In response to:

Boom: "The Obama Sequester"

sleroi Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 11:53 AM
Actually, Baucus is the most correct, everyone is to blame. The sequester, inspired by Lindsey Graham years ago, is a result of the failure of the "supercommittee" which Newt accurately labeled as stupid during the presidential debates. And Boehner was bragging in his op/ed about helping to form the supercommittee. Boehner also blames Obama for the fact that there were tax increases with no spending cuts when he was the one who put it up for a vote in violation of his majority of the majority rule. Thanks to Boehner's great leadership we are in a lose/lose situation...
Smitty41inPB Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 12:00 PM
looks like you got most of the facts correct but your conclusions seem a bit off and more of the same media spin
sleroi Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 12:13 PM
The media and the dems are blaming the Republicans, and the Republicans are blaming Obama. Im blaming everyone. This is SOP for Obama, fail to lead, demagogue, and blame someone else when it all comes crashing down. And, as usual, Boehner is playing from a defensive position instead of going on the offensive. We've only known this was coming for over a year, and all we did was pass two bills which we knew would die in the senate. That's about as effective as Obama's response to the looming housing crisis... He wrote a letter. We never should have been in this position in the first place, yet here we are, thanks to Boehner. Please, citizens of Ohio, primary the man.
sleroi Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 11:59 AM
...if the sequester is avoided we have caved once again, and nothing will be done about the economy, and if the sequester goes through we will be blamed for every alleged bad consequence and we will never get any other spending passed because we will have already made "draconian cuts." And has been shown numerous times on TH in graph form, the cuts are ridiculously inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. So instead of picking sides we need to be pressuring our representatives to be bold and cut spending or get primaries.
sleroi Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 12:02 PM
I meant spending cuts, not spending.
tuttut Wrote: Feb 21, 2013 11:59 AM
In reality, sequester is win-win. Sequester stops Obutthead's spending momentum and forces cuts to social programs, as he has already bemoaned. As threats mount, the defense cuts will be revoked. The social spending? Not so much. Let the sequester roll!

The Republican National Committee has President Obama dead to rights on his breathtaking hypocrisy and demagoguery regarding the impending automatic "sequestration" cuts that he's now trying to attribute to the GOP.  This video doesn't break any new ground on substance, but its stark juxtaposition of Obama's 2011 veto threat and this week's attempt at blame shift is absolutely damning:
 


RNC Chairman Reince...