5 Reasons Republicans Want Sequestration

Superfreak said:
and if the Dems refuse to implement any responsible spending cuts? What then Jarod?
Click to expand...

Then the sequester will have failed, but its the Responsability of the House to propose the cuts... The House is run by what party?

Looking at my post, I was wrong.....!!! The Sequester cuts were designed as a big stick in an attempt to force some responsable deficte reduction. (Spending cuts and increased revenue .
 
All you really need is one reason why Republicans want sequestration: because they are unwilling to trade any additional tax increases on rich people for anything. Period. Full stop. They will not raise the capital gains rates and will not eliminate preferential tax treatment for high income earners.

So like, Obama could offer all sorts of cuts that Republicans pretend they want, but if the price of those cuts is more taxes on rich people, which is the thing Republicans care about most, they won't take the deal.
 
Jarod said:
Dont be an idiot, he never asked for these spending cuts, they designed these cuts as a big stick in an attempt to force some responsable spending cuts. We all know that so trying to blame Obama AGAIN is silly.
Click to expand...

Yup this was Obama's big threat. Just enough of his own interestes were put on the line to make this dog walk, and now that the fat lady is gurgling he is getting desperate to capitialize on what he thought was going to be this biiiig victory for him. I'd be more than happy to see the cuts in action. While I am loath to see important things cut, They can take it (they have for years) and Obama will see his proposed spending cuts.

Also, looks like some agencies are already taking advantage of the 'cuts' to help Big O out. ICE, for instance.
 
Dungheap said:
All you really need is one reason why Republicans want sequestration: because they are unwilling to trade any additional tax increases on rich people for anything. Period. Full stop. They will not raise the capital gains rates and will not eliminate preferential tax treatment for high income earners.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... could have sworn they caved on that during the 'fiscal cliff' issue in exchange for the Dems promising cuts. Now that those tax increases have taken place, the Dems are saying 'tax the rich more and then we will give you some cuts'. How many times are they supposed to increase taxes before the Dems actually talk about responsible cuts Dung?
 
Superfreak said:
Hmmm... could have sworn they caved on that during the 'fiscal cliff' issue in exchange for the Dems promising cuts. Now that those tax increases have taken place, the Dems are saying 'tax the rich more and then we will give you some cuts'. How many times are they supposed to increase taxes before the Dems actually talk about responsible cuts Dung?
Click to expand...


No, they didn't cave increasing taxes on rich people during the fiscal cliff. They agreed to cut taxes for most people. So, on the "how many times question," the answer is if they do it once it'll be a first.

Also, too, they already agreed to cuts in 2011. I know you guys like to pretend that those don't exist, but . . .
 
Dungheap said:
Like I said last time you raised it, that was soooooooooooo last Congress. Those bills are dead, dead, dead. The Senate can't act on them.
Click to expand...

Again... did the Senate act at all then? No. They sat on their asses. Have the Dems proposed anything of value? No, they just chant 'tax the rich more'

I don't have a problem with raising revenues via an end to subsidies and as you know I support a tax system that taxes all income equally. But that does not alleviate the need to cut the wasteful spending habits in DC. Until they get serious and propose actual spending cuts, then there is no reason to raise more revenues.
 
Jarod said:
Dont be an idiot, he never asked for these spending cuts, they designed these cuts as a big stick in an attempt to force some responsable spending cuts. We all know that so trying to blame Obama AGAIN is silly.
Click to expand...

Get educated. He not only asked for sequester, he threatened to VETO any attempt to stop it. Gdamn, the video of him saying it was posted a hundred times already and
you still have the balls to deny what he said, live and in color.
 
Dungheap said:
No, they didn't cave increasing taxes on rich people during the fiscal cliff.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the taxes on those earning more than $450k didn't just go up?

They agreed to cut taxes for most people. So, on the "how many times question," the answer is if they do it once it'll be a first.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. For one, for everyone taxes went UP, not down from what the taxes were in 2012. No matter how much you want to pretend they didn't, everyone who has received paychecks this year knows that is true. You want to pretend that because the tax rates technically went up for a day and then back down that somehow people got tax cuts.

Also, too, they already agreed to cuts in 2011. I know you guys like to pretend that those don't exist, but . . .
Click to expand...

Please, show us where those cuts were done. List out what has actually happened. Or was that sooooooooooo last Congress and sooooooo just a proposal that they later reneged on?
 
Superfreak said:
Again... did the Senate act at all then? No. They sat on their asses. Have the Dems proposed anything of value? No, they just chant 'tax the rich more'

I don't have a problem with raising revenues via an end to subsidies and as you know I support a tax system that taxes all income equally. But that does not alleviate the need to cut the wasteful spending habits in DC. Until they get serious and propose actual spending cuts, then there is no reason to raise more revenues.
Click to expand...


Obama long ago proposed lots of cuts (including entitlement) and the Republicans rejected it out of hand because it included revenues. The bottom line is that Republicans have stated over and over and over again that they will not consider anything that includes revenues.



Also, too, acting then is meaningless now.
 
Dungheap said:
Obama long ago proposed lots of cuts (including entitlement) and the Republicans rejected it out of hand because it included revenues. The bottom line is that Republicans have stated over and over and over again that they will not consider anything that includes revenues.

Also, too, acting then is meaningless now.
Click to expand...

Because again... they have already given in to the revenue increases portion of the agreement. Now Dems are demanding MORE.

Obama is the one who blew up the deal long ago.
 
NOVA said:
Get educated. He not only asked for sequester, he threatened to VETO any attempt to stop it. Gdamn, the video of him saying it was posted a hundred times already and
you still have the balls to deny what he said, live and in color.
Click to expand...

1)You are being obtuse.
2)If you were correct it would blow away your argument that Obama does not want spending cuts.
 
Jarod said:
They FAILED twice to come up with a plan acceptable to the Senate or the President.
Click to expand...

When the House passes a bill, the Senate is supposed to come up with either a 'hey we like that' or a 'hey we don't like that, here is our counter proposal'. If they do the second, then they reconcile the two bills Jarod.

Simply saying 'we don't like yours and we aren't going to provide an alternative' is not an option if we want a functional government.
 
Superfreak said:
So you are saying that the taxes on those earning more than $450k didn't just go up?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm saying that taxes on everyone went up as of 12:00, January 1, 2013 and then Congress acted to cut taxes on everyone earning less than $450,000. The bill that passed was a tax cut bill, not a tax hike bill.


Superfreak said:
Pure nonsense. For one, for everyone taxes went UP, not down from what the taxes were in 2012. No matter how much you want to pretend they didn't, everyone who has received paychecks this year knows that is true. You want to pretend that because the tax rates technically went up for a day and then back down that somehow people got tax cuts.
Click to expand...

No. Everyone got a tax increase and then some people got tax cuts. It's not a "technically" thing. It's what happened. It's reality.


Superfreak said:
Please, show us where those cuts were done. List out what has actually happened. Or was that sooooooooooo last Congress and sooooooo just a proposal that they later reneged on?
Click to expand...

The cuts are the spending caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Here's a link:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3840
 
Superfreak said:
When the House passes a bill, the Senate is supposed to come up with either a 'hey we like that' or a 'hey we don't like that, here is our counter proposal'. If they do the second, then they reconcile the two bills Jarod.

Simply saying 'we don't like yours and we aren't going to provide an alternative' is not an option if we want a functional government.
Click to expand...


OK, but the Senate had, like 10 days to do that. They didn't. The Congress ended and now they have to start anew. So, where's the House bill in this Congress that the Senate can consider.
 
Superfreak said:
Because again... they have already given in to the revenue increases portion of the agreement. Now Dems are demanding MORE.

Obama is the one who blew up the deal long ago.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't give in to the revenue increases. Also, too, even if you pretend that they did, the ratio of revenue increases to spending cuts is way disproportionate and the Republicans' insistance on only spending cuts moving forward would make them even more disproportionate.
 
Jarod said:
They FAILED twice to come up with a plan acceptable to the Senate or the President.
Click to expand...

Nothing is acceptable to the Senate or the President except raising taxes....and after they got that they reneged on spending cuts...
You can not negotiate with the people that refuse to negotiate...and just demand more and more of the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top