Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: But I thought the President flew around the country to tells us how « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #30 : March 27, 2013, 03:44:39 PM »

It is rather obvious that only purpose of sequester and its totally arbitrary nature of its cuts is to try and make the public believe it can't live without big government controlling their freedom and lives from the cradle to the grave.    The recent lack of funding for Towers at some seldom used airstrips?   Planes landed on the strips for years without needing federally funded landing towers.  Flying 101.


Both Page Field in Fort Myers (78,000 landings & TOs per yr) and Punta Gorda (78,000 operations/yr) are in that list of towers to be shut down. PGD is used by 5 commercial airlines and Page Field by FedEx, USPS, and several large transport companies. We are not talking a few Cessna 150s here but big-arsed commercial jets including 737s. Also Page Field is within the Radar ATC space of SouthWest Florida Regional International Jetport.

Again, EVERY time a commercial jet OR uncle Jim's Piper Cherokee lands at one of these fields, the FAA gets a landing fee from the aircraft owner, plus the FAA charges EVERY aircraft owner and annual "Air Use Fee" (Yes, in America Today even Air isn't free). Throw in a fee added to EVERY commercial passenger's tkt. and the FAA should have enough to avoid cuts. But, as CWP pointed out all those fees go to general revenue where it is squandered or stolen on any of a number of other programs (bridge to nowhere???).

I do agree that these sequester cuts are PURELY Politically designed to make average Joe "miss big daddy govt." How else do you explain ATC towers getting shut down but subsidies for corn-fuel alcohol being untouched???


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #31 : April 02, 2013, 11:14:03 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #32 : April 03, 2013, 11:52:55 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."

That's OK, his wifes birthday party ought to make up for the short fall. That and their continuing vacations.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #33 : April 09, 2013, 01:28:25 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."

LOL


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #34 : April 09, 2013, 01:10:25 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."

LOL

CNN, that right-wing propaganda machine


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #35 : April 09, 2013, 01:29:12 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."

LOL

CNN, that right-wing propaganda machine

Oh it's not that. It's the fact that the story, and you for that matter, think this proves anything. If the president suggests that the harshest impact will take place in April, the fact that you haven't seen it happen by April 1st isn't proof that he was wrong. He may very well be wrong, but no one will know that for sure until probably May, when the reports come out. The story, and your celebratory but pats, are just a wee bit premature.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #36 : April 09, 2013, 01:36:47 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/politics/spending-cuts-impact/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

"President Barack Obama and other federal officials warned that the harshest impacts would hit in April, with worker furloughs and program cuts rippling through the economy to stunt growth during a sluggish recovery.
But as April dawned Monday, little evidence of widespread damage had emerged, leaving the president vulnerable to accusations that he hyped the impact for political purposes in the unending battle with Republicans over taxes and spending."

LOL

CNN, that right-wing propaganda machine

Oh it's not that. It's the fact that the story, and you for that matter, think this proves anything. If the president suggests that the harshest impact will take place in April, the fact that you haven't seen it happen by April 1st isn't proof that he was wrong. He may very well be wrong, but no one will know that for sure until probably May, when the reports come out. The story, and your celebratory but pats, are just a wee bit premature.

As per usual, you're describing an apple when the comment was about an orange.   

The story -- by CNN, not me -- is about the President and his men SELLING sequestration as the "end of the world."  You're talking about whether it is, in fact, the end of the world, the story is about the political implications of peddling BS. 

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,
 b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #37 : April 09, 2013, 01:55:18 PM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #38 : April 09, 2013, 02:00:33 PM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

fair enough, you can have your claim that a reporter gave a false impression of his treatment by the White House.  Some will certainly put that on par with the president lying to the American people for political gain . .  ::)

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.

Not when the SELLING was what it was, that is the orange you want to ignore, but fair enough.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #39 : April 09, 2013, 03:07:05 PM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

fair enough, you can have your claim that a reporter gave a false impression of his treatment by the White House.  Some will certainly put that on par with the president lying to the American people for political gain . .  ::)

As far as the President's "lie" goes, it's pretty inconsequential, no matter how much you want to make it seem as though it's the worst thing a politician has ever done. Woodward's lie is also inconsequential. Both lies really only hurt the source, not the public as a whole. Who's idea the sequester was is irrelevant. It was passed with bipartisan support. Obamacare was originally Bob Dole's idea. Does that mean he is who we should credit or blame for Obamacare?

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.

Not when the SELLING was what it was, that is the orange you want to ignore, but fair enough.

There are no oranges, Vinny. How can you make the determination that what the president sold was wrong when you don't know the full affects of the sequester yet? That was the point that you want to ignore. Like I said, the celebratory butt patting is a bit premature.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31579
Offline
« #40 : April 09, 2013, 04:05:18 PM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

fair enough, you can have your claim that a reporter gave a false impression of his treatment by the White House.  Some will certainly put that on par with the president lying to the American people for political gain . .  ::)

Point for the PeanutButterBoy.

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.

Point for CBW.

Now can you knuckleheads knock it off.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #41 : April 09, 2013, 10:10:44 PM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

fair enough, you can have your claim that a reporter gave a false impression of his treatment by the White House.  Some will certainly put that on par with the president lying to the American people for political gain . .  ::)

As far as the President's "lie" goes, it's pretty inconsequential, no matter how much you want to make it seem as though it's the worst thing a politician has ever done. Woodward's lie is also inconsequential. Both lies really only hurt the source, not the public as a whole. Who's idea the sequester was is irrelevant. It was passed with bipartisan support. Obamacare was originally Bob Dole's idea. Does that mean he is who we should credit or blame for Obamacare?

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.

Not when the SELLING was what it was, that is the orange you want to ignore, but fair enough.

There are no oranges, Vinny. How can you make the determination that what the president sold was wrong when you don't know the full affects of the sequester yet? That was the point that you want to ignore. Like I said, the celebratory butt patting is a bit premature.

Note my comment/question in bold, which is consistent with the linked article (i.e., the "orange) and your comment in bold (i.e, the "apple")  My question, and the gist of the article, was that the President and his men were on shaky ground because of their claims about the sequester, you don't want to acknowledge/answer the shaky ground issue so you switch to whether the President was wrong (because it is arguably not yet knowable). The "selling" (as noted in the article, and many articles for that matter) was that sequester could not be allowed because the result would be catastrophic.  This is the President:

"Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.  It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day.  It doesn’t make those distinctions.

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.  Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.  FBI agents will be furloughed.  Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.  Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.  Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.  Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.  And as our military leaders have made clear, changes like this -- not well thought through, not phased in properly -- changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world.

So these cuts are not smart.  They are not fair.  They will hurt our economy.  They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.  This is not an abstraction -- people will lose their jobs.  The unemployment rate might tick up again. "


Now, I am sure in there somewhere he says "over time" or "gradually"  I know he says the Navy had already made cuts . . . :-[

Apple to orange aka CBW Two-Step. 

Oh . . . and the President lying to the American people for political gain is "inconsequential."  Didn't I earlier say you were the functional equivalent of Rush Limbaugh? Uh huh.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #42 : April 10, 2013, 07:20:17 AM »

Both sides are guilty over political nonsense, in this case it just happens to be the President, who all but lied about the sequestration plan to start with (see Bob Woodward) and then oversold the "horrible" ramifications to the American people. So, do you agree that:
 a) the President made a false representation about sequestration (see Woodward); and,

In suggesting that it was their idea and not his? Sure. Of course, Woodward then made a false representation of the false representation.

fair enough, you can have your claim that a reporter gave a false impression of his treatment by the White House.  Some will certainly put that on par with the president lying to the American people for political gain . .  ::)

As far as the President's "lie" goes, it's pretty inconsequential, no matter how much you want to make it seem as though it's the worst thing a politician has ever done. Woodward's lie is also inconsequential. Both lies really only hurt the source, not the public as a whole. Who's idea the sequester was is irrelevant. It was passed with bipartisan support. Obamacare was originally Bob Dole's idea. Does that mean he is who we should credit or blame for Obamacare?

b) that the President and his men were/are on shaky ground with their overselling of the sequestration doom and gloom?

You see, this is the "apples" that I was referring to. You cannot measure the economic impact of many of these cuts withing days of them taking place. Like I said, he may very well be wrong, but to suggest that he is a week into April is asinine, regardless of who reports it.

Not when the SELLING was what it was, that is the orange you want to ignore, but fair enough.

There are no oranges, Vinny. How can you make the determination that what the president sold was wrong when you don't know the full affects of the sequester yet? That was the point that you want to ignore. Like I said, the celebratory butt patting is a bit premature.

Note my comment/question in bold, which is consistent with the linked article (i.e., the "orange) and your comment in bold (i.e, the "apple")  My question, and the gist of the article, was that the President and his men were on shaky ground because of their claims about the sequester, you don't want to acknowledge/answer the shaky ground issue so you switch to whether the President was wrong (because it is arguably not yet knowable). The "selling" (as noted in the article, and many articles for that matter) was that sequester could not be allowed because the result would be catastrophic.  This is the President:

"Now, if Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.  It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that Americans depend on every single day.  It doesn’t make those distinctions.

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.  Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.  FBI agents will be furloughed.  Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.  Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.  Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.  Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.  And as our military leaders have made clear, changes like this -- not well thought through, not phased in properly -- changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world.

So these cuts are not smart.  They are not fair.  They will hurt our economy.  They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.  This is not an abstraction -- people will lose their jobs.  The unemployment rate might tick up again. "


Now, I am sure in there somewhere he says "over time" or "gradually"  I know he says the Navy had already made cuts . . . :-[

Apple to orange aka CBW Two-Step. 

You seriously think this is an apples to oranges comparison because he didn't specifically say that it would happen over time? He didn't specifically say that it would happen overnight either, you imbecile. He actually didn't even commit fully to the notion that unemployment would increase. He said it MIGHT increase.

And your article even states itself that a big reason that every one of these things didn't happen is because Obama and congress, "agreed to change the rules for their implementation, effectively weaseling out of the penalty they previously agreed to for failing to compromise." That is a direct quote from the very article that your dumb ass posted. Try reading the whole thing instead of just the title, moron.

Oh . . . and the President lying to the American people for political gain is "inconsequential."  Didn't I earlier say you were the functional equivalent of Rush Limbaugh? Uh huh.

How is it consequential, Vince? What were the consequences from this lie, and what did the President gain politically from it? How did lying about who's idea the sequester was affect anything significant that's happened in the last few months?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19505
Offline
« #43 : April 10, 2013, 09:43:08 AM »

CBW you are truly the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. Yeah, it's of no consequence that the President of the US has no qualms about lying to the American people. Lmao


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #44 : April 10, 2013, 02:23:37 PM »

CBW you are truly the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. Yeah, it's of no consequence that the President of the US has no qualms about lying to the American people. Lmao

Has there ever been a president that didn't lie about something? If only you were as concerned about the lie that a certain president sold that landed us in a war in Iraq as you are about who started the freaking sequester. Oh the buffoonery...

  Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: But I thought the President flew around the country to tells us how « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools