Reply to BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time'

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time' "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]The issue is NOT whether Woodward was threatened.  The issue is that Woodward wrote an article that the White House did not want "out".
Everyone is now talking about the interaction between Woodward and the White House--not what Woodward wrote.  What Woodward wrote is contrary to the White House Talking Points.  That is why Sperling got angry.

A couple of weeks ago the White House was denying that sequestration was its idea--when Woodward said it was, the White House backtracked and even Jay Carney admitted that it came from the White House (I think it was Lew's idea.)  When Woodward said that part of the deal was that taxes would be off the table, it totally demolishes the White House position.

The fact is that Obama has gotten tax increases.  There are tons of taxes in the Affordable Health Care Act and the Republicans agreed to raising taxes on the higher earners a couple of months ago---but now, he still wants increases.
Read your history, every time the GOP agrees to taxes along with spending cuts, the taxes happen and the spending cuts disappear.  Is it any wonder they want a bill with cuts?[/quote]

This poster appears to have misunderstood many aspects of this story:

1) What Woodward wrote was not only contrary to the White House talking points, it was contrary to Woodward's own book about the debt ceiling negotiations;

2) The White House was not denying that sequestration was its idea. It doesn't matter whose idea it was. The Republican-majority House and the Democratic Majority Senate both passed it and Obama signed it. Regardless of who thought of it, it was supported by all parties. After the negotiations that led to the sequester deal, Boehner bragged that he had received "98% of what he wanted." He immediately circulated a PowerPoint presentation explaining the sequestration and he supported its passage in the House

3) The Woodward allegation that led to the exchange with Sperling was that Obama had "moved the goalposts" by demanding that revenue be included in a sequestration replacement. As Woodward's own book illustrates, Obama had asked for revenues during the debt ceiling negotiations but could not get Boehner to agree. They then settled on the sequestration arrangement. In the current negotiations, Obama is continuing to take the same position that he had in the previous negotiations. As the Sperling email makes clear, he was upset that Woodward was refusing to acknowledge that the Administration position had always been a balanced approach that included revenues, cuts, and entitlement exchange. I can understand Sperling's frustration that Woodward was ignoring this given that Woodward himself had written about it.

4) If you believe we have a deficit problem -- and I don't believe we do -- then you must understand that reducing the deficit can occur through either additional revenues or by cuts. It doesn't matter whether there have been previous tax increases. It doesn't change this simple fact. The Republicans only want cuts and they want those cuts to come from domestic discretionary spending and entitlements (the old, the sick, and the poor). That is their position and it is a valid position. The President wants a combination of revenue raised from closing tax loopholes and cuts which include the military. That is a equally valid position. The American people need to decide which position it favors. Most public opinion polls show the public siding with the President.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics