Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'

[mocgator]

Obama has literally no idea what he's doing. This entire junta has no desire to lead or govern. It's continual campaign mode. It's all they've got. It's all they know how to do.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...nding-cuts.htm


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."


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.

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


Well it doesn't surprise me in the slightest...

[Lawdog88]

I like Brooks, pretty much. Usually sane and fair, even if he leans left.

Didn't Barry originally propose the idea of "sequestration" ?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I like Brooks, pretty much. Usually sane and fair, even if he leans left.

Didn't Barry originally propose the idea of "sequestration" ?

Hey, brilliant question guy. Here, did the googling for you and found this:

Today is Sequestration Day. Americans should be happy.

Last year during the debt ceiling fight, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came up with a novel idea. To satisfy the demands of conservatives who insisted on the whacky idea of paying down the national debt, Congress would create a bipartisan “super committee” consisting of members of both the House and Senate who would come up with a plan to make cuts or increase revenue to pay down the national debt.

President Obama joined in the negotiations and came up with the idea of sequestration. If the super committee failed, and most everyone privately thought it would, there would be automatic spending cuts in 2013 that would target sacred cows including defense and education — painful for both sides. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2MKL4zUHf

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Hey, brilliant question guy. Here, did the googling for you and found this:

Wow. So to answer your question, you went out and found an opinion piece from Fox News that agrees with the narrative you want to propagate?

[reformedgator]

And you dispute that's not what actually happened?

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Wow. So to answer your question, you went out and found an opinion piece from Fox News that agrees with the narrative you want to propagate?

Woodward is on record that the WH is the father of sequestration but I know you won't believe him either

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

And you dispute that's not what actually happened?

Saying it was Obama's idea is kind of like saying it's a kidnapping victim's idea to pay the ransom.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Saying it was Obama's idea is kind of like saying it's a kidnapping victim's idea to pay the ransom.

That just makes me want to cry.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Saying it was Obama's idea is kind of like saying it's a kidnapping victim's idea to pay the ransom.

Oh, by the way, you are needed over on the Maxine Waters thread. Serious ignorance problems over there to either bolster, rebut, or rationalize. All hands on deck.

[G8trGr8t]

leftie is curiously silent over there aren't they? I suspect Fred will offer up a defense though

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Oh, by the way, you are needed over on the Maxine Waters thread. Serious ignorance problems over there to either bolster, rebut, or rationalize. All hands on deck.

No thanks. Maxine Waters right to express her stupidity is protected by the First Amendment. But I know you don't agree with that.

[gatordowneast]

Obama's lies have finally come home to roost....just like those chickens Reverend Wright talked about. And the chicken $__t building up at the white house from 4 years of this nonsense, has finally got "some" reporters actually investigating "the smell" rather than repeating the "Obama Narrative". Some have actually ventured "off the Plantation" and Obama and his staff don't like it one bit.

Truth is, they are terrified that we find out the truth...we have a bloated federal government that can be cut 20% without missing a beat.

[malligator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No thanks. Maxine Waters right to express her stupidity is protected by the First Amendment. But I know you don't agree with that.

Her right to express her stupid opinion as an American citizen is protected by the First Amendment. Her right to spread disinformation--through stupidity or dishonesty--in an official capacity as an elected member of the House isn't protected by squat.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by malligator

Her right to express her stupid opinion as an American citizen is protected by the First Amendment. Her right to spread disinformation--through stupidity or dishonesty--in an official capacity as an elected member of the House isn't protected by squat.

Really? So you think a congress person saying dumb stuff isn't protected by the First Amendment?

[David Shepherd]

Who first suggested the sequester?
During one of the presidential debates, Obama declared that he did not propose the sequester, but that Congress did. Drawing largely on the reporting of our colleague Bob Woodward, we concluded that claim was worth Four Pinocchios.

The Bottom Line
The sequester was clearly an idea advanced by the White House in order to avoid a second debt-ceiling showdown in Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. Thus, the sequester was structured to include only spending cuts — and to take effect after the election if the supercommittee was unable to reach a deal.


But Republicans agreed to this plan and thus also are equally responsible for the looming across-the-board cuts, absent a bipartisan agreement to delay or change them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...106b_blog.html

[malligator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Really? So you think a congress person saying dumb stuff isn't protected by the First Amendment?

Do I think a Congressperson standing on a podium in front of the press, having been introduced by the House Minority Leader, addessing the American people in an official capacity saying something pantently untrue that may affect the outcome of an extremely important political issue is protected by the First Amendment? No.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by malligator

Do I think a Congressperson standing on a podium in front of the press, having been introduced by the House Minority Leader, addessing the American people in an official capacity saying something pantently untrue that may affect the outcome of an extremely important political issue is protected by the First Amendment? No.

Well you're not answering my question. In your earlier post, you included 'stupidity' as something that isn't protected by the First. So my question was, 'So you think a congress person saying dumb stuff isn't protected by the First Amendment?'.

If my question was 'Do you think a congressperson knowingly lying to the American people is protected by the First Amendment?' then your answer above would actually be relevant to the question.

[malligator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Well you're not answering my question. In your earlier post, you included 'stupidity' as something that isn't protected by the First. So my question was, 'So you think a congress person saying dumb stuff isn't protected by the First Amendment?'.

If my question was 'Do you think a congressperson knowingly lying to the American people is protected by the First Amendment?' then your answer above would actually be relevant to the question.

Originally Posted by malligator

Her right to express her stupid opinion as an American citizen is protected by the First Amendment. Her right to spread disinformation--through stupidity or dishonesty--in an official capacity as an elected member of the House isn't protected by squat.

I did?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No thanks. Maxine Waters right to express her stupidity is protected by the First Amendment. But I know you don't agree with that.

You are so totally upside down on what you think, I think, that I suspect that you are either acting deliberately ignorant about it, or that you are simply faking deliberate ignorance (but . . . that is not to say stupid, either; entirely different legal/philosophical concept).

Anyway, I know you do agree that she doesn't have the right to BE stupid, even though we both agree that her election to exercise her First Amendment freedom of expression will inexorably lead every single one of us to conclude that she actually is. Stupid.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

You are so totally upside down on what you think, I think, that I suspect that you are either acting deliberately ignorant about it, or that you are simply faking deliberate ignorance (but . . . that is not to say stupid, either; entirely different legal/philosophical concept).

Anyway, I know you do agree that she doesn't have the right to BE stupid, even though we both agree that her election to exercise her First Amendment freedom of expression will inexorably lead every single one of us to conclude that she actually is. Stupid.

You're just saying nothing here. Just like the other thread -- a bunch of nonsense that doesn't address the point.