It's Come to This: Obama Campaign Collecting Petition Signatures to Stop Sequester

100,000 signatures collected so far not something to be bragging about

White House

It's as if President Obama's not in charge of the executive branch when he doesn't want to be. The latest fearmongering missive on the sequester from the Obama campaign, via former White House aide, now with Organizing For Action, Jon Carson:

Edward --

Today, because congressional Republicans refused to act, devastating budget cuts known as the sequester are going into effect. 

They're self-inflicted wounds, and they didn't have to happen. 

Congress can stop all of this right away -- and pursue a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

That's what the vast majority of Americans want, and yesterday, more than 100,000 Americans called on Congress to be reasonable about the budget. 

Add your name now:

http://my.barackobama.com/Tell-the-GOP-to-Act

Thanks,

Jon

Using the most generously small set, 100,000 is just .15 percent of the 69 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama, and it's how many signatures the White House needs to just consider responding to a petition on its website.

Previous fearmongering missive from Stephanie Cutter here.

Comments

[gaijin]

my.barackobama.com? wtf! Shouldn't that be our.barackobama.com?

[SweatingGin]

he's a lexically scoped variable.

[A Serious Man]

He belongs to all of us, and us to him.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I'm pretty sure House Republicans - or Democrats, for that matter - only care about what their respective districts' voters say, not some moronic national, administration-driven petition says. Embarrassing.

[gaijin]

he gives new meaning to the words "bully pulpit"

[wareagle]

wow...this is just sad. Will the stage version be comedy or tragedy?

[Ed]

First term comedy, second term farce?

[$park?]

This was the last step needed for the entire administration to become 100% pure evil. Now that the line has been crossed, I doubt there will be anything to stop them.

[Cytotoxic]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

[darius404]

Campaign the sequester away!

[NFP]

I like how the petition asks for a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. What's more balanced than indiscriminate across the board cuts?

[gaijin]

balanced = fair in barack-speak.

Fair=whatever he wants it to mean.

[Pro Libertate]

"No, fuck you, cut spending."

[General Butt Naked]

"Excuse me, please don't spend so much."

My spirit has been beaten.

[Randian]

I will donate $3.95 so that Barack Obama can buy the necessary White Out to obliterate his own name from the law.

[Randian]

I think we should all send the White House bottles of White Out, now that I think about it.

I will sit here patiently and wait for call me racist.

[John]

RACIST!!

[Cytotoxic]

BRENNAN!

[CE]

Because 2 percent government budget cuts are "devastating", and a 2 percentage point rise in the payroll tax was just a bump in the road?

[Brandon]

See, the payroll tax is the government's money, so you should be grateful that they let you keep it for as long as they did. Whereas the budget is the government's money, so...wait, what?

[A Serious Man]

He may have failed to use the Force to intiate a Jedi mind-meld with Congress but I must caution you: such men dare take what they want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind melds don'a work on me. Only money.

[Trespassers W]

What a stunning display of patheticism!

[Episiarch]

Wait a second, I'm confused. What force of law does a petition have again?

[Pro Libertate]

At the federal level, jack and shit.

[Randian]

I mean, Barack Obama can take the petition to Barack Obama and convince himself to un-sign the sequester!

[Tony]

It's kind of rich to call it fearmongering when there is not a single aspect of this entire thing that isn't about cutting the deficit--something real economists say we shouldn't even be doing right now.

The budget cutting obsessives got what they want. Now they get to own the consequences, how about that?

[wareagle]

Obama signed the damn thing; seems he gets at least partial ownership. And "real" economists are sharp enough to figure that nothing is being cut except the rate of increased growth.

[Randian]

Don't respond to the sockpuppet.

[Tony]

It was, as everyone who's not a disingenuous Republican party apologist knows, not meant to be policy. It was specifically designed to be bad policy that nobody would want. Because that's how we have to legislate these days.

Obama's fault is in underestimating Republicans' craziness. They, apparently, don't have the votes to stick up for the defense spending they were supposed to defend.

So the only people who really *want* this policy are tea party Republicans. So I think they should get to own the consequences. And it doesn't matter what I think because the American people are going to blame them anyway.

If nothing replaces this policy then we'll get to see the effects of indiscriminate budget cutting--or what all you guys call responsible governing. I for one relish the idea.

[wareagle]

jesus tony; get your head out of Obama's crotch and hold him accountable for something. The man has been POTUS going on five years now, long past the expiration date for naivete.

He proposed this stupidity, he signed off on it, then he campaigned against it, hoping followers like you would forget the first two parts of this sentence. So congrats on being a mindless drone. And the consequences are that govt will grow by slightly less than anticipated. Period. Exclamation point. Run on Preparation H for the butt hurt liberal statist crowd.

[Cytotoxic]

It was specifically designed to be bad policy that nobody would want. Because that's how we have to legislate these days.

That's how you and you people have to legislate because you're that retarded. Don't want to own it? Don't sign it.

If nothing replaces this policy then we'll get to see the effects of indiscriminate budget cutting

We'll see that anyways because reality wins in the end everytime.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

If nothing replaces this policy then we'll get to see the effects of indiscriminate budget cutting

Sure, just bring a chair... and some food. And a porta-potty.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

It was[...] not meant to be policy. It was specifically designed to be bad policy that nobody would want.

And how he's throwing a fit because he had his bluff called, yadda yadda.

So what are you saying? That the president was being too naive? And this is the political ubermensch you're talking about.

[phandaal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....t_Syndrome

It's like you're too fucking stupid to even use Google, much less read a history book. This scenario has been played out before.

All I ever see is you getting your wiener stomped in the instant you post the latest unreality-fueled screed you've concocted. Now that I think of it, maybe you're a genius libertarian acting like a partisan rube in order to point out some larger truth. In which case, well played.

[Pro Libertate]

Real as in the Spanish real?

[John]

I don't think this whole thing is going well for Tony and his ilk.

[Tony]

That's because you live in the rightwing echo chamber.

[Cytotoxic]

PROJECTION LEVELS CRITICAL

[Some call me Tim?]

I'm a "budget cutting obsessive" and I promise you that this is not what I want.

Slicing a measly $85 billion from our multi-trillion dollar budget doesn't go nearly far enough...oh wait, we aren't even doing that, we're taking $85b from the rate of growth!

"The spending sequester in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) essentially freezes defense spending in current dollar terms for the 2013-2021 period, limiting growth to approximately 1.5% per year (about the rate of the Consumer Price Index) versus approximately 8% per year over the past decade...The spending sequester in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) essentially freezes non-defense discretionary spending in current dollar terms for the 2013-2021 period, limiting growth to approximately 1.5% per year (about the rate of inflation) versus approximately 6% over the past decade."

Yeah! That's really harsh! How will we survive on such small increases?!?!

[Tony]

Why should we cut at all? What's the goal of cutting?

[gaijin]

Where does money come from?

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

Why should we cut at all? What's the goal of cutting?

It lowers the burden on the economy, exactly the contrary to what those voices in your hea.... sorry, those "real economists" you keep bringing up say.

[Cytotoxic]

Because here in Canada the '90s era cuts were horrible. I've eaten most of my family and am even eyeing the pet beaver. WHERE IS MY GOVERNMENT FUNDED IGLOO?

[Pro Libertate]

Yeah, and look at Canada now. A frozen wasteland, bigger than the U.S., but now with only the population of California.

[darius404]

This was one of the funniest things you ever posted. Keep it up.

[Some call me Tim?]

Because we're borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. That's not sustainable.

Eventually we'll we need to either raise taxes (on everyone, just just rich people. and we'll need to raise them a lot), cut spending or monetize the debt to fix this imbalance.

My vote is to cut spending.

[ant1sthenes]

I don't know, why should everyone's personal income be cut? Because that's the Democrats' plan. Better the state than us.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

there is not a single aspect of this entire thing that isn't about cutting the deficit--something real economists say we shouldn't even be doing right now.

Tony, dear, I told you that those voices in your head are not from real economists.

[Brandon]

something real economists say we shouldn't even be doing right now.

Because anyone who says the massive debt might be a problem is automatically disqualified from being a "real" economist. Do you say anything that's not a fallacy?

[Ken Shultz]

"It's as if President Obama's not in charge of the executive branch when he doesn't want to be."

It's like Hitler Youth being encouraged to turn their own parents in.

Scratch that. It's like Nazi parents encouraging their own children to turn them in.

I wish Obama were in no way responsible for the sequester. Then, the fiscal conservatives could take all the credit for themselves. As it is? You watch! Next election cycle, the Democrats will brag about how when their president was in the White House--he slashed the budget over the Republicans' objections!

[John]

That is right. And they will also tell us how their President saved us all from the healthcare law Republicans forced on the country.

[Ken Shultz]

Meanwhile at the White House press office...

Memo to Journalists:

Tow the line or forfeit your press pass.

Love,

Anonymous White House Staffer

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, because congressional Republicans refused to signed the Budget Control act, devastating budget cuts known as the sequester are going into effect.

FIFY.

[Brandon]

What?

[darius404]

What?

FIFY.

[jangtrang]

Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

http://www.NetAnon.da.bz

[Proprietist]

Cutting goverment jobs = devastating

Cutting private sector jobs indirectly (Obamacare, minimum wage increase, etc.) = trivial, for the greater good