in "The Week": "Obama and congressional Democrats have a pretty unified message on the sequester: Replace it with a "balanced" package of targeted tax increases and spending cuts. Republicans, on the other hand, are divided into roughly three camps, says Ginger Gibson at Politico, and two of those either are willing to let the cuts kick in or "want the cuts to be even deeper," arguing that Obama is using "scare tactics" to make necessary cuts sound worse than they will be. Many Republican governors, gathered in Washington for the National Governors Association meeting, fall into the third camp: Fix it!
"The governors are right to be nervous, says economist Jared Bernstein at his blog. "While the truth is no one knows how this is going to play out..." Got that rght.
Thank you cruise for actually posting the ABCNews link. I did think it was interesting though that the poll they were talking about ("Pew") also said that "Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans." So...there's a pretty good chance that the American Public is going to walk away from this with a more favorable of the WH than Congress.
"I say most are just weary of Obama's bullsh*t" Well, of course you're entitled to your opinion....and this most certainly is going to hurt the presidents re-election chances....Oh. Never mind.
Posted - 2/26/2013 9:07:58 AM | show profile | flag this post
george will gets it.
Even during this desultory economic recovery, one industry thrives — the manufacture of synthetic hysteria. It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester. He is actually crying “Hamster!”
As in: Batten down the hatches — the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3 percent! Or: Washington chain-saw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7 percent of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of Hurricane Sandy! Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion! Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17 percent under President Obama must endure a 5 percent cut!
george will points out other cases of leftwing hysteria.
Remember when, in the 1980s, thousands died from cancers caused by insufficient regulation of the chemical Alar sprayed on apples? No, you don’t because this alarming prediction fizzled. Alar was not, after all, a risk.
Remember when “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” (New York Times, May 21, 1975) with “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976) which must “stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975)? Remember reports that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973)? Armadillos were leaving Nebraska, heading south, and heat-loving snails were scampering southward from European forests (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Newsweek (April 28, 1975) said meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that cooling would “reduce agricultural productivity.”
Today, while Obama prepares a governmental power grab to combat global warming, sensible Americans, tuckered out with apocalypse fatigue, are yawning through the catastrophe du jour, the sequester. They say: Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the hamsters of sequestration.
"Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans." So...there's a pretty good chance that the American Public is going to walk away from this with a more favorable of the WH than Congress."
happens when you have the media regurgitating lies and talking points they get from the obama administration.
and we will still see democrats running like republicans in 2014.
Posted - 2/26/2013 9:46:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
900,000 people in the DoD...
are looking at a 10-20% pay cut because of sequestration.
That's 10-20% less money to spend on local businesses.
My wife spent 8 hours waiting on a call-back from her travel agency -- then spent two hours on the phone this weekend -- all because airlines are already re-scheduling travel.
Her airline booked for a trip in June, had changed her flight back from Nevada in June. It was going to take 14 hours and two stops to get back to the east coast -- all because of expected issues with FAA furloughs.
She wasn't alone. That 8 hour delay in talking to a customer service rep was because lots of other business travelers were ahead of her.
Yeah, no reason to panic.
But lots of reasons for a lot of people to rip into the GOP for the next two years.
Posted - 2/26/2013 11:24:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
you mean the guy that predicted a 321-217 Romney landslide?
Posted - 2/26/2013 11:27:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
etwinkie and people like him
will never acknowledge that it's dumbassed Democrats causing all this. If they'd just hold up their end of the bargain and agree to spending cuts that will right the sinking ship of state there wouldn't be any of these faux "consequences."
We're not talking a lot of money (far too little in my opinion). It's like 2-1/2 cents on every dollar. EVERY agency of the federal government should be able to find a 2 percent savings WITHOUT impacting services.
Posted - 2/26/2013 11:44:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo seems to forget...
that the spending cuts are there -- if the GOP will agree to revenue.
But Boehner and the GOP won't even talk to Obama about any middle ground.
They seem to think they won the election.
At this rate, the GOP won't win many 2014 elections either.
Posted - 2/26/2013 12:42:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Obama about any middle ground."
what middle ground? with obama, it is all about tax and spend liberalism- which has resulted in the weakest recovery in history.
Posted - 2/26/2013 1:15:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
"if the GOP will agree to revenue"
The GOP has ALREADY gone against the wishes of its most conservative members and agreed to tax increases. Now it's up to the radical left to pony up the spending cuts to which they agreed but continue to stall.
Posted - 2/26/2013 1:19:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
Federal spending under Obama is DOWN with the exception of the big entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. Spending there is up not due to any Obama policy -- but due to the retirement of Baby Boomers.
Obama has been calling for a centrist approach -- cuts and tax increases, BOTH. But the GOP refuses to move from the extreme far right.
And the GOP is going to pay the price in two years.
Posted - 2/26/2013 2:34:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
"what middle ground?"
I think if you really looked at this 'Keystone Cop production'--in toto--both sides have given a lot of ground.
The Repubs HAVE given up a little in new revenue--and the WH--As part of the 2011 debt agreement--the President cut $1,028 billion in discretionary spending through the Budget Control Act. A trillion dollars is a pretty good start.
Seriously. What part of "I got 98 percent of what I wanted" DIDN'T you understand??
Posted - 2/26/2013 3:55:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Obama has been calling for a centrist approach --
cuts and tax increases"
He's been disingenuously mouthing those words. And he's gotten the tax increases he wants but refuses to approve the spending cuts. And it doesn't matter what he's promised...the ONLY thing that matters is what he DOES...and so far that's NO spending cuts.
"both sides have given a lot of ground"
No, Obama has given a lot of rhetoric and promises but no ACTION on spending cuts while the GOP HAS approved tax increases. That's NOT balanced.
Boehner THOUGHT he had an agreement (98% of what he wanted) but Obama reneged.
You people know that as well as anyone else on here. Why do you dishonestly keep trying to peddle that bullsh*t?
Posted - 2/26/2013 5:29:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
Verrrry slowly now.....
Hope it sinks in. Both the WH and Congress have given in a little. May not be enough to everyones liking, still more work to be done, but you just can't re-write history.
"Obama...and so far that's NO spending cuts." That is a lie. Period. I already referred you to 2011 debt agreement:
The debt ceiling was increased by $400 billion immediately.
Spending was reduced more than the increase in the debt limit. No tax increases or other forms of increases in revenue above current law were included in the bill.
The bill directly specified $917 billion of cuts over 10 years in exchange for the initial debt limit increase of $900 billion. This is the first installment ("tranche") of cuts. $21 billion of this will be applied in the FY2012 budget.
The president SIGNED IT. They set up the sequester at the suggestion of the White House. Because it was for the good of the country, not just your party. Boehner loved it...hence the "98% of what I wanted". I urge you cruise...Learn English as a Second Language. Stubborness being your first one.
I personally think a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' is a dumb idea (not enough flexibility). On the other hand, I blame Boehner, Obama, and especially Reid for this current last minute [again] hang up. Get it done folks....but I have not seen one credible poll that does not put the onus of all of this on the Repubs.
Posted - 2/26/2013 6:17:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
And here's a Real Shocker...
"Public says GOP less interested in unity than Obama is"
"With the automatic across-the-board spending cuts set to begin on Friday, Americans are split over whether President Barack Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
But by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, respondents conclude that the Republican Party is emphasizing partisanship more than unity.
In the poll, 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path to unify the country in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan approach that doesn't unify the country.
By comparison, 64 percent say the Republican Party is taking a partisan approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity."
Shocked, shocked I say.
Posted - 2/26/2013 6:47:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I already referred you to 2011 debt agreement"
YOU'VE GOTTA BE KIDDING!!! Those are the promises I mentioned but so far he has refused to let any of them go forward...and some of them were not scheduled to take effect until years down the road anyhow.
If Obama has his way...and he'll stay in campaign mode hoping to influence the electorate...there never will be any spending cuts.
Posted - 2/26/2013 7:30:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
WHY?? Why do you bother??
Why didn't you either take me my word for it--or look it up--???
(Me) "I already referred you to 2011 debt agreement"
(You) "Those are the promises I mentioned but so far he has refused to let any of them go forward..."
It was SIGNED INTO LAW. "The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was enacted into law on August 2, 2011. The BCA set caps on discretionary spending for FY 2012 through FY 2021 and created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
And--"Congress Has Cut Discretionary Funding By $1.5 Trillion Over Ten Years First Stage of Deficit Reduction Is in Law" (REPEAT--IS IN LAW) "Reductions in funding for discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs enacted last year, primarily in the Budget Control Act, have produced $1.5 trillion in savings in discretionary spending for fiscal years 2013 through 2022."
So when you constantly whine Obama "but refuses to approve the spending cuts. And it doesn't matter what he's promised...the ONLY thing that matters is what he DOES...and so far that's NO spending cuts." You're lying. Just plain lying. Stop that. Please.
Posted - 2/27/2013 12:17:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
"You're lying. Just plain lying"
No, pal, I emphatically am NOT. You need to wake the hell up and stop your partisan wishful thinking.
Posted - 2/27/2013 9:13:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
etaoin shrdlu, moving the goal post is noted. obama has out spent the last five presidents. . hell, obama is paced to be the biggest spending president is american history.
even with sequester- spending is still going up.
"And here's a Real Shocker...
"Public says GOP less interested in unity than Obama is""
john kerry gets it-"you have a right to be stupid if you want to be."
Posted - 2/27/2013 12:39:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** etaoin shrdlu, moving the goal post is noted. obama has out spent the last five presidents. . hell, obama is paced to be the biggest spending president is american history. ***
And this, despite all the fact-finding organizations' statements to the contrary.
Posted - 2/27/2013 1:32:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
'And this, despite all the fact-finding organizations' statements to the contrary."
what would those be, dear?
the fact checkers who pretend obama's term didn't start until 2010?
the ones that exclude obama's spending?
do tell, dear.
Posted - 2/27/2013 3:08:29 PM | show profile | flag this post
ROFL! What you're really trying to say is left wing echo boxes...or "mainstream" media outlets, most of which are in the tank for Obama.
I started researching the media in the mid-1960s. At that time there was the beginning of a leftist slant in broadcast news, much of it brought on by consultants advising their client outlets to "interpret" the news for their audience. That left reporters free to embed mini editorials in their stories...many of them from a left-leaning point of view.
In the 1970s...during the anti-Vietnam and "hate Nixon" era...the media tilted farther to the left in their coverage of the war and the administration.
The 1980s saw a period of relative stability. The left-leaning outlets still leaned left but were relatively quiet...probably due to Reagan's popularity. But, of course, there was Iran-Contra which the media blew completely out of proportion.
In the 1990s the media began open, active defense of a president when Clinton was impeached. Much of the fodder for the coverage stemmed from the Starr investigation. And the media openly and actively defended Clinton's sexual peccadillos and ignored what was possibly a forcible rape by a public official.
The 2000s were, of course, the "hate Bush" era that began with Al Gore's attempt to steal the election by repetitive vote recounts until the US Supreme Court forced Florida to abide by election laws that were on the books.
Now almost the entire "mainstream" media is openly and unashamedly in the tank for Obama and his far left...what some describe as borderline communistic...policies.
Posted - 2/27/2013 3:21:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
just curious if any of this media research was published
anywhere.. newspaper? magazine? journal? website?
Posted - 2/27/2013 3:42:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
me, too.. let's have a LITTLE "peer review" here of..
cruiztwit's media analyses..
see if any of it comes from anywhere OTHER than his usual source..
his rectal orifice..
Posted - 2/27/2013 5:11:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once again; we're getting off topic
Not that there's anything exactly wrong with that...but it makes it harder to respond when you're busy...
No; the Sequester is not Economic Armageddon. But it will hurt. And yes, it was suggested by the WH because it was the best option at the time. Yes, the Repubs did offer up 'some' tax revenue but a bit more would be nice. But to outright lie and say the Obama Admin never dealt with budget cuts of any kind is outrageous. There was a Budget Cutting Law...not some future bargaining chip. You know, we write these laws down.
"obama has out spent the last five presidents" If I could use 'flash cards' I would. When Bush left, the debt was at $11+trillion (and he left $2+ trillion off the books) It's now at $16+ HOW is three or five larger than eleven?? He's responsible for his own spending--plus the debt handed to him. Going from 11 or 13 to 16 is not helping the situation....I'll grant you that...
But this "biggest spending president is american history" is rhetorical flim flam. It's like saying you weigh NOW more than any other time in your life---including when you were in fifth grade--therefore your current diet sucks. You went straight from age 9 to 59??, but it was that 59th year that put you over the edge?? No. it doesn't work that way.
cruises historical time line of 'Media Bias' makes no sense whatsoever. See, you can have a left wing media--but still have a "Teflon president". You can have a left wing media, and still impeach a popular Democrat president. You can have a left wing media and still see the incredible rise of Fox, right wing radio and numerous other wingnut megaphones. That's how it works. You claim one thing, while reality is something else; just do it with a wounded look in your face. And we don't don't no stinkin proof.