E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe automatic spending cuts, just days away, would cut $85 billion a year, having an impact on federal food inspectors, TSA officers, Department of Defense and civilian workers. NBC's John Yang reports.
President Barack Obama used his bully pulpit Tuesday to warn of calamitous consequences for the U.S. economy should the automatic spending cuts known as the “sequester” go into effect next Friday.
The president warned that the automatic cuts, totaling about $85 billion over the course of this year, would prompt job losses, weakened national security and canceled government services – among other consequences.
“So these cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” Obama said in a statement at the White House. “This is not an abstraction; people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”
The speech featured no new, concrete proposal from the president detailing how he would prefer for Congress to replace the sequester.
NBC's Chuck Todd says it may feel as though the sky is falling (once more) but it's likely the spending cuts will go through March 1, the government will come up with a compromise deal, and they'll punt something else down the road.
Democrats in Congress released a plan last week that called for $55 billion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes and deductions, and additional cuts by $27.5 billion to each the defense and discretionary spending budgets over the course of the next decade.
Obama’s speech was otherwise spent reiterating points he’s made for the better part of the last two months. He said that any sequester replacement should be “balanced” – shorthand for a combination of new tax revenue and spending cuts – and Obama urged lawmakers to approve a shorter-term replacement for the automatic cuts if they couldn’t reach consensus on a broader package by the end-of-February deadline.
Rather, the president, who was flanked by first-responders whose jobs Obama said would be threatened by the sequester, was making use of political optics and the presidential bully pulpit to pressure Congress to act.
Still, the urgency appeared to have little effect on Republicans, who dismissed the president’s remarks as unserious about reaching a solution.
"Once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.
President Barack Obama voices harsh words toward Republican lawmakers Tuesday while speaking about looming budget cuts.
“Today's event at the White House proves once again that more than three months after the November election, President Obama still prefers campaign events to common sense, bipartisan action,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
Indeed, many Republicans have treated the sequester as a fait accompli; Congress is out of town this week, and lawmakers would only have a handful of days next week to act upon the sequester. Some Republicans have also argued that even if the sequester is replaced, its $85 billion in cuts should set a baseline for offsetting cuts in other areas of the budget.
“I have to say, though, that so far, at least, the ideas that the Republicans have proposed asks nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations,” Obama said of the GOP proposal. “So the burden is all on first-responders or seniors or middle-class families. They doubled down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined.”
The president added, as if to drive home the point: “Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, that's certainly not the position I've taken.”
This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:04 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Yes, the sequester would actually undo a lot of the good of the stimulus and set the economy back. The blame for that will not fall on the President. What President Obama did was exactly what he was supposed to do. He offered a plan to Republicans and Democrats in Congress, with the thought that they could modify it and tailor it. That is, after all, what Congressmen are supposed to do.
Instead Republicans adopted the sequestration wholesale with the idea that they would harm the President. Republicans have no other thought than to hurt the President, and if the nation is damned, so what? They are just now realizing they hurt themselves, not President Obama.
Negotiate O ye of little brains. The President has you by the short hairs.
And he's giving them a good swift *tug*!
I think these morons were so convinced Willard was going to win, they never bothered to put a plan *B* into place!
President Obama plays 3-D chess while the idiots on the right play "hangman"! lol
Yank em hard Mr. President!
I love the smell of Repbulicant tears in the morning! ;o)
"David Axelrod joins NBC, MSNBC"
What a meaningless headline....Axelrod has been de facto head of daily talking points at the Obama propaganda networks since 2009...
"Chuck Todd, meet David Axelrod"... same situation as in the Godfather II, when Fredo supposedly meets Johnny Ola...
This article is incorrect. Obama is in love with Ben Bernanke.
Well David, you are correct. He even handed them the buckets of paint and the brushes, and the GOP painted themselves into a corner without realizing it.
Yes, the low informed base people will be here spouting their drivel, like normal. But even they are starting to realize how they have been lied to, by their own party. And yes, both parties do lie, but the GOP went way overboard with theirs, and look at the results.
That so called one term 'uppity' POTUS won his 2nd term, and the simple reason for that is the LIES the GOP tried to pass off as being FACTS. And the GOP, and their low informed base has a history of ignoring FACTS. Telling all those lies didn't make the lies true. And the election did prove that, right righties?
If the GOP wants to stamp their feet, wail, gnash their teeth, and blame the POTUS, go for it. And then see the results in the next election. Like David said, Obama has the GOP by the short hairs and gonads, and guess who will be hurt the most if Obama gives them a yank? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
GOP, the beginning of the end for our beloved Fredo.
Ibid
The GOP is lying to their members of course, buy learned only from the best, the Frauducrats.
Republicans, after they allow the "Sequester" to take effect, will then decide to restore some of the cuts but they will be voting to increase spending.
It appears to me that they would be better off resolving the "Sequester" now (voting for cuts) rather than putting themselves on record voting to increase spending.
The average American doesn't feel the burden of the debt and deficit, because it isn't at a dangerous level, given the stage of our economic recovery. In fact, the national debt is about the same percentage of GDP as it was in the early 1950s.
If the Republicans want to destroy our still-fragile economic recovery, all they need to do is to allow the sequester to take place, which would throw millions of both public- AND private-sector workers into unemployment, resulting in negative economic growth.
Feisty,
Apparently you have not paid attention. Th POTUS has yet to approve a budget for every year he has been in office. Unconstitutional is the word here if you are to ignorant to understand it. I personally don't care who is the elected party, but comments like yours just show the asinine politics of this country. Why are members of congress at home when they have work to do? Gun control and immigration should be on the back burner until sequestration is taken care of. I blame everyone from the POTUS on down. Your comments just show just how biased and ignorant our society has become.
Feisty, David.....so right and well said.
When the sequester was initially proposed, the boys in the GOP backroom, thought they had themselves a free pass to get out of raising the debt limit, they thought as you said Feisty, the President would not be reelected and sequestration would be in their rear view mirror. Now their worst nightmare is in front of them and they want to blame it all on President Obama and they have no where to go.
Elections have consequences, isn't that right Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, Cantor et al? And the ball is truly in their court and it has no air in it.
Steve,
The POTUS has meet hid obligation and presented a budget to Congress every year.
Congress has failed their duty to pass a Budget Resolution.
Not taking any sides I think if the Sequester goes through it might be the end of the Republican party. They took a gamble and did not work with the president on anything. Now they are saying he is not talking to us. Would you talk to someone who told you their number one job was to fire you. They are really in a bad position and risk the american people voting them out because of a lack of trust. I think this country needs two parties and its a shame that they sit on the side line and attempt to stop everything the president do. 2014 may their end. I forsee them losing seats and becoming the party of fear. American people need to hear some good news. Name 1 thing that the GOP has done for the American people in the last 12 years. GOP get off the side line your country needs you.
Of course the sky is falling. Not even a drop in the bucket. No one has to do anything and we get cuts, symbolic ones only, but still cuts which is amazing. Everyone will still be here Friday searching for a new panic button if they wish.
Weren't these spending cuts the result of the inaction of a Bipartisan committee?
Less finger pointing more action and a grand bargain........
Mr. Obama's day, that will require him to LEAD, is fast approaching. He has lied, deceived and is an expert in placing the blame on others, mainly the GOP.
His only hope at the present is to maintain support of the liberal media while they convince most Americans that is failed policies are working, they just need more time.
In the 5th year now, we are fools to continue thinking that pouring more money into the same programs will produce different results.
Yep, Mr. Obama......the "sequestration" cuts will be devastating.....thanks to your idea during the FAILED Budget Deficit Reduction Committee headed by Peppermint Patty.
Dennis.
What Steve said was in regards to Obama actually signing a legitimate budget. That has not been done, which is because Congress (Both the Senate and House of Representatives) haven't sent him an actual budget, only Continuing Resolutions.
And it's kind of difficult for the House and the Senate to reconcile their budgets to be sent to the President when the Democrat run Senate has yet to actually offer an actual budget for reconciliation, thus the ongoing Continuing Resolutions that have kept our spending at elevated rates from prior to Obama's term.
That's a good lapdog vomiting the party line. Obama was the one who put the sequester in the bill. If he'd get off his dumb a$$ and do some work instead of being a campaigner maybe we'd get something done. The ONLY reason he is not willing to work with the republicans is to destroy the party -- so now tell me who doesn't care about the country???
Republicans kicked the can down the road for Sequester, good timing and just in time to harm our Economy "Again" !!!
The democrats own this looming disaster. But in my opinion it is not near as bad as they would like the low information voters to think. On one of the Sunday shows they had a lady that was very well spoken about the upcomong problem. She was a liberal and talked about the fact that this disaster would mean about $3,000.00 to every American over the next decade. THE NEXT DECADE???? $3,000.00 over a decade? If that is all it takes then why not let it happen? That's less than 70 friggen cents a day.
Why do democrats always say that any cut will be a disaster? 2% cut, DISASTER!!!!
seaskip - Preident Obama suggested the sequester, the democrats chaired the Super Committee, so you are full of BS saying the republicans kicked the can down the road.
steve-1602797
Feisty,
Apparently you have not paid attention. Th POTUS has yet to approve a budget for every year he has been in office. Unconstitutional is the word here if you are to ignorant to understand it. I personally don't care who is the elected party, but comments like yours just show the asinine politics of this country.
Unconstitutional is the GOP committing sedition and treason.
You are unbelivable.
I see the usual Dem losers have made their way to the computer this morning.
Steve - Clearly it is you who is misled by the nonsense being reported in right wing circles regarding the budget. Obama has proposed a budget every year he has been in office. Yet, the right wing republicans block it every time without providing one that can be passed themselves. Note - It is the job of congress to produce a budget, not the President. The fact that you seem to have that entirely backwards should embarrass you, since you just accused Feisty of being ignorant on the matter. You, my friend, have clearly fallen victim to the propaganda of the hateful right wing, whose primary objective it is to hurt the President, damn the consequences. Shame on you for posting such hate and misdirection. This is amongst the most prominent reasons that nothing can be accomplished in Washington today. The GOP base is more concerned with fighting Obama than helping Americans. Even the most powerful republicans in the nation have repeatedly stated their number one priority is to defeat Obama. Shame.
I heard reported on NPR that even in the deepest red states (OK, ID and AL were cited specifically), 85% of people think federal background checks should be required for ALL gun purchases. Yet, when told that the President supports that proposal, that percentage of support is reduced by 50% (same question, same people). They literally vote against their own beliefs just to spite Obama.
Shame.
If that example doesn't make my point perfectly clear, you are living in massive denial. This has been going on for years and people (outside of Right wing whackos) are sick of it.
The Dougler,
The job of passing a budget resolution is not the president's. That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn't sign it, does not approve it . The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes. That's the difference between this and other claims we've rated which blamed Congress for inaction on the budget.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
So Obama wanted a sequester and asked for it and now he wants to avoid it.
Folks, this country is on a path to ruin. Look no further then ROME...similar problems, similar spending issues, similar over taxing issues to cover the over spending, devaluation of currency and so on.
The economy was never FINE to begin with. Continuing to borrow money to prop something up is called stimulus. What happens when stimulus wears off? You can't continue the same cycle, which is all they are doing.
Dennis,
Why do I have to have this conversation with you every time this topic comes up.
I said nothing about the President "passing" a budget, and neither did Steve.
The President, does however "approve" budgets and signs them into law. Your argument has nothing to do with what I said.
Yes Dennis and the Dems have had the house and senate for how many of Obama's years in office? Was a budget passed somewhere that I missed?
Devastate the economy? Sorry, Obama has done well enough doing that himself.
It is a CRIMINAL INSANITY to spend almost a trillion dollars per year on 'defense'. Want to keep the military folks employed? Send them to patrol our own borders instead of looking for 'bad' guys thousands of miles away from our country. Plenty of really bad guys cross our borders illegally EVERY DAY!
Beverly, how blind you are? Who in thier right mind buts forth a bill that will cause the middle class to pay more for health care? What kind of government cares more about the poor than the middle class. I am tired ofthe taxes I pay going into the pockets of people who have not even tried to become employed. Sorry, but if I have to I would clean toilets at McDonalds and make breakfast at Burger King. Our society is nothing but what can the government do for me not what you can do to help your country. I started this by saying I don't care who is in charge but with the ignaorance of the liberal side, i am beginning to wonder.
Upset,
He forwarded budgets to the democratic controlled congress for 2 years and still did not pass one. I am not talking about gun laws right now. Stay on track, you seem to be obsssed with one issu. I am talking sequestration.
ALL HAIL! OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT CONVINCING THE PUBLIC THAT THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE THEM IS GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
Forgive me, but if government spending is that much of GDP, we have some serious problems.
Dougler,
Sorry but Presidents do not approve or sign budgets.
Show me anywhere that a President is REQUIRED to sing a budget … he is not and a budget is NOT law.
Another great example of Obama blaming someone else for his own failures! Not only is he the worst President in history, he is the most dangerous!
Republicans are like a Cyber 9/11 attack on our Country and a looming threat to our Economy and infrastructure, We all have to come together and get these losers out of our Government before its to late !!!
That's not what I said Dennis.
Budgets do get signed in to "law" by the President, or he can Veto the budget appropriations, or any part of it, or he can do nothing, and it will become "law".
However, no budget has been sent to the President to do anything with because the Senate won't offer up their own budget for reconciliation with the House of Representatives budget, again, thus the Continuing Resolutions.
Dougler,
Wrong again ... In the United States Congress, a budget resolution is part of the United States budget process. It is in the form of a concurrent resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate but is not presented to the President and does not have the force of law. It sets out the congressional budget.
Post a citation that says a Congressional Budget is Law and the President must sign or veto ... you cannot !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_resolution
http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/
Wasn't it Limbaugh who said something like, 'if we have to destroy the economy to destroy Obama, let it happen?"
The Republicans have a wrong-headed but consistent message: reduce taxes and government and the economy will magically blossom. The Reagan and Bush years demonstrate this ideology is total bull@!$%#!!!
Nice of Obama to start caring about that on 2/19.....After talking about guns and immigration and wasting valuable time for them to work out the cuts and spending.
Hey, didn't the liberal Democrats propose a plan of another round of tax increases after they just got a bunch of tax increases?
Hey, here's a economic plan...Why don't we just raise taxes again.....and again....and again. We can spend spend spend forever.
Personally I think he is over stating it, verging on Fear Mongering that the left likes to claim the right does.
fact. 85 billion dollars = 1 week of spending by this Gvmnt... 3 trillion plus dollar budget, and you are trying to tell me that they cannot cut 85 billion...
It would be like if you make 100,000 a year, you trying to cut a quarter TWENTY FIVE CENTS out of your budget.
I highly doubt that these are even real cuts.. IF they are like all the other " cuts " our Gvmnt has done, all it does is cut the growth rate.. Nothing has been really cut.
steve-1602797
Beverly, how blind you are? Who in thier right mind buts forth a bill that will cause the middle class to pay more for health care? What kind of government cares more about the poor than the middle class. I am tired ofthe taxes I pay going into the pockets of people who have not even tried to become employed. Sorry, but if I have to I would clean toilets at McDonalds and make breakfast at Burger King.
Then stevie-o
You'd better contact your recalcitrant GOP lawmakers who are against the minimum wage and tell them to raise it to $10.00 per hour.
When people have a job and money they put it back into the economy by spending it; unlike the greedy capitalists in the GOP who send their money and J-O-B-S overseas. Needless to say, when people put money in the economy it grows . That's something we didn't get under Bush.
Steve - You are still clearly missing the point, even after it has been explained to you by repeated posters. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CREATE THE BUDGET OR PASS THE BUDGET! IT IS THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WHO HAVE FAILED AT THIS TASK REPEATEDLY FOR YEARS ON END. They have obviously given a higher priority to obstinate obstruction than they have to deficit reduction. If you continue to fail in your very limited effort to understand that, I have no interest in further disussion with you. Good luck.
Dennis, An annual budget is REQUIRED by law ! Look it up and quit dancing around in circles, weirdly trying to justify Obama's total lack of financial competence !! Obama's past budget "offerings" have never received the first vote of support from his own party !!! Obama's lap dog in the Senate, Harry Reid, sits on Republican passed offerings.
Beverly, If the minimum wage is raised to $10.00 an hour, the GAP between foreign wages and contrived U.S. wages will be even WIDER than it is already !! Raising the minimum wage will send EVEN MORE jobs overseas !!!
James (1.28) You are exactly right! How quickly to obama and his low information base (see libbie posts here) forget that during the campaign barry used sequestation as a campaign tool, now he blames the Republicans because it's going to happen! It is Barry who is the tool, lol! This would be funny if it weren't so tragic!
Yes...falling unemployment, record business profits, reduction of the deficit and a mostly increasing GDP is "devastating the economy."
Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
I particularly like that last one; it's the motto of the Republican party these days.
Jim,
Yes annual budgets are required by law but they are neither signed by the President nor are they law.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan. Numbers with no verbiage to support areas of spending … no one would vote for such a budget.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/16/99-0-senate-votes-down-obamas-budget-unanimously-again/
House vote on the Ryan Budget: 235 – 193
No Dems voted for Ryan’s budget and 4 Republicans voted “No” and you wonder why it failed to pass in the Senate 57 to 40 with 5 Republicans voting against it.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/277
Why did Republicans vote against the House passed budget?
By "campaign tool" you mean that he absolutely opposed it then, just like he is doing now?
Oh dear, another Republican the GOP/TP are cannibalizing because he believes in <<gasp, gasp>> Keynesian economic theory. Imagine that!! Time to chew him up and s#hit er, em, spit him out of the feeding frenzy that is the GOP/TP machine.
http://business.time.com/2008/01/17/ben_bernanke_gets_all_keynesia/
http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/09/02/bernanke-channeled-keynes-to-deflect-paul/
Bernanke begs Congress to accept Keynesian Economics http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002839255
I heard reported on NPR that even in the deepest red states (OK, ID and AL were cited specifically), 85% of people think federal background checks should be required for ALL gun purchases. Yet, when told that the President supports that proposal, that percentage of support is reduced by 50% (same question, same people). They literally vote against their own beliefs just to spite Obama.
Lets see, 50% of the people. Does that tell you anything about what america thinks of Obama?
Dennis you are right, and you are wrong..
A Budget Resolution, as you said above, is PART of the process of creating a budget, but it is in fact not a budget... it holds no weight. So you are once again wrong here.
Since you like Wiki so much here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
even wiki states that we have not passed everything for a budget. Sorry to the leftists here, but the right is correct here. Our Gvmnt has not passed a budget in years.
From the article above:
The Mad Hatter Tea Party will do anything to ruin our economy and blame the President. They could give a damn if this nation falls back into recession leaving women and children to starve to death.
The American public will hold the John Boehner Tea Party Congress solely responsible for this heinous and traitorous act.
Salud
I would find all this banter amusing if it wasn't so sad. Each side blaming the other for the ills of the government. Republicans have made it their mantra to bring down President Obama, while the President is focused on every issue other the the economy until it becomes a dire need and his solution? Bring his argument to the people, rather than lead and bring Congress back to make this work.
And everyone here blames the other party, rather than offering solutions. And people wonder why government is failing the people. Everyone has chosen sides and doesn't want to listen/work with the other.
Your obviously a political hack who knows nothing..
The Republicans control the house, a budget has passed the house for the last 3 years, and everything dies in the Democratic controlled Senate. This is not the Republicans fault. The steaming pile of poo lays right at the Dems and Harry Reids feet.
Jeremy, Dennis know exactly what he's saying, and that's to blame the Republican's for obama's failures as a leader! A favorite progressive/liberal tactic.
Jeremy,
I never said that a budget has been passed (and it is the Senate at falt) … but the Congressional Budget Resolution is the ONLY official budget. It is the one that all appropriation bills must be matched against.
Once again you are saying something that I am not.
you are correct in your definition of a budget resolution, but I wasn't arguing the budget resolution portion of the overall budget process.
The process is simple. The president takes in information (budgetary requests) from the different federal agencies, through the Office of Management and Budget. The president then formulates his budget and sends it to Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives). At that point both the Senate and House of Representatives are supposed to break down and come up with their budgets, somewhat based on the President's requests. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have their own Budget Committees. The two committees break down their own budgets and they are sent to Appropriations Committees. The appropriations committees reconcile both budgets in a "conference committee" and once reconciled, appropriation bills are created and then sent to the President to be signed into law or vetoed and sent back to Congress (both the Senate and House of Representatives. The President is not "required" to sign off on the appropriations bill, and I never claimed that. If the President chooses not to sign the appropriations bill, or either house doesn't create it's own budget to reconcile, then Congress as a whole is forced to pass Continuing Resolutions, which largely keep spending at current levels, which is what we've done since Obama has been President.
If you're really going to nit pick on whether or not I should call something an appropriation or a budget, then you're making a worthless argument. Appropriations are created from the budgets, and is just a formal name for a bill.
All the democraps have been doing and continue to do is spend us into a hole. National debt today is at $16.531 trillion and growing.
What have Republicans done to improve things? Block, stall, obstruct is all I've seen.
Got to love the ignorance.
Even under Keynesian economics, a Stimulus is supposed to be a quick injection of money and spending, not ongoing spending. Keynes suggested a year or two at most of increased spending, not half a decade. The fact is spending is up 30% since 2009, 3x the rate of inflation. The Sequestration would reduce that increase to 28% this year, and merely slow the rate of growth from an already bloated spending rate. With Sequestration spending would stay above 22% of GDP, which is higher than at any time since WW2 outside of Obama's spending. With ACA tax revenue will be at 19.1% in 2015 and beyond, again 1% above historic rates.
Pretending the sequestration will hurt the economy is to say that the US was destitute prior to 2009 which is an utter lie. Increasing government spending at 28% since 2009 is still the largest increase in spending since WW2.
The fact is the stimulus did not work. This is the 2nd slowest recovery, right behind the Great Depression. Every other recession has shown faster recovery. The liberal solution is to double down and make the Stimulus part of the baseline budget spending. TARP and Stimulus were supposed 1 time expenditures, but liberals now want them the baseline. Obama is lying when he says this is a budget decrease. It is not. It doesn't stop liberals from sucking up the lies though.
Then why did you insist upon including them in the sequester, Mr. Obama? And why are you doing nothing to put a proposal that makes real spending cuts (instead of cuts in the rate of increase in deficit spending) on the table? Why no plan to work towards a balanced budget in a reasonable period of time (say 10 years)? Why keep peddling the sham that increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will be enough to address the problem, when you know full well that if they paid at the 100% rate it would not be enough to stop deficit spending and debt bbuilding and certainly would do nothing to create jobs/
Mr. Obama, if you want to address the issue, stop lying and playing party hack politics and bite the bullet. Make real cuts in spending. Tell each one of your cabinet members, agency heads, etc.. to provide you with a budget that makes real spending cuts for their operations, of say 5% to be sustained over a 10 year period. Not just cuts in the rate of increase in spending. You wanted the job, now lead.
Eric, how have the Republicans blocked the Democrat led Senate from passing a budget? Please explain.
First - this is Obama's baby (actually Jack Lew - who you folks somehow think is qualified to run the Treasury - thought up this gem). He thought he would have major leverage against the Republicans who wanted to cut Federal spendings. Republicans rightly realized that this is the only way to curb spending. It might not be the best way but the reality is that Obama and the Democrats will never, ever agree to cutting Federal spending. They honestly don't believe that spending is the problem - they believe it's solely a revenue problem.
Second - Even Alan Greenspan doesn't believe that sequestration will be devastating tot he economy. It's all hype coming from Democrats.
Read this, it explains why Republicans are blocking Senate efforts to pass a budget and then are blaming Democrats for that.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure
"So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate."
So what you're saying Eric, is that Democrats aren't even offering a budget resolution, because they know it won't pass with 60 votes. So essentially you're saying that Democrats don't want to put on their big boy pants, sit down and actually hammer out a budget, that they all can agree on.
Thanks!!
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
Obama's top man Harry Reid won't even bring the budget that Obama proposes for a vote to the floor in past 4 years!!! These are the same guys who made the banks and auto companies get their books in order and yet it's do as I say, not as I do. And they controlled the house and senate for the first two years of his first term. Budget or not, the can is being kicked down the road and neither party seems to have a solution except to demonize the other. There are no excuses, especially for the Dems who had the opportunity those two years to fix it. They just had too many ass kissing debts to repay with their base and so the real important stuff got pushed aside. Obamacare took precedent and now the CBO and others are claiming uh oh, it's going to cost more than anticipated! Gee, ya think!
We indeed have a spending problem. Pelosi and the President say we have a "deficit reduction problem"! What talking point nonsense. Any one of us on this board knows if we haven't enough money to pay our bills we need to budget accordingly. We cut what isn't a necessity to make ends meet. SAVE more and SPEND more only and if we earn it ourselves. The administrations solution is to merely raise more taxes all the while creating more programs to spend money on! Where's the governments rainy day account. The money we're suppose to save by ending the wars has already been earmarked to go elsewhere. If it was borrowed money in the first place, explain to me how it is savings as proposed by the administration if it wasn't ours to spend in the first place? I'm no math major but I know if I borrow on my credit card and pay it off with another card I still OWE the money.
With the unemployment levels at almost 8% and the most new jobs created within the minimum wage standards, the revenue problem will remain below projected spending. Jobs, are what should have been the focus from day one of the first administration. Obama had the Sequestration idea and now is claiming it can't happen. You guys give him a pass because today he claims it's not a good idea. Just as he got a pass with the gay community for "evolving" when it suited him to get votes, just as he got a pass with the Latino community for giving some dreamers a two year reprieve when it suited him to get votes. Talk about a flip flopper. How many presidents of either party got as many passes as he?
@TheDougler,
Where are Republicans putting on their big boy pants in all this? They aren't.
They much prefer making it look like the Senate is the problem when they are blocking the process.
Read the article.
Are you referring to the sequester that Obama signed off on? If it was so horrible, why did he sign it, and why is he immune to blame for it?
The Democrats in the Senate haven't even made an effort to pass a budget for four years. This endless blame Republicans mantra of liberals appears to have no end in sight. The House passes a budget, the Senate passes a budget, and they meet in committee to iron out the differences. It really is that simple. The Senate could pass the House budget and then it would head directly to Obama's desk. The Senate could pass Obama's budget proposal and meet with the House to address differences. But none of that has happened because Senate Demcorats were more then happy to just pass spending resolutions as needed and forgo the requirement to pass an annual budget. The Senate has done nothing under the leadership of Reid, and yet Obama never criticizes their lack of effort. Reid forces liberal legislation to the floor that he knows Republicans will block for the expressed reason of blame. Likewise Reid never even brings a House passed piece of legislation up for a vote. If Boehner has any smarts, it is time to force the Senate to lead on all of Obama's agenda. Unless the Senate passes it first the House should not even consider bringing it up. That would put an end to the blame game, and quit stacking more paper on Reid's desk.
Rick see my post above that describes how the Republicans are preventing the Senate from passing a budget.
Why has the Mad Hatter Tea Party refused to accept responsibility for voting into law the Sequester?
Why are they afraid to "man-up" and admit they wanted the Sequester when they voted for it last year?
How come the RW media is perpetuating lying talking points that this is "Obama's baby"?
How come the RW media and the Boehner Congress is trying to tank the economy and create even more hardship on the poor and Middle class?
Why does the Republican Party hate the Poor and Middle class so much they have to lie on a daily basis?
Salud
They are not "blocking" anything. They are willing to work on budgets, however the Senate Democrats won't even bring it to a vote.
Do you expect for Republicans to drop their beliefs, simply because Democrats are in a simple majority? Hardly!! It's called negotiations. You work them out and come to an agreement. By the Senate Democrats not even stepping up to the table, the whole process is changed, and Continuing Resolutions ensue, thus the elevated spending since the beginning of Obama's time in Office.
The economy will suffer in the short run but the sequester is what need for long term growth. In fact the sequester isn't big enough in my opinion. Its too little too late.
Where are Obama's spending cuts? All we have heard about is tax increases. Obama can choose what is cut during the sequester. So far he is using scare tactics vs cutting wasteful spending.
Oh by the way, I agree with closing tax loop holes. GE and Facebook not paying taxes is ridiculous.
50/50 on closed tax loop holes and spending cuts.
None have denied participation. They've merely pointed out this was created by Obama.
See answer number 1. And in turn, why is Obama so afraid to "man-up" and admit the Sequester was his idea to begin with?
Because it is. How come the LW media is seemingly on their knees for Barack Obama?
Because they falsely expected for Democrats to actually have to live up to what they created, and they assumed that Democrats would do the right thing and create responsible cuts that wouldn't damage the short term economy, while also not ruin our long term economy. Boy were they wrong about that.
Are you a comedian? Or just to blind to see the repeated lies of Obama and the Democrats in the Senate?
Well - first - it was an Obama plan. Hatched by "Cayman Island" Jack Lew to force Republicans to drop demands for spending cuts. Now maybe the Republicans out-played Obama and got him to agree to a plan they wanted all along. But that makes your guy look dopey.
Second - Obama "signed off" on this too (in addition to creating it in the first place) so why does he avoid any responsibility?
Salad!
But that's exactly what the Republicans want, they want to devastate the entire United States Economy (again) and they want it to stay that way because Republicans believe that's the only way they can force failure on the President of the United States.
Okay -- we've got too many commentators here who don't understand how our government works. First and foremost, The President doesn't "pass" a budget, and Congress doesn't "pass" a budget, either. In fact, you will not find the word "budget" anywhere in the Constitution.
The biggest White House operation is the Office of Management and Budget. A statute requires that the President PROPOSE a budget each year; the deadline is in February, but it isn't always met by Presidents of either party. The President's budget proposal doesn't have the force of law; it's a framework Congress uses to deliberate its taxation and spending bills. The vast majority of the annual budget is noncontroversial -- Congress doesn't have the discretion, for example, to fail to provide funding for "entitlements" such as Social Security and Medicare, or to pay interest on the national debt. It's those smaller issues around the periphery that get the politicians all tangled up in endless posturing and argument.
Congress uses the budget as a starting point to write its taxation and spending bills. Some Members will want to add line items that provide funds for their states or districts; deficit hawks will want to cut across the board; anti-tax advocates will want to cut taxes. All of these controversies must be resolved before the final bill is reported out and voted upon.
The reality is the revenue bills Congress passes don't result in the same amount of revenue as do the spending bills Congress passes. So to impose fiscal discipline, Congress puts limits on how much the Treasury can borrow to pay for the spending Congress has mandated. Remember -- both taxation and spending bills, once passed and signed by the President, have the force of law. So Congress requires the President to spend so much, collect so much in taxes, but the Treasury cannot borrow the difference?
The "Obama wanted Sequester and now he doesn't" comments do not make any sense. Regardless if Obama signed off on Sequester, that doesn't mean he wanted it to occur. It was a horrific endpoint to force compromise. The tool has failed to work properly and now the Administration wants to change that.
Why wouldn't you want your government to adapt to poltical climate changes (or lack thereof) and do the best thing for the country?
Feisty, you think if the Repubs put a great plan in front of the President that is not his, he will approve it?
For all you saying this is tha GOP's fault, believe it all you want. 3 months ago Boehner window-dressed a Pelosi plan and it was rejected by the President. During the next few months, he has "campaigned" about how created crisis is silly, then he continues to create them.
Sequestration is his plan. I bet he thought "if we cut defense, the GOP will have no choice but to act." Well, the GOP has called his bluff. Let it happen. Obama has not offered 1 spending cut since demanding for tax hikes (that big bad Bush plan wasnt so bad for most after all was it).
Finally, all of you saying how selfish and dumb the GOP is, you fail to realize that Obama has been in "no compromise" mode since he took office. Havent seen any save his agenda bills that had marginal support from his own part (cap and trade ring a bell?). So, yes, the GOP has every right to obstruct and is only using tactics employed by both parties for the past 100 years. And do all of you on here really think gas is going down after the tax breaks are removed? O man, I am still laughing.
o and the comment about defense spending, thats what the federal govenment does: Defend.
That is until FDR turned the federal gov into a welfare goverment. The federal governments power was derived for interstate commerce and defense.
Wow what a collection of posts. Some correct, some, not so much. The truth is, Obama is being hoist by his own petard. He injected this sequester business, thinking it would keep everyone in line. But, it's not working. Since this was enacted, no one has seriously addressed spending cuts, some act as though it can not possibly happen. (At the head of that group is Obama.) There are enough who realize this is not as bad as the President is saying. Shoot, look at other things Congress has spent more money on in the past few months. Let the sequester happen, it will be the only thing that has happened so far that will slow the rate of spending. Yes I said slow, it is not really a cut. Maybe then Congress will get serious and actually create a budget. We absolutely have a spending problem, it is time to get this under control.
I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by the Postal Service about reducing hours or closing the Post Office in our town. It was quickly apparent, that despite cuts they have made, they do not have a business plan that is sustainable. Part of this is the fault of the govt. They have kicked the can down the road when it comes to them, all the while draining them of every bit of revenue from them they can. Considering how much worse the govt is doing than the Postal Service, it is no wonder we are on the road to Greece. Only the govt. is working to drain off every bit of tax money they can from it citizens instead of the Postal Service. (Since the Postal service is now incredibly broke.)
Eric,sorry to inform you and your source,but the Budget is exempt from the Filibuster. Remember Reconciliation?
TO: bubba-1946427 who wrote:
Been there, done that.
Absolutely yes, not only "would" the President approve it, but the President has approved many Republican ideas, then, after the President approved the plans, Republicans turned around and rejected their own ideas.
That's what convinced me that Republicans are determined to stall or even thwart any economic recovery, because Republicans refused to impliment even their own plans that would have improved our economy.
American Girl, Which one!!! Once the President approves, I thought it was sigened into law????
How is that the Republicans and Tea Party think that sticking money into a mattress is an economic plan, are they too stupid to recognize that obstructionist strategy is about the most harmful thing that can be done to our economy? But I suspect that has been their intent since Regan. They don't have an economic plan, it is more like a plot. They should be made aware that there will be hell to be paid if they succeed with their skullduggery.
TO: bubba-1946427 who wrote:
Sort of. First Congress has to pass the bill, and then the President signs it into law.
But, as we know, as soon as Republicans learn that the President "approves" that's when Republicans stop and change their mind.
I guess you haven't been keeping up with this stuff, but Republicans have been playing this "cat and mouse" game with the President for the past 4 years.
Here's one: Republicans said they wanted $10 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. The President said "yes" and the Republicans said "well then, No". You can't tell me you don't remember that one.
Steve 1602797: comment #1.10
Please go to the site listed below and STFU - this is such an old dried out GOP talking Point that is totally false.
http://ww hew.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET
lmfao!...
Obama is threatening doom and gloom
David walker is saying that there will be doom and gloom!
Come off it girls.... What is it with the lefty fear mongers? We have, what? A $16 trillion economy? The sequester is about $120 billion/ year for ten years. Obama and company should learn how to do the math and take the long view.
Sorry kids, obama owns the sequester, unless of course the left has changed position on everything is bush2's fault. The recovery and sequester is all obamas, he could have vetoed it.
In early 2011 when Obama ignored bolles-simpson and gave us his visionary (?) budget and deficit cutting plan the news reported it as cutting the deficit down by about $1 trillion over 10 years with a mix of 25% revenue - 75% cuts. Interesting on how he got congress to get far more revenue (via tax increase) far greater than than his original $250 billion over 10 years, but now says that $1.2 trillion over 10 years will be so damaging to our economy over the $ .75 trillion that he proposed in 2011
It seems that all the LWNJ's think that the sequester is cast in stone and that the politicians will be to afraid of setting priorities to what gets cut now and what gets cut later. Or even that later congressional legislation won't modify it based on future revenues
Congress should let the sequester happen. Government has cut programs and military spending in the past and we are still here. Congress has also raised taxes in the past and we are still here also.
Obama will go down in our political history as the great fear monger and divider while JFK and reagan will go done as unifiers of the post WWll era.
I'd like to see where Obama actually supported a plan to cut $10 for every $1 in revenue. The only time I recall this even being questioned, was in a Republican Primary debate, that Obama had nothing to do with.
So with all due respect, I'd like to see where Obama actually had a plan to do what you are stating.
Damnyou...
Great avatar and so true. Interesting on how taxes will be going up, if not directly then for sure indirectly. The last I knew box 12 on everyones W-2 is to contain the $$$ that an employer contributed to their employee health care plan. What a beautiful way for obama to collect more revenue by telling the IRS to consider that amount as now being taxable income.
Obama "accomplishments":
1) Obama is now the title holder of the WORST economic recovery in United States history
2) After borrowing SIX TRILLION DOLLARS in 4 years we STILL have negative GDP growth in the last quarter of 2012
3) Unemployment rate is HIGHER than when Obama took office FOUR YEARS AGO!!
4) Almost a 50% increase in those on Food Stamps since Obama took office (highest % on Food Stamps since program was started)
5) Highest % on Welfare since the 70's
6) Lowest labor participation rate in almost 50 years.
7) Highest % unemployed 6 months or more since the Great Depression
And now that ObamaCare is "official" we are already seeing a spike in the number of companies stating they will have to layoff more people this year.
So if you think for a moment the devastating economy is going to be because of a sequester that is going to cut about 2% (that is TWO PERCENT!!) is going to "kill" us you don't understand the damage this president has already done.
And one other thing: You fuss about cutting $85 billion but what we are NOT discussion is we STILL need to borrow another ONE TRILLION MORE to cover the remaining deficit.
This economy is already devastated by the Obama regime. Cutting $85 billion is not going to devastate it any more than Obama already has.
I thought it was Boehner who said he got 98% of what he wanted - and now it's 100% Obama's fault?
And ProBusiness is another idiot who thinks the data point for Obama starts on 1/20/2009. Try using numbers as of 6/20/2009 and see what you come up with. It takes at least 5-6 months for the Obama admin to effect any change in the direction of the economy. The first 5-6 months are on Bush's shoulders.
TO: ProBusiness who wrote:
Nope, Republicans devastated the entire United States Economy is what got President Obama elected in the first place.
Republicans stalling our economic recovery, and Republicans doing everything in their power to stop any economic recovery is what got President Obama re-elected to his 2nd Term.
Next up, Republicans continuing on the same path that they've been on for the past 5 years is giong to devastate the GOP come the next mid-term elections unless Republicans start doing what's necessary to help the President get this country moving again.
Remember Republicans' promise for "JOBS JOBS JOBS"?
Time to keep that promise Republicans, or be tossed out of office.
ProBusiness
I don't think many understand how much 6,000,000,000,000 is.(damn it now my zero key is broken) It would have been enough to send every man, woman, and child in the country $20,000. Now that would have been a stimulus plan. I could have stimulated the economy pretty well with $100,000. But somehow people believe that the government will save us all and knows best how to spend our money.
If the sequester happens, it will cause many people to "hulker down," and not spend unsure if they will be affected or not. Consumer confidence will decline and spending will also. Fearful people do not spend; they hoard because they don't know if there will be more job loses like the last recession. This alone could very well cause a recession. 84 billion dollars is a lot of money in anyone's books and not having that 84 billion being pumped into the economy will definitely reduces jobs. The next recession will be owned by the Republicans as they wanted cuts and no new revenue. Cuts will not stimulate the economy. Cuts do not give the public confidence. You do not create jobs by paying off your debts. Only spending creates jobs. Even Bush knew that.
psychedout, great post!
Republicans don't know anything about the economy and they don't want to know. No one has ever caught a Republican taking a Nobel Prize Winning Economist to lunch, and no one has ever caught a PhD in Economics visiting a Republican Congressman's office.
There's a reason for that: Republicans make millions, and sometimes billions, misappropriating funds from our Defense Budget, which is why Republicans are so in love with "the Defense Budget".
American Girl, When did you start answering question like Obama??
TO: JH-479998 who wrote:
Not really.
The Republicans are stalling our economic recovery and the GOP is determined to stand in the way of progress because they love it when the zombies blame the wrong guy.
We have two diametrically opposed philosophys in the US. One is the independent, self reliant, "fail or succeed by my own hand" who believes in God, country and protection. We believe in the immediate. Their creed is "my future is of my own making and I don't need others to tell me what to do or what not to do."
The other is espoused by our public schools where it is about community, group action, inclusion and participation. It's creed is "WE, OURS and the greater good." Shared sacrifice and cost. We believe in the future.
As an individual, we want people to be like the first and yet, when it comes to the group we are better served by the latter.
How so?
Or are you just going to continue to throw out rhetoric and see what sticks. Bubba is right...you do sound like Obama.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your response about a specific plan that Obama supported or offered that cut spending at $10 for every $1 in new revenue. Maybe you're right, but I've yet to find it, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your unwillingness to answer is leaving me with little doubt.
Blearyeyed: I am simply rolling on the floor laughing my ... off:)
Did you just say I can't start counting from 1-20-09 when Obama took office? But isn't that WHEN he took office?
BTW, let me tell you a little secret: Businesses and consumers don't make decision based on what has happened in the PAST they make decisions based on what will happen in the future. So when Obama was elected in Nov 2008 the markets already started reacting. So 1-20-09 IS the day Obama took office and IS Obama's economy.
Fact of the matter is everything I listed in #1.96 is true. This economy is WORSE off now than it was when Obama took office and the unemployment rate IS higher today than when he took office and GDP WAS negative the last quarter of 2012 after 6 trillion dollars was borrowed and wasted.
Sorry, you don't have the luxury of deciding which periods you want to count and which periods you don't. Obama took office on 1-20-09 and the economy today is WORSE than it was then.
Oh, such crap!
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established a 12 member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (or “super committee”) charged with reducing the deficit by an additional $1.2 - $1.5 trillion over ten years. The BCA also included a sequestration hammer should the super committee fail, a provision intended to “force” the super committee to act.
Despite the threat of sequestration, the super committee failed. Announcing its inability to reach an agreement on November 21, 2011, the members of the bipartisan committee stated that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."
Now, where did the BCA come from? Well, both houses of Congress passed it and Obama signed it into law. Now, tell me, how is that Obama's plan?
More bullcrap...
... the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.
Feb 1, 2013 - the economy has added private sector jobs for 35 straight months. During this span, 6.1 million private sector jobs have been created.
DJIA Dec 1, 2008 8149
DJIA Feb 19, 2013 14035
Dec. 29, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. corporate earnings fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.
Jul 31, 2012 (Bloomberg) -- Profits for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index have grown for 10 straight quarters, helping to power the index to a more than twofold increase since March 2009.
@ phychedout - the people who have been paying attention rather than the blindly follow the spin are already "hunkered down." The writing has been on the wall since Nov. 2008 we were going to have a problem with Obama being President, due to his open anti-business platform. We have lived with this for 4 years and the President was successful in buying or scaring the vote out of 51% of the electorate to stay in office, ensuring us another 4 years of this crap. His policies and incredible disregard for the Constitution and American history (those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it) does not make the next 4 years something to look forward to. Rather a goal to try and survive the attack against what we hold dear and get someone, else in 2016.
Talk about spin! "buying or scaring the vote out of 51% of the electorate"??? The only scaring done was by Mitt Romney. Isn't it rather ironic, given his famous talk about the 47%, that Ol' Mitt could only garner 47% of the vote?
Naw, face it - this election wasn't about Obama buying or scaring the vote out - this was a rejection of Republican policy. It will be made all the more evident in the 2014 elections.
@BEV:
Say a business has $6400/day to spend on salary. At $8/hr ($64/day) he can pay 1 worker for 100 days. At $10/hr ($80/day) he can pay 1 worker for 80 days. Either way there's only $6400 getting into the economy. That's it, he has no more money.
I know you have been exposed to nothing but community organizer math your whole life, but really your comment is as dumb as a sack of hair.
Cuts will not stimulate the economy. Cuts do not give the public confidence. You do not create jobs by paying off your debts.
We need productive jobs for the economy, not government jobs. We don't need more *stimulus*. You can't create wealth by going deeper into debt and printing money. You create wealth through production, savings and investment. The government can only spend money that it first takes, either through taxes or borrowing. The federal reserves prints money, gives it to the banks who use it to buy treasuries to finance the debt. The government is eating up the scarce credit supply. How does this help the economy? Yeah, cuts will slowdown consumer spending in the short run but thats what our economy needs. Our economy needs time to restructure. Instead the government just keeps infusing it with borrowed money and the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low. We need more consumer savings and more production. We don't need consumers spending money they don't have to go deeper into debt to stimulate the economy in the short run, which is exactly what the Fed wants.
EEngineer
Don't take this wrong because I am against most governmental crap but your comment implies that people did not vote "for" the President, They voted against Romney. What does that say?
Interesting only because it shows a complete lack of understanding about the Right. Ever notice that the places where the Left congregate are populated by people who are individual islands? They are enclaves of individuals and small groups that seldom have any contact with each other. Communities dominated by people of the Right are much more involved and concerned with their neighbors. They are more active in the schools that their kids attend and are much more likely to belong to a religion which gives them even more contact with others around them.
Also the political Right gives far more to charity - especially charities that provide education and food assistance to the poor than hose on the political Left.
In the end you on the Left talk a lot about "we" and "our" but in practice it's all about "me" and "mine". You talk a lot about "shared sacrifice" and "caring for others" but you are unwilling to do it with your own money. You guys talk the talk but Conservatives walk the walk.
EEngineer - How is it Obama's fault?
Bob Woodward, "The Price Of Politics," Pg. 326, 2012
willowbrook, during the recession, corporations were sitting on over 1 trillion in profits and there were more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, while 8% of the middle class was pushed down into the lower class. This show that wealth distribution had occurred with the wealthy gaining at the expense of the middle class. GDP was declining, meaning there wasn't much buying going on in the economy. Wealth did not just "vanish," but rather was hoarded, just like it was during the Great Depression. If the wealthy doesn't spend enough to make a difference, and businesses don't spend because they only spend based on the need to generate profits, then only the government has the ability to spend to stimulate the economy. This stimulus is not without cost. It should be repaid, but not when the economy is still not at full strength. When the economy is better with "full employment," then the economy can have some of it's GDP earmarked to pay down the debt. It's all about timing.
Eric shows how little he knows again..
Hate to break it to you Eric, but by law, Budget cannot be filibustered so it does not need 60 votes. Just a majority..
If you knew half has much as your told, you might be dangerous. AS it is all you do is throw misinformation to the low informed voters.
You are mis-appropriating cause and effect. The recession caused corporations to shed expenses due to reduced revenue. They did this by shedding payroll (jobs). They are (or were since many corporations distributed the excess cash as dividends to shareholders) holding on to cash because of uncertainty - uncertainty that was caused by Washington in general and Obama specifically. Not knowing about healthcare costs (Obamacare) or regulations (Dodd/Frank) have caused companies to sit on money they would normally spend on expansion. So, in effect, the Obama administration has pushed more people into the lower classes because their policies have created uncertainty in the business world and stopped companies from re-investing their profits and hold on to cash they would otherwise use to fuel expansion.
Q22, Companies do not expand when their sales are falling. The reduction in manufacturing while still selling their inventory allows them to hang onto large amounts of capital. If their sales were growing, they wouldn't care about Obamacare as much as long as profits are being made. It's just the cost of doing business like buying politicians, or giving money to PACs to promote their business interests.
Funny, because it was the President himself who got the sequester put in place. His chief of staff (Lew) that helped him come up with the budgets came up with the idea with him. So basically he said his own plan is going to devistate the economy. LOL
Came out with the usual "scare americans" things like the FDA inspectors will be laid off and you will have unsafe food. FDA said they could cut 10% without laying off inspectors so just an outright lie. But having the bully pulpit and the media in his pocket most americans won't know the president just outright lied.
It won't devistate anything. They say 85 Billion, but how many believe they will actually cut that much? If you do you don't know the Washington game. They will simply pass things through an emergency funding bill and we may see half that much cut.
Know how much will be cut after this year .... nothing. The increase of growth in the defense department for the outlying years will be 10.6% growth. It was higher than that and they just reduced the RATE of spending (no actual cuts) and they call it a cut. Only in D.C.
psychedout,
obviously you do not run a corporation.
OMG.....unemployment hasn't GONE DOWN!!!! More BS from the fallen Oval Office.....pathetic....
Q22 it is amazing i hear people chastise companies for having cash. Uncertainty is mostly the reason and is why i passed on a 15% stake in buying out a guy retiring that had several franchises. Specifically Obamacare and taxes.
Things are still coming out, like the latest $100 Billion plus excise tax on insurance companies. Before the "pay your fair share" crowd gets excited, those costs will be passed on to businesses and us. Estimated $720 per year per family. (CBO)
Hear what the EEOC is doing? They are promoting hiring of criminals and will come after you. Google ..."G4S secure solutions". If you do background checks you have to write an assessment on why you don't need to hire a criminal. G4S didn't hire a criminal as it is against the law in Pennsylvania to hire a felon for a security position. But the EEOC is suing them because they didn't hire him. Yes you read that right. This should promote business growth right?
And people are wondering why people are hesitant about business. The money i had looked to put into a business will probably just go into my real estate loans now. I wouldn't touch a business under this administration.
Poor president Obama. How will he ever manage a reduction in the rate of spending INCREASES that amounts to a little over 2% of the federal budget. Maybe he should consult with every day families who have had to manage the real CUTS of 2% from their revenue that started showing up with their first pay check of 2013.
Better yet, maybe Mr. Obama should sit down in font of cameras with Paul Ryan so he can avoid the “calamitous consequences” tormenting him. I’m sure that Mr. Ryan could find more than a mere $85 billion out of a $3 TRILLION budget that could be cut without anyone noticing. Any reservations Mr. Obama might have could be debated in front of cameras for everyone to see.
Of course Mr. Obama will not acquiesce to to such a debate. Having been humiliated by Mitt Romney in their presidential debates he will never permit another opportunity for his ignorance and narcissism to be exposed.
Ironic that the president is now warning the “sequester” that he drafted and insisted upon being signed into law will devastate the economy. Don't worry Mr. Obama, better people than you will figure it out. All you have to do is get out of the way.
Indeed; I'll bet none of these conservative bloggers ever took a damn Economics class.
You misunderstood what Keynes meant. Keynes didn't think that increased spending should be subjected to a time limit (i.e, we'll increase spending by $500 billion a year for 3 years). He thought that spending should be high UNTIL full employment (i.e around 4-5%) and healthy economic growth (i.e 3.3-5.0%) are reached. The stimulus was meant to be a one-time injection of cash, but the problem was that it wasn't designed to be efficient (the tax cuts in it tend to be saved rather than spent) and wasn't large enough to deal with the massive loss of aggregate demand. Sequestration reduces spending overall spending, but it indiscriminately targets the one area in which spending ought to increase: nondefense discretionary spending. That spending on infrastructure, science, education, and R&D should not be the target of any more cuts; in fact, we ought to be increasing spending in those areas, not only to reduce unemployment but to invest for the future.
The sequester wouldn't hurt the economy if we were near full employment; if we were expanding at about 3-4% of GDP, the sequester would be stupid but not that painful. But since we are expanding at around 2% of GDP, the sequester could lop off perhaps half of that growth and throw hundreds of thousands of people off the employment rolls. Austerity now is stupid, and across-the-board austerity is downright idiotic.
The stimulus did work; you can see how employment ticked up after the stimulus went into effect and how GDP expanded afterwards. This recovery is slow, but that is because (A) the Great Recession (or depression) was nearly the size of the Great Depression and (B) the stimulus was inadequate to deal with the dramatic fall in aggregate demand. You really need to lay off the right-wing kool-aid and start facing basic economic fact.
Not threatening, predicting.
Not doom and gloom, but slowdown and stagnation.
Girls?? Really?? Cheap shot at our masculinity, huh? Anyways, we do have a $16 trillion economy, but our growth is expected to be around $380 billion this year (assuming growth is about 2.5%). $85 billion out of that reduces growth to around 2%; add in a multiplier of around 1.4, and we have growth down by nearly a third. That's significant in a depressed economy. The long view is that the sequester is stupid, plain and simple. In the long view, our economy will take several years to get back to full potential, and deficits will shrink until the next decade. And when our deficits do increase, the vast majority of those increases will be due to increasing healthcare costs and the interest accrued because of that. If we want to cut and find savings, we have to do it in healthcare. Whether that means a public option, socialized medicine, premium support (aka voucher), or program reforms is for another argument, but the point is that we shouldn't cut investments for future growth like the sequester does; we should reduce spending for current growth (i.e entitlement spending) by reforming healthcare, not cutting benefits.
Technically, the sequester is owned by EVERYONE; after all, both Democrats and Republicans voted for it. Obama didn't create the sequester because he thought it was the best option; he created it because it was the ONLY option. See, Republicans refused to agree to a Grand Bargain that included any higher revenues, and Democrats refused to tolerate spending cuts without revenue increases; confronted with Republicans refusing to compromise and Democrats refusing to kowtow, Obama offered around $1 trillion in actual cuts and $1.2 trillion in harmful cuts that would be used to force a bigger deal. It was imperfectly designed (I would have preferred the expiration of the Bush tax cuts added on to it to hurt the GOP), but it was the only option that could prevent a default on the national debt and another financial crisis.
Bowles-Simpson was a lot more progressive than anything Obama has offered. While it did lower rates across the board, the package contained $2 trillion in tax hikes and $2 trillion in spending cuts, a 1:1 ratio. If you guys couldn't tolerate any new revenues, let alone 1:3 for spending cuts, how the hell could you tolerate 1:1 tax hikes?? Simpson Bowles had MUCH more revenue than Obama EVER offered; even his $1.6 trillion tax hike proposal was less than that. His weakest offer of $800 billion was less than HALF of the plan; but you couldn't take it. The tax hikes that were made early this year won't hit the economy very much because they are targeted on the upper end of the income spectrum, who don't really stimulate the economy as much as everyone else (middle class and poor).
How many times do we liberals have to say this: THE FEDERAL BUDGET IS NOT LIKE A HOUSEHOLD BUDGET. Nor should it be. Households HAVE to cut expenses in a recession because they will go bankrupt if they don't. Governments have to INCREASE expenses in a recession or else the economy will collapse and deficits skyrocket. If the federal government balanced the budget in a recession, the economy would collapse because of the added decrease in aggregate demand, which would reduce production and thus job creation.
Well, if the sequester comes to pass and people start losing their jobs, it'll put the lie to the GOP's claim that the government doesn't create any jobs.
I may be wrong but I get the distinct impression though, that the radical right-wing wants the sequester to come to pass; they see this as a sure-fire way to reduce the size of the government and the deficit, and without much harm to the wealthy, no matter what the crippling costs it imposes to the American people and the nation's economy and security.
If the sequester comes to pass, one of the first thing's you'll notice will be shortages of meat in the supermarkets and much higher prices on the meats they do sell. It takes government food inspectors to assure the meats are clean, certified, as well as free of unwanted byproducts, and without high bacterial counts of certain species of microbes ...of which can be risky to your health, as these microbial contaminants in and on the meats can easily prove to be fatal in small concentrations.
But of course the radical right won't blame themselves if this comes to pass; they'll always blame everyone else for denying them their steak and potatoes.
Freshieee
While I have agreed with you at times, I have to say that you are completely full of @!$%#. You push this agenda that we should spend our way out of this recession but when it comes time to pay the piper you will never accept that the only way to do so is to cut spending. You will try to argue that only the rich profited and that they are the only ones who should pay even though all of society is doing better. We are 6 trillion into it so far, how much should we spend oh brilliant one? We could have given $20,000 to every man, woman, and child in America and be no better off. In fact that might have ended the recession a couple of years ago.
When and if the recession ends and we are on a positive path again I EXPECT you to be the first stating that things need to be cut to put our books in order. Otherwise you are simply a hypocrite.
A few ground rules.
Expanding GDP at 2% quarterly
Unemployment below 7%
You can add your own but I doubt you would ever live up to what you profess.
@ psychedout, your claim that business was sitting on all this money is not quite true. Cherry-picking the most successful huge corporations and assuming all business is in the same condition is wishful thinking. 60% of the business in this country is small business, not huge corps. They were not "sitting" on all this money. They were reducing payrolls because they no longer had the orders to keep the employees busy. Add to that increased regulation and wasted money on Obamacare, these all take away from an employers' ability to expand and hire. Did you happen to look up how many businesses went under in 2008 and 9? The slow down was incredible. We had stock sitting on our shelf for 4 years, that pre-2008 would have been sold in less than a year. That is a big change. Now no one is willing to invest on huge inventories sitting on their shelf. Especially if the product has the potential to go obsolete. Obamacare is a huge increase, no matter if you have good sales or not. Business plans were not meant to be able absorb such a huge additional cost. The larger businesses are now starting to see just how devastating the cost is going to be and the move is on to reduce hours on as many as possible so they won't have to pay insurance. Even the Unions are complaining, wanting a pass so they can keep their cadillac plans. But then, Obamacare would cost a lot less if we weren't hiring 16,000 IRS agents to be big brother over this. Talk about a waste of money. That is a 100% drag on the program.
rradiko, you are either falling for the scare tactics (OMG tainted meat, run for your lives) or you are just schilling for the prez. FDA already said it won't affect the number of inspectors. So why do you think Obama went out saying that if it wasn't true? Wouldn't be SCARE TACTICS again would it? Just like the time he said he couldn't guarentee seniors social security, even though we still collect 200 Billion a month regardless to pay bills and could have easily paid it.
Freshie, how much should we spend to get out of this crappy economy? We already spend 1 trillion more than we have through defict spending and another trillion a year from the FED. Thats 2 trillion a year we are spending right now that we don't have!
Thats why the Senate won't pass a budget. We have basically got a stimulus per year. After the 2009 stimulus did you see spending go down by the amount of the stimulus, about 800 Billion? No, because they have basically kept spending at that level through continueing resolutions.
So if tax hikes, Obamacare, Dodd Frank, EPA and all the regulations keep the economy rolling right along at 1.5% do we just keep spending trillion dollar surpluses forever?
My "agenda" to spend our way out of this recession is not without its caveats. I hate the deficit as much as anyone else (and by deficit I mean the deficit that existed BEFORE the recession), and I was one to argue FOR the fiscal cliff happening. But, as I am but mere drop in the ocean, I must get used to not being listened to. To pay for all this spending and tax cuts (and for the spending and tax cuts done in years before), I have time after time proposed a deficit reduction plan to steadily reduce the debt to GDP level. Now, I'll admit that I am a social democrat, and that I argue that we need tax increases that stem in part from everybody but especially from the wealthy, but I have also argued for entitlement reform. I have no qualms with chaining the CPI of Social Security, as long as we raise the payroll cap back to 90% of earnings. I do not oppose increasing the cost of Medicare onto seniors via premiums. And I do not oppose cutting spending in the abstract. However, I do not think that austerity works, oh might one, because our friends across the pond have shown that it doesn't work, and have millions of unemployed people and youths to back up that conclusion. Expecting austerity to work when it has been proven to fail is insanity, at least in the words of Albert Einstein.
If I were the sole decider of fiscal operations in the United States, this would have been my plan of action: there would be a $1.2 trillion stimulus program initiated plus a $250 billion tax cut (mainly through the EITC and the payroll tax). 80% of the stimulus spending would have been to infrastructure and the rest would be devoted to financial aid for states. This would be stretched out for 3 years.
Alright then; challenge accepted.
My stimulus plan, as stated above, would ideally increase GDP by about 3% a year, plus or minus variations in the economic multiplier. In addition to that stimulus, I would craft a deficit proposal that would go into effect immediately along with the stimulus. I would immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners, and then the rest of the tax cuts in 2014. In addition to that, I would change the sequester to a quota of $450 billion in defense outlays that would be found by the DoD. Social Security would be readily dealt with either the elimination of the payroll cap or the increase of the payroll cap to 90% of earnings, along with chaining CPI formulas. As for Medicare, I would raise premiums to 35%, reform Medigap insurance, raise the payroll tax by 1.5% (replacing the increase under the ACA), add a series of co-payments, allow for the negotiation of drug prices and a rebate from manufacturers, and organize a transition to bundling Medicare payments and a pay formula that would be based on the effectiveness of operations and the resulting health of the patient. Finally, I would call for overall tax reform, setting a goal of revenue-positive reform by at least 0.5% of GDP over 10 years. Assuming that everything goes to plan, this ought to reduce the deficit by about $6.3 trillion over the next decade, plus interest and the spending cuts already signed into law.
The more desperate and angry he appears over this the more he looks like a guilty party suffering from denial. Woodward says the idea started with him in a talk session between journalists, you know Woodward the one who exposed Nixon for fixing the 72 election. Obama has painted himself in to the corner and his unfunded Executive Order signing pen is running out of ink along with the value of those Federal Reserve notes he's forced to purchase for the next 100 years again.
This will take us to 2011 spending levels. We didn't blow up then????
Freshieee
Other than the fact that the idiots are working on a budget that would be locked in for the next decade, that would seem somewhat reasonable. Although I still see it as throwing good money after bad. After five years I think it unreasonable to think that another 5 trillion will help.
However, a couple of things I would like to add.
The SS cap does not need to be raised if it were made need based. As millionaires retiring do not need SS nor Medicare and the system was never designed for them anyway. It was designed to keep the elderly out of poverty.
How about eliminating the ability for Congress to use SS as a slush fund for spending ever in the future.
And maybe remove Welfare from the SS fund to remove a trillion of red a year and make it valued on its own merit.
I disagree with taxing the rich more without taxing everyone. As far as I am concerned the tax code violates the "equal protection of the law" clause in the constitution. And money is property. There should be a flat tax on all income levels.
Also, I would like to see free birth control given to everyone, including abortion and a wind down in all welfare spending. Reducing the next generation of those using the system would more than pay for the services provided.
Besides all that I still disagree that the budget is not like a household budget. Yes, I have financed some to get through the last few years, my own stimulus if you will, but I am sacrificing as I write to pay it down and the government should be doing the same. They simply do not have the balls to tell the public that they can't do everything and that some programs need to be cut. Besides the fact that some of them should be cut. I think your argument about austerity is flawed. A balanced budget is not austerity, it is simply not spending more than revenue. That is not austerity. Austerity is cutting beyond regular spending. But we at least need to start with a balanced budget.
I await your screaming at whatever administration is in power when the times and numbers allow.
Yet the difference with the Obama stimulus and my stimulus are the conditions; Obama came in with everything going to hell and threw together a stimulus plan that was designed to get the economy back to positive growth, however soft. I have a depressed but growing economy and a recovery at my back; the stimulus serves a double purpose of getting the economy over the bend (assuming full employment will be reached in 2016-17) and cushioning it against the oncoming austerity.
Be my guest.
Well, technically SS was designed for ALL Americans. The problem I see with means-testing is that it reduces the ability to pay for the program. Assuming that the anti-tax stigma perseveres in both the GOP and the United States as a whole (something I lament as a "European socialist" xD), if we reduce the rich's share in SS (assuming "rich" is north of $250,000), nobody will want to pay the tax. In Europe and other welfare states, people are well educated on where their tax dollars go. That's why they support the high taxes; in America, I would bet that if you educated Americans about where their dollars go to (education, Medicare, Medicaid, SS), they'd support a tax increase, at least if you tell them that those programs would be in big trouble without it. Problem is, we Americans aren't that educated on our tax dollars. Essentially, if we take the rich out of the funding equation, the people won't accept a tax increase if and when we need it because of our anti-tax stigma.
That's tempting; only problem I see as that would make the payroll tax cut impossible. That is one of the only tax cuts I think has any positive effect on the economy. But, I'll take it.
While I would argue that a flat tax is regressive and would shift the burden of financing the government to the poor (plus the 16th amendment neutralizes the equal protection clause), I would accept raising taxes on all Americans, in part because I think the optimal tax code was (in recent memory) the Clinton tax code and (overall) the Kennedy tax code. A flat tax may be competitive, but in order to fund the government it would require a massive tax hike on the poor in order to fund a tax cut for the rich. Either way, the poor get ripped off.
I do not oppose the concept of austerity (by which I mean deficit reduction); I'm simply partial on when and where to enact it. Austerity is technically cutting spending; balancing the budget requires cutting spending. That's how I see it. But the federal government cannot be viewed in a microeconomic scope. It presides over the entire economy; if you make one rash move, it could cause chaos. You cut infrastructure spending; major bridge collapses. Take out air traffic controllers; plane crashes double. And so on.
As do I.
First of all, SS was not for all, maybe a little research would be in order. The only reason it included all and became an "entitlement" was because those that paid the lions share, "the Rich" did not receive it. That happened over time, but I think mostly in the seventies. And they should still not. The obligation to pay would not be reduced, Put it as a tax on the retired rich if you will. It just so happens that 90% of this countries wealth is held by those over 55. So how can you tax the wealthiest Americans without taking that into consideration. They should simply not receive it. Sorry, you can't tax the wealthiest American without taxing them all, and it just so happens that some of them are retired.
I don't care about the poor. Sorry. They contribute nothing and add debt. Like I stated earlier we paid a trillion dollars last year for it. For what? To benefit bad behavior? I have relatives that have abused the system, and they have taught their children how to abuse the system so I know a little about what I am writing. We have a system that benefits having children. The more you have, the more you get paid. WE need as a society to understand this. It also is beneficial to understand that while there is crossover, most children born to poor, single mother parents will most likely end up poor, and abuse the same system. Just because they are poor does not mean that they are stupid. That is why I put in eliminating welfare and giving free birth control. WE have the ability to breed the poor out of our society. While that may sound cruel, and it may be, the earth can only support so many people. Agenda 21 is good reading if you have the time. And while I agree with most of it, It really pisses me off that the government is implementing it behind our backs.
In a purist sense the Sixteenth Amendment violated the constitution for the benefit of the central bank and its investors. So justifying it kind of nullifies the argument justifying the negation of equal protection.
I understand that the government has gotten so big that they don't even have a remote capacity to understand from where it is bleeding. That is a major part of the problem, there are too many zeros. I can help with that. If every congressman was set down by themselves with an excel spreadsheet with revenues on one side and all departments on the other and had to balance at zero, and then all were compiled and the average of all congressmen was taken, that would be the budget for every department. I don't think that would be an unreasonable solution.
In reference to infrastructure spending. This is one thing that the government lacks in oversight. Billions of dollars were spent to create jobs. But it just so happens that the same contractors received jobs for entire states, or the majority. Instead of hiring people they left projects unmanned to go work on the next, and then went back and worked for a day or two on the original, and so on, and so on. The net was that they did not hire anyone, they simply paced out the work. I don't think it had its intended outcome. So, adding to the deficit for infrastructure will only help the jobs totals if there is oversight.
Well, that's very interesting, Q22. Gee, that must make it all a Democratic conspiracy, eh?
Sequestration was implemented by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The HR version of the bill is described here.
Note the sponsor of the bill: David Dreier, Republican - no co-sponsors
Paul Ryan's statement upon passage of the Act:
“The Budget Control Act represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner’s leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama’s demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls. The agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending. No longer can Washington endlessly spend money it does not have."
Far from being something that Obama crammed down Republicans' throats, it was proposed by Republicans, voted for by a majority of Republicans and praised by none other than Paul Ryan when it passed.
So I'll ask again: How is it Obama's fault?
I love reading all the bull@!$%# from the hypocrite republicans here, but one fact they will not admit is America has not had a budget in 16 years, since Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice started his two illegal wars on America's credit card.
Interesting. This sounds like something coming from someone born with the proverbial "Golden Spoon," who has never known rough times. So when the time is right, you'll be one of those helping to eradicate the poor by hunting them down, right?
moshuluu
First of all, I am from a lower middle class family, have failed plenty, have eaten only potato soup for an entire winter, and everything I have I have earned myself.
Secondly. I did not state that they should be eradicated, nor do I wish them harm. But it is a simple fact that most crime originates from them. I simply believe that we should do something that would reduce the next generation. And that does no actual harm.
Besides all the liberal spin we have had four years of Obama policies and we are worse off today than we were four years ago. And this Community Organizer in Chief is going "double-down" on the SAME failed policies for the NEXT four years.
However you want to spin it just be prepared for a stagnant economy and high unemployment for the next four years.
So as you are in line looking for a job and waiting for your SNAP card to get its next monthly allotment just keep remembering your Community Organizer in Chief Barack Hussein Obama is the reason you can't find a job and the economy continues to decline.
EEngineer,
You're only pushing the house bill, disregarding the Senate bill (where this act originated), and you are also ignoring the heavy Democrat approval of this bill in the Senate. The Senate pushed this bill, not the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives amended the bill once and it passed the house, but it also passed the senate with overwhelming Democrat support. The point is, sequestration didn't come from house republicans, it came from Senate democrats, and guess where they got it from.....I'll wait.
Oh, and by the way, to pretend that Obama was hands off on this issue, you might want to consider this quote:
From the get go, Republicans wanted to correct these cuts, and make realistic cuts, and not the reckless cuts that Obama and Senate democrats wanted. And looky who stood in the way.
It started as S.365 Sponsored by Thomas Harkin (D-IA)....NO COSPONSORS.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s365/show
Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to actually know what you're talking about.....perhaps.
Reading these comments is so funny.
How does raising taxes then help the economy? if you are against spending less, any increase in taxes is the same thing.
Saying that the stimulus should have been larger? Really how much should it have been? The truth is it took 2-3 years to spend what we had for the stimulus. Most of that put pressure on the states to spend more after that, which means that the states have to raise taxes or cut spending. So we have a net loss, not a net gain.
Saying that any money the government spends is a 1.4 multiplier is pretty short sighted as well. We have spent 1 trillion dollars more than we have taken in for the last 4-5 years. So we should have had 400 billion dollars in growth not the 200-300 billion dollars in growth we have seen.
If president obama is for the poor, how come we have more poor now than when he took office? How come the rich are even richer with his policies?
We have a net loss of manufacturing jobs since he has taken office as well. How do you explain that?
Our debt exceeds the GDP of the next 10 countries economies in the world. How is that fair?
Simply amazing how the people who read NBC buy into every crisis Chicken Little makes up. I also believe the majority of the people who read NBC and comment here are either paid trolls or people who just do not read anything other than what NBC or the main stream media puts out. Before anyone responds with their stupid faux news comment, think about reading news from multiple perspectives and educating yourself instead of just getting your worship Obama comments in. Not everyone worships Obama and rightly so. I predict he will have a failed presidency and his legacy will be the worst president of the US ever. The man has zero leadership skill. A lot of the American people are not either zealot Democrats or Republicans. We are middle of the road people who realize that not everyone will think like us and realize that maybe we do not have all the answers but are willing to work together for the betterment of our nation. Most either have quit reading NBC or do not take time to respond to all the Democrat zealots - many of whom I suspect are paid trolls.
Whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, the cold hard fact is that the government can't keep taxing more and more, and spending more and more without detrimental actions being just around the corner. At some point there will be a majority of the citizens dependent on government aid. What happens when the country defaults on its loans? What happens when the government handouts have to stop? Take a look at Greece, Italy, and Spain. See all the unrest? How about Bulgaria? Their government just quit over the unrest in that country over austerity cuts.
Spending cuts are needed and the government should be the first to take them. How many interns does a Congress-person need? How many vacation trips does the Obamas need to take at taxpayer expense? U.S. politicians have become the aristocrisy of our age. How long before someone says: "Let them eat cake", and the unrest begins?
The Dougler(numbers) -
And what you ignore, sir, is the voting record...
Find it here.
Republicans 174 yes, 66 no
Yep! Sure looks like the Republicans fought that tooth and nail!
I did not say Obama was "hands-off". I did say that to blame all of the sequestration on Obama was ludicrous. And it is!
Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to actually know what you're talking about.....perhaps.
You're right EEngineer. Because you know the Democrats would never have yelled and screamed to the media and the general public that the Republicans are trying to shut down government, throw grandma off a cliff, they don't care about the poor, they don't care about the sick, etc, etc. That's why this bill was passed, because it threatened a government shutdown if the debt limit wasn't raised. So Republicans compromised (you guys should try it sometime) and agreed to a Democrat bill S.365, which you linked.
But it was Republicans who afterwards tried to get rid of the sequester portion of this bill, to which democrats fought against.
Again, it would be beneficial for you to actually know what you're talking about.
The end of the world starts on Friday everyone. Let's get this disaster started.
"It's the end of the world as we know it....but I feel fine......"
What's the point, when Republicans come back they will do nothing to help this Nation !!!
AGAIN!?!?!?! Oh and seaskip: Your a moron, have a good day :)
I would love to see President Obama do an Executive Order on the Dirt Bags, Liberals Rule and the GOP-TP is the Rich mans Tool !!!
It is NOT a monarchy here in this country bird brain .... executive orders are to enable the President to enforce existing legislation .... not to mandate what HE, the POTUS, unilaterally thinks the laws should be !!
When you read a liberal statement such as "I would love to see President Obama do an Executive Order on the Dirt Bags, Liberals Rule and the GOP-TP is the Rich mans Tool !!!."
There certainly isn't any reason to wonder which party has the low information voters. Liberals believe Obama is free to do anything he wants, which is maybe why he feels no obligation to follow the rules. So far the Obama successes have all come by means of procedural loopholes, and not by the intent of how our government is set up to work. It is time for the House to sit back and let the Senate lead on the Obama agenda. Until or unless the Senate passes a piece of legislation, the House shouldn't even bring it up. That way with the Senate having already passed legislation, when the House passes their version they can meet in committee to iron out differences like Congress was meant to operate. But with the House leading the Senate does nothing, and Obama plays the blame game.
If the sequester is so bad, why did Obama propose it in the first place? Here he whines but proposes no solutions and shows no leadership on the issue other than posing on camera with a bunch of firefighters whose jobs are in jeapardy only if he allows them to be.
TO: alan_static who wrote:
Ok people, isn't this what I've been saying all along that Republicans wanted, "disaster"!
Why am I not shocked.
TO: seaskip who wrote:
It's not Republicans' intent to help this nation.
Look at alan_static, giddy as a school boy while he contemplates "disaster".
Why do you think I started calling them "domestic terrorists". Or else they're zombies.
TO: pgulrich who wrote:
Well we know why Republicans accepted the offer. First, John Boehner claimed he got 98% of what Republicans wanted, then if Republicans refuse to negotiate the Sequester would be devastating to the United States, the American People, and the Economy.
So there, Republicans got 100% of what they want, including the "devastaing" part.
As for whining and solutions, this isn't even the President's job, it's up to Congress, and ONLY Congress to prepare and pass all spending bills, which the President then signs.
The ONLY reason Republicans want to keep the President "in the loop" is so Republicans can continue to needle the President and the American People with nasty Republican talking points.
I wish Republicans would either shut up and get to work, or just shut up.
Republicans are domestic terrorists? wait isnt it the democrat platform to fundamentally change the country, you know Karl Marx ring a bell.
Congrats on being a class A D-Bag..
TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:
An executive order is a directive by the President of the United States that has the power of a federal law. Presidents use executive orders to direct and manage how the federal government operates.
You seem to keep forgetting about the millions and millions of Americans who are instructing the President on what we want and need for him to do.
It's only Republican "presidents" who work for themselves personally, and NOT the American People.
Rick...respectfully your badly mistaken that "Liberals believe Obama is free to do anything he wants." I'd bet the GOP would go running to the Supreme Court if he failed to follow the U.S. Constitution. Your argument is pure conjecture. Secondly, I"d do a little more research before making statements regarding procedural loopholes. Bush made more recess appointments than any other previous president for starters. Consider the U.S. House has lost GOP seats and if you did your homework you'd know many key members are in trouble in their home states. Sorry, your comment exemplifies that of a "low information voter." Fact...Mitch McConnell currently has a favorable poll rating of 11% by his state's voters. Mr. Lindsey Graham is looking a whole lot worse than his counterpart for the mid-term elections. The Senate is not the problem it's the U.S. House as the majority can only agree on taking recesses and working as little as possible. The 112th U.S. House of Representatives had the worst record for doing any work. They were dubbed the Modern Day Do Nothing Congress for good reason. This 113th U.S. House of Representatives has started off with the same enthusiasm. Mr. Cantor released this YEAR's schedule and guess how much time U.S. House of Representatives are scheduled to work? They will spend a whopping 126 days out of the entire 2013 year working in Washington in session. You do the math as I believe the year stretches out a whole lot more than just 126 days aside from holidays. I believe if my math is correct they just gave themselves a 239 day paid vacation not including the pay raise they voted for themselves. This is why the majority of Americans support President Obama he's at least working for them unlike those in the U.S. House. Oh..do you know who the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives is? It's Republican John Boehner. Guess who sent a letter to the leader of the U.S. House asking him to keep members in Washington to work on ciritcal issues important to the people? You might be surprised to know it was the Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who also received no response from Mr Boehner. So who did you say wold let who get away with what? For your pleasure here's a link regarding those so called Procedural Loopholes very balanced with the totals for recent past presidents. Worthy reading for anyone.
Link regarding recess appointments:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/obama-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-most-presidents
This was the W.H. idea to begin with,then Obama goes creating fear and panic as he does on every issue he is afraid to tackle and the media gives him a pass? When will this goofball ever start leading the country? We the people have been very, very patient with nothing to show. Day in and day out he proves he does not know how to lead on every issue, he is a motivational speaker but it never translates to leadership.
Pgulrich:
As has been stated before - Obama HAS proposed solutions but the repubs have stonewalled everything he has suggested. Sequestration was a last ditch attempt to get the repubs on board to get to work on solving our nations problems. Repubs thought they'd have Mitt in office and sequestration would have been repealed - but that didn't work out so well for them. So now they are back on the airwaves blaming the president and saying its 100% his fault, even though they signed onto it as well. At best, that makes it a 50/50 split.
And why aren't they working on avoiding sequestration? The 7 or 8 days a month they actually work is taken up by Benghazi!! What's with repubs and their constant efforts to impeach every dem president that kicks their a$$?
American girl half the country did not vote for Obama, do not want his policies and certainly are tired of his rhetoric. Start waking up America.
Ed, The avatar of the dumb blonde ... perhaps it really fits her ! She feels a compulsion to answer every post of others and she sounds more like an Obama bootlicker .... or worse ! Monica ? Monica, is that you ??
Well, he didn't.
What you are talking about is the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). Find details here.
Particularly, note the sponsor: David Dreier, Republican - no co-sponsors.
This bill was passed in both houses of Congress. As Republicans here so like to point out, the HR was taken over by a substantial Republican majority in 2010. They passed this bill. All Obama did was sign it into law which is his job. The President does not create or pass laws - Congress does.
EEngineer
This President doesn't really do anything does he? Loser, spendthrift, liar and buck passer Obama. With supporters quoting "Mother Jones"?....pathetic.
Mary911256 I was not talking about recess appointments as a procedural loophole. Obamacare was passed using procedural loopholes plain and simple. It was one of the worst abuses in Congressional history, and as such laid the foundation for what lengths Democrats are willing to go to ram something down the American peoples throat. Any lack of cooperation from Republicans that followed the moves performed to pass Obamacare have been the result of lessons learned.
What's with liberals calling for Obama to issue executive orders to achieve their desires? Don't they realize that any infringement on the laws of this country by executive order sets a precedent to futher abuse the legislative process? Remember Lincoln used executive orders to suspend freedom of speech and Habeas Corpus to keep Maryland from seceding from the Union despite there being no law against Maryland from doing so? Be careful what you wish for liberals. You too could become a victim of your own zealousness.
Nothing will be done this week, after all Congress is on vacation. The way Congress has worked over the last 4 years I don't expect anything next week either. Sequestration is on it's way.
If it happens it happens.....then they will have more courage perhaps to reach a bargain.
IF the sequestration cuts happen, then Mr. Obama's Progressive Spending agenda is out the window.
If Romney was elected the Republicans would give him everything, Voters will not forget what the GOP-TP are doing to "OUR" Country in the next Election !!!
What "progressive spending agenda".......spending money on education is bad? Research?
Most of the spending is the result of cutting taxes and going to war twice.....what Republican genius.
Congress is on vacation galavanting around while still collecting their paycheck and free healthcare while the rest of us, some of who are in the military, sit around and wait for these people to quit throwing sand and play nice in the sandbox.
That's ok, Nov 2014 isn't far away and we will remember what they have done, or didn't do for that matter.
I say we vote all the incumbents out and get some fresh souls in there who can actually work! And if they don't? Nov 2016 will be their D-day!
Uh, I hate to remind you, but the President was off playing golf until yesterday, while his wife and kids were off on vacation somewhere else. Everyone is allowed time off and just because we're at the deadline, doesn't mean anyone one party is at fault. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Eric, I'm tired of the "war" issue. Congress could have cut funding at any time and brought our troops home. Yes, President Bush went to Congress and asked for funding because of WMD that never were found, but, Congress continued to fund the war and in 2006, the Democrats held control over both houses of Congress. So they are partly to blame also. The approved the "surge" which helped end the war in Iraq and our current President has increased troop involvement in Afghanistan. The President on his own cannot spend money that Congress doesn't appropriate. That argument has been hashed out on these boards already.
Eric: NJ a great is example of more spending on education has no impact. Districts formerly known as abott districts are spending upwards of 25,000 a student and are only getting worse.
Speaks to parenting first in my mind. Most want the schools to be the chjild's parent and confront teachers with a "my kid isnt the problem" attitude.
TO: seaskip who wrote:
Yeah, everything to ship overseas or play with the stock market, and they'd be billing it all to Working Class Aemricans while Republicans allow the rich to grab more "free" money from the government.
This is from The Hill "Congressional Republicans are seizing on the White House’s failure to meet the Feb. 4 legal deadline to produce an annual budget as a gift that will help them recover from months of political beatings."
Read more: #ixzz2LNXgapZZ
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
The President is Legally required to receive budget requests from all of the Executive Branch Departments and produce a BUDGET PROPOSAL to be submitted to Congress NO LATER THAN February 5th.
Congress is supposed to take this wish list and turn it into a coherent budget passed by both houses. After it is passed by both houses congress is supposed to use it as a guideline when they write the appropriations bills that actually spends the money The President signs these bills, there are usually 14 and they become law The Senate has not passed an appropriations bill in 4 years.
American Girl-724855
That's "Americans".....looks like too much 'cheers' you've had along with Fiesty to me....ROFL
I remember, during the campaign, a debate that took place in front of an audience of independent voters. President Obama referenced the fact that some of the policies Romney was proposing could put us back to where we were at the beginning of the recess. In the audience, I saw a row of people tense up in fear. That is exactly how I feel, watching the Republican controlled House skate dangerously close to tanking the economy with their political games. How can Republicans do this to the country as a whole? That is what I don't understand, they seem to think it's fun to risk losing jobs.
too late to edit: the fact that some of the policies Romney was proposing could put us back to where we were at the beginning of the recession.
The fact is that if the budget sequestration cuts happen, Mr. Obama will continue his Progressive Spending agenda with any hook and crook method he has left....(i.e., Executive Orders or just have his Progressive Cabinet members CHANGE regulations to implement HIS agenda).
Contradictory to my post # 3.2 (same as this administration's talking points each day).
Republicans would love to keep the economy in a hole...it's the only way they can justify cutting entitlements.
I remeber a debate too where Obama promised to cut spending with a fine scalpel. That was in 2008. Hasnt happened yet. I also remember him mocking Romney about offshore money yet his pick for treasury secratary has money in the same place Romney did. And a few ideas Romney had Obama is now touting.
You seem to have a problem with facts. You dismiss money ripped out of the economy on increased taxation and Obamacare and then complain about sequestering. I am sure you are against the Keystone pipeline as well and will mock the temporary jobs it would bring building it yet would proudly support stimulus spending on temporary construction jobs.
TO: Amy B. Portland, ME who wrote:
Amy, that's why they're called "fearmongers" and yes they love it.
Republicans are also very fond of "warmongering" because starting wars is what allows Republicans to tap into the big fat defense budget, and allows Republicans to pretend they "lost" billions of dollars "in the fog of war" when really the money turns up in their Trust Accounts.
So true....
Ask Rumsfeld what happened to the 2.3 TRILLION that was lost in trhe DOD.
Seriously 2.3 TRILLION
I remember Obama saying there were shovel ready jobs as well but then had to backtrack when the reality of financing process came to light. How about TARP? Millions of dollars to companies that then went backrupt and no large quantity of jobs created. Oh and let's not forget the battry company that got TARP money, went bankrupt then was bought by a Chinese firm. They got the technology, paid a very small sum for the company and the USA will never get any if the money back that it gave out. If Obama really wanted to turn the economy around he would have given every citizen a small sum of money and let them spend it the way they wanted. That would have rejuvenated the economy. In fact, gun and ammo sales have poured more money into the economy and created jobs than any TARP handout has. If Obama would pay me the $25,000 owed to me by former employer who "stiffed" his employees for worked performed before he went bankrupt, I'd gladly pour that money back into the economy by hiring people to repair my house. Repairs that can't be made because my employer hid his assets from the court and lawsuits have been hopeless.
This is a law Obama wanted:
Congress, with a Republican-controlled House, passed the law, and the President signed it. It looks like shared responsibility to me...
Budget Control Act of 2011(Sequester)
House Vote: 269-161 with 174 of 240 Republicans voting for sequester
Senate Vote: 74-26 with 28 Republicans voting for sequester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011
at least try and get the right link. The bill wasn't even proposed until 2012, so your link from 2011 is moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
The sequester is like a mini-Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't understand why the Republicans aren't happy with it.
Let it happen.
Make him own it. Tie whatever happens to Obama. If it devastates the lives of millions of people and disrupts the economy, let Obama explain why he wanted it. Let the media ask Obama why he wanted the sequester. Let the media ask him why he signed it into law. Let the media ask Harry Reid why he wanted it.
Obama played chicken with the debt ceiling in 2006 and now he is playing chicken again, this time with sequestration.
The GOP has Obama’s fate in its hands. He wanted this. Give it to him.
The Sequestration Transparency Act — was signed into law by President Barack Obama in August of 2012. It requires the Obama administration to send Congress a report within 30 days on its plan for $1.2 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense programs that will take place at the start of 2013 if Congress is unable to agree on another deficit-reduction plan before the end of the year.
Poll after poll says if the sequester is implemented the Republicans will be blamed for it. And the voters are not dumb.
on the contrary, voters are extremely dumb.
...and obama plays to it.
Republicans have an entire FOX News operation working over time to convince the public that the President is wrong, but Congress's approval rating is at historic lows while President Obama's is in the 50's, and the public knows him now, it's not like he is a new phenomenon.
I was just reviewing some statistics on percentage of college educated adults in California, and the inland (i.e., Red) counties have a lower percentage of degree-holding adults than do coastal (i.e., Blue) counties.
So much for which voters are dumb...
The average I.Q. of blacks is 87.
98% of them voted Obama.
Vik.......I guess we know what you are. willfully ignorant and hopelessly clinging to an old world, you must be in the pale male and stale grouping or sometimes known as a dying breed.
Not to worry, the average IQ of a Tea Party member is 45, and they voted for Romney. The average IQ of a Republican is 47, and they voted Romney.
I've known many college educated people who were dumb about other issues. A college education doesn't guarantee intelligence on every subject and issue before the country. Most people, both college educated and high school dropouts have a basic understanding of government and it's roll.
Given the fact most adults couldn't pass a basic government course today is proof of that.
RedDev,
It is comments like this that show the ignorance of this country. Grow up and act like adults and stop blaming one party or the other. They all should be fired. Not on poitician deserves to be re-elected. Tired of the ickering of all.
Actually Steve, It's comment like VikVega made in saying, "The average I.Q. of blacks is 87."
Now we all know that that is not a fact based statement, but a racist statement made by a dumb bigot.
Apparently mockery fails again and goes over the head of the ignorant in this country. Interesting you call me out on my more than obvious ludicrous claim, yet you can't bring it upon yourself to point out the intent behind the inflammatory claim made by dear old Vik. So to that end, excuse me when I say, blow it out your holier-than-thou a$$ (heads up - I'm obviously not asking for you to excuse me).
The IQ of RedDev is insulting so I won't post it.
Now Now REDDEV,
No need for insults. Just because you know I am right so you had to goto the insults. Why should I have to prove that this adminsration has broken the country when people like you try to protect it.
It looks like RedDevPOS has missed his meds this morning !
Liberals HATE common sense, because, after all, it is so "Common" .... and they like to call themselves "Progressives". LOL !! The national debt sure is "progressing" under their so-called "leadership" !
NowNow Steve - no insults there. Just simply pointing out how slanted your one-sided accusation was. And no one is stopping you from proving anything - if you want to build a case that Obama has broken the country, then do so with gusto. Tis fun to blow holes in those claims.
All because Boehmer has no control over his party in the House and he will not work with his own moderates and the minority Democrats to isolate the Tea Party gang. This is beyond tragic as nothing other than destruction of our government will placate that ideologically warped movement. I would hope Pelosi has quietly advised him that she stands ready to help.
Uh, it's Boehner, not Boehmer. Anyone who demands respect for the President should demand the same for the Speaker of the House (who is third in line of succession for the job of President) as with the Senate Majority Leader.
Pelosi will read the content of the sequestration bill after it is implemented "free from the fog" permanently centered between her ears.
Pelosi can read, then how does she pass bills?
I do not know what drug this guy is on but I want some. This President continues to talk and talk and believes his own BS. If we want tax reform like his own commission, then reduce all tax rates and take deductions away. That work! Please publish the hallucigenic that he takes.
He failed to mention the budget cuts were his idea. Well played Mr. President!
The Obama presidency has devastated the economy...
that's not true. Not even close.
How. He did not create this mess.
Obama and his posse may very well be the best liars the WH has ever seen. They would have us all believe that up is down and red is black. While his administration overspends to the tune of 1.5 trillion a year, suddenly 85 billion(less than 6% of his overspend) is going to be the hinge from which all financial catastrophe comes loose. Only the most brainwashed or remedial of brains can't see this charlatan for what he is. Obama and the left have ownership of this sagging economy. Big government spending doesn't actually produce wealth, it simply redistributes it. His progressive policies continue to serve as an anchor around the throat of our economy and all he wants to do is add more weight. He is a true champion for the takers who want a free ride on the backs of those who actually contribute. Quit playing games Mr. President. Working Americans deserve better.
after 5 years - he doesn't own any part of the mess we're in? 2 years before that he was a senator? Yeah that's what his MSNBC minions want you to believe. We're in this crisis and he goes golfing with Tiger. How about putting some of that community organizing to good use and call congress back and get this taken care of. My god.
One cannot continue to blame the previous administration. Heck, even Roosevelt didn't blame the previous administration during the Great Depression. He went to work and brought the country back. It took a while, but he didn't play the blame game. And yes Roosevelt was a Democrat and it was Herbert Hoover, a Republican, who was the president when the Great Depression began.
He has to blame somebody for it, because he can't figure out how to solve it. It takes leadership and he will only lead one party instead of a Country!
Back in Roosevelts day, the repubs were interested in governing for the good of the country no matter who was president.
If Obama is going to solve this problem, he has to figure out the repub party. Good luck with that. Have you heard the term - herding cats? Every time he thinks he has an answer by proposing one of their ideas, they reject it. And I think that's because he thinks he's working with somewhat moderate repubs, but those repubs can't get anything past the tp radicals. The vocal minority is ruling the repub party.
... the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.
Feb 1, 2013 - the economy has added private sector jobs for 35 straight months. During this span, 6.1 million private sector jobs have been created.
DJIA Dec 1, 2008 8149
DJIA Feb 19, 2013 14035
Dec. 29, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. corporate earnings fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.
Jul 31, 2012 (Bloomberg) -- Profits for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index have grown for 10 straight quarters, helping to power the index to a more than twofold increase since March 2009.
Obama and the Congress were part and parcel in bank bailouts, failed TRAP stimulus loans, unbridled spending with no oversight, and a unpopular Healthcare legislation. While he may not have created the recession, he hasn't helped it much either. People are still losing their homes because banks are dealing in good faith. People are losing their jobs because of the AHCA or having their earnings reduced by cuts in hours worked. Companies have taken government money then went bankrupt. He needs to cut the entitlement spending. The government can't keep taking in more and more money via taxation and expect people to tolerate their spending power to be diminished without some tangible effect. I am one of the people who expects to lose my job over sequestration, yet I say let it happen. This administration needs a dose of reality.
Good, sooner the sequestration hits home, and more people are out of jobs, start passing the pop corn. It's going to be a super delux scene of the GOP clown circus as they try to blame Obama and the D's for their shortcomings. But the GOP keeps forgetting, the vast majority of people have seen through the LIES of the GOP.
Don't believe me, look at their promise of Obama being a one term POTUS. The FACTS speak for themselves, they, the GOP LIED once again.
What they can't understand is that the American people are tired of the GOP old and failed policies. Until they change that, the dustbin of History awaits them. Deny it all you want, but it's already happening. Lost how many house seats, Senate seats, and 7 of 12 governorships in last election. Doesn't that give anyone on the low informed side a hint, or a message that all is not well within your party? If not, it SHOULD.
Sally, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
This is a law Obama wanted:
Vik.....you don't get it. The GOP got out foxed, they signed that agreement thinking he would be defeated but he didn't make them sign it just their own scheming minds wanted it so badly they never considered the consequences if he was re-elected.
The GOP has for the last session and now in this one, tried every way they can to obstruct and deny this President any proposals he has made. Their idea of limiting their work days is part of that same scheme to try to damage him, they have refused to acknowledge the country suffers when their schemes are so personal towards the President and you and others of the GOP/TP supporters are just as guilty in allowing their behavior to continue. And I have to ask why?
GB Mamma . . .
You're so correct and so many of the GOP posters on here forget this. They voted for it thinking they would have time to fix it with their newly-elected Mittens, but that didn't happen and as we've seen from Congress lately, they're still pissed about who the country did vote for.
Poor Ryan is still confused as he was during the campaign season regarding the issue . . .
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/15/1599681/paul-ryan-sequester-position/
President Obama has won most of the fights with the republicans, and he will win this one. The Bottom line is, he is smarter than they are, and they continue to take the bait.
Its unfortunate that you all so blindly support the president that you fail to realize exactly what sequestration is. This is a game played by both sides, in this instance, with cuts tied to defense. Now everyone complains that the GOP would rather die than raise taxes on millionaires and cut defense spending. Yet, they are about to accomplish both.
Yet, now, even after that, it will be their fault somehow? Damned if they do, damned if they dont. God forbid a republican president uses drone killings.
The money involved in the "sequester" is $85 billion out of a federal budget of 3.5 trillion. That's ~.00024% of the budget. Yet His Majesty says that the loss of this money will devestate the economy. If that were true, the $60 billion spent of Hurricane Sandy cleanup must have nearly broke us. Sorry, but the math doesn't add up. Smoke is being blown up the arses of the collective ignorant electorate (again).
Obama has never been quiet about the fact that he wants to reduce the size of our military...and he just may his wish...instead of even looking at the Republican proposal to make these cuts in areas that make sense and that do not jeopardize key services; he would rather not compromise and allow the 2% cuts across the board go into effect. Our President wants this sequestration to go through because then he can turn around and place blame on the Republicans for the very thing that he has been responsible for...he does not have the best interests of the American people in mind...he never has.
The problem with the republicans is the strategy they are using. I say they give Obama EVERYTHING he asks for, without question. That way when (not if) the country collapses, there will be no one to blame but him since he owns it all. Rather than resist (or obstruct as you Libs say) they should just acquiece completely. Let Obama take it all. The sooner the country collapses, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
The problem Obama doesn't realize, is that by reducing the military, he puts people into a job market that isn't hiring right now. The same thing happened when Jimmy Carter reduced the military. There aren't many jobs available right now and adding the surplus military vets to the employment rolls will only aggrevate the economy in the form of additional unemployment, food stamps, welfare, and other social programs. This country needs jobs, NOW. Preferably by encouraging private companies to hire. Every action taken since the start of his first term in office has done nothing but hinder recovery from the recession or squandered an opportunity to do so, along with money we could ill afford to waste.
These idiots will do the ONLY thing they know how to do - kick the can down the road - AGAIN.
Message to the do-nothings in Washington - Grow a pair and DO SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE.
If this is such a looming disaster - then where the hell are they? Oh yes, another recess.
Obama has no balls. We need those spending cuts. The whole problem is this massive debt the politicians have given us. Buying votes by promising anything and everything to the so called poor. Too many willing to trade their vote for a brick of cheese or free BC pills. Just disgusting.
President Obama recognizes that cuts must be made to Social Security and Medicare, he's just allowing Republicans to be the bad guys, letting them "insist" we do it. (Bet they wish now they'd taken him up on the Grand Bargain of cuts he proposed last year.)
He's a freakin' genius of a politician and Republicans are walking right into his hands. It's kind of funny, actually.
ALL programs must be cut -- except those that benefit me.
@ Amy,
You KNOW the President is a genius if Newt said he is a BRILLIANT politician...... hehehehe
GOP, You guys are losers and liars. You said the POTUS would be a one-timer.......
All you guys running around bumping into each other to see who can look the stupidest trying to make the President/Country fail.... You guys are CREEPS!!!!!!!!
The current President of the United States needs ABSOLUTELY NO HELP in failing ... he is doing that all on his own ! Barack Obama is a financial moron who has never had a budget, shows disdain for cost reductions in government bureaucracy, has NEVER gone through the budget "line by line" as promised ... and who has never seen a spending idea he did not like !
Financially speaking, Obama is a clu$terf_ck !
I think WE republicans should just step out of the way and let Obama run the country. About 6 months when the welfare runs out then all the people that voted for Obama can look for food while me and my buddies relax on the beach in Aruba. By By. LOL
@Amy. If you paid attention to the State of the Union Show, you would know that Obama has NO plans to reform SS/Medicaire when he said (paraphrasing) "We must keep all the promises we have made".
Just go right ahead and put SS & Medicare right up front for cuts, and see how that works out.
Once upon a time Obama said... "Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.
My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one."
And now his mouthpiece, MSNBC is worried this will happen... Guess what Obama and Jack Lew came up with this, Obama owns it!!! Americans are going to pay even more dearly for this failed President and his tax and spend more than we have policies...
He was referring to those trying to take certain items out of the sequester (like defense spending) instead of making a actual deal for all of the sequester.
Obama is probably wondering whatever happened to that statesman of integrity and valor, none other than Timothy Geithner?
Well OF COURSE it would devastate the economy. Some republicans have said that they are prepared all the US to default. or a government shutdown, if entitlement spending isnt cut. Sen. Lindsey Graham has threatened to "destroy America's solvency" unless entitlements are dealt with!
The poor, old, sick and children did NOT cause this debt crisis. REPUBLICANS DID!!! let THEM figure out a way to fix it without affecting people who had NOTHING to do with it.
We are in dangerous when a political party thinks nothing of taking down the country to achieve their political goals. Such actions are called TREASON!
@Tom. How IN HELL can .00025% in reduced spending devestate anything? That's what this sequester dollars amounts to. How's it feel to be so uninformed?
My job will directly affect by sequestration. But you know what? I welcome it. This country and its politicians need a "come to Jesus" crisis. We can't keep spending money we don't have. I know people who have found it easier to get on entitlement programs than to go find productive work. They sit on their fat a&& and play video games all day. Or find ways to use the legal system against itself to pay fewer taxes and deprive others of their money.
Funny how the sequester, which originated in Obama's own white house, would devestate the economy. And those who are misinformed, blame the Republicans as usual. The party of miguided blame. LOL
www. politifact. com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/
Let's just all forget about the 40 billion the Feds are printing on a monthly to create a false economy that will crash harder than a fat kid locked in a mcdonalds.
But, we all know how loony the liberals are. History is like witchcraft to them.
Funny how the individual mandate to carry health insurance originated in a conservative think tank. And conservatives blamed liberals for trying to implement it.
Where it originated and where it was signed into law behind closed doors are two different realities.
Funny how it excludes those same politicans eh?
Get a grip.
@ Amy
I don't came who came up the ACA. It is/was a mistake
My son-in-law had his work hours cut back to less than 30 hours due to the ACA. Now his family goes on food stamps and government assistance to get between paychecks. Thank you Pelosi, Obama and every politician that voted for the ACA. Your short sighted, "We have to vote on it to see what's in it" BS has reduced a family to government aid with the stroke of Obama's pen. How many others are in a similiar situation or will be in the future. This administration is either intent on destroying this country or is so inept that they should be removed from office.
Duplicate post
Is this the same "Sequester" that Obama pushed for, in order to get his tax increases? I'm so confused...
It CERTAINLY is Hawkeye....but as usual the brainless will try to point a finger at someone else. Look at the link in post 17 to know who created the sequester. The same hypocrite in chief now saying it would devastate the economy.
Maybe he should work on getting a budget approved before laying blame on everyone else for once in FIVE years.
Oh, please, since when can President Obama "push" anything on the Republican-controlled House?
Typical example of the blame game above ^
You mean Obama's way or the highway? But we all know how 1 trillion + deficits annually has helped this country for the past four years right?
LOL. Problem is excuses are like you know what...everyone has em
And since when, Amy, can a Republican House "push" anything on the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled Presidency?
The Republican-controlled House has "pushed" obstruction to new heights. The last Congress was the least productive in American history, or hadn't you heard?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-14/unproductive-congress-not-passing-bills/57060096/1
And you blame it all on the Republicans even though 2/3rds of the government is controlled by Democrats. Typical left mentality.
Americans were warned if they didn't elect a Republican President in office in 2012 the Republicans would do nothing to recover the US Economy/Jobs and put the country back in a Recession. A Promise made and a Promise kept by Speaker Boehner. Boehner assure nothing would be done as he listed on 4 months this year as working days for Congress and 239 days listed as Recess/Vacation. Obama again will have to work alone for the next 4 years. As Republican Leaders have told Obama this is what the American people want. Yes Americans want to pay the National debt and work for nothing to assure the wealthy pay no taxes and Corporations have no taxes and no regulations. Banks can continue to steal homes and Wall Street can get back to corruption that brought the Global Crisis.
And Jack Lew, a major figure at Citibank in the Wall Street corruption you reference becomes Obama's Treasury Secretary. Liberal hyprocrisy ignores his Cayman islands accounts and his big bonuses in the midst of a taxpayer funded bailout. Rubio get savaged over a drink of water while there is no outcry over Menendez screwing teenage hookers in the Dominican with taxpayer money. You people need to take a look in the mirror.
I am tired of all the threats and TV appearances. If republicans think sequester is preferable to raising taxes then get on with it. If they are right then the country will be better off. If they are wrong and it wrecks the economy then we will have new representatives on television and in the paper. At least something will change. This constantly trying to blame the other side because government doesn't function is crap. Obama agreed to sequester in order to raise the debt ceiling, not to raise taxes. We have less descretionary spending under this administration than at any time since D. Eisenhower. The elephant in the room is medicare. We collect roughly more than three times in benefits than we put in. The republicans would love for Obama to propose cutting so he would take the heat from seniors. We are either going to have to cut it or change our health care delivery system. We already cost many times than the next country and do not rank in the top ten in quality.
Is it just me, or are all the rightwingnuts just carrying onlike the Presidential election never happened. Since all their talking points pretty much became mute after the election, isn't it pretty pathetic that they
continue to repeat them, like a bunch of wyning sore losers, who don't know what else to do. Have you noticed that the Republican party leadership is abandoning all the tea party crazies they created? And not only abandoning them but fighting them... You guys are looking totally lost, totally living in a different reality from the rest of us. You are only listening to each other, the rest of us kind of discount you...kind of "heard all that Obamabashing before" You were wrong then and you are wrong now.... but you know "If it makes you feel better, go on and vent."...
Right, but who is living in unicorn land Tim?
Talking points is where you're lost because unlike you, I can post links to facts stating who created such things as the sequester, and who is now pointing fingers and playing the blame game as usual.
Im not a Republican or Democrat, but if you believe that winning a Presidental election is an excuse to do nothing and blame everyone else for your own incompetence, than you're lost beyond words and need to get a grip on reality.
If the Republicans do allow the sequester to occur, it will prove even more how much they want hurt our country. Republicans are only for themselves and not for the greater good of our country. The Republicans and Tea Party members are only interested in destroying our country. They don't have a patriotic bone in their body. They set out to destroy the middle class and try to line their pockets with as much money as possible. They can't win fairly, so they have to destroy everything that our country stands for. Forget the middle class, lets give breaks to the rich and corporate giants. The Republicans/Tea Party are a dying party of greed and they want to take every down with them.
If the Republicans allow it to happen. Seems the blame game has started. This was the President's and Jack Lew's idea thinking the republicans would crumble. Now it seems they aren't and the liberals and their media are trying to blame it on the republicans. Remember the debate where the president promised the sequestration would never happen. Looks like another broken promise from the great one!
Just like everything else about obama.. he was for it before he was against it. What a sad, pathetic excuse for of a man... let alone a "national leader." Lets go back to talking about more important things on MSNBC like Michelle's bangs or how BO the dog has adopted to life in the White House.
The liberal media love-fest with the obama's just goes on and on.
If the sequestration goes through and the economy falls back into recession, as most economists predict, Republicans will be held to blame and voted out of office in 2014.
It's that simple.
But isn't this the Summer of Recovery???? Oh wait that was 2009, no 2010, no wait it was really 2011 but it just got pushed back to 2012. Wait 2012 it was about the campaign and covering up Benghazi. Yep 2013.. this is definitely the "Summer of Recovery"
We've been recoverying since June 2009. The people hurt the worst are those with low education levels and a lack of skills.
Yep ! Got it !! Is that why so many college grads cannot find jobs ?
stone6, what do you mean Obama has a job, he does nothing with it but play golf and take vacations, but you don't need to insult the President.
Yes and by the looks of things half of the people in Ohio that voted for Obama voted twice.
Navy. Still cant get over a Black Guy beating the dirty old white men, Twice. LOL
masha - in one case it looks like one person voted at least 6 times.
In 2014-2024, the GOP retards will be extinct in their current form.we the people will be voting all these old parasites tea baggers out
and by 2020 the US will be in bankruptcy. Of course you and the other liberals will blame it on everyone else. It cannot be because you spent to much and never learned to balance a budget. Of course by then we will be a second or third class country without any military because you liberals will have destroyed it while China will have built theirs up.
It is impossible for the U.S. to be in bankruptcy. We have a printing press. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying that we can't go bankrupt.
Rasmussen - If you believe that, contact your Congressional representative and tell him/her to demand the House go back into session immediately to avoid the sequestration...which the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified would be harmful to national security.
But then, who will be paying for all of the liberal programs if there aren't any GOPs around? When you run out of other people's money, what will you spend?
Perhaps you don't understand...the government doesn't need to "take your money," they just print more money, thus devaluing the money you have.
If I were you, I'd be looking for a compromise FAST.
Congratulations stone6 ! You finally figured out the OTHER part of Obama's economic plan to bring down our country !! By devaluing our money, Obama figures he will be hurting the "rich" the most since they have more money !!!
Yep. pretty soon we will be eating dogs .... just like Obama in Malaysia as a child, his dream fulfilled !
Except for one small factor...Obama doesn't decide how much money to print, the Federal Reserve does. Bernanke and the Fed are in charge of monetary policy...not Obama. He gets fisacal policy.
A lower dollar devalues existing debt (believe it's called "monetizing the debt") and reduces the cost of our exports, while raising the cost of imports.
However, the latter's not so bad, since no one has any credit left anyhow.
On the other hand, IF you happen to be hoarding a pile of cash somewhere (or parked in commodities), better start investing, becasue you are going to need MORE dollars to off-set the lost value of the ones you hold.
Stone - I would say you are as dumb as a rock with your "we can't go bankrupt, we can just print money" comment, but that would just be mean.
You know you have drank too much kool-aid when you can't make a sensible argument. You ought to check in with Feisty - at least she has her backup plan -- name calling.
Crisp. Ask Bush-Chaney your Question. They are the ones who got us in the Predicament that we are in. I know that you Republicans have short memories and have your own facts, but all Republicans belong to the STUPID PARTY, Jindal said so.
Obama overheard talking to Biden..."We can't be bankrupt, I still have checks in the checkbook"!