The 10% President

[Anonymous]

FB friends today are circulating an article in the WSJ says Obama ducking responsibility for fiscal situation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016270614705726.html?fb_action_ids=10151182705592148&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Factcheck.org has a more nuanced take on who is responsible for what: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

My question, didn't Obama try to take responsibility for the fiscal situation with the Report on Fiscal Responsibility:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news

Also known as Simpson Bowles, which was bi-partisan legislation voted down by obstructionist republicans???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform

"The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53–46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it" - Wikipedia

Can someone please tell me if my understanding is correct??? Thanks.

[jsteele]

The Simposon Bowles Commission did not issue an official report. The report did not receive sufficient votes. An equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the commission voted against it -- albeit for different reasons. The "report" you are discussing in an unofficial report issued by Simpson and Bowles themselves.

Obama does deserve responsibility for the economic situation given that he attempted to compromise with an obstructionist Congress. He essentially brought a knife to a gunfight when he should have brought a howitzer. That was his failure.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The Simposon Bowles Commission did not issue an official report. The report did not receive sufficient votes. An equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the commission voted against it -- albeit for different reasons. The "report" you are discussing in an unofficial report issued by Simpson and Bowles themselves.

Obama does deserve responsibility for the economic situation given that he attempted to compromise with an obstructionist Congress. He essentially brought a knife to a gunfight when he should have brought a howitzer. That was his failure.

Simpson Bowles was opposed by five D's and four R's, and the President essentially ran from it, and never forcefully called for its passage

And let's never forget that his multiple unserious budgets never received any votes in favor in either houses.