Skip to main content

View Diary: If Republicans hate the sequester so much, why won't they get rid of it? (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Excuse me, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    The Obama administration has proffered a gazillion ideas that have been utterly ignored.  Is there a reason that this one merits "#Obamasequester"?  I mean did he actually have a vote? Did he bring it to the floor for a vote? Did he brag like the boner that he got 98% of what he wanted?

    •  That's why the Republicans are insisting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Whatithink

      that the Senate "bring it [the President's ideas] to the floor for a vote" -- because that way there has to be a concrete proposal, with numbers associated with it, that is labeled as the Democratic alternative.  For some reason, the Senate Democrats haven't done that.  They haven't even introduced a bill, as far as I know.  They could have taken one of the House passed bills on the sequester and amended it to comply with their views on a sequester alternative, but they haven't done that.  

      The Republicans have twice committed to a Republican alternative - brought something to the floor of the House for a vote, and it twice passed on a partisan basis, because it was unacceptable to Democrats.  It includes Medicare cuts, which is why the President said last night the part about them wanting to get rid of the cuts "on the backs of the elderly."

      Frankly, if the President wants his sequester alternative to be seriously considered, HE ought to insist to Harry Reid that the Senate Democrats bring it to the floor for a vote.  

      It's called "Obamaquester" by the Republicans because (1) Jack Lew came up with the idea on behalf of the President; and (2) an Presidential/Democratic alternative has never made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  

    •  I am sorry, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, VClib

      if this was such a bad deal why was it the administration's idea and why did Obama sign it?

      •  Because it was never intended to go through (0+ / 0-)

        It was a bludgeon from the start to force Republicans to the table

        •  It was a miscalculation by the administration, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Whatithink

          I think.  When Jack Lew proposed it, his calculation was that the Republicans would never be willing to accept the defense cuts.  That's what the administration means when it says, "It was never intended to go through." When the administration proposed it, they thought that Republicans ultimately would cave so as to preserve the defense budget.

          Apparently, the Republicans are now going to call the administration's bluff -- and what the administration is now saying, in effect is, "I never expected that the Republicans actually would accept the legislation I proposed!"

          If "it was never intended to go through," the administration had no business proposing it in the first place.  

          •  You know what? You're missing something here: (0+ / 0-)

            The defense cuts.

            That's not bluffing.  Republicans call the President's bluff?  Their Military Industrial Complex friends will be waterboarding them.

            Of course, the President won't allow any proposal to come through that strips those out, say, without getting rid of the sequesters in general.

            That's probably one of the Reasons the Republicans disliked the deal in the first place.  Unfortunately, they were too stupid to give themselves a rational way out, and that pattern is repeating here.

            Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?

            by Stephen Daugherty on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:27:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The defense cuts are the point. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Whatithink

              The Administration -- who says they never wanted the sequester to go through -- was counting on the defense cuts being so unpalatable to Republicans that the Republican would never let those cuts go through.  It was essentially a bluff by the Administration -- pretending it was willing to have the sequester happen UNLESS Republicans caved and went along with the President's proposal on the "grand bargain" being floated at the time.  

              It now appears that the Republicans ARE willing to let the defense cuts go through.  (The next couple of weeks will make it clear whether that's really true.)  

              So, the Administration is now stuck with a deal that it proposed but now says it didn't want.  

              That's what I meant by Republicans "calling the Administration's bluff."  

            •  SD - I think the GOP are willing to live with the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whatithink

              Defense cuts to see spending reduced. They certainly aren't going to trade spending cuts for tax increases. As long as the President is demanding new revenues there is no hope that the sequester won't happen.

              I think the GOP would be willing to have fewer cuts and a different allocation rather than an across the board plan if one was proposed without revenues.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 05:41:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (61)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Texas (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site