White House warns of damaging "sequestration" spending cuts

Comments (75)
Concernedcitz wrote:

It is going to hurt at some point and time so lets just start now and get it over with already! The sooner we start cutting costs (lowering future debt) and overhaul our unfair income (welfare) tax, the sooner we can bring in more revenue to pay our debts (lower our debt). Stop procastinating congress and get on with it. Since the GOP refuses to cooperate – then move on without them. They are the obstruction to getting this under control.

Feb 08, 2013 12:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“such as law enforcement, small business assistance, food safety, and tax collection, the White House said on Friday.”

So what’s the problem?

But it won’t effect the $85 billion a month in QE spending?

Feb 08, 2013 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

Really?
It took three reporters and one editor to compile this?

Feb 08, 2013 12:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

The government continues flushing money down the drain while they continue screaming they’re broke. Here is merely the tip of the iceberg.

http://electiondebates.com/political-debate/your-tax-dollars-at-work.htm

Feb 08, 2013 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OneOfTheSheep wrote:

Well, now we’ve heard from Chicken Little. Let the cuts begin!

Feb 08, 2013 1:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

According to this White House, ANY spending cuts will hurt Americans. It’s getting rather tiresome to hear the “we need more revenues because we don’t want to cut spending” litany.

Feb 08, 2013 1:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
citizen033 wrote:

Obama argued for these mandatory cuts to be put in to strong arm congress into doing it his way. Now he’s crying cause he might lose his bet along with some political capital . . .

But if we look at the whole picture (including QE spending noted above), these cuts are a drop in the bucket.

More need to come, and when they do, these ones will probably no longer look “arbitrary”—they’ll be part of a package that cuts into virtually everything in a more balanced way.

Feb 08, 2013 1:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sonorama wrote:

The government should cut down the damn overseas military a bit. This country should not be the “world police”; Britain already did that.

Concerning the result of cutting down the more offensive side of the military: who cares if we lose foreign oil sources? Nuclear fission’s getting cleaner and fusion’s getting closer by each passing day with the international construction of ITER – an experimental fusion reactor designed to produce ten times more power than it uses for its function (500mw out for 50mw in).

America also has some pretty hefty pockets of natural gas, and if we still can’t be rid of our need for petroleum, Australia’s sitting on some pretty hefty reserves of oil.

Feb 08, 2013 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cfulbright wrote:

Then maybe Obama shouldn’t have pushed the sequestration bill, or signed it?

Feb 08, 2013 1:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Hey Oblammer, are you finally figuring out what OVERSPENDING by TRILLIONS for the past four years, has finally accomplished?
Yes, time to tighten the belt, and stop giving away money to all those corporations doing business with the government, and those not needing it. Social Security rules have been so relaxed, that almost anyone can pull from this fund, without really needing it. Stop giving the money away.

Feb 08, 2013 2:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections — released this week — envision a large deficit. On the other hand, we’re cautioned against doing too much deficit reduction too quickly because steep spending cuts or tax increases might undermine the weak economic recovery.

In effect, we’re instructed both to reduce the deficits and not to reduce them. The contradiction is one reason the budget debate perplexes and paralyzes Americans.

We are getting a lot of conflicting advice. Can the different goals be reconciled? The answer is “yes” — at least on paper, though perhaps not in the real world.

So the suggestion is to time deficit reduction with a strengthening private-sector recovery. Which isn’t something that the Republicans are aiming at.

Also, the private sector’s recovery has to be vigorous enough so that deficit reduction’s dampening effects can be absorbed without causing a new recession. After nearly four years of lackluster growth — even with massive doses of “stimulus” from the budget and the Federal Reserve — this remains a crucial unknown. Instead I think that spending should be re-purposed with something like an Infrastructure Bank that leverages public funds with private investment, originally a Republican idea that they now hate because Obama proposed it.

Feb 08, 2013 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The truth is that the budget deficits of the past four years were mainly a temporary consequence of the financial crisis, which sent the economy into a tailspin — and which, therefore, led both to low tax receipts and to a rise in unemployment benefits and other government expenses. It should have been obvious that the deficit would come down as the economy recovered. But this point was hard to get across until deficit reduction started appearing in the data.

Now it has — and reasonable forecasts, like those of Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, suggest that the federal deficit will be below 3 percent of G.D.P., a not very scary number, by 2015. You skeptics need to look stuff up once in awhile.

Feb 08, 2013 2:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Reading through the new budget outlook from the Congressional Budget Office, which was released on Tuesday, two figures made the biggest impression.

The 1.4 per cent figure is the C.B.O.’s forecast for how much the economy will grow this year. If you think this sounds like a low figure, you’re right. Last year, which was hardly a rip-roaring one, the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product rose by 2.4 per cent

The C.B.O. estimates that, taken together, the fiscal-cliff deal and the sequester will reduce G.D.P. growth by about 1.5 per cent. Another way of putting it is that if neither of these policies had been introduced, growth this year would have been close to three per cent, which is what we badly need.

Feb 08, 2013 2:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Yashmak wrote:

Cuts will hurt now, or hurt more later. Which is better?

Unless the economy takes an unexpected jump into high levels of growth (well in excess of 2%), it really is that simple.

Obama himself proposed these mandatory cuts, and he even said he’d veto any attempt to circumvent them. Now, when they are at hand, his administration is doing a 180?

Feb 08, 2013 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USA4 wrote:

Start cutting NOW. Enough of B.O.’s endless blather. The guy has no core principles whatsoever other than redistributing money.

Feb 08, 2013 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johnwayland wrote:

The absence of a leader in Washington is what is hurting America !!!

Feb 08, 2013 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Let’s see now, the Stock Market is soaring, corporations are sitting on mountains of cash and profits, and we’re cutting 1,000 law enforcement and possibly a couple of thousand food inspectors?

As we cut law enforcement (and probably teachers as well), watch how the elites proportionately increase their budgets for private security and private schools. I’m surprised that they do not yet have their own private firefighters. Oh yeah, firefighters do a great job, we’ll let the public pay for that one.

Something smells, and it ain’t in Denmark.

Feb 08, 2013 2:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
B0b77021 wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of government workers would be furloughed, Danny Werfel, a senior White House budget office official, told reporters at a briefing.

Mr. Werfel probably used a tone of voice that suggested the furloughs would be a BAD thing.

Feb 08, 2013 2:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

What kind of convoluted logic is this?

Spending cuts are like the temporary discomfort that some medicine may bring to cure the real disease – recurring interest payments on the debt that has started to eat you alive.

Stop with this temporary fix nonsense.

Feb 08, 2013 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse

bob77021 wrote that he didn’t think that cutbacks in government employees was a bad thing.

The modest cuts by the Defense Dept last quarter is credited with changing a modest growth into a contraction. Just think about what Sequestration would do or the big cuts that the Republicans want to make.

Feb 08, 2013 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I ranted yesterday on my posts here and other places about the problems with Austerity and how in 1929 we had a recession until Hoover instituted austerity and how the European countries who have had austerity forced on them now have unemployment worse than during our Great Depression.

Now contrary to you experts here, here are what real experts are saying.

“This is the tip of the iceberg on fiscal austerity from Washington,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “It was exaggerated this quarter by the unusually large drop in defense spending, but that and higher taxes will start hurting” in the coming months.

Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight said, “In the long term, government’s share of economic output is a question of values and choices and what size you think the government should be, but in the short term steep cutbacks make for risky economic policy.”

“We’re being more austere than we need to be, The economy isn’t growing that fast and you don’t want to be taking away stimulus now.”

Feb 08, 2013 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I ranted yesterday on my posts here and other places about the problems with Austerity and how in 1929 we had a recession until Hoover instituted austerity and how the European countries who have had austerity forced on them now have unemployment worse than during our Great Depression.

Now contrary to you experts here, here are what real experts are saying.

“This is the tip of the iceberg on fiscal austerity from Washington,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “It was exaggerated this quarter by the unusually large drop in defense spending, but that and higher taxes will start hurting” in the coming months.

Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight said, “In the long term, government’s share of economic output is a question of values and choices and what size you think the government should be, but in the short term steep cutbacks make for risky economic policy.”

“We’re being more austere than we need to be, The economy isn’t growing that fast and you don’t want to be taking away stimulus now.”

Feb 08, 2013 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wthcares wrote:

You wanted a CLOWN America? Well, ya gots one!!!

Feb 08, 2013 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JMC1234 wrote:

At year-end dems liked to say, “taxes are going up if we do nothing, so let them go” thus forcing Republicans to the table. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If they do nothing spending gets cut. Lets see them dems do some compromising this time.

Feb 08, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JMC1234 wrote:

Zen – think before you write. A 9% across the board cut, means we cut food inspectors by 9%, if we can’t cut any costs other then salaries. So by your math and the WH we have 22,222 food inspectors (2,000/9%). Somehow we either have way too many food inspectors or someone is playing fast and lose with the numbers.

Feb 08, 2013 3:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tangaroa wrote:

The White House keeps putting this off and putting this off. Maybe if they’d take a little time and work on it instead of trying to subvert the 2nd amendment it would have gotten done. Then once the important things were done then they could go back to trying to destroy the constitution.

Feb 08, 2013 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Sequester is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities and the economy,” Danny Werfel, a senior official at the White House budget office, told reporters at a briefing.

“It does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction,” he said.

We’ve been waiting for years to see a “responsible way”.

It’s time now to get the job done. It will be ugly and painful. Sorry.

Feb 08, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Sequester is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities and the economy,” Danny Werfel, a senior official at the White House budget office, told reporters at a briefing.

“It does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction,” he said.

We’ve been waiting for years to see a “responsible way”.

It’s time now to get the job done. It will be ugly and painful. Sorry.

Feb 08, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Sequester is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities and the economy,” Danny Werfel, a senior official at the White House budget office, told reporters at a briefing.

“It does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction,” he said.

We’ve been waiting for years to see a “responsible way”.

It’s time now to get the job done. It will be ugly and painful. Sorry.

Feb 08, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Sequester is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities and the economy,” Danny Werfel, a senior official at the White House budget office, told reporters at a briefing.

“It does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction,” he said.

We’ve been waiting for years to see a “responsible way”.

It’s time now to get the job done. It will be ugly and painful. Sorry.

Feb 08, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tangaroa wrote:

Putting The U.S. Deficit Into Perspective.

Subject: Budget.
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000.
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000.
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000.
National debt: $16,271,000,000,000.
Sequester cut: $ 85,000,000,000

Now, simply remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s your household budget.

Annual family income: $21,700.
Money the family spent: $38,200.
New debt on the credit card: $16,500.
Outstanding balance on credit card: $162,710.
Total budget cuts: $850.

Seriously? That’s all we’re going to cut. Now a lot of us know what happens when we run our budgets like this. Our home’s get foreclosed on and we lose everything we have. We can’t continue to run our budget this way. It needs fixed. Our politicians are crying about a lousy 85 billion cut? It’s time to wake them up and tell them we aren’t leaving this mess the way it is. It’s time to start making some serious cuts.

Feb 08, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The president’s then chief of staf (lew) proposed the thing, congress passed it & the president signed it into law. So, cry me a river. Just do it already.

That Mr. Obama thinks we have no spending problem makes it all the more crucial that the sequester actually happen. It’s our only chance to do something to address this.

Feb 08, 2013 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oakhill3 wrote:

Just let cuts go into effect and be done with it already. For crying out loud. And then start cutting back in ALL other areas of spending. What’s there not to understand?????

Feb 08, 2013 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LouisvilleLip wrote:

These are scare tactics used by the White House to avoid responsible fiscal policy. We can’t keep pushing off our debt forever.

Feb 08, 2013 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama: Spending cuts are damaging; tax increases are not.

Feb 08, 2013 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeathSpiral01 wrote:

Ah the ultimatum game, a self-imposed Hobson’s choice loaded with unintended consequences. Which, no matter what won’t fix the real problem.

“If in this Case there be no other (as the Proverb is) then Hobson’s choice…which is, chuse whether you will have this or none.” ~ Samuel Fisher, 1660

Feb 08, 2013 4:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Tangaroa, there is one major problem with you ‘analysis’, the federal government does not have and SHOULD NOT run its budget like a household budget. When your household has a tax base of the largest economy in the world, then maybe you can use your analogy, but somehow I do not think that is going to happen.

Feb 08, 2013 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
greg_gerg wrote:

Now where have I heard a similar article before…? Oh wait it was about Greece!!!

Feb 08, 2013 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tangaroa wrote:

@USAPragmatist I don’t agree with you. It’s thinking like yours that has pushed this country into a 16.5 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT. It’s thinking like yours that has all the money experts saying that by 2.25 CHINA WILL HAVE THE LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. If you and your friends continue on the way your going you’ll just watch what was once a great country fade into oblivion.

Feb 08, 2013 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@USAPragmatist So the largest economy in the world should run massive deficits and not worry about its debt? Smart.

Feb 08, 2013 5:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cautious123 wrote:

Millionaire congressmen and women walk around preening and playing their power games, while the world looks on, thinking, What a bunch of smug, self-indulgent fools. Irresponsible, reckless with our money, brain-dead when it comes to diplomacy, warmongering robots…there isn’t a single one who deserves to be at the head of this government. Corrupt, ignorant sheep–they’ll follow the leader as long as he/she dangles a few dollars on the stick. America is only as great as its leaders–which means, not very great at all.

Feb 08, 2013 5:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Please give, in 8th grade english, 3 good reasons we need 3% growth.
What would it hurt for the economy to remain status quo for a while?
Seniors might be able to catch their breath, and CEO’s would survive.
In any event, a growing population requires more spending – DUH !!!
As a consequence, more spending requires more revenue – DUH !!!
When did all the pundits decidecsimple math and economics are bad?
Where is it written that our grandchildren shouldn’t pay for our sins?

Feb 08, 2013 6:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

The debt has one cause, the aristocratic view of superiority and exemption to responsibility, aye even subjugation of Christianity itself. They would rather mint Ceasar’s denarii and subjugate humanity to a slaves wage. The top quintile income wealth is over 60% of the national income summation. And yet we tax poverty levels to hoard even that last 1% of coin. And tax least at the highest income levels.

-START: Copy and post to your representatives.-

Constituent Mandate,
Poverty/subsistence margin flat rate of taxation is fairness. The upper quintile views fair as the more you make the more you take home. This meets both criteria. The Washington bureaucrats missed a fiscal cliff opportunity to propose a margin flat rate tax that balances the budget. Rates $0-20K 0%, money above $20K 35%; couples freely share; all income bundled and taxed in summation form, no exemptions. And provide business relief with no business taxation with provisions on ‘partnership and disregarded’ businesses to transfer funds into personal accounts as the taxable income. Ends family business inheritance taxation, except when sold for personal profit (always taxable). The fiscal cliff resolution applies a higher 39.6% rate accommodating a 20% capital gains rate, and does not balance the budget. This poverty/subsistence margin flat tax balances the budget eliminating all other taxes (payroll, gasoline, whatever…) with a lower 35% flat tax rate. It is net income progressive at a lower rate than the federal income single standard deduction form.

-End Copy and post to your representatives.-

This proposal would require a National Level of politics that reaches amendment level approval. This would require a national constituency letter writing outcry, that which has not been seen. Constituent failure to mandate the representatives simply means higher tax rates for the lower 4/5th and lower taxation on the upper 1/5th.

Feb 08, 2013 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ballsy wrote:

Just wait, when the GOP calls his bluff, Obama and the rest of his flock will blame the Republicans for this. It’s always someone elses fault right? Next he will try scare tactics saying that the elderly will not get SS benefits, military pay be stopped, medicare and so on while they just voted themselves a payraise instead.

Let the sequester begin! Call his bluff!

Feb 08, 2013 6:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johnwayland wrote:

Yeah, the WhiteHouse should be worried about the effects of sequestration, since the WhiteHouse proposed the sequestration in the FIRST PLACE. Obama is sweating actually being responsible for something.

Feb 08, 2013 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johnwayland wrote:

Yeah, the WhiteHouse should be worried about the effects of sequestration, since the WhiteHouse proposed the sequestration in the FIRST PLACE. Obama is sweating actually being responsible for something.

Feb 08, 2013 7:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

I don’t like the part about WIC (or whatever it is now) cutting service since if the recipients can’t buy food now, and have unhealthy/malnourished babies, we will have to pay for the long term health consequences later with Medicaid.

But if we furlough a bunch of government workers, and they come back to work and get caught up, maybe there are too many of them to begin with. I’ve worked places with mandatory furloughs, and it squeezes the same amount of work out of people for less money. Do it, and make it an annual event.

And just based on Reuters fine reporting of how the FBI catches terrorist, it looks like about every one of them were dumb enough to buy explosives from an FBI agent. If we have to hand people bombs, then arrest them for it; I think we will be OK with less people doing that for a living. They need to stick with catching real threats.

Feb 08, 2013 7:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Seabee267 wrote:

Maybe instead of screwing around with changing immigration laws and banging the gun control drum for the sake of politics our federal government should have been confining their attention to the really important issues like balancing a budget and getting our economy stabilized. I would consider both issues to be of such high importance as to be considered matters of national security.

I would like to say to all the politicians “STOP MESSING AROUND WITH PERSONAL AGENDA’S AND DO YOUR DAMNED JOB, WE ARE WAITING!!!”

Feb 08, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Seabee267 wrote:

?

Feb 08, 2013 7:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Here comes the axe! Obama has called the Republicans’ bluff, but it turns out they weren’t actually bluffing. It looks for the moment like they are willing to make those defense cuts, if it cuts everything else along with it, after all. Watch all those pols squirm.

Feb 08, 2013 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
N5YS wrote:

The GOP is cooperating — they are waiting for the White House to call to negotiate; but “not a peep.” Instead of responsible governing, we have a president that stonewalls, and then runs around the country to gain points instead of real compromising. How is Obama still getting a 52% approval rating??? He’s still in denial that there’s a spending problem.

Feb 08, 2013 9:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

White House warns of damage to the country caused by a socialist-communist President with an agenda to destroy America as we know it.

Feb 08, 2013 9:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:

Well, I feel sorry for the people who will become unemployed. However, conservatives need to be reminded, once again, that government provides important services.

I’d recommend that the President ensure that the bulk of the budget cuts are borne by the red states. We don’t need all of those military bases and government installations in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Arizona, and Mississippi. Also, aim the reduction in unemployment benefits at those states. We don’t need no stink’in blue to red state wealth transfers.

Feb 08, 2013 11:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sighhigh wrote:

but raising taxes even higher wont hurt huh? the problem is government spending simple period. cut the spending

Feb 09, 2013 12:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
m1234567890 wrote:

Projected total US government spending for 2013 is 6.3 Trillion

Total government spending in 2007 was 4.2 Trillion.

US government spending has increased by 50% in the past 6 years.

Sequestration would reduce spending by 1.3% aka 85 billion.

The idea that reducing government spending by 1.3% would cripple the military (I do understand that the military cuts would be 13% but the fact is that that is not a large number), economy, our way of life , etc in the face of a 50% increase over 6 years is absurd (its even more ridiculous when one accounts for the fact that no one in their right mind considered the 2007 level of spending frugal).

Even if the cuts do result in a short term contraction, does anyone really think that our economy could support a Government which, following its current trajectory will be spending 9.2 Trillion dollars per year in 4 years?

The simple fact of the matter is that no amount of revenue will satisfy the gluttons, from both parties, in Washington.

Lord knows they just dug into everyone’s checkbook to the tune of 600 billion dollars and here we are again with the same damned, hate spewing crooks, trying to take more money from hard working people.

Whether those clowns believe it or not, they have an enormous spending problem, and they need to stop.

If sequestration is the only means by which they can agree.

Fine.

Feb 09, 2013 12:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

jaham wrote:
“Obama: Spending cuts are damaging; tax increases are not.”

In what way is Obama wrong?

Spending cuts are damaging because that spending is also somebodies income – an economic fundamental that you right-wingers collectively ignore.

If these spending cuts you howl for ever happen, then a whole load of people lose their income, stop spending and hence reduce demand, and no longer pay taxes and hence the government loses revenue.

If your grasp of economics is weak to understand that, then just look at Europe for real-life examples.

As for taxes, since they are levied post-profit it is logically impossible for them to prevent profit. You do understand that something that happens after the event can neither cause nor prevent the event?

Businesses will invariably start whining that they have less to invest, and scare mongering that they will have to lay-off workers, etc. etc, but as they are making record profits it is all lies.

Feb 09, 2013 4:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
lucky12345 wrote:

Here we go again, Democrats advance the TAX the RICH mantra!!@##$ What about cutting government spending… Question, how many Federal government employee’s are on the payroll and WHAT do they do? Let’s discuss these issues as we have already raised TAXES on everyone in Jan 2013.

Feb 09, 2013 7:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
highdesertrat wrote:

I wonder how many commenters here know that this doesn’t affect the president, the senate, the house, and the judicial side of government. Those people will continue to get their pay checks for not doing their job. I say this because when they were sworn into office, they took an oath to do their job, one major part of congress’s job is to pass a budget, and for a long time the majority of them have not performed at a level that warranted them receiving the benefits and pay that they receive. If they were doing what was right for this country as a whole, we would not be in this mess. But instead they choose to pass laws that would get each of them reelected, or make more money for their friends businesses and also their business, and/or make those who contributed to their campaigns richer. If you haven’t noticed, they always exempt themselves from any law that they pass for the masses out here, so they don’t have to suffer the hardships they impose on anyone – they just continue to get paid. I think they created this situation because some are inept at the job they were elected to do, some are greedy, some are corrupt, and a very small number of them want to do what is right, but the majority vote is what passes the law – and from all the laws that have been passed it seems there are far too few of them who want to do what is good for this country. Now that we are here I think like most of you do, that we should let it happen – I work in a DoD environment and I will be effected by this and I know it isn’t going to be easy, but something needs to be done. It is sad that for the last 40 years, the people we elected couldn’t do the right thing for this country and make decisions that might have averted this situation.

Feb 09, 2013 8:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
TruthSeekerAZ wrote:

So lets increase small business taxes for companies who file as an “S Corporation” and that will improve our economy? This adminsitration is a joke and they obviously don’t see that small businesses are struggling to stay in business. We are already taxed heavily and between huge increases in liability and workers comp insurance over the last few years, increases in state and federal unemployment taxes, employer match medicare and social security taxes,we are already seeing payroll taxes in excess of 25%.

Well Mr. Obama, my small business of 8 years will no longer have to deal with this as you have pushed me out of business and my doors are closing at the end of the month. Gave all my remaining employees their layoff notices last month and this soon to be former “S Corp” will be drawing unemployment starting in March.

TIP for you Mr. President: Get somebody who has actually owned a small business as an advisor as it is obvious you don’t have a clue as to how much it really takes to run a small business and actually make a worthwhile profit at the end of the day!

Feb 09, 2013 9:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

TruthSeekerAZ ~ your business failed and you are blaming the government?

No… *you* failed. It was not the governments fault. One of the few silver linings in having a recession is that the following recovery has a Darwinian effect of killing of those who are in business but really shouldn’t be.

My advice is get a job and forget about being in business. It is clearly not the right field for you.

Feb 09, 2013 11:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
usa.wi.vet.4q wrote:

Maybe the White House can get off its duff and do something other than blame Congress. All the White House cares about is trying to maintain its image. Stop creating hatred and cross the aisle like you promised. Your image is weak at best right now. By doing your jobs you may help all of our futures, which is better than just your own future.

Feb 09, 2013 11:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

The fact is that a thriving economy and long-term security result from a productive society, not a re-distributive one. What net contribution do government jobs make to the economy? Where does the money for government spending come from? It comes from productive jobs (taxes on the productive private sector), from federal borrowing (we’ve certainly seen that) or from the creation (inflationary printing) of money by the Fed. Some say it’s alright for people to hold unproductive jobs so long as they are able to support their families; some say the government can borrow indefinitely or print money without consequence. These people are either lazy, greedy, short-sighted or ignorant of history- probably a combination of all of these traits. As such, they have no place in American society or, for that matter, anywhere on the planet.

Feb 09, 2013 12:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bill1212 wrote:

Is giving away F16 Fighter Jets and Tanks especially to Muslim countries being responsible? Is giving 50 million ILLEGAL Immigrants citizenship, making them eligible for welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and Medicare being responsible?

Feb 09, 2013 12:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shqipo wrote:

Here’s an idea: how about cutting foreign aid? No, I’m not a right-wing nut, and I do understand long-term defensive goals of why some of this aid is distributed. But at a time when there are people suffering here, let’s take care of people here first. Capitalism is about self-reliance.

Feb 09, 2013 1:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EdRies wrote:

All the White House has succeeded in doing with its petty whining about budget cuts is to demonstrate that it is functionally incapable of managing the budget or leading the country to an affordable federal government. It has no interest in properly allocating funds to essential services, reducing fraud/waste/abuse, restructuring to eliminate unneeded supervisors and levels of bureaucracy, or reclassifying over-rated employees. Private industry has been forced to take all of these steps to contain costs. Obama’s flunkies have yet to attempt any of them. In the face of union criticism, they don’t have the courage. This administration is harboring illegals on one hand and non-essential government expenditures on the other. The only hope is for the majority in the House of Representatives to assume adult leadership – no one else will.

Feb 09, 2013 7:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Mass budget cuts are the price America will have to pay to cut (“slash”) military and paramilitary spending on foreign wars and interventions. Well worth it!

If military cuts do not happen involuntarily, they will never, ever be peace again for America. Our militarists will always find a reason for yet another war because that is all they want. They certainly do not serve what they call “The Nation” but instead our wealthy, non-elected rulers who despise 90% of the population. It is time to recognize the disrespect the military has for the rest of us.

Time for democracy. Time for reform. Time to close 90% of foreign military facilities whatever their “cover” or reputed purpose. They have bankrupted America and killed our young men far, far too long. Let the world police itself. Let us educate, care for and nurture our own people and economy. The world does not want us out there.

Feb 10, 2013 8:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The debt in America isn’t as heinous as many of you portray. And it’s almost comical to see the “grossly uninformed” holding up China’s growth compared to the U.S. China had a spending deficit of $1.65T last year. And have you seen taxes in China? But here’s what’s different. No Labor unions and massive poverty. They spend 9 times less than the U.S. on Defense. They don’t have a political party trying to sell “trickle down economics”. They don’t have elected officials that are essentially bought paid for and who are acting in the best interest of their 2%. And they most certainly to not have an equivalent of Grover Norquist. And they are wasting trillions of dollars on wars all over the middle east. Where China is kicking America’s backside is it where they are spending their money. Infrastructure. That’s why their economy is growing much faster than ours. You can point to a single event in the U.S. that is causing the trillion dollar deficits. The economic meltdown and subsequent massive unemployment. The previous spending was still pushing the debt higher. But that 1 event took the deficit “nuclear”. Massive spending cuts right now will do further damage to our economy. Obama’s American Jobs Act is what we really need..and much more like it. Virtually every economist on the planet is saying that we need more stimulus. The kind of stimulus that helps create jobs. Creating more jobs and Congress slowing fixing the spending problem is a far better solution than the current GOP “you’re on your own” with massive cuts to only entitlement programs and even more spending on Defense. Big spending cuts will damage our economy because it will created more unemployment at a time when unemployment is already too high. It was unemployment that created our current problem. So how does spending cuts that will create even more unemployment help fix our economy and be as robust as China? It won’t. It will cause even more damage.

Feb 10, 2013 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

But what annoys me the most are the simpletons making comments here who place blame on our economic predicament that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Two items in particular..the budget and who is responsible for out of control spending. While it’s true that the President is required to submit a budget proposal every year for Congresses consideration (note the words consideration), the President in fact has absolutely zero to do with the budget. Congress (the House and the Senate) are SOLELY responsible for the budget. Whatever they agree on doesn’t even go to the president to sign or veto. The President (no president) can spend one dime of tax payer dollars without Congressional approval. PERIOD! If Obama could spend all the tax dollars he wanted to then why is it that Obama’s American Jobs Act isn’t in place? Because the Republican’s in the House refuse to bring it up for a vote. Obama has created trillion dollar deficits every year for the past 4 years? Really! Name the “NEW” spending bills that Obama has signed into law in the past 4 years and how much each one has added to the deficit. The current deficits are primarily caused by two things. (1) Spending programs (many with automatic annual increases) passed long before Obama became President and an economic meltdown that caused massive unemployment during the final years of the Bush administration. The deficit during Bush’s last year in office ballooned to over $1T. And has pretty much stayed there due to grid lock in Congress. Now some of you will be tempered to point to Obama’s first two years in office with a democratic Congress and say he had his chance to fix things then. First off, NO ONE could have repaired the damage of the largest financial collapse in our history (next to the Great Depression) in two terms, much less two years. There is also a procedural rule in Congress that allows the minority party to effectively block what the majority is trying to pass. The Filibuster. Republican’s wore that rule ragged during those two years. The only major bill that the Democratic Congress passed in those two years was the “Affordable Health Care Act”. Called Obama Care, which according to the independent CBO actually saves money. Folks, presidents have a shelf life. And while Obama hasn’t been the most inspirational president we’ve ever had. Congressman (who can hold office for virtually their entire adult life) are our problem. Presidents come and go but there are a host of usual suspects in Congress that have remained through the various administrations. Had it not been for the financial meltdown Obama’s failure to work with Congress would have been a god send. Look at the Clinton years. We had a budget surplus every year of his last 4 in office. WHY? Major gridlock. Congress wasn’t able to spend money on more crazy crap. And our economy soared. They impeached Clinton for crying out load. Our government has been a quid pro quo arrangement between Congress and the President for decades. The only exception to that was the Clinton years. Congress has been usually more than happy to help most presidents pass legislation they wanted in return for presidents being agreeable to sign into law what Congress wanted and Congress loading up the legislation Presidents wanted with tons of pork. The spending bills (massively overloaded with pork) funding the two wars during the Bush administration are legendary. Those spending bills made even John McCain blush. That my friends is how we find ourselves in the predicament we are in today. Add the financial meltdown…and the deficits go “nuclear”.

Feb 10, 2013 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

With the direction we are heading, when it all breaks down, 2000-2006 will be known as the good old days. 2006-2016 will be known as the time that we sold out our future to put off dealing with economic reality. Deficit spending is an artificial government stimulus in the economy. It is unsustainable. Take it away and the economy shrinks to where it really should be. Foreign nations are getting out of the US debt market. They know we are running a scam. So now we just borrow from our social security, and other funds. We don’t have the money to pay it back, so we just print more currency. Do yourselves a favor and read Germany’s history after WW1. We aren’t that far off with the way we are currently depositing funds into the US bank out of thin air. If you have cash now, spend it, it is going to be worthless.

Feb 10, 2013 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@TheNewWorld

Yep. Keep on predicting economic Armageddon. Keep on parroting Glenn Beck scaremongering. Your kind have bee doing it for years, but what has actually happened is economic growth.

Feb 11, 2013 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Abulafiah

My kind predicted the financial collapse. Those in my camp have only been right time and time again over the last decade. Trust me I dont want economic collapse. I want an economy based on a balanced private sector that isnt dependent on the government. I want a government that isnt following the same thought process as Germany post WW1. Your economic camp keeps preaching stimulate, stimulate, stimulate, when the economy rebounds we can remove the stimulus. Your camp however can not give a basic benchmark of when it is safe to remove the stimulus. We are in a never ending debt spiral and monetary policy started by Greenspan and continued by Bernake that is destroying the Dollar. The end result is clear to my camp, and our predictions is cries to stop digging deeper and deeper. Stopping the process is going to hurt short term. It must stop at some point, and the longer it goes on, the more it will hurt when it stops.

If you are right the economy somehow explodes into 10% growth and the new taxes pay off the mountains of debt we have racked up and we can cut the government spending and reach a balanced budget.

If I am right, we continue to get our credit rating lowered, the dollar is replaced as the worlds currency, foreign governments and investors dump the dollar, and we either kill our stagnant economy with balancing our budget, or we print ourselves into hyper inflation to keep things going. We will make it out of it, but it will take decades for us to fully recover. At that point the dollar will not be trusted again as a the currency of the world, and we will become an average nation economically, not a super power.

I dont preach Armageddon, we do have a strong agriculture base, and many natural resources. It will just be a period where we redefine our monetary system, and the role the government plays in the economy. It will be the end of Keynesian economics, mass credit, and living beyond your means. No one will ever want to depend on the government again because it will fail under the weight of its uncontrolled growth in the last 3 decades.

Feb 12, 2013 3:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

White House: tax hikes hurt the economy too, but that’s okay….

Feb 12, 2013 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@thenewworld….don’t mind abulafish, he’s just mad he’s not an American.

Feb 12, 2013 9:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

The last words of Keynes
“I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago.”
The ‘invisible hand’ he refers to is the one that Adam Smith uses to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace.
’nuff said.

Feb 12, 2013 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
FredH1 wrote:

What is the problem, Obama agree to those cut in order to get the debt ceiling raised to $16.4 trillions. Changing his mind after the fact, makes him a very irrelevant president.

Feb 14, 2013 9:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.