Why are Republicans complaining?

[Taichiliberal]

Lets' see:

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years.

Obama compromised on the Sequester, to which Boehner stated he was satisfied because he got 90% of what he wanted.

So the current economy is what the GOP wanted. Why are they complaining and blaming Obama?

 

[Celticguy]

If thats the extent of your understanding it may be impossible to explain. But we can start with BO upping federal spending a trillion and have only a negative effect for it.

 

[NOVA]

Lets' see:

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years.

Obama compromised on the Sequester, to which Boehner stated he was satisfied because he got 90% of what he wanted.

So the current economy is what the GOP wanted. Why are they complaining and blaming Obama?

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.

If fact it was the R's agreeing to cuts in the DOD that made the Dem's shit in their drawers...they
couldn't believe the R's would do along with cutting defense spending

 

[Taichiliberal]

If thats the extent of your understanding it may be impossible to explain. But we can start with BO upping federal spending a trillion and have only a negative effect for it.

Ahh, so you cannot deny that the two examples I gave are accurate...so you try to BS your way around it by throwing out yet another Rand Paul lie. Let me stop that nonsense right here:

Rand Paul says Barack Obama 'spent nearly a trillion dollars on make-work government jobs.'

Our ruling

Paul said Obama "spent nearly a trillion dollars on make-work government jobs." It’s plausible that through the stimulus, Obama spent nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars in hopes it would create jobs. But Paul is wrong to suggest that all $1 trillion was spent on "make-work government jobs." Two-thirds of the stimulus was spent on tax cuts and entitlements, and of the remaining one-third, much was paid to private contractors. Only a modest fraction of the $1 trillion was spent on government jobs, much less on jobs spent doing nothing. We rate his claim False.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...aul-says-barack-obama-spent-nearly-trillion-/

Anything else?

 

[Taichiliberal]

If thats the extent of your understanding it may be impossible to explain. But we can start with BO upping federal spending a trillion and have only a negative effect for it.

Ahh, so you cannot deny that the two examples I gave are accurate...so you try to BS your way around it by throwing out yet another Rand Paul lie. Let me stop that nonsense right here:

Rand Paul says Barack Obama 'spent nearly a trillion dollars on make-work government jobs.'

Our ruling

Paul said Obama "spent nearly a trillion dollars on make-work government jobs." It’s plausible that through the stimulus, Obama spent nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars in hopes it would create jobs. But Paul is wrong to suggest that all $1 trillion was spent on "make-work government jobs." Two-thirds of the stimulus was spent on tax cuts and entitlements, and of the remaining one-third, much was paid to private contractors. Only a modest fraction of the $1 trillion was spent on government jobs, much less on jobs spent doing nothing. We rate his claim False.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...aul-says-barack-obama-spent-nearly-trillion-/


And here's a more focused review of how and why the sequestration happened (bereft of Woodward's omissions)

As key observers have noted in recent days, the facts on sequestration are not in dispute: Obama has made repeated offers to meet Republicans in the middle with a proposed deficit reduction plan built around a mix of spending cuts, reform to entitlement programs, and revenue increases. Republicans have countered by saying they will not agree to any deal that includes revenue increases. In terms of "leading," Obama has done everything in his power to try to fashion a deal with Republicans. In response, the absolutist GOP has refused to move off its starting point; it's refused to move at all. (Hint: They wanted sequestration to occur.)

So, because Obama, who just won an electoral landslide re-election, wasn't willing to concede to Republicans everything they wanted, the sequester impasse was reached and $85 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts went into effect. From those facts, too many pundits have rushed in to blame Obama. Why him? Because he hasn't been able to change Republican behavior. He wasn't able to get them to agree to a bipartisan solution.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/05/sequestration-and-how-the-liberal-media-keep-bl/192907

Anything else?