2 days left: Obama warns of risks over budget cuts

still plenty of time left...an agreement will be reached at the eleventh hour, me guess.

These clowns are always saying that the world is going to end in the most painful possible way if they can't spend as much money as they think they need to.

And it's always the most obvious, needed programs that are threatened. They never say that:

"Unless we meet the budget agreement, then we'll have to end the millions in agricultural subsidies and other corporate welfare programs..."

“in yet another campaign rally to support his tax hikes,” said House Speaker John Boehner

I do give the Republican leadership credit for this. I'm guessing most Republicans don't know they are throwing themselves on a grenade to protect people who are in much higher income brackets than themselves. I can understand the politicians voting against it since it will directly affect them, but when I hear the average Republican talk about it I really can't envision him as being in the income bracket where he will be affected. By simply calling it a "tax increase" the leadership is able to rally the already paranoid base into thinking it will affect their pocketbook.

The classic definition of "chutzpah" is a man convicted of killing his parents asking for mercy as he's an orphan.

Republicans criticized Obama for taking his argument to the people instead of to lawmakers.

This one, though, is almost better.

Meanwhile, the Do-Nothing Congress does....well.....nothing.

But that's to be expected. They're simply living up to their name.

Actually, the actual reason Boehner's not doing anything or bringing up any bills is because he knows he can't pass it. He can't get his caucus to agree on anything.

They are completely dysfunctional.

Sorry, I'm not really saying anything everybody didn't already know.

Besides the fact the Republican-controlled Congress is harming America though its dysfunction, it must also be a great place to work:

Join Congress

Do NOTHING

Get paid.

What a gig!

I have never seen anything like this. Unbelievable.

We elected politicians who are willing to do their jobs instead of pointing fingers at each others.

Looking for jobs?

Here is a job opportunity for you in Washington DC. No experience, no leadership and technical skills necessary. All you have to do is just to say "NO". We offer great pay and benefit. Please submit your resume to US Congress.org.

Tragically funny to read the profligates fawning over each other. Remember why the Bourbon Monarchy lost their heads in the end? Raise taxes and keep spending. Let them eat cake.

And unless it involves taxes, entitlements or their health plan is lost (which is coming in about a year) this is just another fight in Washington that has become a blip on the exhausted “crisis” radar of everyday Americans. Republicans will use a lack of significant public anger to press Obama for still more concessions on the spending they see as a driver of the debt.

The cabinet secretaries threaten layoffs when the 2% reduction needed could be met with office decoration reductions and cancellations of agency parties and retreats (millions spent each year on each).

There are more than a million ways to make modest cuts...but he/they choose the ones like releasing thousands of illegal immigrants from detention that will “punish” people the most. There is no need for this and we should not stand for it. Appalling doesn't begin to describe these appalling tactics. Obama is nothing more than a two bit dictator, using the power of office for coercion, extortion and intimidation.

if the cuts included the politicians' salaries this would be solved.

I'm guessing most Republicans don't know they are throwing themselves on a grenade to protect people who are in much higher income brackets than themselves.

Not true at all, even this article had to admit this (buried at the bottom of course where your low information voter and dumb downed general public never bothers to read that far anymore).

Many Republicans say they are done raising revenue after letting taxes on top earners increase in December.

It's too late now for Obama to go around complaining about cuts - since we now know it was his idea in the first place!

With the end of year tax increase and the sequester on Friday, that's going to be about it when it comes to solving America's budget disaster until Obama leaves office in 2016. By then the national debt will have more than doubled to over $20 trillion. Good job Mr. President - American's children and grandchildren appreciate how you have thrown them into a huge economic hole even before they have gotten their first government backed college loan.

Obama by himself can't resolve anything but if he cooperate with politicians of both parties he may be able to achieve at least few of his goals. He would be a good King but us President he must listen to others to get things going forward.

2.3 cents cut in every dollar of spending is NOT a serious cut.

Yes...that is what America needs-defence budget cuts!

With bases in over 100 countries and farcical wars waged in 3rd world countries then it is time for cuts!

In the new American embassy in Baghdad,Iraq who was it that approved the Olympic sized swimming pool.

The US is a debt ridden wasteful run state.

85 billion dollars a month pumped into its economy and still its not enough..sheessh!

Wolfpack: since we now know it was his idea in the first place!

Ah, the Republican bubble. I'm sure you've seen the surveys showing that the American people are blaming Republicans much more than Obama. And you should check out the approval ratings as well. If "it's his idea" is the best AM radio can come up with then it's going to be a long haul for you guys.

Sailwind: Not true at all, even this article had to admit this (buried at the bottom of course where your low information voter and dumb downed general public never bothers to read that far anymore)

Is that what Boehner said? I can't say I'm hearing too much in terms of Republicans letting their people know that the tax increases won't impact a vast majority of them. Beohner said that Obama went campaigning for higher taxes....to a shipyard where nearly everyone in attendance won't be affected? Republicans are counting on dumbed down Americans falling for the rhetoric, so much so that they are the ones leading the charge.

This all started because Republicans suddenly decided to use the debt ceiling to extract concessions that they don't have the votes for. They could end all of this tomorrow by raising the ceiling just as they did under Bush. None of them have the guts to go up against their own people so they are going to let the party sink and take all of us down with them.

Wolfpack: since we now know it was his idea in the first place!

Ah, the Republican bubble. I'm sure you've seen the surveys showing that the American people are blaming Republicans much more than Obama.

Rest assurred Obama's lap dog Media was going to make sure of that happening no matter what. The bias has gotten so bad that even Bob Woodward of Watergate fame was incensed enough to actually correct the B.S from the Whitehouse and set the record straight even giving the exact time and Date the Obama said "What a great Idea!!!!" (fat lot good it will do though, it will still just be ignored by the MSM as usual).

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

Sail, you've either got to start reading more extensively or stop cherrypicking so specifically. To coin a phrase, Woodward debunked his thesis before he even bunked it.

A few Sail-ient points:

The GOP demanded deficit-reduction action as the price for a what was once-routine lifting of the debt ceiling; The Dems acquiesced and offered a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, but the GOP balked, demanding the reduction be entirely on the expenditure side; To avoid financial Armageddon, BOTH sides punted with sequestration, which in reality was a bet on both sides that either would end up in a stronger position after the elections such that they could force their agenda; The GOP lost that bet; Despite the fact that Dems won the popular vote in the House, districting has allowed the GOP to maintain a majority and thus block the will of the electorate; As a result, sequestration will occur, whether for good or for bad.

Woodward in his book explicitly details points 1 through 3; to pretend that 4 through 6 are not logical ramifications is mendacious.

A laguna reality check from Mr. Woodward:

The Dems acquiesced and offered a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, but the GOP balked, demanding the reduction be entirely on the expenditure side;

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html#sthash.QiQ5uCBL.dpuf

You still fail to grasp the reality, Sail. Yes, the sequester itself does not contain a tax increase. The sequester itself is law and will begin to unfold Saturday, Japan time. It is, as Boehner would say, the law of the land.

However, the sequester was always meant as an incentive for negotiation. If it in fact unfolds as it does, that is that; if either side wants to change it, that puts revenue back on the table. Woodward implies that shifts of spending cuts from defense to domestic programs would be in accordance with the original agreement, while shifts from spending cuts to revenue increases would not. He is entirely incorrect there.

Addendum: One can argue whether an agreement made under duress truly constitutes an agreement: If a robber demands you wallet and you offer your watch instead, is that agreement? Okay, aside from that, the House GOP has recently floated the idea of shifting "responsibility" for the cut proximity from the law itself to Obama by giving him "latitude" to direct the cuts.

In other words,the GOP is trying to put the onus on Obama for cutting defense without going back and altering the law itself, as that would open it up to revenue increases..

Cute. Too cute by half.

Woodward implies that shifts of spending cuts from defense to domestic programs would be in accordance with the original agreement, while shifts from spending cuts to revenue increases would not. He is entirely incorrect there.

He implies nothing of the sort. I do wish you would stop trying to channel your inner "Woodward" as you furiously spin and spin to make Obama look good here. His idea he owns it, he also dropped the revenue hikes to get the deal so he could get passed the election and not have any pesky budget issues before his re-coronation by his adoring lap dog Media. His re-election was more important then his so called principles.

Mr. Woodard summary in his Op-ed: 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.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html

Also Laguna,

I'm not sure why you need to defend Obama here anyway. It isn't like the Media is going to start all of the sudden do some actual Journalism and ask President Obama why he came up with such a lousy idea in the first place.

"spending cuts... could hurt military readiness"

No worries, the Chinese will step up and provide security where it's needed.

His idea he owns it, he also dropped the revenue hikes to get the deal so he could get passed the election and not have any pesky budget issues before his re-coronation by his adoring lap dog Media.

Sheesh - aside from the atrocious grammar and random capitalization, - and the gratuitous bow to right-wing victimization - I agree with you. That does not change the facts, however: The cuts will go through as planned, or they will not - and if they do not, the entire deal is undone.

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.

Exactly. Either stick with the deal he made, or go and redo it.

However, the idea that Obama has moved the goalposts is patently false. The American voters moved the goalposts by overwhelmingly voting for a Democratic government. Either stick with the status quo - the sequster - or start from zero. Woodward's argument that additional revenues included should the deal unravel are "moving the goalposts" is false.

Sheesh - aside from the atrocious grammar and random capitalization.

No offense, but exactly what was your purpose by intentionally pointing out to others that grammar isn't my strongest point? That my posts are really not that relevant after all and really shouldn't be taken seriously? I just will never understand why Liberals always feel this need to personally demean and belittle others that do not agree with them.

Sailwind, I offer my apologies on that. My sensitivity towards the way ideas are presented is based both on my occupation and on the way I perceive that presenters have accurately grasped the gist of an argument; I do recognize that cognition and expression may not match.

I also agree with you that many Americans support this reduction, that it may not result in as bad a situation as some predict, and that both sides have had a hand in its creation. I still maintain, though, that Woodward is a tool.

Sail, I don't see why you are arguing the point. The "Obama owns it" is a calculated, manufactured point by Republicans in order to hide the fact that this is all about them not raising the debt ceiling. It simply gives them something to say.

Polls show that a majority of Americans will blame Republicans over Obama at a factor of nearly 2-to-1. Obama's approval ratings are nearly 3 times that of Republicans. A vast majority of economists surveyed said that the debt ceiling should not be held hostage like this.

And if you believe the media is in bed with Obama then that's just another point to add to the list. My point is this: The writing is on the wall for Republicans not getting what they want and paying a heavy price for it. I have absolutely no idea what they think they will gain when the sequester happens. No clue at all. Maybe you can tell me. I suspect the only thing they hope to accomplish is anything that will damage Obama regardless of how much it damages themselves.

The whole thing is pointless. Even if the Congress passed something it would just die in the Senate. The only idea that has any merit would be giving the President some authority to dictate where the cuts occur. That should at least narrow the 'meat cleaver' down to something more akin to a carving knife, not quite a scalpel but cutting needs doing regardless of what tool is used. I would, for example, start cutting out duplicate government agencies identified in a 2011 GOA report that outlined over 20 duplicate agencies with budgets totaling a little under 200 billion. To date nothing has been done in response to the report.

That's just straight up cutting, I'm sure more could be saved through consolidation. The Department of Homeland Security would be a fantastic way to save money by splitting it back up between Customs and Immigration with Immigration being handled by the Defense Department and Customs being handled by the Treasury like it was done for years. That would eliminate redundant administration and enforcement positions and allow for job specialization and cost reduction.

Well, Woodward has strayed quite egregiously from the state run media line and there is no doubt he is going to be held to account by the White House. This should all have come out much sooner but at least he is finally doing the respectable thing and exposing them for every word they threaten. All of the fearful people who have been terrorized by this administration should step forward. Some heads need to roll...and can only roll if there is a group able to disclose without fear of being alone.

@SuperLib:

Ah, the Republican bubble. I'm sure you've seen the surveys showing that the American people are blaming Republicans much more than Obama.

Are you saying that the results of a poll invalidates Woodward's reporting? Polls and approval ratings don't change the facts. It has been shown that the sequester originated with the Obama Administration. However, during the election, he flat out stated that it wasn't. Now is going around the country attempting to blame Republicans for his policy idea. Sure, it was a dumb idea but the goal at the time was to avoid at all costs having to go through another debt ceiling debate before the election.

I don't see the rationale for your vehement support of Obama's obvious attempt to avoid the fallout of his own administrations ideas. The cuts resulting from the lack of a negotiated agreement are the result of Obama's tactic to spur the sides to make some sort of agreement to cut spending. The tactic failed and Obama's sequester appears to be going to take affect. You can rationalize all you want but that will not change the fact that Obama has shot himself in the foot. You can just feel at ease that the media will do all it can to change the facts to help Barry avoid responsibility, but he is responsible. He originated the sequester - he owns it.

For whatever reason, the American media feel compelled to never attempt to hold Obama to account on anything of significance. This is just one of the most obvious examples of this bias in the American press. Their highest goal is not to find the truth, it is to promote the first black president. My feeling is that it offends their notion of fairness to hold the first black (actually bi-racial) president in US history accountable for his words and actions. Woodward - the man whose reporting led to the impeachment of a Republican president - has apparently taken offense to the White House's calling him a liar. So far, he has not backed down in the face of relentless attacks on his character (ie. truthfulness). Woodward is a Lefty and will shade things in the Lefts favor on occasion. But I don't think Dems get anywhere trying to make it out to be a liar.

Are you saying that the results of a poll invalidates Woodward's reporting?

I just didn't know the world was waiting for Woodward to weigh in on the issue. I can only imagine the conservative excitement when they heard the news. "WE GOT ONE!!!!" heh And who originally told you about the "Obama owns this" line of thinking, anyway?

But to answer your question, YES. Woodward's one opinion will ultimately do very little despite last-minute Republican efforts to have it painted on the moon. Republicans are taking a political gamble against a man who has much higher ratings than they do. And so far the opinion about responsibility is hurting Republicans much, much more than Democrats. You're going to lose this and you know it....you just can't stop yourself.

For whatever reason, the American media feel compelled to never attempt to hold Obama to account on anything of significance. This is just one of the most obvious examples of this bias in the American press. Their highest goal is not to find the truth, it is to promote the first black president. My feeling is that it offends their notion of fairness to hold the first black (actually bi-racial) president in US history accountable for his words and actions.

Yet more evidence that you're going to lose this battle. But don't change a thing. Go down with the sinking ship.

Woodward's one opinion will ultimately do very little despite last-minute Republican efforts to have it painted on the moon.

The Whitehouse actually told him he was going to regret challenging them, how truly pathetic our Media has become. So much in the tank for Obama that if a real reporter dares to still speak truth to power the Whitehouse bullies them and the rest of Obama's lap dog Media circles the wagons and goes on the attack. Bob Woodward will now get to see himself to being regulated as an old coot who is getting senile. It has already started.

First link is the Whitehouse bullying.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Told-Bob-Woodward-He-Would-Regret-Challenging-Them

This link is watching how Obama's industrial media complex really operates. Bob Woodward is now a declared enemy who has strayed of Obama's media plantation and the Media has received and is now dutifully carry out its Whitehouse marching orders.

WH Senior Adviser Plouffe: Woodward Washed Up

Wednesday night, in the aftermath of the blow-up regarding the White House’s email to Bob Woodward suggesting he would "regret" his reporting of sequestration, White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe took to twitter to bash Woodward as a past-his-prime hack:

That, of course, is the same theme that the entire Obama-supporting media from BuzzFeed to Slate suggested. The White House-coordinated media sure knows its cues.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/27/White-House-Senior-Adviser-Plouffe-Rips-Woodward

The Whitehouse actually told him he was going to regret challenging them, how truly pathetic our Media has become .

Yeah, just the kind of thing a low information voter would latch onto with actually reading into it. If I'd said you'll regret your post reassuring Romney supporters " not to sweat the load" that Romney would be our next President, is that a threat?

In that email, the aide wrote: “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. ... You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

And Woodward is still basically defending the president with the 'if Obama knew, Obama would never act this way line.

They have got to be seriously out of their minds (or completely comfortable that the press is theirs) to try to intimidate probably the most famous print journalist in the country. A living, breathing liberal icon who took on a president previously, and won. Not only that, but they did so in an email. A traceable, printable, email. If that doesn't show arrogance, I don't know what does.' Moderate Democrats need to speak up against these radical power grabs or this administration is eventually going to overreach so far it will bring the entire Left down with it. '

Yeah, just the kind of thing a low information voter would latch onto with actually reading into it. If I'd said you'll regret your post reassuring Romney supporters " not to sweat the load" that Romney would be our next President, is that a threat?

This wasn't a misinterpretation or one off thing. Now Obama's henchman David Plouffe is saying that Woodward is washed up and his career is over for criticizing the president. A minor leak in the dam, but a leak to be sure. Hopefully his career just got a new life....

Nonsense. It's a ridiculous and silly tangent to an important issue.

On one hand, so-called professional journalists sure did help create the monster, but they can also destroy him by suddenly getting honest. If the MSM starts getting even half way legit, Obama disintegrates with no means of support. Because as soon as the MSM gets into a civil war, he loses his propaganda outlets. And this he has no support. Never could the president out because these guys have a decent repair effort when they've backed themselves into a corner but it is quite obvious that has nothing to do with the sequester in particular and everything to do with unchallenged arrogance at the seat of power to naturally lose touch with reality.

http://www.630wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0

sailwind: So much in the tank for Obama that if a real reporter dares to still speak truth to power the Whitehouse bullies them and the rest of Obama's lap dog Media circles the wagons and goes on the attack. Bob Woodward will now get to see himself to being regulated as an old coot who is getting senile. It has already started.

Here's your media:

White House to Woodward: You'll 'Regret' Challenging Us

And here's a clip from the actual email:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. ... You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.

Do you agree with your media's portrayal of the events?

The reason people are questioning Woodward is because he's obviously not giving accurate statements about what really took place. I find it hard to believe that you would characterize that email as a threat.

Sail, after browsing through your site it's apparent that Breibart is going to take the misinterpretation and run with it. These are some of the statements made by reporters who are "throwing the liberal icon under the bus":

Hezbollah is intimidating. Gene Sperling writing, "I think you will regret staking out that claim" is not intimidating.

and

Impossible. Ridiculous. E-mail exchange b/w WH and Woodward is out, via Politico. Hard to read as threat

and

Juiceboxer and fellow palace guard @daveweigel on the epic stupidity of this "White House threatened Woodward" scoop http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/28/the_nature_of_the_threat.html …

and

This is the threat?! Please. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html …

and

"I don't understand this White House," Woodward said. He's right about that.

One post said he was senile, another said he was trolling. That makes two that can be read as mocking. A vast majority are pedestrian. But it didn't stop your media from printing, "Cult of Obama: List of Journalists Throwing Woodward Under Bus."

Will the facts of the email change any conservative minds? My guess is it won't. Let's see how this story continues to develop when the actual words are there for everyone to see now. My guess is that your media will just continue along its current path. And in other news, your party is about to be blamed for the sequester. Enjoy.

Bob Woodward is an opportunist to be sure, but that doesn't in any way excuse bad behavior from the other side. I'm guessing what went down in this case was that he called back as promised, got another abuse earful and at that point decided to go public.

@SuperLib:

But to answer your question, YES. Woodward's one opinion will ultimately do very little despite last-minute Republican efforts to have it painted on the moon. Republicans are taking a political gamble against a man who has much higher ratings than they do. And so far the opinion about responsibility is hurting Republicans much, much more than Democrats. You're going to lose this and you know it....you just can't stop yourself.

Well, I guess you just won't let reality interfere with your obeisance to the great Messiah. Now even turning against the great slayer of Nixon in order to defend the honor of His Holiness, the President. Well, enjoy slamming Bob Woodward for the next few days. Maybe it will take your mind off the fact that the budget will actually increase - yet somehow lead to the horrible consequences of millions more unemployed, America's military incapable of defending us, and the welfare state slashed with a meat axe.

Yet more evidence that you're going to lose this battle. But don't change a thing. Go down with the sinking ship.

Got it - thanks for the advice. And good luck to you with the whole "the sky is falling" thing.

I find it hard to believe that you would characterize that email as a threat.

Super,

Bob Woodward is a reporter who was and is famous for covering the President of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat President. It is how he has made his established his career and what his entire reputation and well deserved journalistic legacy consists of. Being told by a Senior White House official that he is going to regret publishing this in the future is directed as a threat to him as a reporter. It implies that he will no longer have access to White house in the way he had in the past, that he will not be able to obtian interviews or access like he had in the past and that he will no longer be able to operate as the premier reporter in Washington as he had in the past 30 years or so.

A reporter that can longer get access is to information to be able vet it, investigate it and report on it is worthless that is the threat made here to him. He knows it and that is why he went public with how the White House is trying to get him to back off on his reporting that is making them look bad.

sailwind: Being told by a Senior White House official that he is going to regret publishing this in the future is directed as a threat to him as a reporter. It implies that he will no longer have access to White house in the way he had in the past, that he will not be able to obtian interviews or access like he had in the past and that he will no longer be able to operate as the premier reporter in Washington as he had in the past 30 years or so.

But he was never threatened. You read the comments yourself and I doubt you took them as a threat. I'm not sure why you're saying this.

Wolfpack: Well, I guess you just won't let reality interfere with your obeisance to the great Messiah

Why do you talk like this?

@SuperLib:

Why do you talk like this?

Because apparently you have a very difficult time acknowledging that Obama is wrong about anything. It is clear that the sequester was Obama's idea - the White House has even admitted to this fact - although they still want to blame Republicans by making another false statement that he was forced into it. But he could have chosen a different triggering method other that the one used back in the 1980's - yet Obama specifically selected the sequester. It is also an important fact that once the Super Committee negotiations failed, the sequester did not include tax increases - it only mandated a reduction in future spending. Even the word itself cannot be construed to mean to increase anything - let alone taxes.

Why are so many Obama supporters so adamant about protecting everything Obama does or says no matter what? It is a tad frustrating that every fact can be manipulated to suit the political needs of the moment. The matter of the sequester is a perfect example of this. In one of last October's presidential debates, Obama flatly stated that the sequester was brought up by the other side (ie. Republicans). He knew that was a false statement when he made it and the media never followed up. So he got away with it until now - until Woodward caught Obama in a lie. Democrats have been furiously trying to mitigate the fallout from that lie. Unfortunately, you have allied yourself with that effort. It really is nonsensical.

Can't you even concede that Obama made a tactical decision back in 2011 in which he traded a postponement of future debt ceiling debates until after the election in exchange for the sequester?

So now that I have explained myself, can you tell me why do you state things like this?

Yet more evidence that you're going to lose this battle. But don't change a thing. Go down with the sinking ship.