“Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending.”

And we'll start in your district, Mr. Speaker. You want cuts, let your constituents be the first to feel them.

The Dow has dropped over 200 points today, so the assurances from the pundits that Wall Street wouldn't panic over the sequester appear not to be panning out.

Houston ... the drop in the DOW probably has much more to do with England's credit rating being slashed.

tonyb...

LMAO at such a foolish observation about obamas campaigning.

Obama had since late 2011, all of 2012 and the 1st 2 months of 2013 to establish a plan to beat sequestration. What does he do? Hops on airforce 1 to spread doom and gloom rather than focus on face time with congressional leaders to create an alternative to legislation he approveds.

How lame to think that he can conduct meaningful dialog over the phone. He made his bed now let's see if he has the management skills to handle the sequester.

Why am I reminded of the Andrew "Dice" Clay obscene gesture that went with...

"OH! I got your (Blank) right HERE!..

There is less posturing in a "Tableau Vivant" of "The Night Watch", than there is on a typical day in Washington...

(Did anyone see the terrific "History of The Eagles" on Showtime?)

Houston -

The drop in the DOW had nothing to do with the sequester...it's the election in Italy...not everything that happens can be twisted to support your political agenda...

In the cliff deal there were $63 Billion in corporate tax loopholes that originated in the Democratic controlled Senate, why do they not just get rid of these if the President is against corporate loopholes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-wall-street_n_2397933.html

Do the Democrats need to give aid to Wall Street?

The active-financing exception, for example, permits banks like Morgan Stanley to avoid the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on interest income from money lent overseas. A handful of other U.S.-based multinational companies with financing arms, such as Ford Motor Co. and General Electric, also use that exemption to lower their tax bills.

[oh well back to blaming republicans since the democrat party is ineffective at solving anything]

Pure gold, Jerry! Gold, I tell ya!

Dee Ten

The drop in the DOW had nothing to do with the sequester...it's the election in Italy...not everything that happens can be twisted to support your political agenda...

Doesn't have anything to do with a political agenda. I don't want to see a drop like that for any reason. The impending sequester sure isn't going to make the market go up, as workers are fired and consumer spending takes yet another hit as a consequence.

If Obama needed revenue so bad why didn't he get it when he had the House and a filibuster-proof Senate? Must not have been a priority then. No Republicans to blame = no political advantage.

Houston -

A drop in the stock market is a good thing...when stocks don't perform or suddenly become risky investments the stock prices drop as they should...

Workers being fired and consumer spending going down is caused by the stock market...rather the stock market reacts to workers being fired and consumers not spending...

Workers are being fired because they cost too much...that's why the Mexicans are finding work here in the US that the American's think their too good to perform...

Oh Contrare Houston, listening to CNBC Off & On thru the day, & thier saying it's because The Austerity candidate may lose to BungaBungas Political Comeback.

On the Bright Side, WTI crude has LOST $5-6 a Barrel in the last Week, so there is an Upside to it All!

You Betcha!

Occupy SoggyBottom!

"Boehner and the rest of the House GOP appeared no closer to relenting on their demand that any final compromise originate in the Senate."

Except the GOP did pass a sequester replacement bill way back in September, only -- naturally -- to see the Senate never take it up -- which has gotten to be a VERY regular thing. Why shouldn't the GOP demand the Senate act first instead of wasting their own time yet again passing bills that die without even getting any consideration from Reid and the Dems???

The problem i have with raising taxes, is that what is that revenue being used for. I am all for raising taxes if it is to actually reduce our debt. If the president says that is what the money will be used for and they put it in the bill, then lets close these loop holes. But we do also need to cut spending, the defense budget is inflated the way it is, granted we shouldnt slash in one day, but it needs to be cut.

With Newsvine essentially gone, I am gld to see the slapfighting to be relatively mild out here in NBC Land, but for Gawd's Sake, does the same rhetorical blindness and subsequent jabbering with little but hate to back it up ever stop from those on the Right/GNOP Supporters?

Christ, Obama Supporters as well should be aware that in the end, whether you wish to BLAME the GNOP or not, has done little but allow the Bush Policies, Wars and Ecologically Disastrous Energy Platforms to continue not only nfetered, but even more dangerously than ever! You should be lambasting President Obama as well as just pointing out the Drunkness that is Boehner, who is just a @!$%#ing @!$%# loser bidding exclusively for his Corporate Masters, btw. Like Obama is in that manner, just not as severely obvious to the Sheeple that fail to see his shortcomings and overblown reports of his 'Great Successes... I give Obama credit though for being the President that stopped us from sliding all the way into a Great Depression by writ of GW Bush's TARP.

sigh

You folks had better wipe the Mud you throw Back and Forth from your eyes and see we are slipsliding away from a sustainable future all the while crying like a Drunk SOTH.

Have a ___— Day!

The problem i have with raising taxes, is that what is that revenue being used for. I am all for raising taxes if it is to actually reduce our debt. If the president says that is what the money will be used for and they put it in the bill, then lets close these loop holes.

You know that any revenue will be put towards new spending and nothing to deficit reduction. Obama want revenue so he can spend it. That's the goal. Spend, spend, spend.

How does anyone take these idiots seriously? Boehner, the punk Cantor, and McCarthy ALL voted for every spending bill AND tax cut when they held control of both the House and the Senate. Suddenly, they have this great epiphany and their wild-ass spending was really, really bad. Well, not really. It's the spending the Democrats do that's bad.

Scumbag bottom feeders.

Dee Ten

Workers being fired and consumer spending going down is caused by the stock market...rather the stock market reacts to workers being fired and consumers not spending...

So, you're saying that when workers are fired and stopped spending to buy a company's products that they can no longer afford, it has no effect on the company's market value? Amazing.

Assuming you're a high-powered business dude, you may put more value in the services of those overpaid federal workers at the TSA if you have to spend a couple hours in a security line every time you fly on a business trip because there aren't enough agents to process the passengers through security. You also might appreciate those overpaid workers at the FDA more if you come down with a bad case of the trots because some food tainted with salmonella got through to your supermarket because the food inspectors who would have stopped it were laid off during the sequester.

Obama ASKED for the sequester. Obama got exactly what he wanted.

So live with it.............

Freshieee, stop with the facts. You're going to make their little elephant heads explode.

ProBusiness, your guys voted it in after obstructing everything else that we tried. I'm all for the sequester going through. If this is the only way we can get a good solid cut to the bloated defense (corporate enforcement) budget then let's just go for it.

I wish this President would get off the campaign trail and lead for once!

Spending was cut in Obamacare, cut again during the April 2011 shutdown, and then cut again during the debt ceiling debate. $700 billion in Medicare savings, $30 billion in shutdown cuts, and $900 billion in debt ceiling debate cuts.

The $700b cut from Medicare went to fund Obamacare. It wasn't a savings, just a cost shift.

Q22

Spending was cut in Obamacare, cut again during the April 2011 shutdown, and then cut again during the debt ceiling debate. $700 billion in Medicare savings, $30 billion in shutdown cuts, and $900 billion in debt ceiling debate cuts.

The $700b cut from Medicare went to fund Obamacare. It wasn't a savings, just a cost shift.

Actually, it was a savings, since Obamacare reduces the deficit. And since part of the deficit-reduction in Obamacare comes from Medicare cuts, by default at least some of the Medicare savings went to reducing the deficit.

Just picture the right wing nut jobs rolling out the defense for the worst speaker in history. RWNJ's wow. Tax the F-ing rich for crying out loud, they haven't been paying their fair share for a long, long time now. Stupid righty's

What the heck is their "fair share"? The top 1% are taxed at an average of 24%. The top 5% are taxed at an average of 20%. The bottom 50% are taxed at an average of only 1.85%.

So who's not paying "their fair share"?

the House GOP is content to rest upon the two bills they had passed in the last Congress

So, what's in those 'two bills' passed by the Weepers' House?

KC_NC

There have been 5 million jobs created since the Republicans took control of the House. There has been job growth every month also.

Actually, it was a savings, since Obamacare reduces the deficit. And since part of the deficit-reduction in Obamacare comes from Medicare cuts, by default at least some of the Medicare savings went to reducing the deficit.

Lol!!!!

Oh....wait....that's not a joke? You really believe that?? Geez - that explains a lot!

Bottom line is that there is no longer an understanding or attempt at consensus in the government. Rather than working together to find something that works for everyone it is a constant attempt to make themselves look better by making the other party look worse. In my opinion they all look like losers. We need both cuts and an increase in taxes. However why are the cuts never something like the aid we give to other countries. I understand the need, but if we can't take care of our own maybe we need to reduce what we send to other countries. I am not saying eliminate it but reduce it. We give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to other countries. If we reduced that and some of the stupid subsidies we do in this country like research into regional twitter slang or what feather color was the first prehistoric bird. Seriously.

Either its more or less..nothing will change with congress!

I think it's up to Speaker Boehner to get to work on his caucus. Boehner knows the Teabaggers won't budge no matter who says what, so this is all grandstanding.

President Obama has his support group together, so Boehner needs to get his together too.

Glad the sequester is coming. Defense cuts - the only way to get them. This is going to kill some red states like Virginia, SC, NC, Georgia, Florida, Texas and anyplace else with large military facilities. New Mexico - a purple state - also.

Too many folks who want to pay no taxes but want their federally funded jobs. Cut all the military think tanks, all the new offices round DC, all the DC spinoff in Virginia, all the air bases and war support groups and tank builders and foreign contractors and uniform manufacturers, and professional facilities like those provided by Haliburton, etc etc etc....

This economy has one last ugly secret to reveal - we have covered a huge hole of missing factories and facilities sent to China and India and Malaysia and indonesia etc. The economy is lots of low-paying service jobs, and the rest are federally funded contracts going largely to the military.

We need to stop spending money on things to kill others, invade countries that haven't attacked us, meddle in foreign relations thousands of miles from out shores, pollute, germ warfare, computer hacking, blind support for Israel no matter what they do, planes that are obsolete, tanks that we rarely use, vast infrastructure used to spy on us all......

I could cut a lot of defense spending in an hour of cutting that would give us $300 billion/year of savings starting next month, close the loophole regarding differing tax rates for passive income giving us another $150 billion/year, pass a 1cent tax on everything that would add another $150 billion/year, then set up Congress to be paid by hours worked - and any week they work less than 30 hours - they get minimum wage. Government spending is not high relative to GDP - and the President has been shrinking the government since he came into office.

SO - keep sobbing about how no one wants to play golf with you any more - and no one has asked you to watach sporting events on TV with them, and no one has invited you to have a drink or attend an event with him - oh wait...... the President already did that. Many times. And all but one time the answer was NO. That is all the GOP knows how to say. NO. NO. Spoiled children afraid of the folks on their own team. Not a brave one in the bunch.

The sequester is the result of people hired to run this place who sit on their hands and whine instead. FIRE THE GOP in 2014. We need to get some work done.

The President has tried many times to work with Republicans on more that just this.

Exactly how has the President tried to work with Republicans? Really - other than demanding that they :go along" with him I can't think of a single instance where Obama has sincerely tried to work with Republicans.

Seriously? Umm..the fiscal cliff deal, Obamacare, the government shutdown in 2001 and again during the debit ceiling debate to name a few.

sheesh..if your gonna make stuff up, at least make sure I can't prove you wrong by doing 30 seconds of research using Goggle for god sakes...

I thought tax loopholes were made by mistake, and that by law they should be closed in order to enact the full force of the law.

Instead, Republicans are acting like tax loopholes were put in place intentionally to help the Top 1%ers avoid paying taxes.

Now if I or other average Americans tried all we could to avoid paying taxes, I'm sure the IRS would find a way to burn our hineys some kind of way in order to get all they can from us, but Republicans seem to have created have laws and loopholes to protect the rich from paying taxes, but nothing to protect us.

Doesn't sound "fair and balanced" to me.

Those of you who continue to insist on misquoting Nancy Pelosi and taking her remarks out of context need to educate yourselves:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html#

To continually distort the quote is to miss the true meaning and intent.

@ jerry

That was fact checked the day of the SOTU address, and it is actually closer to 1.4 million. I wish I could exagerate that much, maybe I could of run for president

American Girl,

Look at the fiscal cliff deal and the tax loopholes put in by the Senate. Money for Nascar, Wall Street, etc.

Both parties add their loopholes because they need the money to be reelected. The President is now charging $500,000 for access to him, do you not think the people giving the money do not want something in return

And Barry said he would not RAISE taxes on ANYONE earning less than $250,000...... LIAR

The liberal fools on this site continue to defend the Liar in Chief, Obama, despite evidence that this "sequester crisis"is a load of poop meant to scare the panties off of idiots who can't do any form of math. Wow! An $86B cut out of $3.6 Trillion... OMG, a 2.4 % reduction in the budget... Now that should send all government agencies into chaotic restructuring, shouldn't it???

Get a grip libby douche bags.... the world ain't comin' to an end over $86 Billion... I actually love the deceptive postings that totally ignore the subject matter and digress immediately and deeply into comments on suntans and other crappola.

Feisty, please wipe the stupid sarcastic grin off your comments for a change and come up with something meaningful to discuss, if you are at all capable of doing so...

American Girl: the so-called "loop holes" that you are referring to are legal deductions.

David Walker

How does anyone take these idiots seriously? Boehner, the punk Cantor, and McCarthy ALL voted for every spending bill AND tax cut when they held control of both the House and the Senate. Suddenly, they have this great epiphany and their wild-ass spending was really, really bad. Well, not really. It's the spending the Democrats do that's bad.

Those were their crazy exciting early years in congress,ya know, kinda like our college days: Beer bongs, rolling j's with $100 dollar bills, crazy parties paid for by lobbyists, drunk pages showing their private bits on Trumps yacht during spring break, flying to Amsterdam on the weekends for "educational junkets" and charging it to the taxpayers.

All those crazy things every American does. Boehner and posse were just trying to live the good life, who could blame them?

Scumbag bottom feeders.

Well, someone's gotta pick up the check from all those crazy years, I mean all that wasteful spending and those really cool wars we got to have? Come on man! What a great time to be a Republican!! Now you lousy Dems gotta pick up the tab. Haha.

Sorry, my sarcasm escaped me...

Boehner is NOT the worst speaker the House ever had. That would be Denny Hestert. The man who covered for Republican paedofiles. Boehner barely held on to his speaker position after he surrendered tax cuts and getting nothing in return. Now hes looking at more tax increases as democrats demand tax loop-holes closed like the billions we give to big oil every year. If he yields any more, he's out of a job. At this point, I think he's going to take the sequester and just try to pin the blame on Obama, the man who has nothing to do with the Congressional Branch. So he's in a losing PR position, but the only alternative is political death for himself. He would rather protect his own position than negotiate at this point. He could pass a compromise with the democrats and the intelligent Republicans in the house, but it would mean the end of his career.

So he wont.

Ok, the Moderator and Censor apparently did not like me pointing out few facts and mistruths that are very evident here. SO I'll try again, .So to quote my Congressman's Post on Facebook, which threw some big time dirt into the NBC story and a number of posts here by the Sheeple who are so far gone it is sickening, here is the truth...A direct quote from my Congressmen who was on the Committee......:

In 2011, the bipartisan plans for the Budget Control Act were presented to the President (Obama) the White house (Obama) responded by INSISTING that the SEQUESTER be included into the plan. This is in fact one of the reasons I voted against the Plan"

So Obama insisted on the Sequester being in the plan...That sures throws a big bucket of water on a lot of the comments made here by his Sheeple doesn't it...I bet the cadre of Obama's professional Poster group were tipped off about the publication of this story.. Obama is now going to have to face up to the fact that it was HIS OWN DOING that is causing the Cuts....What a Coward from what I am reading he is..Again trying to place the blame on others..Just like Clinton causing the Mortgage Melt down and then covering it up and bribing the Banks by bailing them out and then cover up about the truth about that...So tired of deceitful lying dishonest Demoncrats...

Taking away deductions and incentives from the corporations that abuse them but do not use them to stimulate but instead used them to enrich their corporate leaders in the form of historical bonuses, incentives and raises is not raising taxes on the wealthy. Just like they said about taking away the social security cut on the lower classes, it isn't raising taxes, it's simply making them pay their fair share.

Legislation was passed last year to close the loopholes, and it passed with bi-partisan support. Nothing that is proposed by congress is good enough for the President, and nothing ever will be. He will happily drive this nation over this fiscal cliff, because he knows he can waste tax payer dollars campaigning against congress and ultimately pin everything on the Republicans; while he walks away looking like the "innocent" victim. What could he have done, he was only the POTUS!

Dear Mr. Boehner:

Requiring hedge fund traders to report their wages as wages instead of "carried interest" taxed at the capital gains rate is not a tax increase.

Requiring corporate "people" to pay taxes on their income in the year they earn it is not a tax increase.

Making companies pay profits on what the earn in the U.S. instead of "attributing" it to their overseas divisions is not a tax increase.

Stopping the world's most profitable entities (U.S. oil companies) from deducting their entire profits plus enough extra to earn a refund back from U.S. taxpayers is not a tax increase.

It's treating them just like working people in America.

So get on the fairness train or get off the soapbox.

Sincerely,
An American TaxPAYER

Help Help,! Run for the hills they are going to cut the budget by 2.3% Oh My God!! The world is going to stop turning. Ok that was all sarcasm. I just can't resist when I read these post feeding this fake hysteria!! Drink up people.

P.S Is fiesty red a DNC plant?

Well, American voters deserve what they have on Capital Hill because they are the one who keep voting these fools from both parties back into office. Both parties are the blame for America's down turned economy. We need to start from scratch take away all the benefits for Congress, Term Limits, new lower pay scale for Congress. Wake up America it's almost to late.

The way these these two parties are negotiating....................We R F**ked. End of story! We need something else.

Hey, John Doe - mind listing some of those "loopholes" you claim the GOP closed?

There's a whole lot of stealing from this country's taxPAYERS going on, and it's being defended every inch by the bought-and-paid-for crowd with a big "R" after their names.

What legislation? Was the tax loop hole for Oil Companies closed? Was the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy tax loopholes closed? Were the tax loopholes for mega banks closed? No.

juanita dominguez

American Girl: the so-called "loop holes" that you are referring to are legal deductions.

Those "legal deductions" are nothing more than payola for the billions iin bribes, er, "free speech contributions", that corporations in this country are making to create a "super-person" class for themselves. And they're doing it with the Citizens United decision they bought with a few Supreme Court seats, courtesy of the GOP.

Guess what, Juanita - neither you nor I are eligible for that "super-person" class.

Retired Disabled Vet......I totally agree with you, their will be a political price they will pay!

For Bone head to say let the sequester happen who cares if we lose jobs, were broke. Tell that to someone who is trying to feed, cloth their family....oh yeah a political price will be on the chopping block

The earlier reports that the repugnican approval rating had dropped below zero were incorrect... It was discovered that their Mothers had taken the liberty of casting multiple votes against them. Once the statistics were corrected for this unfortunate bit of repugnican voter fraud, the approval rating promptly returned to zero percent of Americans.

'Merkins don't count.

If we can't afford food stamps, how are we affording that $60 billion a year in oil company subsidies?

Good for Boehner, he is right, Obama did get his tax increases so where's the spending cuts? Obama is not a dictator and he is definitely not a leader. If they can't come to an agreement, let the sequester begin........

Bo-Dumbo you GOT your tax increases WHERE ARE THE CUTS you promised??

2013 Tax Changes INCREASES

Individual’s income more than $400,000. The marginal tax rate rose from 35% to 39.6%.Married couples income more than $450,000. The marginal tax rate rose from 35% to 39.6%.

The tax rate on capital gains and dividends moved from 15% to 20%.

Limits on itemized deductions were reinstated for households and individuals with income over $300,000 and $250,000, respectively.

The payroll tax withholding for Social Security by 2 percentage points on income up to $113,700 rose from $110,000, so all workers paying that tax face some loss of disposable income.

Other 2013 tax changes have been implemented as a result of the Bo-Dumbo-Care Act. They include:The Medicare hospital tax increased by 0.9% on wages over $250,000 (for a household) or $200,000 (for an individual).

A new 3.8% tax on investment income (including interest, dividends, royalties, rents
and capital gains) also impacts households and individuals with incomes over
$250,000 and $200,000, respectively.

The medical expense tax-deduction threshold changed from 7.5% to 10%, meaning
those who spend 10% or more of their gross income on medical expenses can claim
the amount as a tax deduction. Those turning 65 within the next four years can
use the 7.5% threshold through 2017.

Hey!! Bo-Dumbo when is enough enough??

Mr. "Drama" Obama's sequestration policy:

1. Tax
2. Spend
3. Redistribute
4. More regulations
5. Blame Bush Republicans

Yep, after this is over.....next will be the National Debt Limit. MORE Obama Drama, photo ops, campaign tours, and date nights. Oh joy !!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, back in reality.....Mr. Obama just gave $ 348,000,000 to one of his closest friends to START a Government run ObamaCare Health Care Exchange to make sure ObamaCare FAILS.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

I see good ole Michael “O'Lyin” O’Brien forgot to mention who is really to blame for the sequester!

BARRACK HUSSEIN O'BAMA!!!!!!

I posted this on a previous thread but I think it's fitting to repeat here because the propagandists at PMSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS and all the other networks seem to have missed this information.

During the third presidential debate last year Barrack Hussein blamed Congress, of course indirectly the Republicans, when he said “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”

Every time Barrack Hussein blames Congress he means the Republicans, even though the Democrats haven’t offered any debate or compromise on ANY issues. Hell, they haven’t even passed a budget since April 29, 2009 or 1,398 days.

Jack Lew, then the White House chief of staff, who was the budget director during the negotiations that created the sequester, supported Barrack two days later. He claimed, “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

Last week journalism icon Bob Woodward proved they’re both liars. He states that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors, probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Woodward even pin points the time and date. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

The next day Barrack Hussein appeared at the White House in another example of his typical dog-and-pony show with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. Once again, the usual “symbolism-over-substance” propaganda that Barrack Hussein loves to use to distract Americans from the real issues he is incapable of dealing with. Perhaps he was too busy sharpening his golfing skills for his date with Tiger Woods.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity. “The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

Here’s the link to the WaPo article for those of you who think I made all this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

So, once again, Barrack Hussein and his criminal cabal lie to the American people because of their obvious inability to create any kind of reasonable fiscal policy.

The nation’s capital was enveloped in a familiar kind of gridlock late Monday, as Republicans again demanded that President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats act first to put off $85 billion in automatic cuts slated to take effect on Friday.

OH MY GOD! GRIDLOCK WILL BRING OUR NATION TO IT’S KNEES DUE TO A 2.3% CUT IN OUR BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!

First of all this “massive” $85 billion is a mere 2.5% of our bloated, out of control government budget, including deficit.

Amazingly, NO ONE in our criminal government can find ANY money that can be cut from our budget. Even though OUR OWN GOVERNMENT has been telling us for years where, how and why we could be cutting spending. Hell, if I can find this information, why can’t our elected officials?

BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO!!!!!

And before any of you rabid Liberals/Progressives get apoplectic on me, this is true of both sides of the aisle. Remember, politicians don’t get elected because they tell you what they can’t do, they get elected because they tell you all the wonderful things the can, and will, do for you. The more “stuff” they promise to the unwashed masses, the easier they get elected.

Here’s a few of the possible spending cuts our own regulators, auditors and other oversight committees have offered.

~The federal government made at least $125 billion in improper payments in 2011. Hmmmm, here’s $40 billion more than the $85 billion that seems so insurmountable.

~Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties. Not quite the $85 billion, but why are we maintaining all this property, some of which the government has owned for decades!

~The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $140 billion in potential spending cuts. So, the Congress’ own budget office offers its own set of options to cut $55 billion more than is needed to avoid sequester.

~Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs. This report identifies more than $100 billion to $200 billion in annual government spending on 1,500 different programs that are wasteful, duplicative, or inefficient. This one proves how critically overgrown and dysfunctional our government has become. It’s a wonder we don’t have a “Department of Redundancy Department”.

~A recent study by the Institute of Medicine shows health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $750 billion annually. This one is a topic for a completely separate discussion. How much is $750 billion? The one-year estimate of health care waste is equal to more than 10 years of Medicare cuts in Obama's health care law. It's more than the Pentagon budget. It's more than enough to care for the uninsured. If banking worked like health care, ATM transactions would take days, the report said. If home building were like health care, carpenters, electricians and plumbers would work from different blueprints and hardly talk to each other. If shopping were like health care, prices would not be posted and could vary widely within the same store, depending on who was paying. Like I said, this is a topic for discussion on its own merits, or more appropriately, failures. And many of you keep insisting that more government will fix our health care system.

Good luck with that wet dream!

Finally, this one is for all you indoctrinated Libbies who worship at the altar of Barrack Hussein and bigger government, especially for your sacrosanct “social programs” that you all covet so dearly.

~Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Let me repeat this because it’s important.

Fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

This means these social program(s) don’t do anything for the people that are supposed to benefit from them.

This particular study was started in 2003 and ended in 2008.The program was called “ExpectMore.gov. This initiative, by the OMB and related agencies, studied 1,015 programs and reported the effective programs and ineffective programs. The Barrack Hussein administration cancelled any further studies.

I wonder why?

So, I guess our poor government will still claim that there is no possible way we can make the “Draconian” cuts in our fragile government without upsetting the balance that is waste, fraud abuse and corruption. We wouldn’t want our elected politicians to make any difficult decisions.

Instead, let’s just demand more revenue (taxes) so Barrack Hussein and Congress can redistribute YOUR MONEY better than you lowly Americans can.

God Bless and save America. You may be our only real Hope for any Change.

@ UnRealAmerican: You mean tax credits like these: THANKS TO THE DEMO-RATS:

2013-01-07 “approved by the Democrat-led Senate Finance Committee in August”

It also became a lesson in how Washington's taste for dishing out favors to special interests is alive and well, despite bipartisan calls for the government to reduce the tax credits it gives businesses and
individuals at a time when the nation's debt tops $16 trillion and is growing. Some business
lobbyists told Reuters they were surprised that the package of tax credits - which had been approved by the Democrat-led Senate Finance Committee in August - survived the negotiations over the tax bill.

So the package - with its $222 million credit for the rum industry, a $78 million write-off for the owners of NASCAR auto racing tracks and tax credits for the film industry that could total $248 million, among
other things - survived intact, like a holiday bonus to Washington's lobbyists.

The White House ... can't deny that the only reason the (business tax breaks were) included in the final agreement is because the president insisted" they be in there, Stewart said.

Well the Weepers approval rating after Friday will be around 5%.

That's 5% more than Obama.

@Q22 "What the heck is their "fair share"? The top 1% are taxed at an average of 24%. The top 5% are taxed at an average of 20%. The bottom 50% are taxed at an average of only 1.85%. So who's not paying "their fair share"?"

Hate to break it to you, but poor people pay more percentage wise in "taxes" then the rich do. If you really want to talk about "effective" tax rates we really need to discuss the "hidden" tax that all workers pay to the company that they work for. Most companies charge their workers at least a 50% tax rate on any goods or services they produce/provide for the company. We are paying money to the company for the right to work basically. That is the only way a company can make money according to basic math.

If the top 1% own the company or large shares of stock then they do not have to pay the "hidden" workers tax to anyone. They STILL pay only 24% in effective taxes. The top 5% may have some workers, but it will still have a large number of professionals that work for themselves like doctors, lawyers, etc. so they are not paying any "hidden" worker taxes to anyone either so they STILL pay 20% in taxes.

According to your numbers however since the bottom 50% are workers for a company more then likely they are actually paying 51.85% in effective/total taxes. They worked for it why do you get to keep it? Is that not the logic you come here and spout every single day? "I worked hard for my money and it is mine". Why do the rich get to keep what the work for, but not the poor? Hypocrites maybe, or selfish liars?

In a system of 1000 people the only way one person can make 1000 times more then others is to take 50% of what the other 999 people make. It is simple math. Try to spin it all you want, but you cannot get something for nothing. 10 to 20 times is more then enough of a reward and a 90% top tax rate is need to keep rich people in "check" with the rest of the population.

If life was so easy for the poor why do they have so little money and the rich have so much? Why has the gap between rich and poor gotten bigger ever since the tax rates were dropped from 90% back in the 60s? Logic and basic math. Unless you are forced to pay the government "taxes" you will keep AS MUCH money as you can for yourself by taxing your employees AS MUCH as you can. If you are forced to pay taxes then you do not tax your workers as much. Simple logic, but I am talking to a bunch of money addicts that do not listen or understand logic.

In the end, the result of sequester fits more squarely with Democratic ideals than with the conservative agenda. It will be bad for both sides, no doubt, but it will hurt the GOP and their goals more than it will Obama and the dems. Congress will take the brunt of the blame, and the HoR in particular will feel the wrath of the nation. It seems like there is no avoiding sequestration, anyway, but Obama has no reason to cave in on this. This is like the "last stand" for the House GOP...they won't allow themselves to be perceived as "weak", and they will stick to their rather lame guns and will eventually take the blame...and that's all as it should be. They make themselves seem weaker, and certainly more ineffective, the more they embrace sequester and what it will mean for their causes in the end. They will get their spending cuts, sure...but everything else is a negative from their perspective.

Advantage, Obama. Sequester will just make his presidency seem stronger. That may seem counter-intuitive, but that's the way it will eventually go down, barring some form of agreement to avoid the sequester...IMHO.

The fact is Obama got his revenue increase and now is refusing to have any kind of spending reduction. He is like a bad used car salesman who gets his price and then tries to add "extras" when the customer goes into finance. Obama and the democrats never have, and never will, agree to any kind of spending cuts unless it is completely forced on them. Obama refuses to govern this country and only wants to drive us into oblivion with rampant spending!

If the Republicans do not stop this wave of spending we, and the next few generations, will drown under this debt. I salute the politicians who are brave enough to stand up to Obama, the crazed libs in D.C., and the slavish liberal establishment mass media (or as I call them: LEMMings)! We need to have some adults in this situation!

Houston! Your comment is soooo typical liberal thinking. You only see what you want to see. The agreement in January did not CUT taxes on 98% of the population as you said. It extended the Bush era tax cuts for those people. So don't say the taxes were cut, because they weren't. It prevented taxes to rise. But on the other hand, taxes for the wealthy did go up. So in reality, the net effect was that taxes did go up, albeit not for everyone. But even that isn't whole truth. Have you looked at your pay check. If you pay social security, your net pay is smaller than it was last year. That is because every wage earner who pays social security saw the temporary SS tax decrease passed a couple years ago disappear. So most wage earners in America saw their taxes go up.

Houston! if you want to argue, get your facts straight. Stop listening to Obama's grandstanding speeches on how badly the sequestration will hurt the economy. All Obama has to do is agree to redistribute the spending cuts to areas that will have less impact on the economy. If one were to look into the government books, I'm willing to bet that he could easily find $85 billion in wasteful spending. It could begin at the White House. The president goes to Florida to pay golf and the first lady goes on a skiing vacation. Both at tax payer cost. Those nice Air Force planes that transport the first family on these vacations don't fly for free!

Bo-Dumbo deny's proposing the sequest yeah right LOL, LOL What a liar!!

2013-02-20 The other day, Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus said of
the sequester, “the White House recommended it, frankly.” Senator Max Baucus (D., Mont.) admitted to the local CBS station in Billings, Mont., that President Obama bears responsibility for the
sequester: “The president’s part of the sequester. The White House recommended
it, frankly, back in August 2011. And so now we’re feeling the effects of it.

Also in 2011, Joe Biden said the sequester was the overwhelming redeeming feature of the fiscal deal.

Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and
Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.

(Monday, November 21, 2011) President Barack Obama says he will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts that would take effect in 2013 if Congress can't find other ways of trimming government
deficits. Those spending cuts include significant reductions to the Pentagon that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said would be devastating to the military. Obama issued his threat Monday an hour after leaders of Congress' deficit-reduction super-committee announced that they had failed to reach
agreement on cutting the debt. The inability of the committee to meet its deadline means the government is facing about $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts in January 2013.

Bo-Dumbo wanted it (Ask Mr. Lew and Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Woodward), Bo-Dumbo wanted it, Bo-Dumbo signed it, in 2011 Bo-Dumbo threatened to VETO any bill to reduce it, Bo-Dumbo owns it!

Yes and in the cliff deal nobody making under 400K was supposed to see an increase in taxes. Under Obama's cilff deal, only the wage earners will pay the 39% tax. Investment income only increased to 20%. (I have to wonder why?) Could it be Sorros and Buffet? Obame could not step on the toes of his deep pockets. But since this was his last election he might as well spend all he can. Then the next Democrat will have a tougher time getting into the pockets of long time doners.

So basically Obama screwed everyone, Not just those who didn't vote for him, but also the ones who did. And those guys love him for it.

I just don't get it. Must be a dummycrat thing????

Obama will gladly cut spending next Tuesday, for a tax increase today. Same old Democrat spending cut line, never today, always tomorrow, and not until we raise taxes again. Obama will do nothing but move the goalpost whenever spending cuts are mentioned. But Obama made the sequester deal, and now he gets to live with it, and no the sky is not falling.

Have I missed something? The U.S National Debt clock is climbing by over $ 3.5 billion per day, right now the total debt is $16,621,052,165,679, yes $16.6 trillion or $52,850 per person!!

The Speaker is correct, it’s time to be serious and start cutting spending. If the president wants to continue on his reckless drive, he shouldn’t count on the Republicans to follow him blindly, no one should!

The death knell of the republican majority in the house is beginning to sound. Listen carefully and you can hear it. It is the sound of liberation, the sound of the oppressed shouting in unison - "you f'n refublican a$$ 'oles aren't gonna F' around with the economy so that you can suck from the tit of your super wealthy F'n puppet masters any F'n more, you F'n 'b@sterds".

What's fair is fair!! Didn't that drunken orange teabag get 98% of what he wanted in the first round of negotiations??? Well then, the POTUS should get 98% of what he wants in this round of negotiations!

National debt today: $16.582 trillion. This party's only accomplishment is to pass legislation outlawing 16 oz sugary sodas in NYC via Bloomberg. Outside of that it's spend spend spend!

The wealthy in the GOP Tea Party want the Sequester to happen since it will shrink the size of the public sector and shed hundreds of thousands of jobs, no matter what the indiscriminate cost or damage it inflicts onto the nation.

After all, why should they care? They got theirs.

If they want cuts, let the voting constituents in their right-wing districts and Red States be the first to feel them.

I think the repugs live in a parallel universe. Have any of you other "libs" watched Fox News? It's a real education, for instance did you know that Obama is responsible for Detroit being in the condition it is in? I didn't either. He must have done it retroactively like Romney getting out of Bain. Fox would be a comedy station if the repugs didn't believe all the garbage they put out.

wtw of KC

Have I missed something? The U.S National Debt clock is climbing by over $ 3.5 billion per day, right now the total debt is $16,621,052,165,679, yes $16.6 trillion or $52,850 per person!! The Speaker is correct, it’s time to be serious and start cutting spending. If the president wants to continue on his reckless drive, he shouldn’t count on the Republicans to follow him blindly, no one should!

Because of GROWTH, the deficit as a percent of GDP has been reduced for the first time in recent memory.

In virtually every instance of austerity implementation, growth suffered and the net result was even more debt due to lost tax revenue.

Argue the above two facts before drawing your conclusions. The squealing of the GOP is just beginning. The sequester will kill our economy and shut up the wrong rights for many years... too bad, though. It looks like the middle class will have to eat it again.

Feistyredpubes at it again! She's just pissed that she will have to report to work from now on instead of working from her "home office".

Please bring on this sequester thingy. Finally some cuts will be made.

Now we need to continue the work of decreasing the debt

Sorry Don but we haven't done anything to decrease our debt.

The "tax increase" to which Mr. Boehner referred was NOT a tax increase at all. It was a PARTIAL restoration of the TEMPORARY Bush-era tax cuts and the TEMPORARY payroll tax cut, which were set to expire last December 31.

Even Grover Norquist recognizes that.

Feisty:

You got it wrong, dummy. Otis the drunk, also known as Joe Biden, was never Speaker Of The House!

This is insanity to argue that more spending cuts AND higher tax rates and revenues are not BOTH required. All sides need to stop the posturing.

Even if we had "a balanced budget" tomorrow, our country would STILL be more than $16 TRILLION in debt., and growing due to the service of the debt (interest) and the increasing unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security for or aging society.

No one is even talking about the impact of that debt as they play this silly partisan Congressional game of "either / or." It's both! BOTH taxes AND spending cuts, and at far greater levels than are being discussed!

The US Government could completely shut down and cease to exist, just put it out of business - including no more military at all - and spend 100% of the revenues collected in taxes each year just to pay down the National Debt .... and because of interest on the debt it would take more than 8 years to pay off the current debt even with no Federal government and no Federal services.

And then it would start growing again because of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid (of course without a military for eight years while paying down the debt the USA wouldn't exist anymore anyway. We would be part of some aggressor nation).

We got in this pickle by taxing too little, AND spending too much. We pay a lower relative tax rate than almost every other developed nation in the world, and yet all we do is bitch and moan about the relatively paltry percentage of our income we pay to our governments at the same time we are demanding more solutions to growing problems.

Well just try not paying your phone bill for awhile and see how long you have the phone service you demand. Why should our governments not receive tax revenues to pay for the services we demand and expect?

When are "we the people" going to grow up, act like responsible adults, and acknowledge that it doesn't matter how we got here, we have a National debt, and we have needed ongoing services and responsibilities. and it is OUR responsibilities as citizens to fund our governments at a level which is adequate to pay our bills and national responsibilities.

My fellow Americans, LET'S GROW UP, and stop bitching about our taxes, ...and let's get this job done. OUR job!

The invisible hand knows what been going on.

@ Feisty,

Did you notice how he kept his glass hidden during the President's Inaugural Address? He also had a hard time keeping his tongue off his lips after he would take a sip. Bourbon or Scotch? I thought it was a little disrespectful and I was hoping the President would turn around and take it away from him.

Obama should have won the award for 'Best Actor' for his role in "The Sky is Falling".

Let's get real. Spending increased by $535 Billion in 2009 (vs 2008), thanks in part to Obama's 'stimulus' spending, and has remained at that high level for the last 4 years - despite the 'supposed' end of the 'stimulus' spending in 2010.

The estimated cuts for 2013 are actually only about $60 Billion, on a spending projection of $3.6+ Trillion. That's a 'cut' of only about 1.6% - Does ANYONE really think there is not 1.6% worth of spending fat that could be cut from that bloated federal spending?

Boy, Fisty the DNCNBC paid robot, happens to be plugged in. She got this crap up and running. One can always tell when she is up and running, first to post.

GOP-TP Trademark, "Good for nothing" !!!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL---You built it you live with it. Divisive and clueless there is no other word to describe you nutjobs. Then you want help to solve your idiotic ideas, forget it.

Robert in Oregon---right on man, how about I use the Obama ploy if you will I will. You know what it is really about, After 12 years of blaming Bush I say screw the Dems, it is time they get what they wanted. Whether we tax ourselves out of existance or not they will want and spend more, how about the buck stops here.

Got this text message from a friend back in my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, a college student of economics history:

"The wealthy, Wall Street and extremely profitable industries (such as the oil industry) are still getting taxed lower than compared to years ago, and, they're enjoying tax loopholes and corporate welfare in record amounts. Far as I'm concerned, taxes on the wealthiest and bigger businesses that can most afford to pay it and still not feel any loss, well, those rates on them weren't raised up high enough. It's obvious that the GOP T'Pers are protecting them. Why do we, as voters, tolerate these 21st Century, self-serving Robber Barons and their right-wing, pseudo-libertarian, Talking Heads, in Washington D.C.?"

Fiesty Redhead aka Pigotry............you sound like a ten year old name calling child on the playground. Always the first to post which more than likely means you do not have a job and you suck off the system or you write for MSN which would explain your one-sided views.

'kev67', your views are equally one-sided and you are condemning another for the exact thing that you are also doing; posting comments on newsvine, and using childish playground insults directed at others.

Do you completely fail to see the blatant hypocrisy in your post above, which is so obvious to anyone else reading your words?

A little introspection might be in order?

LMarcT......You are probably right “The sequester will kill our economy and shut up the wrong rights for many years….too bad”

So will the debt! There is a limit to how much by and for how long our economy will continue to grow, remember we are not China. When the economy slows and the ratio debt to GDP starts to look sick again, our troubles will multiply. We are operating in a completely new environment with fiscal responsibility being paramount, for us to be able to compete and to keep our heads above the water.

Paying off the debt interest alone will be a major obstacle for our economic health and as a result, following our current path, will not be kind to any of us.

LMarcT "Because of GROWTH, the deficit as a percent of GDP has been reduced for the first time in recent memory."

The National Debt as a % of GDP is a far more meaningful figure because this 'Debt Ratio' helps lenders evaluate whether a borrower is a good risk - for example, NO lender will lend to a private borrower if they had ANY DEFICIT AT ALL because of fears over their ability to repay the loan, but they DO look at a borrowers Debt Ratio to ensure they are solvent. Greece could not borrow any more money when their Debt Ratio got to 120% of GDP.

Here are the Debt Ratio figures for recent Presidents;

Average Debt Ratio for Reagan = 42.8% of GDP.

Average Debt Ratio for Bush 1 = 58.5% of GDP.

Average Debt Ratio for Clinton = 64.2% of GDP.

Average Debt Ratio for Bush 2 = 62.6% of GDP (Yes, it WAS lower than Clinton).

Average Debt Ratio for 2012 (Obama) = 104.8% of GDP, and his 2013 Budget projections show it continuing to increase through 2016.

Come on Obama!?! Not another CRISIS! Stop the scare tactics and fear!

Stop a minute - think about this folks

There is NO Budget in place - and the deadline for the government to shut down - without one - is in just a few weeks

That means - total government shutdown - not just this little piece Obama is hyping and inducing fear on - What then Barack?

Does he - really think the American people are that stupid to not realize this? (Yes he does)

Those crying about this sequester - have got to feel really stupid - knowing this

The American people have either joined Barack's incompententcy or turned 100% stupid

What a sad and pathetic way to govern Obamanation

You can not - spell Liberal - without - A Lie

C'mon Feisty, you know that when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, she had a Democratic Congress (both Senate and House) to work with. Unlike Boehner, who has a hostile Senate and an uncoorperative President.

Obamanism is methodically destroying our nation. The ones that will suffer most are our children and their children. Obamanism is using this country and it's laws to destroy it from within. China is collecting info. from this gov't. Russia is reinforcing it's nuclear strength, Iran does what it pleases, N. Korea is laughing at us. Obamanism knows full well what he is doing and is making sure that his cabinet members do as they are told and his appointees are appointed. Our country is bankrupt, our schools are not teaching, the price of gasoline will continue to rise as will groceries, unemployment. Obamanism has destroyed the best Health Care in the world and Medicare will soon be a word of the past, our borders will continue to go unprotected. Obamanism is arming the Muslim Brotherhood and disarming America. Obamanism has done nothing for this country. The bigger the lie, the more believable. I pray God that somehow America will wake up from this stupor

rradiko "Got this text message from a friend back in my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, a college student of economics history"

Ask your 'student of economics history' about this;

Here are the 2 biggest problems facing the United States today;

1) - The National Debt is projected to be $20.392 Trillion in 2016 - if Obama gets all of the tax increases he's asked for and the economy suddenly starts growing at 5% per year instead of the 2% of the last 4 years (Source - Obama's 2013 Budget). Presidential Budget projections are very optimistic.

Interest Rates on the Debt over the last 30 years before Obama averaged 4.92% per year.

If history is a guide, at $20.392 Trillion of Debt in 2016, we can expect the Interest alone on the National Debt to increase to slightly over $1 Trillion per year in 2016, an increase of over $800 Billion per year above the average of $199 Billion per year paid under Bush. That's an increase of more than $8 TRILLION over 10 years - just for Interest expense. The current 'haggling' over a few hundred $Billion in taxes and spending cuts over 10 years is insignificant compared with this problem.

And the portion of Federal revenues required for Interest expense could increase from 10.02% of ALL Federal receipts in 2008 to 27.6% of Federal receipts in 2016. That dramatic increase in revenues dedicated to Interest expense will crowd out huge amounts of spending that could be used for 'entitlements' and running the government (causing Austerity). That dramatic increase in money spent for Interest will also require huge tax increases, which will cause a huge drop in consumer spending, which will stagnate the economy and cause high Unemployment (ala Greece).

No matter what happens over the next 4 years, EVERYONE will face huge tax increases – just to pay the Interest expense.

2) - Inflation (and Interest Rates) are poised to skyrocket. Any student of Economics is taught that there is a very simple formula that predicts general price levels (Inflation) – Here it is;

M x V = P x Q

In the preceding equation, M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money, as measured by the number of times the money supply turns over in a year, P is the general level of prices, and Q is the quantity of goods and services available, which changes very slowly over time (w/ productivity).

Applying this simple formula, it's easy to see that a significant change in any of these 'variables' will have a direct impact on Prices, as reflected in the inflation rate. Doubling the money supply (M) ultimately leads to a doubling of prices (P) over a relatively short period of time.

What's happening right now is that the Money Supply (M1) has been increasing dramatically over the last few years ($1.4 Trillion in 2008 vs $2.5 Trillion now) because the Federal Reserve has been 'creating' more money to fund the huge current government Deficits. Ultimately, this will be highly inflationary, and if/when the Federal Reserve has to reverse course to counter inflation by reducing the money supply, it will lead to high interest rates and an economic contraction (recession). Generally, the greater the reduction in the money supply, the greater the contraction. In Milton Friedman's book "Money Mischief" he devotes chapter 8 to this subject – 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation'. History has shown that this is a 'Truism' – it has ALWAYS happened in the past.

The main reason that we have not experienced an inflationary spiral to date is the recession, which has resulted in a slowing in the Velocity (V) of money, and the 'lag time' between an increased money supply and its effects, but when inflation begins and people start 'getting rid' of Dollars that are declining in value by buying things, Prices (P) will quickly rise ever faster, thus forcing the Federal Reserve to intervene. A classic example of this process in action occurred in the early 1980s, when Paul Volker (then the head of the Federal Reserve) reduced the money supply, which forced consumer interest rates up to about 18% per year to combat the 14% inflation rate in late 1980. The result was a sharp recession and high unemployment. Interesting point - $1.00 from 1970 is currently worth only 17 cents in equivalent value because of inflation.

For an interesting 'read' on the relationship between M1 and Inflation, I would recommend the following link;

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_and_Inflation.asp

And the reason that it will happen is political ineptness, as shown by a N Y Times article, linked below;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04meltzer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&th&emc=th

Forewarned is forearmed, and 'Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it'.

OMG, this means the Obamas will not get as many vacation this year. Just think about how much that will save the tax payers. And only one golf outing with his good buddies from Illinois from now on and none with Tiger....no wonder the Pres is cryin!!

Think, it's time for you to think again, except use your brain this time. Nancy P. did have the house and congress for only 2 years. You might remember that the Repubs took the house in 2010, if your brain capacity can hold information that long. And they used the slogan "JOBS", after which they did everything to stall the economy instead of working for what they promised they would give the people "JOBS". Now tell me if you can remember what their agenda was, if you can't reply and I will tell you.

The spending cuts will come. The money will be taken from the poor, middle class, the elderly and that money will be given to the wealthy who will build factories overseas, laying off more people in America so they can pocket more money for themselves. What did the Auto industry do with their bailout money? They built factories in China. They made a promise to create more jobs and they did that, just not here in the USA.

So Boehner and his crew of Obama Obstructionists will send their staff home without pay, while their, (the obstructionists) payroll deposits are made, IN FULL.....

And his staff believes, and follows him. Bobby Jindal say's it's the "Stupid Party,' does that include their staff.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE JUST GET THE BABIES IN WASHINGTON THEIR BOTTLES, this country is getting on its last nerve

Oh no, RW is quoting Milton Friedman, one of the biggest and most dangerous frauds of the 20th century!

It's partly because of that snake oil salesman that parts of Europe are being fiscally water boarded to death by the Troika and now they want to do it here.

But to the matter at hand:

If congress wanted to avoid the cuts in the sequester (a good Idea) all they would have to do is repeal it. It is a completely artificial construction, put together by BOTH political parties in order scare the public into accepting totally unnecessary cuts very successful and popular social programs like SS and Medicare and also to provide them with political cover for administering an historic stab in the back of the american public.

This is not being done to help the economy or save the economy at all. It is just to make the middle class and poor pay for the debts that result from the recession that was caused by Wall Street swindling the economy off of a cliff in 2008.

Here's some more from economist Dean Baker:

JANUARY 4-6, 2013

It's Irrelevant to the Deficit

Take Your Hands Off Social Security

by DEAN BAKER

Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country's most successful social program.

While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.

The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.

When the bubble burst and the economy plummeted, tax collections fell. We also spent more on unemployment insurance and other benefits for unemployed workers. And we had further tax cuts and stimulus spending to try to boost the economy. The automatic and deliberate steps taken to counter the downturn fully explain the large deficits we have seen the last five years.

Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.

This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream. One of the most widely discussed proposals to avert that shortfall is a revision in the cost-of-living calculation that would be the equivalent of a 3 percent cut in benefits over a typical retiree's lifetime. (Perversely, the impact will be largest for the oldest and poorest retirees, since people who live the longest will accumulate the largest reduction in benefits.)

An overwhelming majority of the country strongly supports Social Security and does not want to see any benefit cuts. But because of the nature of this budget negotiation process, Americans are supposed to accept the cuts with no revenue increase whatsoever to shore up the program's long-term financial position.

It is understandable that people who want to cut back or dismantle Social Security would argue for this position. It is difficult to see why anyone else would.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/take-your-hands-off-social-security/

The "sequester" is part of the stage-managed campaign by the two big-business parties to impose unpopular policies through manufactured crises. The first installment was made in the aftermath of the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis.

Obama's opposition to the sequestration cuts has nothing to do with any real opposition to cuts to social spending. Obama has called for $1.5 trillion in additional "deficit reduction" on top of the roughly $2.5 trillion that has already been passed. While both parties agree to this ballpark figure in principle, Obama is insisting that that spending cuts be associated with increases in revenues, much of which will come through the elimination of tax benefits that benefit broader sections of the middle class and working poor.

Obama has been pushing for this measure as part of a so-called "grand bargain" that would lower corporate taxes from the current rate of 35 percent to 28 percent, while including trillions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Earlier Tuesday, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the former co-chairmen of the White Houses's bipartisan deficit-reduction commission, held a press conference to propose a set of budget cuts along similar lines to Obama's comprehensive proposal, although at a slightly larger in size: $2.4 trillion over 10 years, compared to the White House's proposed $1.5 trillion.

The Simpson-Bowles proposal would cut $600 billion from federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, while Obama has proposed an additional $400 billion on top of the cuts that have already been imposed. Commentators were quick to point out that the proposal was far more similar to Obama's plan than that of the Republicans, since it included a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases.

The "sequester" is part of the stage-managed campaign by the two big-business parties to impose unpopular policies through manufactured crises. The first installment was made in the aftermath of the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis.

The next stage in the process was the so-called fiscal cliff, which was resolved through an agreement to increase taxes on workers, as well as a token increase in taxes on the rich, to be compensated by planned cuts to corporate taxes that both parties have in principle agreed to.

The attempt by the Obama administration to posture as an opponent of budget cuts is cynical. Obama has overseen an austerity program unprecedented in postwar US history. The number of layoffs of public sector workers during the first term of the Obama administration is twice that of any other presidency.

The so-called Obama recovery has been nothing but the recovery of corporate profits, which have set records three years in a row, at the expense of workers' wages and working conditions.

This was amply demonstrated in data released last month by Emmanuel Saez, which found that between 2009 and 2011—the first two years of the "recovery"—the "Top 1 percent incomes grew by 11.2 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes shrunk by 0.4 percent. Hence, the top 1 percent captured 121 percent of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery."

While it is impossible to predict the immediate outcome of the sequestration debate, the end result will be the same: both parties are committed to trillions in spending cuts, whether piecemeal, as has been the case up to now, or in one large agreement.

Why all the hysterics about the deficit?

Economist, Dean Baker

"... The deficit chicken hawks that dominate Washington policy debates are warning us that financial markets will panic if we don't soon get our debt under control, with investors fleeing the dollar and interest rates soaring. Japan's ratio of debt to GDP of 240 percent is more than twice that of the United States, yet the interest rate on long-term government bonds is hovering near 1.0 percent and the government's main concern is that the yen is over valued … "

I might also add that Japan's unemployment rate is 4.1% half of ours which is 8.3% (officially, it's quite a bit higher really)

In Europe where they are slashing government spending and wages (like both the Republicans and Democrats want to do here) unemployment is above 12% and most of the countries there are in recession or DEPRESSION.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare and government spending is not needed and will make matters worse not better.

But this won't stop them from trying to do it of course.

Because the deficit is just being used as an excuse to cut social programs like Social Security and Medicare, etc.

Can't wait to see the comments from these "die hard" Obama supporters after he takes their 401K and IRA's to pay off the national debt. If they have one or maybe they've already donated it to his campaign.

Rush said on his show today that most, if not all, of our problems are caused by democrats. So, facts are facts. Nuff said!

David Puddy, Rush? You are actually going to use someone as idiotic and irrelevant as Rush Limbaugh? My, you MUST be desperate. Okay, well, Bugs Bunny said, "What's up doc?" Facts are facts, "nuff" said, ("nuff" = "I'm too stupid to spell "enough.") I love how you Tea Klux Klan member quote clowns and entertainers to support your points. Repugs, the party of "DUHHHHH!" Thanks for the laugh and for proving, once again, how comically stupid your side is.

All the kings horse and all the kings man are getting rich off the middle class again.

Look up all the tree-thuggers friends they are getting rich off of borrowed money and throwing redhead and little Piggy's cheese for pushing there @!$%#.

If Obama was working at a real job he would be fired.

kkwilson
Can't wait to see the comments from these "die hard" Obama supporters after he takes their 401K and IRA's to pay off the national debt. If they have one or maybe they've already donated it to his campaign.

rgsdca1965
All the kings horse and all the kings man are getting rich off the middle class again.

Look up all the tree-thuggers friends they are getting rich off of borrowed money and throwing redhead and little Piggy's cheese for pushing there @!$%#.

If Obama was working at a real job he would be fired.

Attack, attack, attack, just like stupid republicans with no plan!! Is that the best you guys have?

Wow, you LIBTARDS are the biggest bunch of idiots I have ever seen. Boehner may be bad, but the worthless president you all worship is worse. The Republicans are the only ones that have presented a budget, the only ones who have shown where money can be saved, the only ones who have actually tried to make a difference.

The democrats have not produced a budget in over 4 years. What the hell have they been doing??? Oh yeah, passing worthless BLOATED bills like obamacare (which have put us in this deficit mess), trying to pass gun-control bills that will NEVER control gun violence and every other worthless piece of legislation that has nothing to do with turning this economy around.

I hear all the cry babies out there whining about Social Security and how the Republicans will take away from it. First, Social Security is not an entitlement. It is something that every WORKING American pays into to provide a retirement for themselves. The worthless "entitlement" group out there takes away from Social Security without ever paying anything in. the illegals in this country take from it fraudulently and the rest of what is draining social security is being siphoned out and sent to medicare, welfare and every other entitlement out there. The Republicans aren't taking any of it. The ones that your liberal leaders are catering too are.... Think about that.

That was not a tax increase. It was a partial expiration of a temporary tax cut. In case anyone doesn't remember, GWB cut taxes because there was a surplus. It was passed and specifically designated to expire in 10 years. Due to the recession, Obama let it go longer than 10 years, but the R's got so used to having it that they forgot it was temporary and now want to hold their breath until they turn blue and the country falls apart rather than letting it expire as they agreed to do back when it was originally passed.

Lets see there is a fifty / fifty split and both can't be wrong and both can't be right...I will put my money on the Liberals eating crow in the next one to two years, if not sooner, and they will still be blaming the earth for being formed. If you guys just focused on killing babies and banning sodas we could really get some work done here.

Moshuluu...respectfully just dismiss the far right wing Republicans who come to this blog. The GOP tactic has been to make everyone else responsible for their problems/mistakes an attempt at redirecting the focus. They now are resorting to old political strategy tactics. Their strategists fail to realize that there are a whole lot of people from older generations still alive and sharp.

Sadly, RWer's fail to support their accusations using credible resources. Example, the "Sequester," was not proposed by POTUS it was Boehner's idea. He included the "Sequester," in his own Powerpoint Presentation to House GOP members during the last debt limit crisis. RWer's feel free to view links below providing actual page from his powerpoint.

http://americablog.com/2013/02/powerpoint-sequester-boehner-idea.html

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

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/20/its-the-obama-sequester-according-to-boehner/

Their logic as Cheney said "We don't care what the American people think, and Deficits don't matter." Why would a political party be so dead against what the majority of the country's people want? Support policies that the majority do not? Why would a political party be willing to gerrymander voting districts to favour their candidates or rig elections? Why would a party support imbalance and undue burdon instead of fairness? Why would the term "Communism, and Marxism," be thrown about when referring to Democrats or the POTUS unheard of before?

As I grew up during the Cold War most from the older generation do not use such terms lightly. They hold vivid and real memory of a past that these reckless commentators diminish by their blatant negligence. I take issue when anyone uses such terms with total disregard to those alive whose lives were impacted. They distort the reality and meaning in their attempt to be clever. Some GOP members are now resorting to using McCarthyism political tactics. Older voters are keenly aware of the sick logic behind such tactics not easily fooled.

OMg the 47% is out in force tonight. Shut it down, it will hurt me a little but then I will have to dip into my 401k, not much but just a little. we should have gone over the cliff than to made a deal with osama obama. Did the GOP actually expect him to honour his word, he is truly the slickest since slick willy. Not only No but he double hockey sticky NO.

Is Obama a habitual LIAR ???

Jim,

Well, uhh, yes! If you and others haven't figured that out, then there is no help for you. He lies constantly, lied repeatedly in the debates and all the idiots out there believed him because he is so cute and well-spoken. It's really a shame we have such an incompetent man as president.

Obama suggested this program, then said he would veto any proposal to reverse it. Now he wants to reverse it. He doesn't know what the hell he is doing, because he is INCOMPETENT for the job of president. He is the ultimate flip-flopper. Flip-flopped on this, he flip-flopped on cutting the debt in half, he flip-flopped on gay marriage, he flip-flopped on amnesty. I sure wish he would flip-flop on Obamacare and reverse that.

I am so sick of the children who cannot get their poop in a group. They say they are leaders of their "party" and yet they can't even work out a budget. They will attack the working class and keep their huge UNEARNED salaries while they continue to theaten us.

I just don't understand why Americans are not angry at Obama for being a lousy President, the liar and chief that he is. I don't understand why we keep any of those people in office. I still say our 2nd amendment rights are for getting sorry government out of office and it's time to get them out.

This is not a big deal.....Of course Obama wants to scare us into thinking it is. $85billion is like anyone with a job loosing , oh $10 a week or less on our paycheck. Yes it makes things a little tighter but not a catastrophy. In addition these are NOT instant cuts and all those teachers and FBI agents and other parts of the scare campain will not happen right away IF AT ALL. Remeber we were somehow able to give Sandy victims $50 billion even though there was only 30 billion in damages and over half of that was insured.

It's time people for some real spending cuts to happen. This country is burdened with our debt. We could never run our home finances with this high a pecentage of debt to income ratio without losing everything and it wouldn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat. This country needs to get spending under control, cut out the fat and become more efficient.

Once again this isn't that big a deal. Calm down the President is yaking like a spoiled child in the playground

Tonybeerm-

And we'll start in your district, Mr. Speaker. You want cuts, let your constituents be the first to feel them.

As a constituent of this idiot's district; gladly. Cuts have to start somewhere. If you think that Boehner is a conservative, you're sorely mistaken. Again folks, it's all a game and those of us that don't live in DC are the losers.

I love how Beohner says this as if the lapse of the tax holiday (it's legislatively not a tax "increase") didn't primarily hit the middle/lower and working class and as if there haven't already been trillions in spending cuts...

No John, we did not get a tax increase on the highest wage earners that amounts to anything more than peanuts, a drop in the bucket. There is no fiscally responsible reason why we should NOT generate more revenue at the top end by closing loopholes and/or lowering the $400k ridiculous limit that was "compromised" in the fiscal cliff deal.

That being said, spending cuts will also reduce the deficit, so we may be interested in pursuing them. Be forewarned however, they'll hurt the economic recovery, and when unemployment goes up and the GDP shrinks the American people will blame YOU (Boehner) for it. Good luck...

What's with the liberals bashing corporations and those who have money? Who do they think creates jobs? Who do they think pays wages to workers, who eventually pay taxes? It looks like the liberals want everyone to get free money from the government but that would be pointless becaause there wouldn't be any workers, no products to sell, and the currency would be worthless as a result.

I'm sure that liberals are jumping up and down with joy about today's news article that ICE is releasing illegal immigrant detainees to stay within directed budget constraints. Perhaps if this administration was more intent on getting the illegals out of the country instead of holding them for possible amnesty, ICE wouldn't have a budget problem.

@ Mary911256

#1.139 - Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:06 AM CST

Thanks Mary, very good information there, that most republicans don't want anyone to know.

Question to Feisty...and I'm serious.

Please tell me what you do if YOU don't MAKE enough money to pay your own bills?

Do you cut back somehow, or do you "borrow" more? Please be specific, and I'm not bashing you, nor wishing to be bashed. Please give me an honest answer.

Thanks.

Question to Feisty...and I'm serious.

Please tell me what you do if YOU don't MAKE enough money to pay your own bills?

Do you cut back somehow, or do you "borrow" more? Please be specific, and I'm not bashing you, nor wishing to be bashed. Please give me an honest answer.

Thanks.

There paid bloggers for the Democrat party nothing more.

You Earthlings are clinically insane. But you make for a great reality show back home on Alpha Seti 5.

Romney proposed closing loopholes during the campaign and was ridiculed by Obama as being uninformed and out of touch. What changed his mind?

Romney was criticized not for suggesting closing loopholes, but for greatly exaggerating the amount of revenue that would be raised by only closing loopholes while at the same time lowering rates. It was his math that was being rightly ridiculed, since it didn't come close to adding up. Closing loopholes while leaving rates untouched will generate increased revenues, but not in the amount needed, so the President is pairing it with spending cuts. Being informed is much better than being pissed.

Romney wouldn't say which loopholes.

Dave is... get out of the bubble. Until the folks on the Right start paying attention to facts and stop following the tirades on whacko radio, they will continue to say and do things based on fabrications.

Romney never proposed closing any real loopholes - and any time he did, he walked it back the next day. He had no intention about having the well-off pay more. He was complaining about taxes going up for millionaires like him while folks like me pay 25%.... go figure....

Romney was a HUGE mistake for your party, Dave. Your convention was a disaster, your platform woefully disconnected from 70% of the working public. Your donors were vulgar and blatantly attached to their own excesses. Your policies made women cringe, minorities feel a sure return to the days of oppression (like 6 hour waits to vote - they don't do that in Zangaro, Mr Brown..)

Find a large pin and poke a huge hole in that bubble.... tell your friends to as well.... look for something fact-based to believe in....

Rushless: The vast majority of Americans haven't a freakin' clue because they only listen to the soundbites coming out of the Obama administration and his leftist journalist supporters and promoters.

Mr. President, Do exactly what the Republican Congree has been doing for the past 4 years...NOTHING.

signed,

Middle-class America

Tony you are so correct. Their slothful parasitic ways will destroy them in the end. It would not bother me if we suffer for a generation to cull them out of existence.

Rushless: The vast majority of Americans haven't a freakin' clue because they only listen to the soundbites coming out of the Obama administration and his leftist journalist supporters and promoters.

Seriously? Because any search on a current US political subject will get you at least 4 returns that are BLATANTLY anti Obama. There's so MUCH right wing media out there you can't possibly miss it.

The "lefty journalism controlling the media" thing is just a teeny bit absurd.

Even some of the lefty media are starting to give up on him. But remember, when it comes to the sequester, that Jacob Lew, the presumptive Secretary of the Treasury first proposed the sequester and Obummer signed on. It's his baby.

No Dave-Kentucky, you are a teeny bit absurd!

Jon-1321288

Don't you mean that the President is NOW pairing them with spending cuts?

Dave is correct and you didn't answer his question.

During the debates Romney brought up closing tax loopholes. The President did not. All Obama wanted was "tax increases for the wealthiest Americans", for them to "pay their fair share". Obama meerly mentioned loopholes in response to Romney's idea of closing tax loopholes, because he understands what simpletons you are, which answers Dave's question.

Romney's math also had spending cuts and revenues from people going back to work. Truely lowering unemployment, not just changing the accounting method to caluclate unemployment. Bush had 133 million working class, Obama 127 million.

Your statement is full of the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.....

Tony D the entirety of the republickkkan right, with the exception of the 10% who own the rest, is so freaking stupid that they will eat feces in order to have a party that indulges their hatreds and fetishes.

Romney proposed closing loopholes during the campaign and was ridiculed by Obama as being uninformed and out of touch. What changed his mind?

Romney's offer to eliminate loopholes would have created more loopholes that would allow the wealthy to pay half as much in taxes. Such as eliminating estate taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends and keeping carried interest, a special break for vulture capitalists and hedge fund managers. The purpose of closing loopholes is to raise revenue not as an excuse to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the middle class which is the loopholes he was targeting. Obama like most democrats are intelligent enough to reject smoke and mirrors.

The right bashes Obama for supporting what every economist of note says has to be done to bring down our deficit, increase revenue and cut spending. Shouldn't they at least ask republicans what their solution is rather then just bashing democrats? How about an analysis of the Ryan budget plan.

Why aren't people laughing?

If Barack Obama had solemnly declared that he had a long-range budget plan that would balance the budget in just -- wait for it -- 28 years, hilarity would ensue. Ten-year economic projections are already close to darts flung at a board; 28-year estimates are road maps to Neptune.

Instead of confidently predicting a balanced budget in 2040 -- when, for all we know, the whole thing may be the Venusians' problem -- why didn't House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan just promise to balance the budget in 2051, when lots of expensive baby boomers had died off after 40 years wandering in the desert on Metamucil?

Actually, he pretty much did.
The huge spending cuts in Ryan's budget plans -- $4 trillion, $5 trillion, do I hear $6 trillion? -- are set against sharp tax cuts. In his plan, the top rate drops from 35 percent to 25 percent, and capital gains and dividends are exempted from taxation.
(One safe prediction: 2040 would be a great time to be wealthy.)

Still, Ryan insists federal revenues would stay at the average level of the Bush administration. He'd do that by closing tax loopholes -- and he'll explain which ones later.

But in 2022, well after federal spending had dropped to a percentage of the economy not seen since the Great Depression, the deficit under Ryan's plan wouldn't be too different from what it would be if we did nothing.

Only then would things actually start to change, because people turning 65 after 2022 would no longer qualify for Medicare as we know it. Instead, they'll get a voucher to buy insurance -- a voucher that, as years pass, will cover less and less of the cost.

So by 2040, just 28 years from now -- after adding another $14 trillion to the national debt, and after enough of the traditional Medicare clients have been grimly reaped -- Ryan would finally reach a balanced budget.

This is what's described as a serious budget proposal -- often by people unlikely to be around in 28 years to worry about it.

By then, of course, lots of other interesting things would have happened -- possibly including the fat-free hot fudge sundae, the secession of Texas and the Australian invasion. (2040 is a long ways away.) Medicaid would have turned into a bloc grant to the states, also covering less and less of its costs. Such steps are necessary, explains Ryan, "to ensure that America's safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency."

Most Medicaid spending actually goes for disabled people and long-term care for the elderly. At least they won't have to pay taxes on their dividends.

Rather than worrying about rising medical costs, Ryan's plan just shoves more and more of them onto states and individual patients.

But by 2016, Ryan's feds will also have cut projected spending on education by 36 percent and transportation by 41 percent. Projected spending on veterans will drop by $19 billion -- but hey, what kind of veterans' costs are we likely to have in the near future?

And to reach a balanced budget, all we have to do is keep this up for 28 years.

The Congressional Budget Office, analyzing Ryan's proposal, murmurs, "CBO's long-term scenarios and the proposal analyzed here are all subject to pressures over the long term that would make them difficult to sustain." For one thing, "It is unclear whether and how future lawmakers would address the pressures" from Ryan's plan.

In other words, stuff happens.

Especially over 28 years. Especially to legislators concerned about their own survival.

Still, we're told -- without even a smile -- that we now have a serious budget proposal.

So we should look at it seriously.

Right after this 2040 weather forecast.