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 think it's funny. Basically all Americans have been saying for the past several years that the defense budget needs to be cut. Now cuts are coming and both sides are in a panic.
I don't see the panic except with Obama and his followers.
Most people see the necessity in cutting proposed spending - because in reality that's all this is, they aren't really cutting anything, they're just going to spend a bit less than they wanted to spend.
Spending is so out of control, they shouldn't have any problem finding more ways to cut spending.
The problem is politics plain and simple. Look at Simpson-Bowles. There are hard choices they recommended, (especially on entitlements), however you have Grover Nordquist who won't endorse it on the right, and the president and Maxine Waters on the left who won't endorse.....
We will continue to kick the can down the road because its easier to let the next generation and elected officials to make the hard choices! Not saying its right, but it is what it is...
No, Obama is responsible for this mess. The sequester idea originated in his administration and was presented to Congress for passage with Obama signing it. He felt that the "cuts" (really "lower increase" is truer) to defense would so upset the House Republicans that they would try to end the sequester before it happened. And the House did pass two bills to do so but both were left to languish by the do-nothing Senate.
Obama owns this sequester. Bob Woodward wrote a book about it and the White House has come out and attacked him. Max Baucus (D-Montana) stated that the sequester was Obama's idea. The New York Times came out with the claim that the sequester was Obama's idea.
When Dems stop denying the truth, maybe the Republicans will start to believe some of the things coming out of Democratic mouths again. Just because Obama, the Celebrity-in-Chief, has the LapDog press in his lap doesn't mean that anything he says is true.
Even with Simpson Bowles, it was the President's appointed commission. It doesn't matter that Norquist said "oh how bad" or Maxine Waters gets in front of a microphone and says 'oh how bad'.
He is the President, he has the power, it is his job to preside, and it is his job to manage. He didn't do his job and you can lay that on his door. We did not elect Norquist or Waters to run our country.
No, Obama is responsible for this mess. The sequester idea originated in his administration and was presented to Congress for passage with Obama signing it. He felt that the "cuts" (really "lower increase" is truer) to defense would so upset the House Republicans that they would try to end the sequester before it happened. And the House did pass two bills to do so but both were left to languish by the do-nothing Senate.
Obama owns this sequester. Bob Woodward wrote a book about it and the White House has come out and attacked him. Max Baucus (D-Montana) stated that the sequester was Obama's idea. The New York Times came out with the claim that the sequester was Obama's idea.
When Dems stop denying the truth, maybe the Republicans will start to believe some of the things coming out of Democratic mouths again. Just because Obama, the Celebrity-in-Chief, has the LapDog press in his lap doesn't mean that anything he says is true.
The spending like a drunken sailor goes back way before Obama. GWB 43 was extremely guilty of too much spending.
If you deny that, then you are not objective....
Also, these two wars we are fighting we spent so much money, for what? Leave the middle east alone and let them blow them up w/o us....rediculous.
Both parties spend way too much. We should reign it in...
Even with Simpson Bowles, it was the President's appointed commission. It doesn't matter that Norquist said "oh how bad" or Maxine Waters gets in front of a microphone and says 'oh how bad'.
He is the President, he has the power, it is his job to preside, and it is his job to manage. He didn't do his job and you can lay that on his door. We did not elect Norquist or Waters to run our country.
Pure and simple.
Yes, it was the president's appointed commission and I'm pissed both parties are not following their leads..
There is a workable way that these guys have come up with, but unfortunately politics gets in the way when the right doesn't want to close loopholes, and the the left talks about throwing granny off the cliff...
They will both just keep kicking the can down the road...
No, Obama is responsible for this mess. The sequester idea originated in his administration and was presented to Congress for passage with Obama signing it. He felt that the "cuts" (really "lower increase" is truer) to defense would so upset the House Republicans that they would try to end the sequester before it happened. And the House did pass two bills to do so but both were left to languish by the do-nothing Senate.
Obama owns this sequester. Bob Woodward wrote a book about it and the White House has come out and attacked him. Max Baucus (D-Montana) stated that the sequester was Obama's idea. The New York Times came out with the claim that the sequester was Obama's idea.
When Dems stop denying the truth, maybe the Republicans will start to believe some of the things coming out of Democratic mouths again. Just because Obama, the Celebrity-in-Chief, has the LapDog press in his lap doesn't mean that anything he says is true.
Let us be clear, neither party embraces the sequester over their personally chosen targeted cuts. We need cuts to spending. The House and Senate cannot agree on where to cut. The sequester accomplishes what congress will not. In that sense it is the Tea Party's wet dream. They should be thanking Obama, if it was truly his idea and intent.
The sequester was supposed to motivate the parties to negotiate a compromise. Not a bad idea in theory and one that originated in the Reagan administration.
Unfortunately, neither the bi-partisan super comittee, nor Congress could come to a better solution to curb spending. The House refuses to deal with a bloated defense budget and favorable tax policy for the wealthy, while the Senate doesn't want to deal with escalating Medicare and Social Security costs. So, if sequester is the only way to cut spending, then it is a success. Also, one that the GOP is starting to embrace.
Funny, how you call everyone liars except the Democrat you hold up as proof (Baucus) and The New York Times (LapDog press) and Bob Woodward (liberal press). I guess when it suits your narrative, they are credible sources?
You cannot have it both ways, "We want to cut spending, but this small step forward is too harsh!" It is laughable that any party continually asking for cuts to government spending, is having a problem when across-the-board cuts are finally instituted. Clearly, it is not the sequester cuts that are the problem, it is that they must share the burden in a relatively equal manner.
Last edited by shaker281; 03-04-2013 at 12:03 AM..
Yes, it was the president's appointed commission and I'm pissed both parties are not following their leads..
There is a workable way that these guys have come up with, but unfortunately politics gets in the way when the right doesn't want to close loopholes, and the the left talks about throwing granny off the cliff...
They will both just keep kicking the can down the road...
If a married couple filing jointly gets a $10,000 bonus (earned income), they will pay 25% (federal tax) and 7.65% (FICA and Medicare). Almost 33%. If a wealthy investor receives a $10K (or $100K) capital gain offa trust fund or investment (unearned income) they will pay a 15% tax. Characterizing that as a loophole minimizes the reality of tax disparity. The middle class paying more than double what the elite pays.
At the same time, cutting Medicare or Social Security disproportionately places a sizable burden on the working class. Not exactly "throwing granny of a cliff", but certainly knocking her over in her walker.
I do not believe you should minimize the impact of cuts to programs that provide for sustenance and medication to human beings, while calling tax policy that has resulted in massive wealth accumulation to a small segment of society "loopholes".
To be clear, I support immediate Medicare and Social Security reform, along with trimming the defense budget and carefully chosen increases to revenue and I don't really care whose plan it is!
Last edited by shaker281; 03-04-2013 at 12:09 AM..
Not far right. Sensible and normal. It is the left wingers who are so far left that they are about to fall off the political spectrum.
So, your idea of "sensible and normal" is a drunk who has no idea idea how the federal budget affects education and first responders? And calling anyone who does understand the implications a liar? Nine exclamation points don't make a fool credible. Try setting the bar a little higher.
What Chuckman wrote:
"Hell, I'm sitting here, beer in hand, celebrating the end of America as we know it! Right on!
Hey, since when do police and fire and teachers work for the federal government? So how will the sequester lead to their firings?
Obama and his cabinet are LIARS!!!!!!!!!!
Cant wait for the end of the world. ROTFLMAO!!!!" [/UNQUOTE]
Last edited by shaker281; 03-04-2013 at 01:16 AM..
The debt ceiling deal passed in 2011 accounts for $1.5 to $2.4 Trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
The tax increase that came at the end of 2012 will decrease the deficit by an additional $700 billion over 10 years.
Another $700 Billion will be saved in projected interest on the reduced debt.
Now sequestration (or the policies it triggers) will reduce the deficit by another $1.2 Trillion over 10 years.
That could amount to as much as $5 Trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
And we've yet to see what Medicare or Social Security reform might bring to the table.
Simson-Bowles and other Bi-partisan groups have called for $1 in tax increases for every $2-3 in spending cuts to address the deficit in a realistic fashion. In the most favorable scenario, the current ratio is $1 in new revenue for every $4 in spending cuts. This hardly supports the rationale that the Democrats are not living up to their side of the equation. Whereas the Tea Party has block every effort by the mainstream GOP to come to compromise solutions.
And let's not forget that the Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire in 2013 and were extended due to fiscal cliff concerns. But, if made permanent they add up to $3.3 Trillion over the next 10 years. Extending them for just two years will cost $500 Billion over the next 10 years. Both scenarios are the exact opposite of new revenue and deficit reduction.
Last edited by shaker281; 03-04-2013 at 01:56 AM..
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.
