Wheres Obama's budget?

“The negative consequences of implementation would be bad across the board," Carney said. "That's the point. So Congress needs to do its job."

Obama doesnt need to do his Job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-misses-budget-deadline-for-third-straight-year/2013/02/04/0e925fa4-6f03-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

President Obama misses budget deadline for third straight year

“President Obama first proposed the sequester and insisted it become law,” Boehner said, adding, “We believe there is a better way to reduce the deficit, but Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes."

====================

Since when did the President's request, let alone alleged insistence mean squat to House Republicans? The sequester didn't get in the legislation and pass the House and pass the Senate by accident Mr. Speaker.

Not that there is anything new in the reality, but calling your statement disingenuous is being gracious.

That's right Barry..... don't SOLVE THE PROBLEM.... postpone it until a really good crisis can be created from the issue......

@David Noah

First, its not the president's job to make a budget, he can only suggest. Second, any time he makes a suggestions you have the GOPers crying foul and screaming how unamerican it is to compromise.

Personally, I say fire the entire government, and get nothing but fresh meat in there. Put in 2 term limits. Once your 2 terms are up, you cannot be or work for any lobbyists.

Short term fix = can being kicked.

FFS you people put in a sequester to motivate your asses. The only things moving are your lips. The sequester is supposed to be painful. Painful lessons are the ones best remembered. Give me a long term solution or give me the cliff.

For over 4 years both sides of the isles have been doing nothing but laying out plans that the other side can stymie one way or another.

Majority rules, minority speaks and gives input, majority takes input into consideration and then acts. Pull your head out and act. Quit pitting ourselves against each other. Unite.

The president's request would continue what has become a common practice in Washington — dealing with fiscal issues in small steps in hopes that over time Congress and the administration are able to agree on broader and more lasting policies. In his remarks, Obama alluded to the incremental nature of the work ahead.

This is why a long-term solution will never work, nor Keynesian economics for that matter. The idea that we can have a short-term stimulus to boost growth and a long-term deficit reduction is just not realistic. When it finally comes time to cut spending whoever is in power, Republican or Democrat, at that time will delay the cuts.

This is like asking if you taxes raised on other people. Don't cut my spending, cut the next generation's spending...and the next .... and the next.

Mr President you put up the idea of the sequester, now live with it.

This is what you get when you combine "Liberal" and "Think Tank"...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/04/-study-global-warming-can-be-slowed-by-working-less

Sorry Red but the sequester is Oblamo's baby. He made this bed he can sleep in it.

Sorry Red but the sequester is Oblamo's baby. He made this bed he can sleep in it.

wait wait what? How is the sequester "Obama's baby?" (And really, grow up with the nonsense name calling).

The sequester is a byproduct of the BCA signed in August of 2011 when the Republicans refused to increase the debt ceiling, a tactic never before used in American politics (with the very real threat of national default). The only way to get the GOP on board with raising the debt ceiling (and thereby, NOT defaulting the US) was to put the poison pill sequester crap in to ensure "future budget cuts."

I mean, the entire "super committee" and "sequester" process came about due to the unprecedented uncompromising position held by the GOP when raising the debt ceiling. How exactly did Obama go about creating this mess again?

Article says: "White House Press Secretary Jay Carney underscoring Friday that the sequester was always intended to be replaced." Then DO NOT legislate it into reality, if it is imaginary or a threat to hold over our head!

Perhaps you should study the Budget Process Morg.

How can Congress start doing its job when the President hasn't done his?

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

Overview

The President, in accordance with to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February. Thus, President George W. Bush submitted the FY2007 budget in February 2006. The President's budget submission, along with supporting documents and historical budget data, can be found at the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website. The President's budget contains detailed information on spending and revenue proposals, along with policy proposals and initiatives with significant budgetary implications.

Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years. However, the CBO also computes a current-policy baseline, which makes assumptions about, for instance, votes on tax cut sunset provisions. The current CBO 10 year budget baseline projection grows from $3.7 trillion in 2011 to $5.7 trillion in 2021.

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

In recent years, Congress has not passed all of the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. Congress has then enacted continuing resolutions, that provide for the temporary funding of government operations.

Mr. Obama is OUR EMPLOYEE we are the EMPLOYERS. The federal law reads that he was LEGALLY REQUIRED to present HIS budget to Congress YESTERDAY. Did he fufill his job? NO! He went to Minnesota telling the hunters that he wants to have a federal registered list of gun owners. Everyone owning a gun will be on HIS list.

This is the third straight year he has missed the dealine and he also had 2 other reports due yesterday that did not appear to Congress. Congress does a poor enough job without their leader not doing his at all. The Senate and Harry Reid have not even brought a budget to the floor in over 3 years. Time for the employers to impeach the employees for not fulfilling their job descriptions.

The House is responsible to put forth a budget (from civics class, you probably were sleeping). The house (Boehner and Ryan) is the one who has not gotten a budget passed for the past three years. By the way the majority of those up for re-election this past year WERE RE-ELECTED. If you don't like the job they are or are not doing then why in h*** di you vote for them? Yes we are going to have to dig our way out of this mess, with increased revenue AND cuts. Those that got the breaks in the Bush era now have to give back. Those that got hand outs will have to go without.

Republicans were supposed to have their budget out as well....where is it?

Republicans complain all the time about a budget, but with years of "starve the beast" policies by Republicans we need both more revenue and spending cuts.

Republicans have yet to put forth spending cut proposals.

cant believe that you sound some what intelligent in this post. obama is required by law to pass a budget every year. glad that if they don't get the job done their pay is suspended. every incumbent should have been fired during the past election and start a fresh from the president on down. this is ridiculous that grown men and women cant get their head out of their butts. actually a good post fiesty. better then the leftard you normally do.

David Noah - Noah, good job cutting and pasting but you are putting the blame where it doesn't belong. The president has produced his budget recommendations each year. He just can't get anyone, including his own dems, to go along with it. The house has done the same, they can't get the Senate to go along with it. Look towards the senate, namely Reid.

Libs....

Am I to understand that spending 1Trillion more each year than revenues raised, is to mean "Smart Speding Cuts"

How about we get some cuts before raising taxes again to increase revenue. Since your not worried about the economy to do so.

Where do you guys get your info?

The Republican House has passed budgets for 2010(even though it was the 2009's Congress's Job, when Pelosi was in Charge), 2011 and 2012.

You cant tell me you have forgotten about the Ryan Budgets you have been attacking for the last two years saying Republicans want Grandma to starve, they want to throw Grandma over the Cliff, etc. and now you want to claim they never passed any budgets?

Every cut will get passed through to businesses, both big and small.

For every dollar you cut out of entitlements, that is one less dollar that will be spent in a business.

For every million dollars cut out of infrastructure, that is a million dollars that will not go to a business.

For every government employee that Republicans want to lay-off, that is one less customer for a business.

Cuts do not end at the person or project getting cut... they end at the business that will not get that money from the customer who is cut. That means fewer customers and less money for small, medium and big business. That is LESS money going to the "job creators" through their business.

Now, what do "job creators" do when they lose customers and make less revenue/profits? They lay off more workers. Then those people will not spend money in the businesses they go to, and those "job creators" lose customers and revenue. And so it continues.

All cuts are passed through to a business and that business owner.

Be careful what you wish for. In your attempt to support businesses, your plan will cut their customers and revenue stream. How supportive is that?

Republicans were supposed to have their budget out as well....where is it?

Perhaps you should go back and read the U.S Budget Process. The House and Senate budget resolution isn't due until April.

Is it April?

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

"...in order to stave off deep federal spending cuts scheduled for that date..."

Oh the Humanity!

Hey, I suspect a lot of so-called liberals are bad at math but this is how it breaks down.

Sequestration = 1.1 Trillion in cuts over 10 years. That is 110 billion a year.

The Federal budget is roughly 3.5 Trillion PER YEAR.

110 billion/3.5 Trillion = 0.031

A three percent cut in the budget is deep? Three percent?

Let the sequester happen. At least it's a start.

Obama promised to cut the annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, but made no attempt to do so. Congress has pushed everything fiscal decision to the very last second for the past four plus years, buying more time will certainly allow them to nothing until the next deadline comes around. No, the time for game playing is over, these automatic spending cuts are far better then anything Congress will come up with so let them happen. Obama has repeatedly spewed about the need for a balanced approach, but there is nothing in writing to back up his rhetoric, so let the spending cuts happen. Obama missed his deadline to put forth a budget, and the Democrats in the Senate have only missed their deadline for going on four years. Sorry Obama, but it is time to let the chips fall where they may, no more kicking the can. No more stop gap measures. Washington needs to do their job on time. Period end of story.

the law requiring the president to propose a budget is contra-constitutional. Someone sue already the U.S. SC will burn the budget and accounting act of 21 with ease.

Obama doesn't want to cut a damn thing except military spending. He only wants to raise revenue aka. taxes. He did this very same thing last time. He has almost tripled the debt in the four years since he has been president. He doesn't care about our solvency he only cares about his agenda, which is turning America into Europe. Ironic isn't it....that we fought a Revolution to get away from out of control government and the King and we are headed right back to where we started. Long live the King.

If you're talking the welfare system, for every dollar cut, that should give incentive to the recipient to go out and get a job

You will never be able to force everyone to get a job. On top of that, half of all food stamp recipients are children. Thus, you have two options: (1) Accept that some people will never be responsible and support them with a very, VERY, small amount of money. Or (2) accept that a portion of these people will never be responsible and simply die on the streets, along with their children.

There have ALWAYS been poor people throughout all of history... ALWAYS. Some countries support them, some do not. In the countries who do not, the poor DO NOT go out and get jobs, they have no incentive. They die, simple as that. If you are "ok" with American streets turning into death alleys, littered with the emaciated bodies of children and the poor, then pick option (2). But have the balls to admit that you desire this for our country.

Don't come on here with some bull-sh** ideology about poor people finding an incentive to work, when thousands of years of history prove you wrong. It has never, EVER, worked. That is why the Republican "savior", Jesus, told his followers to help the needy because they will not help themselves. Apparently, he understood that concept a thousand years ago, yet you still can't wrap your head around it.

There are other jobs.

Last report I read found that there are 4 applicants for every 1 job available. This is basic math, it does not get any easier than this.

4 applicants for EVERY 1 JOB.

So, is there a job for every person looking? No. If every job was immediately filled, 3/4 of the job seeking population would still be looking. Simple math.

Based on this math, and on ACTUAL history (instead of some bull-sh** ideology that has NEVER WORKED)... my theory still holds true. Every cut gets passed through to a business.

"....arguing Tuesday for a more expansive agenda that resonates with a broader scope of Americans."

Really? He is going to argue for the GOP to tell the religious right (aka teabaggees) to finally take that hike??

“The negative consequences of implementation would be bad across the board," Carney said. "That's the point. So Congress needs to do its job."

They did - and it was signed by Obama.

Let the 'sequester cuts' take place - now that Obama got his $600 Billion tax increase on the 'rich', a $1.2 Trillion cut in spending will at least partly address the Deficits.

The problem is that the cuts are far too little - a mere $1.2 Trillion over 10 years, when the cost of Interest alone on the massive debt will increase by about $7 Trillion over 10 years.

From here on out, the negotiations should center on both more spending cuts AND more revenues, but since Obama refuses to consider more spending cuts, and the Republicans say 'no more tax increases', it looks like the 'sequester' will happen. It appears that the Republicans now have the 'negotiating leverage' - when Obama tries for more taxes and no spending cuts, the Republicans can now say "We gave you the tax increases, now it's your turn to cut spending".

No more 'Kicking the can down the road'.

Translation -

Ignore that I didn't turn a budget in which is required by law, and look at the repubs, while I kick the can further down the road.

mguy-478 "You will never be able to force everyone to get a job."

No, but you can give them more of an incentive by making welfare less attractive.

It's a simple truth that someone that just lost their welfare benefits is 3 times more likely to find a job within a month.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

"Necessity is also the father of motivation".

My Guy - F

or every dollar you cut out of entitlements, that is one less dollar that will be spent in a business.

For every million dollars cut out of infrastructure, that is a million dollars that will not go to a business.

For every government employee that Republicans want to lay-off, that is one less customer for a business.

Based on those assumptions, the Government should TAKE all income and hire government employees and spent the rest on infrastructure.

How about this? every dollar not forcefully taken and then given as entitlements, is a dollar that could spent in the economy without going though the Federal Government!

So alex are you saying the government should HIRE millions more at whoevers expense so there will be more people with jobs to purchase more stuff from business's that have outsourced there production. That would be great if we had your money and you was paying for everything.

Till you pay for everything I say get rid of the WASTE in government. If that is get rid of some lazy workers then they would be able to run the same group with less people that will actually WORK.

mguy, what you don't understand is that our leaders can, with their policies encourage job growth or they can inhibit job growth. They can either give the employers and the job producers confidence to invest in the economy or they can make us skeptical or very afraid to invest in the economy. Right now business people have absolutely NO confidence in Obama understanding ANYTHING about business. Consequently, this economy will not truly turn around while he is president.

@ mguy-478

So we should never stop the growth of the government? Even if we can't cut the tumor out, we have to control it's growth, as though our lives depend on it. While you make sense that drastic cuts during tough times may hurt, the same thing can be said about raising taxes during these times. Both choices are bad. Spending does need to be controlled tho.

While I agree that you can't force the "needy" to work, there is a big difference between needy and lazy. I'm sure Jesus wasn't for taxing people to take care of those too 'lazy' to do it themselves. There should be incentives not to receive govt. hand-outs, but unfortunately it's just the opposite.

Just showed this to a lady at work (Who is almost 55 and smokes and is a HUGE PBO fan, I think she may have wet herself when his plane flew right over our building when it landed yesterday) she almost passed out and feel out of her chair.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57565787/older-smokers-priced-out-of-obamacare/

Thus, you have two options: (1) Accept that some people will never be responsible and support them with a very, VERY, small amount of money. Or (2) accept that a portion of these people will never be responsible and simply die on the streets, along with their children.

There have ALWAYS been poor people throughout all of history... ALWAYS. Some countries support them, some do not. In the countries who do not, the poor DO NOT go out and get jobs, they have no incentive. They die, simple as that. If you are "ok" with American streets turning into death alleys, littered with the emaciated bodies of children and the poor, then pick option (2). But have the balls to admit that you desire this for our country.

Don't come on here with some bull-sh** ideology about poor people finding an incentive to work, when thousands of years of history prove you wrong. It has never, EVER, worked. That is why the Republican "savior", Jesus, told his followers to help the needy because they will not help themselves. Apparently, he understood that concept a thousand years ago, yet you still can't wrap your head around it.

If a person is just lazy (and yes I do know people like this living off my tax dollars) then I have absolutely no pity for them. Welfare is meant to be a hand up, not a hand out. I know a family where the mother grew up in welfare and drugs, she had a son and daughter, both of them are on welfare, and also have kids that will more than likely live off welfare. By giving out welfare so freely, you are NOT doing them a favor, you're making (and allowing) them to be dependent on the government. If they can't be responsible, then @!$%#'em. This does not include the disabled or mentally ill.

There will always be poor people, no matter how much money you throw at them, they will always be poor. How many people do you know on welfare/medicaid that are driving 300s or Cadillacs? We see quite a few around here, hell there's guy getting gas vouchers for his hummer here in town. Are you ok with that?

I also like how Jesus is the republican savior, and doesn't care about democrats. Nice touch skin bag.

I'm fine helping those in need, sadly a decent percentage (not majority) of those on the government tit are just flat lazy.

So alex are you saying the government should HIRE millions more at whoevers expense so there will be more people with jobs to purchase more stuff from business's that have outsourced there production. That would be great if we had your money and you was paying for everything.

Reading comprehension is good you DOE reject. I specifically said that it is not the job of the government to be a large employer.

No, but you can give them more of an incentive by making welfare less attractive.

It's a simple truth that someone that just lost their welfare benefits is 3 times more likely to find a job within a month.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

"Necessity is also the father of motivation".

Roy,

Please proved one example, past or present, of a country eliminating their poverty population by ignoring them.

If your theory is true, and removing all help has successfully given people incentive to find jobs, then you should have no problem finding an example. Simply show me a country that cut all aid to the poor, stopped helping them all together, and the result was that the poor found incentive to get a job.

Just one single example that supports the theory that the best way to eliminate poverty is to stop all aid... which will force them to be responsible.

I await your proof.

mguy -

Please proved one example, past or present, of a country eliminating their poverty by giving them handouts.

I await your proof.

Mguy said 1/2 of all foodstamp recipients are children. How ignorant can you get. the children are NOT the people that get the foodstamps, it is the PARENTS.

Let me guess you are in gradeschool still, children are NOT allowed to live on there own, they have to become adults first, then they can get there foodstamps like there parents did.

Hows this for your fantasy. We give them all 75K for a lifetime of support. With that money they can buy there drugs, beer, other booze & what ever they want to buy. Or they can turn that 75K into much more if they decide to get off there dead asses and get a JOB. But like you said there are to many people out there that will NOT take responsibility for themselves. Am I supposed to worry about those people that would rather DIE than work. I am all for helping those that want to help themselves.

eg.ltnm mguy, what you don't understand is that our leaders can, with their policies encourage job growth or they can inhibit job growth. They can either give the employers and the job producers confidence to invest in the economy or they can make us skeptical or very afraid to invest in the economy. Right now business people have absolutely NO confidence in Obama understanding ANYTHING about business. Consequently, this economy will not truly turn around while he is president."

Very nice summary of the current situation.

We can expect 4 more years of a stagnant economy, along with 4 more years of massively increasing Debt and high unemployment.

Of course, Obama will blame it on the Republicans, and the Liberal media will reinforce Obama's rhetoric.

8 wasted years, and we will be FAR more worse off than when Obama was elected.

Alex, why must the Government forcefully take from us to give and keep the poor, poor?

Is it because we are not caring nation that donates time and money to those in need without the Government?

Obviously we are take a look at how much time and money is donated each year. So there must be another agenda, care to take a care what that agenda might be?

Alex

You did not answer the question: Are you "ok" with American streets turning into death alleys, littered with the emaciated bodies of children and the poor?

YES or NO

How many people do you know on welfare/medicaid that are driving 300s or Cadillacs? We see quite a few around here, hell there's guy getting gas vouchers for his hummer here in town. Are you ok with that?

I don't know a single welfare recipient driving one of those cars. However, I have seen what welfare recipients receive, and it does not cover the cost to lease of buy a vehicle like that. In reality, the people you see are probably drug dealers, making illegal money that is not reported. That is more an indication of the enormous failure that we call the "war of drugs", and not the welfare system.

Is it right? Of course not, and no one would support that. But removing welfare will do little to change that, as they will continue to sell drugs and rake in the amount of money required to buy those items. So instead of stopping them, your ideology will simply put a poor child, who needs it, to death. But you seem to be "ok" with that.

Tom

I never made the claim that "handouts" eliminate poverty, but YOUR SIDE did claim that stopping all aid will give the poor incentive to get a job.

So prove it. YOU and your ilk made the claim, so back it up.

I will make it easier for you. Name one country that has IMPROVED their poverty by ignoring the poor. You made the claim, back it up.

mguy -

"You did not answer the question: Are you "ok" with American streets turning into death alleys, littered with the emaciated bodies of children and the poor?

So the only way for this to not happen, is to have the Government forcefully take money from one group and hand it out the other group with stipulations that they stay poor?

Wow, that seems like a amazing process that you have been suckered into believing.

mguy - I never made the claim that "handouts" eliminate poverty

then why do it?

Economic collapse has been slowly building since we got rid of the backing of the dollar by the Gold Standard!! This has made our dollar only worth the paper it is written on or whatever inflated machinations of government determines it to be! We have long been in a situation of false economic security, by the false creation of jobs in our government and the companies that support these jobs. That and all the entitlements that are given out and I am not only talking about the ones involving social programs, but also the ones we hand out in the form of subsidies, grants and bailouts we provide business! We only need to look at the war on drugs, and look at the jobs it has created, ie. Law Enforcement[remember COPS grant], prisons, courts, lawyers,doctors,etc., and all their support, and all the equipment needed by these companies to function. Has it worked? Is that why more states are becoming lenient on marijuana?We have long been in an era where we have been very close in having half our population supporting the other half percentage wise in taxes but have not done much in the way of paying off our debt and have allowed it to escalate!! I wish I could remember a study that was done in the 1980's that said 53% of the pop. was supporting the other 47% who are receiving monies, government employees[federal,state,county,city and local], subsidies to businesses,businesses that support our government, entitlements etc.. Please enlighten me with any new studies of where we stand now, as I am sure it has to be worse!!!

then why do it?

Because the other option... YOUR OPTION... is to let millions of people, and children, die on the streets. Of course, other problems are created by your answer: the cost to dispose of the bodies, the potential health risks that rotting corpses pose to the rest of society, property value, morality, emotional impact, etc.

Still waiting for your historical proof of a society who improved poverty levels by ignoring the poor.

because the other option of letting the citizens decide who is worthy to get help is going to have people dieing on the streets, I call BS on you, look at how much time and money we give without being forced to.

The current system of having the Government take a dollar from me and administer that money so they can give 20 cents to somebody poor doesn't seem to be working very well.

So I ask you why do YOU want to keep the poor, poor?

look at how much time and money we give without being forced to.

BULL-SH**

The ONLY reason you give ANY money is because of the tax write-off. So spare me your "hollier than though" fake compassion. You must think people are really stupid if you expect ANYONE to believe that you help others for any other reason than your own f***ing greed. Take away that tax write-off, and let's see how "helpful" you really are.

Hell, look at what you have written here. You want to stop ALL aid to the poor, because you believe that will give them incentive to get a job... even though that has NEVER happened at any time in history. So you have ZERO proof that your plan will work, but you would rather risk it than to spend a penny on someone else.

And now you expect me to believe that someone like YOU... who is willing to let millions of people die on the street, just to save a couple bucks... is willing to help others without being forced? Please. You won't help a singe god damn person, and we both know that. Spare me the lies and fake compassion. The only thing you care about is your money, nothing else.

Since when is following the rule of law something that the Dems follow? So rather than presenting his budget as the law requires, he's out campaigning. Harry Reid and the Senate hasn't presented a budget in how many years?

Someone should alert the president to the fact that he won. Campaigning isn't a part of his requirements, providing goverance is.

Now why isn't he in DC working with both sides of the aisle to provide solutions?

Of course the reason I help people is for a tax right off, because I some how get more money by donating instead of just paying the taxes on it? You know what is weird when a bunch of us took off work to go down Louisiana to help out after Katrina, I didn't write any of that off. So good day to you!

Please take a reading class, what I said was we don't need the Government to forcefully take our money to keep people poor.

How about this, which totally makes you look like a fool. 300 billion in 2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/us-usa-charity-idUSBRE85I05T20120619

We appear to heading deeper into a slippery slope! You might also look into the writings of Alexander Fraser Tytler written over 200 years ago, and his seven stages of democracy, here is a small part:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

Its all quite simple. I vote for Option #2!!!!!! Let them starve. I could care less. I'm tired of paying more in taxes every year than most people make in income. I feel the same way about the gang bangers killing each other off.....I could care less. Just one less mouth I will need to put food in the rest of their lives. Call me cruel or whatever other names you wish. It's time that our politicians start making the really "tough" decisions instead of all the easy ones like......GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE!!!!

obama just can't see past next week. Real spending cuts, homeland security investigating all those recieving any benifit for any fraud. MANDITORY DOT DRUG TESTING for all that recieve welfare and foodstamps ect... .

Tom

Again, that is $300 billion in tax write-offs. Not because people like you actually care.

And anyone can "say" that they went down and helped, but you don't expect me to believe that crap, do you? Just look at your posts, you hate the poor more than any other person I have seen on this board. You are the type to spit on them when you walk by, or to tip a waitress 1% and tell her to get a real job. I know your type, and there is no way I am going to believe your LIE that you actually helped someone else. Your hatred for the poor has blinded you to reality, to the point where you blame them for any and all problems.

Your solution is to cut them off and let them die... and you expect me to believe there is an ounce of compassion in your heart? You revel in the thought of their death, you celebrate it for the financial gain it will bring you. That is not the behavior of a man who "helps others".

He's busy distracting from his failed Presidency

Hookm49

At least you have the balls to be honest... and I can respect that.

@7.62 Welfare and food stamps are not the only ones receiving our monies, we also have subsidies ,grants and bailouts for businesses, and they are just as culpable for our problems! Your simple solution appears biased! Fraud is fraud no matter where it is, or how it is disguised!

You Republithugs want a budget? It is overwhelmingly plain that the US can not afford to spend more than the next 16 largest defense budgets on the planet put together any longer.

"Rather, its deep cuts, including almost $500 billion in defense spending over nine years...."

Since the defense budget is close to $1 trillion per year, over 9 years that figure would then be close to $9 trillion. So tell me how a cut of 6% from that figure could be regarded as "deep" or "painful" by anyone, especially since for every dollar spent on defense we have to subtract an economic benefit of $2.50 from the civilian economy too?

You don't believe me about the impact of defense spending on our civilian economy? Here is a recent high-end economic study from UC-San Diego Department of Economic Chair Valerie Ramey and the National Bureau of Economic Research. Read it and weep, as it only confirms the work of numerous other previous highly-respected economics authors too!

www.nber.org/chapters/c12632.pdf

How about instead of such a meaningless cut from our military budget why not get serious about turning our civilian economy around which will fairly benefit a whole lot more Americans?

eg, "Obama doesn't want to cut a damn thing except military spending" you say that like its a bad thing?

".... a short-term combination of spending cuts and revenue increases"

We all know what "revenue increases" means. Tax, Tax, Tax....I hear they are looking at a "pedestrian tax" for walking on the sidewalks.

(7.62x39mm) MANDITORY DOT DRUG TESTING for all that recieve welfare and foodstamps

I couldn't agree more....

(7.62x39mm) MANDITORY DOT DRUG TESTING for all that receive welfare and foodstamps

Excellent suggestion. Add to that Mandatory Term Limits for ALL Politicians and I believe you have a great start toward achieving "REAL and MEANINGFUL" reforms.

John Boehner saying he would not support any additional revenue in increases until 2016 hoping Republicans take back the White House, I just don't see that happening when the tea party burned all their bridges !!!

It just seems that when a Republican is President the debt is never, never, never an issue !!!

The way I see it Republicans are throwing gas on the fire and making everything worse, the good old boys are starting to worry me !!!

mguy, according to Your analogy of spending cuts killing business, We should be rocking, just as Obama said We would with the trillion dollar stimulus, You know, the one that wouldn't let us get above 8% unemployment ? Problem is when You give it to the government, regardless of party affiliation, it goes to the friends that helped them get elected, Ie; The union thugs ! Until You Government lovers figure out the government, and especially this regime, is out to fill their pockets, not to help common folk. They have expanded welfare and food stamp programs, while at the same time spending more than any other administration in the history of the country ! So Your ideas, just like this regime, don't work ! Time to cut tax's and spending, gut Obama Care, IE: the affordable care act, Ha ! Mguy, have You seen projections of what insurance is going to cost when this thing is fully implemented ? According to the idiots at the IRS, We will pay double what we are now, and I guarantee the care will be worse ! When the people that supported this finally figure out what a scam it is, it will be to late !

Old Timer

How about instead of such a meaningless cut from our military budget why not get serious about turning our civilian economy around which will fairly benefit a whole lot more Americans?

Our current civilian economy will not turn around without major changes, and no one is willing to make the change.

It's like the game of Monopoly. People work in a business (the little houses), they go around the board and spend money in another business, and other people spend money in theirs. So an economy is created, with money circulating between everyone. Just like in America. People spend money in your business, you get paid, you spend that money in another business. But like the game, everyone in America is looking to "win". And how do you win the game of Monopoly? You get all the money. Great! You reached the American dream. One minor problem... when the game ends, because someone won, what happens to that little economy they had created? It comes to a crashing stop, it disappears... there is no economy.

Now look at where we are. The top 1% have seen their share of the income increase by over 800% over the last 30 years. The poor and middle class have seen their share decrease over the last 30 years. So, in Monopoly terms, 1% of the players are seeing their money stack grow, while the rest are seeing it decrease.

Time for some simple math. Take the current, total income in America, and apply the trend lines. The top 1% are growing at 800%, so extend that trend line out over the next 30, 40, 50 years. The poor and middle class are seeing their share decrease, so extend that trend out.

What happens? Well, the top 1% keep growing their pile of money, everyone else see's their money pile shrink. The funny thing about our economy is that there is a set amount of available income, unless we want rampant inflation. So eventually those trend lines are going to hit a stopping point. Eventually, the 1% are going to "win" the game... they will be the player with all the money. They will WIN. Then the game will be over, and there will no longer be an economy, because there will be no one left to buy their products.

This is simple statistics. Just plot out the current trend line.

So how do you keep an economy going? Well, in Monopoly, the other players need money to continue to buy things. If one player has all the money, he has to get the money into the other players hands, or the game ends. But people don't like that idea. They label it "redistribution" or call them "handouts", and they fight against it. To be fair, they have a point. It's their money, so why should they give it to someone else?

We now have a decision: Do we continue playing the game, as is? Follow the trend line, plot it out, and eventually a small group will "win" the game. Then, once all of the money is consolidated in the 1%, and no one has any money left to buy their product, the game ends... along with our economy.

Or, do we put safeguards in place to ensure that there are ways to get the money from the 1%, and put it in the hands of everyone else... so they can continue to spend that money in the businesses owned by the 1%? This will keep the economy going, but it involves a certain type of redistribution.

In reality, that is all this comes down to. Continue our current trend until a small group has all the money, then the game ends... or create safeguards to keep the economy going.

As it stands, Republicans want to continue the current trend. The 1% earned their money, so they should keep it. Eventually we will see who "wins", those people will have all the money, and the game will be over.

Follow the current trend... it's simple math.

Seaskip...

the budget and our countries debt was never any issue prior to obama because both sides of the aisle held deficits to way less than $1.2 trillion/year. Under obama and company our debt is expected to be double what every POTUS since Washington combined. BTW - Yes bush2 should have recinded the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to offsetthe costs of afghanistan and iraq. Well he didn't and neither did obama or any other member of congress.

Funny that you think that the "good ol' boys" are ruining things when it is obamas supporters that think it is entirely logical that a POTUS act like a divider rather than a uniter. Especially when the right can't get any legislation to obama if the senate can't offer up a reconciliation bill and vice versa. Best read up on the U.S. constitution as it relates to the duties of congress and the executive branch.

You may like living in the past, but somehow I don't think that any political party going forward won't be having their feet held to the fire if they spend as foolishly as obama and company.

Get out the printing machine. Warm up the blame gun. We're going in.

I don't always double down on failure, but when I do I always vote Obama. Stay unemployed my friends.

If Democrats and Obama cut spending they will lose elections, they already lower the bar for welfare recipients in order to increase the government dependency, instead to promote jobs and individual responsibility. Every election they use the Less Informed Voters to scare them to death with the evil Republican coming to take away their "rights", for many of them is the right to not to work, and live from the government because $ 10.00 an hour is only good for illegals. If this administration is focus to create jobs instead to create more nonsense regulations, the government can have more revenues without increasing taxes, but this is not what Democrats want , it is obvious they will lose a chunk of voters.

And joel your just another rightwing idiot who beleaves the BS that your party has fed your blind a#$@ for so long that you refuse to see hear or do anything unless fox rush or any other rightwing idiot spins it around into a lie so you will beleave it. And then you come on places like this to spread your BS gospel to the rest of the idiots in your base.Iits amazing how ill informed you are and still proceed to spread the BS lies. That tells me just how stupid the majority of followers ( because thats what you are) Who never seek the the real truth about anything if the right says it then you beleave it what ashame that you can`t think have any thoughts or questions on your own. You only follow follow follow no matter where it leads. WTFUP!

ROY WILSON-336103

“The negative consequences of implementation would be bad across the board," Carney said. "That's the point. So Congress needs to do its job."

They did - and it was signed by Obama.

Let the 'sequester cuts' take place - now that Obama got his $600 Billion tax increase on the 'rich', a $1.2 Trillion cut in spending will at least partly address the Deficits.

We already have about $900 billion in spending cuts on the books; you know, the ones that were put in place alongside the sequester??? So theoretically, we need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts in order to reduce the deficit. If you right-wing idiots had understood that BEFORE getting your asses handed to you in the election we wouldn't have this problem right now. In fact, you would have gotten a sweet deal and Democrats would have to swallow a bitter pill; funny how fate works.

The problem is that the cuts are far too little - a mere $1.2 Trillion over 10 years, when the cost of Interest alone on the massive debt will increase by about $7 Trillion over 10 years.

That is pure bull@!$%#. First of all, the CBO just came out with projections that the deficit over 10 years was going to be $7 trillion. That means interest on that will be much lower. If you are talking about the principal we already owe, you have to understand that debt is sold over various lengths of time, from a few months to 30 years. There isn't a fixed interest rate for the entire debt.

From here on out, the negotiations should center on both more spending cuts AND more revenues, but since Obama refuses to consider more spending cuts, and the Republicans say 'no more tax increases', it looks like the 'sequester' will happen. It appears that the Republicans now have the 'negotiating leverage' - when Obama tries for more taxes and no spending cuts, the Republicans can now say "We gave you the tax increases, now it's your turn to cut spending".

Not really. The Republicans may have a talking point, but they are still pretty unpopular for even thinking of holding the government hostage via the debt ceiling. Obama is willing to accept further spending cuts; hell, he's asking for 50% in spending cuts. What he isn't willing to do is kowtow to your anti-tax ideology and bow to your requests. If you want to avoid the sequester (which hurts the GOP more than the Dems because of defense cuts), you have to raise revenues. You cannot realistically stabilize debt to GDP (much less balance the budget) in 10 years without higher revenues. You'd have to deeply cut every program on the budget (including entitlements and defense), and you'd destroy the economy in the process in the short-term (and in the long-term, depending on the effects of less investment in America's "growth formula").

No more 'Kicking the can down the road'.

Well, at least we can agree on that.

Freshieee "ROY WILSON-336103 We already have about $900 billion in spending cuts on the books; you know, the ones that were put in place alongside the sequester???"

Gee, I must have missed that - I heard Obama give 'lip service' to cuts, but he could never be pinned down on anything specific - GIVE ME A LINK TO THIS SUPPOSED $900 BILLION IN CUTS BY OBAMA.

As for Interest expense, let's look at Obama's Budget projections and a little history;

Over the last 30 years before Obama, the average interest rate on government debt was 4.92% per year.

Obama projects the National Debt to be $20.4 Trillion in only about 3.5 years.

If interest rates return to 'normal', that will make interest payments on the debt slightly over $1 Trillion per year ($10 Trillion over 10 years).

The interest cost on the National Debt in Bush's last year in office (2008) was $253 Billion ($2.53 Trillion over 10 years).

Let's see now - $10.0 Trillion minus $2.53 Trillion = $7.47 Trillion in EXTRA interest cost over 10 years.

Of course, you have to be very gullible to believe Obama's projection of only $20.4 Trillion in Debt by September 30, 2016 - it would require the economy (GDP) to suddenly start growing at 5.1% per year (instead of the 2.1% average of the last 4 years), and federal revenues will have to start growing at 10.1% per year (instead of the 0% average of the last 4 years).

This is from the same can that has been kicked since the debt fight 2 summers ago. And now they are at the "we gotta fix it right now" drama again. I'm sick to death of both of them. If they had passed budgets for the last 3 years we wouldn't be going through this crap. It's the main job we send them to do and its REQUIRED BY LAW and they won't do it. Deadline after deadline after cliff after cliff.

Freshie no amount of taxes will come close to making even a small dent in our debt/ deficit. They raised taxes in Obamacare. Raised taxes last month. Want to raise them again now. And Reid already wants to raise them in the debt fight around May. Is this the new strategy, raise taxes every 3rd month until we tax ourselves into prosperity? The ONLY way we can come anywhere near getting a fiscal handle is to GROW the economy.

And if you look at the projections the CBO used for 2014 through 2018 they used something like 3.8% GDP growth. That aint gonna happen. Any idea what our interest payments will be when they stop the Trillion dollar a year money printing at the FED? We are renewing at about 2% now, they stop printing and we will easily double that. A bit of inflation and we will be paying 5 or 6% and soon will hit a trillion a year in JUST INTEREST with this massive debt. Debt bubble is coming within 1 to 3 years along with the dollar bubble with these Trillion dollar deficits and Trillion dollar a year money printing. 2 Trillion a year we are spending now we don't have and thats gonna end worse than the 2008 bubble.

Freshieee "Obama is willing to accept further spending cuts; hell, he's asking for 50% in spending cuts."

Wow - The government is projected to spend $3.8 Trillion this year. 50% of that would be cuts of $1.9 Trillion per year ($19 Trillion over 10 years).

I'm impressed - except for the fact that your statement is ridiculous, and Obama has 'asked' for no such spending cuts.

In fact, Obama increased spending DRAMATICALLY with his $860 Billion 'Stimulus Bill', but he doesn't seem to have cut the spending after that 'stimulus' spending ended - in fact, he has maintained that elevated spending level for all of his first 4 years - in other words, we have a continuation of his 'stimulus' spending year, after year, after year, after year, etc.

Hey Roy, you see the Obamacare projections from the IRS and Politico study?

Single non smoker 27 yr/old rates if Obamacare would be in full effect now up a whopping 190%. i.e. if you pay $2k now under full Obamacare it would be $5,800.

Family of 5 premium $20,000. And thats the low end bronze plan.

And if you just decide to pay the penalty, you have to prove your insurance on your tax return or ........they can take the fine/tax out of your check. Now, everybody that voted for this raise your hand.

There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

Here's the REAL Teapublican plan:

1) Try to get sequester cuts in discretionary spending, with defense spending taken off the table.

2) Try to cut trust fund programs such as Medicare by cutting benefits and raising the age instead of looking for ways to save and preserve these programs.

3) Try to get even more spending cuts that will derail the recovery by continuing to protect the rich -- To protect capital gains/carried interest, dividends, estate taxes, etc. for the rich while the middle class and small business continue to pay high tax rates on earned income.

Constituents need to ask: Who do Teapublicans represent? The large majority of middle class and small business owners, or the few hedge fund managers and CEOs in the richest 1%? You know the answer, even hardcore rightwingers.

Link me to that Patriot, i can't seem to find that anywhere?

David Noah

Wheres Obama's budget?

“The negative consequences of implementation would be bad across the board," Carney said. "That's the point. So Congress needs to do its job."

Obama doesnt need to do his Job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-misses-budget-deadline-for-third-straight-year/2013/02/04/0e925fa4-6f03-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

President Obama misses budget deadline for third straight year

You do realize the President does not do the budget, but congress does right? So blaming the President for a congress failure is stupid to say the least.

DOWNGRADE THE DEBT!!! JACK UP INTEREST RATES!!!!

It's the same thing over & over. Act like we can't make an agreement and then delay it claiming a "crisis" and saving the children. Obama's been pulling this stunt for 4 years now and liberals fall for it hook, line, and sinker time and time again.

He is avoiding to cut spending at all and everyone knows it. Therefore, I call on Moody's, S&P, and any other rating agency to downgrade the debt and FORCE Obama, Reid, and Boehner to do their jobs. They're too stupid to do it on their own and so are half of the American population.

Tax and spend has been all the Democrats have been about forever. Right now they don't want to cut any spending, except military. But even if you eliminated all military spending, we would still only be cutting Obama's annual trillion plus deficits barely in half. So far all this Obama talk about a balanced approach hasn't put an actual plan on the table. Sure there are closed door meetings with continual spin about what was offered, but no actual plan that everyone can read.

Also there is no bigger joke then to have any Senate Democrat talking about getting our fiscal house in order when they haven't even put forth a budget in almost four years. The simple fact is that there hasn't been a balanced federal budget put forth by a Democrat controlled congress in over 40 years, and all they have done since is talk a good game and blame everyone else. Let the sequester cuts happen for the good of the country. Obama wants to kick the can again, as he will gladly cut spending next Tuesday for some tax increases today.

Rick ,

I say again, you do realize it's the House that makes the budget, the Senate puts forth their ideas, but it is the House that actually holds the purse strings. So blaming the President is just a waste of time. The President can not spend more then the House allows, hence the fiscal cliff. If you want to blame someone, then focus on the House. I know they are trying to push their job on to the President, but they can't. Sooner or later the House will have to do their job.

@mguy,

I'm honestly not seeing where I said to cut ALL welfare. I am seeing where I said I have no problem helping those that truly need it. But way to put the usual liberal spin on what I said. There are quite a few ways to save money on welfare, the same way the government is currently saving money on Medicare.... it's to track and prosecute those committing fraud. For this conversation, it doesn't really matter how or where some of those on welfare in my community bought their cars. The problem is they have expensive assets, but are still allowed to receive welfare and be on medicaid. The problem is, there are generations of the same family that live off welfare even though they are work able. As far as jobs, I'm constantly seeing help wanted signs up here, hell, the Shilo Inn here has it posted on their bill board that they need housekeepers and cooks constantly (not sure why the high turn over, but a job is a job).

As far as the streets turning into streets of the dead poor people and children, that's a pretty extreme scenario. I really don't think that people should be allowed to pop out six plus kids if they are on welfare, especially when they are spaced about three to four years apart (the time it takes for some welfare support to expire for a kid on Oregon). There's a lady in the county here with seven kids! You would probably be amazed at the change if the government put it's foot down and said from here forward, you only get help for one illegitimate child (as in children born after this date). I would bet my next paycheck you would see the majority of those on welfare all of the sudden get more 'responsible' about their reproductive habits.

Besides, with your take on the helping the poor, if we kicked all of those off that are work able, that are committing fraud, that would free up a LOT more resources to help those that truly need it. It seems like that is something you would support.

Our welfare system is set to be taken advantage of. It goes back to the old saying, "You give a man a fish, he eats for a day, you teach him to fish, he eats for a life time". All our government is doing is handing out the fish.

Immediate cuts:

1. Cut Air Force 1 and Marine 1 fuel consumption by 85%.
2. Return the campaign Canadian Buses back to Canada.
3. Cut White House special parties and those Wednesday get-togethers by 99%.
4. Cut ALL family vacations by 98%.
5. Cut Progressive spending by 125%.

That could be a start.

Well stated David Noah and Roy Wilson

BTW, what Bammy cuts? The same ones Reid was caught lying about twice?

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/06/Harry-Reid-twice-wrong-on-26-trillion-cuts-on-This-Week-interview-VIDEO/5911360174331/

An insane "Crazy Spend" Democrat Controlled Congress - torched a very robust economy in 2007 and 2008 - leading to the disaster that hurt the country

As congress controls the purse strings - Bush, in a bi-partisan effort - allowed the Dems to go spend crazy (which they continued as they controlled in 2009 and 2010)

Somebody has got to pony up - do the hard things - and get back on the road to responsibility, accountability and prosperity

Obama - is obviously not that person - and we can see inflation starting to impact our wallets

If you're not on stamps - you know what it's costing to buy groceries, gas, new taxes, and the new health care cost we're dealing with - in a bad and shrinking economy - with 7.9 unemployment

Mr. President - where's the relief you promised - we're headed in the wrong direction - and your eye - is not - on the road

Sad, pathetic and yes incompetent extraordinaire

Jesus is the savior of the Republicans? WRONG! their savior is George W. Bush, aka Shrub. According to republicans, he could do no wrong.