SuperFail!

[ekg]

In many previous comments, the defense budget was the first place you've mentioned that you wanted to cut.  Including in the Obama era.  So if you are now saying, no, you don't want cuts that big in the defense budget, are you upset that Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?

uh yeah, is it that you don't want to tell the truth or are incapable of it? Obama didn't say he would veto any attempt by congress to fix the cuts.. Jesus, really? The veto threat was to Congress for trying to get around the sequester they imposes upon themselves..

wtf Mike? do you even vet your news slants anymore or just go with what Hannity and Rush tell you like it's gospel..

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday doubled down on President Obama's threat to veto any attempt to get around the automatic spending cuts triggered by Monday's failure of the debt supercommittee.

There is "no wiggle room" in the veto threat, Carney told reporters.

"Look, those cuts in the sequester are broad and onerous for a reason, because they’re supposed to force action by Congress to avoid them. They’re never supposed to take place," he said. "And they don’t need to take place, and they won’t take place if Congress simply acts."

The deficit-reduction supercommittee announced its failure to reach a bargain on Monday, setting into motion the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts, known as sequestration, scheduled to begin in 2013.

House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has vowed to introduce legislation to prevent steep automatic spending cuts to the department. However, Obama said the only way to avoid these cuts will be for Congress to come up with a deficit-reduction deal before the cuts take effect in 2013.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195141-white-house-no-wiggle-room-on-obama-veto-threat-

The super committee’s failure to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction measures has paved the way for an election-year battle by Republicans to rewrite the sequester rules and protect defense spending in the face of a White House veto threat.

...

President Obama, however, made clear on Monday night after the super committee’s official collapse that he would veto any effort to alter the sequester as currently written. “My message to them is simple: No,” he said, “There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.” Obama argued that Congress still has one year to find a path to $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction in order to head off sequestration. The road is rockier now that Congress does not have the fast-track protections afforded to the super committee to vote on a plan.

...

According to the Budget Control Act approved in August in a compromise to raise the debt ceiling, an automatic $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts split evenly between defense and nondefense discretionary spending would take effect on Jan. 1, 2013.

The split was done purposefully with the intention of forcing Congress to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction on its own, which lawmakers have proved incapable of doing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that defense spending would be reduced by between 8.5 percent to 10 percent from 2013 to 2021, saving about $454 billion.

...


Senate Democrats will take their cues from the White House, following Obama’s veto threat. Like most Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., does not support altering the sequester ratio of cuts, and a Democratic leadership aide said that if the White House stands firm in opposition to undoing the current sequester rule, then Reid will hold the line. “The sequester was designed to be painful, and it is. But that is the commitment to fiscal responsibility that both parties made to the American people. In the absence of a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by at least as much, I will oppose any efforts to change or roll back the sequester,” he said in a statement.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., supports altering the sequester rule, but unless the White House is willing to negotiate, he will be hard-pressed to find the 60-votes he would need to rewrite current law.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/supercommittee/super-committee-failure-forecasts-sequester-fight-20111121

where in the hell do you get "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?"


 congress should get their shit together, don't you think? wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debt-reduction bill? huh, that's what this 'veto' threat was about.. it's time for Congress to put on their big-boy pants and come up with a bi-part plan and not eek their way around the sequester like they were trying to do.. IOW, the veto threat was something you should be happy with since it was given to force them to work out something for this country instead of just running for the election..

For once, you should be on-board with this president since you're all about debt-reduction and all.. but the fact that you're making this stuff like this, kinda proves that no, you're not hell-bent on debt-reduction, you're just hell bent on saying "No" to anything Obama does, even when it's your own philosophy..

[lil mike]

uh yeah, is it that you don't want to tell the truth or are incapable of it? Obama didn't say he would veto any attempt by congress to fix the cuts.. Jesus, really? The veto threat was to Congress for trying to get around the sequester they imposes upon themselves..

wtf Mike? do you even vet your news slants anymore or just go with what Hannity and Rush tell you like it's gospel..


where in the hell do you get "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?"


 congress should get their shit together, don't you think? wouldn't it be nice to have an actual debt-reduction bill? huh, that's what this 'veto' threat was about.. it's time for Congress to put on their big-boy pants and come up with a bi-part plan and not eek their way around the sequester like they were trying to do.. IOW, the veto threat was something you should be happy with since it was given to force them to work out something for this country instead of just running for the election..

For once, you should be on-board with this president since you're all about debt-reduction and all.. but the fact that you're making this stuff like this, kinda proves that no, you're not hell-bent on debt-reduction, you're just hell bent on saying "No" to anything Obama does, even when it's your own philosophy..

That was illuminating!

You actually excerpted articles that said exactly what I was saying, and you were using it to try disprove what I was saying!

Weird.

The programmed cuts  that are to take place due to the supercommitte's failure include medicare and defense cuts.  THOSE are the defense cuts I was talking about!

Sorry I couldn't have been clearer and you still couldn't understand it.

]http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq]

President Obama on Monday evening threatened to veto any legislation that would void the $600 billion in national defense cuts that would kick in if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal.

[ekg]

That was illuminating!

You actually excerpted articles that said exactly what I was saying, and you were using it to try disprove what I was saying!

Weird.

The programmed cuts  that are to take place due to the supercommitte's failure include medicare and defense cuts.  THOSE are the defense cuts I was talking about!

Sorry I couldn't have been clearer and you still couldn't understand it.

]http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq]

President Obama on Monday evening threatened to veto any legislation that would void the $600 billion in national defense cuts that would kick in if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal.

holy crap you're hell bent on splicing whatever you can together to make an erroneous point aren't you?

the veto threat is not Obama saying he will veto any attempt congress makes, it's any attempt congress makes in trying to get around the sequester without a true deficit-reduction plan. That sequester is painful for a reason, to force them to act.. you should be ashamed that you are OK with them squirming out of their own self-imposed 'sword of Damocles'..  but instead, you're pulling a Romney again and stopping Obama's sentence where you think it will do the most damage.. The sentence is not "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts" It's "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to get around the sequester if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal"

superfail indeed..

[Howey]

For someone who gets his rocks off using words like maybe, perhaps, if, et al while livong in a black and white world where those words don't even exist, I guess it's no surprise he doesn't get the meaning of "if".

[ekg]

For someone who gets his rocks off using words like maybe, perhaps, if, et al while livong in a black and white world where those words don't even exist, I guess it's no surprise he doesn't get the meaning of "if".

what bothers me is, he's not a dumb guy. He knows the difference in what he's saying, but pretends like he's saying the same thing that's in the article.. it's like saying "The wind blew across the field" is the same as "The wind blew across the field, killing 7 small children".. both sentences have pretty much the same words, but 2 totally different meanings..

saying Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those(defense) cuts is erroneous, one.. and dishonest two. Because it's leaving off the whole rest of the sentence that changes the meaning of what is being said..

I guess that's the game and goal though.. Make Obama the bad guy at any and all turns even if you have to photoshop to do it..

again, this is not the same as the Left coming after Bush for (example)wire-tapping.. that was real, this? Isn't. Why can't they come after him for something real? Why the need to make shit up all the time? Hell come after him for vetoing the sequester 'get-around' because it's going to trigger a defense cut if Congress can't find cuts... but come after him with the entire sentence and it's meaning and not just change it all up to make it look more than what it is..

[lil mike]

holy crap you're hell bent on splicing whatever you can together to make an erroneous point aren't you?

the veto threat is not Obama saying he will veto any attempt congress makes, it's any attempt congress makes in trying to get around the sequester without a true deficit-reduction plan. That sequester is painful for a reason, to force them to act.. you should be ashamed that you are OK with them squirming out of their own self-imposed 'sword of Damocles'..  but instead, you're pulling a Romney again and stopping Obama's sentence where you think it will do the most damage.. The sentence is not "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts" It's "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to get around the sequester if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal"

superfail indeed..

This brief tit for tat reminds me why debating you became so joyless after a awhile.  Like Shutter island, your posts were crazy the whole time.

Let's back up a bit.  Here is what I said:

In many previous comments, the defense budget was the first place you've mentioned that you wanted to cut.  Including in the Obama era.  So if you are now saying, no, you don't want cuts that big in the defense budget, are you upset that Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?

Your reply, was first to say I was lying...

uh yeah, is it that you don't want to tell the truth or are incapable of it? Obama didn't say he would veto any attempt by congress to fix the cuts.. Jesus, really? The veto threat was to Congress for trying to get around the sequester they imposes upon themselves..

wtf Mike? do you even vet your news slants anymore or just go with what Hannity and Rush tell you like it's gospel..

And at the same time that you were calling me a liar, you totally sliced and diced a difference that wasn't there.

Again, I said

...are you upset that Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?

Now, what cuts did you think I was talking about?  The only actual cuts there were, the sequestration cuts, that cut 600 billion in defense and 600 billion in medicare.  There were no other cuts on the table. The supercommittee failed remember?

You seemed to acknowledge at least that the sequestration was actually automatic budget cuts...

...The veto threat was to Congress for trying to get around the sequester they imposes upon themselves..

So from this you could draw the conclusion that we either are in agreement.

But no...

where in the hell do you get "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?"

And then of course more gibber gaber...

For once, you should be on-board with this president since you're all about debt-reduction and all.. but the fact that you're making this stuff like this, kinda proves that no, you're not hell-bent on debt-reduction, you're just hell bent on saying "No" to anything Obama does, even when it's your own philosophy..

See?  Crazy the whole time.

What the hell happened to you?  You're incapable of holding a reasoned discussion since it seems that your primary purpose is to try to take anything I say totally out of context and give my words totally new meanings, no matter how much you have to be deceitful to do it.  I've said it before, but you changed after the election, and counter intuitively, in a very bad way.  You're not capable of really discussing issue with me since, even when we seemed to agree on the facts, you just can't accept it and start slinging shit and making stuff up.  Why?  Obviously I don't really give a shit now, but you've proven your still nuts and are incapable of reasonable discourse.

I had forgotten how much I missed that.  On the other board I'm on, I'm actually having reasonable arguments with liberals and leftists just like we use to before you went crazy.  That board reminded me how much I missed it, but right now that's the only place I can get it.

[ekg]

Maybe this will help. I assume you know the Mitt Romney ad from last week where he has Obama saying something about the economy.. but as it turns out, Obama wasn't saying that, the whole clip has Obama saying "This is what John McCain said..." and the Romney add just clipped and edited out that "McCain" part to make it seem like it was Obama's words..

their 'reasoning' for this was because Obama will probably not talk about the economy, like he was saying McCain wouldn't.. so it was OK for them to present McCain's words as Obama..

this is a an erroneous and misleading ad. Because when you fill in the whole Obama quote, then it changes the meaning of what he was saying...

you do get that much right?

you did the same thing here...

Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts..

you've presented this in a way where I would say "Well hey, that pretty dick-ish of him to veto any attempt congress makes.".. but when you add in the actual words he used about the the veto, that he will veto any attempt of congress to get around the sequestration and go even further with an explanation of why, because he is demanding they find a way to reduce the deficit like they had pledged to do.. it changes the whole opinion on the subject. You just saying 'any attempt by congress' and leaving off 'to get around the sequestration' creates a whole new world that doesn't exist.

so yes, it does drive me crazy when you do that. why do you not give out all the information when you present your side? Had I not already known about his veto threat, and what it was for, I would have assumed Obama was being a pretty huge dick because he was not going to work with congress on this and instead, veto any progress they made. But that's not the real scenario here is it? So why would you want me or anyone to have that erroneous information?

sorry your other boards let you get away with presenting false information. I guess that's why you've blown back in here presented 1/2 truth 'rape' articles and un-true OWS photos... you're out of practice in being above being 'sourced'..maybe we can change that..

one could argue above that Obama probably won't talk about the economy the way McCain wouldn't.. because the words did come out of his mouth... just like you could argue that Obama said he will veto any attempt congress makes... the problem is, both leave off so much 'integral' information that when you add it in, it changes the story totally..

[lil mike]

Maybe this will help. I assume you know the Mitt Romney ad from last week where he has Obama saying something about the economy.. but as it turns out, Obama wasn't saying that, the whole clip has Obama saying "This is what John McCain said..." and the Romney add just clipped and edited out that "McCain" part to make it seem like it was Obama's words..

their 'reasoning' for this was because Obama will probably not talk about the economy, like he was saying McCain wouldn't.. so it was OK for them to present McCain's words as Obama..

this is a an erroneous and misleading ad. Because when you fill in the whole Obama quote, then it changes the meaning of what he was saying...

you do get that much right?

you did the same thing here...

Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts..

you've presented this in a way where I would say "Well hey, that pretty dick-ish of him to veto any attempt congress makes.".. but when you add in the actual words he used about the the veto, that he will veto any attempt of congress to get around the sequestration and go even further with an explanation of why, because he is demanding they find a way to reduce the deficit like they had pledged to do.. it changes the whole opinion on the subject. You just saying 'any attempt by congress' and leaving off 'to get around the sequestration' creates a whole new world that doesn't exist.

so yes, it does drive me crazy when you do that. why do you not give out all the information when you present your side? Had I not already known about his veto threat, and what it was for, I would have assumed Obama was being a pretty huge dick because he was not going to work with congress on this and instead, veto any progress they made. But that's not the real scenario here is it? So why would you want me or anyone to have that erroneous information?

sorry your other boards let you get away with presenting false information. I guess that's why you've blown back in here presented 1/2 truth 'rape' articles and un-true OWS photos... you're out of practice in being above being 'sourced'..maybe we can change that..

one could argue above that Obama probably won't talk about the economy the way McCain wouldn't.. because the words did come out of his mouth... just like you could argue that Obama said he will veto any attempt congress makes... the problem is, both leave off so much 'integral' information that when you add it in, it changes the story totally..

Nope.  It's so simple that you refuse to understand it.  Apparently because you have some sort of vitriolic, reactionary response to anything I write, so that you can't read the words that I write, you have to make up your own meaning.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq

Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

Yep.  Crazy the whole time.

[ekg]

Nope.  It's so simple that you refuse to understand it.  Apparently because you have some sort of vitriolic, reactionary response to anything I write, so that you can't read the words that I write, you have to make up your own meaning.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/194963-obama-to-gop-lawmakers-on-voiding-sequestration-cuts-qnoq

Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

Yep.  Crazy the whole time.

once again, you leave off integral information...

Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

that is not the whole story, it's the same you did with the OWS rape stuff. you presented headlines that cried rape, but the articles actually told of a very different account where accusers were not believed, nor were there any evidence of the headline..that is beneath someone of your stature. you and I have done this long enough, at a level where there should be no need of a 'fact-check'.. to bad you lost that by playing on another board that toned-down your ability rather than toning it up..



the whole story is..

President Obama on Monday evening threatened to veto any legislation that would void the $600 billion in national defense cuts that would kick in if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal.

why? that is my main question.. why do this? Don't both 'stories' end with a a defense cut? Yes. But one, yours, assumes Obama is being a dick and refusing to work with congress, while they are working so hard to come to some kind of 'reduction agreement' and he's just going to veto any attempt they make... the other, assumes Obama is forcing Congress to get the fuck back to the table a work out a reduction instead of trying to get around their own rules.It is Obama telling them this is going to be a hard reduction plan to make, one that isn't going to pretty for anyone up for reelection, but that he's not going to allow them to get out of this by taking away that unpleasantness, he' going to force them to stay at the table and fucking compromise like adults.. elections be damned for once, work for the country and not your polls..

if you would indulge me... stop right there and let me know if I've presented the meanings of two quotes fairly...


since I think I have, I'll continue...you are playing 'foxnews'.. why?

I ask again..

"There will be no easy off-ramps on this one," Obama said, adding "we need to keep the pressure up" to find a compromise on a broader debt-reduction plan.

The "only way" the deep automatic cuts will be avoided, the president said, if is "Congress gets back to work."

why do you allow Congress to get away from making actual debt-reduction progress by putting an inaccurate spin on the President's position. Either you want debt-reduction, even when it's this president doing it.. or you don't because you never really have, it is this president and you don't want him to have any electability by saying he's reduced our debt. I don't want to label you with the latter, but when you create erroneous spin like you have, when you allow your blogs and right-wing-radio to do this, it put pressure on any President to cave in and allow Congress to bypass their own rules and do what the fuck they always do, which is nothing..I'm left putting that label on you..

the fact that you continue to even exclude the whole story in your quotes leads one to believe that you have no care at all for this debt-reduction issue, you only care to disparage the only guy who can force the two sides to actually come up with a plan, for your own political gain..

well, ok..   you win. Obama loses and Congress can just keep on fucking this country by making no decisions, hell it's worked so far, why tamper with the status quo.... good job!



hell, let me ask you this..

you say,


Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

so I will play dumb and ask... why is he doing that Mike? what reason does he have for veto'ing  Congress' attempts?

[ekg]

as presented by you, the goal of Obama is veto any attempt made by congress because he wants the defense cuts to happen.. when all information is include, his goal changes... his real goal is to keep the sword of Damocles(the defense budget) over their heads and force them to come up with a debt-reduction plan that works for everyone.. because he knows without that sword, congress will not work together on anything.. he also knows that these cuts won't happen for another year, so for them to give up now is ridiculous, so he is keeping their feets in the fire and the sword over their heads..

we all know that if GOP and some DEM don't have to worry about a defense cut during an election, they will shit out a debt-reduction bill that will resemble an aborted fetus.. so what to do, what to do... OH I know, make sure they know any attempt to get around the rules this time will be thwarted because this time, they are going to be forced to 'have the conversation' they have all be claiming they want to have..

but that's insanity, someone actually making congress work.. let's just put bad information out there that pressures a president into caving in and allowing congress to sit idly by some more.. let's see if we can get those congressional approval numbers in the single digits..

*rolls eyes*

[lil mike]

as presented by you, the goal of Obama is veto any attempt made by congress because he wants the defense cuts to happen.. when all information is include, his goal changes... his real goal is to keep the sword of Damocles(the defense budget) over their heads and force them to come up with a debt-reduction plan that works for everyone.. because he knows without that sword, congress will not work together on anything.. he also knows that these cuts won't happen for another year, so for them to give up now is ridiculous, so he is keeping their feets in the fire and the sword over their heads..

we all know that if GOP and some DEM don't have to worry about a defense cut during an election, they will shit out a debt-reduction bill that will resemble an aborted fetus.. so what to do, what to do... OH I know, make sure they know any attempt to get around the rules this time will be thwarted because this time, they are going to be forced to 'have the conversation' they have all be claiming they want to have..

but that's insanity, someone actually making congress work.. let's just put bad information out there that pressures a president into caving in and allowing congress to sit idly by some more.. let's see if we can get those congressional approval numbers in the single digits..

*rolls eyes*

More bullshit by you.

Yep.  Still crazy the whole time.

I didn't say that Obama wanted the defense cuts to happen, I said you probably did.  You constantly make stuff up about me as if you can't find enough to disagree with me about, you need plenty of imaginary things.  So you are still too fevered to understand what I'm saying.

[lil mike]

once again, you leave off integral information...

Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

that is not the whole story, it's the same you did with the OWS rape stuff. you presented headlines that cried rape, but the articles actually told of a very different account where accusers were not believed, nor were there any evidence of the headline..that is beneath someone of your stature. you and I have done this long enough, at a level where there should be no need of a 'fact-check'.. to bad you lost that by playing on another board that toned-down your ability rather than toning it up..



the whole story is..

President Obama on Monday evening threatened to veto any legislation that would void the $600 billion in national defense cuts that would kick in if lawmakers fail to cut a debt-reduction deal.

why? that is my main question.. why do this? Don't both 'stories' end with a a defense cut? Yes. But one, yours, assumes Obama is being a dick and refusing to work with congress, while they are working so hard to come to some kind of 'reduction agreement' and he's just going to veto any attempt they make... the other, assumes Obama is forcing Congress to get the fuck back to the table a work out a reduction instead of trying to get around their own rules.It is Obama telling them this is going to be a hard reduction plan to make, one that isn't going to pretty for anyone up for reelection, but that he's not going to allow them to get out of this by taking away that unpleasantness, he' going to force them to stay at the table and fucking compromise like adults.. elections be damned for once, work for the country and not your polls..

if you would indulge me... stop right there and let me know if I've presented the meanings of two quotes fairly...


since I think I have, I'll continue...you are playing 'foxnews'.. why?

I ask again..

why do you allow Congress to get away from making actual debt-reduction progress by putting an inaccurate spin on the President's position. Either you want debt-reduction, even when it's this president doing it.. or you don't because you never really have, it is this president and you don't want him to have any electability by saying he's reduced our debt. I don't want to label you with the latter, but when you create erroneous spin like you have, when you allow your blogs and right-wing-radio to do this, it put pressure on any President to cave in and allow Congress to bypass their own rules and do what the fuck they always do, which is nothing..I'm left putting that label on you..

For a minute there, I almost thought you wanted to discuss the issue reasonably, but then the mask fell again, and it was Shutter Island all over again.

I don't know if you want me to think that you are too stupid to not understand what I'm saying or if you are so crazy the whole time that you can't really tell the difference between what I write and what you think I write.

the fact that you continue to even exclude the whole story in your quotes leads one to believe that you have no care at all for this debt-reduction issue, you only care to disparage the only guy who can force the two sides to actually come up with a plan, for your own political gain..

well, ok..   you win. Obama loses and Congress can just keep on fucking this country by making no decisions, hell it's worked so far, why tamper with the status quo.... good job!



hell, let me ask you this..

you say,


Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

so I will play dumb and ask... why is he doing that Mike? what reason does he have for veto'ing  Congress' attempts?

See... it's beyond me that you insist that I was disparaging Obama.  Honestly, I can't understand where you are getting that from, which goes to prove my crazy the whole time theory. 

I had to pull up our old thread about the Hasan terrorist attack a few weeks ago for resources for another argument on another site.  Going back and reading it, I could see the roots of your madness.  You were constantly making up things that I hadn't actually written, but you just assumed I thought.  You've been losing it for a while.

[Howey]

Why not just answer the question, lilmike?

Why is Obama doing this?

What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?

It's not partisanship. He said he would do the same thing if it was dems trying to circumvent entitlement cuts.

[ekg]

Why not just answer the question, lilmike?

Why is Obama doing this?

What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?

It's not partisanship. He said he would do the same thing if it was dems trying to circumvent entitlement cuts.

shhhh leave him be, he's just mad that he's been caught 3 times since his return making erroneous claims based on his poor 'sourcing' abilities..

he really should have kept those skills up since they do come in handy when trying to have a conversation with people who are aware, instead of ones who don't have a fucking clue and just want it fed to them like a baby bird awaiting it's mother..

back to topic..

I don't think we'll have to worry about any massive defense cut. Congress has a year to figure out a real debt-reduction plan before any supposed cuts on either side happen. this was just away for McCain and the other GOP'ers to start a whiney-day on how Obama wants to cut defense and is really dangerous for the national security of this country. He's just not 'american' enough to understand.... cause killing OBL,al-Awlaki, and this list of course just really chaps their asses since they never dreamed he'd be that kind of  President..so they will glam on any made up fiction they can to drown out that he's been pretty good at it.. better than the last guy even..

I think they biggest 'superfail' was Obama,or anyone else, expecting congress to work together on anything. The GOP doesn't even believe in their taunted 'do not raise taxes' anymore since Obama wants the payroll gift tax extended, they (the GOP) want that tax re-instated.. There really isn't anything the GOP will toss over if Obama backs it.  So why does he continue to think he can get anything out of this, or any, crop of GOP'ers is the mystery and the supefail IMO..

[lil mike]

Why not just answer the question, lilmike?

Why is Obama doing this?

What reason does he have to veto the Republicans attempts to circumvent the defense cuts?

It's not partisanship. He said he would do the same thing if it was dems trying to circumvent entitlement cuts.

Which questions?  Do you mean these?

uh yeah, is it that you don't want to tell the truth or are incapable of it?

wtf Mike? do you even vet your news slants anymore or just go with what Hannity and Rush tell you like it's gospel..

where in the hell do you get "Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress to fix those cuts?"

holy crap you're hell bent on splicing whatever you can together to make an erroneous point aren't you?
 

I already answered those.  She was crazy the whole time.


But your questions, if not crazy, are rather vague.   First of all, I don't know if there will be any Republican attempts to circumvent the defense cuts.  I think over the next year, if there is an attempt to correct it, it would be in the 2013 budget, and I think that will be fairly bipartisan.  So as you said, it's not partisanship.

Although honestly, do you actually think there would be any cuts, even if Congress does nothing?  What, exactly is being cut?  Is 600 million being cut from specific programs, or from the defense appropriations in general?  And how could the 600 billion from Medicare be cut?  If Congress cuts 600 billion from the FY 13 budget for Medicare, remember that as an entitlement, Congress doesn't have to appropriate funds if Medicare runs over it's budget in a given year.  It will just automatically spend more.