independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 17th Aug 2019 7:38pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bob Woodward: Obama's sequester deal-changer
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 02/24/13 10:40am

Timmy84

Bob Woodward: Obama's sequester deal-changer

Obama’s sequester deal-changer
By Bob Woodward

Bob Woodward (woodwardb@washpost.com) is an associate editor of The Post. His latest book is “The Price of Politics.” Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this column.

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

http://www.washingtonpost...print.html

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 02/24/13 10:48am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

when you lie and get away with it as often as barack has i guess you forget what lies you told....

(I am still LOLing at hillary's LIE about having to duck sniper fire... how did she get away with that? She basically said "I forgot that did not happen... ever..."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 02/24/13 1:40pm

13cjk13

OnlyNDaUsa said:

when you lie and get away with it as often as barack has i guess you forget what lies you told....

(I am still LOLing at hillary's LIE about having to duck sniper fire... how did she get away with that? She basically said "I forgot that did not happen... ever..."

You would know biggrin

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 02/24/13 2:18pm

V10LETBLUES

Regardless of who put it on the table is irrelevant. They all voted for it.

When all you got is this, then I guess that's all you got. The republicans can now party at the thought that they only voted for it, but did not come up with it. party lol

Anyway, in the long run this is going to work out great for the President and the nation. Polls show voters could give a fuck about defense. Well, not all fucks. Maybe a fuck or two. But won't lose sleep over it. I'm not worried.

Long lines at the airport? We're going to have a lot of pissed off people if that happens, hopefully they can aim that anger towards congress. People need to have a closer dialogue with their congress men and women anyhow. lol

[Edited 2/24/13 14:19pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 02/24/13 2:20pm

Timmy84

V10LETBLUES said:

Regardless of who put it on the table is irrelevant. They all voted for it.

When all you got is this, then I guess that's all you got. The republicans can now party at the thought that they only voted for it, but did not come up with it. party lol

Anyway, in the long run this is going to work out great for the President and the nation. Polls show voters could give a fuck about defense. Well, not all fucks. Maybe a fuck or two. But won't lose sleep over it. I'm not worried.

Long lines at the airport? We're going to have a lot of pissed off people if that happens, hopefully they can aim that anger towards congress. People need to have a closer dialogue with their congress men and women anyhow. lol

[Edited 2/24/13 14:19pm]

I think it just proves the people we "vote" for don't know shit about what a certain bill or a certain action would affect Americans and then when they read it, they become fake about their "outrage". That goes for both parties, including the President and his administration. Just the way I look at it. Some are saying "let the sequester happen" anyway.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 02/24/13 5:39pm

rudedog

avatar

God, another conservative publication blaming Obama for this. FACT is, THEY ALL VOTED FOR IT, THEY ALL DESERVE EQUAL AMOUNT OF BLAME!! This pointing fingers to Obama is pointless and sophmoric blame tactic that Republicans have been using since Obama took office, ITS HIS FAULT! ITS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT! Republicans must like to look like the whiny children, because thats what the majority of Americans think.

Just like when Gingrinch decided to shut down the government, Americans are blaming Republicans for this. We need to gut defense spending, this will be the only chance Dems will get to do it because lets face it, they are spineless. We need to get rid of stupid tax loopholes, so its a win win for Dems either way. No wonder Republicans are panicking lol

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 02/24/13 6:02pm

Timmy84

rudedog said:

God, another conservative publication blaming Obama for this. FACT is, THEY ALL VOTED FOR IT, THEY ALL DESERVE EQUAL AMOUNT OF BLAME!! This pointing fingers to Obama is pointless and sophmoric blame tactic that Republicans have been using since Obama took office, ITS HIS FAULT! ITS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT! Republicans must like to look like the whiny children, because thats what the majority of Americans think.

Just like when Gingrinch decided to shut down the government, Americans are blaming Republicans for this. We need to gut defense spending, this will be the only chance Dems will get to do it because lets face it, they are spineless. We need to get rid of stupid tax loopholes, so its a win win for Dems either way. No wonder Republicans are panicking lol

Uh. I won't go that far calling the Washington Post a "conservative publication". Some folks have called it a liberal publication. In fact this article pretty much blamed Democrats and Republicans for the sequester. And Bob Woodward is not conservative, he's a liberal. He's one of the guys who exposed Nixon during Watergate.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 02/24/13 6:10pm

V10LETBLUES

Timmy84 said:

rudedog said:

God, another conservative publication blaming Obama for this. FACT is, THEY ALL VOTED FOR IT, THEY ALL DESERVE EQUAL AMOUNT OF BLAME!! This pointing fingers to Obama is pointless and sophmoric blame tactic that Republicans have been using since Obama took office, ITS HIS FAULT! ITS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT! Republicans must like to look like the whiny children, because thats what the majority of Americans think.

Just like when Gingrinch decided to shut down the government, Americans are blaming Republicans for this. We need to gut defense spending, this will be the only chance Dems will get to do it because lets face it, they are spineless. We need to get rid of stupid tax loopholes, so its a win win for Dems either way. No wonder Republicans are panicking lol

Uh. I won't go that far calling the Washington Post a "conservative publication". Some folks have called it a liberal publication. In fact this article pretty much blamed Democrats and Republicans for the sequester. And Bob Woodward is not conservative, he's a liberal. He's one of the guys who exposed Nixon during Watergate.

Bob is a registered democrat.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 02/24/13 6:12pm

Timmy84

V10LETBLUES said:

Timmy84 said:

Uh. I won't go that far calling the Washington Post a "conservative publication". Some folks have called it a liberal publication. In fact this article pretty much blamed Democrats and Republicans for the sequester. And Bob Woodward is not conservative, he's a liberal. He's one of the guys who exposed Nixon during Watergate.

Bob is a registered democrat.

Exactly. I should've said "he calls himself a liberal..." because he has done that.

[Edited 2/24/13 18:16pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 02/24/13 7:06pm

babynoz

Timmy84 said:

I think it just proves the people we "vote" for don't know shit about what a certain bill or a certain action would affect Americans and then when they read it, they become fake about their "outrage". That goes for both parties, including the President and his administration. Just the way I look at it. Some are saying "let the sequester happen" anyway.

There ya go...most of 'em don't read it.

Anyhoo, Woodward's description is accurate from what I recall about the horse trading going on at the time.

Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 02/24/13 8:54pm

Timmy84

babynoz said:

Timmy84 said:

I think it just proves the people we "vote" for don't know shit about what a certain bill or a certain action would affect Americans and then when they read it, they become fake about their "outrage". That goes for both parties, including the President and his administration. Just the way I look at it. Some are saying "let the sequester happen" anyway.

There ya go...most of 'em don't read it.

Anyhoo, Woodward's description is accurate from what I recall about the horse trading going on at the time.

nod

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 02/24/13 11:00pm

rialb

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

Regardless of who put it on the table is irrelevant. They all voted for it.

When all you got is this, then I guess that's all you got. The republicans can now party at the thought that they only voted for it, but did not come up with it. party lol

Anyway, in the long run this is going to work out great for the President and the nation. Polls show voters could give a fuck about defense. Well, not all fucks. Maybe a fuck or two. But won't lose sleep over it. I'm not worried.

Long lines at the airport? We're going to have a lot of pissed off people if that happens, hopefully they can aim that anger towards congress. People need to have a closer dialogue with their congress men and women anyhow. lol

[Edited 2/24/13 14:19pm]

True but don't you think that it matters that the White House tried to decieve people about where it originated? Surely if a republican president did the same thing the left would try to use that to their political advantage. As Woodward pointed out it certainly does not make working with the other side easier when you are blaming them for your own policies.

A lot of people blame the republicans for their intransigence, and to a degree they should, but there is also plenty of evidence that the president is a poor leader and does not know how to work with the other side. As hated as he was by the left George W. Bush was still able to work with them to a greater degree than the current president is able to work with the right. Do you honestly believe that the president is blameless for all of the gridlock in Washington? We will see how his second term turns out but so far it appears to me that Barack Obama does not play well with others.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 02/24/13 11:09pm

cborgman

avatar

13cjk13 said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:


when you lie and get away with it as often as barack has i guess you forget what lies you told....



(I am still LOLing at hillary's LIE about having to duck sniper fire... how did she get away with that? She basically said "I forgot that did not happen... ever..."



You would know biggrin


bingo
Being a real civil rights champion,
Sometimes I have to defend
against die-hard bullshit
and the fakes who propagate it.

"Yippee ki-yay, Motherfucker." - John McClane, Die Hard
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 02/25/13 12:21am

TommorowNeverK
nows

avatar

Woodward is telling the truth. Obama is moving the goal post.

But I really can't fault him, because he has all the cards and leverage right now.

He's moving the goal post, but he's sounding reasonable while doing it, and the majority of americans are on his side.

Plus polls show, that the majority of the people are going to blame republicans for the sequester if and when it goes into effect.

There really is no incentive in creating a bipartisan plan. Not with this congress.

So Obama is strong arming them.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn, said it best. The sequester will happen. Not because the president, wants it to happen, but because his comrades on the hill don't recognize the severity of the sequester. "so we're all gonna feel a littlle pain." And after a few weeks go by and they realize that this was a political death trap for them. They might be keen to play ball. Till then.. Off with their heads...

It's russian roulette..

But maybe they'll finally learn (doubt it)

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 02/25/13 1:52am

rialb

avatar

TommorowNeverKnows said:

Woodward is telling the truth. Obama is moving the goal post.

But I really can't fault him, because he has all the cards and leverage right now.

He's moving the goal post, but he's sounding reasonable while doing it, and the majority of americans are on his side.

Plus polls show, that the majority of the people are going to blame republicans for the sequester if and when it goes into effect.

There really is no incentive in creating a bipartisan plan. Not with this congress.

So Obama is strong arming them.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn, said it best. The sequester will happen. Not because the president, wants it to happen, but because his comrades on the hill don't recognize the severity of the sequester. "so we're all gonna feel a littlle pain." And after a few weeks go by and they realize that this was a political death trap for them. They might be keen to play ball. Till then.. Off with their heads...

It's russian roulette..

But maybe they'll finally learn (doubt it)

But the republicans may have a point when the say the president is overreaching and using scare tactics. I have heard republicans say over and over again that for this year the sequester will amount to somewhere between two to three percent of the budget. A budget that is higher than it was in 2012. I haven't heard anyone on the left refute those claims so I can only assume that they are true. It does seem silly to be making such a fuss over such a small number, especially if it is true that even with the sequester the government will spend more money in 2013 than it did in 2012. The president is screaming that the sky is falling but if the sequester kicks in and no one feels it he will look foolish and the advantage will swing back to the republicans.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 02/25/13 1:52am

Tremolina

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

when you lie and get away with it as often as barack has i guess you forget what lies you told....

(I am still LOLing at hillary's LIE about having to duck sniper fire... how did she get away with that? She basically said "I forgot that did not happen... ever..."

You would know biggrin

clapping

Liars lying about other liars. Can't get any more absurd than that.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 02/25/13 1:53am

Tremolina

V10LETBLUES said:

Regardless of who put it on the table is irrelevant. They all voted for it.

clapping

Fools voted for it but are still pointing fingers.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 02/25/13 4:56am

V10LETBLUES

Here is the thing, it did not HAVE to come to vote on sequester. It never should have come to this. I remember me and most everyone here posting about how idiotic a super committee was. I mean really, come on. Did we all not predict this a year ago?

So everyone has been kicking this can down the road instead of dealing with it. How long can you really play this game? Who are we dealing with here? Special needs children or the folks we elected to take care of business.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 02/25/13 7:29am

Timmy84

rialb said:

TommorowNeverKnows said:

Woodward is telling the truth. Obama is moving the goal post.

But I really can't fault him, because he has all the cards and leverage right now.

He's moving the goal post, but he's sounding reasonable while doing it, and the majority of americans are on his side.

Plus polls show, that the majority of the people are going to blame republicans for the sequester if and when it goes into effect.

There really is no incentive in creating a bipartisan plan. Not with this congress.

So Obama is strong arming them.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn, said it best. The sequester will happen. Not because the president, wants it to happen, but because his comrades on the hill don't recognize the severity of the sequester. "so we're all gonna feel a littlle pain." And after a few weeks go by and they realize that this was a political death trap for them. They might be keen to play ball. Till then.. Off with their heads...

It's russian roulette..

But maybe they'll finally learn (doubt it)

But the republicans may have a point when the say the president is overreaching and using scare tactics. I have heard republicans say over and over again that for this year the sequester will amount to somewhere between two to three percent of the budget. A budget that is higher than it was in 2012. I haven't heard anyone on the left refute those claims so I can only assume that they are true. It does seem silly to be making such a fuss over such a small number, especially if it is true that even with the sequester the government will spend more money in 2013 than it did in 2012. The president is screaming that the sky is falling but if the sequester kicks in and no one feels it he will look foolish and the advantage will swing back to the republicans.

This thing could fall either way. But I think both Democrats and Republicans lost points for not reading about it. If they had been smarter, there's a chance we wouldn't have a sequester in the first place so neither side would resort to playing the blame game. ALL of them are really to blame. All...of...them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 02/25/13 10:27pm

V10LETBLUES

Watch "Cliffhanger" the PBS documentary that explains how we got here. It's free online, watch it if you have time.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 02/25/13 10:48pm

TommorowNeverK
nows

avatar

Timmy84 said:

rialb said:

But the republicans may have a point when the say the president is overreaching and using scare tactics. I have heard republicans say over and over again that for this year the sequester will amount to somewhere between two to three percent of the budget. A budget that is higher than it was in 2012. I haven't heard anyone on the left refute those claims so I can only assume that they are true. It does seem silly to be making such a fuss over such a small number, especially if it is true that even with the sequester the government will spend more money in 2013 than it did in 2012. The president is screaming that the sky is falling but if the sequester kicks in and no one feels it he will look foolish and the advantage will swing back to the republicans.

This thing could fall either way. But I think both Democrats and Republicans lost points for not reading about it. If they had been smarter, there's a chance we wouldn't have a sequester in the first place so neither side would resort to playing the blame game. ALL of them are really to blame. All...of...them.

Look every rational economist knows that you need both revenues and spending cuts to balance a budget. Any heavy handed movements towards one side or the other will be draconian and detrimental. The problem is no republicans are for revenue, and very few democrats are for cuts on entitlements. So we're at a stalemate.

It really is only 2 to 3 % out of the budget, literally 2 to 3 cents out of the dollar.

It isnt going to send the economy reeling again.

Even if we do dip into another recession, it will only be momentary, because the natural gas boom, is suppose garner more steam in the coming years, and that'll speed up our economy just like the oil boom sped up the economy during the depression. All of this is grand standing and political posturing for 2014.

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 02/25/13 11:11pm

V10LETBLUES

TommorowNeverKnows said:

Timmy84 said:

This thing could fall either way. But I think both Democrats and Republicans lost points for not reading about it. If they had been smarter, there's a chance we wouldn't have a sequester in the first place so neither side would resort to playing the blame game. ALL of them are really to blame. All...of...them.

Look every rational economist knows that you need both revenues and spending cuts to balance a budget. Any heavy handed movements towards one side or the other will be draconian and detrimental. The problem is no republicans are for revenue, and very few democrats are for cuts on entitlements. So we're at a stalemate.

It really is only 2 to 3 % out of the budget, literally 2 to 3 cents out of the dollar.

It isnt going to send the economy reeling again.

Even if we do dip into another recession, it will only be momentary, because the natural gas boom, is suppose garner more steam in the coming years, and that'll speed up our economy just like the oil boom sped up the economy during the depression. All of this is grand standing and political posturing for 2014.

I agree with you the top part, but there will be no natural gas boom that will speed up the economy. What will get us out if this recession is folks buying homes again, and this seems to be happening already.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 02/26/13 4:21am

TommorowNeverK
nows

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

TommorowNeverKnows said:

Look every rational economist knows that you need both revenues and spending cuts to balance a budget. Any heavy handed movements towards one side or the other will be draconian and detrimental. The problem is no republicans are for revenue, and very few democrats are for cuts on entitlements. So we're at a stalemate.

It really is only 2 to 3 % out of the budget, literally 2 to 3 cents out of the dollar.

It isnt going to send the economy reeling again.

Even if we do dip into another recession, it will only be momentary, because the natural gas boom, is suppose garner more steam in the coming years, and that'll speed up our economy just like the oil boom sped up the economy during the depression. All of this is grand standing and political posturing for 2014.

I agree with you the top part, but there will be no natural gas boom that will speed up the economy. What will get us out if this recession is folks buying homes again, and this seems to be happening already.

History says that it will.

buying homes won't do anything.

It was the oil boom that drove us out of the first deppression.

It will be the gas boom that drives us out of this one.

Do you realize that we're going to be the world leaders in energy.

It's a brave new world.

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 02/26/13 6:32am

V10LETBLUES

TommorowNeverKnows said:



V10LETBLUES said:




TommorowNeverKnows said:




Look every rational economist knows that you need both revenues and spending cuts to balance a budget. Any heavy handed movements towards one side or the other will be draconian and detrimental. The problem is no republicans are for revenue, and very few democrats are for cuts on entitlements. So we're at a stalemate.



It really is only 2 to 3 % out of the budget, literally 2 to 3 cents out of the dollar.


It isnt going to send the economy reeling again.


Even if we do dip into another recession, it will only be momentary, because the natural gas boom, is suppose garner more steam in the coming years, and that'll speed up our economy just like the oil boom sped up the economy during the depression. All of this is grand standing and political posturing for 2014.






I agree with you the top part, but there will be no natural gas boom that will speed up the economy. What will get us out if this recession is folks buying homes again, and this seems to be happening already.



History says that it will.


buying homes won't do anything.



It was the oil boom that drove us out of the first deppression.


It will be the gas boom that drives us out of this one.


Do you realize that we're going to be the world leaders in energy.



It's a brave new world.



it cant just be 'history' there has to a mechanism and circumstances to drive it. And it wasn't just the oil boom that drove us out of the great depression, it was the war too among other factors.

The mechanism and circumstance I see with housing is a slow reverse chain reaction of what got us here. Supply and demand. A correction for the over supply and glut of housing and it's workers on that sector. It was unsustainable. The bubble burst. It was a painful correction.

A Natural gas boom that drives us out of the recession? Today I see no mechanism or circumstance for that.
[Edited 2/26/13 7:49am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 02/26/13 7:27am

RodeoSchro

avatar

The sequestration was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It did a lot of things, including raising the debt ceiling. For the record, the voting on that Act was:

HOUSE YAYS:

Democrats - 95

Republicans - 174

HOUSE NAYS:

Democrats - 95

Republicans - 66

HOUSE NO VOTES:

Democrats - 3

Republicans - 0

In the House, the Democrats who voted were split 50/50 on the entire bill. The Republicans supported it 73% - 27%.

SENATE YAYS:

Democrats - 45

Republicans - 28

Independents - 1

SENATE NAYS:

Democrats - 6

Republicans - 19

Independents - 1

The Democrats in the Senate supported the bill more proportionately than did the Democrats in the House. Strangely enough, the Senate Republicans were not as proportionately in favor of this deal as the Tea-Party controlled House Republicans.

The GOP is in the same situation as the Democrats were vis. a. vie. Bush's Invasion Of The Wrong Country - you might not like it, but you voted for it.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 02/26/13 2:04pm

Timmy84

RodeoSchro said:

The sequestration was part of the Budget Control Act of 2011. It did a lot of things, including raising the debt ceiling. For the record, the voting on that Act was:

HOUSE YAYS:

Democrats - 95

Republicans - 174

HOUSE NAYS:

Democrats - 95

Republicans - 66

HOUSE NO VOTES:

Democrats - 3

Republicans - 0

In the House, the Democrats who voted were split 50/50 on the entire bill. The Republicans supported it 73% - 27%.

SENATE YAYS:

Democrats - 45

Republicans - 28

Independents - 1

SENATE NAYS:

Democrats - 6

Republicans - 19

Independents - 1

The Democrats in the Senate supported the bill more proportionately than did the Democrats in the House. Strangely enough, the Senate Republicans were not as proportionately in favor of this deal as the Tea-Party controlled House Republicans.

The GOP is in the same situation as the Democrats were vis. a. vie. Bush's Invasion Of The Wrong Country - you might not like it, but you voted for it.

I figured it was this complicated. It's interesting on which portion of Democrats and Republicans were in favor of it and who weren't. So we can't say all Republicans didn't like the sequester or that all Democrats liked it. It seems more personal opinion on how they think this would help the economy.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 02/26/13 2:09pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Timmy84 said:

I figured it was this complicated. It's interesting on which portion of Democrats and Republicans were in favor of it and who weren't. So we can't say all Republicans didn't like the sequester or that all Democrats liked it. It seems more personal opinion on how they think this would help the economy.

Remember, the sequester was only one part of the total bill. It's not like anyone can truthfully say, "You voted for the bill so that means you must have supported the sequester". The truth is, most people that voted for it almost certainly did not support the sequester, but supported the other parts of the bill - namely, raising the debt ceiling.

And the ones who voted against it probably didn't vote against it because of the sequester. They likely voted against it as a symbolic gesture to show that they didn't like borrowing more money/raising the debt ceiling.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 02/26/13 2:45pm

Timmy84

RodeoSchro said:

Timmy84 said:

I figured it was this complicated. It's interesting on which portion of Democrats and Republicans were in favor of it and who weren't. So we can't say all Republicans didn't like the sequester or that all Democrats liked it. It seems more personal opinion on how they think this would help the economy.

Remember, the sequester was only one part of the total bill. It's not like anyone can truthfully say, "You voted for the bill so that means you must have supported the sequester". The truth is, most people that voted for it almost certainly did not support the sequester, but supported the other parts of the bill - namely, raising the debt ceiling.

And the ones who voted against it probably didn't vote against it because of the sequester. They likely voted against it as a symbolic gesture to show that they didn't like borrowing more money/raising the debt ceiling.

That's always a problem when you present a broad bill and don't discuss what's in it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 02/26/13 6:23pm

TommorowNeverK
nows

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

TommorowNeverKnows said:

History says that it will.

buying homes won't do anything.

It was the oil boom that drove us out of the first deppression.

It will be the gas boom that drives us out of this one.

Do you realize that we're going to be the world leaders in energy.

It's a brave new world.

it cant just be 'history' there has to a mechanism and circumstances to drive it. And it wasn't just the oil boom that drove us out of the great depression, it was the war too among other factors. The mechanism and circumstance I see with housing is a slow reverse chain reaction of what got us here. Supply and demand. A correction for the over supply and glut of housing and it's workers on that sector. It was unsustainable. The bubble burst. It was a painful correction. A Natural gas boom that drives us out of the recession? Today I see no mechanism or circumstance for that. [Edited 2/26/13 7:49am]

I see what you're saying, but there is always demand when it comes to energy.

World War 2 was a convenient mechanism, because we were selling barrels of oil to the allies to sustain the effort.

While there is no "war" now (least not yet,) the european crisis is erratic, and energy is more expensive then ever. And these middle eastern countries are in free fall, constantly holding their own stockpiles hostage.

The only thing up to estimation is when we are going to be able to efficiently export liquified natural gas. Could be in the next two years, could be in 8 years. There is no way to tell.

But you can't seriously tell me there is no mechanism or circumstances to drive it.

Europe in crisis, Middle East in crisis with a possible standoff in Iran.

Increasing competition with china, especially in the clean energy field

Plus the drive to replace crude oil and coal.

The problem with depending on the housing market, is that it's business as usual. Sure we got elizabeth warren, cracking down on bank fraud. But the same fraudlent lending is being done. So that system is bound to be erratic, and fail again in the future.

There was a time when consumer confidence, Wall street, and the housing market were indicators of sluggish, or a powerful economy. Since the last deppression times have change. Wall Street has learned to thrive despite the sluggish economy, and even if the housing market rises, it will thrive despite the economy as well.

Corporations aren't hiring, and sincerely don't want to.

The only hope for jobs is a major manufacturing boom.

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 02/26/13 7:04pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Timmy84 said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Bob is a registered democrat.

Exactly. I should've said "he calls himself a liberal..." because he has done that.

[Edited 2/24/13 18:16pm]

Has he? When? From what I know of Woodward he is very carfeul not to affiliate himself with any political leaning so his reporting can be viewed as "objective"... "Woodward: I live in the District of Columbia which is so predominately Democrat, I am a registered Democrat but I’m an avowed neutral" lol

I always keep in mind that this is the same guy who said he believed the "weapons of mass destruction" as a reason to go to war with Iraq... so his credibility is... well, sometimes questionable.

He rides on the laurels of breaking the famous Watergate story... but he has been criticized for not sourcing a lot of his reporting however accurate or inaccurate.

[Edited 2/26/13 19:07pm]

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bob Woodward: Obama's sequester deal-changer