E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Barack Obama said if congressional negotiators cannot draft a full budget by March 1, they should at least come up with a short-term combination of spending cuts and revenue increases in order to stave off deep federal spending cuts scheduled for that date.
"If Congress can't act immediately on a bigger package, if they can't get a bigger package done by the time the sequester is scheduled to go into effect," Obama said, "then I believe that they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically damaging effects of the sequester for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution."
Charles Dharapak / AP
President Barack Obama turns towards cameramen and reacts to a sound as he speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013.
The sequester, reached as part of 2011 budget negotiations, was never actually supposed to take effect. Rather, its deep cuts, including almost $500 billion in defense spending over nine years, were put in place as a trigger to get Congress to agree to more comprehensive budget and tax reform.
House Speaker John Boehner released a written statement before Obama’s remarks, blaming the president for the sequester and saying he would not support any additional revenue increases.
“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."
In recent weeks, members of Congress appeared to be playing rhetorical chicken over the cuts, with some suggesting they were resigned to the across-the-board cuts.
“I think it’s more likely to happen,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was quoted as saying by the Washington Post last week.
But the White House has stood firm on the self-imposed cuts, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney underscoring Friday that the sequester was always intended to be replaced.
“The negative consequences of implementation would be bad across the board," Carney said. "That's the point. So Congress needs to do its job."
And the president hinted that revenues would remain central to all budget negotiations, telling CBS in a Sunday interview that “there is no doubt we need additional revenue coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit."
Leave a Comment:
I am so tired of this president playing with words, lying to the public about everything. He got his tax increases, without cuts. Now more taxes for smart cuts. I'll bet anyone taxes up spending up. Any takers?
"A house divided can not stand" It's not about whats best for the people as a whole, it's about being right. Both side are failing the people, and the people are failing each other by fighting and name calling. I must admit it keeps me entertained, far better than any reality t.v. (Sports not included, now that is capitalism at it"s best)
When I was young, I made bad choices, didn't save for bad times... etc. Times got worse... I paid dearly for those bad choices, but I learned. I changed my ways and live fairly well now.... not because I was bailed out, but because I changed my flawed system. There are consequences for every action... good or bad. Everyone needs to stop looking for handouts, entitlements and such and start looking at how they can change and help themselves.... More "revenue" is not the answer. Changing the flawed system (spending out of control) is what needs to change.
we have 12% revenue missing...remove 12% of the country off welfare and guess what welfare spending is gone, the deficit is gone, and you have a surplus because you have extra revenue on top of spending cuts!. The answer is NOT to cut when the economy is in the pits. The solution is hog tying treasonous businessmen turning their backs on the economy which made them great in the first place! God some of you ignorant dolts are beyond stupid.
Okay Patrick.... whatever, but it does seem that us "dolts" and "morons" are living quite well on our own without crying "feed me" to everyone that will listen. I don't and won't post "angry" comments like you because I'm living pretty good! Have a great day, genius.
I make 370,000 a year working for D-Wave. I am a certified genius. And if you're going to insult someone's argument, you have to actually construct a counterargument, or did you never learn debate or rhetorical argument? What a waste education was on you...
Well put, however that is to simple to work.
cisco, occam's razor. The simplest explanation and solution is almost always the correct one. And while forcing companies to hire would actually be socialism, if it's temporary (say 5 years) people can secure their own means, product buying goes up due to a stronger middle class, the demand meets the production, and the economy is recovered and when the law on forced hiring expires, no one actually has to be fired except for true cases of incompetence. Simplicity is the law of the universe. Get used to it.
I'm with you TC.. I'm glad I'm not a liberal. I sure wouldn't want to have all those "issues" that they have...
Life is good even though the great protector of the middle class stole another 2% of our income in January I was not surprised.. After all they are ALL just a bunch of lying politicians with one goal in mind. Buy as many votes as they can by catering to the special interest groups.
Patrick for a genieus you are a moron, as far as the business goes being treasonous, this country was built on capitolism, it is not the fault of business that too many did not control themselves from spending too much money, in many of those cases they had no chance at paying back loans, that they applied for. Let me say that again, they applied for, and promised to pay back.
Okay, little fella! People who make that kind of money usually are pretty discreet about it. The ones who throw around numbers are almost always the ones trying to make a point with overstated amounts. I hope you do make that... seriously, I hope you do. It's a tribute to capitalism. If you really are then you are obviously working very hard to bring in that kind of income. Why in the world would you support a system to allow others to not work as hard as you do. Please try and answer as this were a conversation. I've never attacked you. I just stated what I think. I really hope you and everyone prospers, but with hard work and not hand outs.
the protectors of the middle class used to be business owners, now those same owners look for any excuse to get rid of good people (not just the bad). Your oligarchs on wall street have done far more damage than any politician.
bill, the banks were the ones to decide to lend out subprime mortgages for unprecedentedly low rates. the recession is the fault of moronic greedy business owners and their businesses such as goldman sachs, Lehman bros., and AIG. Having the people be told they'd be fine was still the fault of businesses, not the people. This used to be a country where you could trust people.
Mr. T, the system does not allow people to work less hard (actually it does but that's because quantum computing is something only a few thousand people on this planet can do right now). It puts out a safety net for those who fall on hard times because they were fired (usually bad business planning and not incompetence) or those who came unto serious medical illness which insurance didn't cover, such as cancer. Unfortunately too much greed in the system has caused massive firings, and now businesses flock overseas for cheap labor while destroying the very consumer market which holds up the other great economies (China, Japan, India, and the E.U.). When we as a nation fall, the entire world economy will be destroyed in one fell swoop, and it will not have been the fault of politicians).
Patrick, we are more alike than you think. I believe a lot of things that you say. You seem rather informed and that's good. The banks did screw up a lot by giving money to everyone so they could make the higher interest rates and make more money. In good times, a small scale default would not outweigh the profits. That bit them in the butt because of large scale default and a down turn on the economy. I didn't agree with the billions spent on bailing out poor business decisions. We do differ on things though. I really wanted to read your response from my last comment though. As far as learning debate though, you should no that "debate" is back and forth discussion and actually listening to what the other says and then countering it. You have well thought out ideas.... don't ruin your credibility with name calling and getting upset. You have a better chance of getting people to consider your ideas with intelligent discussion than blasting someone you don't agree with. I admit I don't have all the answers and I like to hear both sides. My opinion CAN be swayed with good facts and arguments, but all credibility is lost when it comes to bashing people you don't even know. If you want to educate people, then teach them. You'll lose you audience if you don't.
I think you should send me some of your money and stop being so greedy.
tracy, get a better job. Oh wait, there are none...oh well continue blaming government instead of those actually causing the social mobility problem.
Mr.TC, what question did I not answer? And I apologize. I'm used to dealing with completely ignorant clods, like tracy. you're a rare animal. As such, I'll give you that respect.
Patrick, you do make a good point. People do fall on hard times and I am not unsympathetic to those. I guess I shouldn't have made such a black and white statement. What I do question, however, is the scale of the handouts. You are absolutely correct in bad business decisions and taking advantage of loop holes. You do have to admit, a lot of what gets people like me upset is the taking advantage of the entitlement loop holes as well. You know there are many who would just as soon pick up a handout and then watch Jerry Springer on TV the rest of the day. Fixing things is what needs to happen. The problem is that it has to be a balanced fix. There are very good business people. You couldn't make what you stated if the leaders of your industry kept it all for themselves. There are bad as well... as you stated. Just see that there is the same spectrum at the bottom end to. There are those who need and those who take advantage. That has to be repaired as well.
the leaders of my industry are 2 people who got a crazy idea which they needed physicists and computer scientists to try and create. It's not even an industry per se yet, just a well funded research idea invested in by people like Steve Jobs, Bill gates, George Soros, Intel, and others.
And while I could happily agree to scaling back the amount of welfare paid out per person, I think foodstamp reform needs to come first, in that you cannot use foodstamps for anything other than whole foods. there also needs to be a new contract with big business elitists like the Koch brothers. Do what's best for yourselves by doing what's best for the consumer market. Give it more money to spend by hiring and watch the demand rise up to meet the new costs of extra production.
I'll suppose that everybody realizes that we, the People of this US, are already PAYING for the POSSIBLE "sequestration" which MAY, or may NOT, occur come 01 March? Does anyone out there know anything about how the federal government - read "the Executive Branch" thereof, actually works? And those folks can glibly say that it may be some sort of Good Idea that sequestration happen?
Executive Branch operation 001: The E-B is the branch of government which spends your money - pays federal employees to do work, pays private-sector contractors and individuals to provide goods and services to gov't and to others as a temporary agent of gov't. This is the branch which consists of all those Departments and Agencies - everything from the USDA-FDA to Defense, the EPA to National Parks, DEA to Customs and Immigration. Each Dept and Agency runs and consists of numerous Programs - Flood-control projects, highways, drug-and-food testing, prisons, social support programs (but NOT Social Security - not a gov't program under the E-B).
EACH program in each Agency in each Dept has an annual budget. That budget is a PLAN for how that unit will spend its money for the FISCAL YEAR. The PLAN allocates funds over time to employees, facilities costs, utilities, contracts, etc. "Every dollar" is planned - for in advance. I, as one of these little ants, has a unit budget of 1.38 million for the year. I must provide a detailed plan at the beginning of each year for how I will spend those dollars. I need to make sure that I end up with close to zero dollars left.
Sequestration will impose an unpredicted, and thus NOT PLANNED-FOR, short-fall in my funding for the year. Now, I'm sure that everyone can see that I cannot just stop spending money and haphazardly and capriciously just cut something off - makes zero sense. So... I need to PLAN for this possible cut - what exactly will I cut, and when? As it's a cut, I'll need to decide what project or action or contract loses, and plan for how that may impact the overall job I am hired to do. Multiply this "planning effort" by magnitudes - that's what our federal government is DOING RIGHT NOW. Planning for how we will spend less - if this happens. PLANNING (remember, I've ALREADY planned this year) a new "this year" part way thru the year takes us off our JOBS to plan for maybe doing less.
So, friends, "sequestration" - a "threat to Congress to get off your arses and do something" is already costing you a LOT of money in terms of lost work-time and stopped efforts while we PLAN. Great Job, Obama and Congress! I'll hope that YOU the People will not be angry with ME for doing less this year than you paid me to do - as I cannot create new time nor money to make up for that used for this little "exercise" in planning on account of political one-upmanship.
Making this a blind "across-the-board" cut just makes each of us little ants rush around to figure out how we will cut our own little corner. Rather than making big decisions at the Congressional level about which big things may be best reduced or eliminated - the job of your elected Congress and President - we are trying to have the lowest levels of the organization make most of the plans. Not very efficient and likely very ineffective. But "balanced", if by that we mean that every level, program and project is equally screwed. Heck of a way to run an Army or a government!
moron, the executive branch doesn't spend a dime which isn't pre-appropriated by congress. Civics 101 pal. Take it.
Hey genius, is your middle name Summers Eve????? YEs you PAtrick, you are the self professed genius
No my middle name is not summers eve.
No more tax hikes without a plan for spending reductions first.
Good Plan:
Kick the can farther down the road and never deal with the CRISIS looming. We need to take ALL of Congress and kick their cans into the Potomac and start over, as I doubt it could be any worse.
We do NOT need more revenue to WASTE on socialism, but we do need to stop the excessive spending. Oh, by the way, those of us receiving our Social Security, retirement, which is our money, that Congress has STOLEN is not an entitlement.
How close are we to seeing "riots" in the streets like there are across Europe because of the irresponsible people who are "running" our government. That is what frightens me the most but what can I do? Nothing until the rioters try to come into my house and then!!!!!!
Yes S.S. is an entitlement, something you are entitled to after paying into the system. What's wrong with this picture is calling welfare an entitlement. And guess what? Remove the 12% real unemployed off of welfare by forcing businesses to hire, the welfare and foodstamp spending evaporates, and you get ~12-14% more tax revenue depending. Dip@!$%# it is most certainly a missing revenue issue!
republicans want to gut the safety net, take food from hungry children etc etc, really? just because you fell for the 2008/2012 con doesn't make it true. a politician says it's raining better look outside and check. just do yourself a favor look up the national debt jan 2009-$10.6 trillion then check it today-$16.5 trillion then ask yourself how this is the republicans fault. from 2007-2011 the democrats contolled the house and the senate. that's right for 4 straight years, yet all you hear is yada yada the republicans the republicans-bs. it's time to hold the spendaholics of both parties accountable. keep falling for the rope a dope (the voter is the target of this con and they assume is a dope) and you will be looking at 8% unemployment until the cows come home. update we had to sell the cows to help pay the interest on the debt.
democrats only had a fillibuster proof majority for 54 days though out of those years. You tell me how much legislation can be passed in 54 days. Oh, that's right, just the ACA and 1 minor cut to S.S.. Republicans have otherwise held a stranglehold on what actually gets to the president's desk.
if you'all would hold the inept people you vote for accountable just once 1/2 of the country would faint.
you frequently don't need 60 votes to spend money that's why we are in the mess we are in.
I vote independent. I USED to vote republican before they went off the deep end with bush and the teas. I hold my politicians accountable at the polls. I'll be happily reelecting chris cristie, and if gary johnson runs again in 2016, I'll vote for him. But the two-party system has failed on both sides, and to not see that is proof of your own partisanship and ignorance.
This is going to be a repeat of the last four years with this President in the POT House, er I mean the White House. Same story, NO BALANCED BUDGET NO PROBLEM!
With some exceptions, most commentators are ignorant about the budget process. The sequestration was a bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. A President who is a Democrat signed it into law.
You can argue the it is a bad law, but you can not argue that it was a law created by both parties. A law created by the two branches of government.
The House has passed several budgets. It is the democrat controlled Senate that has NOT passed a budget in going on 4 years.
Ahmadinejad Visits Egypt 2 Days After U.S. Delivers Fresh Batch of F-16 Fighter Jets
Feb. 5, 2013 1:15pmErica Ritz60
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with his Egyptian counterpart Tuesday in the first visit by an Iranian leader to Cairo in more than three decades, marking a historic departure from years of frigid ties between the regional heavyweights.
Ahmadinejad's three-day visit, which is centered around an Islamic summit, is the latest sign of improved relations between the countries since the 2011 uprising ousted Egypt's longtime leader President Hosni Mubarak and brought an Islamist government to power in Cairo.
Such a visit would have been unthinkable under Mubarak, who was a close ally of the U.S. and shared Washington's deep suspicions of Tehran.
Though Egypt's shifting alliances are unavoidably apparent, the United States is continuing to arm the country. On Sunday U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson held a ceremony in Cairo to mark the arrival of four F-16 fighter jets from the United States. Twenty in total are due to be delivered throughout 2013.
"Today's ceremony demonstrates the firm belief of the United States that a strong Egypt is in the interest of the U.S., the region, and the world," she declared.
According to the United States Embassy website, the U.S. has delivered 224 F-16 aircraft to Egypt.
Egypt's Islamist President Mohammed Morsi gave Ahmadinejad a red-carpet welcome on the tarmac at Cairo airport, shaking his hand and exchanging a kiss on each cheek as a military honor guard stood at attention.
The two leaders then sat down for a 20-minute talk that focused on the civil war in Syria, security officials said on condition of anonymity. President Bashar al-Assad is a close regional ally of Iran and, more importantly, a doorway into the region. But Cairo is home to the offices of the main Syrian opposition council, which has a strong presence of members of the Brotherhood's Syrian chapter.
Though the Syrians will chart their own future, the opinions and actions of Morsi and Ahmadinejad will certainly hold sway. If the two agree on what they believe should happen in Syria's post-war future, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran could expand their influence in yet another "Arab Spring" country.
During his visit to Egypt, Ahmadinejad is scheduled to meet with Grand Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of Al-Azhar, the Sunni Muslim world's premier Islamic institution. He is also scheduled to attend the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Cairo, which starts Wednesday.
Security officials said Ahmadinejad also will tour the Pyramids in Giza.
Egyptian Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb (R) holds hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a meeting at Al-Azhar headquarters in Cairo on February 5, 2013. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Once close, Egypt and Iran severed their relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution when Cairo offered exile to Iran's deposed shah. Relations further deteriorated after Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
Relations are clearly warming, but Morsi faces pressure from Gulf states and some of his own citizens not to cozy up to Tehran.
Egypt's hardline Al-Nour Party wants Morsi to make it clear that "Egypt is committed to the protection of all Sunni nations," and that Iran's support of Assad has not gone unnoticed. Liberal Egyptian politician Mohamed Anwar Esmat Sadat, nephew of the late President Anwar Sadat, is also concerned. After Anwar Sadat was assassinated over his pro-Western policies, Iran named a street in honor of his assassin.
But Egypt's leader has spearheaded an "Islamic quartet" of nations to try and resolve the Syrian crisis and Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all included.
​The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Back in his first term elections the senator in the crowd had it right - "You Lie". This is Obamas way of gain time, then pretend to be pertubed, then tell us, thats not in his plans it's just the republicans fault.
Mitch, hold him to the fire, burn him with his own makings.
mcconnell himself should burn. He fillibustered his own bills just to be obstinant! I mean how desperate and partisan can you get?
Fisty, you should see a doctor about your problem.
Mr. President it is time to park GOLF CART ONE and get to work.
bush spent more than 2x the days obama has on vacations and 3x the money so far. Get a clue obama actually works as president.
President Bush spent his vacations at his home not Martha's Vineyard. You are the one without a clue.
He had the U.S. government build a 5 million dollar landing strip on his ranch...get a clue. And again, less time and less money. And if I recall bush spent 2 weeks in hawaii away from dealing with katrina.
So you are saying the Obama went to Hawaii to get away from Sandy because of President Bush?
obama stayed during sandy, or did you miss the direct live video of him and chris cristie dealing with the disaster in atlantic city? Obama is 8x more responsible than bush junior is capable of being.
The best days of the year are Federal Holidays. The traffic is light and heck no one misses the fed employees. Furlough all of them once a week is fine by me. Bring on the sequester!
Sequestration? Fiscal cliff? We have a congress who is scared to make a move because of the President, because of looking inept, because of losing any backing from the American people (their vote), and losing their jobs. If John Q. Public did his job as badly as the congress does its job "John" would have been fired a long time ago. This is only about the policital maneuvering to set them up for the next election, while we pay the price for their lack of due diligence in their job, they are setting the wheels of election and re-election into motion. The President is not supposed to come up with any budgets, he can suggest, propose, but not create a budget. Unfortunately he pushes the congress to do things that he wants by misusing his executive powers and he has been doing just that since he got into office. He (and the Democrat controlled congress) bum rushed the health care bill into law before the next election, he put this sequestration process in play supposedly trying to force the congress to come up with something fast. What he is really doing is waiting until the last minute and then pushes his weight around by applying the "Executive Powers" clause in his contract and then pushes his personal agendas. This begs the question, is this part of the overall strategy? Is this the way politicians will behave from now on, to get what they want, instead of what is needed to fix the problems? Is the whole congress in on the deal, or is it just the Libral Democrats? There has been more finger pointing in this administration then any other I have seen and I have seen politicians work their corrupt ways for many years. First they pointed their fingers at Bush and company, then it was Hillary and company, then it was McCain and company, then Wall Street, then the greedy banks, then it was the one percenters, then it was the Republicans in the House of Representatives, then the Tea Partyers, then the Conservatives as a whole, and then....Who will be next? From the Inaugural speech it sounds like the next target will be the White, Hetero-sexual, Christian man. I say that because in his speech he specifically calls out the struggles of the movements in "Seneca Falls", "Selma", and "Stonewall". Seneca falls is associated with the"Sufferage" movement which was women's rights. Then Selma was a heinous incident known as "Bloody Sunday" which is associated with the "Civil rights" movement, and last but not least "Stonewall" which is associated with the "Gay Rights" movement. I am not chauvenistic, I am not racist, I am not a homophobe, and I am totally for equal rights. But one has to ask, when we reach that point who is to say that we have? Is it left up to who ever is taking what they think they deserve? Who's to say stop there because anymore than that would be unfair? And finally who is it, that says stop? Is it the one who has been robbed blind and has no more to give or is it the crook who has robbed him which says when enough is enough? HOW MUCH IS EQUAL? HOW MUCH IS FAIR? I believe if we were to look at it from a different perspective, (maybe someone elses) then we can get a picture of where to draw the line. Just a thought.
hate on mccain gets 3800+ posts 2/3 negative. menendez doesn't report gifts to the senate and the president gives a speech about the deficit and the economy and the "if it feels good do it party" and their supporters are where?
update-mccain's joke racist? update msn that's right msn poll 68% of reponders 253,000 + said no. does that make the haters on the blog irrelavant?
No, it's just the question was poorly phrased. racist is not the right word. Detrimental to U.S.-Iranian relations and possibly endangering to both the citizenry and the troops? Hell yes.
Dems are funny. How many times will they go to the well on "revenues"?
Feisty Redhead 1st again been thing about all the times this
person posts 1st and i think it is a White House person
wouldn't put it past those white house people
seems very strange
Fiesty IS on the White House payroll. She is Jen Psaki - former Deputy Asst. to the POTUS and White House Communications Director - she was picked to head Obama's re-election team.
Psaki's salary was increased from $113,000 to $150,000 (2009-2010) - a whopping 30% increase in her salary.
This was posted by the Democratic Unground as a Right-Wing Teabag effort to explain the budget more clearly. They somehow think this is detrimental to conservative thinking but I think it makes all the sense in the world, It gets the message out.
Federal budget:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385
Anyone with the least bit of common sense can see there is a serious problem with spending. This is why responsible people (There are a few) in Washington will not vote for the President's proposed budget.
everyone agrees on cuts, it's just no one agrees majorily where those cuts should come from.
Everything Barry does is short-term. Guy is the master of kicking the can down the road - and convincing the American public that it is someone elses fault (typically Bush).
Amazing that the U.S. has so many uninformed voters as to elect this guy not just once but twice ...
a great long term fix would be obama resigning........he is the root of all this division and bullshiat so prevalent in our nation these days......
you must be joking obama did nothing but reach across the aisle for the first two years and had his face spat in. This is just an ugly game the 2-party system has given rise to. Obama is not the divider, it's partisan voters which have done that, yourself included.
Pat you are so wrong.
that's your opinion and not the facts easily visible in the way he legislated during his first two years.
I see the confusion. Those who think Obama submitted a budget have mistaken his request for a blank check and a raised debt ceiling as a budget proposal. Not knowing a budget specifies dollar amounts and how those dollars will be spent. Simple mistake. A real budget is based on dollars available and has a limit that in theory at least should not be more than what actually exists. Complicated right?
I believe he did submit a budget some time during his first 4 years but it got no votes. NONE
yes, right when democrats thought he would surely lose the election, literally a month before then. Obama hasn't proposed another budget since, and frankly according to the constitution, regardless of any unconstitutional laws added since then, it's not his job to propose one! It's the house's only!
cut federal spending.....does anyone believe that waste in DC has been eliminated???........
No, but neither side entirely agrees even within its own party on where cuts to departments should come from. The Teas say the EPA and the VA because they are directly socilialistic (ya because the veterans' assosciation achieves no good, simply because it's socialism) Some republicans say PP (a drop in the bucket) some say welfare (if the jobs were available and people didn't need to use it, you wouldn't need to cut it...it would disappear on its own, and you'd get additional revenues). Democrats say DOD, which is automatically poison to the GOP despite the fact that Democrats mainly call for nuclear arms limitation (we can destroy both russia and china entirely 5 times over with our current arsenal, how about just twice over?)
Either across the board cuts or a tit for tat strategy is the only way a cuts compromise is going to happen.
"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."
someone said that above!!!
Or, 3) Support needy people as needed