Obama crying about sequester..........The cuts are "not smart," "not fair," and "people will lose their jobs," (Harry Reid, Reid)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how he can talk about spending cuts on the one hand and then talk about universal "FREE" pre-school on the other.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Only in the Democrat-held parts of Washington is a teeny, tiny cut in spending seen as some kind of impending catastrophe.
Because like all Liberals, he lives in a fantasy world and doesn't understand reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew
I believe that both sides have come to the conclusion that the cuts will be painful, but necessary if we are going to move towards economic recovery.
That's what happens when government starts to believe its own lies.
It takes a long time for government to come round to the truth, and in that interim period where they are stumbling around they can do a lot of long term damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew
My son works part time in a kitchen making very little while going to school, saw his paycheck shrink with the tax increases as did his lowly paid co-workers. We have a 2 billion dollar medicade plan that will help mostly illegals in the pot and not much for the poor working American families. The priorities are muddled in my opinion. So if we bleed, let it bleed and the poor along with everyone else. We will survive the change.
The FICA payroll tax was temporary. And stupid. And quite costly. America lost money on that deal, and what did they get out of it?
Absolutely nothing.
The priorities are not muddled.
The poor are what they are....and the poor take up space, use up resources, cost a lot of money, and don't turn a profit...and even that wouldn't be so bad, except you don't break even with the poor -- you lose your shirt on them.
Like I've been saying since 2007, you are all going to have to make changes to your life-style and learn how to do less, with less. You economic future is incredibly bleak for a very, very long time. And if you want to survive, the you must make changes; you have to change the way you do things, and basically re-invent yourselves as a country and especially as a governments at levels from federal down to local.
What Obama should have said during his State of the Union blubbering is
"I have just directed the Secretary of Agriculture to stop issuing Food Stamps to single family households."
Why? Because Food Stamps are a privilege reserved for those who help themselves. Only people who are sharing an home with their parents or children (or both) or with siblings or other family members, or with total strangers should receive Food Stamps. That means if a family of three and a family of four want Food Stamps, they'll have to share a 3-bedroom apartment, or rent a 3-bedroom house.
Of course, the money they save from sharing housing accommodations would disqualify them from receiving Food Stamp benefits....which is the whole freaking point.
"I have just directed the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development to stop issuing HUD Housing Benefits to single family households."
That's another thing Obama should have said. But then if people share housing accommodations, it's affordable and they wouldn't need HUD housing benefits, which again is the whole freaking point. If you have two or three households sharing housing accommodations and they still cannot afford it, only then should the government step in, and it should do so with the understanding that financial help is temporary, and not for one's entire freaking life-time.
Instead of throwing money at school districts that have a ratio of 5 Administrators to 1 Teacher, they ought to be giving funding only to those school districts that have a ratio of 1 Administrator to 5 Teachers, and 1:5 ratio of Administrators to Teachers is what used to be in the 1960s -- but not anymore.
He's the one who put the sequester in place and back then actually threatened to veto any changes to it.
“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”
Both Republicans AND Democrats voted for the sequester. It would not have been made law otherwise.
Nice try, but it was RINO Boehner and Obama that suggested the Sequester crap and Obama did say in the early days of it that he was sure it would never go through. Now he is crying his eyes out wishing it wouldn't go through but he did sign the bills the Congress passed. He can't wiggle his way out of this one no matter how hard he tries.
I do get a kick out of you leaners trying so hard to protect I Won from his own mistakes. Blame the Congress. Blame Bush. Blame anybody but never make I Won take the blame for anything.
What kind of idiot WANTS to avoid sequestration? It's a trivial amount, but at least it's a start at reigning in our out of control spending and restoring some degree of fiscal responsibility. And it's not a cut...it's a reduction in the rate of increase. BooBoo, cry me a frickin' river.
Did you notice these words in huge letters in the middle of the article you linked? I bet not.
Even if administration officials proposed it, it would have remained just a proposal if those 218 Republicans hadn’t supported it.
Yep, the people said that although the administration proposed that thing it couldn't have become law without those Republicans. I wonder why he didn't mention that the Senate also had to vote on it and say something about the number of Senators with Ds after their names who voted for it.
Can't you see a lefty writer trying to blame Republicans and then going so far as to admit what really happened? Well, hell no, you can't see that.
Who supported the debt-ceiling deal?
Party leaders, the White House and most members of Congress supported the debt-ceiling deal: The BCA passed on a 268-161 vote in the House, with about one-third of House Republicans and half of House Democrats opposing it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26, with six Democratic senators and 19 Republican senators opposing it.
And the OP misses the whole point of the sequester. It was put on place because it became obvious the Congress was doing absolutely nothing to reduce spending on its own initiative. Now it looks like they are refusing to do nothing even with the sequester, so the white house is urging them to come up with cuts so we can avoid the sequester.
But the White House requires most of those cuts to be from the military or he won't accept them.
Did you notice in the article we were linked to that only Republicans were blamed with no mention of the Democrat controlled Senate avoiding mention? It gets funnier all the time.
Now you stop using those videos that catch the Liar in Chief telling the truth. I wonder how many leaners managed to get to the end of that video where the Liar in Chief said sequestration had been suggested by I Won's team. Those words showed that when old Jay gets pushed into telling the truth the truth causes pains among Dems.
Did you notice these words in huge letters in the middle of the article you linked? I bet not.
Even if administration officials proposed it, it would have remained just a proposal if those 218 Republicans hadn’t supported it.
Yep, the people said that although the administration proposed that thing it couldn't have become law without those Republicans. I wonder why he didn't mention that the Senate also had to vote on it and say something about the number of Senators with Ds after their names who voted for it.
Can't you see a lefty writer trying to blame Republicans and then going so far as to admit what really happened? Well, hell no, you can't see that.
Both democrats and republicans own the sequester, are you that foolish to think what you do. Both parties signed onto it, or, did you miss it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
