Patterico's Pontifications


Awwww: Obama Wants to Avoid Automatic Spending Cuts

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:42 pm

HuffPo via Hot Air:

White House officials say President Barack Obama will ask Congress to come up with tens of billions of dollars in short-term spending cuts and tax revenue to put off the automatic across the board cuts that are scheduled to kick in March 1.

Sorry, dude. No tax revenue for you. As you have repeatedly told us, we need this thing called a “balanced approach.” We have had the tax hikes. Now we must “balance” them with spending cuts.

If you don’t like that, I have a suggestion for you. It’s what you told us during the last negotiations.

21 Responses to “Awwww: Obama Wants to Avoid Automatic Spending Cuts”

  1. Sequestration!

    I don’t think they even know what a pistil is

    I got your pistil right here!

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  2. I think this might be racist. Sorry JD.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  3. I am definitely for sequestration at this point. Yes, the cuts to defense will be very tough to swallow, but if the GOP has a minimum amount of finesse (yeah, who am I kidding?) they can wait until the ramification of the defense cuts (job losses for defense contractors, fewer enlistment slots for young people who don’t want to go to college, base closures in Democrat states) sink in and get Dear Leader to quietly agree to provide the funding once again. After all, the sequestration was Obama’s idea.

    JVW (4826a9)

  4. Thought experiment – Why can’t Barky come up with billions of dollars of cost cuts, perhaps even put them in a, gasp, budget, instead of always asking somebody else to do his dirty work.

    He’s great at talking about doing things, but actually doing them, not so much.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  5. Mr. daley he needs to get this done so he can pivot to jobs

    happyfeet (ce327d)

  6. Seems like the latest threat from the Army of the Buggered is they’ll save money by skipping training for new recruits.

    Read our lips, whatever the executive does with its money, it will be held responsible for thrifty disposition of same.

    New recruits without training as well as guns? What could go wrong?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  7. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/5/2013 @ 10:16 pm

    Barky doesn’t do heavy-lifting; never has, never will!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  8. The GOP has, inexplicably, stumbled upon what may be a winner:

    Remind everyone, constantly, that the Sequestration Scheme was thought up and advanced by, THE WHITE HOUSE!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  9. After getting their revenues from the evil rich, it appears their new strategy is to demand even more revenues. What is the sequester ? 85,000,000,000 in a “budget” of 3,750,000,000,000? That is slightly more than a 2.25% cut. Anyone who calls that anything other than a good start is not serious about our deficit and debt problems.

    JD (b63a52)

  10. Feds spending on entitlements exceeds revenues:

    Fixing it is not sustainable.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  11. Fixing government, that is.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  12. On the subject of crybabies:

    Cry us a river.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  13. A recovery status report:

    The patient is going under.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  14. An above average effort from Cost:

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  15. 2.25% cuts are draconian.

    JD (b63a52)

  16. Who is this Draconis, and where can I donate to his campaign?

    SPQR (768505)

  17. The only hard part about this is being willing to consider the previously assumed unthinkable.

    The best predictor of future human behavior is past human behavior (barring some specific and profound life changing event or shift).

    What has Barack Obama ever done in his life that shows he has respect for the American military and its role in the world? I’m waiting…
    I think it should have been clear from the start that the “Sequester” was a trap. The Dems and the President will be happy to gut the military, this has been clear since 1971.

    And with no budget and a willingness to use executive orders, will any domestic program that Obama is vested in lose much? No.

    We know why there is no budget, do we not? More spending with no accountability, no accountability at spending time, no accountability at election time because you cannot link people to their votes for a specific budget proposal.

    Those of us who did not grow up with “Alinsky” and “Cloward-Piven” in our vocabulary had/have/are having a hard time believing we have people in charge of our government who actually believe and practice such things.

    Anything that looks or sounds like the president being in favor of limiting the effect of the sequester is, like most of his public pronouncements, political manipulation.

    Alternative views with reasoning welcome. It would be reassuring to know I am wrong.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  18. Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/7/2013 @ 8:45 am

    Anything that looks or sounds like the president being in favor of limiting the effect of the sequester is, like most of his public pronouncements, political manipulation.

    Alternative views with reasoning welcome. It would be reassuring to know I am wrong.

    He probably doesn’t want to gut the military too much and 50% of the sequester has to come from the rest of teh federal budget. Something I read was of the opinion that Obama is getting really worried – he doesn’t want the sequester, and it’s beginning to show, but he still thinks the republicans will blick first.

    Obama’s position is that any changes have to be in the form of replacing half the what is taken from the sequester with other spending cuts and half with tax increases, which he is calling tax refirm. He is now suggesting that some things that apparently many in Ciongress would agree to be enacted and the sequester be put off for some months. (this is the standard balancing off 10 yuears worth of a change in the law with several months of spending. This kind of thing actually makes no budget sense except ijn Washington accounting. The things the House Republicans might aghree to they would agree to in exchange for lowering some taxes – that’s what tax reform means)

    Obama talks as if he doesn’t know the argument that’s been going on. Actually he thinks a lot of the audience for his words doesn’t know.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  19. SF, in delving deep into the psyche of Teh Won, do you use Freudian, or Jungian, principles?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6033 secs.