Obama Had A Plan To Avoid Sequester

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    No wonder you didn't hear much about this in the press.

    Budget: When President Obama put out his "balanced" plan to avoid the automatic sequester cuts, no one noticed. Which is probably just as well for Obama, given how embarrassingly unbalanced it is.

    Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about how Obama "hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."

    Turns out, Obama did have one, although Brooks can be excused for not knowing it, since the administration hasn't exactly been promoting this so-called plan.

    That, too, is understandable, since it isn't a plan at all, just a list of numbers with little to back them up.

    There are no details, for example, about the $200 billion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary programs, other than that Obama wants them split evenly.

    And while he offers $400 billion in "health savings," 30% are lumped in a bucket labeled "other."

    Worse, Obama's "balanced" plan actually counts hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions." Examples:

    • His plan to "strengthen" unemployment insurance is labeled as a cut, but it's really a $50 billion tax hike.

    • The $35 billion from the federal worker retirement programs involves boosting worker contributions.

    • Most of the $35 billion in Medicare savings comes from charging wealthy seniors more.

    • The $140 billion in "reduced payments to drug companies" are in fact rebates Obama wants drugmakers to pay Uncle Sam for selling drugs to poor seniors.

    • Then there's the $45 billion in spectrum fees and asset sales that Obama lists as spending reductions.

    Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases.

    As a result, instead of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts called for by the sequester over the next decade, Obama would add more than $1 trillion in revenues, while cutting outlays only about $600 billion. And much of those aren't real cuts, but tiny reductions in projected spending growth over the next decade.

    And in the end, his plan, such as it is, will do nothing to forestall the nation's oncoming debt crisis.

    After four years, Obama's unseriousness as a president continues to surprise us.


    http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...bama-labels-new-revenues-as-spending-cuts.htm
     
  2. Declaring, “I am not a dictator,” President Barack Obama urged Americans on Friday to help him pressure Republicans to help halt painful automatic government spending cuts.

    Interesting he feels the need to clarify that point. Sounds like Nixon's "I am not a crook". Can this guy display any leadership qualities at all, or is he just going to keep fanning the flames of discontent? I mean, we really don't need a president to be stirring the pot. There are plenty of media outlets for that. Jesus, this guy is pathetic.
     
  3. pspr

    pspr

    To say he is just a cheerleader is an understatment. Someone needs to give him some tights and a couple pompoms and give Joe a chance at running the show.
     
  4. Give him a breeak, while he spent the better part of a month campaigning and vacationing, and telling people to do their jobs, he did atleast get serious and actually try to sit down with republicans yesterday.

    How much time did Barack Obama spend in a “meeting” with GOP lawmakers on Thursday to look for an alternative to sequestration?

    Seven minutes. That’s how serious Obama is about any compromise. He’s not even interested in whether sequestration does or does not get implemented. He’s only interested in one thing, as GOP strategist Steve Schmidt pointed out. Schmidt said succinctly, “It is a sincere conviction among Republicans that the president’s negotiating posture isn’t about getting a deal done, it’s a zero-sum political game where his aim is to destroy the Republican [House] majority in the next election. It’s certainly not an effective strategy for a leader in search of a deal.”


    - See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...h-Obama-On-Sequestration#sthash.CVLF6MXe.dpuf
     
  5. DHOHHI

    DHOHHI

    Most divisive President EVER! Rather than leading and trying to find compromise he continues to "campaign" on all his boondoggle trips to every city he visits and paint a worst case scenario. Sadly, many citizens believe his nonsensical drivel.
     

  6. Yep. Interesting how this plays out.
     
  7. This is how Obama wants it played out.

    At a White House press conference this morning, President Obama laid the blame for the sequester and its effects solely on Republicans. He warned that “every time that we get a piece of economic news” in the coming months, that “economic news could have been better” if not for Republicans’ failure to act. “None of this is necessary,” he continued. “It’s happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. They have allowed these cuts to happen” in order to prevent tax increases.