Obama expresses doubt about a March 1 deal to head off cuts

Comments (82)
Bubba311 wrote:

Who is to blame for this conundrum? The debate will go on, but one thing is clear: this almost certainly would not have happened under any other President.

Feb 20, 2013 8:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beech wrote:

Time to hit the IGNORE button.

Feb 20, 2013 8:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
trashcongress wrote:

All congressmen/women and assemblymen/women should be furloughed like any other federal staffs. Why they are being paid the big bugs and good benefits just sitting around. In real world, they should have no immune what so ever. Their arguments are straightly child play and non-productive.

Feb 20, 2013 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
syrguy wrote:

It’s time for spending cuts.. Get real…. anyone who thinks thats not a huge problem is quite frankly plain ignorant. I don’t care what group you belong to. This is simple reality…Obama’s Sequester thats what it should be called. It was the white houses plan now deal with it.. Stop lying to everyone and do something…

Feb 20, 2013 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

We’re talking 2.4% of the Federal budget. It ought to be far more.

Feb 20, 2013 9:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ihavenone wrote:

I have to laugh when a man who travels in a fleet of 747′s and flys his armored limo with him is critical of corporate executives traveling in small fuel efficient jets shared with others so as to keep them in the air, rather than sitting on the ground waiting for days. The executives also remburse their company for personnal use of the jet, but the taxpayer pickup Obama’s exspense even for personal trips. Com’on Barack, get real!

Feb 20, 2013 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Why is he “turning to local TV”? He’s always turning everywhere except where he needs to turn – which is squarely at Congress. Mr. President, this is called negotiating. You need to do it. Local TV can’t help you now.

Feb 20, 2013 11:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wpete wrote:

Burns….You need to stop watching MSNBC and think for yourself. Unless of course you like being a parrot for the DNC.

The house and Senate had an agreement in place last summer, Obama preferred to go to sequester instead. This is HIS baby. To avoid the fiscal cliff on Jan 1st, the Republicans gave in and let the President have his tax hikes on the rich. The can was kicked down the road 90 days. This is STILL his baby. Now he’s trying to say that taking an axe to HIS baby is not the way to govern. You bet it isn’t but it’s exactly what HE wanted, TWICE.

This is his and only his fiasco. He should have just signed the bill that Boehner and Reid had ready for him last summer. But no…..that would have been the end of his spending habit. Plus, that may have helped the Republicans look like they were in charge right before the election and he could NOT let that happen at ANY cost.

Obama, like all hard left liberals can’t help but spending other peoples money. It’s the most powerful drug in the world to them and he’s hooked. Today he was saying that the whole problem rests on the shoulders of the Republicans because of their refusal to raise taxes. Did he forget that the Republicans caved in and allowed raises on the rich to avoid the fiscal cliff? Of course he didn’t but he’s hoping that YOU and the other liberal lemmings had.

Wake up, take a step back and see that your chosen one is killing this country 1 trillion dollars at a time.

Feb 21, 2013 12:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
PortlandME wrote:

Yeah, you can blame Obama for coming up the idea, but you cannot blame him for the Republicans agreeing to vote/pass it. Boehner and Ryan even lead the effort in the House to pass it. So, Bubba311 it is not about blame. It is about the fools who voted for the law. The Republicans had an opportunity to say no and voted it down, but they did not. Now they have a chance to correct their mistake and pass a new bill that will undo the Sequester.

Feb 21, 2013 1:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Wait, didn’t ‘sequestration’ come from the WH? So congress has to rescue BO from himself? While Bill Clinton may have been the original ‘Teflon man,’ BO is the shiz when it comes to not being responsible for anyone or anything. What a wonderful culture we have nurtured here in the good of US of A.

Feb 21, 2013 2:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Wait, didn’t ‘sequestration’ come from the WH? So congress has to rescue BO from himself? While Bill Clinton may have been the original ‘Teflon man,’ BO is the shiz when it comes to not being responsible for anyone or anything. What a wonderful culture we have nurtured here in the good of US of A.

Feb 21, 2013 2:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
NJ989 wrote:

This is what you get when you elect a community organizer as President of the United States .

Palin would have been a better President ….. imagine that ?

Feb 21, 2013 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
spca wrote:

anyone who watched and listened to this hogwash needs a new brain to replace there fried present one

Feb 21, 2013 1:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
grassroot wrote:

But, he will not cut a dime of spending,,

Feb 21, 2013 2:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

It’s a miracle, the commander and chief picked up the phone and called the other side.

Feb 21, 2013 2:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

When liberals can’t come up with any answers to current problems they always start in with “George Bush had 2 unfunded wars.” So what. That is the past. You can’t undo the past, so get over it. It is not a excuse for failing to deal with problems now. Are we impotent because Bush had 2 unfunded wars? Are we just going to sit around and bemoan that for the rest of our lives? The problem with Democrats is they are always pandering to their constituents with more unfunded freebies. It’s worse than Bush’s wars.

Feb 21, 2013 2:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse

There are no CUTS. They will spend more money next year then they spent this year. If we can’t slow the rate of growth by $85 billion dollars on a budget of 3.6 TRILLION we are finsihed. No one is going to loose their job. Not one porject will be discontinued.

Feb 21, 2013 2:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse

reducing spending by $85 billion and calling it a enoremous problem is like peeing in the ocean and saying it’s going to flood.

Feb 21, 2013 2:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Airplanedoc wrote:

Fortunately, Obama got help with his golf game last weekend. That was a much better use of tax payer money, than working to fix this problem.

Feb 21, 2013 2:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Congress and the President are whining over $85 billion. What will they do when they tackle the $trillion per year deficit we now have?

Feb 21, 2013 2:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akcoins wrote:

Why is it that all you righties ignore the fact that under Republican administrations we always end up with deficits that are always fixed by the following Democratic administrations. Do a little research other than watching Fox News if you want to actually have the facts.

Feb 21, 2013 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Eugene31 wrote:

Substance of President’s call: “I’m at 55% approval. You guys are at 19% approval and your party is at 35% approval. Before we go any further, how much deeper do you want to slide?”

Feb 21, 2013 2:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

First off these cuts only lower amount at which our spending INCREASES. It’s not a reduction of baseline spending.

Second, this is Obama’s idea. He wanted these cuts and in nov 2011 he promoted his actions saying, “there will be no easy offramps on this one.”

1 + 2 = manufactured crisis.

Feb 21, 2013 3:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moetheshmo wrote:

There will be no spending cut or tax increase and every Washington politician understands what will happen. A two trillion dollar raise in the nation’s debt will pacify all dissent and fill the pockets of clever insiders.

Feb 21, 2013 3:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Strange how Jay Carney sums it all up by saying the republicans won’t compromise on tax hikes and fails to mention that the democrats in the senate don’t want to hike the taxes either! He also fails to acknowledge that it is the administration that refuses to budge on spending cuts.

Sequestration was created by the whitehouse to create cuts to spending- stick to the plan, cut spending – leave taxes alone. Besides, the conservatives just compromised on tax hikes for the rich, a month ago, now it’s the democrat’s turn to compromise on spending cuts.

Feb 21, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Strange how Jay Carney sums it all up by saying the republicans won’t compromise on tax hikes and fails to mention that the democrats in the senate don’t want to hike the taxes either! He also fails to acknowledge that it is the administration that refuses to budge on spending cuts.

Sequestration was created by the whitehouse to create cuts to spending- stick to the plan, cut spending – leave taxes alone. Besides, the conservatives just compromised on tax hikes for the rich, a month ago, now it’s the democrat’s turn to compromise on spending cuts.

Feb 21, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Over 90% of the American people believe the problem is spending and either want the sequester or a permanent long term resolution (no more of obama’s short term deals that just keeps adding taxes piecemill to spend more money). Blame us. Just get it done! NO MORE TAXES!

Feb 21, 2013 3:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Anyone who uses any media site to grasp a concept is a fool…the fact remains that the Tea Party and Members of the currently serving GOP have said, with no qualms, that they will never come to terms with The President. So you who point a finger at the President, have no leg to stand on. Even Boehner was seen on several different platforms Stating …No Compromise. These jerks are willing to plow us under to win…simple as that. And the resons? They refuse to except No. To except you have been pushed aside by more reasonable voters. They really believe there has been some sort of mistake…the people in this country are really 100% behind their Crap. Not so. Not even close.

Feb 21, 2013 3:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BigRonny wrote:

I think it is time to quit kicking the can down the street. When they passed the sequester bill, it was because our “Leaders” knew they wouldn’t do anything unless backed into an inescapable corner.
As long as they keep gnawing a rat hole in the corner, they keep proving themselves correct.
If the pet projects of each party, in each pork-barreler’s home state are cut, suddenly there will be a flurry of business that might even bring POTUS in off the golf course.

Feb 21, 2013 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sumbunny wrote:

Here is an interesting fact: If the full sequestration goes into effect, federal spending will still be higher than when Pres Obama took office. Not really so draconian after all is it?

Feb 21, 2013 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sumbunny wrote:

Here is an interesting fact: If the full sequestration goes into effect, federal spending will still be higher than when Pres Obama took office. Not really so draconian after all is it?

Feb 21, 2013 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tzveeka wrote:

A perusal of the comments shows rigtly so, little respect for Obama’s ability to practice the art of politics. He’s power hungry and a liar, like most politicians, but fears talking and negotiating to a compromise with the Republicans. Rev. Wright, a vile bigot who hates everyone except “black people” was Obama’s hero. Obama is no leader. He’s the ultimate conclusion to a media-based society, with his obnoxious smile. I call him our “affirmative action incompetent president”, because many of us idealists voted for him in part since he is a minority. But who is he but power hungry, like all other liar politicians? Where was he really born? What’s his religion? What are his ideals, if any? He went to Harvard Law and never wrote one scholarly paper. He’s a bit above average IQ person with a BIG BIG mouth. LEARN POLITICS, Mr. Obama, or get out. The country, the part of which is informed at least, wish you would disappear. Look at the comments here!

Feb 21, 2013 3:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ucjb wrote:

I’m getting tired of Obama’s chicken little theatrics.

Feb 21, 2013 3:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chapapet wrote:

am I wrong or is Congress responsible for spending our money…

you are elected by your constituents as their voice in Washington…

I understand that everything will not be liked by everyone but let us put the reality as to who is responsible, Congress NOT the President…

Yes he will sign legislation, he can declare war, he can state his opinions, and he represents “all” the people…

We have our problems and it starts and continues where even our citizens toss so much dirt it clouds the foundation of the issues facing our wonderful country, America…

STOP WHINING AND ENCOURAGE CONGRESS TO GET ON WITH THEIR JOB NO MATTER THE PARTY AFFILIATION…

Thank you…

Feb 21, 2013 3:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
REBELLIOUS12 wrote:

I miss Jimmy Carter!!

Feb 21, 2013 3:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Acoins-the fact is, the deficit has increased far more under Obama’s administration than all the previous presidents combined. He hasn’t “fixed” anything. Unemployment continues to hover around 8%. That hasn’t been fixed either. All he has managed to do is blame Bush, and blame the Republican house, while playing more golf than all the previous presidents combined. For the first time in 30 years an ambassador of ours was killed and all Obama did was trot out Rice to lie about what happened. When Obama gets that 3:00 a. m. call, he rolls over and goes to sleep while Americans are murdered. He is destroying our healthcare system and many jobs with it. Obama and the Democrats have not fixed anything. This recession started whn the housing bubble broke. That too is a result of Democrat policies, but of course, they want to blame Bush for that, too. Well, it is about time they took some responsibility for their own failures, of which there are many.

Feb 21, 2013 3:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pecti wrote:

Okay this is my feelings about this topic of looming cuts. I think that everybody in congress, senate, state, governors, president, vice president and everybody else in office no matter if you are a republican or democrat. They should be the people to take the cuts from their salary. I saw on the news that they were trying to figure out if the president needs a raise. I don’t think he needs a raise nor anybody in office. I also have heard that all the people that were new to office they all received a raise. What they should do is let the American people vote on whether the deserve a raise. If they all took pay cuts & go without health insurance, they will then see how the POOR people live. I am tired of hearing about the Lower Class, Middle Class & the Upper class. To me I only see the Lower Class (the poor) & the Upper class (the rich). It seems to me that ALL the Upper Class (the rich) are getting richer & the lower class (the poor) are getting poorer.

Feb 21, 2013 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

For all you folks who are lying to yourselves, and claiming this is President Obama’s sequester, that ain’t what the polls say. Yesterday I was saying 25% of Americans identify as Republicans, today it is 22%.

That’s right, eight out of ten voting Americans are not Republicans because we have long realized that the GOP has been taken over by ‘baggers who number about ONE THIRD of the low number reporting that the are Republicans.

I suggest you look at the current Pew results, I suggest you learn about American Government and understand that the President of the United States, no matter who he or she is, CANNOT spend money or levy taxes, only the US Congress can do that, originating in the House of Representatives.

Further, in 2014 there will be ads filling the airwaves with John Boehner say he got “98% of what [he] wanted (with the sequester) and I’m happy”.

In addition, now Power Point slides have surfaced proving the sequester was a GOP idea.

You guys need to man up and admit that you lost the election, and this latest mess belongs foursquare to the GOP and a majority of Americans know it.

Suck it up ‘baggers. You screwed up the country, keep it up and someone is liable to get out the tar and feathers…

Feb 21, 2013 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Speaker2

So what about the issues or the article stupid. Smear, fear, deflect, cover up. You have learned well. Bigot.

Feb 21, 2013 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama: We MUST avoid these draconian cuts that my administration came up with.

Top Republicans: We agree and we are more than willing to replace these indiscriminate cuts with specific, pragmatic ones.

Obama: This problem requires a balanced approach like the Senate plan to replace half of these cuts with tax increases.

Top Republicans: You just raised taxes less than 7 weeks ago; NO we will not replace cuts with more tax increases

Case closed….

Feb 21, 2013 4:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@speaker2…

I have a “dome” question for you:

Has it occurred to you yet that Obama is a lame duck and will not succeed in raising taxes, in any form, for the remainder of his term?

Feb 21, 2013 4:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@bbsnews…

And for all you folks who are lying to yourselves, and refusing to acknowledge that this is President Obama’s sequester, Jay Carney disagrees:

JAY CARNEY: “What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president’s team.”

Feb 21, 2013 4:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@bbsnews said: “You guys need to man up and admit that you lost the election, and this latest mess belongs foursquare to the GOP and a majority of Americans know it.

Suck it up ‘baggers. You screwed up the country, keep it up and someone is liable to get out the tar and feathers…”

And you need to man up and realize Obama is as lame a duck as you’ll ever find. You might as well grab the tar and feathers because you won’t get anything else accomplished for the next four years – why? Because America voted the GOP to control the House in 2010 and maintained that majority in 2012.

Feb 21, 2013 4:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

moonhill, why did you even bother to post all those lies? Everything you wrote is a complete fabrication – a pack of lies.

A few minutes on Google and anyone can find out they are all lies. So why did you even bother? Did you think you could fool people who can read and understand factual information?

It is simply amazing how many posts look just like yours. Hatred and racism is dumbing down this country. And comments like yours are simply ignorant. The question is why?

Why would you make yourself look so dumb?

Feb 21, 2013 4:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

OK..so no one likes the sequester. What’s the alternate plan? The sequester didn’t just suddenly sneak up on us. Everyone has had over a year to think about this. We’ve heard Rubio talk about smart cuts. Ok so please detail for us what constitutes smart cuts. Obama hasn’t put forth a specific alternate plan. The Republicans in the House haven’t put forth a specific alternate plan and the Democrats in the Senate haven’t put forth a specific alternate plan. Everyone is holding a press conference blaming the other side for the sequester but no one is offering up an alternate plan. And this is effective? Political posturing is all that it is. Everybody sit down and lay out a specific (smart, responsible, whatever you want to call it) plan. What department, programs etc. will be effected and exactly (in dollars) how much the cuts will be for each. Perhaps then the American people could decide which plan they like. Because right now all you have is a bunch of trash talking politicians that aren’t doing the job they are paid to do. How hard can it be? You far right commenters here who want to blame Obama. Ok, what’s your sides plan. Those that want to blame the Republicans. OK, so what’s your sides plan. Not some general philosophical platform but an ACTUAL plan. Exactly what would get cut and by how much?

Feb 21, 2013 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

jham, all you have done here is shown you do not know what a “lame duck” is…

The Republicans did manage to hold onto the House through gerrymandering, in other words cheating. The House did nose seats however, and no manner of gerrymandering will help them in 2014 if they continue to thwart Presdient Obama;s policies that got him handily reelected.

So tell yourself whatever you want to to help you sleep at night, but even Karl Rove says you are wrong. And what does the ‘bagger party do?

They sent out a fundraising ad depicting Rove as a Nazi.

Your denial of factual reality is indeed a head shaker…

Feb 21, 2013 4:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Here’s the simple truth (without taking sides with any one). Since Obama has been in office there have been three separate bi-partisan committees that have tried to compromise on a spending cut plan. All failed. The current sequester was part of the last one. The “Super Committee”. Congress and the White House both agreed to include to force the sides to compromise on a set of spending cuts. Well here we are with the sequester about to take place because the two parties can’t seem to agree on much of anything. Bowles-Simpson is the ONLY specific plan put forth so far. It went before a vote in the House in March 2012. Of the 435 members of the House…26 voted for it. In 2010 Boehner and Obama had a handshake deal on $4.4T in tax increases and spending cuts. The Tea Party Republicans and the bi-partisan gang of 6 shot it down. Any one who votes to re-elect any of these politicians back into office during the next election cycle. You are not only an idiot….but take a good long look in the mirror. Because YOU are the problem. So all you hard core Republicans blaming Obama..please explain what your party is putting forth to responsibly address the spending problem. About the only specifics I heard from your side during the presidential election was increase Defense spending and more tax cuts for the richest in this c country. And that solves our debt and deficit problem how? For those of you blaming the Republicans, all I’ve heard from the White House is more taxes increases to fund more Stimulus spending. And this solves our debt and deficit problem how? Both sides are equally to blame. If either of them were ACTUALLY serious about spending cuts..they’d have a specific plan.

Feb 21, 2013 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

xyz, again, why would you this time, lie? Anyone who can hear or read knows exactly what the alternative plan is. Anyone who can hear or read and has a basic sixth grade education can understand that the majority of economists agree with President Obama that there needs to be a balanced approach.

That means more revenue through the elimination of Corporate Welfare and tax breaks for the rich who move jobs and their money offshore like Mitt Romney.

And cuts in programs and services that do not work.

The problems that the Republicans created cannot be solved by trying to soak the middle class even more. We are tried of paying for it.

Social Security does not even affect the national debt, however it could be fixed at a stroke by simply raising the cap, which is currently set at $106,800 – and move it up to $250,000. Then SS will be fully solvent for the next seventy-five years. See sanders.senate.gov for more info.

For President Obama’s plan, see whitehouse.gov

See what already has been cut by the Obama administration there. You will not learn these facts from Faux News.

The GOP has offered nothing but cuts that will affect those who can simply not afford any more cuts.

This is why President Obama and his policies got him handily elected for a second term. In the latest Pew poll, three-quarters of Americans favor the balanced approach as put forth by President Obama, and only about one in five support the ‘bagger led GOP’s cuts only plan.

In the face of all these stories and Pew’s recently released poll results, I’m still trying to figure out how you can claim that there is no plan?

Clearly there is, and clearly by a huge margin Americans back President Obama on his plan because the numbers prove it.

Feb 21, 2013 5:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

We are being told that 800,000 people who work for the Pentagon will be furloughed if sequestration takes place. How many people work the the Pentagon anyway? We are also being told we won’t have enough air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, first responders, teachers, and the list goes on. Sounds like a lot of fear mongering to me.

Feb 21, 2013 5:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SchWI wrote:

Democrats: Yes it’s our idea, but it was so dumb we didn’t think it would happen, so were not responsible.

Republicans: We agreed to the terms and voted it into law, but it wasn’t our idea to start with, so were not reponsible.

Flip a coin?

Feb 21, 2013 5:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gdturner wrote:

Obmma is a Europeon style “Government is smarter than YOU” politician.
The sooner he is replaced the better off free people will be.

Feb 21, 2013 5:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

My apologies xyz, your second comment shows that you are indeed looking up facts and trying to find solutions. Good on you.

Feb 21, 2013 5:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

bbsnews-Please tell me what Obama wants to cut for his “balanced approach’.

Feb 21, 2013 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

bbsnews..you Sir just earned my respect! Thank you.

moonhill…while your posts are about as partisan as they get, I agree with you on the fear mongering. But before you take bbsnews to task on what Obama’s plan is. What’s the Republican plan. Have you ever heard of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013. Because THAT really is the Republicans plan. The House passed it as their Budget proposal for 2013. Defend that document where Paul Ryan makes the absolutely retarded case that we just aren’t spending enough on Defense based on a percentage of GDP. The Republicans are not serious about cutting spending any more than the Democrats are. Last time they had total control they went on the wildest drunken sailor spending spree of all time (see 2000-2006). Would you like for me to post the “NEW” spending bills they passed in those years or provide a link to the comment made by Vice President Dick Cheney saying deficits don’t matter?

Feb 21, 2013 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tazman7 wrote:

A radio interview with Al Sharpton?!!! This is a direct reflection of the poor judgement of our Commander In Chief. Abandon all hope,ye how enter here.

Feb 21, 2013 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pilgrimson wrote:

The $85 billion is just 2.4% of the budget, and they can’t find any savings. It is also one twelfth of the annual deficit, and they can’t find the savings. What about next year and the year after, in perpetuity? The notorious “can” has been kicked down the road for over a decade, and this apparently is America’s collective will. The implication is that we don’t have to pay for it, ever, just borrow. But I wonder if it really works that way (no, I don’t).

Feb 21, 2013 6:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smokeys wrote:

Hard to strike a deal when today is the first time you call the players involved since December 28th. In the mean time there was time for a 30 city whistle stop tour, umpteen talk shows and a few rounds of golf with Tiger. Now I know where the real priorities are.

Feb 21, 2013 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cilly wrote:

So….Congress goes on vacation in a crisis. No surprise there. They have been on vacation for four years.

Feb 21, 2013 6:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hancle wrote:

One might think that this whole sequester thing was Barack’s idea, but he would no doubt point out that it really is George W. Bush’s fault and the rich who are not p[aying their fair share.

Feb 21, 2013 7:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Patrick654654 wrote:

He made the comments to Al Sharpton? Seriously. I cannot believe we live in a world where the President of the United States is being interviewed by AL SHARPTON. And then the interview is quoted by Reuters? This is like a joke. If you told anyone ten years ago that we would be treating Al Sharpton like he were a “journalist” you would have been laughed out of the room. Al Sharpton. Holy crap.

Feb 21, 2013 7:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mtj wrote:

The President got the debt ceiling rasied and the sequestration was the penalty, if a deal on spending cuts was not reached. No deal, so we have the sequestration.
The President owns it and all I read is that he wants more tax increases.
No sir, enough is enough.
A trillion a year of overspending each and every year in office.
This man has no shame and is completely self deluded.

Feb 21, 2013 7:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MasonC wrote:

Lets see. The sequester was Obama’s idea and now he hates it and blames republicans for it when it was his doing. Obama refuses to act like a man and accept his own actions.

These so called spending cuts are not cuts at all. The sequester only lowers the amount of increased spending over the next 10 years. The debt will increase 6 trillion instead of 8. We need real spending cuts. Obama promised spending cuts for the tax hikes and he hasn’t suggested any. He wants more taxes again and refuses to cut spending. Washington doesn’t have a income problem it only has a spending problem.

Feb 21, 2013 7:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

mtj..do you ever ACTUALLY research any of this? Or are you just parroting what someone else said? Do you actually know anything (Constitution) about our form of government at all? Your comment says “NO” to all three of those questions. Spending bills are first passed by Congress BEFORE the President can either sign them into law or veto them….so..list the spending bills that Obama has signed into law creating a $1T annual deficit. As part of the upper middle class I pay more than the lower 47% (who pays zero federal taxes) and more (as a percent of my income) than Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett, Apple, GE and Exxon/Mobile who all make a LOT more money than I do..and you don’t see a problem here? Congress writes the laws and Constitutionally they are responsible for the Budget. Don’t you think it naturally (and actually Constitutionally) falls on Congress to raise revenue to pay for the spending bills they create and pass rather than borrowing the money from China? There are 535 members of Congress, but just 1 President. Take just a simply wild guess who our founding fathers gave ALL the real power to. Hint (it ain’t the President).

Feb 21, 2013 7:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

pilgrimson..it’s absolutely laughable isn’t it. How about they cut back on office supplies, sending their employees to expensive seminars, scrape the planned remodeling for the building, manage their overtime, etc. etc. etc….how about managing your departments over all costs. If you can’t find 2.4% in savings…we don’t need you.

Feb 21, 2013 7:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

MasonC…Congress who wrote and passed the legislation creating the “sequester” thanks you for letting them off the hook.

Feb 21, 2013 8:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaveEddleman wrote:

I cannot believe the mentalities here. I had a better grasp of Finance, International finance, and Inflation/Devaluation Cause and Effect when I was 10 years old than half of the people on here. By 11, I had figured out that a sow’s ear wasn’t a silk purse and stopped buying into them, unlike at least a third of the people here.

To put things to rest, here are the reasons and the culprits, VERIFYABLE, who are to blame for our economic Condition.

1. Housing Bubble Meltdown, of which the Mortgage Derivatives (High Risk, undersecured Loans guaranteed by the US through Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae) caused the Financial Meltdown. Total cost to the country in Buy-outs, Bail-outs, lost real estate values, lost savings, stocks, investments = $18 TRILLION Dollars and still counting.

By order of fault :

1st – President Bill Clinton – Slick Willy’s words. The only honest ones I’ve ever heard fall from his lips, in Slick Willy’s doubletalk.

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

(Which he later recanted when the liberal press wouldn’t air them and people were too busy scrambling for their financial lives during the meltdown to listen to him.) He basically said later. Oops, I really didn’t mean that. It’s really what that guy says. It’s all Bush’s fault. (WOW, that works every time with these idiots. People weren’t that stupid in the 1990′s)

2nd – Barney Frank (D-MA)- ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. He didn’t do it only for money. His “Spouse”, Herb

Feb 21, 2013 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
REBELLIOUS12 wrote:

The one thing that everyone tends to forget that for the first two years of Obama’s presidency, he had a DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS. Did he work with Congress on the economy or jobs? NO!! What he gave us was OBAMACARE. The point is if it doesn’t fit his whims or fancies, Obama doesn’t care.

Feb 21, 2013 11:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

It’s always amusing when someone shows and announces how much smarter he is than everyone else then marginalizes an issue and places blame on the entire mess on two Democrats. Three names: Phil Gramm (R), Jim Leach (R) and Thomas Bliley (R). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. While Clinton approved and signed into law, it was Republicans who initialed this act which effectively repealed Glass-Steagall allowing banks to take greater risks in investing their money. No one passed a law ordering lenders like Countrywide to virtually openly give loans to people that couldn’t possibly afford them. Fannie and Freddie were hardly the sole culprits in the crazy world of collateralized subprime mortgages. No one passed a law making the S&P give all of those risky instruments triple A ratings. Some of the more famous events that created the largest financial collapse in U.S. History.

1. AIG – A company founded in China that moved their office to New York when the regime in China made it unfavorable for them. The vast majority of AIG’s operations were overseas. In fact, it was their London based Financial Products unit that is has been identified as the epicenter of the financial collapse. They, along with U.S. Banks dabbled heavily in CDSs. When those CDSs imploded it bankrupted AIG. Not an American Company so why should we care. Except for one little problem..they owed very politically connected Goldman Sachs billions of dollars. If they went under, GS was out the money. On a Friday Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson (GW’s Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of GS) got together regarding the collapse of AIG. By Sunday it was a done deal. Largest bailout of TARP funded bailout’s. Of the TARP money that went to AIG, billions went out their back door to GS.

2. Hedge Fund Manager John Paulson, Goldman Sachs and Abacus. Abacus was a subprime mortgage investment created by GS. John Paulson paid GS millions to allow him to hand pick some of the assets that went into Abacus so that he could “short” it. GS marketed this instrument to investors and pension plans in the U.S. a left out the part about the financial arrangement with Paulson or the fact that Paulson was shorting the instrument. When Abacus imploded everyone who had invested in it lost all their money. John Paulson made $1B on that deal. No one went to jail.

Placing all the blame on Bill Clinton and Barney Frank is laughable. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Feb 22, 2013 12:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
jakster1 wrote:

The Republicans on these forums are just so crazy… so DaveEddleman – while the Repubs had control of the White House and congress for 6 years prior to the meltdown, it was Bill Clinton and Barney Frank that had all the power (and caused all the problems)!!! Wow! That’s real analysis for you! I guess that means Paul Ryan and the other Repubs are the cause of the slow recovery (of course, mainly between 2008 – 2010, according to your logic). Seriously!!

And you Repubs believe that it was Obama’s sequester – of course, the Repubs were the only party threatening default, the only party demanding $1 trillion in spending cuts – yet now, the Democrats are the party that wants to cut spending. Seriously, the Repubs haven’t got the guts to own it. At least they clearly see how unpopular their positions are – obviously, it is why they’re running away from them and trying to blame the President for wanting to slash spending!!! Cheesh!! How deluded are these people?

Feb 22, 2013 12:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
DaveEddleman wrote:

xyz2055 wrote:
bbsnews..you Sir just earned my respect! Thank you.

moonhill…while your posts are about as partisan as they get, I agree with you on the fear mongering. But before you take bbsnews to task on what Obama’s plan is. What’s the Republican plan. Have you ever heard of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013. Because THAT really is the Republicans plan. The House passed it as their Budget proposal for 2013. Defend that document where Paul Ryan makes the absolutely retarded case that we just aren’t spending enough on Defense based on a percentage of GDP. The Republicans are not serious about cutting spending any more than the Democrats are. Last time they had total control they went on the wildest drunken sailor spending spree of all time (see 2000-2006). Would you like for me to post the “NEW” spending bills they passed in those years or provide a link to the comment made by Vice President Dick Cheney saying deficits don’t matter?

Here are some other things that were happening in 2000~2006.

Mr. Dodd defended his blocking of strict Fannie Mae regulations to the last moment… even beyond, after it was clear the agency had moved the global economy to the precipice. In July 2008, he stated, “there is no reason for the kind of reaction we are getting. The fundamentals are sound – these institutions are sound, they have adequate capital, they have access to that capital, and this is a reason for people to have confidence in these GSEs, in Fannie and Freddie.” In September 2008, he stated, “if this is merely ideologically driven, as some have suggested, to merely eliminate these programs altogether, forget what they have looked like, then this could be a real problem.”

Bank of America payola and crisis coverup links: In the year-and-a-half after Democrats regained the Senate in January 2006 and Mr. Dodd became committee chairman — covering the period in which his committee wrote the Countrywide takeover rules — Bank of America (BofA) gave Chris Dodd over $70,000…or more than $1,000 per week. Only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton received more BofA money during the election cycle…and they ran for President. Bank of America has long and deep subprime and ACORN ties, partnering with ACORN since 1990 (according to ACORN). In 2008, the US federal government bailed Bank of America out of mortgage-related near insolvency. Later that year, BofA gave ACORN of Chicago $2 million. BofA has been one of ACORN’s largest extra-government funding sources.

Barack Obama (D-IL)
Barack Obama had three strong impacts on the financial crisis, placing him easily in the top 20 people to have caused it.

ACORN: Mr. Obama’s ACORN links go back far and deep. In 1995, when the Clinton Administration was changing the CRA, he was on a team of lawyers representing ACORN in a suite against Illinois’ Republican governor with regard to motor voter provisions. According to Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes in early 2004, “we asked him to help us with” that lawsuit. “Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office…By the time he ran for US Senate, we were old friends.” Mr. Foulkes goes on to detail how ACORN helped Mr. Obama become Senator.

Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) — Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff

When Rahm Emanuel joined the House of Representatives in January 2003, Democrats gave him a seat on the Financial Services Committee, where he served under Barney Frank blocking effective GSE regulation efforts. Democrats also gave Mr. Emanuel a seat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – despite having served as Freddie director during the scandalous accounting. A major initiative at Freddie during Mr. Emanuel’s directorship was campaigning Congress against regulations that would add transparency to the GSE’s financial health or potentially restrict its mortgage lending activities.

Mr. Emanuel was one of the directors President Clinton appointed to Freddie Mac, and he held the position from February 2000 through April 2001, a period in which the company’s accounting violations accelerated significantly. During the entire directorship, he was also a senior executive at investment firm Wasserstien Perella in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune, Freddie’s management told the directors, including Mr. Emanuel, about their aggressive (illegal) accounting procedures — the directors did not investigate or take any action to stop the improprieties. Freddie paid its directors extremely well considering some claims its directors were little involved in providing oversight, a director’s primary role … Mr. Emanuel received at least $320,000 in cash and stock over his 14 months with Freddie, equaling well over $40,000 per board meeting. Mr. Emanuel’s spokeswoman, Sarah Fienberg, explained the compensation by highlighting his deep involvement with Freddie’s mortgage purchase activities. One of Mr. Emanuel’s fellow Freddie directors, Illinois Attorney General Neil Hartigan, stated Emanuel was heavily involved with convincing other board members of Freddie Mac’s potential to become more politically powerful. Clinton appointee, Franklin Raines, spearheaded a similar effort as Fannie Mae CEO.

Feb 22, 2013 12:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Mr.Eddleman…what does my two posts you list have to do with the Financial Collapse? Those posts were about debt and deficits. My point being that neither side is serious about cutting spending. EVERY party in power has added to the debt. There is plenty of blame on both sides as far as the Financial Collapse is concerned. From 2000 to 2006 Republicans had both Houses and the Presidency, yet two Democrats held them all at gun point and forced their will on them? Good luck selling that fantasy.

Feb 22, 2013 1:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
DaveEddleman wrote:

@bbsnews
@xyz2055

It’s still all Bush’s fault huh? The Mortgage Meltdown and consequential Financial Market Meltdown has cost the US economy over $18 Trillion in lost Home Values, Stocks, Investments, Bail-outs, Buy-outs, Governemnt Loans, Lost jobs, and Government gifts. That number is still counting. This would pay off not only the debt, but would also post a net profit for the US. The people who created this and profited from it are the people who destroyed our economy.

Bill Clinton and his Band of Merry Men CREATED the sub-prime market and backed it by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It Imploded. Bush fought Barney Frank, and the rest of the Merry Men Tooth and Nail to reign it in and lost, as did we all.

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008

Both Parties are scoundrels, but if either of you would like to know the truth about our economic crash, Google this :

Housing Bubble, Financial Crisis – What Happened, Who is Responsible.

It’s full of direct quotes by almost all of your favorite people, most ranting that the housing market was stable right up until the day it popped.

You’ll know the names. Almost all are in the White House right now.

The very worst, Barney Frank, who sold out his country and everyone in it for the affections of a boy-toy, is even think of re-entering politics

You guys actually read this and I promise to read anything you would like me to google as well, but if it doesn’t contain direct quotes or verifiable facts, I’ll be forced to balance the words I read in 1 hand and a pile of bat guano

Feb 22, 2013 1:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Eddleman…is your comprehension impaired. I’m holding both sides accountable. Please point to the post where I stated that it’s all Bush’s fault.

Feb 22, 2013 1:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
DaveEddleman wrote:

Bottom line, children.

Republicans were forced to give Obama his tax increases with no spending cuts to avoid the draconian taxes passed by Bill Clinton in 1995 from kicking back in.

Obama forced Republicans to let the SS witholding tax go back up, effectively taxing every working adult in the US making $7.50/hr to $50/hr from $330 per year to $2200 per year respectively.

$85 Billion is a very small start. I’ll gladly forgo the “services” I’ll lose from the Federal Government, and I’ve got a list of $1.1 Trillion dollars more in “Federal Services” I’ll personally be glad to do without as well.

The only tax I think could and should be raised is the Capital Gains/Unearned Income tax. It is income. Tax it at the same rate, but on top of the $85 Billion, give me dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.

I don’t give a tinker’s “D” who thought up the sequester. Both parties agreed and passed it. Sequester or find agreeable spending cuts elsewhere

Feb 22, 2013 1:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
jakster1 wrote:

Well, DaveEddleman… those poor Repubs just could fend off Barney Frank and his dire push to increase home ownership. You do realise that Fannie and Freddy were only minor players in the sub-prime mess that only entered into the game fairly late in the piece (as they were losing market share to more irresponsible companies)? You do also realise that the world did not start at the ‘fiscal cliff’ – in fact, the legislation creating the sequester and other previous deals have in fact resulted in massive spending reductions?

You really are sad – of course, Bush had no part in it – but it was Clinton’s fault!!!! What the? A prosperous economy, long term debt being paid down…. you do realise that if Bush had done nothing and had kept Bill Clinton’s policy settngs, the US would have no long term debt now as well as a strong economy? When will Repubs admit that the Bush tax cuts cost the country big time – they did not lead to a massive expansion in wealth or economic activity… they didn’t even pay for themselves. Once again, Repubs can’t face the facts or understand that their economic approach has proven time and time again to be wrong (look at the UK or really anywhere that has tried austerity).. then look at those countries that did not take that approach (including Australia, Iceland, etc)… there is just no comparison – the data proves it (if only Repubs could get away from ‘faith-based’ economic ideas, devoid of evidence…. so sad.

Feb 22, 2013 2:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@DaveEddleman

Can you show us an actual, real life, example of spending cuts ever helping an economy to grow? Or are are you calling for spending cuts just because Fox News tells you to?

The GOP wants spending cuts only because they want the US economy to collapse again, just like in the EU where their spending cuts have failed. They want that because they hate seeing Obama succeed.

Party before country to the last. The GOP will happily sacrifice their country if they imagine it will help their party.

Feb 22, 2013 3:31am EST  --  Report as abuse

Who cares? Polls show that most Americans are unaware of what sequestration is or what it really means. They likely cannot name the Vice President either or what party he his affiliated with. Government shut downs and furloughs are old hat. We have lived through them before and we will live through them again. Isn’t anyone who comments over the age of 30? Been there, done that, expect it to happen again.

Feb 22, 2013 3:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@bbsnews…I feel pretty confident about 2014…but until then, enjoy that appetizer of foie gras followed by an entree of duck confit.

Feb 22, 2013 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Eddleman…Congress neither works for nor reports to the president. Obama can’t force them to do anything. If he could his American Jobs Act would be in place. The simple truth is that Boehner had his own plan for spending cuts that he couldn’t even get passed in the House back in December. The alternative of not doing a tax increase deal with the Democrats late in December was that ALL of the Bush era tax cuts would have expired on January 1 hurting the middle class way way more than it hurt the 2%. Both sides agreed to extend the deadline for the rest of the dreaded “Fiscal Cliff” to March 1 to the sides more time to reach a deal. Thus far both parties have been long on rhetoric and short on specifics. Clinton had absolutely zero to do with the this. Rewrite history much. Make it up as you go along is closer to the truth.

Feb 22, 2013 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

The sequestration we now face is because the “Super Committee” that was formed to come up with $1.2 trillion of more carefully targeted spending cuts failed to do its one job. A deal was struck between Speaker Boehner and the White House that created the sequester to force the committee and Congress to act responsibly and address the cuts. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the deal, Paul Ryan heralded the sequestration as a victory of bipartisanship and a welcome change in Congress’ culture.

174 House Republicans—including the entire leadership—voted for it; and a majority of Senate Republicans voted for it, including, again, the entire leadership. Obama signed it.

76% polled (from both parties) want a balanced approach of new revenue and spending cuts to address the deficit.

Feb 22, 2013 1:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

bemore2day..finally someone who isn’t drinking the koolaid! Nicely put and accurate.

Feb 22, 2013 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..what? No Chateauneuf du pape to wash it down?

Feb 22, 2013 3:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.