Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill

[katmondoo]

Couldn't he have just vetoed it?

[graham4anything]

1. So the 2014 house could get to the other side of the street of course.

[OKNancy]

2. No. A deal was cut with the Republicans

so that they would increase the debt ceiling. If he had gone back on the deal they would not vote to increase it in the future.. saying he can't be trusted, blah blah. Defaulting on the debt is ten times more detrimental to the economy than the sequester.

[FSogol]

4. +1. A better question is why won't the Repubs be serious about the Country's economic future?

[bemildred]

10. American politicians, as a generality, prefer to rule over the rubble, rather than give up power.

It's happened many times, and has much to do with the crappy way this nation is run.

[Drale]

3. He could have but

he did not think the Republicans were stupid and/or crazy enough to let it go into effect. It was meant as a kick in the butt, saying hey if you don't work this out look at the terrible thing that is going to happen. He did not count on the fact that the Republicans have changed their stance from lets hurt the Economy to hurt Obama to LETS DESTROY THE ECONOMY TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!

[geek tragedy]

5. It was an artificial crisis created to stave off an even worse artificial crisis.

Congress sucks because it has Republicans running it.

[lunatica]

6. No. It was not veto abled.

It was created with the intention of it being such a bad thing to happen that no one, NO ONE, would allow it to happen.

So far this Century it's been everything decent human beings would never allow to happen gets to happen. From the Supreme Court selecting President Bush to the Sequester. No holds barred, lunacy be fucked, the totally unspeakable is gonna happen and has happened.

[HiPointDem]

7. yes, he could have vetoed it. and he could have gone to the people to make his case.

instead, kabuki and psyops

[jeff47]

11. Because the people would be so happy to listen when the country had defaulted

plunging the entire economy into chaos.

Excellent plan!

[riqster]

8. Had he vetoed it, the U.S. would have been in default

And the economy would have collapsed.

[still_one]

9. Because he thought it would provide incentive for negotiations. What he still doesn't realize is

30% of the republicans in congress hate him. Many are racists who hate the idea that an African American is leading this country

There are a fair number of their constituents who really believe he is Marxist, which is their way of demonizing him by accusing him of something he is not. The fact remains he is what would have been considered 20 years ago a moderate republican. That is not an insult but only shows how much the country has shifted to the right, so much so that the Democratic Party in general can be considered moderate, and the repukes extreme right

Lets face it, most of the policies, including the ACA were the repuke answer to healthcare.

When the President wanted to solve the fiscal cliff issue, these POS racists repukes would not even give him the time of day, but when Joe Biden proposed the same thing, no problem.

What different about this picture?

Biden is white, Obama is black. How dare the "help" tell us what to do

Fuck the republicans today, lee Atwater and his scorced earth policy can go to hell

The demographics of the country are changing, and the repukes will be left behind

[thecrow]

14. They should at least like the white side of Obama

After all, he is half Caucasian.
They are such racists, and they will WILLFULLY be left behind.

[still_one]

17. Yes they will be left behind

[Enrique]

24. the naive Obama theory

a man who won election to President of the United States, twice. Who has a world-class political team including pollsters of course. The idea that he would be naive about the attitudes of any group toward him is unsupportable, imo.

[still_one]

27. I never meant he was naive. His personality is such that he assumes the best in people

People also underestimate him

[jeff47]

12. Because it wasn't a stand-alone issue. He had to sign it to get the debt ceiling raised.

Defaulting on our debt would be pretty damn disastrous. The economy would be in chaos as the government stopped spending money on everything instead of just the cuts in the sequester.

[katmondoo]

13. Thanks to all for helping me understand this

[onpatrol98]

15. Did not have to sign it...

I don't think he "had" to sign it. In fact, it was the White House's idea and Congress went willingly along. I think he believed, as I still do, that many republicans love war so much...that they wouldn't be willing to let the military be cut substantially.

He couldn't have known that they would love being obstinate even more.

I think he's banking on letting them stink up things long enough so that people despise them even more...if that's possible.

It's unfortunate that so many people have to suffer pay cuts and job losses in the interim, though. To me, it was a bad idea from the beginning. Our first clue of how bad an idea it was, was when Republicans agreed to it. In recent history, let's be honest, if they agree with something, it probably sucks.

There are big problems to be ironed out and no one wants to be the one stuck with the bad press coverage from it. Clearly, they don't think they have a way of getting things done with little pain or suffering, or they would've already done it. Many politicians are political cowards.

We suffer in the interim. Few jobs...and not even a discussion of jobs on the table.

[leftyohiolib]

18. "it was the White House's idea and Congress went willingly along" bills dont go from the potus

to congress- they talked about it but 218 republicans voted for it and THAT sent it to potus to be signed. there is a power point presentation from boner's office in that it's said that boner wanted the sequester and when he got it he said he was happy and that he got 98% of what he wanted

[onenote]

21. Actually, it required votes from both parties to pass the bill

The version of the sequester bill that reached the President's desk (S.365) was passed by the House on August 1st with 174 repubs and 95 Democrats voting aye and 66 repubs and 95 Democrats voting no. In the Senate, the bill passed by a 74-26 margin with 46 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted aye and 19 Republicans and 7 Democrats voting nay.
In other words, it required votes from both parties to pass in both Houses.

There was no way the President was going to veto it and cut the legs out from under the Democrats in the Senate (vitually all of them) and in the House (half of them) that supported the bill. I vividly remember the House erupting in cheers when Gabby Giffords entered the chamber for the first time since being shot in order to cast her vote for the bill. Veto? Not in the cards. Ever.

[leftyohiolib]

23. thanks for the clarification

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Because it's the 3rd Way of doing things. The "Not as bad" way of selling out.

[Zen Democrat]

19. No. He was required to sign it.

The law, passed by Congress on January 2, says that "on March 1, 2013, the president shall order a sequestration for fiscal year 2013." He waited until the end of the day to sign the order.

In August 2011, congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 requiring the sequester order to be signed on January 2, 2013, if congress had not passed a bill with individually-named cuts totaling $1.5 trillion dollars by December 31, 2012. In the “fiscal cliff” deal, the deadline was moved to February 28, 2013. Congress failed to pass individually-named cuts by either deadline.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/03/1191324/-Plain-English-primer-on-sequestration#

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. Because the scams "fiscal cliff", "sequestration", "debt ceiling" all have the same thing in common:

Money. And the banks and investors and very rich who profit from it all.

This began when BushCo created debt to "pay" for what have become endless war budgets, which also profit the very rich. Debt is slavery, and its after-effects can be used to destablize entire currencies and countries. (Edit: actually, before that with Reagan and his handlers looking to destroy unions and the middle-class.) When they are in enough trouble, you'll suddenly find new plans to deepen the cuts to the non-rich, which is a double-dip called "austerity". The rich took the money in the first place, then they take it again by further hurting the non-rich. The "wars", the bank and wall street "bailouts" (read: handouts) were part one to create destablization. This is now part 2: not stopping handouts to the rich while cutting the non-rich to shreds. There is a definite double-standard occurring and we've already seen its continuing results in Greece, etc.

Neocon Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of the World Bank for a minute; goes to motive and connections. Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? "The Shock Doctrine"? Gotta break some eggs if you want to make an omelette. Just look at Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and more, and know that it is now in effect here, and therein lies the potential for further bank/plutonomy take-over via puppets in positions of power as well as the rise of any "emergency" government replacements such as the neo-NAZI "Golden Dawn" party. Inconvenience people enough and they'll beg for whomever promises a solution, to be in power. Even if they are putting into power the ones who caused the problem in the first place.

Herbert Walker Bush helped make President Carter look a fool through multiple extra-partisan actions, including through family friends OPEC, an embargo which hit Americans squarely in their Personal Convenience. Surprise, Americans then wanted change, =any= change, and Saint Reagan waltzed right in. Enron pulled the exact same tactic upon California, meeting with Schwarzenneger prior to purposely causing "rolling blackouts" in the CA power grid, pushing Californians in their Personal Convenience, causing them to demand Change, ANY change, which allowed Schwarzenneger to waltz right in. He immediately began attacking nurses, fire fighters, infrastructure, pensions, slashed CA mental health care by 60% in a single stroke of the pen...beware disaster as it can be a purposeful setting of the stage, a stacking of the deck, to provide for a pre-planned outcome. "Creating causes and conditions."

And Enron were an enormous W. Bush contributor/supporter who were among the first to begin buyouts of water supplies, which now involves many companies including Citigroup and also the Bush family proper.

This is all about the bankster behind the curtain. And of course the people have forgotten that THEY are the power and all of these KLOWNS merely represent us. Until it's no longer klowns but only banksters.


References:

"Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room", book or film
"Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
The Citigroup "Plutonomy" memo, "The Plutonomy Symposium, Rising Tides Lifting Yachts"

Analysis of the above memo including links regarding Goldman Sachs installing Prime Ministers (Italy) and more, how banks and wall street have been continuously bailed out and propped up via taxpayer dollars regardless of "sequester", that the actual US economy is driven by the top 20% and not the rest of us, that technology revolution aids Plutonomy, such as the spy tech industry and its $1 trillion budget; water privatization, etc.:
http://occupyobservations.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-leaked-2006-citigroup-plutonomy-memo.html

An AMAZING visualization of wealth inequality in America (VIDEO)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022452445

Who or what exactly enables "austerity", or "sequestration"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022445620

12 Ways the Sequester Will Screw the Poor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022446153

Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022446064

America faces more than a dozen deadlines, all caused by billionaires and wealth transfer

I’ve had an article in draft for some time — “The 16 Deadlines Facing America” — that details each deadline, describes the dangers, and states why each faces an end-point rather than just a periodic fluctuation... I’ve identified 16 of these game-over situations facing America today, situations from which there is the possibility of no recovery — not the certainty, but the possibility. As I was working on that article though, looking especially what it would take to reverse each trend, I realized it’s really only one story writ 16 times on 16 separate canvasses.

That story? The song of the predator class, the rich and the rest — “All your money are belong to us.”
Here they are, numbered in no particular order, but grouped:

1. Accelerating transfer of wealth to the .001% (“the billionaires”)
2. Accelerating transfer of manufacturing out of the country
3. Marginalization or destruction of effective labor unions
4. Destruction of the middle class (i.e., the consumer class)
5. Capture of government by billionaires of both parties
6. Capture of the Republican Party by anti-Constitutional billionaires via Tea Party-financed candidates
7. Constitutional changes, including changes in practice to rule of law and an ever-widening circle of elites with immunity from prosecution
8. Creation via trade agreements of a transnational state that enshrines corporate sovereignty
9. Permanent war and a permanently expanding military
10. Permanently expanding national security state, including militarization of police, widespread spying and punishment for political crimes
11. The ticking time bomb of increasing numbers of returning untreated war-damaged battle-trained veterans
12. Oil dependence without recognition of oil as a soon-to-be-depleted energy source
13. Deterioration of the environment, largely due to oil and carbon dependence, among other causes
14. Destruction of the integrity of our food supply
15. Destruction of public education
16. Climate catastrophe and the collapse of human populations and level of civilization

My bottom line, and the surprise discovery, is that every single one is driven by one common cause — internationalist billionaires.

http://americablog.com/2013/02/america-faces-more-than-a-dozen-deadlines-all-caused-by-billionaires-and-wealth-transfer.html


FORMER GOLDMAN BANKER: You Should Know The Ugly Math Behind Your Credit Card Debt
http://www.businessinsider.com/compound-interest-and-credit-card-debt-2013-2

And I'm not even touching upon military-industrial complex profits from the never-ending war budget...guess I will:

Halliburton bills taxpayers $45 per case of soda, $100 per bag of laundry
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblower_hearings_denied.html

Note the word taxpayers. We are hosts to parasites and they are killing us.

[joeunderdog]

25. I just hate posts like this. Way too much reality.

Gawd, I had to stop reading those books. They kept me up at night. I realized the whole dem/repub thing was just a ruse. The real power brokers will let you call them whatever you want--just give them the money. The only thing is, the people who are really pulling the strings in the world's politics are quietly and brutally making all the real decisions behind the scenes.

All the wars, the chaos and the emergencies are going just as planned.

[woo me with science]

28. +1 It is. It's like waking up to a nightmare, isn't it,

when you finally realize what is really going on.

We all live in a massive, propagandized lie.

I have to take breaks from reading and thinking about it, too. It is just too much to bear sometimes.

[99Forever]

22. The evil Republicans forced him to do it.

He had no other choice. It's all their fault, the President was powerless to anything about it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

26. The idea was that such wide-reaching cuts would be reprehensible to Dems and Pugs alike.

A faulty assumption, to be sure. Today's right-wing is willing to let the military take a little hit as long as it still means the little guy gets fucked hard.