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:
Mr. President,
It would be so easy to avoid these "devastating cuts", come up with a package of CUTS (not more taxes, we can deal with that later) that are more balanced and won't harm the economy. You could cut .5% across the board and be done with it, and the sun would still rise tomorrow. Left alone these cuts would take effect, so the ball is in your court, propose different cuts that won't harm the economy. Now, here comes the hard part, you must show some leadership and an ability to compromise. Yeah, I know, you're not used to that, but this time, for the good of the country, try to learn a new trick.
iamstopper,
Balancing a budget includes cuts and revenue increases- period. If you don't think austerity hurts an economy, take a look at the impact of austerity in Europe. The GOP need to start serving their country and the American people who gave this president a mandate when they reelected him. Pledging their allegiance to Norquist and the right wing nuts in their party will only result in another GOP fueled economic crisis and a House cleaning in 2 years.
Diane, can you name a single country in Europe which started an austerity program BEFORE their economy was already in the tank??????
And I always like to remind you Democrats that President Obama has "led" Democrats to their two worst defeats in the House since 1948!
Mike,
Defeats! Is that what you Republicans call it when your opponent gains seats and retains the White House? What sort of twisted reality do you people live in?
The Bush economic collapse is the worst in the country's history. GOP and Faux refuse to acknowledge the recovery so according to you, the GOP austerity program would be applied to an economy already in the tank.
The majority of House votes went to Democrats; the President won the popular vote. The People of "We the people" have spoken. The GOP need to serve the people and not Grover and his ideology.
So your definition of a win is the opposition party holding their second-largest majority in 74 years, huh? Interesting....
And in case you don't know, majority votes mean nothing as far as Congressional races go except for the district where the candidates are running. Trying to read more into it is a weak attempt to make yourself feel better.
Diane,
The GOP already gave in to the tax increase. It's time to do some cuts now before you dip into other peoples' wallets again. Besides, a $85B cut out of a $3.5T budget is tiny. Are they that incapable of cutting such a tiny amount ? If that's the case, how the heck are we going to get ourselves out of this hole ?
Kris
I've read many of these posts, not one mentions the fact that the "sequester" was put forward by the white house. This is Obama's idea in the first place. Why is this not mentioned anywhere?
Thanks for the Faux talking point. GOP voted for it. NEXT.
Are you saying Republicans voted for it without reading the bill?
Maybe they had to vote for it to find out what was in it?
Sequestration IS the compromise you people keep shouting for. BOTH parties agreed to it, by a majority, and the President signed the bill. Why cry now?
That's idiotic. Try doing some research. Sequestration was purposely designed to be so severe as to force a compromise in order to avoid it.
Diane would do herself well to remove her head from Obama's a*s and read the CNN story by Wolf Blitzer asking why if this is such a bad thing did Obama propose it.
let the sequester happen, it is the only hope for any real cuts to ever occur.
Is this a Right Wing tax cut...???
Right Wing Fraud Alert: Rand Paul wants tax dollars to fund Fundamentalist Christian schools. What about "Separation of Church and State"..?? It that is allowed, what happens when American Muslims want tax dollars for an Islamic school, and Catholics for a Catholic school, and Jews for Jewish schools, etc, etc, etc. Do you think the American Religious Right Wing would not fight that?? It's time to bury Tea Party Express fraud and hypocrisy...
That's why- even though he has the MSM in his pocket, he won't do interviews...
Thanks for the Faux talking point. GOP voted for it. NEXT
So did Dems, Diane. And the President signed on to it, too!
GOP and the Dems voted for it.
But Obama signed it.
It began in Obama's white house and was signed BY THE POTUS.
Get a grip on reality Diana, please. People with common sense see through this BS.
Why was Canada able to do across the board spending cuts in 1994 and come out prosperous (even today), yet we think we are going to fall off the face of the world because of 2% spending cuts? Just spread those dollars across everything and call it good. Note we are also basically talking about less increases, not real cuts.
Feel free to move to Canada.
Sorry? Because I suggested that another country did something right, I should move there?
I served my country in the USAF and continue through charity and my Church today. I love it here, but I can also admit that another country did something right.
Go ahead and laugh, pubic, but many intelligent people are doing just that; moving to Canada or somewhere else. You wait until all the inflation starts from all this Quantative Easing. We are talking eight dollar gas and the oil companies not making an extra dime off that price. The road to ruin is where we are headed. Even the military advisors will tell you our debt is more of a threat than North Korea. Each president pushes us farther in the direction of insolvency and hopes that the dam won't break on his watch. Bring back Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
Bill Clinton did less than both Obama and Bush....maybe the key is for the government to stop messing with people.
Gotta love liberals! They have NO idea of what Obama has done. The sequester MUST happen and it's all on OBAMA!
It must happen?
You are clueless!
thanks anyway
The Republican-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel, if it can't win, throws the anchor overboard to slow down or sink our ship that is trying to sail forward. In other words, more obstruction, sabotage - and treason....
OREO; Obama is right on taxing the rich. This is rediculus not to expect those people who's wealth we go abroad and fight for and sometimes die for. The more money you have the more you need the things taxes buy. As for spending, we need a government that has agencies that do their jobs rather than get in bed with the industries they are supposed to be watching. Obama hasn't gotten any of the agencies to do their jobs. He might as well be Bush 3 and now Bush 4.
Why is Obama right on taxing the rich? Cut social programs, they do not help anyone at all. Sorry, my mistake, social programs do help Dems get elected, that's all they are good for. Can't wait until Obamacare hits everyone! Who will the Dems and Obama blame for that??
Seriously??? Sequester is another one of your idiotic ideas Obama!
This idiot was never qualified to be President, and proves yet agaon
Actually he is proven to be one of our best Presidents ever.
Thanks for noticing
The Republican-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel, if it can't win, throws the anchor overboard to slow down or sink our ship that is trying to sail forward. In other words, more obstruction, sabotage - and treason....
johnny, please list your "proof".
I've got all day....
Typically the "best" President on hated and despised by half the country.
Try to keep up.
@Johnny:....WHAT ?
"one of our best President's ever?"
He raised the national debt by 7.000,000,000,000 dollars, put 20 MILLION more people on foodstamps, and his claim to fame is playing golf with Tiger.
Johnny, let me guess....no I won't even go there.
Publius...you are a troll.
So it was President Obama who collapsed our economy?
Ill stop there because you obvioulsy do not have a clue what you are talking about.
trouble1954
He followed the WORST President in US History. The same one that added 5 TRILLION to our debt (or did you forget that), had an unemployment rate spiraling out of control, from a party that supports tax credits for corporations that MOVE jobs to other countries, started to foreign wars, cut taxes, and then had no way to pay for what we had going on?
Compared to BUSH, Obama is extraordinary.
P.S. Yes, forgive DEMOCRATS for giving out foodstamps while american try to find a job that was SENT to another country and with our TAX MONEY.
Johnny.....If you mean Obama is the best President at....
1. Adding to the debt (more than all previous Presidents combined)
2. Lowering job participation rates
3. Dividing the country (men against women, black against white, attacking religion, rich against poor, etc.)
4. Overseeing the greatest shift in the strength of radical Islam in the Middle East and Africa
5. Overseeing the largest increase in African-American unemployment in recent years
6. Allowing the first US ambassador to be killed in over 30 years
7. Overseeing the doubling of gas prices in the US
8. Arming Mexican drug cartels with over 2000 firearms, resulting in the death of civilians and US agents
9. 24/7 campaigning rather than leading
10. Taking actions that are aimed at averting the Constitution....
Then I guess you could say he is the "best"......
Unfortunately, being the best at being bad doesn't count and hurts this great nation.......
As expected, lies and distortions: Ignored dept and problems passed on from Bush-Cheney. Pretending Obama was not dealing with black hole dug by GOP. Pretending that Obama did not have to spend to save our very financial system and economy, etc, etc, etc. In other words: Just more Republican-Tea Party-Right Wing BS and fraud. No need to describe any further....
Yep they never mention that most if not all of the additional debt President spentt was to counter the Bush financial collapse which in essence makes the Bush Admin responsible for all of the deficit.
They just love to F things up then blame the next guy.
its the Republican way.
The collapse is on the dems.
** 2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation
and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
This "Sequester" mess is a dream come true for Republicans.
We all know what it's really about.
It will actually do the job for the GOP, destroy this country's economy. You know, to make the black guy in office look bad. Since, by their bigoted thinking, anything controlled by a black will result bad debt.
did you only vote for the black half?
Larry....sequester was Obama's idea that he jammed through last summer.....
Hmmmmm....
Who then is trying to destroy the economy?
Or should I say finish destroying the economy......after his mismanagement since taking office...
You have no clue.
The sequester was brought about by the same Republican do nothing but obstruct agenda that we see now. The sequester was drawn up so as to force the Republicans to act and cooperate. Republicans were all for the sequester because they thought theyd win the election and never have to deal with the sequester.
It backfired on them.
Then why are you crying about it? Let it happen! Johnny, BOTH patries voted for and passed this, and the President signed it. One party could not have got this passed by themselves.
You must have missed a couple of chapters along the way, Shepherd. The sequesters were put in place as part of the Budget Control Act which was passed and signed in 2011 ~ ~ not last summer. They were put in place as part of the agreement to raise the debt ceiling and have been in place for almost a year and a half. It was a mutually accepted clusterfu*k agreed to in bi-partisan fashion by congress and signed by Obama, so everyone's fingerprints are on it. There are no innocents in this issue.
What is wrong with the economy is this wave of illegal aliens that this president is enabling. Twenty percent unemployment on returning veterans? People coming out of college can't get jobs for all the H2B visas being granted. This guy is a one man wrecking ball but he has plenty of help in this congress.
More deportations in Obamas firstb 4 yrs than Bushes 8.
You are an idiot
The financial mess we are in is a result of several decades of mismanagement. Both Repubs and Demos brought us to the point that we are at today. Our 2 party system is broken, which is why I voted for a third party this last election. Oh what a mess we are in! Good luck, everybody.
President Obama said he would work tirelessly for middle class American jobs.
How does his plan to allow 11 million illegal aliens to stay here and legally work help any of the currently unemployed American workers or unemployed legal immigrants get a job?
This plan is an AMNESTY.
Any politician who would vote for any of these immigration bills is not concerned about the unemployed Americans.
Ask the 1.3 million construction workers what they think about this plan.
Perhaps Obama needs to check with the CBO Director about the actual data. The CBO does its financial projections based on current law. Those projections now include the budget caps from the 2011 debt deal, the fiscal cliff deal, and all the sequestration cuts being implemented as scheduled on March 1st.
Here is a comment from the CBO Director's testimony to both the House and Senate Budget Committees last week: "We expect that growth in real GDP will pick up after this year, to about 3½ percent per year in 2014 and the following few years."
A real GDP growth rate of 3 1/2% is almost twice the GDP growth rate of the past 3 years. Does that sound like a devastated economy to you??? It sounds to me like a booming economy compared to what we have seen these past 3 years from Obamanomics. We have a President who is "math challenged".
The CBO is frequently way off on their future projections.
The latest CBO analysis shows continuing declines in the annual deficit through FY 2015. That allows time for negotiations and the arrival at a compromise solution. What is hurting the economy more than anything else at present is the continual "crisis atmosphere" caused by a largely leaderless Republican Party.
But you were so quick to assume that the CBO's scoring of Obamacare was spot-on!
Economic forecasts are like weather forecasts...the further out they go, the less reliable they become. Remember, the orginal Bush tax cuts were predicated on a ten year budget forecast that predicted $5.6 trillion in surpluses.
no new proposed spending cuts....just more wanting to raise taxes........and the tiny minds of liberals still believe this load of crap??
Obama placed the burden to negotiate on the Republicans today. He should immediately travel the country over the next 11 days and drop the hammer on the republicans. Boo Yah. Campaign mode 24/7!
he'll be too busy traveling the country golfing.......
Obama has NEVER stopped campaigning!
He IS good at it, I will give him that. Just so sad he can't do the job he campaigned so hard for......
Golf is over. Politics is front and center. We elected him to get the economy moving and it seems in order to do that he needs to hammer the republicans time and again by going to the people. So be it. Keep the pressure on. The republicans will fold, they do every time.
Obama is the worst President we have ever had. He was by ne means delt a "rough hand", as proclaims. Bush signed TARP into law cleaning up Clinton de-regulation of the banks and the criminal neglect of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Bush also placed the first Bal-Out funds of $13 Billion into a working escrow account.
Oh, we get the Liberal mantra "we were bleeding 750,000 a month". Well no, it was one month, December 2008. And it was 720,000. Now we have 23 Million out of work. Geez, I'll take the 720,000 at this point.
Obama even had control of the congress, and even a $867,000 Billion stimulus filled with his "Tickle up" policies where he promised us a %5.5 unemployment, a green economy with five million jobs, and a cut in the deficit by half. What did we get? A measly $1 trillion added to the GDP in four years. That will barely cover the stimulus, it will not cover the deficit.
Obama Trickle up policies have translated to a huge failure and losses.
• 23 million Americans are out of work, have stopped looking for work, or are underemployed
• $16.4 trillion national debt (that's $50,000 for every American)
• 48 straight months of 8% or higher unemployment
• 5 straight trillion dollar budget deficits in a row -- more than any other president combined
More trickle up failues:
18.9% unemployment for Blacks
9.1% for woman,
685,000 woman lost their job and health insurance(who cares about FREE birth control when you do not have health insurance)
The poverty rate for woman has gone up to 14.2% from 7.6%
We have 6 million fewer jobs than 3.5 years ago
3.6 million Residential foreclosures
2.6 million Commercial foreclosures
Over 3.8 million business have gone out of business
38,000 US products moved offshore for manufacturing
The lowest number of patents in 35 years
The highest number of people receiving food stamps in 30 years
A 26% decrease in the value of the dollar
The fewest new prescription drugs in 25 years, 308 prescription drugs in short supply (as of 6/1/11)
Housing values drop 33%
It gets worse:
FOOD STAMPS
Obama – 46.2 million : Before Obama – 28.2 million
CREDIT RATING
Before Obama AAA - Obama AA+
GAS PRICES
Before Obama - $1.65 a gallon (End of term) : Obama - $3.90 a gallon (Current)
(Source: )
UNEMPLOYMENT
Bush - 4.71% (Average) : Obama - 9.4% (Average) – 7.9% Current
( Source: www.bls.gov )
NATIONAL DEBT
Bush – Increased 4 trillion (8 Years) : Obama – Will increase 18 trillion (8 years, according to OBAMAS budget)
(Source: www.treasurydirect.gov )
DEFICIT
Bush - $0.5 Trillion per year : Obama - $1.8 Trillion per year
(Source: www.federalbudget.com)
INFLATION:
Bush +0.1% (End of Term) : Obama +3.6% (Current)
(Source: www.usinflationcalculator.com )
This is called failure. Shall we look at his foreign policy now? In light of current events, do we really need to go there.
Carter must be very happy about Obama's presidency..........he stole his title as worst ever.
Yawn... Nice try, but you fail to recognized WHAT BUSH created and Obama inherited.
BUSH is the worst president in US History. If he is so great, why was he NOT around during Romney's election campaign?
More liberal memory lasps. Bush created nothing, Clinton was the one that deregulated the banks, and the neglect of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd sealed the coffin.
Pubish - Sean Hannity talking points, word for word. You must idolize that headcase.
Small problem, Publius. It was actually Phil Gramm who deregulated the banks as he served as chairman of the Senate banking committee. It was his baby from day one and he had the votes in congress to override Clinton if he vetoed it. Another small problem ~ when Frank and Dodd were issuing their pronouncements about Fannie and Freddie, it was a Republican congress with a Republican president and Republican administration. Frank and Dodd were committee members ~ they didn't control a damned thing. Failure to prove up their erroneous forecasts rests with the committees on which they served, chaired by Republicans. Since Frank and Dodd are Democrats, its easy (and damned sure convenient) to try dumping the entire mortgage mess on both of them. GOPers are still trying but the general public knows better.
Jim, are you saying Clinton did not sign the The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999? Well, 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!
Why is it that Obama, when discussing cuts, always threatens our children (teachers, Head Start), our safety (law enforcement, fire fighters) and security of the nation versus....
$3.0 billion + 20 F-16 fighters ($.5 billion) + 200 M-1 tanks ($1 billion) (Total = $4.5 billion or ~5% of total cuts) to the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorist organization) controlled Egypt?
$.5 billion to Hamas controlled Palestine?
Billions in wasteful government programs like "snacks for Amtrak", swamp rat in San Francisco environment, etc.
Government program redundancy
Food stamp fraud (over 50% of food stamp recipients are above the poverty level)
Why even the recent Hurricane Sandy bill had over $30 Billion in spending that "replaced government vehicles well outside the impact zone" and other non-Sandy related expenses.....
Shameful!!!!!
Even more shameful America is that you don't even realize the sham you are being hit with.....
Is it ok when a Republican is in office?
you know why?...because obama the ass is a liar, a distorter, a deceiver, and a divider...poison for our nation...
mcpaddywack
That would be you.
Sequestration was sold by the White House as a way to raise the debt ceiling; and paradoxically, protect the good faith & credit of the Amercan taxpayer.
Apparently re-election has evolved the President's thinking to eliminating the cuts he signed into law. America, he's got your back, unless you pay taxes.
And how does cutting spending cuts pair with higher taxes as a "balanced approach"?
Just wondering. Who signed the bill into law?
Republicans don't care. They would prefer the country fail. They are spiteful like that.
Can any of you liberal progressives please explain to me how cutting a measly 2% in total federal spending will "devastate" our economy? The federal government is on track to spend close to $100B more than it did in FY 2011, even with these "draconian" cuts.
All you have to do is look at Europe. They enacted this type these types of "austerity" measures and it booted them right back into recession. The Eurozone economy contracted last year at an average rate of -2.3% Even it's largest economy (Germany) contracted at that high of a rate.
BS. There is no "austerity" when year-over-year spending is still increasing. And even if we did some actual cutting at the federal level, I'll take the short term dip in GDP over the certain dollar devaluation and increased debt payments caused by reckless printing and borrowing.
Republicans have a had time comprehending economics and budgets and deficits.
Common TP, you make it sound as though its only Progressives (Democrats) that are running scared from sequesters. I've heard the same storyline from Republicans, especially those that have large defense contractors in their states/district that will be skewered by cutting the Pentagon budget. To hear these people bitch, we will become toothless, defenseless, and a sitting duck for aggressors if we cut a thin dime from the bloated defense budget. We must have some fairly sorry-assed management in DoD because we already spend more on defense than the next 14 nations combined but if we cut back just a few billion, we will be "vulnerable."
Here's an idea...
Let's demand that Dubya and Dickless and Candi/Condi pay for the debt "they" incurred...OR Go straight to prison........
Lied to get us into war so they could continue to get richer..... But, there is absolutely NO disgust and outrage from the right.
Cheney should be picked up immediately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama knew who was in office when he ran and he said just elect him and he'd fix everything...now Obama and his acolytes want to blame anything that moves for Obama's lack of ability to deliver on his promises...
Let's take a trip down memory lane? Shall we Brain-less Babe.
I know facts hurt, but 82 of your precious dems VOTED for those wars, including:
And here's the quotes from all those democrats, with the same intelligence the republicans had, that believed Sadaam had WMD:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mas
s destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Funny how you lefties seem to forget how the democrats believed Iraq had WMD before the war, too. But it sure is fun trying to rewrite history, huh?
These are the some of the same people who are running our country at this very moment.
Doesn't matter what Democrats "believed." Bush, as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief was responsible for the intelligence product. If it was flawed, he gets the blame.
So using that logic (?), stone6, President Obama IS solely responsible for the talking points issued about what exactly happened in Benghazi.
Sure. Ultimately, the President is responsible for everything that goes on in the Executive Branch. He has already taken responsibility for the lack of security at the "Special Mission," i.e. "Consulate," in Benghazi...as did Hillary. Neither has hidden behind..."well, they knew what I knew," as GW did, in regard to Democrats angry over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
You want to impeach him over it? Try it.
For all of the extremely intelligent right (NOT), where in the sam hell are the WMD's????????????
Bush/Cheney lied and Americans died.... OH! That's only important when a Democrat is President..... I see said the blind man!
Obama not taxing the middle class? Another lie. Obamacare is the biggest tax on the middle class in history.
Yet another idiotic Obama idea.
Read the 2700 pages, it is full of hidden taxes. is an abbreviated list of taxes on families and businesses introduced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known as Obamacare, totalling more than $500 billion!
Excise taxes on charitable hospitals ($50,000 per hospital if they do not meet HHS criteria of "community health assessment needs," billing and collection," and "financial assistance" (PPACA, 2010, pp. 1,961-1,971).
Codify "economic substance doctrine" (IRS will not allow any legal deductions or tax-minimizing plans because it lacks "substance" and is intended to reduce taxes owed); this is a tax increase of $4.5 billion (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, pp. 108-113).
"Black liquor" tax on a special bio-fuel (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, p. 105).
Tax on innovating drug companies (PPACA, 2010, p. 1,971-1,980).
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Increase (PPACA, 2010, p. 2,004).
Ten percent tax on indoor tanning (PPACA, 2010, pp. 2,397-2,399).
Medicine cabinet tax disallows Americans to use health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement pre-tax money to buy over the counter medicines except insulin (PPACA, 2011, pp. 1,957-1,959).
HSA Withdrawal tax hike from 10 to 20 percent (PPACA, 2011, p. 1,959).
Employer reporting of insurance on W-2 forms, taxing health benefits on individual tax returns (PPACA, 2012, p. 1,957).
Surtax on investment income for families that make at least $250,000 or $200,00 single (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 87-93)
Medicare payroll tax increase (PPACA, Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 2,000-2,003, pp. 87-93).
A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,980-1,986).
Medical expenses can be itemized if they exceed 10 percent, no longer the previous 7.5 percent, resulting in fewer people being able to itemize (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,994-1,995).
Flexible spending account cap of $2,500 which is now unlimited (PPACA, 2013, pp. 2,388-2,389).
Eliminate tax deductions for employer-provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (PPACA, 2013, p. 1,994).
Limit of $500,000 annual executive compensation for health insurance executives (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,995-2,000).
Individual mandate excise tax starting in 2014 if a person does not buy a "qualifying" health insurance, 1 percent in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, 2.5 percent in 2016; exempted are hardship cases as determined by HHS, religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes (PPACA, 2014, pp. 317-337)
Employer mandated tax, non-deductible of $2,000 per employee if the employer does not offer health coverage and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit; if an employee receives coverage through the government exchange, the employer penalty for that employee increases to $3,000 (PPACA, 2014, pp. 345-346).
Tax on health insurers based on premiums collected per year (PPACA, 2014, pp. 1,986-1,993 (this all but forces employers to stop offering insurance, forcing their employees onto the government exchanges).
40 percent excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans or "Cadillac plans" (PPACA, 2018, pp. 1,941-1,956)
This cra* was HIS idea....he owns this one.
He NEVER takes the blame for anything.
What a cowardice POS!!
FAILED PRESIDENCY IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT!
Incorrect. The only reason we have this sequestration is because the Republicans wont move any budget forward so this was the compromise. They voted for it so to say its all President Obamas is incorrect.
The Great Recession? Brought to you by Republicans and you have the nerve to talk about failed presidency?
no one cares what you think.
You had your chance and blew it.