Skip to main content

Outside of the Republican media bubble and Bob Woodward's night terrors, I don't think there's been any doubt that Republicans, not President Obama, are the ones insisting on implementing the sequester's automatic spending cuts, but until Wednesday afternoon, I hadn't heard House Speaker John Boehner admit it.

The big moment happened during an an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Tapper's new show, "The Lead." Boehner initially tried to blame President Obama for the sequester, saying that "he forced this process [sequestration] to occur." Then something truly unexpected happened: Tapper pointed out that President Obama didn't want the sequester cuts ... and Boehner conceded the point:

Well, no, he didn't want the cuts. But, uh, we have the sequester as a result of his demands. And I've told my colleagues in the House that the sequester will stay in effect until there's an agreement that will include cuts and reforms that will balance the budget over the next ten years.
So the good news is that Boehner admits the obvious fact that the President Obama didn't and doesn't want the sequester cuts to occur. Nonetheless, he insists on blaming the president for the sequester, a position that makes absolutely no sense given that he also says the president doesn't want the sequester cuts. Moreover, Boehner made it clear that while the president doesn't want the sequester cuts, Boehner does—and that he'll insist on keeping them in place until even harsher budget cuts are enacted. (To achieve balance, the House budget plan cuts an additional $4.6 trillion on top of the $1 trillion in sequester cuts.)

Basically, Boehner just give his stupid #Obamaquester blame game a big old kiss goodbye. Now that he's admitted that President Obama doesn't want the sequester but that Republicans do, he's taking full and complete ownership. And unless he changes his mind, the only way we'll be able to get rid of the sequester is by winning the 2014 elections.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:53 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Citation (14+ / 0-)

      Obama: I Will Veto Attempts To Get Rid Of Automatic Spending Cuts
      Agustino Fontevecchia, Forbes Staff
      11/21/2011 @ 6:08PM

      President Barack Obama gave a press conference after the Supercommittee officially admitted it failed to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion in budget spending over the next 10 years.  Obama told reporters he would veto any attempt to get rid of the automatic cuts which are set to kick in as a part of the sequester proposition.
      Threatening a veto, Obama asked Congress to reach a bi-partisan solution that would put the country’s debt situation on a sustainable path to recovery.  “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts,” said Obama from the White House’s briefing room, adding “the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal.”
      Perhaps Forbes is not authoritative enough for you?
      •  Yeah he wanted Congress to do it's job. (11+ / 0-)

        Bad President!

        I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil.

        by ReverseThePolarity on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:32:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That was when the Republicans said they were going (16+ / 0-)

        to put out a bill to get rid of the defence cuts and not the cuts for anything else else. That statement was made to stop the republicans from playing games.

      •  ek, then Speaker Boehner must be mis-speakin' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, Aquarius40

        What, you expected the President to save Congress from itself?

        What was there to veto? Congress passed the sequester, both Houses. It was the law, a done deal before the so-called "Supercommittee" had its first meeting.

        Congress would have had to act again and void the sequester. If that's all they did - a highly unlikely scenario given this deficit/debt-blustering Republican House - then, what, he would have vetoed it? Well, possibly, but I have no doubt he was holding Congress's feet to the fire they enacted.

        Not a bad principle.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:48:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Boehner lies every time he opens his mouth. (5+ / 0-)

          You're citing him as a credible source?

          From Obama's lips to your ears.

        •  People that don't understand triggers shouldn't.. (5+ / 0-)

          talk about this and you obviously don't. There were legislative attempts to change the Budget Control Act that created the sequester in the condition that the Super Committee failed on so called fair deficit reduction(sucking income out of the private sector with little to no demand). There were was no separate sequester legislation; it was part of the same bill that created thew Super Committee and a trigger. Are you this uninformed? If you are, you don't need to be talking about any sequester.

          ek hornbeck is right and these excuses are from people who didn't even do even a little bit of research on the topic, including, sadly, the FPer who wrote this diary. No one cares what Boehner says, we care that we are in this mess, mainly because a debt ceiling raise wasn't part of the Obama Bush tax cut deal of 2010 because deficit terrorism terrorizing the public is awesome to this President like Republicans.

          I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

          by priceman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:14:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Price, Obama couldn't have vetoed the sequester. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Yes, exactly, it was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It didn't stand alone. It never did. When the Supercommitte failed to come up with a solution, there was no vehicle to veto. To have something to veto - he couldn't veto the trigger already in the law Congress passed - meant Congress had to act. That was my point. (What about that should I have researched further?)

            As for the veto threat, the president pretty clearly stated his goal in making the preemptive threat - to urge Congress to resolve the impasse. Particularly not just to cancel the sequester and do nothing. (That seems unlikely, but not impossible.) He specifically did not want to fight over debt and deficits each time Congress had an opportunity, of which there would be at least three, possibly more, before Summer 2013. He might not be able to avoid it, but he can be a leader and try to steer the way.

            As for Jed citing Boehner, it wasn't as "a reliable source," it was the fact that Boehner said it. Remember, Boehner had made a big deal that the sequester was Obama's idea. (Yes, it was in a WH proposal during the prolonged and contentious bargaining over the Budget Control bill.) So for the Speaker now to concede that the President "didn't want the cuts" is significant for counter-balance. That was - I believe - Jed's point, and mine in the comment that started this.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:47:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Veto any attempt to rid or change the sequester (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck

              These are facts and that was the point! there was an attempt to change the Budget Control Act of 2011 from Republicans, but the message that the President would veto any attempt to legislate away or change the sequester by any party made sure it was a reality. That is the point.

              The WH wrote the sequester.

              Ignore Sperling's spin and look at how this happened which I already went into.

              Yes, the Sequester is President Obama's Fault. These are facts.

              This is true despite...

              The Sequester: Lies, Damned Lies, and Libel Against Critics on the Left

              You will see from those two pieces that the President is lying or ignorant about deficits, politics and what could be done to avoid the debt ceiling debacle I predicted in 2010 was going to happen. Trusting John Boehner with the debt ceiling as a hostage with the Bush tax cuts expiring as leverage to get a raise in the debt ceiling was just stupid or corrupt. Creating dumb-ass Super Committees and their triggered sequester over a phony public debt problem perpetuated to enact austerity is not anything to make excuses for. And threatening to veto anything from anyone in any party to make sure the triggered dumbass sequester was a reality you seemed to be ignoring. Congress created the Super Committee and the sequester and it can be undone any time and should be undone. It's abhorrent and the excuses for it are also abhorrent.

              Read my sig.

              I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

              by priceman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Until you sent this, I thought you were mad at ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... President Obama. Now, it sounds like you're mad at everybody.

                Yeah, I wish our President would stop including debt reduction as an immediate goal, because doing so concedes too much ground. Growing Federal debt is a problem, one with deep roots in George Bush's two terms, but it isn't nearly as big a problem as our still-moribund economy and the repressive effects of austerity measures. I'd defer further austerity with the reasonable expectation that a rising economy will increase tax revenues and address the deficits/debt issues better than cutting and slashing. (We disagree about the sequester. I don't like it either, but (1) it will spur military cuts that are extremely unlikely to occur otherwise and (2) only a 2% annual cut in Medicare spending is a "haircut" compared to what is otherwise at risk. The 8% bludgeon cut in domestic programs is awful, but the oncoming pain may wake up voters in some of the Red State "taker" districts to what austerity politics really means.)

                Now, if calling Obama "lying or ignorant about deficits, politics and what could happen to avoid the debt ceiling debacle" helps you vent, so be it. I think there were some short-sighted strategic decisions back then, but "lying or ignorant"? This President isn't!

                Whatever, this is 2013. The Federal budget, the debt ceiling, routine continuing resolutions to fund the government - they all recur. Congress ain't gonna give up its constitutional powers to control the purse no matter how much we rant about it.

                Your sig line is a blunt slogan, an ultimatum. Do you have a practical alternative to negotiation given the GOP-controlled Tea-Party-fixated House and a nearly dysfunctional Senate? (The "grand bargain" part was aspirational and ironic. I can give up on that phase!)

                Let's face it. 2014 can't come soon enough. Until then, to do anything meaningful in Congress, there will have to be negotiation with unreasonable people.

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  "Fox Manufactures Obama Veto Threat For Replacing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JL, Jeff Simpson

        Spending Cuts"

        Fox News is cropping a statement President Obama made in November 2011 to falsely claim he threatened to veto any replacement for the scheduled across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. But in that statement, Obama called on Congress to pass "a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion" to replace the cuts in the sequester.


  •  Yeah, but... (14+ / 0-)

    he said it while Obama is out of the country, so it doesn't count.

  •  It's pretty hard to disown this one. (9+ / 0-)

     photo ryan-stupid_zps8fb141de.jpg

    What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Mark Twain

    by Gordon20024 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:16:18 PM PDT

  •  They BOTH "own" the sequester. (11+ / 0-)
    Now that he's admitted that President Obama doesn't want the sequester but that Republicans do, he's taking full and complete ownership.
    If people read the Woodward book instead of taking snippets out of the press, it's clear that both sides have "ownership" of the sequester, and any attempt to lay it entirely at the feet of the President or entirely at the feet of the Republicans is just re-writing history.  

    In simple terms, in the summer of 2011, there was almost a deal to raise the debt ceiling, but only enough to get through another year (that's all the offsetting cuts the Dems and Repubs in Congress could agree on).  That would have meant the debt ceiling would be addressed again in the summer of 2012.  The President insisted, as HIS one condition, that any deal be enough to get the debt ceiling past the 2012 election.  The President expressly told Woodward that in his interviews for the book.  He (his advisers, Lew et al) came up with the Sequester from the Gramm Rudman Hollings Act of 1985, and they pitched it first to Reid, then to the Republicans as an incentive for the Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling past the 2012 election.  The President pitched it precisely because he believed that the Republicans would never let the defense cuts happen.  First Reid, then Boehner, signed on to the President's proposal.  

    So, both sides own the sequester.  The Republicans own it because they were demanding cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, and demanding that the cuts equal the amount the debt ceiling was raised.  But the President also owns it.  It was his idea, and it was what he gave in order to get something -- a debt ceiling extension past November 2012.  

    Sure, the President didn't "want" the sequester -- he wanted something he couldn't have (a clean increase in the debt ceiling).  So he agreed to pay this price -- the sequester -- in exchange for a benefit to him that he wanted -- the debt ceiling to be raised enough to get past November 2012.  

    It's as if I agree to pay $15,000 for a car. The car maker can't disavow the car -- it's what he was selling to get the money.  So, the Republicans can't disavow the fact that they sold the debt ceiling for the sequester.  And, I can't say, after I got the car, well, I never really wanted to pay the $15,000, so now that the car is mine, give me back the $15,000.  So, the President can't say, after I got the debt ceiling fight past my re-election, let's eliminate the sequester (the price I paid for it).  

    They BOTH own the sequester.  That's the price the President offered to get what he wanted, and that's the price Boehner agreed to accept in exchange for raising the debt ceiling past November 2102.  

    My personal opinion is that the President miscalculated when he counted on the Republicans not letting the defense cuts happen.   That's why it's accurate to say he didn't "want' the sequester cuts to happen.  He counted on the Republicans caving in later, to avoid the defense cuts, without any assurance that they WOULD cave in later.  That was his miscalculation.  It doesn't absolve him of all responsibility for a deal that he wanted and the price he offered to pay for that deal.  

    •  The Woodward book, really ? I am not interested (13+ / 0-)

      in what Bob Woodward has to say about this based on his recent behavior.  I would need to see some other sources back up Bob on this.  But . that is just my opinion and where I am at on this.  

      I am not willing to put to equal blame on the Republicans and the President for the sequester at this point.  We know how the Republicans are intent in blocking everything this President wants.  They are obstructionists. I am not into " both sides do it".  But again, that could just be me and how I feel about it.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:41:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Woodward quotes the President (11+ / 0-)

        numerous times in the book, as the President sat to be interviewed specifically for the book.  

        No one has disavowed the FACTS in that book.  What the uproar was about was Woodward's characterization of the President's position as "moving the goalposts" because he wanted revenue in a deal to get rid of the sequester.  

        The FACTS are that the deal offered by the President in 2011, and accepted by the Republicans, was, if no agreement could be reached, all cuts (no revenue) would happen.  The President believed that, in order to avoid defense cuts, the Republicans would cave and agree to additional revenue to avoid the sequester, but revenue was not part of the deal made in summer of 2011.  Those are the facts, and the White House has never disputed that.  What the WH disputed was Woodward's characterization of the President's actions as "moving the goalposts" because he wanted revenue to replace the sequester.  That's what the Sperling email to Woodward says.  

        Your dislike of Republicans is one thing, but it doesn't eradicate facts.  And the facts are that the President want something from Republicans -- a debt ceiling increase that got him past the election -- and he offered the sequester to get it.  Having gotten what he wanted -- the debt ceiling past the November 2012 election -- he can't completely disavow the price he agreed to pay for that.  The facts are that both the President, and the Republicans, made a deal where each gave up something they didn't want to give up in exchange for getting something they wanted more.  And that means that they BOTH own it.  

      •  I rarely agree with coffeetalk (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, VClib, MPociask

        but other sources confirm his position.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:13:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bad analogy (3+ / 0-)

      Taking the debt ceiling hostage was not setting a good faith price on a commodity another party wishes to purchase.

      I do think Obama fancied the notion that he'd make lemonade out of lemons, point to a substantial piece of legislation on the debt that included revenues.

      Maybe you think he could have made a better deal, or otherwise better responded to the crisis.

      But he is not responsible for the lemons that the Rs dumped in his lap.  The Rs own the sequester, period.

      •  That's like saying, I didn't think the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        car was worth $15,000, but I had no choice, I needed a car, so I should get my $15,000 back.

        The "car" is not raising the debt ceiling.  There was already an agreement to do that.  The "car" was raising the debt ceiling enough to get past November 2012.  In other words, there was an alternative. The Republicans and Democrats, when the negotiations bypassed the President, had essentially come to an agreement that lifted the debt ceiling, but only until the summer of 2012.  That was one option.  The President did not accept that option, but specifically offered the Sequester to get the debt ceiling past November 2012.  The Sequester was not the price for raising the debt ceiling, but it was the price for what the President specifically wanted -- enough of an increase to get past November 2012.

        Now, I agree that none of the President's options were good options.  But he's not a dictator.  He has to deal with the Congress that the people elected. He can't say, I don't think they should have made demands in exchange for the debt ceiling, so I can completely disavow everything I did, including offering the sequester so that they would increase the debt ceiling enough to get past my re-election.  

        •  Hunh? (0+ / 0-)

          What should he have done again, with the bad options that were presented to him?

          Yes, he has to deal with the Congress that the Rs control through the gerrymander and filibuster.  And, they are irresponsible and dangerous.  And Obama had no magic wands.

          So again, what should he have done, in order not to bear responsibility for the sequester?  Allow the economy to tank, and also Romney to get elected?

          No this was not like buying a car.  This was like buying your freedom from a criminal.

          •  There were other options. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            None of them were good, of course, but the sequester was only a "good" option if you believed (as the WH mistakenly did) that the Republicans would ultimately agree to revenue so as to prevent the defense cuts.

            For example, tThe president could have gotten a two-step process, with enough of a debt ceiling increase to get six to nine months. and another increase later assuming more cuts could be found.   But the President was adamant that he wanted an 18 month extension (and even discussed with Plouffe, Nabors and Geitherner whether he could veto a short term extension if that was presented to him for his signature).  

            Again, no option -- including the sequester -- was a good option for the President.  But that doesn't mean he can disavow a bad option he put on the table so as to avoid other bad options.

    •  I couldn't agree more coffeetalk.... (7+ / 0-)

      .....the President gravely miscalculated when he thought that the Republicans wouldn't use the shiv he gave them to stab the economy in the back.

      That's because he, and most liberals, still think we are dealing with a political party with reasonable goals rather than a crime family intent on only one thing: power. They get that power by wrecking the economy and by derailing Obamacare, which they can do with these cuts and by shutting down government.

      The President needs to come out and CALL THEM on it.

      If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

      by Bensdad on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:53:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At this point I don't care who "owns" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the sequester. I would just like to see Washington resolve this issue. I've contacted my two Democratic Senators and my GOP Congressman and I just want this thing put to rest, that's all I care about right now.

    •  Excellent points (0+ / 0-)

      An oasis of facts and logic in a sea of overblown partisan rancor.

      I'm sure you'll get heckled though :-).

  •  Did the orange fucker cry when he said this? (3+ / 0-)

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:36:04 PM PDT

  •  He never should have played along with the thugs (5+ / 0-)

    on raising the debt ceiling. Stupid move on his part. And we're all going to pay for his mistake.

  •  Those who give in to hostage-takers (8+ / 0-)

    are the cause of hostage-taking?  Is that what Boehner just said?  In pragmatic terms, there is a grain of truth to that.  In moral terms, not so.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:43:27 PM PDT

  •  Obama was tricked again. So repeal the sequester! (0+ / 0-)

    The GOOPs are very good at Got-ya games. Obama says something stupid to be bipartisan and they use it against him.
    They've got the whole not-governing thang down cold.

  •  Still think they won't wreck the economy.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....on purpose? They will. This is how they plan to destroy Obamacare. They cannot let it succeed. They must destroy it by defunding it. And they are willing to do it.

    What about all those state exchanges that are supposed to kick in in October. Think that's gonna happen?  They are going to run on repealing Obamacare and on balancing the budget in ten years. The mantra has gone out: balance the budget in ten years. Repeat over and over and over.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

    •  I tend to agree...however (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they cant afford to be blamed for it. Thats the balancing act: destroy the econ without their fingerprints and blame it all on the prez. They know that SS/Medicare cuts are unpopular as is the discretionary cuts, so they are frantically trying to lay it at the feet of the prez (and Dems)

      They want HIM to name the cuts, own them and when the econ tanks, they can blame the Dems and prez for cutting the safety net. Whatever tax loophole they agree to close, will be elimanted by "tax reform" while the cuts to SS and Medicare remain. Remember, close loopholes and lower the rates.

      In essence, they want to threaten to blow up the econ, force the Dems to vote on cutting Medicare and social Security, then run in 2014 blaming Dems for those same cuts.

  •  petition to replace the sequester (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That such a petition even needs circulating is ridiculous almost beyond words. Republicans have become so fixated on their right wing that they're rowing in a circle and, consequently, pissing off all the other boaters. It's one thing to turn right, it's another thing all together to do donuts in the middle of the freeway during rush hour and then complain about how bad the traffic is.

    "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen."

    by Jimbodacious on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Ummm...what? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fulgour, paradox, aliasalias

    So they're the cuts Obama wanted but didn't want in order to save the country from the debt crisis Boner also says we're not presently facing.


  •  The sequester is going to feel worse over time. (0+ / 0-)

    This is still going to badly hurt GOP in the summer.
    Already it's OMG Tax refunds are slowing down!

  •  Huh?! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What he wanted was a deal.  But the Sequester was his idea to "force" Congress to come to a deal.  What does it matter that he didn't intend for it to happen because he relied on Congress.  Opps.

    If I wanted to take my kids to a game and threatened if they didn't finish their chores we're not going out.  I would look stupid if I claimed it was there idea, and I can't blame one kid if NONE of the chores were done.  That would be favoritism.  But we have none of that here. Right?

  •  Balanced budget? (6+ / 0-)

    I think its time to question the whole premise of needing or wanting a balanced budget.

    Its super unclear to me whether or not that would even be a positive thing.  But some commentators, e.g. Krugman, seem to believe there is never ever a reason for the federal government to seek a balanced budget.  If we don't call them out on this then this logic:

     We need to balanced budget therefore we must do x.
    Will always work as an argument that makes sense.  Heck, if I believed that we needed a balanced budget in the near future then it might even make sense to me.

    We need to question their core statements, not small statements like whether or not democrats want the sequester.

  •  Boehner got 98% of what he wanted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, Icicle68

    He said so. So in addition to the great point you make about him being solely responsible for holding his breath until he gets what he wants ("he'll insist on keeping them in place until even harsher budget cuts are enacted"), he wanted (at least) 98% of them from the very beginning.

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:07:12 PM PDT

  •  If Obama didn't want the sequester (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miracle11, ek hornbeck, aliasalias

    why the heck did he propose it? Only in DC (and here) does that make any sense.

    and see ek hornbeck below.

  •  I don't know if this is all about destroying (0+ / 0-)

    Obama or destroying the country, but it's insane. Who does it serve to tank the economy? Eventually even the rich people will start feeling the effects, maybe not the billionaires, but the majority of us are going down. I personally think the republicans are just a bunch of sociopaths. I don't get their end game.

  •  Edited to the bone: (0+ / 0-)
    Well, no, he didn't want the cuts. But, ...the sequester will stay in effect until ... cuts ... that will balance the budget ... ten years.
    Or, in other words, "He didn't want it, and neither do we, but we won't budge until we get what we want, which is a balancing of the budget with just cuts."

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:01:36 PM PDT

  •  Oh please stop all the bullshit (9+ / 0-)

    Lets lay it on the line.  

    The Republicans love the sequester.

    The President loves a grand bargain where he cuts social security and medicare.

    The reality is that both sides are totally fucking wrong.

    repeat after me:

    There is no debt crisis.

    We do not need cuts.

    We need some more revenue in these programs for the future.

    End of fucking story.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:21:46 PM PDT

  •  Boner proves he is not serious about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    wanting to remove the sequester by making this ridiculous new demand:

    And I've told my colleagues in the House that the sequester will stay in effect until there's an agreement that will include cuts and reforms that will balance the budget over the next ten years.
    In other words, sign on to the Ryan budget (which includes the sequester cuts) or we won't give in on the sequester cuts.
  •  Obama is not working (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ek hornbeck, aliasalias

    BHO is cynically using the sequester to strong arm the Dems in Congress to surrender to social security, and medicare cut, justify to freeze COLA's for federal workers for 4 years. He is doing huge damage to the  US govt and Fed employees so he can get nice headlines from the Washington Post. What a disgrace.

  •  will the MSM push this news to (0+ / 0-)

    a broader public, so that something can be done to get these vipers out of Office and our lives?

    I very much doubt it.

    It's going to take more voices and votes than ours, here, to make some demographic changes at grassroots level.

    comment pending... ;-)

    by paulacvdw on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

  •  So twice in the past week when reporter has (0+ / 0-)

    made Boehner answer a question he has admitted that he has been full of shit?  Let's hope this becomes a trend.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site