Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
President Obama faces 'cliff fatigue'; You can only cry wolf so many times before being ignored
Topic Started: Feb 26 2013, 04:02 AM (735 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I think the author brings up some intriguing points as we are mere days from cuts taking place. Remember just weeks ago how the end of the social security contribution tax cut would toss us into a deep recession? Did it? As the author says, this is three times now that Obama is running around proclaiming the sky is falling. He should be honing up his management skills and taking steps to adjust spending. Which is what the average worker who now pays more in social security taxes is doing. I think that the republicans in the house are going to let this deadline pass without taking any action, and then point out as we go forward that the sky did not fall and adjustments were made. this will make is easier the next time a big chunk of spending is cut as we get government back down to a reasonable scale.


President Obama Faces ‘Cliff Fatigue’ in Latest Budget Fight

Rick Klein


Feb 24, 2013 7:19pm

ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Delays await at airports. Padlocks are ready at national parks.

The nation will suffer greater risk of wildfires, workplace deaths, and even surprise weather events, if government predictions are to be believed. Our entire military readiness and superiority are at risk.

What if nobody cares?

President Obama sure does. He’s making the case, aggressively and comprehensively, that the automatic spending cuts set to go into effect at the end of the month will have a devastating impact, both on the economy and on essential government services.

“They will slow our economy. They will eliminate good jobs. They will leave many families who are already stretched to the limit scrambling to figure out what to do,” the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

But there are few signs to suggest the public is listening. A poll out late last week found that barely one in four Americans said they’d heard much about the automatic spending cuts — known unhelpfully for public-comprehension purposes as “sequestration” — and four in 10 said they were comfortable with the cuts going into effect.

“Here’s yet another deadline, and everyone’s telling us everything will be destroyed if we go past it,” said Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which conducted the poll. “It’s very hard to get the same sense of urgency for a third time in a row, just two months after the last one.”

Call it cliff fatigue. After a series of dramatic confrontations with congressional Republicans, an American electorate that has little trust in Washington — and that’s seeing a soaring stock market, plus a recovering housing market — looks to be tuning out the latest round of fiscal fighting, at least for now.

That’s troublesome news for Obama, and not just for the recurring fights over spending and deficits. As his second-term agenda gets cranking with Congress’ return this week, the president needs to convince the public not just on the merits of his priorities but also on the urgency.

This may be the only time in his presidency where heavy legislative lifts are realistic. That period is starting with a rough stretch: The spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never take place now almost definitely will.

The fight is displaying Washington at its worst — all accusations and finger-pointing, no real attempts at problem-solving. Both sides have plans, but the president is spending far more energy explaining why the sequester is the Republicans’ fault, and how bad the consequences of those cuts will be, than he is trying to negotiate something that would stop it.

“It really is sad. The president’s stock in trade is political games, and this is another political game he’s playing,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, told ABC News. “It results in greater cynicism on the part of the public, and none of the things he’s saying are true. And people recognize this — it’s 2-and-a-half cents on every dollar.”

Price said the president is exaggerating the impact of cuts that amount to less than 2.5 percent of federal spending — an estimated $85 billion this year, out of a federal budget in the neighborhood of $3.5 trillion.

Moreover, Price said, the public will wind up blaming the president — notwithstanding polling that suggests the opposite for now. While many Republicans are on record preferring alternatives to the across-the-board cuts, they also argue that the president could mitigate their impact if he so chose.

“People know that if bad things occur, it’s because the president wants them to occur,” Price said. “The president is the president. He’s in charge of the government. He has the authority right now to make sure bad things don’t happen.”

The White House disputes that such flexibility exists, given the blunt mechanisms in a law that was designed to never be implemented because it was so draconian.

“Only Congress can avoid this self-inflicted wound to our economy and middle class families,” White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an official blog posting last week.

Lawmakers may wind up explicitly granting the administration flexibility in distributing the cuts as part of a compromise that would only be passed after they go into effect. Beyond that, however, one side will have to give to avoid the once-unthinkable from being reality.

In the meantime, the president will continue to make the case that the sequester is Republicans’ doing. He’ll be at a shipyard in Newport News, Va., on Tuesday, to highlight the particular impact on defense programs.

The president needs the public to care deeply about budget cuts. If the sequester doesn’t register in the national consciousness, airport lines will be nothing compared to the wait for Republicans to join the president at a negotiating table again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 26 2013, 04:02 AM
I think the author brings up some intriguing points as we are mere days from cuts taking place. Remember just weeks ago how the end of the social security contribution tax cut would toss us into a deep recession? Did it? As the author says, this is three times now that Obama is running around proclaiming the sky is falling. He should be honing up his management skills and taking steps to adjust spending. Which is what the average worker who now pays more in social security taxes is doing. I think that the republicans in the house are going to let this deadline pass without taking any action, and then point out as we go forward that the sky did not fall and adjustments were made. this will make is easier the next time a big chunk of spending is cut as we get government back down to a reasonable scale.


President Obama Faces ‘Cliff Fatigue’ in Latest Budget Fight

Rick Klein


Feb 24, 2013 7:19pm

ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Delays await at airports. Padlocks are ready at national parks.

The nation will suffer greater risk of wildfires, workplace deaths, and even surprise weather events, if government predictions are to be believed. Our entire military readiness and superiority are at risk.

What if nobody cares?

President Obama sure does. He’s making the case, aggressively and comprehensively, that the automatic spending cuts set to go into effect at the end of the month will have a devastating impact, both on the economy and on essential government services.

“They will slow our economy. They will eliminate good jobs. They will leave many families who are already stretched to the limit scrambling to figure out what to do,” the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

But there are few signs to suggest the public is listening. A poll out late last week found that barely one in four Americans said they’d heard much about the automatic spending cuts — known unhelpfully for public-comprehension purposes as “sequestration” — and four in 10 said they were comfortable with the cuts going into effect.

“Here’s yet another deadline, and everyone’s telling us everything will be destroyed if we go past it,” said Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which conducted the poll. “It’s very hard to get the same sense of urgency for a third time in a row, just two months after the last one.”

Call it cliff fatigue. After a series of dramatic confrontations with congressional Republicans, an American electorate that has little trust in Washington — and that’s seeing a soaring stock market, plus a recovering housing market — looks to be tuning out the latest round of fiscal fighting, at least for now.

That’s troublesome news for Obama, and not just for the recurring fights over spending and deficits. As his second-term agenda gets cranking with Congress’ return this week, the president needs to convince the public not just on the merits of his priorities but also on the urgency.

This may be the only time in his presidency where heavy legislative lifts are realistic. That period is starting with a rough stretch: The spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never take place now almost definitely will.

The fight is displaying Washington at its worst — all accusations and finger-pointing, no real attempts at problem-solving. Both sides have plans, but the president is spending far more energy explaining why the sequester is the Republicans’ fault, and how bad the consequences of those cuts will be, than he is trying to negotiate something that would stop it.

“It really is sad. The president’s stock in trade is political games, and this is another political game he’s playing,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, told ABC News. “It results in greater cynicism on the part of the public, and none of the things he’s saying are true. And people recognize this — it’s 2-and-a-half cents on every dollar.”

Price said the president is exaggerating the impact of cuts that amount to less than 2.5 percent of federal spending — an estimated $85 billion this year, out of a federal budget in the neighborhood of $3.5 trillion.

Moreover, Price said, the public will wind up blaming the president — notwithstanding polling that suggests the opposite for now. While many Republicans are on record preferring alternatives to the across-the-board cuts, they also argue that the president could mitigate their impact if he so chose.

“People know that if bad things occur, it’s because the president wants them to occur,” Price said. “The president is the president. He’s in charge of the government. He has the authority right now to make sure bad things don’t happen.”

The White House disputes that such flexibility exists, given the blunt mechanisms in a law that was designed to never be implemented because it was so draconian.

“Only Congress can avoid this self-inflicted wound to our economy and middle class families,” White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an official blog posting last week.

Lawmakers may wind up explicitly granting the administration flexibility in distributing the cuts as part of a compromise that would only be passed after they go into effect. Beyond that, however, one side will have to give to avoid the once-unthinkable from being reality.

In the meantime, the president will continue to make the case that the sequester is Republicans’ doing. He’ll be at a shipyard in Newport News, Va., on Tuesday, to highlight the particular impact on defense programs.

The president needs the public to care deeply about budget cuts. If the sequester doesn’t register in the national consciousness, airport lines will be nothing compared to the wait for Republicans to join the president at a negotiating table again.
I think a lot of people miss the point about the sequester. That 2.5% cut is from the entire federal budget, but, the important things like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, food stamps and veterans benefits are not going to be cut. So the things that will be cut are almost entirely from discretionary spending, things that affect nearly everybody, and the percentage of those things is much higher. I don't think the sequester will affect me, but it will affect many and all because reps don't want to raise taxes on the wealthiest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Why is anyone beside Boehner blaming the Sequester on Obama? Or any of these other manufactured crises, for that matter?

I don't believe the average American does - it's all going to come back and haunt the people really responsible, the Teapublicans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

Have you noticed that most everything you buy is more. As you would think by looking at interest rates, that there is no inflation... but we're paying more for everything..... Your taxes have already been raised:

Quote:
 
When you hear statements like "Quantitative easing" and whether the government will start “QE 3” or continue "printing money", most people have a hard time understanding it.

But more importantly, they have a hard time understanding how these events impact them.

Regardless of whether it’s money, tickets to a game, lumber, paper, salt, sugar, etc., when more of anything is produced, the value of it is reduced.

When the government announces that it is printing money to stimulate the economy, you should interpret that as “the cost of what I use every day in my life just got more expensive.”


“The cost of what I use every day in my life just got more expensive.”


This is a very important topic because it directly affects all Americans, instantly. The printing of money means that there are more dollars into the economic system, which means that the ones you have are worth less and the items you purchase will cost you more.

There is certainly more to this, but that is a very easy way to understand it. Who does this hurt more? Without question the printing of money through quantitative easing programs hurt the middle class disproportionately harder because that group spends more of its income proportionally on products such as food and energy. These items are often imported from outside of our country and their costs rise when our dollar drops.

The government has other ways to try to stimulate the economy rather than to print money, but this administration has chosen to ignore lowering taxes – which would help -- and is actually about to increase them!

The middle class doesn't realize it, but the policies of this administration negatively affect them more than any other group. The combination of the assault on the dollar along with the fiscal cliff is, and will continue to be, a tax on the middle class for years to come.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Ban, could you show one example - anywhere, any when - of lowered taxes stimulating the economy?

How about the US in 2007-2008?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Actually, this graph shows there's very little relationship, and to the extent there is, it shows higher taxes have a slightly positive effect:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Feb 26 2013, 06:08 AM
Why is anyone beside Boehner blaming the Sequester on Obama? Or any of these other manufactured crises, for that matter?

I don't believe the average American does - it's all going to come back and haunt the people really responsible, the Teapublicans.
One reason he is being blamed and something he lied about until the truth came out is simple, it was he and his staff that came up with the sequester solution in the first place. The last time to was used was during Reagan's term. So let's see, he floats the deal to Harry, Harry does the heavy lifting to get it accepted, and somehow---it is now the republicans fault. I bet you were not aware of it's origin were you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retired
Member Avatar
Gold Star Member
[ * ]
Make the cuts permanent. Add another 3% next year.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 26 2013, 04:02 AM
I think the author brings up some intriguing points as we are mere days from cuts taking place. Remember just weeks ago how the end of the social security contribution tax cut would toss us into a deep recession? Did it? As the author says, this is three times now that Obama is running around proclaiming the sky is falling. He should be honing up his management skills and taking steps to adjust spending. Which is what the average worker who now pays more in social security taxes is doing. I think that the republicans in the house are going to let this deadline pass without taking any action, and then point out as we go forward that the sky did not fall and adjustments were made. this will make is easier the next time a big chunk of spending is cut as we get government back down to a reasonable scale.


President Obama Faces ‘Cliff Fatigue’ in Latest Budget Fight

Rick Klein


Feb 24, 2013 7:19pm

ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Delays await at airports. Padlocks are ready at national parks.

The nation will suffer greater risk of wildfires, workplace deaths, and even surprise weather events, if government predictions are to be believed. Our entire military readiness and superiority are at risk.

What if nobody cares?

President Obama sure does. He’s making the case, aggressively and comprehensively, that the automatic spending cuts set to go into effect at the end of the month will have a devastating impact, both on the economy and on essential government services.

“They will slow our economy. They will eliminate good jobs. They will leave many families who are already stretched to the limit scrambling to figure out what to do,” the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

But there are few signs to suggest the public is listening. A poll out late last week found that barely one in four Americans said they’d heard much about the automatic spending cuts — known unhelpfully for public-comprehension purposes as “sequestration” — and four in 10 said they were comfortable with the cuts going into effect.

“Here’s yet another deadline, and everyone’s telling us everything will be destroyed if we go past it,” said Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which conducted the poll. “It’s very hard to get the same sense of urgency for a third time in a row, just two months after the last one.”

Call it cliff fatigue. After a series of dramatic confrontations with congressional Republicans, an American electorate that has little trust in Washington — and that’s seeing a soaring stock market, plus a recovering housing market — looks to be tuning out the latest round of fiscal fighting, at least for now.

That’s troublesome news for Obama, and not just for the recurring fights over spending and deficits. As his second-term agenda gets cranking with Congress’ return this week, the president needs to convince the public not just on the merits of his priorities but also on the urgency.

This may be the only time in his presidency where heavy legislative lifts are realistic. That period is starting with a rough stretch: The spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never take place now almost definitely will.

The fight is displaying Washington at its worst — all accusations and finger-pointing, no real attempts at problem-solving. Both sides have plans, but the president is spending far more energy explaining why the sequester is the Republicans’ fault, and how bad the consequences of those cuts will be, than he is trying to negotiate something that would stop it.

“It really is sad. The president’s stock in trade is political games, and this is another political game he’s playing,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, told ABC News. “It results in greater cynicism on the part of the public, and none of the things he’s saying are true. And people recognize this — it’s 2-and-a-half cents on every dollar.”

Price said the president is exaggerating the impact of cuts that amount to less than 2.5 percent of federal spending — an estimated $85 billion this year, out of a federal budget in the neighborhood of $3.5 trillion.

Moreover, Price said, the public will wind up blaming the president — notwithstanding polling that suggests the opposite for now. While many Republicans are on record preferring alternatives to the across-the-board cuts, they also argue that the president could mitigate their impact if he so chose.

“People know that if bad things occur, it’s because the president wants them to occur,” Price said. “The president is the president. He’s in charge of the government. He has the authority right now to make sure bad things don’t happen.”

The White House disputes that such flexibility exists, given the blunt mechanisms in a law that was designed to never be implemented because it was so draconian.

“Only Congress can avoid this self-inflicted wound to our economy and middle class families,” White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an official blog posting last week.

Lawmakers may wind up explicitly granting the administration flexibility in distributing the cuts as part of a compromise that would only be passed after they go into effect. Beyond that, however, one side will have to give to avoid the once-unthinkable from being reality.

In the meantime, the president will continue to make the case that the sequester is Republicans’ doing. He’ll be at a shipyard in Newport News, Va., on Tuesday, to highlight the particular impact on defense programs.

The president needs the public to care deeply about budget cuts. If the sequester doesn’t register in the national consciousness, airport lines will be nothing compared to the wait for Republicans to join the president at a negotiating table again.
Got a link?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 26 2013, 06:34 AM
Brewster
Feb 26 2013, 06:08 AM
Why is anyone beside Boehner blaming the Sequester on Obama? Or any of these other manufactured crises, for that matter?

I don't believe the average American does - it's all going to come back and haunt the people really responsible, the Teapublicans.
One reason he is being blamed and something he lied about until the truth came out is simple, it was he and his staff that came up with the sequester solution in the first place. The last time to was used was during Reagan's term. So let's see, he floats the deal to Harry, Harry does the heavy lifting to get it accepted, and somehow---it is now the republicans fault. I bet you were not aware of it's origin were you?
I was - and am - very aware of its origin.

It's very much Boehner's lie.

It's very much the Teapublican's doing. They fought for this crisis, they wouldn't move on anything reasonable, and it was the only thing O could get them to agree to:

I got 98% of what I wanted!

The only pushing Reid did was with his own Dems, who didn't and still don't like the whole thing because there's not enough revenue.

Democrats and Reid

The group who likes this the most is the Tea Partiers, who are getting the kind of cuts they really want. In fact they still want it all to happen, and stop government in its tracks. screw the country.

Even Breitbart Says Blame the Tea Party

But for Boehner, this whole D*mn thing is an attempt to blame the cuts on the Dems.
Edited by Brewster, Feb 26 2013, 08:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis