In our $16 trillion economy, the $85 billion sequester cut doesn't amount to much more than a rounding error. Yet somehow, we're supposed to believe the economy will tank. That cut also works out to around 2% of total federal spending. Most American workers survived a 2% cut to their income when the Social Security tax holiday lapsed this year, and the streets have not flooded with newly minted destitute. Yet somehow, we're supposed to believe government just cannot tighten its belt like the rest of us. Baloney! The sky is falling mantra coming from Obama and the left is absolute nonsense, nothing more than a plotical tactic designed to scare rather than inform.

But this story gets worse. Obama is preening across the national stage as the voice of reason insisting on a "balanced" approach to our problem that can be solved by closing tax loopholes. Funny thing is, Republicans support closing tax loopholes too and that idea was a central feature of Romney's tax reform plan. Of course during the campaign that approach was ridiculed and demonized by the Dems, yet now that it's Obama's idea as well it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But the flaw in Obama's approach is he wants to use the extra revenue from closing tax loopholes to fund even more government. Republicans by contrast want to use that revenue to lower marginal tax rates across the board. The Republican approach is a growth oriented policy that enables more job creation. The Democratic approach is the same old tax and spend philosophy that has given us a stagnant economy and historically high levels of persistent unemployment. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe Obama and his Democratic partners in crime know what is best for us.

These opposing points of view are at loggerheads and as a result the dreaded sequester that none one wants is about to proceed. That's a good thing for those of us who understand our fiscal problem and know how incredibly hard it is to get our government to cut even one dime from its insatiable appetite for spending. But it's a bad thing for the left wing crowd that made the government dependent Julia a symbol of the cradle to grave nanny state they insist we need.

Thank goodness Republicans control the House and thereby protect us from the excesses of Obama's madness.

It has been 26 months since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and we have just experienced our 5th self-inflicted financial crisis and by March 27th we may be facing our 6th as the current Continuing Resolution to fund the Government expires.
And where are our Republican controlled House of Representatives members today? In Recess … gone Home!!
And what is their schedule to deal with the expiring Continuing Resolution … Between now and April 8th they are in session just 12 days. They are in session just 12 of the next 39 days … out of town 70% of the time.
And yet to come #7 as the Debt Ceiling will need to be increased sometime in May.

(03/01/13) General Ray Odierno on "Morning Joe" and "CBS This Morning" said that under sequestration he is not allowed to move funds around in FY13 however he will probably be able to in FY14 but only if there is an approved budget. Odierno said that for the remainder of FY13 the cuts to the Defense budget are estimated to be between 8% and 10%. "The money is fenced in" as part of a stopgap spending bill, he said. "What I'm trying to tell people is that we are not training for the rest of the year, except those in Afghanistan." He said that the impact of cutting training for the remainder of FY13 will have a greater impact on FY14.

President Obama must now make the sequestor as painful as possible, or risk looking like a fool.

source: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-hail-armageddon/2013/02/28/ca8a32a6-81da-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

But he cannot win if “nothing bad really happens.” Indeed, he’d look both foolish and cynical for having cried wolf.

Obama’s incentive to deliberately make the most painful and socially disruptive cuts possible (say, oh, releasing illegal immigrants from prison) is enormous. And alarming.

Hail Armageddon.

The Washington media establishment, who have been hanging around for freakin’ decades, do not consider the president to be one of them. For good reason. He isn’t. Nor should he. He knows, like we all know, that they don’t do journalism. They either do gossip or attempt to make a production out of stories that are just not factual.

If Bob Woodward were a journalist in the true sense of the word (which at one time he was), he would not
be appearing on any Fox “news” programs in order to defend himself. Neither would he resort to going to the Inquirer/Politico, the stenographers to all things anti-Obama. Woodward is becoming one of them. And has been for some time now.

Woodward was wrong about GWB, about Iraq, about the sequester. And he is wrong to assume there is a comparison between the Obama Admin. and Watergate.

Politico is unethical. Yet MSNBC seems to think they are respectable which is very disappointing for a Lean Forward station. Hannity is a lying war mongering idiot whose goal in life it seems is to see our president
behind bars. Real classy.

The games Woodward and Politico are playing you don’t see from real journalists – Media Matters, Joan Walsh, Steve Benen, Richard Wolffe, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Eugene Robinson, Michael Tomasky, David Corn, Think Progress…

We are in the middle of a quiet revolution. Things are changing so damn fast. And when we have people like Mitch McConnell/John Boehner, Woodward/DC media establishment and a Justice Scalia refusing to change with the times, then we the people have to move on without them. We must. It’s the 21^st Century and we do not want to look back. We want to look forward.

And that means looking elsewhere for our news. The DC media establishment has become stale, bitter, old. Dull.

Think Progress:

HANNITY: The fact that he president was never asked a lot about the 6 trillion in debt that he accimulated prior to this election, in this first election wasn’t asked about his association with Bill Ayers was troublesome to me, I think we’vegot a media that’s not as critical as perhaps it once was in, for example, the days of Watergate.

WOODWARD: Well, I agree with that. We need to be very aggressive and it’s one of the judges that said democracies die in darkness and I really think that’s true.

Obama’s alleged connections to Ayers were covered extensively throughout the 2008 presidential
campaign. Obama was even asked about the story during the Democratic Party primary debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008 by moderator George Stephanopoulos.

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from,” Obama said. “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.”

Hannity continues to tout Obama’s relationship with Ayers, which Woodward apparently sees as the mark of a real journalist. “I get calls and e-mails from people telling me I’m insane to come on your show,” Woodward said. “I say, now, wait a minute, you let me say what I want. You dig into things. You — there is no bleep out button.”

Having finally had the chance to read up on the sequester a bit more - hey I've been busy - it seems that it's not really the $85 billion amount so much as it's where the $85 billion is coming from. I think most of us would agree that there is at least that amount of waste in federal government spending. A GAO report from last year (or 2 years ago) identified $100-200 billion in duplication and overlap among government agencies and services. Why not go after that? Or am I taking an oversimplified view of this?

Have a great weekend all!!! :-)

Our non-defense discretionary budget was cut to the bone in the first $1.2 Trillion deal.

The $28.7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut) and 9.9 billion in Medicare cuts (a 2 percent cut) is not just trickle down austerity --

It is economic suicide.

Another great day for America, the republicans are busy little beavers, protecting those that don't need protection but have bought their vote. The democrats are working on fixing the disaster that is the sequester. It will damage our economy which is the republican plan to roll back the election of 2012 and try to stop the black man in the white house from being successful. This is our congress in action, and as long as the republican hold the majority in the house, my vote is to put them on vacation for the rest of the term so they cannot do further damage to this country and the world economy.

Once there was a journalist who drew admiration and respect for his diligent efforts to bring truth about the power hungry in Washington. His work with Carl Bernstein on Watergate was spectacular, game changing and awakened within many of us the need to keep tabs on those in power and how it is used. He apparently tried to extrapolate that into his own thinking.

Bob Woodward must have gone to the same school as John McCain where one learns to diminish one's accomplishments and lose the respect of peers and admirers.

It's Fridaaayyyyyyy ! Let the morning "Circle Jerk" of liberals making their irrational and hateful comments begin ! God forbid the sequester should actually kick in and slow down the growth rate of government spending !!

Yes, Obama will make the cuts as painful as possible or else he will look like the fool that he has already proven to be to those of us who understand financial matters ! But then again, Obama told Bob Woodward the sequester was HIS idea .... and liberals have been wetting all over themselves ever since, trying desperately to somehow blame Republicans !!

Let the games begin ... the creative bull$hit from the left should be breathtaking, and not a "good breath" at that !

This might be crazy, but I would not be surprised if the GNOP proposes restoring the cut to the military industrial complex Monday morning.

They do not give a rat's a$$ about saving money, they just want to hurt where the funds are needed most.

They call themselves Christians and violate what Jesus taught.

>>crickets<<

That was the sound of the Obamaquester kicking in at one
second after midnight.

Uh, Lil Joey...sequestration doesn't officially "kick in" until tonight at midnight...put away the Cheetos and porn until then, will ya? It'll allow you to put off that trip to the doctor for OPS (orange penis syndrome).

By the way, how'd that vote for Ca-arl Pa-alidino work out for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mmmm. While it's true that GOP doesn't want to compromise, refuses to cough up overdue tax revenue, acts on behalf of corporations and the 1% -- there's more to it.

It's about the longterm. GOP leadership sees the Sequester as one more opportunity to erode our services and dismantle government.

Once seen through, the logic is not hard to follow. The Republican plan is to disenfranchize, destroy, dismantle, deregulate, and put big corporations in charge of America. If we have no protections, GOP/Koch can screw us over to the max.

What completely astonishes me about you libs is you continually claim that the GOP is all about the corporations and rich. You do realize that your own party and president are ALSO all about the corporations and rich? Obama extending tax breaks for GE and other large corps? Obama giving a personal meeting to anyone 'donating' 1/2 a mil to him? Let's look at all the rich celebrities and 'musicians' he likes to surround himself with... you do realize that THEY belong to the 1%? You whine and cry about Koch, yet you don't say a word about Soros who happens to be doing FAR more harm to this country than the Koch bros. You all are soooo @!$%#ing hypocritical about this.

Then of course, there's Woodward who DARED to go against the president so you all are burning him at the stake.

Also, why won't either party cut into welfare? There's lots of cuts that can be made there. Duplicate programs, fraud, giving too much to some that are just freeloading. How about doing an audit to see who actually needs the help?

OK Pigotry...I thought you were kidding about the whole Pig Day thing....but apparently not, LOL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pig_Day

Happy Pig Day!! :-)

I find it strange how the Republican posters on this site have such selective memories, and act like President Obama was the only one warning of dire consequences if the sequester went into effect.

As mentioned in the article above, Speaker Boehner claimed the sequester would impact “U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.”

John McCain claimed the sequester would “literally” — literally — prevent the United States from defending itself."

Lindsey Graham said: "It would be, in the words of Leon Panetta, a brigade without bullets, a Navy without ships, an Air Force without trained pilots. It would be like shooting yourself in the head. It would be the most destructive thing in the world."

So who was selling the mass hysteria again?

I also take issue with what Paul Krugman calls the "zombie" idea that tax cuts lead to job creation or economic growth. The theory has been proven to be wrong, yet Republicans keep bringing it "back to life".

A Congressional Research Service report concluded:

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html

Recent studies have also proven that lower Capital Gains tax rates DO NOT spur investment, they only contribute to economic inequality.

Brad Plummer of the Washington Post said:

“The top tax rate on investment income has bounced up and down over the past 80 years—from as high as 39.9 percent in 1977 to just 15 percent today—yet investment just appears to grow with the cycle, seemingly unaffected..”.

In other studies, Troy Kravitz and Len Burman of the Urban Institute have found that over the past 50 years there is NO correlation between the top capital gains tax rate and U.S. economic growth (even with a lag of up to five years).

A September 2012 analysis by The Washington Post found that "capital gains tax rates feed the growing gap between rich and poor.":

While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

A New York Times study in 2006 found that the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cuts had no impact on those making less than $100,000 a year, but reduced taxes on those making $10 million or more by an average of $500,000.

"The top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts in investment income."

In short, there are numerous studies that prove that lowering tax rates does little or nothing to spur economic growth or investment, it only contributes to the gap in wealth inequality.

Hey, Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA

OK Pigotry...I thought you were kidding about the whole Pig Day thing....but apparently not, LOL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pig_Day

Happy Pig Day!! :-)

Oink...... I oink my gratitudes. But thanks to some Gop imposters, it's also a sequester day, stealing my spotlight...when I am getting ready for my curtain calls.

You bet main street will definately feel it. Freakin knuckleheads from both sides don't give a rats a$$ about us. Remember that last pony and dance show in first week of 2013? That's the main reason why there are huge delays in everyone's tax returns. IRS has to update their tax code programs.

Miss Piggy: Had a pork roll sandwich for breakfast and I though of you.

I also love your post.

Lots of long posts there that I haven't read yet.....

Here's my thought on the "Moving the Goalpost" accusation from Woodward:

Who's using the spat?

WOODWARD is the one on every TV show he can get on.

Clearly, the "regret" comment wasn't a threat when it starts, "...as a friend..."

What the White House guys is defending against, and saying Woodward will regret is the "moving the goal post" comment. He'll regret it because it's total BS.

The first part of the Fiscal Cliff negotiation in December was on the scheduled tax increases. Obama EXTENDED the Bush tax cuts on 98% of people, and let the rest expire. That's NOT a tax increase, that's a TAX CUT. That's why Republicans voted for it, after December 31st. The "Cliff" was due to hugely increasing taxes: solved by Obama, with a tax cut no less.

What do Republicans really have to complain about? This is what they wanted.

Saying the "tax increases" are "done" and off the table is completely wrong. It's not moving the goal post at all to ask for tax increases as part of the solution to the sequester. That's how it was started in 2011--the sequester was designed to force a reconciliation of taxes and spending. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts and Payroll tax cut at the end of 2012 was coincidental.

Bernanke called it a Fiscal Cliff because of the coincidence of the tax expiration and the Sequester. The sequester replaced the fiscal negotiation in 2011, which at the time was looking like a combination of budget cuts and tax increases. Republicans liked the idea of punting that, regardless of whether it was Obama's "idea" and now the "tax increase" part is "off the table" for no reason. Why would they think that the Bush tax cut extension had anything to do with this?

Cut more!!! The sequester isn't enough!!!

Damyou idiotically writes:

"Its pretty funny that you all are mindlessly attacking a man that previous to this was the shining star of liberal journalism."

You must learn the English language. Journalism is, after a fashion, like the word unique. Something is not pretty unique or kind of unique. A thing is either unique or it's not. Unique is one-of-a-kind. So it is with Journalism. There is no such thing as "liberal journalism". Either it's Journalism or it is not.

In this case, Woodward is not a Journalist. He is a liar. He's not a liberal liar or a conservative liar. He's just a liar.

People are upset cause the repubs went home and from what I've read in the past the dems won't work with them or talk rational. So I guess they decided it was useless to go to work.Don't you wish you could do that?The dems say the repubs won't work with them so what do them dems do? They give syria 60 million dollars in aid.If I'm following this right we don't have 60 million to give. Does this mean more borrowing from the world bank or is the aid in the form of an I.O.U.

What is the logic behind vetoing any legislation that would sidestep the sequester why claiming that if Congress doesn't do something to sidestep the sequester it would be an utter disaster?

That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Time to shut it.

Bill, Fairfax VA

In our $16 trillion economy, the $85 billion sequester cut doesn't amount to much more than a rounding error.

Says the expert on "skewed" election polls. You can toss out irrelevant numbers all you want, but the cuts are still going to 8 to 10% for the Defense Department, the FAA, FDA, and border security.

I really wish the Republican spinmeisters were right about the sequester being no big deal, because these cuts are likely to affect all of us "deadbeats" who expect the government to give us "free stuff" like food that's not poisoned and security and safety when we have to fly without having to wait in long security lines for flights that are delayed or cancelled due to lack of TSA agents and air traffic controllers.

Backhouse, great points. Koch is not the only bad apple in the corporate world but they wield too much influence. Since Reagan, the GOP's long-term plan has been to "starve the beast", make government incapable of functioning as a government must. A government which is dysfunctional will cause the American people to become cynical. When we become cynical, we stop voting, we stop paying attention and consider government a waste of money. When we stop voting, we turn state and the federal government over to the wealthy few and big business. Government is NOT our enemy; those who undermine government, starve it, force dysfunction for political and personal gain are the enemy--for they are the ones who do not believe in democracy and democratic government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

David W, Pat Boston, excellent posts. David Axelrod took Woodward to task this morning on Morning Joe and surprisingly, Joe Scarborough helped. Scarborough told Woodward that having read the emails, he needs to write a re-traction, called him out for the headline "threatened".

I like Bob Woodward, enjoy his books since he and Bernstein wrote "All the President's Men". In the past he has always maintained a level of objectivity without partisanship; kept his personal political feelings to himself. He expressed his views but without the animosity he's shown the past few weeks. I am puzzled by his behavior lately; it is unbecoming and certainly not professional. As someone on MSNBC said last night, journalists often think they should be treated as royalty. Journalists get things wrong, Politico blew it out of proportion. Woodward should acknowledge he was wrong, and be done with it. Personal grudges and hurt feelings have no place in journalism--Bob Woodward should be better than that.

Bacon.

The GNOP still think the people are all as dumb as the teabags. Wrong. At the end of the day informed viewers of this Drama know the bad actors mostly are on the right. They will pay..again..in the mid terms.

That said, I am seeing the Dems starting to also play games.

Jody, good post. Thanks

Funny how the White House began backtracking on the sequester yesterday, with Obama now giving out a timeline for when people might actually start feeling the cuts. At least Obama hopes people will feel the cuts, or his doom and gloom is going to make him look pretty pathetic. Also amusing that Obama threatened to veto a bill that would have given him the flexibility to make smarter cuts with regard to sequester. But obviously Obama is not interested, he wants the sequester to be as painful as possible and only for the purpose of blaming Republicans. Lets face it, Obama proposed the sequester because he believed Pelosi would now be speaker of the House. Boehner was betting Romney would be president, and both Boehner and Obama lost the bet. Great to see liberals bashing Woodward for telling the truth, and nice to see others come out and tell of the Obama administration threats to reporters. Obama has no interest in reporters, he was repeaters. Obama will tell them what to repeat, and any deviation will not be tolerated. If after more then four years Obama is incapable of brokering compromise in Washington, then he has no leadership skills.

Obama is losing ground with the Armageddon. Secretary of Education lie about " pink slips", Washington Post give him 5 Pinocchio's. Bob Woodward is been threaten for reveal the truth, Sequester was Obama idea. All this "little Chicken" fear mongering is falling apart , to the point that ICE is releasing illegals delinquents from jail to prove their point , but there is 60 millions of dollars to help Syrian rebels. Obama promise before to be elected, won't be sequester, now is on him to fulfil his promises.

Interesting to see Bob Woodward move around the media from a credible journalist, to journalistic commentator, and now in his final useless years, a game show participant. He almost won on "Who wants to Marry a Romey-aire", but he could only garner 47% of the vote. Then he debuted on "Biggest Loser" but couldn't wrestle the title from Rove, who proved to be the biggest sorry assed loser. Undeterred, he picked up a spot on Jeopordy and creamed the competition in the category "Does Anyone Fabricate More than Bob Woodward" and responding "Alex, what is No". Unfortunately, he doubled down on stupid in the double daily bonus - and lost big time to the question "Do you regret calling a regret a threat". His loser response was I never said "the regret comment was a threat". The correct answer was "Alex, what is not a threat".

Rumor has it, Bob is busy as a bee ensuring he creates media stir after media stir, and is in negotiations with Donald Drunk, er em, Trump to create a new show titled "Do we Fire or Retire a Faux Journalist".

The Republicans will own the sequester and it's fallout recession. They could have chosen to cut the loopholes along with balanced cuts, but they chose to allow the sequester to happen. The voters who will be impacted with remember who allowed this to happen. 2014 may not be kind to Republicans in office.

Backhouse, sad isn't it how little the GOP care about "cuts" that are terribly vital to people.

Cruel SOBs are they. They won't be happy unless their rich friends are taken care of, and the rest of us live in a third world country. Right here in the United States.

Why didn't House Republicans just agree to raising revenues, in exchange for protecting the Defense budget, then run on cutting taxes in 2014? Tax hikes don't need to be permanent, but the effect of the cuts on our economy, not to mention the damage to our military, could very well be.

Grimey, yes, it really is that simple. President Obama has said spending cuts should be done with a scalpel not a hatchet; he said that during the 2008 campaign and continues to say it. The intent of the automatic sequester was to be so poisonous to both political sides that the Super Committee (step one in the process) would find a solution, find compromise.

Here's where I blame the GOPTP for failure; they refused to consider raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% and closing corporate and the rich's welfare tax loopholes--they refused to compromise. My own view is that the GOP did this because they believed that in 2012 President Obama would be defeated (having obstructed, and filibustered to do so beginning Jan 20, 2009) plus they would win the Senate at which time, they would simply repeal the Sequester. The biggest miscalculation for both Boehner and President Obama was the Tea Party. The TP could not care less about defense spending cuts and anything else--they hate government. When a segment of our legislative body hates government and is so ideologically pure in their thinking, we end up where we are today.

Bill in Fairfax,

The $85 Billion in cuts is 2.4% of the entire budget however since the cuts only apply to only 36% of the budget (Defense & Discretionary) the $85 Billion becomes a 6.6% cut to those areas on average. In addition, just like any company there are fixed costs that cannot be cut. The focus will then be on the labor portion of the budget that will result in layoffs, furloughs and reduced services.

Like General Odierno just this morning said, under sequestration he is not allowed to move funds around in FY13. Odierno said that for the remainder of FY13 the cuts to the Defense budget are estimated to be between 8% and 10%.

Buh Bye, RW Turd Monkeys.

Stick all your hatefull lies in your ear.

Does anybody see the irony of these two sentences? Call your opponents Turd Monkeys and hateful at the same time?

There is no real political discourse on this board but the hypocrisy and humor is priceless.

And we have another morning of the typical liberal hack
postings. This liberal President will
never negotiate period. By not doing so
he can go to the press and blame the republicans and spew his propaganda about
how they won’t negotiate and use scare tactics that all this bad stuff is
going to happen. This is his plan to
take back the House of Representatives.
That is the only plan Obama has. And
only a liberal hack would consider this good leadership. If his plan works and the democrats gain
control of the house plus keep the senate we are going to be in for a real
surprise.

the sequester had to happen... the GOP controled by the TeaParty does not negotiate the GOP no longer offers legislation that the senate can consider .. they offer ultimatums .. an ultimatum is not something that gets negotiated ... the Blame for all the harm that will come from this sequester is squarely on the shoulders of the GOP/TP

I'd be happy enough to see the homicide rates drop in the old Progressive Democrat cities, and the literacy rate to grade level reading increase in their youth populations. With that improved upon, these youth will be prepared for a workforce dependent upon computer technologies, and the programming of those technologies. Through those technologies they then can access history, social sciences, economics, medicine and biology, physics and chemistry, and apply that knowledge to their own life, and life's improvements.

The "sequester" as I see it, is a way to thin out non needed, antique services of the past. Police use hand held communication devices more than firearms for correcting violations of the law, as does the court system, the education system, health and social service system, and many other "systems". The Defense Department is concerned with cyber warfare, not a torpedo attack on battleship row. Because of that fact there is less need for Rosie the Riveter maintaining and building tanks, ships, and airplanes, and those associated manufacturing skills and jobs. Thus large Progressive political bases, the union jobs, union tenure, union benefit packages, and union nepotism and cronyism can't justify large union hire labor forces for large municipal job dependent property and sales tax bases, needed for municipal program funding.

The general population, both Democrats and Republicans, is tired of the gang violence of inner city youth which is not "assault rifle" but is of daily occurrence. It is tired of seeing the future generations ill equipped with their educations because of disputes over retirement and benefit packages their poorly performing teachers receive. They are tired of the scandals of regional political corruption, and corruption within the churches which don't contribute to the tax base, but which contribute to the crime statistics. They are tired of environmental degradation, their water, soil, and air quality. Youth know that grandma and grandpa die no matter what technologies are applied to their care, and they also know that the medicines which are advertised on TV create more health risks often than they cure. So there's a whole lot of things they can curtail spending on, and just because the spokesperson of a community needs more money to fund jobs for their particular towns tax base...get in line behind 10's of thousands of other communities for a handout. In the mean time, to hold you over, use the resources between your ears.

hey tomas, you need to get a job! the conservative movement will never die! your name indicates that you are hispanic however, there are many of us spanish americans who believe in personal responsibility and accountability not entitlements and government interfering! There are many hard working spanish americans who believe as i do so STFU!

As Captain Dave would say "Hello Pussy's"

What we are seeing now is a only a tiny window into the world of GOP's shock-disaster agenda for the United States.

Excellent post, BTW, Backhouse.

Maria Baritroma, on Meet The Press Sunday blithely said the squester cuts would not hurt the economy, but what she meant was, it wouldn't hurt the uber rich, who are immune to the effects. This is what Occupy Wallstreet was trying to point out - the people the Republicans represent, the 1%, are not living in the same world as the rest of us. The squestor cuts will hurt local economies, but Republican donors will not see their impact, hence Republican politicians are not trying to stop them.

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein today have an article the Washington Post about what they politely call "myths" about the sequester. For those spreading the lie that the sequester was all Obama's idea, here's the truth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-sequester/2013/02/28/6e670260-804a-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

"The sequester's origins can't be blamed on one person — or one party. Republicans insisted on a trigger for automatic cuts; Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, suggested the specifics, modeled after a sequester-like mechanism Congress used in the 1980s, but with automatic tax increases added. Republicans rejected the latter but, at the time, took credit for the rest. Obama took the deal to get a debt-ceiling increase. But the president never accepted the prospect that the sequester would occur, nor did he ever agree to take tax increases off the table."

Bill,

I read your post this morning and as usual it was one of the few that actually made sense. So of course you were resoundingly demonized for it. What can you expect from the crowd on this board. Let's see we've got backhouse complaining about the republicans leaving today and going home. Oh those Repugs! Wait a minute. if the republican house went home then so did the democrats. OOps, we forgot to mention that didn't we. Then roselle chimed in with her usual sensless insults. No real substance, just insults. Then there is pigotry, struting and preening because it's pig day. Somehow in her mind it is not only justified, but somehow noble to be feeding at the public trough all year. And through all of this we finally have Obama coming back from his vacation, oops junket, oops campaign trip, on the day of sequestration. It seems he's not all that worried about it OR maybe as some of the posters on her suggest, he just really doesn't care all that much about the american people. Just exactly what the hell was this neverending tour all about anyway? He's like the 5 year old saying "It's not my fault! I wasn't even here!" No you weren't Mr. President, no you weren't. Pity.

Republicans better hope the sequester is not as painful to the electorate as some are projecting, because they own it politically. If it goes very badly, then as someone suggested on another thread they may need a "violence against republicans bill". One thing is certain nobody thinks or claims it will create jobs or boost the economy. Republicans can refuse to budge all they want about raising revenue, but eventually they will capitulate, because the electorate is overwhelmingly in favor of that, they can buck the president, but they can only buck the will of the nation for so long, you would have thought the results of the last election would have provided them a clue about that. If people start losing their jobs or take pay cuts, republicans in the house will have a hard time convincing them that this was the good medicine they really needed and sent them to Washington to give them a dose of.

Isn't it grand that people that make $174,000 a year, have the best health insurance, bar none, a full retirement for 5 years service, and barely work 16 weeks a year for all that, tell you raising the minimum wage or paying a living wage with some benefits, or proposing that people like them and the more wealthy pay a fairer share of the nations bills simply makes you a greedy Communist, looking for a handout. You want some action in Congress, you want savings, sequester these thieves pay and benefits, they have the ability to write their own check, and they fight against people who wish to organize to simply make a decent living and have a little dignity when they retire after a lifetime of work, they don't get a full retirement for 5 years of working 16 weeks a year. I would propose that no US rep or senator be paid more than the median income level of pay and benefits of the state they represent, then they could honestly represent their constituents.

@Jody, Iowa

Here's where I blame the GOPTP for failure; they refused to consider raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% and closing corporate and the rich's welfare tax loopholes--they refused to compromise.

But Jody, they just raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% in January. Did you miss the President's great political victory?

Fiscal Cliff Deal Passed By Congress After Republicans Cave

"This legislation breaks the iron barrier that for far too long has prevented additional tax revenues from the very wealthiest," said Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) "It raises $620 billion in revenue by achieving the president's goal of asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay more while protecting 98 percent of families. That's right -- that's what it does. I want to emphasize this contrary to propaganda coming from the other side -- it prevents 98 percent of businesses from another tax increase."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html

If our leader , spend more time looking for solutions, instead to create his personal Office of Propaganda to attack the opposition , promising interviews with lobbyist and millionaires in exchange of money, sequestration could be something from the past. But the campaigner in chief has no other way to do politics, is his way or the highway.

Alan NJ-

Does anybody see the irony of these two sentences.

Sarcasm and Irony is what I do best.

As exibited from your response, those concepts are WAY over your head.

Thanks for playing along.

Salud

oops campaign trip,

And yet another right-wing freak that doesn't realize the election was held, Obama won, and the campaign is over. Boy, do they love to trickle triple down on stupid.

sdbolt

hey tomas, you need to get a job! the conservative movement will never die!

Got the response I was looking for.

GOTCHA!

I LOVE Fridays!!!

Salud

Sarcasm and Irony is what I do best.

As exibited from your response, those concepts are WAY over your head.

Thanks for playing along.

That's OK because the comment wasn't directed at you.

Outside the military, this is EXCELLENT news. Now that income for WORKING AMERICANS has decreased by 3.4%, now those dependent on the hard work of those Americans will have to suffer the same fate.

Hey Democrats. How is that Obama economy working for you.

"All that said, Democrats are at least on message that these sequester cuts are bad."

Are they really? After all, the Obama administration has been blatantly advertising what all COULD be cut and the Dems in Congress are lamenting the poor, poor people who will be devastated by draconian across the board cuts. This even though the Republicans passed legislation giving the President and his cabinet departments flexibility on where the cuts would take place. So what happens when the Dems have that chance to spare the "pain"? Those in the Senate block it from even hitting the floor for debate, then when the Republicans float the idea again Obama, immediately says he'll veto it.

How on earth is that consistency in message that sequester cuts are bad? Time to lay the pom-poms down First Read.

is that the best you got tomas? take the 'P' off your forehead maroon!

to AlanNJ, tomas is a maroon and uneducated one at best!

morg74, because only removing defense from the cuts is not a solution. Please explain why it made sense for the GOP Senators yesterday to filibuster the democratic bill to replace the sequester (after the republican version only received 38 votes and failed). If you're going to attack one side, you better know what the other side did yesterday.

Praysalot, thanks for the shout out.

Alan NJ, the sequester and debt debacle was in 2011 which is what I was addressing--that is why I mentioned the refusal to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%.

f our leader , spend more time looking for solutions, instead to create his personal Office of Propaganda to attack the opposition , promising interviews with lobbyist and millionaires in exchange of money, sequestration could be something from the past. But the campaigner in chief has no other way to do politics, is his way or the highway.

I keep asking for that Rosetta Stone to aid in the decipher of these words, but apparently, it doesn't exist. Quite frankly, I've never heard of the Obama Highway. Is that one of the productive "renaming" bills undertaken by Congress?

Some Basic Facts-

In 2008, the last full FY of the Bush administration, Total Federal Discretionary spending was $1135 Billion, of which $166 Billion was Overseas Contingent Operations (the wars) resulting in $969 Billion of non-war discretionary spending . Meat got inspected, kids went to Head Start, airplanes didn't fall from the sky.

In 2012, Federal Discretionary spending was $1289 Billion with OCO (war spending) of $115 for total non-war discretionary spending of $1174 , a 21.2% increase over 2008. This is more than three times inflation over those 4 years (6.6%).

If you subtract $87 Billion for the sequester, the increase would be 12.2%, almost twice the rate of inflation, and plenty of money to do everythig the gov did in 2008, plus some more.

TomasGrande - 2

RW nut jobs - 0

Same old B/S from the paid MS/NBC bloggers.....this place is a joke.

It doesn't matter who offered the sequester. What's important is the House CHOSE the sequester over the balanced approach. The House ALLOWED the sequester to take affect. There is always "bad" legislation offered all the time. They didn't have to take the bad legislation. They had a choice and they chose to take the worst possible choice.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes:

Yes, you do seem to have a good grasp on where things are. As I've found out from reading, the devil is in the details. Case in point, see the linked Slate article below about how the sequester is impacting the military.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/02/sequestration_of_the_pentagon_budget_why_the_sequester_cuts_to_the_military.html

As one of the military's discretionary choices, all official military employees will have their pay unaffected by the sequester. On the one hand, I'm glad that our troops aren't getting shafted more than they usually are. But at the same time, any civilian contractor is pretty much hosed since they have to take both their sequester and the sequester that the official military employees dodged. This is resulting in a 20% income decrease for any civilian contractor. These count both the people who work for the military and much of the staff that keeps our National Guard systems operational. Based on some of the Slate posters' stories about how this is already affecting them, I'm getting the impression that we'll start to truly see the price for the National Guard when they have problem responding to any natural disaster in the near future.

I'd be one of the first people to say that the US military budget is too large. However instantly chopping people's incomes down by 20% in the current economic climate is going to have some resounding effects on things like unemployment and credit / loan defaulting. If we were in an era of reason, things would have gone down different. However these aren't reasonable times.

@davidwalker -Sometimes FACTS are Feelings About Certain Topics Shrouded by personal perception. It is best to take emotion out of the equation before quoting "FACTS".

Sequester day. Most white Southerners in a celebratory mood. Likely be a lot of hot "laying on of the hands" among many family members this weekend. Saxby Chambliss told an Atlanta tv station last night He believed the Congress would be back in DC before the end of March negotiating with the President over the awful Sequester mess. Didn't help His popularity atall. Johnny Isakson was no where to be seen. Hopefully He's somewhere having His face barnacles medically evaluated. Don't care for Him, but He does need to give some attention to His face. Some of them damn things on His face are beginning to form eyes. Unbecoming. The rest of the Georgia delegation? Well, they'll most likely be gathering at various churches, hoping to get some time with their sisters, aunts, cousins, etc. Be a lot of talk about rededication then a lot of action with the "cuming through" part of rededication. Understand too, some invited Bob Woodward to come down and join 'em. They wish Him to provide 'em with a testimonial. White Southerners now believe Woodward to be a "teller of lies, Smith" of a quality surpassing both "Jimmy Swaggert" and the late "Jim baker". Likely correct too, even to the consternation of "Tony Blankley" and "Dick Morris". Meanwhile, the responsible, caring, working people, wait, with caution, some despair, and much, diminishing hope.

hi, Exit0 (#1.25)

Miss Piggy: Had a pork roll sandwich for breakfast and I though of you.

I also love your post.

.

Oink. Thanks, we have informed each other about so many things. I am constantly enlightened by what I have got from both my fellow ribs (libs) and many fair-minded Republicans on this site.

Have a happy Frieday - enjoy some fried pig - I mean - fried pork.

hey tomas sabes que significa 'P'? sabes lo que estoy hablando? pienso que no! maldito!

"Just exactly what the hell was this neverending tour all about anyway?"

It was about hanging the republicans with their own political rope, it was about taking the case to the electorate, who are overwhelming with the president on this issue. It is about making sure that if republicans do not wish to deal with the democrats then they will have to deal the electorate. It is about taking the case to the American public who is who the president represents, he does not represent the house republicans, he is not campaigning, he already won his campaign, he has no worries in that regard, he won all 7 swing states that were supposed to be in question, republicans lost badly. He is hanging this on their political necks, as well he should. After four years of non stop denigrating of this president, and playing the worst politics possible, republicans just don't like it when the president gives them back a little dose of their own medicine. The very same people who out of one side of their mouths want to completely dismiss this president as being a lightweight community organizer, sure constantly cry when he does not step outside his scope of office and step in to solve the problems and do the work that their branch of government is supposed to do.

Well, there is a funny thing making the rounds of the blogosphere which states, "If the Congressional Salaries were being cut 20% we'd already have a deal." Sad but true.

Hah! Hah!

you Cons, Teabaggers, and NRA and Ted Nugent "Gun-Nut" types!

It's all going "According to Plan"

Not only did we sneak-in our Kenya-born, Muslim/Marxist candidate

into your once sacred White House for a Second term,

we've Blamed the whole Sequester on you Republicans!

Ain't Life grand?

arf. arf.

Hee-Haw!

Viva la France!

All Hail Obama the Merciful

Ruler, Master, Overlord, and King

for the Next Four very-very-very-very Long years!

Bill Fairfax....thank you for your well spoken and non-demeaning comments that speak both truth and reason.

dont know how to respond to that! especially with a name of 'republicansforobama'

sdbolt

to AlanNJ, tomas is a maroon and uneducated one at best

Stop it. Your killing me.

You need to quit when your behind.

TomasGrande - 4

RW nut jobs - 0

Salud

You know what, I think the cuts should happen. But the sequester has never been about cutting spending, fixing the economy or anything like that. It's about scoring political points with your base. Lets face it, both the GOP and Dems are waiting to see IF this is bad, and if so how bad, because they don't really know (or care). If it turns out to be bad, they can blame the other side, which is all Congress does anymore. And if it turns out to be no big deal, well they'll just find something else to bitch about, and this whole sequester thing will be forgotten.

wow! tomas, can't even defend yourself huh? you need to quit because you are a behind! remember your jackass symbol (democrat) ha ha ha!

sdbolt

hey tomas sabes que significa 'P'? sabes lo que estoy hablando? pienso que no! maldito!

Tu padre come chora.

Salud

Jody, Iowa - What is the point of sidestepping the sequester when the Commander in Chief says he will Veto anything that tries too? Republican or Democrat...You have to get past that hurdle before you can do anything or else you are just wasting your time.

This needed to happen anyway. All the programs that has everyone @!$%#ting themselves are exempt anyway. Now no one can play favorites and drag it out for another 4 years.

did you have to ask your brother for that one? Digas bien! Tu madre me sopla! ha ha ha! y tambien tu hermana! you dont seem so funny now huh? I got the response i waited for! ha ha ha! dumbass! typical liberal maroon!

JediUtahn-

Bill Fairfax....thank you for your well spoken and non-demeaning comments that speak both truth and reason.

That has to be one of the funniest things I have EVER read on here!

Well-spoken? Reason? More like faux intellectualism from someone who claimed "Romney would win, and win decisively".

Non-demeaning? "Democratic partners in crime"? "Cradle to grave nanny state"? Obama madness"? Were you reading the same post I was?

Truth? The truth is that key Republicans and key Democrats were against the sequester and warned of dire consequences.

Truth? The truth is tax cuts do not spur economic growth or create jobs - they never have.

Feisty Redhead,

How does Woodward look like a fool? Everything he said turned out to be true. Obama looked like a crazy maniac pretending the world was about to come to an end. If looking like a fool means writing things that are factual and true, you'll never have to worry about it.

TomasGrande - 2 RW nut jobs - 0

Keep knocking them right wing nutjobs down Tomas.

@ Pigotry,

This is the 2nd time in just 2 days that you have said that we are not at war. I don't know if you know this, but shhh ,listen it is a secret, we have been at war since 2001. Even though you would like to think we aren't, and that is the reason for the political warfare. I can just see your intelligence shining off the screen. Please take this weekend off and give everyone a break. It is a holiday for all you pigs after all. I think I'll have some bacon tonight in some clam chowder.

Who is this Jason-1398178,

I guess I got some Right winger trying to impersonate me. Lol...

Mac Forrester

Sequester day. Most white Southerners in a celebratory mood

Typical comment of a racist , follower of Rev. Write and Louis Farrakan.

TNSEVOL,

How do you end up lumping Republicans in with the dire consequences warnings? They've been saying all along these warnings and fear is all nonsense. It was the fearless leader driving a massive campaign to convince everyone to no avail. He didn't even convince himself of the absurdity in the end. Obama even convinced many blind fools one of the greatest journalists in history was out of touch for telling the truth. The madness never ends in the Dem fantasy world.

Your last statement is absolutely truth. Tax cuts do not spur economic growth. Tax cuts along with spending cuts do. That's why the Republicans want both. Looks like you may actually be a Republican now.

Steve-367582

How does Woodward look like a fool? Everything he said turned out to be true

Courtesy of Daily Kos

Now that the full email from White House economic adviser Gene Sperling has been released, reporters who cover the White House are lining up to laugh at the idea that it constitutes a threat.

Bob Woodward is a lying douche (who PURPOSELY mis-represented his FREIND'S own words) and has now stooped so low to using Faux sNewzzzzz to sell his cheap-ass books.

Get a life.

Salud

thought you went away you dumbass liberal maroon!

salud!

I keep wondering what it is going to take for Americans to wake up? Yesterday, Republicans introduced a bill that would have given President Obama complete and total control over which programs get cut and which get funded, but Democrats voted NO? Even more curious is the fact that President Obama promised to veto the bill if it passed? Why? I'd say because it would make it difficult to blame Republicans when you have the authority and ability to fix things and do what's right.

Politics today aren't about solving problems or fixing things, they are totally about posturing for the position of blaming the other side. It's as if both sides realize that the house of cards they have built is about to fall, and instead of trying to keep it standing, both sides are more interested in being able to blame the other for the collapse. The reality is that both sides are to blame...not one or the other!!

And what makes any of this possible? Half the population walking around with their heads stuck up a donkeys butt and the other half with their head stuck up an elephants butt. I keep hoping more people will withdraw from that position, wipe the dung out of their eyes, take a look around and see the reality of the mess we are in!

Well Steve there are quite a few republican governors very concerned about the effects of sequestration, I thought they were supposed to dismiss anything the president says.

The only jobs Congressional Republicans are concerned about are their own.

Jason797

Who is this Jason-1398178,

I guess I got some Right winger trying to impersonate me. Lol...

Looks like you have an evil twin.

It's a badge of honor. Ms. Redhead holds the record for RW nut job copy cats.

Salud, Amigo

@redvirginia#1.91: Been caught too huh? Does make one touchy. Agree. This here now incest ain't seemly.

I'm wondering why the President and the Media is making such a big deal about Obama's Sequester. 2 1/2 Percent reduction is not even close to draconian. Please! its the equivalent to a family making $100,000 having to reduce their spending by $2500. A large portion of the citizens of this nation had to adjust to much larger reduction than that due to the recession. I personally took a 30% reduction in pay in one year! That's Draconian! Funny the government never tightened their belts during this time. When they start to cut the federal budget by double digits they can start talking about hardships. 2 1/2% should be a walk in the park. heck I bet the Federal Budget could be reduced by 20% by reducing waste and redundancy alone!

I see, republicans pass 2 bills to deal with scare-quester, the Senate passed none nor opened any of the passed bills .....and its the republicans fault. LOL Interesting.

Common sense mike i agree. If i were president now i would BEG to get the authority to give the cabinet heads discretion as to where to cut. I can't imagine for the life of me any possible reason why the democrats would be against this????

BigATC, that is typical liberal democrat crap! it will be fun to see how this all works out! now we get to see the shoe on the other foot! it will be hard to sweep the crap under the rug like they do so well!

Ha Ha, Obama got played.

In December he demanded tax increases while saying he will look at spending cuts later down the road. He got his tax increases.

Boehner wanted his decrease in spending, and to the dismay of Obama and the Democrats, he forced them today.

Bob Woodward is a lying douche (who PURPOSELY mis-represented his FREIND'S own words) and has now stooped so low to using Faux sNewzzzzz to sell his cheap-ass books.

Tomas,

When even Tucker Carlson is laughing his ass off at Woodward, you know the guy is cooked! lol

It's a badge of honor.

It sure is! ;o)

Ms. Redhead holds the record for RW nut job copy cats.

*polishing my crown* tee hee!

Salud!

Jason797

Who is this Jason-1398178,

I guess I got some Right winger trying to impersonate me. Lol...

Looks like you have an evil twin.

It's a badge of honor. Ms. Redhead holds the record for RW nut job copy cats.

Salud, Amigo

Yeah right. I'm the original. Better watch yourself, or I'll start charging for copyrights.

Steve -

TNSEVOL, How do you end up lumping Republicans in with the dire consequences warnings? They've been saying all along these warnings and fear is all nonsense.

Please see my post above at #1.22 for more detail, but many key Republicans also claimed the sequester was a terrible idea. If you don't believe me, do a little research. Google it.

As mentioned in the article above, Speaker Boehner claimed the sequester would impact “U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more” and called it a "meat cleaver" approach to cutting spending.

John McCain claimed the sequester would “literally” — literally — prevent the United States from defending itself."

Lindsey Graham said: "It would be, in the words of Leon Panetta, a brigade without bullets, a Navy without ships, an Air Force without trained pilots. It would be like shooting yourself in the head. It would be the most destructive thing in the world."

Your last statement is absolutely truth. Tax cuts do not spur economic growth. Tax cuts along with spending cuts do. That's why the Republicans want both. Looks like you may actually be a Republican now.

Tax cuts DO NOT spur economic growth, again please reference my post above. I am not opposed to targeted spending cuts, which is what the sequester was designed to "trigger".

The austerity cuts in Europe have lead to an economic decline, in fact many countries have either never recovered from the recession or have fallen back into it. Again, do some research and show me JUST ONE country that has prospered after implementing austerity measures.

I cannot possibly be a Republican becasue I am not in favor of reducing top marginal or Capital Gains rates. Decreasing those tax rates have been PROVEN to do nothing to stimulate economic growth or investment, but only contribute to the deficit and economic inequality.

Try and find ANY research that proves tax cuts lead to increased investment or economic growth - you won't find any, because they don't.

Go beyond the talking points and examine the facts.

Hey Obama, we already received our paycuts. To the tune of 3.4% due to your ineptitude.

On the other hand, other Republicans are already celebrating these cuts -- as well as House GOP leaders’ refusal to negotiate. “I think Friday will be an important day that shows we’re finally willing to stand and fight for conservative principles and force Washington to start living within its means,” GOP Rep. Steve Scalise told the New York Times. “And that will be a big victory.” Added GOP Rep. Jim Jordan: “If, in fact, we’re going to scale back discretionary spending by $85 billion, tell me when that’s ever happened before.” Senate Republicans, in fact, were so divided on the sequester that they couldn’t get more than 38 votes for their proposal to replace it. In the PR battle over the sequester, the GOP’s muddled message matters. Even if both sides are OK with letting these cuts go into effect, one side is unified that the cuts are bad; the other side seems to be sort of cheering them on.

If our politicians cannot get their work done - stop paying them. Cut them off on income, health care - everything. If you and I did not do our work on our jobs - wouldn't you be fired faster than a speeding bullet?? You betcha. Cut off all of their ENTITLEMENTS. What do these people do all day?? And for some of them to celebrate not getting this done is outrageous. It will not hurt them - but it will hurt some of us, maybe not today or tomorrow but down the road this is going to be bad, really bad.

This is the kind of crap we get with an inept "community organizer" voted in by the "low info" crowd. Over 4 yrs with NO BUDGET and blaming Bush for everything and NO leadership skills. What a guy.......

David Walker,

Thanks for posting Byron Raum's remarks. He indeed nails the twisted psychology of the Albanian Idiot,

Absurd...such a good word to describe the Administration and legislators on the issue of fiscal responsibility and sustainable government. And yes the current historically inept policies of both entities are directly responsible for the current sad state of affairs. Any cheerleaders on both sides are just as absurd.

Next

Jason lots a numbers

he got his tax increases

What he got was a giant tax CUT.

The Fiscal Cliff was two things: The end of the Bush tax cut/Payroll tax cuts, and the sequester.

What happened with taxes at the the end of last year concluded in extension of the Bush Tax cuts for 98% of Americans, and expiration for 2%, plus expiration of the payroll tax cut. It was a giant TAX CUT, not a tax increase.

The Sequester is separate, enacted separately, to defer spending cuts and tax increases pending in the summer of 2011 as part of the debt limit debate. That agreement included spending cuts and an extension the debt limit, no tax increases.

To tie the recent giant Obama Tax Cut enacted the first days of January to NO NEW tax increases now is not in keeping with the negotiation in 2011--they have nothing to do with one another.

Who's moving the goal post?

TNSEVOL, the reason the republicans say it is a bad idea is the way its implemented. There is no discretion in the way its implemented. I would agree with them. We definitely need cuts i don't disagree there, i just think the people that run the various programs should have a say in where the cuts in their departments take place. Thats like saying you have to cut 2% from your home budget and it all has to come from your food allotment.

If you want to look at tax policy changes an easy one to follow is cap gains taxes. Looking back to 1980 there have been 4. 3 times down and time up. Each time the taxes were lowered the CBO estimated lower revenue. They were wrong as each time revenue went UP. The one time it was raised (1987 i think) CBO estimated more revenue, wrong again. Revenue was LOWER for the next decade than the previous year 1986. The revenue started back up when Clinton CUT the cap gain rate from 28 to 20%.

TomasGrande

Bob Woodward is a lying douche (who PURPOSELY mis-represented his FREIND'S own words) and has now stooped so low to using Faux sNewzzzzz to sell his cheap-ass books

This makes me remember a story in Communist China, if any member of the press of the party dares to challenge their leaderes or say something that should not, is taken to the square where the members of their own party throw them stones as an example, so that it will not be repeated.

here you go tnsevol:

Six Truths on How to Get the Economy Moving

By Lawrence Whitman
February 14, 2002

Even though the U.S. economy is underperforming, the Senate recently failed to pass any legislation that could improve matters. In the future, policymakers trying to revive the economy should bear in mind the following six truths about economic policy.

Truth #1: The most effective role for government is to decrease barriers to economic growth . High tax rates on working, saving, investing, and business development are among the biggest government burdens slowing the economy. Lowering these obstacles would trigger more jobs, higher incomes, and less poverty.

Despite the rhetoric of some politicians, government cannot "grow" the economy. The private sector, not government, creates jobs and produces prosperity. Government spending mislabeled as "economic stimulus" only misallocates resources that individuals, families, and businesses would use more efficiently.

Government can decrease existing barriers because it acts on the economy like a foot on the brake pedal of a car. The harder government pushes, the more the economy slows; the more government lets up, the faster the economy runs. Workers, investors, and businesses respond to incentives. The more government punishes (taxes) working, saving, investing, and business development, the less these activities occur. The less government punishes (taxes) these actions, the more they occur.

The tax cut President Bush signed into law in 2001 was a first step toward relieving government's heavy burden on the U.S. economy. However, government will unleash the economy only by lowering high tax rate hurdles permanently, immediately, and significantly.

Truth #2: Permanent tax cuts are better than temporary ones . Unfortunately, major provisions of the 2001 tax cut--reductions in income tax rates, repeal of death taxes--will expire in 2011. This policy also hurts the economy today. The reason: Temporary tax cuts yield at best only a temporary recovery. They do not change incentives to work, save, invest, and develop businesses. Instead, people shift the timing of their behavior. Taking your foot off the brake for a moment stops the braking only for that time.

Permanent tax cuts spur permanent growth. Some advocate temporary tax cuts because they may have a smaller effect on the federal budget than permanent tax rate reductions. As Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl writes in "What Really Is Turning the Budget Surpluses into Deficits," this view is misguided because the recession is an economic problem, not a budget problem. Politicians genuinely concerned about the budget should reduce wasteful government spending, not encumber the economy with high tax rates.

Truth #3: Tax cuts now are better than tax cuts in the future . Regrettably, major provisions of the 2001 tax cut will not take full effect until some time in the future: lower income tax rates in 2007, death tax rate cuts in 2010. This policy also hurts the economy now. Tax cuts in the future help the economy in the future, but taking your foot off the brake in the future does nothing to lessen the braking now. Tax rate cuts now would improve incentives and help the economy now. Future tax cuts are uncertain because politicians may delay or prevent them from occurring. Workers, investors, and entrepreneurs understand this risk and discount the likelihood that these tax cuts will materialize.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD) criticized the 2001 tax cuts; Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) called for delaying scheduled cuts; and Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) suggested postponing planned rate cuts if there were no budget surplus. But tax cuts delayed are tax cuts denied. Tax cuts subject to a budget surplus "trigger" likely will not happen because politicians will spend the money. Moving the tax cuts scheduled for the future to the present would decrease the drag on the economy now and remove uncertainty about whether the policy will take place.

Truth #4: Bigger tax cuts help the economy more than smaller ones do . The 2001 tax cut was small compared with President Kennedy's cuts in the 1960s and President Reagan's cuts in the 1980s. The more you remove your foot from the brake pedal, the greater the effect.

The 2001 legislation did not decrease the bias against investment. A real pro-jobs policy would eliminate, or at least reduce, tax rates on investment--i.e., dividends and capital gains. Government punishes investment several times by taxing corporations, dividends, and capital gains. These multiple taxes discourage investment. Lowering this obstacle would increase investment, stimulate business development, and create jobs.

Truth #5: Cutting tax rates on present and future behavior is better than giving rebates for the past . Tax rebates do not change behavior, because they do not improve incentives. On the other hand, pro-growth tax cuts decrease the punishment on present and future working, saving, investing, and business development. Additionally, "rebates" for people who did not pay income taxes are a big government giveaway that neither improves incentives nor helps the economy. Similarly, extending unemployment benefits may temporarily and marginally assist people out of work, but this policy also neither improves incentives nor helps the economy.

Truth #6: The aim of tax policy is to unleash the economy, not balance the federal budget . Although government cannot "grow" the economy, government can reduce its burden on the economy by lowering tax rates. High tax rates discourage the key foundations of economic expansion--working, saving, investing, and business development. Lower tax rates would trigger economic growth that would create more jobs, raise incomes, and decrease poverty.

Some politicians invoke the slogans "fiscal discipline" or "fiscal responsibility" as excuses not to cut tax rates. Only in Washington would these mottos mean government's taking more money while increasing spending on wasteful government programs. True fiscal discipline would entail government's taking less from people. Sadly, when some politicians cite "fiscal discipline," they mean fiscal discipline for American families, not for Washington.

Conclusion. The way to reverse the economic slowdown is to reduce government barriers to economic expansion imposed by high tax rates on working, saving, investing, and business development. The less government punishes these activities, the more these positive forces of economic growth will flourish. If government takes its foot off the brake--permanently, immediately, and dramatically--the economy will soar.

-Lawrence H. Whitman was formerly the Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

seems crystal clear to me!

For two years Obummer has been voting present instead of taking action to put this country back on financial footings. HE HAS LIED. HE has voted PRESENT when he has actually been spending BILLIONS jetting off to GOLF GAMES, VACATIONS, and just plain DERELICTION OF DUTY.

Anybody who supports him has their head buried in the 'sand'. How can anybody be be so 'hoodooed' by this community organizer (what's that) as to vote for him? STU PID ITY. YES, YOU.

truthseeker, that is because the majority of the american public is dumbdowned! they rely on emotion rather than fact or common sense! until that changes, this democrat ideology of government taking care of you from cradle to grave is or has already taken root! we need to educate the public on how it really works!

Obama made His bed, now He gets to sleep in in. LOL...A fine day it is!

President Obama hopes for a big deal. Well, yeah, it is a big deal.

I think Obama's "hope" is all but gone. He had better "change" or the dems will find themselves in as much of a bad situation as they did in 2010. Have we forgotten so soon?

TNSVOL

We usually agree, but on tax cuts, you will promote growth with tax cuts alone.

Tax cuts are stimulatory all by themselves.

Tax cuts along with spending cuts actually offset each other and if equal, do nothing for the economy.

Tax cuts and spending boost the economy, but cause deficits, so you only do THAT when in recession.

Spending cuts alone, or tax increases and spending cuts together are austerity, which cut economic output.

That is what the sequester is going to do, cut economic output. Republicans still WANT that for some reason, even though Obama already won re-election.

I guess they don't want ANYthing to show for his 8 years and they are willing to torpedo the economy to get it.

truthseeker,

[HE has voted PRESENT when he has actually been spending BILLIONS jetting off to GOLF GAMES, VACATIONS, and just plain DERELICTION OF DUTY.]

George W. Bush was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

During Bush's two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush's ranch flights.

If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush's vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama's $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush's numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush's vacation numbers.

In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of scheduling, "work events," while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush's vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, "Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio."
http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html

He will likely miss the place: According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, today's trip marks Mr. Bush's 149th visit to the presidential retreat. The planned three-day stay, during which the president is being joined by family and former and current aides, will bring his total time spent at Camp David to all or part of 487 days.

Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, 490 days at his Crawford ranch, and 43 days in Kennebunkport. George W. Bush spent 69 days in Crawford during his first year in office. In contrast, Obama spent all, or part of, 26 days of his first year in office on vacation. That is 1/3 of his [Bush-43] presidency spent on vacation.
I wonder how much the taxpayers paid for over 70 trips to Crawford, an average of 1 trip every 5 weeks. I guess nothing important was going on in Washington during all those years … like a war or two and a huge natural disaster, plus, plus, plus.
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-bush-vacation.html

President Obama just completed his 105th round og golf. Ike played 100 rounds his first year in office and over 700 rouds in his 8 years.

redvirginia

This makes me remember a story in Communist China

Good Grief!!!

It just wouldn't be a good day on First Read if I didn't get yet another communist reference.

Now, here is the part where I call you a lying Fascist.

Now we're even.

Salud

Dennis...

OMFG!!! Bush again???? When are you libbies ever going to drop that mantra?? Why can't you simply admit that Barry is the worst President we have EVER had?? Hell, I thought Carter was bad...this big-eared bandit far eclipses peanut-head!

TNSEVOL, if you want individual examples take the luxury boat tax in 1990. They added a 10% tax on sales over $100k. First time i heard "pay your fair share". Estimated more revenue as always, what they got was much LESS revenue than they had before the tax went into place. Decimated the boat industry, cost thousands of jobs and the tax was repealed on a large bipartisan basis in 1993 i think.

What people don't take into account is BEHAVIOR. People think there is a linear baseline that stays the same no matter what rate may be presented. Doesn't work that way. The more you tax of something the less you get, just as happened with the boat tax.

SDbolt

truthseeker, that is because the majority of the american public is dumbdowned! they rely on emotion rather than fact or common sense! until that changes, this democrat ideology of government taking care of you from cradle to grave is or has already taken root! we need to educate the public on how it really works!

That is the most ridiculous claptrap I've heard. Majority??? The government takes care of nobody from cradle to grave--even the literally brainless lump of flesh that a handful of humans are--even then the parents have a decent level of responsibility for taking care of them. What you're talking about is a caricature--like "all" Republicans are gun nuts and bible thumpers, or they "only" care about the rich. Have you ever talked to a liberal person? Do you have any liberal friends? I have conservative friends and they don't fit the caricature, just like most liberals don't fit the "taker" caricature either.

Stop participating in that crap and we'll all be better for it. We're all Americans, and the government we have is OURS. We should be working together to make it work better--through MODERATION. Reasonable taxes, reasonable spending. Nothing Obama has ever proposed has been unreasonable.

cant take no more,

If you don’t want me talking about Bush and other prior presidents then quit saying that all this president does is play golf and take vacations … PS … tell your friends to do the same.

The Republican and Tea Party are toast when the next election comes. They are going to lose so badly, they won't even be a recognizable party anymore! I personally cannot wait!

Same thing is happening with the medical device manufacturing tax Obama put into Obamacare if one cares to look it up. Cook Medical, Stryker, etc if one cares to give google a workout. People being fired, planed factories canceled, etc.

sdbolt

-Lawrence H. Whitman was formerly the Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!

Those are the same A-holes that got this country into this mess.

Salud

The 2% cut doesn't even cut the total budget spending. It only cut the increase in spending. We are still spending more then we take in. You have people like Pigotry with her head in the trough, so busy eating rom it she doesn't see the danger that is comming.

...as expected, the regular bottom feeders here on FR only know the 'truth' of sequestration from what they are fed by DNC's Propaganda Ministry.

The original sequestration bill as written (by the White House), modified & approved (by both houses of Congress) and signed by Prez-0 was / is for cutting the budget. Nothing in the bill has to do with 'closing tax loopholes (aka raising taxes).

So who is being stubborn? Answer: Both. However, Prez-0 trying to insert raising taxes into the sequestration equation is totally dishonest to what the budget bill was all about. We all got our taxes raised in 2013. In fact taxes did in fact also go up for families earning over $250k / year AND capital gains taxes when from 15% to 20%.

Sure, FR bottom feeders buy into the line, "reps are protecting tax cuts for the rich." But then take a blind eye to the willful extortion of taxpayer dollars by the dems. How many green energy companies got billions in taxpayer funds and then within a year filed bankruptcy? Dozens.

I live in NoVA and have already been informed by my company (since we do work with the govt) that us employees are looking at a 10% pay cut. I'm going to deal with it & be thankful that I am not unemployed. On the other hand - I am pissed that the Prez, VP and 535 members of the HOR & Senate are not getting a 10% pay cut, and you can bet your sweet bippy no dem or rep would have voted for themselves to take a pay cut.

Lastly, the 'budget cuts' are not reducing the overall debt, but only reducing the increase of the deficit spending. The US govt is still spending more money then it has got in the 'bank.'

300 Michael,

The $85 Billion in cuts is 2.4% of the entire budget however since the cuts only apply to only 36% of the budget (Defense & Discretionary) the $85 Billion becomes a 6.6% cut to those areas on average. In addition, just like any company there are fixed costs that cannot be cut. The focus will then be on the labor portion of the budget that will result in layoffs, furloughs and reduced services.

Like General Odierno said, under sequestration he is not allowed to move funds around in FY13. Odierno said that for the remainder of FY13 the cuts to the Defense budget are estimated to be between 8% and 10%.

cant stomach the truth can you!? tomas!

SmBus, tell me how many fellow american citizen can tell you how many branches of government there are? ask the average person who is president and see how they answer. ask your fellow american if they believe the mass media giants, nbc, cbs, cnn and see what they say! I appreciate your passion but it is too late especially for what we have occupying the white house now! i am not giving the repubs a pass either, however you are right about one thing, the government is ours.....when are we going to take it?

P.S. tomas, since tax cuts and less spending would be the reasonable course of action, it may kick you off the welfare roll! ha ha ha! Get a job you useless maroon!

SmBusiness, i disagree on nothing BO put forth is unreasonable. Lets take his EEOC policy on hiring. As you appear to have a business you should know this if you don't. The EEOC can sue you if you don't hire criminals. Yes you read that correctly. The administration looks at criminals now as a protected class and thinks they are being discriminated against in hiring practices.

Google "G4S secure solutions" and you will see an example. The administration is suing them for not hiring a criminal as a security guard in Pennsylvania, even though it is against state law to hire criminals there in the security field. Go read that and see if you still have the same view of this administration.

I have a side business in addition to a full time job and this to me goes way past unreasonable, its just scary.

The Sequester is just bad timing, this should have been done when George was destroying this Country !

@Pigman

Thats what all the politicians want you to do. Bow. Thats when the steel spike slams into the brain

Maybe if we quit spending money on defense then Obummer will quit giving F-16's to the Dictator of Egypt, who we supported to get rid of dictators in the Middle East. I see his mouth move, but I watch his actions.

borrowed from Greg Gutfeld

LIBERTARIANS - Valtrex for the herpes that is the Dem/GOP duopoly!

SD,

OURS means we vote for it. There's nothing to "take." Voting and winning is "taking" it. Not participating and undermining the country for politics is not being a good representative. I want them to honestly work for us, and the good of us, not fight for BS. Sometimes you have accept when you lose.

BigATC,

Sounds like minutiae. That's administrative stuff. I'm talking about tax proposals and spending proposals. OBama bailing out the auto industry, fiscal stimulus when we're in recession, tax cuts for 98% of Americans, but not 100% to help with the fiscal situation. Nothing unreasonable there. Not voting for unemployment and ignoring (poison-pilling) jobs bills--that stuff is unreasonable. Don't they want America to succeed? I do, and torpedoing Obama isn't helping America succeed.

Help America succeed and THEN argue about who should get credit.

#1.116- So now the HERITAGE FOUNDATION is politically nuetral? Sorry, they are one of the main shills for the 1%. For those that confuse "the economy" with "the stock market" I wish your 401-k's a lovely life. We ALL know they NEVER lose ground and that housing prices never drop. Others can throw in their version of the "3 often told lies". Remember, Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter" (when Republicans are in office).

Anyone here ever head of Jude Wanniski and his "two Santa Claus theory?"

FZknew, i guess the political drivel that the washington post spews is also neutral or the huffington post also huh? But i guess tax cuts and spending cuts is not in your vocabulary! seems that entitlements and welfare and handouts maybe are! i cannot think of anything bad about keeping more of your money and spending it as you see fit! answer me that would you? I could lnot give a good G*d damn about the foundation political persuasioln however, when it concerns my wallet, then I pay attention! and maybe you should also!

SmBus, are you for real? the government is not ours? WE are the government! yes we vote as to who represents us and so on and so forth! then why have they not done the business of the people? Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that what the founding fathers were up against is exactly what we are up against as a people!

Ask G4S if its minutia? Won't be if you are the one getting sued for not hiring a felon.

If you are just talking about monetary issues it all depends on if you are a "more taxes" guy or not. As a fiscal conservative, not repub, i don't think raising taxes in a bad economy is a good idea. Neither did Obama in 2009 and 2010, or so he said. It will take away GDP, just as the sequester will.

We are in so much debt and deficit now it doesn't matter what you do it is gonna hurt. If we don't cut now, when? What if we continue to grow at 1.5% for another 10 years? There isn't a chance in he!! we pay off our debt and a miracle if we ever balance a budget.

Reasonable/Unreasonable probably has 100 definitions :-)

SD, I said the government IS ours. We agree there. I want them do be reasonable with each other in good faith and not just posture all the time. We probably disagree about what they "should" do to correct our problems, but neither of us want them just posturing, right???

We have this sequester crisis, then there's going to be another "emergency" when the continuing resolution runs out at the end of this month, then another in May for the next debt ceiling. It's just stupid.

Our representatives spend their time planning for the next media circus, rather than actually doing their work.

When I have nothing to do, I type on First Read ;-)

I'm not damaging the country!

Big,

I dunno, maybe there is no purpose in even worrying about the debt. what's the world going to do? Cut us off? S&P downgraded us and we still have the lowest interest rates in the world. Maybe Cheney was right? If so, borrowing a boatload now is better for us. the money is cheaper than free including inflation. Lefties mildly complained about the deficit when Bush was in office. Now Reps are complaining. Maybe it IS just politics and doesn't matter. I know my debt with my mortgage is a LOT more than my personal GDP, yet banks lend me money and I can pay my bills. Maybe 100% of GDP isn't a magic number and we could stand to borrow a lot more. I'm not really advocating that, I'm just saying the sky probably isn't going to fall if we just deleted the sequester completely. Obama made 98% of the Bush tax cuts permanent and very few are complaining about that huge hole that was put in the national budget.

SmBus, i appreciate your passion, you are right, i want them to do the business of the people and not act like power hungry zealots! this is wrong and what is wrong now is the path this country is taking now! We the people not we the government! for the people not for the government, by the people not by the government is what our reps should be concentrating instead of people like Pelosi, saying: you must pass the bill in order to see what is in it! that is stupid! wouldn't you agree?

Sd,

right, sort of like McConnell saying: our number one priority is making him a one-term president.

(of course, Pelosi was sort of inelegantly saying "it's complex" while McConnell was stating he's going to undermine the President, along with the prosperity of the whole country with him, but those are two sides of the same coin, right?)

I'm not trying to be a d!ck, just saying we probably are going to disagree about specifics. Overall, we agree that they should be working 5 days a week on the nation's problems.

yeah, especially you since you have a business in NY. must be paying a lot in taxes! do you agree with the 16 oz. limit on sodas?

BTW, thoughts and prayers to those who lost their lives on 9/11 in NY i think about that alot! (being a veteran)

Its almost embarassing what the dem/rep duoploly has become. Most everything they do is about getting reelected and making the other guy look bad.

Looking at historical revenues since 1950's no matter what the tax rate (92% to 28%) the revenue we get averages about 18%. If you find it on a 60 year chart the tax rates will look like a roller coaster and the revenues/GDP almost a straight line. I don't look at tax policy under Bush causing large deficits as in 2007 it was only 160 Billion. If one spends over 18 to 19% of GDP you will get deficts. The late 90's people quote for close to a balanced budget had just over 18% spending/gdp. deficits are much more tied to spending than any tax policy. My view.

So now, it's a no-lose for Obama. If the economy takes off, he'll get the credit. If the economy falters, he'll blame Republicans, Republicans will blame him, and in the end, everyone will get tired of the arguments and blame the Republicans (remember the re-election despite the economy).

Obama still holds the cards. Republicans want tax reform (and lower rates...haha) and they can't get it without Obama and Democrats.

Meanwhile, we'll slog along, with Republicans getting the blame for their intransigence.

So now, it's a no-lose for Obama. If the economy takes off, he'll get the credit. If the economy falters, he'll blame Republicans, Republicans will blame him, and in the end, everyone will get tired of the arguments and blame the Republicans (remember the re-election despite the economy).

Obama still holds the cards. Republicans want tax reform (and lower rates...haha) and they can't get it without Obama and Democrats.

Meanwhile, we'll slog along, with Republicans getting the blame for their intransigence.

Republicans are to blame? Really?!?! Tell me again, wasn't it the Republican majority House that put 2 bills on the table that sat on the desk of the Democratic run Senate?.......At least vote on it to say yes, no, maybe so.....but, I guess not. They would rather leave home early to go on vacation.

You liberals are so typical. You point your finger at everyone else but yourselves. Until you actually put a bill on the table you have no grounds to speak. If any liberal had half a brain, you would be too embarassed to come onto a MSNBC newsvine to toot your own horn.

Good work Libtards! You done f*cked everything up through your no sense logic, but hey, thats ok because you can always just point your finger at someone else, I guess.

De nn is fr om Oh io...

I ne ve r sa id an yt in g ab ou t Hi m pl ay in g go lf. I sa id he is a bi g- ea re d ba nd it

Boehner wanted his decrease in spending, and to the dismay of Obama and the Democrats, he forced them today.

A week ago you were saying Obama wanted the cuts (especially the defense cuts).

Typical Republicans....always trying to put lipstick on the pig.

Unlike liberals who always want someone to put lipstick on their pork...

I believe you have me confused for someone else.

However, I do believe the ONLY cuts Obama wants is defense cuts.

#1.143: sd

Well, first of all, I didn't start out calling you names, however, I understand where you are coming from. From what I read, my ASSUMPTION about your position(s) is that you are in the middle, probably call yourself libertarian and are concerned about both higher taxes AND excessive spending. You are correct though, in assuming I am a raise the taxes on the top 1% and their capital gains type of voter. But even if I concede these actions as proposed by President Obama or Nancy Pelosi would be a drop in the bucket as far as the debt/deficit is concerned, I would not concede that cutting spending is the way to go.

As I see it, it is not the cutting or spending that is a problem; it is the specific cutting or spending that is proposed. Additionally, certain types of spending would be considered INVESTMENT by a private business, but the Federal Gov't does not draw distinction between spending on education, infrastructure (roads, bridges, telecommunications, airports), and assetts (such as aircraft carriers) which should be considered investments OR "consumption" spending such as the dreaded "entitlements" or tax credits to agribusiness, bg oil, big pharma etc.

Finally, when your government is in control of its' own currency and has the ability to make loans to itself in the form of Treasury Bills and has control over interest rates, cutting WILL NEVER produce growth, but wise investment spending, such as that implemented by Dwight D. Eisenhower (Federal Highway system anyone?) actually produces growth AND reduces the country's debt.

FROM an article in the Business Insider Jnauary 2012 (hardly a bastion of liberal thought): Niall Ferguson states:

There's a third way, which is that you grow your way out of it. That's rare. I mean not many countries with a debt in excess of 100 percent of GDP have paid it off without either inflation or default, but it is in theory possible. I think when we look at the European situation the default scenario is the more likely, or the most likely, of the three, simply because to inflate the debt away is something that the ECB is prohibited from doing. And as for growth, well, if austerity is the only solution in German minds, you can forget that. I think we are going to get some defaults one way or the other. The U.S. is a different story. First of all I think the debt to GDP ratio can go quite a lot higher before there's any upward pressure on interest rates. I think the more I've thought about it the more I've realized that there are good analogies for super powers having super debts. You're in a special position as a super power. You get, especially, you know, as the issuer of the international reserve currency, you get a lot of leeway. The U.S. could conceivably grow its way out of the debt. It could do a mixture of growth and inflation. It's not going to default. It may default on liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, in fact it almost certainly will. But I think holders of Treasuries can feel a lot more comfortable than anyone who's holding European bonds right now.

sd: I apologize this post is so long, but your questions and commentary made me go back to those two articles and some more economic ideas I have been reading lately. Thank You.

Reverse World War II. it is an animated comic, here is the script:

News! In-A-Nutshell!

Reverse World War Two, on the march!

After the Battle of the Deficit began, Automatic Austerity was unleashed!

A new America with common purpose was born!

Realistic expectations were set,

A call to arms was heard,

And the battle was led, once again, by our nation's armed forces!

All for none and none for all was the call heard round the nation . . .

Because everyone knows the government cannot create jobs,

And the rich and defenseless must be defended!

Remember, we must all be on our guard,

And help reduce the deficit at all costs!

On the home front, cut the deficit in your own backyard,

At the workplace,

Even children get in on the action!

And remember-- disease means deficit cuts are working!

Flying is for birds, not our boys.

Let's starve the beast and Battle the Deficit so that freedom from taxes reigns eternal!

Good night and . . . cut-cut.

anytime FZ, just trying to understand some folk here! i still cannot understand how someone can take offense to someone keeping more of their income! to me, that in itself would spur economic growth.. it is not the role of government to create jobs but merely toget out of the way in order for those to do so! it is not the government's job to tell the people what to do! i mean that if there were less regulation, then maybe small business can get busy and start hiring instead of worrying about who lurks around the corner watching them! you know what i mean....dont you?

forgive me...but i dont think i called you any names...sorry if i did!

sd, I am sure if we got together in person we would find more in common than not.

Asking for Government spending in the form of investment (say highways and bridges) is NOT saying it is "the governments job" to create jobs. It is saying, please obtain loans (at todays .5% rate) and offer them to various state and local government specifically to build highways and bridges. Then the State and local govt's (Public entities) choose to hire credentialed contractors (Private entities) to do the work. In my view, this creates private sector jobs and in fact exponentially builds MORE private sector jobs as the construction workers and their families then spend their money in the local economies on food, clothing, and transportation which in turn creates more jobs with mortgage lenders and credit card companies as they service the short term debt and needs of the consumers. The 1% and/or corporations do not CREATE jobs, it is consumer demand that CREATES jobs. With Austerity oriented budget cuts, the only thng that increases is unemployment. subsequently, it IS NOT private corporation's responsibility to create jobs, their responsibiltiy is to increase profits for their shareholders. In this view, what INVESTMENT spending such as infrastructure/highway construction originating at the Federal level actually does is STIMULATE private entities via State and local governments to create jobs rather than the opposing viewpoint, "cutting entitlements earned benefits" which ONLY results in job losses. No nation in the modern world has cut their way out of debt, however, the US, Germany, Japan, and many others have GROWN their way out of debt more than once.This is how Truman and Eisenhower paid off the WWII debt.

FZ, this is what was sold to us in the stimulus it was supposed to do infrastructure. It mostly went for one time tax write offs, state and union bail outs and green energy jobs (which the majority have already went under). Maybe if they took your approach with the stimulus things might be better now.

With 800 Billion we could have easily redone our whole electrical grid and fixed every bridge in the country.