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:
Paid RNC posters out in force today--still on that mantra, Obama's program, forgetting the Congress signed off on it--you own it too, how convenient. So where do we go from here people--nothing constructive, just the usual low down right wing speak. Republicans will not come out of this unscathed as much as the GOP want it so, won't happen. Have at it.
You are obviously forgetting who signed the bill into law.
You are obviously forgetting who signed the bill into law also got 40:1 tax revenue/spending cuts to postpone the sequestration.
Exactly how does cutting spending cuts, which were signed into law, pair up with tax revenue increases to become a "balanced approach"?
OPM, how intoxicating.
Let the sequester begin! One of these frickin days the Dems are going to figure out you keep spending.... you pay the piper. By the way, there are 47 Dems in the House that voted with the Republicans on the last GOP sponsered deficit cuts. No one wants the sequester to take place. So all the Dems need to do is add about oh, let's say another trillion $$ in deficit cuts and it will all be good. No additional cuts, no way GOP votes to stop the sequester.
Dubya doubled the debt, Reagan almost tripled it. Eisenhower was the last GOP president to balance the budget.
In December the GOP was crying just as loud as the democrats about the automatic cuts.
First of all, your statements are false. Secondly, Obama soon will spend more than all other presidents before him; he is the most irresponsible person ever to inhabit the White House.
I am really tiring of POTUS' BS stories regarding his economic policy and that of the GOP.
We need jobs. And you are not going to have economic expansion talking about the balanced nonsense and a need for corp. America to pay more. We already have the second highest corp. tax rates in the world. Not to be confused with the 15% cap gains tax which is tied to investment instruments eg stocks, bonds etc.
All POTUS is doing is making business more bearish. And bears hoard cash. In most cases they do not spend it when the bulls are in hiding.
Save the explosive stock market growth "and record profits" POTUS keeps crowing about. Why can't one of his arse-kissing "journalists" ask him a followup question "Why is that"?
Because the answer is record-setting layoffs and cost-cutting measures have been used to cover-up anemic top-line sales growth the past 2-3 years. Now, they have to start relying on top-line sales growth to grow EPS and it isn't there. Not when GDP Q4 shrank to a negative number. And as long as the bears are on the loose GDP is going to remain very weak.
This economy is in the tank because there is no net jobs growth every month. We are moving sideways at best considering new entrants into the ob market every month. MORE JOBS MEANS MORE MONEY TO THE IRS. That is balanced - people actually making some dough in the middle class POTUS has screwed and paying taxes because they some skin in the game.
I cannot believe how GD stupid too many are that believe POTUS' remarks regarding the economy.
Tell us how the sequester will create jobs...
The President has been saying for 18 months that this would not be a good thing for the economy, but the GOP/TP folks were so sure that they would take the White House & Senate in the last election, they refused to even negotiate with the President. Yes, this will hurt. Do I like it.. NO... but hte American people will see that 100% of the blame falls squarely on the GOP/TP... and THEY will pay a heavy price for their obstructionist actions. November 2014 should spell the end of both of these factions of RWNJs.
FORWARD!
Save it, emdf - the Dems/Occupy Wall St. thugs know not what they are doing. Which is why were in year 5 of a recession with no end in sight.
EMD
Another of the blind sheep!
"Forward "my ass Cuba got "CHANGE" in 1959
The recession ended in June 2009.
Tell that to the still unemployed.
Liberals should no more be blamed for the deficit than conservatives. It is true that liberals believe in the social safety nets and trust funds. However, conservatives believe in fighting wars without paying for them. Deregulation of the financial sector put us in this mess- not government spending. Our real problem is that real wages have not gone up in this country in 30 years and costs have continued to climb. Neither side has any idea what to do about it so they just spend their time posturing and trying to stay in power.
EXACTLY
Ron - Democrats in Congress put in this mess by insisting since at least the beginning of BJ Clinton's presidency anyone with a pulse deserves a mortgage. Clinton even strong-armed lenders - play ball or else. Then his Commodities Chief in '98 warned him there were many risky loans in the mortgage market. That they were bundled in derivatives that could collapse the financial markets.
He ignored her. Wanted those home sales up! Gutless Republicans also ignored it - did not want to pegged as against the working poor and home ownership.
Dems are frauds and weasly finger-pointers.
Wasn't it GW Bush who promoted his "ownership society?"
Oh yes, and his opinion about the economy should matter because he has been such a master of economic matters to this point.
Exactly, bring back Dubya to totally finish the economy off.
William...you have zero talking points.
blog. heritage. org/2012/01/01/chart-of-the-week-u-s-presidents-ranked-by-budget-deficits/
www. cbsnews. com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
See what happens when you can actually point to facts?
If Obama can't handle the heat then he should get the hell out of the kitchen...what do you expect with a community organizer as prez besides deflection and holidays...Obama has no idea how to run the federal government...
and you do?
Sure...only problem is I don't want the job...a 7x24 job that gets paid chump change...
i do...more so than the ass obama......
Dee Ten
If you do, then you do your country the service of running. Obama is not doing the best job, but he is doing 10X better than Bush and 1000X better than Romney.
mcpaddywack
Again, then, using your vast educational experience and job experience, why don't you tell us exactly what needs to be done. Please be sure to explain how you are going to get Congress to agree w/you.
Who in their right mind would want the bought-and-paid-for MSM harpies slandering them for a year... no evidence... just throw mud... call you a tax cheat... call you a murderer...
I say.. let the sequester happen. Let's start with automatic spending cuts. If both parties can't put their politics aside and work together, let the games begin.
Clinton chanmpioned and signed the The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. He did, after being bought off by Sandy Weill. The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided the Democratic Party. But it was the gift of the pen to Sanford Weill and its assuming an honored place on the Wall of Me that rubbed salt in the wound.
However, the bill was passed in a republican held congress, but the vote in the senate was 90-8. That means most of the democrats voted for it too. Clinton's treasury guy, Robert Rubin pushed the bill through and then took a cushy job at Citibank, who had the most to gain since they had already started a merger with Travelers Group insurance. Clinton gave the pen he used to sign the bill to Sandy Weill, the CEO of Citibank, it is now displayed in their headquarters.
You talk about the republicans having control for the first six years of "W"s presidency. Remember that it took several years for the subprime loans started after deregulation to begin failing. The people that took out ARMs that had 2, 3, or 5 years before their rates went up and hoped their income would go up during that time are the ones to blame!
So 85 billion dollars in cuts out of a 3.5 TRILLION dollar budget would be catastrophic?
What a bunch of complete and utter bullshyt spewed by this POS and dutifully repeated by the lapdog libtards in the mainstream.
Joke.
Libs decided that cutting defense and cutting Medicare would be good... except that a lot of their constituents got caught in the net... ha ha ha.... now Oblunder is looking for a way out.... I say let him have his sequester...
"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."
So, apparently this sequester doesn't mean jack crap to Congress. Not one person stood up in either the House or Senate and said "Golly, maybe we ought to delay our visit back to our states and work this out before the deadline hits, and then face our people." They should have voted to delay their homeward bound trip. Shows they just don't give a rats petunia.
Up until Geo W. Bush took office, it was never up to the President of the USA to present a budget to Congress. He was the one to present something if both sides disagreed. And he did. That is the sequester that Congress agreed to. So, both sides get over it and vote a nice even budget. A mixture of revenues and spending cuts. It's not that hard people.
Have you Right Wingers been "immune" to Republican/Tea Party/Right Wing Cartel history?? Have you been intentionally ignoring the corruption and fraud in your own party?? Read this for starters: And don't forget: The Koch brothers are making money on Oil derivatives - the lifeblood of the world economy. Now, do you still wonder why they want no regulations and attack anybody who "threatens" their greed and corruption??? Read the inside story of Koch greed and hypocrisy: thinkprogress.org/report/koch-oil-speculation/.
Well how tough is it to make money speculating when Oblunder is in charge... bet on oil/gas going UP.... ha ha ha
And don't forget: The Koch brothers are making money on Oil derivatives - the lifeblood of the world economy. Now, do you still wonder why they want no regulations and attack anybody who "threatens" their greed and corruption??? Read the inside story of Koch greed and hypocrisy: thinkprogress.org/report/koch-oil-speculation/.
Well, at least nobody was able to refute what I posted! WHY? Because it is FACT!
And Dee Ten:
9 Revelations From Robert Draper’s ‘Do Not Ask What Good We Do’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/25/9-revelations-from-robert-draper-s-do-not-ask-what-good-we-do.html
And let's not forget that the biggest "freeloaders" in our country are the wealthy, big corporations, churches, farmers (I like family farms but big corporate farms have been scooping up the gravy forever). Your freeloading political churches have been sponging off the publican doll and launching bigoted political attacks in the process - so don't tell me about goddamn "entitlements" and "freeloaders"....
BRAVO
And who passed the tax laws that gave everyone on your list a tax break? Could it have been greedy politicians of both ilks with there envelopes full of cash from some special interest lawyers? Naw, not my politician you'll say.
The wealthy, corporations, and farms create wealth. The Liberal deadbeat parasites on the Urban Ghetto Welfare plantations, on the other hand, just loot it. You and they need to get a job.
And don't forget: The Koch brothers are making money on Oil derivatives - the lifeblood of the world economy. Now, do you still wonder why they want no regulations and attack anybody who "threatens" their greed and corruption??? Read the inside story of Koch greed and hypocrisy: thinkprogress.org/report/koch-oil-speculation/.
Will
Good post
All churches are a business and should be taxed Asa business.
These crooks are what the GOP base their sick ways on,FAITH,,,that is for losers,like the Bible. Lmao
Clinton and Frank, caused the melt-down, no Bush. What has been painfully obvious for well over a decade: namely, that our financial savior, Barney Frank, along with his tgiveaway, vote-buying policies was actually one of the prime causes of the mortgage collapse and the ensuing Great Recession which, economic pronouncements to the contrary, remains with us still.
In a nutshell, the much-maligned Bush Administration recognized the Fannie-Freddie problem early on. Slowly, relentlessly, from the 1980s on, mostly Democrat-controlled Congresses pushed both quasi-governmental entities to prod banks into ever more liberal loan policies that would allow less and less qualified loan applicants to obtain mortgages and—often for the first time—purchase housing, regardless of whether they were financially able to carry their mortgages.
The problem became acute in the early 2000s as lower and lower down payments and "liar loans"—loans that required little if any substantiating documentation—became the norm. The Bush Administration—along with eventual GOP presidential candidate John McCain—tried to put an end to these practices, but to no avail. Frank, the Democrats, and a substantial number of incredibly stupid Republicans steadfastly opposed legislation geared toward heading off the already-gathering fiscal storm.
This observation from The New Editor, noting NPR's sycophantic "airbrushing" of Frank's crude but successful effots to derail any restriction on Fannie's or Freddie's ability to use their collective leverage over the mortgage industry to degrade lending standards and provide more money to give away to the Democrats' "charitable causes":
"From a September 2003 report by the New York Times' Stephen Labaton, on a Bush Administration proposal for a new agency charged with the financial oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'''
The mortgage implosion started playing out a scant four years after this cynical pronouncement.
Borrowed money is not always as elastic as it sometimes seems. Clearly, something had to give and it did. Our financial system went kaput, beginning at the tail end of 2007 when highflying subprime lender New Century suddenly announced that it had no idea as to whether its already-reported financial figures were even close to reality.
There is no responsible study that supports your argument. Google "Bush June 2002 Speech in Atlanta," for the President's speech calling for the development, building and sale of 5.5 new homes for low income, minorities. Google "Roland Arnall," largest single contributor to the Bush 2004 re-election campaign and founder and CEO of Ameriquest Mortgage, at one point the largest sub-prime front line loan lender in the nation. Google "2004 HUD proposal to the GSEs on affordable loan target." It called, at the the height of sub-prime lending, for Freddie and Fannie to be underwriting MORE of the sub-prime market.
Your comment about Bush and McCain trying to stop "liar loans" is a straight forward fabrication. Lending standards fell to meet the demand for mortgages to securitize.
The first signs of failure came in mid-2006, with the beginnings of falling house prices in overbuilt regions of the country, already largely tapped out of any one remotely qualified for a loan. The economy slowed throughout 2007, with the spread of falling house prices. Administration figures trotted to the Hill to testify that such was only "a small correction." That the "fundementals continue to be strong."
In 2008, after the beginning of the recession in December 2007, McCain's chief financial adviser for his campaign, ex-Texas Senator Phil Gramm, told a public audience, that the nation wasn't in a recession and the nation had become a " nation of whiners." He had to resign.
The GSEs came to the party late; you are reversing cause and effect. In 2003 they were OK...but from late 2004 to the end in 2008, they came under increasing pressure from the White House and investors to purchase more of the "junk" as became clear to investment and commercial banks that had purchased them from the front line lenders.
You seem to ignore much of the historical evidence...in favor of ideological BS.
“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, “scared the hell out of everybody.”
It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.
The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.
Then his Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.
Mr. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.
“How,” he wondered aloud, “did we get here?”
Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, “faced with the prospect of a global meltdown” with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.
“The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.”
For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security. The housing market was a bright spot: ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college.
Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.
“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”
Oops...small typo in my post above...that's 5.5 MILLION new homes, not 5.5 homes.
Hmmm...they needed the housing bubble to generate revenue to pay for the wars. When the wars went longer and cost more than they had anticipated, they kept blowing up the bubble, to the point where it blew up in their faces, before they could get out of town.
There's a key word in your Bush quote Willard... "work".... something Liberals know nothing about...
Bush started two wars then took resources from the first to start a second war. Neither war was paid for nor put on the books. A few thousand American military personnel were killed in the process and several $trillion spent. That "Cut 'n Spend" Republican administration launched our deficit. Under Bush-Cheney, the wealthy more than doubled their income while everybody else's declined. The Koch brothers launched risky oil derivatives, driving up the cost of oil, gas - and everything else for the rest of us. And let's not forget the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, that repealed the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 and led the our economic crash. Tell me again what the wealthy, greedy and corrupt are doing for the United States of America....
We have Corp free loaders,like GE,Face Book,loser,and many others that need to pay their fair share,,losers
Or maybe curtail the welfare program which costs around a trillion dollars a year
we need the freeloaders and deadbeats that voted for obama the ass to pay their fair share...and by the way, teh top dog at GE is one of obama's buddies.....imagine that.....
then why dont we go after the BIG money and attack chrony capitalism??????? You want to waste your time going after some knucklehead ripping us off of 5000 a year yet watch the corporate cheaters taking millions at a whack.
Actually, the cost of gasoline and rising taxes are much bigger threats to our economy right now. But the good old boys in DC love havin' pissin' matches over silly, insignificant matters. I don't care who's is bigger guys - quit bleeding the middle class! We're hemorrhaging out here!
If the sequester does happen, then Obama must share some of the blame as the Whitehouse proposed the concept and the Congress approved it. Federal budget is about $3.5 trillion per year and the effect this year would be $85 billion which is a drop in the bucket.
obama the ass and his gang of petty tyrants are much more devastating than cutting federal spending.....obama is such liar and a distorter and a deceiver and a divider.........
Yeah, Mac ~ don't you just love him? After watching that MSNBC documentary last night about the ramp up to the Iraq invasion, I'd be cautious in charging Obama with being a distorter, deceiver, and divider. He couldn't possibly match BushCo and the PNAC crowd. They will hold that prize for several more electoral seasons.
Funny tho Jim, Harry the Barrier and Nancy the Ditz voted the money for those wars based on the same info that Bush had.... Bush couldn't have done anything without funding... so once again.. Liberals like you are deluded liars...
I find it strange that anyone would blame a person for buying a home that they cannot afford when the bank and mortgage company tell them they can. Banks have MBA's to give financial advise and run the company. Homeowners have themselves. There is not much doubt in my mind whose fault it is. Bush did not deregulate the financial industry but he didn't do anything about it either. He gets blamed because everyone associates republicans with deregulation. It is what they want and what they got.
Go do some drugs because your dealer says it's OK... dumbass.... Liberals take no accountability for their own stupidity....
Ron Brock.....you may want to do a little research into history and how bills signed by Carter and Clinton as well as policies driven by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd really put the death knell on the housing crisis.
I spoke to friends in the small bank business and the Federal gov't actually came to them and told them that they would loan money to people who had no money down and no proof of payment capabilities (in a sense, high risk borrowers) or they would not receive dollars nor Federal support.
These were borrowers that these banks would never loan to because of their risk, yet our Federal gov't basically forced them to.
Do the research and the truth will set you free.
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?
Invisible Hand....nice try to explain the process, however, you too are mistaken.
While it is true that the Constitution mentions nothing about a budget, Congress is still required, by law, to pass the annual budget through both houses of Congress.....
Something the Senate has not done since 2009.....
Thus, since all laws fall under the Constitution, that means it is still against the law of the land to not pass a budget....
why is it that king obama always blames everybody else for the mess he has created???
Let the Federal Cuts Begin - 10% chop to Congress/White House/Pentagon salaries!
Perhaps John BOehNER and the House should try creating a budget that does not benefit corporations and the rich at the expense of the middleclass and the poor and then maybe, it will pass the Senate and go on to be signed by The President.
Left: Because in the Senate time is gold and why waste your wealth on a pointless jesture. Cant you at least take a civics course and get educated?
left- ever notice none of your responses contain facts just opinions? Your just full of hot air