In response to:

Both Parties Agree: Sequestration Is Bad, but Better Than The Alternatives

Dave M Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 3:51 PM
Not quite correct. True enough as it goes but every brain dead Republican agreed to it. Which means everyone was bluffing themselves. Beats me how your own bluff gets called by yourself but these fools somehow managed to do it.. But then we are dealing with politicians- not the brightest bulbs in the house.
Dave M Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 4:20 PM
The best the Repubs could get?
Its being called by Repubs?
We are talking Boehner and McConnell. They coudn't bluff or out maneuver- much less outsmart- a newborn babe.
tuttut Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 4:05 PM
Absolutely correct, au contraire. Obama and his people proposed it and Repubs went along because it was the best deal they could get. O agreed that taxes weren't a part of the sequester, but now he'c changed his tune because he is a phucking dishonorable street hustling liar. His bluff isn't being called by himself, dipstick. It's being called by Repubs who are saying, "No deal? Then let the sequester roll." And he's whining like a stuck pig because his precious food stamp empire is going to take a hit. What a hoot!
Sequestration Is the Worst Option Except for All the Other Options Both Democrats and Republicans have been roundly criticizing the security and economic effects of sequestration and, at the same time, taking very little action. The only logical conclusion is that both parties agree that sequestration is an awful, terrible, harmful set of policies - except the other proposed replacements are worse.

President Obama said "these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy." Speaker Boehner, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said "there's nothing wrong with cutting spending that much......

Related Tags: Barack Obama Sequestration