Sequester

The $85 Billion in cuts is 2.4% of the entire budget however since the cuts only apply to 36% of the budget (Defense & Discretionary) the $85 Billion becomes a 6.6% cut to those areas.

In addition the cuts are applied to the remainder of FY2012 (7 months instead of 12 months) so the cuts will feel like 11.5%.

Summary:

1- The cuts only apply to 36% of the budget

2- The cuts are spread over 7 months, not a full year

Even if it covered a full year it will be an effective rate of 6.6% in cuts.

Dennis - keep that message coming. Last week, we had the hard right telling us the sequester is just a drop in the bucket. Old Joe-Albany insinuated it could be easily accommodated by telling all federal food handlers to quit washing their hands to save on soap and water costs.

On thing is for sure, the skies will be safer if we ground all flights. Or we could realize population control ala GOP style - let the planes fly without any government FAA workers on hand to direct the traffic. There is nothing the GOP hates more than government workers - let's give them a taste of the world without those dirty, rotten, lazy, scumbag, Federal workers - all in the name of saving a nickle.

Whose idea was these automatic cuts anyway, the right wing, including those on MTP, are claiming these cuts were the presidents idea, or is the senate who is pointing fingers at the house or the house who is chocked full of RWNJ's whose jobs, who wins if America slows down air travel, puts kids out of head start and the thousands of job loses that will happen, who wins. Surely the republicans cannot believe that they will win. They are holding up this country yet one more time while protecting the very rich and the large corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. This is the way America will perceive it. Examining, our country against others, Bolivia for instance, we don't have a spending problem we have revenue problem and I truly believe, by letting the spending cuts proceed it will be yet another loss for the Republican party. It is time for them to step up and do what is right for America and not just those they choose to be winners.

The GOP is so Tea-sick and beyond repair now...

The ReThugliCONs are in capable of learning any lessons from Nov. 2012 elections, and force themselves toward another massive electoral defeat in Nov. 2014 when they are supposed to make gains in the 6th year of President Obama. Throughout US history the 6th year itch gives the other party a chance, except in 1822 & 1998. In 1822, the Federalist party was dead mostly. In 1998 the adulterous Gingrich forced an impeachment down the throat of Americans.

Dennis,

Wouldn't you need a passed budget to compare cuts to? Where exactly is that passed budget?

XD,

As a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 we have a budget that is in effect by law.

We always have a budget even if is nothing more than a Continuing Resolution or Congress cannot pass ANY spending bills.

"A week from now, a dramatic new federal policy is set to go into effect that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more." --- John Boehner 2/20/13

Hey Bobby Jindahl of the "stupid party", who's sounding the alarm???

I guess if the shoe fits...so does your party for you.

Written message for the GOP-TP, the next Sequester will be you, the American people are horrified what you are doing to this Nation !!!

Even with the cuts. The spending is 15 BILLION more than last year. Boo Hoo. So let the Fear Panderer,do what he does best. Cry, and blame the Republicans for HIS Sequester! No plan, as usual, just blame. What a Leader. But he must be SO busy working on his next budget that won't receive a single Democrat vote!

Geo,

$15 Billion more … which includes $60 Billion of unplanned spending for Hurricane Sandy relief.

Sounds to me like we are spending $45 Billion less than planned.

Pig O Tree - Which elections where more historic, 2010 or 2012? 2014 will be a mandate on Obama. I'll take my chances that the Obama economy will continue to suck worse then any economy in the last generation. People will finally get tired of all talk and NO accomplishments. And a lot of good the no budget Democrats have done having the Senate for the last 6 years haven't they?

Dennis - Any comment on his Budget? And how useless it will be?

Sad to say, but I don't think it makes any difference how upset the American people are about sequestration. After having shot my wad filling up my gas tank, I'm just plumb worn out protesting these things to a Government that doesn't care what I have to say--and that goes for Dems as well as Repubs. In the end, we the people will be screwed once again. Period.

Why are people upset that the government has to spend less money? Really? Think about that all you liberals. The American people have less money to spend because of the Obama economy. So obviously the guvment should spend less to, NO?

Hey geo - why not pull your head out of the sand or wherever you have it stuck. The Obama economy is miles ahead from where the Bush economy left it. Look it up.

"My advice to the president is to stop the campaigning," Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said on NBC. "Stop sending out your cabinet secretaries to scare the American people."

"Because we are the experts at fear mongering and you're stealing our thunder, waaaaahhhh!"

Why I always have to finish these guys statements is beyond me, lol.

Geo,

Why didn't Reagan follow your ideals of cutting spending?

What I always find interesting is that our President's budget proposals, in the end, have been accurate for the actual level of spending that occurred thanks to the Republican controlled House.

Most Presidents budgets ever get a vote in Congress.

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?

tonybeeerm - Really, 2 million less jobs since he took office. 600,000 less manufacturing jobs, Union membership decimated. His unemployment rate going up, A backward quarter, $1,500.00 less take home pay this year, Obama care looming, who's got there head up who's ass? So tony, please enlighten me and tell me me how we are ahead?

Dennis - You have to be kidding, Compare Reagan to Obama. One guy worked with the other side, and one guy has no clue! It's all about getting a compromise, Obama acts like a spoiled kid. Never having to EARN anything!

who's got there head up who's ass?

You'll have to look in the mirror to find the answer to that one. Stock market is close to 14,000 with 36 months of private sector job growth. Plus housing starts are up along with record profits for many of the largest corporations including the car manufacturers. Much of the damage done by the Bush/Cheney regime has been corrected. Now if help would come from the obstructionists (formerly known as the Republicans), we could get this party started. But you'll never ever hear this stuff on the fascist FOX network, so why am I wasting my time.

Tea Party types like to call themselves "the only adults in the room" - far from it: Along with their phony "austerity" comes Right Wing baggage: "Religious" Fundamentalism - the Bible is The Word of God, hence, should be the "Law" of the United States; racism, bigotry, phony patriotism and phony morals. They want to destroy public education and take those tax dollars for "Christian" schools and Christian "education" (Creationism anyone?)....

Geo,

Reagan worked with the other side because severe obstruction didn’t begin until Newt became Speaker. He still preaches obstruction !

The $85 billion in cuts can be made without the country falling apart. Each Department knew months ago that there was a possibility of the sequester going into effect. Departments should have already made plans to absorb the cuts. I am sure each Department can make the cuts without wide spread lay offs or curtailing essential operations. If they can't do it without threats of chaos and wide spread layoffs the Secretaries of the Departments should resign or be fired.

It was Jack Lew with the approval of President Obama that came up with the sequestration idea. It was President Obama who signed it into law. It was President Obama who stated that it would never go into effect. It was President Obama who stated that he would VETO any bill that tried to change the sequestration. Yes, the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have their finger prints on the law and all of Congress and the WH should be held accountable.

Everyone should quit playing the blame game and start working toward a solution. Why is President Obama flying around the country giving campaign style speeches instead of calling leaders in Congress together for discussions?

Why are people upset that the government has to spend less money? Really? Think about that all you liberals. The American people have less money to spend because of the Obama economy. So obviously the guvment should spend less to, NO?

Because when the government spends less money, people make less money. When people make less money, they pay less taxes. When they pay less taxes, government tax receipts go down. When government tax receipts go down, the government has even less money to spend. The deficit increases. It is a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.

That is why, for every other recession/economic contraction in modern times, government has stepped up spending in order to speed up the recovery.

By contrast, the current recovery is weak because Obama has been shrinking the size of government, constantly laying off people. The private sector part of the recovery has been fine, but since government layoffs have been a drag on the recovery, we have the current economic weakness.

That is why Obama wants to put people to fix the infrastructure, so that he can expand the economy, as well as improving efficiency in general, and exactly why Republicans will not allow it to happen, because it would give him an economic victory.

You suggested we think. Take your own advice. Think for yourself, and without the prejudice of believing Obama to be an anti-American Communist hellbent on destruction of the US and Republicans as the patriots defending from this takeover.

See the Republicans as they really are - a bunch of people who are willing to hurt the country in order to fulfill their hatred of one man. Obama is not a Communist; he is no less patriotic than any other President.

Inconveniencing flyers, etc. is the federal version of the usual local political, beaurocratic response: close the libraries and the swimming pools and punish taxpayers. That way the users will get upset and call for more spending.

Sorry, not this time. We're broke and there's plenty to cut. If cutting $44B out of $3.6 TRILLION is a problem the game is already over and we lost.

Tony - How are the job creators, small business doing? How are they going to be when Obamacare destroys them? I see you didn't mention the backwards quarter or the RISING unemployment, it will only get worse with him leading. but ignoring and feeling good about spending others money is what makes a liberal feel proud!

I am sure each Department can make the cuts without wide spread lay offs or curtailing essential operations.

So we should believe your certainty, and we shouldn't believe the Department heads when they say that this is impossible?

If they can't do it without threats of chaos and wide spread layoffs the Secretaries of the Departments should resign or be fired.

So we should introduce even more chaos? If the Republicans pass Chuck Hagel, that will mean 2 months or so for a change of the Defense department head. So you want us to reproduce this chaos for not just Defense, but every other part of the government?

And the funny thing is, your side wants us to believe that it is Obama who wants to destroy the US.

Everyone should quit playing the blame game and start working toward a solution. Why is President Obama flying around the country giving campaign style speeches instead of calling leaders in Congress together for discussions?

Possibly because they hate him too much to be willing to actually sit down with him? So he is going to the people who voted for them.

Sorry, not this time. We're broke and there's plenty to cut. If cutting $44B out of $3.6 TRILLION is a problem the game is already over and we lost.

"Broke" means having no money. We are not broke. In fact, even though Republican obstructionism has been slowing the recovery, the deficit has been going down.

Byron Raum - Who pays the guvment? Have you talked to guvment workers like the ones at the BMV? Guvment spending has to be cut, like all the people who work are getting their pay cut by this President. How did the failed Stimulus do. A 787 billion dollar vote collection set up. And now you guys are worried about 35 Billion. Dennis - What does people like Shelia Jackson Lee preach, it sure ain't inclusion! BLAME, BLAME,BLAME that's our President to the tee!

Tony - How are the job creators, small business doing? How are they going to be when Obamacare destroys them?

If a business is incapable of supporting all the economic needs of its full-time employees, then it does not deserve to exist. As a taxpayer, I am sick of subsidizing these businesses by supporting their employees' healthcare and paying for their foodstamps and other needs.

These small business owners need to stop mooching off the taxpayer and get real jobs.

So Tony, the only ones in the Obama economy that are doing well are corporate executives, how ironic! Don't the President and all his liberal base hate people who make money? Please explain!

Byron - Your ignorance is truly amazing, as is our Presidents. Small business accounts for 80% of all employment. Attack that and YOU WILL see a Depression you ignorant fool! Where do you go when there are no jobs?

Byron Raum - Who pays the guvment?

The taxpayers. As as I pointed out, many of these taxpayers are government employees. In addition, many of these taxpayers are people who sell stuff to the these government employees. Take government out of the equation and you shrink the economy, with pain for all.

The government is not a family. Microeconomic rules do not apply in a macro environment.

Have you talked to guvment workers like the ones at the BMV?

What point are you trying to make?

Guvment spending has to be cut, like all the people who work are getting their pay cut by this President.

And if you cut government spending like this, you will increase the deficit even more than if you hadn't.

How did the failed Stimulus do.

You mean the one that pulled us out of the economic disaster of 2008, stabilized the economy and 30 months of falling unemployment and reduced deficits, year over year? We need more "failures" like this.

Byron - Your ignorance is truly amazing, as is our Presidents. Small business accounts for 80% of all employment. Attack that and YOU WILL see a Depression you ignorant fool! Where do you go when there are no jobs?

And I am pretty sure that most small businesses are nowhere near as inefficient nor as marginal as you claim.

But you fail to address my point - if a business is not capable of supporting the healthcare and other economic needs of its employees, why should I, as a taxpayer, subsidize it? As a political party, your folk are the ones who are big on self-reliance.

Why do these rules not apply to businesses? Why is it that individuals are considered moochers if they take any public assistance, but when it comes to businesses, they are given a free pass?

Is responding with insults your only option? How can you call someone else "ignorant" and not yourself realize how seriously that undermines your position?

President’s plan only saves 1800 billion over 10 years. (180 billion per year in savings).
The DEFICIT is over 1300 billion per year. 1300 -180 = 1120 Billion in DEFICIT spending per year, still.

WHAT A JOKE.

Obama's proposal
Whitehousedotgov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

Byron - Quit drinking the Obama cool-aid and think for your self. If your boss tells you that you have to cut 2% or 6% of your operating expenses next year, I am sure you could come up with cuts that would not effect your employees or necessary expenses.

The Defense Department has over the years have been able to make prudent cuts without harming National Defense in past years. They can do it again, there is a lot of waste in the Defense Department. As for the other Department heads, if they can't handle the pressure quit and let someone who can take over. There are a lot of programs that can be cut or reduced or even abandoned without causing major chaos.

When you state in post at 1.28: "So we should believe your certainty, and we shouldn't believe the Department heads when they say that this is impossible?" It only proves that you are falling for the Administrations so called "talking points" and "scare tactics".

Sequester is NOT like a Government shutdown.

The sequester does NOT allow funds to be moved around.

Do not think that unessential operations cannot be shut down/cut back to fund essential operations. Every section of every Department must be cut equally according to the wording in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The "cuts only" Republicans will throw the economy back into recession.

What cuts? The government is still going to spend more money than last year.

I can't believe that anyone is buying the crybaby antics of Obama and his minions. Everything he does requires him to scream the sky is falling. Can't wait until we get a real man (or woman) in the WH who will behave in a statesman like manner. And one who doesn't feel the compulsion to lie all the time to get what he wants.

tonybeeerm - Really, 2 million less jobs since he took office. 600,000 less manufacturing jobs, Union membership decimated. His unemployment rate going up, A backward quarter, $1,500.00 less take home pay this year, Obama care looming, who's got there head up who's ass? So tony, please enlighten me and tell me me how we are ahead?

2 million jobs lost during President Obama's first few months alone. How in the WORLD did he do that???

Less manufacturing jobs......President Obama forced private industry to send jobs overseas???????

Less take home pay due to the payroll tax TEMPORARY tax break that could not be extended, was a COMPROMISE forced on us in order to have crucial legislation passed.

We are no longer in recession and the Republicans are pissed. How can they tank this President's successes better than this forced compromise once again on the back of the middle class instead of accepting the end to the Bush tax cuts to the already wealthy.

When you state in post at 1.28: "So we should believe your certainty, and we shouldn't believe the Department heads when they say that this is impossible?" It only proves that you are falling for the Administrations so called "talking points" and "scare tactics".

And why should we believe you when you tell us that these are "talking points" and "scare tactics?"

You said:

Byron - Quit drinking the Obama cool-aid and think for your self. If your boss tells you that you have to cut 2% or 6% of your operating expenses next year, I am sure you could come up with cuts that would not effect your employees or necessary expenses.

Well, "I am sure" doesn't cut it.

Ironically, earlier this year, and late last year, when people making over $250,000 were told they could "cut expenses" 2% to 6% without harming employees or necessary expenses, they responded with absolute outrage. We were told that the sky would fall.

I can't believe that anyone is buying the crybaby antics of Obama and his minions. Everything he does requires him to scream the sky is falling.

Can you find us ONE quote where Obama ever screamed "the sky is falling?"

President's plan only saves 1800 billion over 10 years. (180 billion per year in savings).
The DEFICIT is over 1300 billion per year. 1300 -180 = 1120 Billion in DEFICIT spending per year, still.

WHAT A JOKE.

Actually, President Bush left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit, but the deficit now is NOT 1.3 trillion / year. Since he took office, Obama has cut the deficit by over half a trillion and it is still projected to go down beyond that.

This isn't so hard to confirm. Google "US deficit by year". More interestingly, look at the deficit as a percentage of the GDP.

By no means is Obama's plan perfect, but when your side doesn't even know the most basic numbers, how can you expect anyone to believe that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

All we get from you people is hyperbole and poor logic. When we point out the fallacies, we get insults.

Small business accounts for 80% of all employment.

Why should we be surprised geo can't even post a truthful fact. More of that mama-sister-wife parrot talk. No where near 80% of all employment. Notice the source below is only half of private sector employment - that doesn't include government sector employment. But hey, we should believe wholeheartedly everything spewing from Geo's parroted points (or what he calls, scare tactics).

Employ half of all private sector employees. http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

Byron: Your post 1.28 is true, the size of the ANNUAL deficit is going down (still huge, but going down) but you did not address the fact the DEBT is going up, significantly. A major change in interest rates higher will bankrupt our nation, or do you disagree? Would you be so kind as to speak to those points. Thank you.

A major change in interest rates higher will bankrupt our nation, or do you disagree? Would you be so kind as to speak to those points. Thank you.

I agree 100%. That is EXACTLY why we should NOT be constantly threatening to default on our debt obligation and thereby decrease our credit rating and increase our own interest rates, don't you agree?

Furthermore, it has often been said that the best way to deal with the debt obligation is to grow the economy, have people make more money, and thereby growing tax receipts. Wouldn't you say that makes sense? Thank you.

Policies are being put in place where such already happens. Obamacare will contribute towards that; there are many people who are chronic suffers. Ill people are not productive people. Fix them, preferably as soon as the condition arises, instead of in an emergency room, and they can go back to working and paying taxes. I do not know how much this will contribute to the economy, but it seems doubtful that it's negligible. Furthermore, we can avoid all the medical bankruptcies, more than a million. A medical bankruptcy serves absolutely no good purpose and detracts from the economy, crowds the courts and discomfits potentially productive people.

Other ideas are fixing our infrastructure. With a better infrastructure we have improved productivity and that makes the economy more efficient, again increasing tax receipts.

None of this is very difficult. Obsession with the debt to the exclusion of all else; THAT is what is deleterious to the economy.

The only reason to default now is that it will be less painful to do so now than to run the debt higher and deal with even more difficult circumstances. If the politicians cannot cut $44B out of $3.6 Trillion my preference is to default now to make the hole a smaller one to dig out of.

This is not a tax issue, it is a politicians afraid not to get reelected issue. In other words, spending.

I wrote:

Furthermore, it has often been said that the best way to deal with the debt obligation is to grow the economy, have people make more money, and thereby growing tax receipts.

To underscore this point, this is ALREADY happening. That is why the deficit has shrunk under Obama. Examine the breakdown in recent income and outlay here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Keep in mind that these numbers do not take into account potential efficiencies from an improved infrastructure or healthier people. If we didn't have such an obstructionist Congress, we could start discussing these possibilities and minds much smarter than ours start to examine them. As it is, all we are spending all our time arguing over government shutdowns.

The only reason to default now is that it will be less painful to do so now than to run the debt higher and deal with even more difficult circumstances.

There is no reason to ever have to worry about painful circumstances, unless we are forced into them by unreasonable obsession over the debt, to the exclusion of all else.

If the politicians cannot cut $44B out of $3.6 Trillion my preference is to default now to make the hole a smaller one to dig out of.

I don't think you understand how "default" works. If we default, there is no hole. That is kind of what "default" pretty much means. There is also no economy, but that's another matter.

Byron: There is a hole and there is still an economy if we default. The hole is the amount we would still have to pay back but don't have the money for, and the economy would be fine. Consider a typical, pre-packaged bankruptcy be it private like General Motors or public, like Greece. They're both still in business and in fact, GM seems to be thriving. Of course, they got their debt and expenditures in line.

But that's another matter.

GM is thriving because the US acted as guarantor for its debt, so they did not see an immense spike in their interest rate. The same is true of the EU and Greece. There IS no such guarantor for US debt; there is no one who enough money.

If we default, our credit rating takes a very serious hit. If our credit rating takes a hit, the interest rates we pay rise. If we default, and then try to pay back later, we pay a much higher interest rate.

A default, or even threat of default, creates exactly the scenario you mentioned in your first posting above. This is what you said:

A major change in interest rates higher will bankrupt our nation, or do you disagree?

Interest rates are tied directly to credit rating. Credit rating is tied to both ability and willingness to pay debt. (There are very rich people with very poor credit rating, simply because they ignore bills half the time.) If we display an unwillingness to pay debt, our credit rating goes down. If our credit rating goes down, our interest rates go up.

That is why obsessive worry about the debt makes things worse. It cannot and should not be ignored, but it is not the biggest problem facing us today. Growing the economy is the biggest problem facing us.

Somehow a 800B stimulus wasn't big enough given the size of the US economy, but a 44B cut (not 85B), will cause the sky to fall. Can you at least get your story straight?

Adding to the liberal angst is concern that the scale of the cuts may be overstated, at least in the short term. While the sequester orders the White House to withdraw $85 billion in spending authority from affected agencies in the fiscal year that ends in September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that agencies will reduce actual spending by only about $44 billion, with the remaining cuts carried over into future years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-big-sequester-gamble-how-badly-will-the-cuts-hurt/2013/02/23/be0c44e2-7c4e-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

Actually, President Bush left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit, but the deficit now is NOT 1.3 trillion / year. Since he took office, Obama has cut the deficit by over half a trillion and it is still projected to go down beyond that.

So, if we subtract half a trillion from 1.3T then the last deficit should be around 800B. But it was still over 1T. So your numbers are malarkey to quote a VP, and it will only fall below the 1T mark in 2013 if the projected savings occur (you know the sequestration).

The federal deficit fell to $1.1 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, down from about $1.3 trillion a year earlier, the Obama administration said on Friday.

That is the smallest deficit since 2008 but represents the fourth year in a row that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. Before the recession, which prompted huge federal spending and large tax cuts, the deficit had never exceeded half a trillion dollars.

The gap between government receipts and government spending — about 7 percent of economic output in the 2012 fiscal year, down from 8.7 percent in the 2011 fiscal year — has become a heated election-year political issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/business/federal-deficit-for-2012-fiscal-year-falls-to-1-1-trillion.html?_r=0

BTW I don't accept your figure of 1.3T as the Bush deficit either.

BTW I don't accept your figure of 1.3T as the Bush deficit either.

I don't know what number is accurate but this is, Bush II left us with the worst economy since the great depression and we are still digging our way out.

Personally I would like to cut a billion from every government department, they talk about inconvenience but I'm thinking their fat has just been trimmed.

So, if we subtract half a trillion from 1.3T then the last deficit should be around 800B. But it was still over 1T. So your numbers are malarkey to quote a VP, and it will only fall below the 1T mark in 2013 if the projected savings occur (you know the sequestration).

You don't need to accept "my" figures. You only need to know how to read :-

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The numbers are as I stated. I am sorry, but you are only entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

"Interest rates are tied directly to credit rating."

Actually, rates are tied to the Fed cooking the books (buying $85B per month... $85B per month!!!) and artificially holding down the interest rate. Or if you prefer, the one eyed nation (US) is king of the bankrupt blind. Either way, does it matter? We're out of money and the republicrats can't cut a nickel for fear of not being reelected. We're toast. Opa!

And the "Drama" Obama administration officials continue their "The Sky is falling" and "Fear Mongering" agenda.

If anyone believes these folks, then I have salt water front property is sell you in Denver.

Yep, the Sequestration is Mr. "Drama" Obama's fault.

You see how he diverted Byron, this bothers me. Where were all you financial genius whose day job is cleaning up cat doo in a pet shop. Where were you when Saint Ronny started us down this road before, doubled he debt. Bill Clinton and I'll give you the republican congress trimmed the debt, set forth an economic boom and actually balanced the budget and left a surplus. Where were you when George W. Bush did this to us. He cut taxes, and spent, and spent and spent. Doubled the national debt. You people are so worried about a black man sleeping in a white house that you are in denial that there are much better ways to run the country then either Reagan or W. Bush.

The hate is unreasonable, Obama has done a good job, he has us pointed in the right direction and if the republicans in congress don't screw it up we are on our way to the prosperity of Clinton. He took the worst recession since the great depression on, all of George W. Bush's expenses and is fixing the spending. What do you want. The hate is unreasonable, and that is why I suspect some of the obstructions wear white sheets.

Ido, keep denying global warming and you might have salt watter in Denver. You are great example of the people I am talking about. Unreasonable hate.

Johntho - if Ido had no hate she'd have nothing. That's what she lives on. It's truly sad she can't see what the far right is doing - her hatred of Obama is without equal and without reason!

Global Warming? Too much carbon dioxide? You know thats the stuff we breath out right? Did you know they can measure carbon dioxide levels from the past through fossils? We had a period long ago that had 4 times the CO2 levels we have today.

Plants use carbon dioxide as food. Did you know ..... commercial growers use carbon dioxide pumps (makes extra CO2) for their plants because the levels in our air aren't optimum for plant growth. As in too little.

Right Johntho we are headed in the right direction.

6 Trillion in extra debt

Higher unemployment than when he took office over 4 years ago.

Lowest employee participation rate in 40 years

African American unemployment up 2% from when he took office, teens 57%.

1.5% GDP growth, when every other recession hit 4 - 6% by now.

Jobless claims weekly topping 350,000 consistently.

Added jobs around 150,000 which just keeps up with population ... no growth.

Fixing spending? LOL As when he proposed all kinds of new spending programs in the SOTU.

Spending 2 trillion a year we don't have. (deficit spending and FED printing another trillion)

I don't hate the guy. Would probably be a fun dude to hang out with. I just don't care for his policies. He wants the govt to be the center of our lives from craddle to grave and we just don't have the resources for it.

Typical scare tactics of the bat sh-t crazy left wing nut jobs/media...

"the sky is falling , the sky is falling"

Pathetic just pathetic

Any manager who can't handle a 10% budget cut without sacrificing basic services should be fired immediately.

Can't we just furlough Congress & the White House? That should save a few hundred BILLION right there....

Pretty funny coming to a thread watching some of the less informed cry about the sky falling . Especially funny that it comes in an article about the Transportation budget... which actually increases even after taking the sequester into effect.

See, liberals know they have a certain segment of the populace who disregard actual facts and can be trained to repeat their talking points. They have conditioned those who follow them to now believe that a baseline budget is the actual budget. Of course this baseline budget actually has a built in increase every year to allow for growth... but acknowledging that would remove the talking points from the left. Receiving a 1.5% increase while asking for a 3% increase is a budget cut to liberals. They pretend that any flat spending is the end of the world. Taking a paraphrase from George Will, liberals are admitting that current levels of spending are always the bare minimum of spending before calamity will strike.

Sure the budget has grown 30% since 2009, but that was the bare minimum of growth required to save this country, according to liberals. Anything less than a future spending growth rate less than inflation is dire destruction.

Time to grow up liberals. You look foolish when you don't know what you are actually discussing.

LaHood is only parroting what the White House is saying on the campaign trips and photo-ops:

• "Gloom and Doom"
• "Fear Mongering"
• "Blame Republicans"

Nothing new here folks.

Meanwhile, back at the White House's Oscar's "dining in" black tie party with the video tele-conferencing, Mrs. Obama's $ 80,000 gown, and stage props......how much did it cost ? Not as much as $ 340,000,000 given to one of Mr. Obama's "FAILED friends" to set up an ObamaCare exchange.

With a sequester, there will be a double-dip recession...guess which party Americans will blame this possible double-dip on?

ReThugliCONs!!

Self-destruction, or Seppuku by the GOP.

We need to help these Republicans to come to their senses.

From Bushwacked to Teawacked, whats next ???

Anyone for a cup of Tea ???

From Bushwacked to Teawacked...to sea-skip...I mean...sea-sick

Don't demonize TEA ... my favorite. The Tea Party should change its name to Pee Potty

I'm really tired of seeing this Dem/Repub thing being played out in the media. I'm about as left wing as they come, but our beloved Dems has sold out its constituents about as much as Repubs in some major ways. And they are all taking yet another vacation. How many vacations does the average American get each year? They all take money from industries over which they legislate. What the heck happened to Bank Reform? Now I'm paying more in payroll taxes AND over $1 more a gallon for gasoline.

I personally don't care if there are fewer planes or fewer drones. I'd like to have enough money to live on and to see a dentist once in awhile.

Maybe there's a double dip recession because our country has zero confidence in the Panderer In Chief. Look at your paycheck, if you get one. The average American will lose $1500.00 in take home pay with the SS pay deduction. Just wait for Obamacare to kick in, even less in take home pay and future tax-checks a thing of the past. So again please tell me who is responsible? A majority of people think the country is heading in the wrong direction. Just like a ship without a rudder. This country under Obama has no direction! Except down!

Maybe there's a double dip recession because our country has zero confidence in the Panderer In Chief.

yea right, and that's why he won overwhelmingly in November. Man, FOX has you stuck on stupid. Better call a tow truck to get you out of the ditch you're in.

Tony a 4 state swing might be overwhelming to a mental midget like yourself, if that was overwhelming what do you call a 75 seat House swing in 2010? Don't watch Fox.

You have to excuse, or more precisely, ignore, geo's posts. He is only capable of parroting what his mama, who is also his sister, who is also his wife, tells him to think, knowing that if he goes off message, his mama-sister-wife holds back on his daily nookie dose. He is incapable of remembering the SS tax relief was temporary, as is he incapable of remembering the right-wing was screaming about SS insolvency just a few short months ago. As soon as geo's mama-sister-wife gets her 'free stuff' from Obama, his parrot squawking will read Obama is the bestest President evuh!!

Too bad the Republicans have walked away from the 4 trillion dollar grand bargain twice.

It is much harder to spot trolls but they do send out the familiar stink.

Don't watch Fox.

And don't own a tv, married to an African-American and not a Republican. Yep! Heard 'em all before and don't believe a one of them. So predictable. Next.

All blah, blah, blah by the useless government morons. Just scare tactics and nothing else.

They are just too lazy to revise their oh so cushy jobs and ways to steal money from the public. Make them politicians change their ways and be accountable for their theft and inaction.

Bobby Bo always reminds me of the Chucky Cheese mascot - a giant RAT!

RepubTeaCons say the loopholes for the mega rich will trickle down on the middle class !!!

feisty -- once again with the racist comments? you are truly a bad person.

Jindahl talks out of both sides of his mouth and his @$$.

Feisty - I think it's funny that Jindahl actually believes the far right would vote for him! Not a chance! To get the vote of the far right you have to be pale, male and stale - nothing has changed and he's delusional if he thinks the gun lovers will vote for him!

once again with the racist comments?

Nothing racist about it... rats come in all colors!

I do thank you for whipping out the race card as usual... lol

Ahhhhh, all the love shown between Progressive posters.

They really get on a roll when another Progressive makes uniformed and stupid comments.

Silence is the most powerful statement!

Silence is golden.

Or... Silence is a woman's glory ... according to an ancient Greek philosopher (if you don't believe me that an ancient greek philosopher said this - just google - but I know this male philosopher is a male chauvinist Pig...oink.)

One of your best posts Feisty! You should try that more often.

.... and Gboy, this is your worst post (#4.2)

My post #4.1 intended humor, but yours is malicious.

I always enjoy Feisty's post, combining folk wisdom with keen insights about issues of today.

Feisty...you go girl.

One of your best posts Feisty!

One of your most orginal there... G-Boy lots of #'s!

*yawn*

Do any of you ever think outside the box?

Feisty...you go girl.

Piglet, you're making me *blush*!

Thanks for the kind words!

Feisty showed more intelligence in #4.1 than I have ever seen from Joe the Albanian or WCA.

More then even Momma Dukes who brings a NY Times Opinion piece and an opinion from a Romney adviser as proof. You just can't make these things up.

Oh my, did I touch a nerve? Or are you still smarting that Mr. Jesse Jackson Jr. got convicted? Must be tough owning up to voting him back into office.

ummm, she didn't vote for JJ JR. Not in her district. Boy, you need to keep up or shut up. The troll quality is getting as bad as the rest of the Republican Party.

Gboy - your ignorance is overwhelming. The only people who could vote for Jesse Jackson Jr., were the ones who lived in his district. Feisty lives in Roselle - not even close. I'm in Chicago but not in his district. You DO understand how this works, right? No, of course you don't but you'll spout your ignorance for all to see! Good little Republican there, aren't ya?

That danger is there for everyone. Checks mailed by federal employees...delayed...no social security

Federal law enforcement...cut to dangerous levels...who knows what will happen but it can not be good.

Economy will plummet....no buying and unemployment...this is just going to happen for fact.

Well, I guess Republicans can smile and do what they do best...blame and cry. Was born and raised Republican but this nonsense of flexing has been going on for 12 years and we are the ones that suffer.

Oh my, did I touch a nerve?

NOT on your BEST day, little buddy!

Blithering idiots have no effect on me. ;o)

Must be tough owning up to voting him back into office.

I see Tony & Seeking already handed you your ass!

Thanks guys!

You're welcome, sister. Lame trolls they're sending us these days. Where is Snooki Joe and Spanky? Those guys were fun to kick around. Hate to say it, but I kind of miss them.

Where is Snooki Joe and Spanky?

Last I saw of them they were licking the spanking they took on 11.6 by getting their freak on in Key West! lol

http://www.fantasyfest.com/

You know how the uptight righties like to jollies...

Are you referring to the period when the United States was virtually rebuilding the global economy after WWII? Are you referring to the period after WWII and going into and post Korea where America had almost 100% employment? THAT period?

You ARE aware are you not that Europe and Asia were effectively piles of rubble with virtually NO manufacturing ability of their own. Virtually ALL consumer and industrial products were being built HERE and shipped over seas.

Please show me how much CONSUMER manufacturing we do and how many exports of those producst we have.

100% employment, really? Not from my memory, Ike had his recession. Difference from then and now. The republican party wasn't hell bent on destroying America. As a matter of fact, Ike acted like an American should, he built the interstate system, put people to work. Not cut off the funding as today's republican party is calling for. This will have grave consequences for both America, and the republican party when America and the rest of the world slides back into recession from the republican party's failure to enact balanced legislation that addresses sculpted cuts and revenue raises.

XD ---I understand where your coming from , that doesn't change the fact that the Very well to do paid a very high tax rate for the good of this country, that money was put back into this country NOT into off-shore accounts. The well to do then believed in this country not just lining thier pockets at the expence of the workers as they have since Mr. Raygun[pun intended]. have a good day Sir.

Johntho...

You DO realize don't you that the PRIMARY reason for the interstate system was the movement of troops and weapons between major areas don't you? It was not built for mom and dad to get the kiddies on vacation.

And please show me the multi-millionaire democrat or ANY politician taking out their checkbooks and writing additional check to the treasury......

I'll bet on the snow ball in hell's chance.

XD --- OOOH--- One more point , the workers of this country were paid enough to buy the manufacted products of this country, NOT the cheap cr-p from China.

The politicians were not paid enough to fall into that tax rate.

XDm##/ I have not read that we Liberal Democrats,nor Democrats,have written that the rich of either party should get a pass on their fair share of taxation.Those claims come,without exception from the r.w.lackeys of the Rep./T.P. Those creatures even advocate that the so-called Representatives that we employ should even cut the S.S. benefits that we workers have payed into and which are the only true entitlements ,which you should understand, means benefit's payed for by us therefore to which we are entitled. Not the Give aways that big business,including Oil and Agriculture,nor any other subsidised huge profit making,not entitled to receive gifts, that they are presently getting.

XD, you do realize you are wrong don't you, oh thats right, even if you did you wouldn't admit it. Look up post roads. But the facts are Ike didn't have to do it. He did to create jobs, it worked by the way. The 50's was a prosperous time when one income could support a family. It took 30 years of Reaganomics to push the middle class down to this level. You are the problem, because you remain stupid instead of learning the truth you make stuff up.

Obama & Lew dreamed up the sequester & he promised to veto anything that tried to stop it.

The is pure, complete, BS. Who cares who offered it as an idea. The GOP and the Democrats wrote and passed the bill that contained the sequester. Obama never promised to veto a bill that didn't contain the sequester. Just another right-wing crazy twisting and bending the facts to support their dreamt-up - completely mythical - narrative.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

Let me highlight the origin of the sequester for you:

"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome," said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense with the conservative American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to the Romney campaign. "That is because he alone can lead by calling the party leaders together for a resolution today if he wanted as president."

No Red, what you are saying is pure and complete BS. You might want to do some fact checking before you claim that others are posting nonsense.

It is you who don't know your facts.

Obama said that the sequester -- and the defense cuts that would result from it -- was not his proposition. "It is something that Congress has proposed," he said in the debate.

But it was Obama's negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality.

Meanwhile, members of both parties in Congress voted for the legislation that set up the possibility of sequestration. Obama's position is that Congress should now act to avoid those across-the-board cuts.

Obama can't rightly say the sequester isn't his, but he did need cooperation from Congress to get to this point. We rate the statement Mostly False.

The sequester is Obama's baby through and through. If Obama can't play with the big boys, maybe he should've taken his toys and gone home to Chicago Thugland.

Sequester Vote

House Vote: 269-161 with 174 of 240 (73%) Republicans voting for sequester. 50% (95) of the Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included the sequester plan if the “super committee” couldn’t reach a $1.5 Trillion deficit reduction plan by 11/23/2011.

Senate Vote: 74-26 with 28 of 47 Republicans voting for the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Who really cares who the idea came from … both sides agreed with the concept at the time. John Boehner was extremely pleased with the results the Republicans got from the deal.

"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome," said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense with the conservative American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to the Romney campaign. "That is because he alone can lead by calling the party leaders together for a resolution today if he wanted as president."

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, and not just because it came from a Romney adviser, and thus is not trustworthy in and of itself. Obama can indeed call the party leaders together to try to get a resolution, but if one or both leaders isn't interested in compromise, he can't force them to do so. And even if the leaders are interested in compromise, they have to get enough members of their own caucus to go along. In the past John Boehner has shown a willingness to compromise, but absolutely no ability to get his own House members on board, except at the very last minute--and sometimes a bit beyond that.

No doubt, we'll see the same thing here, as Republicans will gladly obstruct anything that even smells of revenue increases, figuring the sequester is a better option, at least until they get an earful from their own constituents who are trapped in airports and airplanes for hours at a time because of flight delays and cancellations due to the ATC budget cuts that would inevitably happen.

Who cares where the idea came from? It came from Obama & Lew, plain and simple.

To say Romney did it is laughable, as most of the blind Obama supporters on here are anyway. When your messiah gets caught in a lie, what do you do? Simple follow him:

BLAME AND DEFLECT.

Obama outright lied in the debate and said it didn't originate from the WH. And yes he has been caught in lies on other things as well.

Wow you have a very low bar for your POTUS, don't you?

You simply can't face the truth that this man (and yes I voted for him in 2008) is in way over his head.

Some of us actually check our facts before we start spouting nonsense.

Mamma Dukes, don't get Your Daisy Dukes All Tightened up. On CNN this morning, a NYTimes reporter splained to Former MURDERER releasing Gov. Haley Barbour, that this notion of a Sequester was 1st brought forth in the late 90'z, by 2 former Senators, one being Republican Phil Graham, who seems to have his fingerprints AllOver everything That has Gone Wrong in America!

You Betcha!

Occopy SoggyBottom!

I forgot, you also resort to name calling and insutls.

A New York Times OPINION, and a ROMNEY adviser. Right, sure, you betcha. All you need to do is throw in a Rasmussen poll and you have a trifecta of ignorance. If the republicans allow this to happen, it will be perceived as protecting the rich again and screwing the general public. One more bullet in the butt for the republican leadership. It is going to get harder and harder to sell the Republican plan to engorge the rich and screw the middle class in 2014. The good news is, with democrats in charge, at least America will move forward and not backwards.

I'm truly amazed at how ignorant some can be even after looking at the facts.

Democrats will have another shellacking in 2014 and 2016.

Thats the problem daisy, you have no facts, you have a NY Times opinion and a republican adverser, and those are far from facts. The ignorance is yours.

And Obama's own mouth on you tube, I'd say that's more than enough proof. '

John, look in the mirror, you are the one that has no facts, just your own ignorance.

This will blow up in the Dems face, just watch.

Wanna bet? Even if it was Obama's idea, which I still don't believe it is, as u-tube can be edited to say anything, the republicans are stonewalling again, protecting the very rich from paying their fair share to support the country and a majority of people, even moderate republicans know it. This will not go good for the tea bags. Not good at all.

I'm truly amazed at how ignorant some can be even after looking at the facts.

Well, Mama Duke, since you are so stuck on facts, and who owns the sequester, how do you reconcile the fact that the Boehner House budget committee published a power point presentation on 7/31/11 outlining sequester details, just three days after Obama approved presenting the sequester to Reid, in the Senate. Really, in 3 short days, it went from the White House, to the Senate, to the House? Well, how could that have happened if, according to Boehner, the White House and the Democrats on the hill never talk to the Republican controlled House. What seems clear, is lead Republicans bought into the sequester, and sold it to their part, regardless of who proposed the solution.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpoint-that-proves-it-s-not-obama-s-sequester-after-all.html

They're too lazy to look up the facts, their taxpayer freebies only cover the talking points that come with the benefits they reap while we WORK mommadukes. Thank you for pointing out what is obvious to us that aren't enslaved by this narcissistic, lying, ignorant empty suit in the WH like the lapdogs that yip at his heels.

Ah, how cute, here comes Dotties girl with her raging Cinderella complex. Perhaps this will finally be the week that her fairy godmother comes to her aid, gives her a glam makeover, dresses her up real purty complete with glass slippers, blesses her with a cool pumpkin ride, so she can end up marrying a rich Koch brother prince, and spend her remaining days exacting revenge against those evil step-sisters that forced her to toil day and night, attending to their needs.

Dot.girl/ I do not understand the word taxpayer freebies. Do you mean freebies from we taxpayers,or are you claiming that we workers are getting free benefits from the government. We workers pay more ,percentage wise than the super-rich, or our Representatives, do not have expense accounts,nor enough money to hide some into overseas accounts. I would like to think that you were commenting on the non-entitled money that our employees,both political and union ones that do receive tax exempt rewards that we and possibly you do not get, but with your impassioned defense of that injustice that they receive I would guess that you have some of those gifts too.

listoire - Dottie's girl doesn't understand either - she just posts whatever ignorance the far right website she's visiting today tells her. It's sad to think anyone is as stupid as she is but it is standard for the far right.

Oh, and Dottie is SOOOOO embarrassed!

Wrong. In order to give the departments the discretion to pick and choose programs it would take a bill, not an executive order. Your are a liar.

Markin...

The President can and does have the authority to DIRECT the department heads HE appoints to do what he wants.

Legalities have never stopped him before, why start now?

2/20/13 - The Defense Department officially notified its 800,000 civilian employees on Wednesday that they are likely to be placed on periods of unpaid leave, as the Obama administration scrambled to deal with congressionally mandated budget cuts set to kick in next week.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-20/world/37191469_1_budget-cuts-automatic-cuts-furloughs

Well I am glad you admit your lying about the sequester mandates. It is amazing the teabaggers won't even amend the sequester to give more leeway to cut programs.

Dennis... Then by that, official notice, the earliest any can be furloughed is March 22. That would be 30 days after notice. At least for the Defense Department.

Of course, one would hope that by then, the parties would actually come to a conclusion that borrowing 43+ cents of every dollar spent cannot be sustained.

While I want to see the budget balanced, my grandchildren, too young to vote DEMAND IT.

XD,

The 43¢ is outdated.

Currently with the deficit at $900 Billion we are borrowing 26¢ of each dollar and the projection for FY2014 is that it will be about 22¢. Still too much but it is on a steady decline.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

When will it be ZERO??? 2020? 2030? 2050?? EVER??????????

And what will the actual DEBT be at that time and WHO will be paying it? Surely not you or I.

Are YOU proud to be leaving your proginey in debt they will never be able to pay off? I apologize to my grandkids for what we're doing to them. I likely won't be around to apologize to my great grandchildren, but hopefully, I'll leave my family sufficiently secure to not be overly concerned.

Are you proud of leaving your progeny a violent gun infested country that is under sea water on both coast?

XD,

[Not you or I]
China owns about 9% of our debt however our own labor unions own more of our National Debt that China and a couple other countries combined. Our US insurance companies own almost as much our National Debt as China. So if you have a 401K or other retirement investment plan you own part of our debt and will gain from it.

According to the Ryan budget plan of 2012 it will reach zero in 2040 at the soonest.

XD,

Our National Debt would have been paid off by about year 2000 if it weren’t for Reagan cutting taxes while increasing spending.

While I would approve of the initial plan to help the recession recovery he should have cut spending and increased taxes to stabilize the growth of our debt.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

dennis -- is there any limit as to how far in debt you and your colleagues are willing to take the United States? you seem to suggest that it is positive when we will only be borrowing 20% of what we spend.

why not begin reducing our spending to give us a chance or do you believe we do not need to be responsible for repaying our debt? can you imagine what the hundreds of billions of dollars we now pay in debt interest could do for some domestic programs?

billybob,

It is a good thing when we are borrowing HALF of what we were just 5 years ago.

xd6mm

Hill air-force base in Utah HAS already told the employees about the furlough. It is scheduled to begin a week from TODAY. The official word came down a few weeks ago. You sir are part of the problem. Teabaggers usually are!

A balanced budget on the backs of all of us in the middle classes. The already wealthy are not going to miss a meal. You cannot cut this much out of a weak economy without disturbing the card pile.

Collapse.

dennis -- a good thing would be for our country to live within its means. stop spending money we do not have, close the tax loopholes or companies and individuals and adopt a flat tax so everyone could begin paying their fair share -- no more, no less.

Dennis/9.#10./ Don't you just love the Imperial trickle down that Ronny had put into effect?

We don't have a spending problem, we are underfunded after years and years of republican irresponsible tax cuts, and borrowing to cover their spending. Its time to raise the roof.

billybob,

Throughout history successful countries have used a progressive tax system (like ours).

A flat tax only benefits the wealthy.

So its settled then, Democrats rule, and republicans suck.

Blamo,

[only $14 billion MORE than last year]

That includes the $60 Billion for hurricane Sandy that was not in the budget.

That sound like a reduction of $46 Billion from planned expenditures.

Where's that $300 billion the president set aside last week. You missed that too.lmao

I hope he tries to since the sequester was Obama's idea.

Check out the video saying he will veto anyone that tries to stop it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqD2h7e_MLg

wow straight out of Obama's mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile momma you seem to forget what came out of Boehners mouth. You know where he said he got 98% of what he wanted out of the deal after the republicans were holding our country hostage threatening to destroy the entire world economy.

The republicans now want to pretend this whole deal came from outer space and they had nothing to do with it. Yeah right, it was the president's ideal and then the republicans voted for it, just like they have voted for all of the other ideals the president has had.

But now you want to blame the president because he was trying to stop the republicans from destroying our economy? As they are trying to do once again.

Boner was referring to getting what he wanted in raising the debt ceiling. (Which then Sen Obama pointed out in 2006) was a failure of leadership. Is it still a failure of leadership now that he is the leader? Or was that just for campaign purposes?

Obama owns the sequester, plain and simple. And yes it will come back to hurt the Dems in 2014 and 2016. I've seen enough BS from politicians for 38 years to see it happen before and it will happen again.

Now he's trying to deflect and blame the GOP, bottom line is people are starting to question his character, or should I say lack there of? Folks are starting to realize that he is incapable of leadership and remembering what he himself said from 1 week to the next.

"And yes it will come back to hurt the Dems in 2014 and 2016." <-- Barnyard bovine excrement.

This is the same bs you republicans were spouting before the election. Only republicans are questioning his character.

But of course let's not question the integrity or leadership of the republicans dragging our country from one purposely created disaster to the next. Or how about questioning the leadership of the republicans that decided for the first time in our history we could start wars and not pay for them.

Austerity has done nothing but create triple dipped recessions in the countries where they have adopted it. So how are the republicans so smart to let that happen here in America?

The sequester didn't come from a vacuum, it came from trying to stop the republicans from destroying the entire world economy. Apparently that little fact doesn't enter into the republicans consciousness.

Just because the blame is put on President Obama's head, does not segue the fact that he had no choice but to sign this legislation for the good of those whose head's were on the chopping block at the time the hostage threat, called this sequester bill, was presented for it's ransom.

Actually, a sequester of about four years would be sufficient.

Then why post an opinion if it is a yawner?

Because it's MY opinion, that's why.

No methinks because it is far more important than your willing to admit.

You're joking here, right?? If I get to spend more next year than I spent this year, that's a cut? Maybe in Alice in Wonderland, but not in my world.

Maybe if the republicans had been responsible and paid for their wars of choice that of which one we were lied to. Instead the irresponsible republicans voted for the deficit with tax cuts for the richest during war time.

Now that we are here the republicans want you to blame anyone but them. Taking care of our citizens and our country did not cause the deficit. Stupid republicans did.

To this day the republicans are still protecting the rich, and are more willing to see all of America suffer with another recession than close some loopholes and get more revenue to stabilize our economy. Revenue a smart republican, that is is there were any, would have voted for to pay for the wars they were pushing.

I am sure today the republicans would want to start another war in Iran and then not vote for increased revenue to pay for it.

The republicans only answer is we have Americans that can suffer and die to pay for Cheney's war profits, surely you can't expect those who make the most of the money to pay the most of the taxes. Not in a republican world anyway.

Maybe if the republicans had been responsible and paid for their wars of choice that of which one we were lied to. Instead the irresponsible republicans voted for the deficit with tax cuts for the richest during war time. I seem to remember that both republicans AND democrats had alot of votes to pass all of these decisions.

Now that we are here the republicans want you to blame anyone but them. Taking care of our citizens and our country did not cause the deficit. Stupid republicans did. I seem to remember that both republicans AND democrats had alot of votes to pass all of these decisions.

To this day the republicans are still protecting the rich, and are more willing to see all of America suffer with another recession than close some loopholes and get more revenue to stabilize our economy. And the Democrats are protecting their special interests and unions bosses. What's your point?

Revenue a smart republican, that is is there were any, would have voted for to pay for the wars they were pushing.

I am sure today the republicans would want to start another war in Iran and then not vote for increased revenue to pay for it. There are two parties involved, or have you forgotten that?

The republicans only answer is we have Americans that can suffer and die to pay for Cheney's war profits, surely you can't expect those who make the most of the money to pay the most of the taxes. Not in a republican world anyway. If you do some checking, instead of spouting talking points, you'll find alot of rich Democrats right there up with them.

The tax cuts and then the second round of tax cuts were all on the republicans and the way they passed them. That is why they ended.

Rich democrats were giving money to the party that promised to raise their taxes. President Obama was fighting to raise his own taxes. So it looks like your bs doesn't match the truth. Democrats and republicans are not the same.

Right now the republicans would have you believe the deficit is the worse thing going for our future and are unwilling to increase revenue by one nickle to help pay for it. All the while trying to pretend that cutting taxes during war time isn't what got us here in the first place.

Democrats have been trying to raise taxes for some time now and you now want to pretend the republicans haven't been the protectors of the 1% party.

Gboy - I'm with you. In a way, Barry's getting what he's continually spouting off about - Think of the sequester as being "shared sacrifice", nothing more.

If we can run the teabaggers out of the house in 2014 and abolish the filibuster than yes we can design a fair tax code.

Yeah... MarkinPecker.... one where EVERYONE puts a few bucks in... like you for example.

Markin - quick question - what is a "fair tax code" in your opinion? Is 47% of income-earning Americans not paying any income tax and some actually getting more money back than they paid in "fair"?

While I agree they need to fix the code so all income is taxed as ordinary income (i.e., capital gains, dividends, carried interest) so we don't have Buffett and Romney paying 15% rates, to have almost half the income-earning population not paying in is plain insanity.

Where are you on this?

Nothing that is fair and balanced with come from these republicans in the next four years or any time in the future. Republicans are the party of the one percent and the party that is indifferent to anyone or anything else. Republicans prove again and again that they will wreck our economy and harm our country just to be hateful to President Obama. What they should realize before it is too late is that most Americans want both sensible cuts and an increase in taxes, as well as and end to subsidies and ending many of the tax loopholes.

You should check with your doctor and get your anal seepage problem resolved.

Correct, they are actually not true cuts at all.

No way! How can they be reductions in planned increases? Our President surely would have told us that, wouldn't he? I mean, he has always been truthful in the past, never exagerating or downright lying, has he? (Sarcasm intended)

Let me guess you heard this from faux news or perhaps from the known drug abuser Limpy who spews more hate and lies than anyone on the airways.

Seems like the republicans are intent on us finding out just who is telling the truth.

The same ones who lied us to the Iraq war are the same one who tells you lies daily about our president. It seems only the most loyal republicans are gullible enough to believe them anymore. The rest of us see through the lies and propaganda and that my friend is why President Obama got re-elected.

They "found the REAL NEWS on YOU-TUBE" Add that to FOX... and..well you can see why the Teabaggers

are so smart...right? Off with there heads in 2014. I (and this country) can't Wait.

Nice speaking points boys/girls but these are planned increases that are being reduced. When you start the name calling, it immediately reduces your credibility. If you aren't sure of that, just see what Feisty and Pigotry say...

Momma dukes - well this post proves exactly what most of us think about you! And, (hint) it's not good!

It sounded like it was coming out of your mouth.

Honestly, at this point, I don't give a sh-t whose idea it was, it's about time we cut the kids allowances.

The POTUS and Congress equally made a decision NOT TO DECIDE, and put some restricitons on future spending on auto-pilot. In a way, maybe we should be thanking them.

John wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the behind........he is just another messiah follower.

Isn't it amazing how the republicans took this one ideal and decided it was good and voted for it, while on other fronts they are voting against their own ideals as soon as President Obama embraces them.

John Boehner would not have said he got 98% of what he wanted out of the deal if he didn't get 98% of what he wanted.

Republicans seem to forget that this deal came from trying to stop the republicans from destroying the entire worlds economy, but of course let us blame the president for what the republicans did.

Says the person that brings a NY Times opinion and a republican adviser to prove her truth. Uh huh, right. My PRESIDENT who got RE-elected because there wasn't enough low information voters like you. Is a person I trust a hell of a lot more then you. Wonder why momma? You are a republican, thats why.

Wow John, you didn't watch the you tube videos with the words coming right out of Obama's mouth? How bout the CNN story? Or the ABC, NBC and CBS?

Well I am a Democrat and I wrote and faxed my congressman that I didn't agree with it then and I support us going through it now.

Obama wanted it just to kick the can down the road so he could campaign. He didn't want anything to muddy the waters and stop his campaigning.

WH proposed it after the Super Committee (made up of both parties) failed to reach a deal. When they failed, the automatic spending cuts should have started at that point.

We simply cannot keep borrowing from China and spending money we dont' have, plain and simple.

It is not one party or the other that is bringing down the US, it is both of them and their failure to negotiate. And that leadership starts with the POTUS. Unfortunately as a leader he has failed. He couldn't organize a birthday party for fueding neighbors.

You are a democrat my azz.

Agree Louis, It would be real nice to put those "billions" back in the "tax payers" pockets - especially since it would now be offsetting that nice 2% increase we got whacked for with the payroll tax "increase".

Really - when is enough, going to be enough for our government?

Yes I am a Democrat and at 56 have been voting for over 38 years. Have I always voted Dem straight ticket? No, I research the issues, the voting history and other history from the candidates and then I make an educated decision on how to vote for. When the kids were little, school was important, now that I have grandkids, what affects their future is very important to me.

Are you that ignorant John that you honestly believe that all Dems blindly follow Obama?

How bout that ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL republicans voted for Romney? Including the ones on here that posted otherwise.

You sound like you might've just voted in your first election. Get educated.

Lets put it this way mamma brings a lie. I have voted in more elections then you have. Haven't missed an election since I voted first in 1968, (for Nixon I might add.) But I recognize bovine excrement when I see it. and I see you as that.

I am 64 and have never voted a straight democratic ticket and Clinton was the first president I voted for that won.

But now since I see the republicans no longer care about the will of the people. One example being in Mississippi where the voters voted against the person-hood bill and the lost of their rights of choice by 65-35. Right now the state legislators are now trying to close the last clinic in Mississippi as if that is what the voters wanted.

Another example is Wisconsin where the voter got a bill on the ballot to end the emergency manager laws which take away democracy and won with a large majority and then the republicans in the state legislator re-passed the bill against the will of the people with the added budget clause which makes it so the people can't remove it again.

Then as if I needed anymore reason not to trust the republicans, any party that makes it a goal to suppress the vote in a free country doesn't care about the people or freedom. You would have to be stupid to believe they do care.

So now I wouldn't vote for a republican for anything. They are a threat to our real freedoms and the economy.

Threats to destroy our economy seem the only way the republicans can try to get their way and I would hardly call that leadership.

Basic civic's lesson. The President does not legislate, he simply signed the bill in order to cooperate with the blackmailers.

"Another example is Wisconsin where the voter got a bill on the ballot to end the emergency manager laws which take away democracy and won with a large majority and then the republicans in the state legislator re-passed the bill against the will of the people with the added budget clause which makes it so the people can't remove it again."

Just a little correction, wrong state Americans first, that was done by Snyder and his band of merry men and woman in the legislature. They also did right to work legislation underhanded. Republicans are underhanded business people, when I find out a person is a republican or I see a campaign for a sign for a republican candidate, I avoid that business like the plague.

Low information ideologically driven voters like you are the reason that Barry got back in office, or as that great philosopher Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as Stupid does"

I guess thinking, that high information voters like yourself was going to vote for Romney the liar, regardless of how it would have hurt America. One thing about it, there are more of us then there are of you, and you kind will pay for your ignorance next election and every election after as long as you choose the rich over regular working people. Thinking long term, not.

Bingo Thinking, good job.

Johntho

Regardless of who originated the idea, Republican or Democrat, Obama or Boehner, Elephant or Ass, is irrelevant.

Congress, COLLECTIVELY, Republican AND Democrat passd the bill. In that regard, both parties are "responsible".

After the bill left the halls of Congress, it went to the White House for the Signature of the President B.H. Obama. HE had the option of Vetoing it, forcing the Congress to over-ride his veto, or signing it.

Obama chose to sign the bill into law. At the point he signed it into law, it became HIS to own. He had the final approval. He approved it and said it was good.

Regardless of how you try to spin it. The SIGNATURE on the legislation is that of OBAMA. Period end of story.

Maybe it's not fair, but 10 years from now, people will remember who was the POTUS, not who was in Congress. The President gets a legacy, congress usually is forgotten.

I'll say it again; if they all can't get together and work on a better plan to reduce some spending, the sequester idea is one whose day has come.

If Glenn Beck is a liar (right on the Muslim Brotherhood by the way), show an example.

If Rush is a liar (right about Obama on spending), show an example.

If it wasn't for FOX, the clueless news media would never get a single interesting story they didn't borrow months after FOX breaks the news!

Tony, you are a lost soul, just google Rush Limbaugh lies, and for that matter the rest to find out that nothing they say about anything is true.

Tony

Run Not walk BACK to school. You are the poster child of "dumbing down America" Yikes!

This bill needs to be REPEALED..............................................now.

Johntho - anyone who believe Beck and Limbaugh tell the truth is not worth your time in communicating with. Clearly they are beyond low information voters - and fall into the ranks of no information voters. Trust me, they're not worth your time!

Thanks, SS. I was thinking that not only is XM a kook, he is a liar. So you are probably right, he isn't worth the fertilizer and fuel oil to blow him clear back to hades where he belongs.

I decided not to worry about debt any more. When my cards are maxed out, I'll just apply for a new one. What could possibly go wrong?

Huh. Women as second class citizens? I guess rape victims should heed Uncle VPJoe's advice and just pee on their rapists. Sounds like a fine way to defend yourself. Perhaps we should ask Condie Rice about what to do? Oh yeah, she is a republican. Oops!

nice one Tony

If a republican really cared about the debt, they would be more than willing to look for more revenue. Those that really care look for real solutions instead of being willing to throw American into another recession because their ideology won't let them see the truth of the damage they are doing.

When the poor are asked to suffer it is called shared sacrifice, when the rich are asked to even contribute more it is called socialist, marxist, communist lies to divide our country.

Sure it is only fair that Romney pays 9.5% tax rate while I pay closer to 20%. After all we can't expect him to live on less than $58,000 a day. Why he might have to do without another house or something while the republicans have no problem asking the poor to be homeless or starve.

While I hear how much the rich suffers and pays already. If you make 80% of the income in America, then you owe 80% of the taxes.

Huh?

Geeboy, are you confused? Hahaha...Oink Oink Oink

Members of Congress will keep promising more and more to kiss up to the voters, will never be able to cut cut cut.

Ms. Piggy....

You know that's how they bribe, my bad, "convince" the voters they are the best politician money can buy.. oh, my bad again, they are the best at spending the voters money on useless things that palcate the voters every whim. Of course , never telling the voter exactly how stupid the voter is for allowing them to spend money they don't have.

Mmmmmmmmmmm............no that sounds like your pal Barry, not Congress.

What poll are you referencing?

P.S. The latest CBO projections contribute the loss of 1%+ in GDP growth rate to be due to the automatic sequestration cuts going into effect.

A loss in GDP growth equals more job losses. Ironic that those who claim to represent the "Job Creators" are now unwilling to take action that would prevent more job losses.

Piggy...

The same can and should be said about any and ALL politicians in general.

Well said Pigotry..but I would add GOP = destruction (here in the U.S. and around the planet....

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. UnderBush-Cheney, the wealthy more than doubled their income while everybody else's declined. TheKoch 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....And more recently: The Budget Control Act of 2011. John Boehner: "I got 98% of what I wanted; I couldn't be happier"….and the Republican Congress cut money for Cyber Security…because they “don’t want more regulations”…

Yeah.. Will4203

UnderBush-Cheney, the wealthy more than doubled their income while everybody else's declined

Well said. Under GW Bush, the rich were on steroids, others were on life-support - recession, that is.