Past Controversies, More Than Future Plans, Have Come To Dominate The Campaign — Here's Why

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/detroit-fema-sequestration-how-old-news-came-to-dominate-the-election.php?ref=fpa

remember it's incumbent on Congress to come up with a deal the Pres. only signs it.

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Mitt Romney’s 2009 New York Times op-ed, the headline of which was “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” still causes him heartburn. Romney was proposing something very technical — a managed bankruptcy of the sort the Obama administration ultimately oversaw — not a more colloquial understanding of “bankruptcy” as terminal financial ruin. But if you dig even deeper, you find that Romney was opposed to using federal dollars to provide GM and Chrysler a financial bridge through the bankruptcy process. He wanted the private sector to provide that financing,

Disaster Relief

Hurricane Sandy’s approach and landfall brought renewed attention to comments Romney made months ago during a primary debate, when he lumped disaster relief into the same category of federal budgetary priorities that ought to be handed off to states, or, better yet, private companies. 

Defense Cuts

If Obama wins Virginia, he’ll likely win the whole election. Which is why Republicans there are pushing the idea that, automatic scheduled cuts to defense spending, are his idea and his fault. They’re referring to the “sequester” — an enforcement mechanism Congress passed on a bipartisan basis and Obama signed to resolve the debt limit fight last summer.

The idea of including an enforcement mechanism in the debt limit deal was a consequence of two different demands: one, by John Boehner, that every dollar in new borrowing authority Congress provided be accompanied by a dollar cut to federal spending, another, by Obama, that Congress raise the debt limit enough to take the issue off the table through election season.

To meet both demands, Congress had to assure that the budget would be cut over 10 years by over $2 trillion, but could only agree on about $1 trillion up front. The sequester was designed to threaten both Democratic and Republican priorities, so that both parties would negotiate in good faith to avoid it. That’s why half of it targets domestic programs. Democrats offered up several Republican sacred cows to fill in the other half, including, for instance, the Bush tax cuts for top earners. Republicans ultimately agreed to the defense cuts. 

getting any clearer, are you seeing that the right wing's attempt to kick dirt on the Pres.'s shoes is their dirt not his.  and all this time they've made it all about him levying all these tax hikes and potential job loss on "we the people" when it was really "them the republicans".

The GOP’s opposition to higher taxes on top earners has been the single largest impediment to replacing the sequester, and now that it’s weeks away from taking effect, Republicans are blaming its defense cuts on Obama. At the final presidential debate, Obama insisted that the sequester “will not happen”, but it’s still unclear how it’ll be avoided, whoever wins the election

who does your "common sense" tell you is best for America?