The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 10:45 AM   #76
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
They already did revenue (taxes) with 0 cuts attached. The sequester was put in place as a compromise to balance the increases that already happened.

Last time, Obama essentially said, "we'll put a deadline on making future cuts so you guys can agree to these tax increases now. Then we'll figure out how to make cuts before the sequester deadline."

Now he wants to ignore the deadline he set to pretend like he's starting all over again with the first round of tax increases off the table. It can't work that way. Either Obama can propose or support a plan to replace the cuts he already agreed to, or he can watch them take effect.

And they're really not all that significant anyway.
Whatever dude,revenue is going to have to be a part of the deal,all rethugs agreed to last time was not to let all the gwb tax cuts to expire.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:53 AM   #77
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
They already did revenue (taxes) with 0 cuts attached. The sequester was put in place as a compromise to balance the increases that already happened.

Last time, Obama essentially said, "we'll put a deadline on making future cuts so you guys can agree to these tax increases now. Then we'll figure out how to make cuts before the sequester deadline."

Now he wants to ignore the deadline he set to pretend like he's starting all over again with the first round of tax increases off the table. It can't work that way. Either Obama can propose or support a plan to replace the cuts he already agreed to, or he can watch them take effect.

And they're really not all that significant anyway.

Yeah Obama just needs something to blame the **** economy on. Bush is getting old, Congress getting old, he will now blame the sequester.

he got his tax raise and still he's not happy.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:58 AM   #78
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

All that is going on here is that rethugs know they'll get the blame when the sequester goes into affect. They are in the weaker position & are trying to navigate their way out of it by trying put all the blame on Obama.
Let's not forget on 03/27/13 rethugs are going to try to use the threat of a gov. Shut down to get what they want. After that it's the debt ceiling all over again. Rethugs will get the blame for it, whether it be the shut down,sequester or debt ceiling. The sequester is probably the least damaging of the three cause it will take roughly a month to feel the affects of the sequester.
At the end of the day,Rethugs will cave. Likely just before the 27th.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:12 PM   #79
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...spending-cuts/

Quote:
"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."
From November, 2011. So we have the President going from threatening to Veto any REMOVAL of the sequester during negotiations, to now blaming Republicans for what'll happen if they take effect.

What a shell game.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:31 PM   #80
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
...he will now blame the sequester.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st+Articles%29

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-go...rticle/2522040
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:05 PM   #81
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

2011 Obama:
Quote:
"I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.""
2013 Obama
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,5234924.story

Quote:
Emergency responders such as police and firefighters would see their disaster response degraded, he said. Border patrol agents would have their hours reduced.

FBI agents will be furloughed and federal prosecutors “will have to close cases and let criminals go,” Obama said, while teachers are laid off and many Americans lose access to preventive care including cancer screenings.
Should we have believed him in 2011, or yesterday?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 05:50 PM   #82
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,500
Default

Peace Obama got his raised taxes and now has to come through on some cuts. Besides liberals should want the sequester you finally get defense spending cut which you all blame for the poor economy.

Whats the problem? You got taxes raised, you got defense cut, you got the wars ended, you should be really happy right now.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:33 AM   #83
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
The right’s core problem with Hagel wasn’t his alleged anti-Semitism. From Jerry Falwell to Glenn Beck to Rupert Murdoch, conservatives have overlooked far more egregiously anti-Jewish statements when their purveyors subscribed to a hawkish foreign-policy line. The right’s core problem with Hagel was that he had challenged the Bush doctrine. Against a Republican foreign-policy class that generally minimizes the dangers of war with Iran, Hagel had insisted that the lesson of Iraq is that preventive wars are dangerous, uncontrollable things. “Once you start,” he warned in 2010, “you’d better be prepared to find 100,000 troops.”

The point isn’t that Hagel “favors” containment and deterrence. Like virtually everyone else, he’d much rather Iran not get a bomb. But by reminding Americans of the potential costs of preventive war, Hagel was implying that containment and deterrence might be preferable. He was suggesting that if the U.S. can’t stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons short of war, it should make the same tradeoff that Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy made when they allowed the Soviet Union and China to get the bomb.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st+Articles%29
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:11 AM   #84
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Peace Obama got his raised taxes and now has to come through on some cuts. Besides liberals should want the sequester you finally get defense spending cut which you all blame for the poor economy.

Whats the problem? You got taxes raised, you got defense cut, you got the wars ended, you should be really happy right now.
What Obama got was a permanent tax cut for 98% of the country. This country can't afford
To continue with bogus loopholes in our tax code for the one percenters.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:41 AM   #85
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Hagel is not anti semitic --

The issue is that he opposes a war with Iran -- which is blasphemy to the Zionists and Israel lobby.

It's why they attacked him and opposed his nomination to be Sec of Defense.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:43 AM   #86
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The issue is that he opposes a war with Iran --
Yes, and this was exactly the point of what I posted.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:29 PM   #87
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
What Obama got was a permanent tax cut for 98% of the country. This country can't afford
To continue with bogus loopholes in our tax code for the one percenters.
Don't give me that socialist BS 1% crap. The problem is the corp rate needs a territorial system so corporations like the oil companies, like GE, the few big ones that reap the rewards of the loopholes will have a better incentive to bring offshore profits home to the USA.

You just don't get it because you are wrapped up in thinking Obama is telling you the truth that rich people are the problem. The problem is the president and his anti-energy, anti-corp, anti-rich, anti-small govt agenda.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:49 PM   #88
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Don't give me that socialist BS 1% crap. The problem is the corp rate needs a territorial system so corporations like the oil companies, like GE, the few big ones that reap the rewards of the loopholes will have a better incentive to bring offshore profits home to the USA.

You just don't get it because you are wrapped up in thinking Obama is telling you the truth that rich people are the problem. The problem is the president and his anti-energy, anti-corp, anti-rich, anti-small govt agenda.
Dumbass , they go over seas cause they want to pay a poor sap in china $2 a week. The gwb tax cuts were in place 10 ****ing yrs & corp. Shipped jobs overseas by the thousands during that time. Why the **** would you want to reward a corp. For shipping jobs overseas.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:19 PM   #89
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,974
Default

What The Hagel Victory Means

By Stephen M. Walt

March 01, 2013 "Information Clearing House"
- "Foreign Policy" - I suspect a lot of people would like to believe Chuck Hagel's confirmation as secretary of defense shows that Obama has broken the back of the Israel lobby and will now move U.S. Middle East policy in a direction that would be better for us, better for Israel, better for the Palestinians, and maybe even better for the entire region.

Don't count on it.

It is of course a very good thing that the Senate confirmed Hagel. He had excellent credentials for the job, had done nothing to disqualify himself, and to have been denied the post on the basis of the lobby's slander would have been truly disheartening. And there's no question that the antics of the Emergency Committee for Israel (note: for Israel, not the U.S.), the Washington Free Beacon, Elliot Abrams, Ted Cruz, Jennifer Rubin, et al. ultimately did more harm to themselves than to Hagel. They revealed both their preference for innuendo over facts and their belief that support for Israel matters more than any other aspect of U.S. defense policy. As I've noted before, their behavior merely confirmed what some of us have been saying for a very long time, and they did so center-stage with the spotlight on. Very gratifying indeed.

But it would be a huge mistake to conclude that the lobby's clout has been broken and that Obama will now be free to chart a new course. For starters, the behavior of several senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that they are still mightily beholden to groups like AIPAC and extremist Christian Zionists, not to mention some unrepentant neoconservatives. Chuck Hagel was about as bulletproof a candidate as one could ask for (decorated war hero, defense and intelligence expert, successful businessman, respected ex-senator, etc.) and that didn't stop these zealots from unloading the SIOP against him. The fact that they ultimately failed is important, but so is the fact that they could even make an issue of it. The lobby failed to stop Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, but they made him work really, really hard to get the deal through and he never took them on again.

One should also remember that Obama has basically been caving in to the lobby ever since 2009, which tells you something about its clout. It's true that he doesn't have to run for reelection again. But most of those Congressmen do, and they aren't going to back him up if he tries to play hardball with Netanyahu. The annual aid package to Israel will be approved like clockwork, which means Obama won't have many levers to use if he needs to push both sides toward a peace deal.

And that's why I previously argued that you aren't going to see a big Middle East peace push during the second term. Sure, Obama might let John Kerry see what he can accomplish. But Netanyahu will just stiff him, and Obama won't do anything about it. The Palestinians are still divided and too weak to negotiate a fair deal, and conditions throughout the region are hardly propitious for compromise. If Obama is looking for a legacy, in short, the Middle East is not the place to find it. And I suspect he knows that.

Which is not to say that there isn't good news here. The pro-peace, pro-two state lobby J Street's support for Hagel was vindicated, and that's likely to win them greater access going forward. (I mean, who really wants to be in the company of the smear artists who went after Hagel?) Hagel's confirmation and the lobby's defeat diminishes the push for war with Iran -- which is a good thing -- and might encourage the administration to formulate a negotiating strategy toward Tehran that has some prospect of success (as opposed to the dead-on-arrival offers we've been making so far). And it certainly doesn't hurt for politicians in Washington to be reminded that the lobby doesn't win every time.

But the bottom line is that no powerful interest group disappears after a single defeat. Even when a lobby doesn't get its way, it can gain a partial victory by making the winning side pay a price, and by reminding everyone that it can still make trouble. And that was the lobby's real strategy here. They probably knew that Hagel was likely to be confirmed, for the simple reason that he was a well-qualifed candidate whose patriotism was beyond question. Their aim instead was to deter future administration from nominating people who weren't lobby-certified, and to discourage ambitious young foreign policy professionals from doing or saying anything that might put the lobby's crosshairs on them.

In short, so long as opportunistic rabble-rousers like Ted Cruz believe that pandering to the lobby is the smart political play, Capitol Hill will remain supine, the executive branch will be constrained, and U.S. Middle East policy will be about as successful as its been for the last couple of decades.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Denver Broncos