What's new
By:

Pissing Match

Stoked said:
I think the reublicans say this because there was already one round of new taxes/revenue and the republicans do not want more.
Click to expand...

As One Brow pointed out, there wasn't a tax increase, there was a smaller tax cut than they wanted.

Even so, it doesn't really matter why they don't want it. The fact remains that this is the sticking point to an agreement. Obama has already offered much bigger spending cuts than most democrats want to see, but Boehner refuses to consider anything that includes a tax increase.
 
SaltyDawg said:
As One Brow pointed out, there wasn't a tax increase, there was a smaller tax cut than they wanted.

Even so, it doesn't really matter why they don't want it. The fact remains that this is the sticking point to an agreement. Obama has already offered much bigger spending cuts than most democrats want to see, but Boehner refuses to consider anything that includes a tax increase.
Click to expand...

In my opnion Boehner is right.

Edit: With the exception of closing some tax loopholes.
 
SaltyDawg said:
That's not the sticking point on an agreement. Boehner has flat out said there will be no new revenue, no matter what. That's the sticking point.
Click to expand...

The republicans just gave Obama a bunch of tax increases in exchange for time to work on sequester spending cuts. Is your memory really this short?
 
Stoked said:
If I read correctly there were increases to revenue in there. The carrot the left got for offering the right the carrot of tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Well, you were technically lying since the old cuts expired and the republicans agreed on new rates than were higher than the old rates, but lower than the old old rates. Get it? We don't need to be honest with each other around here, Stoked. Just technical.
 
franklin said:
Well, you were technically lying since the old cuts expired and the republicans agreed on new rates than were higher than the old rates, but lower than the old old rates. Get it? We don't need to be honest with each other around here, Stoked. Just technical.
Click to expand...

Damnit, my bad.
 
The funny part is that the sequestration was crafted by the White House and signed off on by Obama.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So your contention is that Boehner was lying the many times he said this is what what he wanted, and Obama was lying the many times he said he was forced into this to prevent the nation defaulting on its obligations?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Simply that sequestration was the White's House's idea.
 
Scat said:
Not at all. Simply that sequestration was the White's House's idea.
Click to expand...

Do you have some evidence of this other than Woodward saying it? Like, someone from the white house saying it, maybe?

I already posted a video of Boehner saying it was what he wanted. That should pretty much end any debate about it. That is, unless you have a video of Obama saying it's what he wanted
 
SaltyDawg said:
Do you have some evidence of this other than Woodward saying it? Like, someone from the white house saying it, maybe?

I already posted a video of Boehner saying it was what he wanted. That should pretty much end any debate about it. That is, unless you have a video of Obama saying it's what he wanted
Click to expand...

Woodward said it and the Washington Post investigated it and found Woodward to be factual. If you choose to ignore this information, fine. I have no way of changing your mind otherwise.
 
Scat said:
The funny part is that the sequestration was crafted by the White House and signed off on by Obama.
Click to expand...

And the funnier part is the republicans are being blamed for it.

By the way, Woodward's claim is ******** - Politico posted the entire e-mail exchange that he was referring to and no where was he threatened in it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html

Your original link either lied about it or (conveniently) didn't have all the facts.
 
candrew said:
And the funnier part is the republicans are being blamed for it.

By the way, Woodward's claim is ******** - Politico posted the entire e-mail exchange that he was referring to and no where was he threatened in it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html

Your original link either lied about it or (conveniently) didn't have all the facts.
Click to expand...

Which claim? That Obama is moving the goalposts as woodward put it or that he was threatened. I believe Woodward thought he was being threatened but I do not believe that was what the aide was doing.
 
Scat said:
Woodward said it and the Washington Post investigated it and found Woodward to be factual. If you choose to ignore this information, fine. I have no way of changing your mind otherwise.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone say it was Obama's idea except for Woodward (besides the many outlets that reference Woodward as the basis for their own claim). I haven't seen any proof that Woodward is correct.

I have seen plenty of people with direct knowledge of this (Obama, Pelosi, Reed) claim that it was not what Obama wanted. I've also seen Boehner himself say that it was what he wanted (as he says in the video I posted).

To be, there is no debate about it. And unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I will consider Woodward to be full of it.

If this isn't what Boehner wanted, his house would put forth a bill to stop it.
 
Stoked said:
Which claim? That Obama is moving the goalposts as woodward put it or that he was threatened. I believe Woodward thought he was being threatened but I do not believe that was what the aide was doing.
Click to expand...

I clearly refer to him being threatened as to what I was addressiing in my original post.

If you read the link it's an amicable exchange between two people - the tone is clearly non-threatening. This is silly nonsense. Woodward is just trying to sell some books.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I haven't seen anyone say it was Obama's idea except for Woodward (besides the many outlets that reference Woodward as the basis for their own claim). I haven't seen any proof that Woodward is correct.

I have seen plenty of people with direct knowledge of this (Obama, Pelosi, Reed) claim that it was not what Obama wanted. I've also seen Boehner himself say that it was what he wanted (as he says in the video I posted).

To be, there is no debate about it. And unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I will consider Woodward to be full of it.

If this isn't what Boehner wanted, his house would put forth a bill to stop it.
Click to expand...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

Says the Presidents claim is mostly false.
 
candrew said:
I clearly refer to him being threatened as to what I was addressiing in my original post.

If you read the link it's an amicable exchange between two people - the tone is clearly non-threatening. This is silly nonsense. Woodward is just trying to sell some books.
Click to expand...

Just making sure. The email also references the yelling that aide did one the phone so I will give Woodward the benefit of the doubt and say that he thought he was threatened but I agree that he was not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top