The Sequester is coming! Budget cuts are coming! The cuts were randomly assigned across both domestic and military spending. So the most important question is... who gets blamed for the disaster that $85 billion in ham handed cuts will produce?
First, why is $85 billion from a multi-trillion dollar budget a disaster? The answer is, because it was designed to be... by the White House staff. Rather than try to target cuts based on importance of programs, they distributed the cuts across a relative few favored programs of both Democrats and Republicans. The idea was to make the whole idea so painful that no one would actually let it happen. In fact, the original hope was that the very threat of such draconian cuts would force Republican negotiators to agree to compromise on the balanced "cuts and revenue" approach to deficit reduction during the last few days of the fiscal cliff debate. There was little chance of that. Speaker Boehner's immediate response was that Americans believed the tax increases were over. That wasn't true, of course, but he hoped voters would believe it, so he stuck to it. By doing so, he cut off any chance of the Republican/TEA Party majority in the House of Representatives considering compromise.
House Speaker Boehner
The upshot of all the wishing and hoping was that the White House plan was accepted, allowing the fiscal cliff to be voted past the 2012 election, until March 4, 2013—next Monday. It was hoped that by that time cooler heads would have prevailed, in part by having some of the hotter ones voted out of office. It now appears that none of that happened, or at least not enough of it, and the USA will see the absurdity of self-inflicted punishment hammering essential services equally with programs bloated with pork. Of course, which programs are essential versus which are pork laden depends upon who is making the choice. It seems fairly self-evident, however, that dropping a few billion from the military budget will have less permanent impact than several weeks of seniors going without the food and medicine provided by federal programs. And perhaps a reduction in highway spending might be preferable to reducing already marginal services to physically wounded and PTSD scarred veterans. In light of the looming disaster, Speaker Boehner has been trying to sell the idea that this is the President's Sequester, because he proposed it in the first place; and that the President ought to be responsible for deciding which cuts go where. The President is having none of it.
When the White House staff first proposed the idea to Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat Party's Senate leader, he was most unhappy. His own staff had suggested it a week or so earlier, and he had rejected it on the basis that the Obama staff would come up with a plan that would get the "fiscal cliff" debate settled for good and all. But the White House came up with the same plan. Despite Speaker Boehner attempting to claim that the whole problem was created by the President, and the present situation is all his fault, the Speaker's plea is falling on deaf ears. The President has made a business of pointing out that the idea came about because the House gave him a "Do it our way, or don't do it at all," ultimatum before the election, and that Speaker Boehner is saying essentially the same thing today. The President and the Republican/TEA Party are doing what one commentator calls the "Washington Dubstep." The dance accomplishes nothing, but neither side ever learns that, believing that if they are just good enough at their particular dance, the opposition will have to agree to do things their way. They're never good enough, and in today's political climate, no opposition politician is going to "do things their way."
But to answer the original question, voters have already weighed in on who is at fault here. By a wide margin—49 percent to 31 percent—they see the Republican/TEA Party in Congress as the obstruction in the road to success in this matter. Seventy-six percent of all voters polled in a recent Pew poll believe that the House of Representatives ought to approve a tax plan that includes a small increase for the wealthiest of Americans. After all, they are supposed to be the "job creators," using that lower-taxed money to create jobs... but they're not doing any such thing. So people tend to believe that they can pay a little more of the government's costs if they aren't going to provide the jobs they keep claiming as justification for the lowest taxes at their income level in generations.
Photo Source: Wikipedia Commons
Copyright 2013, RC Larlham, All rights reserved to author.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 115
Drawing the conclusion I have from those two easily verifiable facts is elementary.
Graham, it is not at all usual to show a link to back up what you're saying. Most comments and statements made on Gather do not come with a link. Many of those that do come with a link do not actually link to some empirical source of information but to a blog of some kind or even to the poster's own articles (present company included in that).
Not for Rory!
True Renee.
It is when you write a statement like you have done and expect people to believe what you have written. Why should we have to wast time trawling through pages on the internet. So if you do not mind will you show everyone the link that proves what you have said.
Guess redistricting is good when it benefits Democrats but bad when it benefits Republicans.
Gerrymandering is when those changes are made for partisan benefit, not merely to reflect actual population changes, but to accrue an undeserved benefit to the party effecting the change.
That is cheating.
The President and his party have had plenty of chances for negotiation....He got his tax increases now give us (we the people) our tax cuts.
He got his tax increases now give us (we the people) our tax cuts.
You are being disingenuous and you know it.
How about Senator Tom Coburn's oversight report on Pentagon spending released in November?
Five areas in DOD highlighted in the report that have little to do with defense include:
• Non-Military Research and Development ($6 billion)
• Education ($15.2 billion)
• Alternative Energy ($700 million)
• Grocery Stores ($9 billion)
• Overhead, Support and Supply Services ($37 billion)
In addition, the report found:
• Pentagon-branded beef jerky (p. 22);
• A reality cooking show called Grill it Safe featuring two “Grill Sergeants†who performed a 46-minute cooking video (p. 8);
• Pentagon-run microbreweries (p. 8);
• A smart phone app to alert users when to take a coffee break (p. 20);
• A bomb detector less effective than “a coin flip†(p. 15);
• Research examining the social interaction between robots and babies (p. 31);
• A workshop asking “Did Jesus die for Klingons too?†(p. 16);
• More flag officers per troop than at the height of the Cold War (p. 69)
• DOD overhead expenses greater than Israel’s GDP (p. 69)
Doesn't 11 billion times 4 billion equal 44 billion?"
No. That would be 44 sextillion dollars. Yes, that's $44,000,000,000,000,000,000.
You could buy the whole world with that money, leave a big tip, renovate it all into art deco style, have your favourite rock band follow you around playing theme music for your life, and build a stairway to heaven.
I am against the name-calling, personally. But that is not the point. It is against TOC, yes, but that is not even the point. More importantly, it takes away from a civil debate. We wonder why we are all so polarized....
Prove it.
The feigned outrage couldn't be more ridiculous.
Eric only knows what he hears on talk radio and from entertainment commentators on television and like some people who can not think and research for themselves, he believe what he hears on those entities.
Do you know Eric? What is with the insults? Why not just make a point? Eric's point is well taken, America IS indebted to China.
In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.
Seems like the monetary debt owed to China at 8% is larger than the 2% being called Draconian.
For extra credit ... The howls of "Draconian cuts" by libturds and the media is combined with "the cuts should be smart and balanced". Okay then, outline smart and balanced cuts that result in actual year over year spending cuts not lame-ass minuscule reductions in the growth of spending.
There is little doubt that both sides should recognize that neither can win a non compromising position in a political standoff on this particular issue. The idea that either can win outright by stubbornly refusing to negotiate with the other is IMO, insanely ludicris. Both parties having agreed to the pending enactment of the Sequester Bill in 2012, made sure that the potential of one or the other coming out on top by refusing to negotiate with the other could not happen.
The Sequester Bill as it was written, leaves no room for debate, demanding both sides to adhere to something that neither side wants and which if enacted will stymie the efficient operation of both government and private business. As such, both sides must agree to prevent the enacting of the Sequester Bill by sitting down and negotiating with sincerity, honesty and with the good of the American people first and foremost in mind. Its time to stop playing political games with the wellfare of America and it's people as the betting chips. Both sides must come together with the understanding that compromise must be accomplished to prevent the Sequester Bill from becoming law.
The White House proposed it, and Obama signed it into law. Both parties agreed to it. If they all hated it so much and thought it would lead to criminals roaming the streets and terrorizing children, why did they do that? Why would they play "chicken" with the economy?
Ideologically, many are fervent in their belief that everything government is bad. Taxes are all bad, in their minds, never necessary. Programs are all bad, all nothing but waste. Government is not a participant in the economy but a millstone around its neck, in their world view. Starting from that ideological base they see anything that reduces government, government spending and participation in the economy as a good thing, regardless of actual effects. So, in their world, depriving veterans of health care and seniors of prescription drugs is good if it means less government.
When the consequences of their actions bite (and it will bite many in the so-called 'Red States'), then constituents will begin to bark and bite and Republican Congressional leaders may begin to fear the wrath of voters, rather than of special interest groups like the Tea Party, FreedomWorks for America and the NRA.
You mean like here:
"My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
Ohhhh wait.
You know this, but still you frame a question to make it seem like quite the opposite. Disingenuous, as usual.
My you resemble my avatar Scotty boy.
This is not Renee Nal's article therefore she can not protect a petty little man like you who is so insecure in his own political ideology that you report people for using the term Teabagger.
Now report me for using the term {Fool} when addressing you in this comment, but before you do, you had better take a close look at your avatar.
As for me not making any points, the disingenuous Doll, Girl, Babe, Hun, etc. can take her advice and stick it along with her head where the New Zealand sun never shines.
Points, really no Points, OMG, that just breaks my little old USA heart.
Anyone want to take a stab at it....? Or would you rather discuss perceived offensive avatars?
Turns out the TEA Twits are too stupid to understand what negotiation and compromise mean, and the President is too sure of the innate goodness of all elected servants of the public to believe they'd be this venal.
After considering the source, I chuckled heartily.
But the president signed it into law. Again, if President Obama really believes that the sequester will trigger a recession, why did he sign it into law?
He signed it into law because he thought the TEA Twits were more intelligent than they've proven themselves to be. He believed that once they realized that more than half the American public thought they were insane obstructionists, the TEA Twits would actually negotiate and halt the sequester.
Reminds me of a girl in high school that said - I promise to, if you do this for me - then after when I expect the promise fulfilled, there is another demand, then another, and still another.
He thought the conservatives were too stupid to stand up for what is right and fair, and too stupid to see him as no better than a 'C-tease' after a friday night H.S. football game.
So far - Obama has gotten many tax increases.
So far, there has not been one single cut in spending.
Obama Promised there would be cuts if tax increases were done (Gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today).
That is exactly what Obama has done - "give me this, I will give you that - later" followed by "well now I want this too before I give you that", followed by "no wait, I still want more of this, THEN I will give you that", followed by "ok yea, but I still want even more before I give you that".......
And he calls that "negotiation and compromise"?
No - that is blackmail and a bluff.
The same bluff he is using with Sequester - he has been called.
And what does it do? Is it less than spending in 2008? NO
Is it less than 2009? NO
Does it reduce spending back to 2010 levels? - NO
2011?- NO
2012? - NO
In fact even after the "cuts", it is still the largest budget in US history, and still adds over a Trillion to the debt.
He went all in - they called.
Chuck Larlham Feb 26, 2013, 7:43pm EST
Because they each thought the other side would cave. The President thought for sure he could force negotiation and compromise. The TEA Twits were sure the President would do what he's done before and do it their way.
Turns out the TEA Twits are too stupid to understand what negotiation and compromise mean, and the President is too sure of the innate goodness of all elected servants of the public to believe they'd be this venal.
The marvelous character you eschew to the President of these grand motives just slays me. That he is operating on some grand belief on the great motive of what is good for the people is questionable. They are all the same, politicians. Dems to serve the takers, and Pubs to serve the makers, it seems to me.
That NOBODY it proposing any real cuts, just cuts to future spending is ludicrous. I happen to think there is no future for us except hyper inflation. We will pay it all back in depreciated dollars. It's a darn shame that most of it will be paid off the top of SS as means testing will have to be instituted, and off the bottom, as energy and food are kept out of the inflation calculation, leading to intense poverty for retirees dependent on SS incomes. That is the reality ALL know, since much of the debt lies there. Yet they spend, and spend and spend. I just can't buy that either group cares about the people much.
They are all the same, politicians. Dems to serve the takers, and Pubs to serve the makers, it seems to me.
Although the context of that statement can not be successfully argued against nor denied in its basic premise, I believe that it was written with an envious Libertarian attitude. Fully understandable sarcasm, inasmuch, as it must create deep mental anguish to always be in the political minority. An anguish which understandedly causes one to lash out at those he actually needs to join him in his way of thinking in order to become an equal in political power.
Sort of a no win conundrum for the commentor which poses the problem of, should I openly denigrate both the Democrats and the Republicans as I want to or should I join one side or the other, even though I don't politically agree with either ???
What I wrote above is pure BS, stay as you are, it provides both of your political enemies a target, as well as being a target, quite appropriate for American politics.
Actually, I don't have a standard political side, I consider myself to be an Independent Progressive. That self analysis may not make sense to you, but in my small world of politics and concerned discussions thereon, I believe that it suits me and the majority of my positions on most issues just fine.
Always have liked your avatar, has nothing to do with my politics, I just like it.
The President got his tax increases now we the people want our tax cuts, and a 85 billion dollar cut out of a 3,700 billion dollar budget is barely a drop in the bucket.
You drank the AlGore foolaid years ago
Not only did the White House initiate the cuts, (and Obama signed it into law), President Obama "threatened to veto Republicans' attempts to make the cuts more responsible and targeted." Republicans "offered several rounds of offsetting cuts, all of which have been dismissed by Democrats."
Obama said,
"My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
The question still remains: Why does the Fed insist they cut their most vital assets instead of trimming around the edges? After all, these cuts amount to only 2.4 percent of federal spending.
Because...
It's a joke, People.
It's a Game, People.
It's a Lie, People.
It's a joke and a Game and a Lie.
Very true. The federal government is bringing down America.
On the Decline of Empires
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977333148
Went to your suggested site;
It is quite interesting how the books author in describing Rome of 160 AD, did so almost as if she were describing the American Government's problems of today.
That's an out of control government if it doesn't even know an entire agency was closed.
We need to see much more cut than has been offered. Much, much more.
If you try the TEA Twit model of purely cutting your way to deficit reduction, you will soon see America following Europe (most of the countries there ARE following that model), and fall into the depths of the same Great Depression they're about to. You HAVE to generate income, and when vast amounts of American wealth are being winkled totally out of the American economy and hidden overseas, you don't get there by assuming that as the debt falls business will pick up and taxes will naturally increase. Didn't happen when Dubya handed out the tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate job production (more money simply went out of the economy to the Caymans - no jobs created), and it won't happen this way either. Keep cutting spending deeper and deeper now, without any revenue, and businesses will go belly up for lack of their own income. That's what Europe looks like.
If you try the TEA Twit model of purely cutting your way to deficit reduction,
Don't believe I know of anyone that has that particular model. The model, I believe, subscribed to by the tea party is more like this....
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.”
or like this:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”
Obama and Harry Reid, 2006
And he was so very smart - I mean, not like as if they went bankrupt, cheated their investors out of what was owed them, and got a bail out from us.
Yea - a GREAT business model to follow LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
To knowingly do it again, will be solely a form of harassment and act accordingly.
This is the 3rd time I have told you.
They went bankrupt, because they spent too much, and promised too much more spending while getting no increased return.
Yes, there is a point when cuts will not help.
But you certainly can NOT spend your way to profits.
You have to invest to make money - completely different than "spend"
I am a man of principal, honor, and good standing.
I will not have my name blasphemed, by having it implied that I am on a familiar and friendly basis with those whose philosophy is irrational, and harmful to the future of the country.
We are known by the friends we keep - and I protect myself from having it appear falsely that I am friends with the likes of Mr. Lartlam, or you.
You also are personally put on notice, that any addressing me in such a manner, will be an absolute display of a desire to be personally insulting, confrontational, antagonistic, and denigrating. As such it will be harassment.
You are on notice, I will complain – because I will not have my character impugned.
1) Do as Tony suggests and take it out of your screen name, or
2) Stay off my posts.
You pick, Mick
For the last time, do not call me Mick - we are not friends."
"Jesse (my friends may call me 'Mick') McIlroy Feb 28, 2013, 1:24am EST
My screen name specifically states that "friends" may address me in such a manner. I am a man of principal, honor, and good standing. I will not have my name blasphemed, by having it implied that I am on a familiar and friendly basis with those whose philosophy is irrational, and harmful to the future of the country."
I guess that wasn't the last time, eh?
From Dictionary.com:
"blas·phe·my [blas-fuh-mee]
noun, plural blas·phe·mies.
1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. Judaism.
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3. Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself."
I guess Jesse (he's no friend of mine) has a pretty inflated opinion of himself.
You are on notice, I will complain – because I will not have my character impugned.
"Character Impugned" Thanks for the attempt at humor, but let's face the true facts, you show signs of being a character, you don't show any signs of having character. Only whining, whining and more whining, that's not having character, that's being a character.
First we have Dan E. whining over Tea Bagger, now we have Jesse whining over Mick. Come on guys, man up like Renee, she takes it as a compliment when she is referred to as Doll or even Babe. Surly you have as much balls as a Sweetheart from New Zealand.
It has been interesting to see Senator Cornyn tie himself in knots to argue now that the Sequester is not a big deal. This after Republicans have been warning for months that it represents the end of the world. Odd, once upon a time, Republicans would rather be shot than stand aside while cuts happen to the military.
In reality, the military budget has to be cut- because it has doubled in size in the past 12 years. But this approach, cutting with a baseball bat, is really not the best approach. It risks destroying the national appetite for actual cuts to the military- because voters may recoil when they see the results of such a baseball bat approach.
"My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
This is NOT a situation where "A curse o' both your houses,"** will work. The threat is different from the two:
Obama... "Come negotiate or the sequester will come to pass, and it will be your fault."
TEA Twits: "Do it our way or the sequester will come to pass, and it will be your... OMG - they're blaming US! C'mon, Mr. President, do it our way... they're blaming US! Ple-e-eze do it our way, We can't back down NOW!"
President Obama: "You have to negotiate."
Boehner and the TEA Twits: "Ple-e-e-e-e... Oh God..."
"Negotiation anyone?"
*sob*
**Mercutio to Romeo on being stabbed by stealth.
If I remember correctly, the Super Committee was comprised of both parties - one side wants more taxpayer money, one side wants cuts. The spending, Chuck, is unsustainable.
Check out http://bit.ly/smallestspender
So, because Republicans want only cuts and no tax increases they can only conceive of the Democrats position as the polar opposite: tax increases with no spending cuts.
No matter how often it is pointed out to them that the Democrats, and just about every single economist out there, are calling for both spending cuts and tax increases, their binary thinking cannot conceive of a third, alternative, or nuanced position and they just resort to claiming and repeating the lie that Democrats only want tax increases.
It's like talking to a broken record.
"Democrats were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes, and unwilling to offer meaningful reforms for health-care entitlement spending."
What I don't understand - this is an honest question...
The debt ceiling was raised
the fiscal cliff - tax the rich happened, no spending cuts
Sequestration:
We know the idea originated from the WH and Obama signed it into law,
We know that efforts to make changes were threatened with a veto,
So, with all of the tax hikes and the concessions already made, why is it unreasonable that the GOP resist yet more tax hikes?
ignorant, they thought he was a good POTUS and deserved a second term!
What was better after his first 4 years? GDP? True Inflation? Unemployment? our credit rating? The size of the debt? the deficit to spending? Personal income? Personal net worth? More people self-sufficient?
Nope - every single one is worse than ever.
Unemployment in October 2009 (when first Obama budget presented) = 10%
Unemployment in December 2012 = 7.8%
Growth Rate when Obama came into office (six quarters starting late 2008 to early 2010) in negative figures: -0.6%, - 3.3%, -4.2%, - 4.6%, -3.3%, -0.1%
Growth Rate after Obama economic policies begin to take effect (12 quarters in positive figures: 1.9%, 2.5%, 2.8%, 2.4%, 1.8%, 1.9%, 1.6%, 2.0%, 2.4%, 2.1%, 2.6%, 1.6%
Inflation last four years before collapse: 3.4%, 3.2%, 2.8%, 3.8%
Inflation for three years since collapse: 1.6%, 3.2%, 2.1%
So, apparently you're wrong, again.
How can the Republicans be at fault for the 0-97 votes against Oblama's budget proposals?
Manipulation by the media accomplices on low information voters and the weak minded is most likely the answer. The evidence is all over this web site.
The President, knowing full well that something had to be done to regress the rising government indebtedness, while at the same time raising needed revenues proposed the Sequester Bill. He purposely designed the Bill to be something that would be so unwanted and distasteful to both sides, that when the date approached for automatic enactment, both sides would gladly sit down for sensible and constructive negotiations. Having been afforded the time to find common ground upon which to compromise their individual positions on revenue and spending in regards to the national debt. Thereby, they would avoid the Sequester Bill from becoming law. At the same time they would be able to say to their constituents that although they had been forced into negotiating a new Revenue/Spending Bill, they had not compromised on the party's political ideology nor party's principles.
Unfortunately, at the time the Sequester Bill was proposed and signed by the President, it was the Republicans and Democrats in both Houses of Congress which had agreed to the Bill. Those with opposing views (Teapublicans) were not allowed a voice in the agreement and were mostly viewed as being nothing more than a mild nuisance for the Republican leaders to silence.
IMO, Elected officials are suppose to be smart politicians with the ability to foresee potential problems in future governing and are thereby, are able to plan ahead for any such pending obstacles and possible events. But, this time, the Republicans failed to see true extent of the ever-growing problems building within their own Congressional ranks. A future problem that was looming like a black cloud over their heads as well as that of the whole of Congress. {i.e.} The unforeseen rise of the Teapublicans to political power, via a weak leadership.
My point being, that those who negotiated the Sequester Bill did not foresee the Teapublicans faction within the Republican Party in Congress as gainging the political clout they now have. Political clout which can only be blamed on the weakness of the Republican leader who presides over the House of Representatives as its Speaker. I'm of course referring to Congressman John Boehner, who has demonstrated his total inability to control and now fears, those within his own party. The Teapublicans, who by their very boldness, have proven themselves to be a formitable group to the Republican Party its self. Although Teapublicans make up less than 1/3 of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, they are a very angry, boisterous and determined group of discontents, who have apparantly scared the hell out of John Boehner into doing their bidding.
For those readers who are blaming the POTUS for proposing and signing the pending Bill of Sequester, I suggest that you take the time to educate yourselves on the actual problems facing our government and the factual reasons which created those problems. You may find that the problem lies closer to home than you originally thought or were led to believe.
When there is a growing discontent within a political party, there is the strong possibility that the party has elected weak or poor leadership and needs to rectify the situation before it becomes a serious problem.
Exactly! That, & everything else you said, Scott.
Regardless of the back & forth here, & the same quote being repeatedly posted, Obama has been left with two clear choices:
1. Either continue to give in, hoping that, as Rory {I think} pointed out, no one, especially not a civil servant, could be so heinous as to sacrifice the lives of real people for the sake of being right, or standing their ground, or whatever other insane excuse they've used for their refusal to compromise.
or...
2. Resort to a game of chicken, again, with the hope that ridiculously self-absorbed, ignorant, bigoted people may, for once, open their eyes to someone/something other than their own selfish agendas.
Sure, it was probably a stupid gamble, but what was left when dealing with people who clearly don't have the same sense of integrity the rest of us do?
So, I get that you believe Democrats are morally superior. I would never make such a generalization about a political party. I focus on the individual, but that may just be me.
Speaking of integrity, I do have some questions:
Why did Pres Obama and Jack Lew both say clearly that the idea for sequestration came from congress?
Why did President Obama say that Criminals would be released?
There is no doubt that there has been a "pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester." Why would they do that?
BTW: I am sincerely sorry to have read that an up and coming young man within the documentary and recorded video industry was killed by a great white while surfing off the coast of New Zealand. My deepest condolences go out to his family, friends and the New Zealand Film & Arts industry, their loss, is also a loss to the world.
Close....PROGRESSIVES think they are morally superior and have no compunction about forcing others to do what they think is right.