White House brings out Republican Cabinet member to warn on cuts

Comments (52)
Dragos111 wrote:

Time for Obama to present some cuts he wants to make. He got the tax hike he wanted. Now he needs to show some spending cuts that will make for a “balanced approach to deficit reduction”, his words.

Feb 21, 2013 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
altalks21 wrote:

This is what happens when we don’t tax the super rich and large corporations enough.

Feb 21, 2013 7:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rollo2 wrote:

Bring on the “cuts”. When we have a government that doesn’t have a budget and has a built in 7+ percent escalator in expenses each year, the Sequestration is NOT a cut.
The spending will still increase. Obama’s saber rattling and threats are getting real old!

Feb 21, 2013 7:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DannyL wrote:

Somewhere hidden is the truth: But by some accounts it looks as though there are two tax systems and that one of them favors the wealthy. In 2012 Frobes claimed that the top 1% pays 10% of the taxes and that the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes. This kind of agreed with figures from the CBO. If even close: It means that the rest of us pay 30% of the taxes with 1% of the wealth and that means, that only 3% of the wealth is needed to pay all of the taxes, which by default that means that the rich are shielding 97% of all wealth from taxes….. They seem to push the agenda that “big government and overs-pending” are the culprits vs. revenue, but likely revenue is really the top issue…..

Feb 21, 2013 8:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StigTW wrote:

Looks like a very politically correct picking of military in the background…

Feb 21, 2013 8:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wpete wrote:

This is what happens when a President gets political with the American public. Instead of taking the plan that Beohner and Reid worked out last summer, he decided to go to sequester. Why? Because if he took the deal, the Republicans would appear to have “won”, which he did not want just before a Presidential election.

The Fiscal Cliff was avoided at the 11th hour of 2012 when the GOP caved in and gave the President the tax hikes on the rich that he wanted, and kicked the can down the road 90 days. Now he wasn’t more tax hikes? Of course. That’s how a liberal mind works. There’s not enough money in the world that would satisfy his spending habit. If he could, he would tax the rich 100%. But that still wouldn’t be enough. What’s he gonna do when the rich all act like Al Gore and sell their businesses to overseas companies, and then move away?

Now, he’s betting that Americans have short memories and have all forgotten that the sequester was all his idea.

Feb 21, 2013 8:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

This is ALL WRONG. The Democrats and the Republicans of Congress need to get together and FORCE the Executive branch to follow what they ORDER him to do or fire him. That is our Constitution Law and until it is so followed nothing of substance will be achieved. Except perhaps a Civil War and this one will not bode so well for the White House as the last one. Time to WAKE UP.

Feb 21, 2013 8:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BillAmerican wrote:

Saber rattling, that’s good. The president had to rattle something. The House was out of town. Rollo and Stig, if you or I left our posts this this hanging fire, we wouldn’t even have a job. Whatever your view, this is what these guys get paid to do. Sink or swim, they owe it to the American people to be at there desks working on solutions. This is a congress that can’t even garner a 15% approval rating with the people who voted them into office. If they make a case for cuts, good for them. If they don’t, good for them. But what is happening right now is a dereliction of their duty to uphold the Constitution.

Feb 21, 2013 8:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HemiHead66 wrote:

They could cover these cuts by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse alone. That Pentagon has more waste & fraud than whole countries. But this whole mess was created to keep all of these pork-filled budgets funded.

Now that we’re broke and can’t keep the massive increases in spending funded anymore, we’ll have to create a situation that justifies the theft of Social Security & Medicare – again.

Feb 21, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
elmerfudd908 wrote:

pretty cool yahoo trying to hide and blame another source for their slanted and bias so called news.

Feb 21, 2013 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AMIGuy wrote:

I am tired of hearing this ….”but their immediate effects are unlikely to be severe because they will be phased in gradually over seven months” because businesses stopped investing months ago because off the terrible dysfunction of our politicians. The President and Congress have lost sight of the needs of the Nation.

Both are derelict in their duty to the American Public!

Feb 22, 2013 1:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
redmerlot wrote:

Obama and Reuters can stop using the words “harsh budget cuts”.
$85B on a spending budget of $3.7 trillion (that was 2012′s, I don’t know what it is for 2013) is not “harsh”. It is 2.2%. And as the CBO has pointed out, only half that happens right away, the rest is gradually cut out over the next year.

How many of us have tightened our belts by 2% at home? In fact, if you have not been getting a raise for the past few years, like so many of us haven’t, you have been doing just that, year after year.
Did it bring a reign of terror to your home?

Save it, Obama. Cut the whole stupid budget by 2%. PLEASE. You and Republicans just stop playing politics with what gets cut and who has to bend over in return for what. Just cut everything by 2%.
And next year, do it again, and the year after that. And maybe someday, the Gov’t won’t be spending more than they bleed out of the taxpayers.

Feb 22, 2013 1:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
joelwisch2 wrote:

The Wall Street Journal summed it up perfectly. They said..

“It’s the old play to stir public support for ..all.. government spending by shutting down vital services first.”

I see very serious people trying to talk to him, and he persists in making it a game with his exaggerations. Further, I have already seen spending processes that should never have existed. The Federal Government is using money from smaller areas to fund essential services in the larger communities. And, as the old saying goes.. send five dollars to Washington, and only one of those dollars gets out alive. We don’t need what the Federal Government is trying to do to us.

Feb 22, 2013 3:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
joelwisch2 wrote:

The Wall Street Journal summed it up perfectly. They said..

“It’s the old play to stir public support for ..all.. government spending by shutting down vital services first.”

I see very serious people trying to talk to him, and he persists in making it a game with his exaggerations. Further, I have already seen spending processes that should never have existed. The Federal Government is using money from smaller areas to fund essential services in the larger communities. And, as the old saying goes.. send five dollars to Washington, and only one of those dollars gets out alive. We don’t need what the Federal Government is trying to do to us.

Feb 22, 2013 3:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Yes! Do as the GOP minority demand – cut spending! That approach has worked so well in Europe. Just look how strong their economic growth is. The USA would be much better off with a roaring 0.2% growth than the measly 2% they have now.

GOP fantasy economics makes me laugh….

Feb 22, 2013 3:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
sandman839 wrote:

What I want to know is why the POTUS is working as a congress man? We have elected officials who are suppose to be doing the budget. All the POTUS is suppose to do is sent congress a list of what and were he wants to spend money. Personally I think the cuts are a good thing. Then let the tax cuts expire. With that and the wars coming to an end the budget will be fine.

Feb 22, 2013 4:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Govt doesnt create jobs, so those 750,000 jobs don’t really exist. I’m sure they were unnecessary. Take meat inspectors for instance. I mean who needs our meat inspected. We can trust the corporations/businesses to do the right thing and not cut corners to make a buck.

Feb 22, 2013 7:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@fromthecentre

If government doesn’t create jobs, why do the right-wing keep accusing Obama of not creating enough jobs?

Feb 22, 2013 7:40am 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.

The House of Representatives has the authority of taxation and can look no where else to shed it’s purpose.

Immediate solution is to flat rate all income above $20K with a federal tax at 35%, couples freely share, no exemptions; revenue is $3.8. Trillion. No Sequestration, what remains is serious look at reducing waste. This approach blends into a Natioanlized Income Tax amendment as follows, eliminating every other tax at Federal, State and Municipality, as well as business and business inheritance.
-
-cut past to your Honorable Representative, Senator and POTUS Obama,
-
Honorable Senator/Representative,
This is a mandate to: Nationalized income tax system that funds Federal, State and Municipalities $8.1 Trillion expenditures. A margin tax at two levels will yield the necessary revenue. %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k to $200K 35% tax rate, above $200K 91% tax rate. Couples freely share, all income bundled and taxed in summation form, no exemptions. Remember the 1960 top rate was 91.5% at $400k, this effective rate is 66.6% at $500k, 31.5% at $200k; less than the 2011 single standard at under $200K. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply. This change would require a constitutional amendment.

Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]
-

Feb 22, 2013 8:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@abulafish said: “Yes! Do as the GOP minority demand – cut spending! That approach has worked so well in Europe. Just look how strong their economic growth is. The USA would be much better off with a roaring 0.2% growth than the measly 2% they have now.”

Europe is also raising their already high tax rates, they have very high labor market frictions, regulations and have pursued decades of spending beyond their means…that is the type of economy you and the Democrats wish to effect here in America.

Their being forced to finally cut spending at all is because their social initiatives and high taxes have made them uncompetitive for business investment and thus their economies are weak. When the crisis hit it exposed these transgressions for what they were and now market forces are forcing them to cut spending, even though it will hurt productivity in the short term.

You just keep chuckling about the GOP wanting to follow the path of Europe and maybe one day the irony of that statement will dawn upon you.

The GOP want to avoid being like Europe at all costs, that is why they want to get our fiscal house in order, reduce taxes, reduce burdensome regulations, foster a robust private sector, reform entitlements and the like before the market smells insolvency here in America, a sit has in the Euro block.

@abulafish said: “If government doesn’t create jobs, why do the right-wing keep accusing Obama of not creating enough jobs?”
Government can create jobs in the short term, but they can’t sustain them in the long term (See: $700B+ in unfunded federal employee pensions liabilities) without a robust private sector to afford them the revenues to meet the lofty promises they’ve made to current employees.

We accuse Obama of doing a poor job because the unemployment rate is higher today than it was when he first took office four years ago. That’s after his fiscal stimulus, mind you, and after tacking on a plethora of inefficient regulations that cause frictions in the private economy.

If you look at the most recent Q4 2012 negative GDP numbers, the private sector number was actually positive. I’d love to see government portion of that number continue to decrease and the private sector number to account for a larger portion of it. When government public sector outpaces private sector growth over the long term, you end up like Europe.

Feb 22, 2013 9:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

The GOP has already said they are happy to discuss an equal amount of spending cuts to be effected in a more selective and pragmatic manner.

That the Senate Democrats then tried to pass a bill to replace half of these cuts with tax increases is a clear indication that no alternative will be agreed upon and that these cuts will take effect March 1st.

The sequester was the Obama admin’s idea and they simply made a political miscalculation in assuming that the GOP would NEVER allow such cuts upon defense spending. Obama assumed that Republicans would scramble to avoid defense cuts which would allow him another opportunity to impose tax increases.

Well, they absolutely miscalculated because the GOP knows that although the sequester is a bad idea, it has been demonstrated that it is clearly the only way to EVER get Democrats to cut spending…thus, we’ll take what we can get….

Feb 22, 2013 9:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
NCMAN64 wrote:

We have watched the last four years as this president has made bad decisions time after time in both fiscal and social issues because he has surrounded himself with people as incompetent as he has shown to be. It didn’t have to be this way either, as there was far more competent people who could have been president and who would not have put America in peril as Obama has. Obama signed the sequester bill as a political tool, and finds himself caught in a catch-22 situation now with an economy that is failing. A competent president would have some type of budget but not Obama, and all he had to do is CUT SPENDING. Now we have to wait another four years for a competent president to save America, but can we afford the wait?

Feb 22, 2013 10:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Last time I checked Obama wants a combination of spending cuts balanced with some tax increases. What’s wrong with that?

After all we had excessive tax cuts that did not grow the economy as projected and two unfunded wars for the past decade.

Spending and tax cuts do not grow the economy.

Feb 22, 2013 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

Let’s lock all these self centered politicians up in Guantanamo Bay. For each wasted week, they get waterboarded. Bet we get a deal we all can live with.

Feb 22, 2013 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@speaker2 said: “After all we had excessive tax cuts that did not grow the economy”

Are you talking about those same tax cuts that Obama extended in 2010 and made 99.3% of permanent in 2012? Go figure…

@speaker2 said: “Last time I checked Obama wants a combination of spending cuts balanced with some tax increases. What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that is he just got his tax increases less than 7 weeks ago (with no spending cuts), and now he want sot renege on the spending cuts.

@speaker2 said: ” tax cuts do not grow the economy”

Whereas tax hikes do grow the economy?

Feb 22, 2013 10:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Eliminating the elite tax exemptions spending of ‘fiscal cliff resolution’ will balance the federal budget, pays for health, and social security. This will elimonate all other federal taxes to include business tax which is simply passed on to the consumer(s)
-
Honorable Senator/Representative,
Stop Sequestration.
This is a mandate for a Federal income tax system that funds Federal, Health (Obama-Care and Medicare) and Social security. One Margin level will yield the necessary revenue: %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k upwards 35% flat rate, income bundled and taxed in summation form, couples freely share, no business tax and no exemptions. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply.

Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]
-

Feb 22, 2013 11:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
hancle wrote:

Are they really talking/negotiating, or is The President lecturing, laying out instructions for all to follow or, will he go on TV to further cast blame. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t recall sequestor until Obama hatched it.

Feb 22, 2013 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lemonfemale wrote:

Obama is too arrogant to negotiate. Somewhere in there he is going to try his “No. I get that one for free.” (which he said when the Republicans agreed to tax increases and asked for spending cuts in return). When he does, the Republicans should silently get up and leave. We do not need to stave off spending cuts(!!). Spending is how we got here. Obama agreed to the sequester. Let him negotiate this time. And he’s too arrogant to do it.

Feb 22, 2013 4:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bbsnews wrote:

dragos and any other wingnut BEWARE of posting total nonsense because it makes you look ignorant. Anyone actually interested in reality can go to whitehouse.gov and see the cuts, see the massive amount of cuts that have already been made, and read the entire policy and budget that ‘bagger led GOP wingnuts keep lying about. The President presents a budget every year and has, the House ignores it and then poisons the well with a counter like privatizing SS or Medicaid, ideas that no one will ever vote for.

There is a reason the GOP is down to 22%. Americans are no longer buying the lies. That’s also why Faux News is hemorrhaging viewers.

Most Americans are simply not buying the BS anymore.

Feb 22, 2013 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
erlypete wrote:

lemonfemale – Obama too arrogant to negotiate? Whatever happened to “The buck stops here” a la’ Harry Truman – who I would believe is one of your great presidential heroes? President Obama is, in case you don’t care to acknowledge, the PRESIDENT! He “negotiates” from the point of power we Americans consider the “toppermost of the poppermost”! If anything, the pitiful GOP leadership should recognize that they are the legislative aspect – they propose and enact – and, at that, only one part of the Legislative aspect! (In any game, 2 out of 3 wins! Right?)…President Obama and the Senate should castigate and banter aspersions constantly about the GOP and it’s House-hold. The GOP is in its death throes and is determined to bring America with it to the grave…

Feb 22, 2013 7:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:

It appears that many, if not most, Republicans feel we should go through with the sequestration – not problem, tiny cuts.

Since Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are exempt, it appears that the rest of the government, including defense, will go through cuts in the 8-10% range. However, since the Fiscal Year is already half over, the cuts are really in the 16-20% range for the balance of the year.

Next week the cuts will begin. It will be interesting to see how Americans like their dramatically smaller government.

Feb 22, 2013 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
burf wrote:

Always fascinating to see people speak of tax hikes. Ummm, there were no tax hikes. Temporary tax cuts were allowed to expire, for all earnings over $450,000, as was the payroll tax holiday. At the same time, the temporary tax cuts for earnings under $450,000 were made permanent.
So, if you prefer to imagine there were tax hikes, using the same logic, those earnings under $450,000 received a tax cut.

Yup, the economy is Obama’s fault., spending as a percentage of the GDP, is at the lowest since the 1950s. Unfortunately, the GOP borrowed money to pay for two unfunded wars, an unfunded medicare part d, & the unfunded Bush Tax Cuts. The national debt has skyrocketed because of this, and the extreme reduction in revenues due to job losses, as the result of the GOP Recession.

Feb 22, 2013 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

Reuters maybe the American public doesn’t care because they are smarter than your reporters and they realize that this “sequester” is a cut to the increase of spending not an actual cut in spending. No matter what spending goes up next year.

Feb 22, 2013 10:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

jaham wrote:
“The GOP want to avoid being like Europe at all costs”

Right. That totally explains why they want to copy precisely the austerity measures that have failed across Europe. What you are saying is that you and the other GOP geniuses are expecting to repeat Europe’s actions while expecting a different results. Do I need to explain what that says about the GOP?

jaham wrote:
“Europe is also raising their already high tax rates”

Why do you keep repeating this ignorant Fox News lie when I have already proven it wrong? Do you simply ignore everything that contradicts Fox? Here… try some facts for a change. Try to get away from your faith-based ‘true-because-Fox-said-it’ arguments:

From the European Commission:

“Overall, the average top corporate income tax fell in the EU-27 in the period 2010-2012 by 0.2 pp from 23.7% in 2010 to 23.5% in 2012. In this period only two Member States – France and Portugal – increased the top CIT through surcharges while four countries – Greece, Finland, Netherlands and the United Kingdom cut the top rate.”

From Eurostat:

“The overall tax-to-GDP ratio in the EU27 stood at 38.4% in 2010, unchanged from the year before. After the marked drop in 2009, consolidation measures and a modest recovery of the economy led to a stabilisation of tax revenues in 2010. The overall tax ratio in the euro area
(EA17) fell slightly to 38.9% in 2010, compared with 39.0% in 2009.

This information comes from the 2012 edition of the publication Taxation trends in the European Union issued by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union.”

*Some* EU states might choose to raise taxes. Some choose to lower them. Some US Republicans seem to think that the EU is a country – “Europe is not only cutting spending, they are raising taxes as well”

Those few EU states that are raising taxes are doing so because the previous austerity killed growth and this in turn killed revenue. They have little choice other than to raise taxes.

Yet you want to do this to the USA…

jaham wrote:
“and have pursued decades of spending beyond their means”

Another Fox News lie that you insist on parroting even though it has been proven to be a lie over and over again. Fact: Spain’s debt was 36% of GDP in 2007. Much, much lower than the debt level being run up by your GOP idols.

Now… explain, in detail, how Spain’s 36% of GDP is “decades of spending beyond their means: while the GOP’s 60+% is fiscal prudence.

In reality, EU membership demands an debt level of less than 60% of GDP to qualify, so EU debt levels in general were at historic lows, and lower than you right-wingers were running in the USA.

Notice how reality is the complete opposite of your Fox fantasy? If anyone was spending beyond their means, it was the GOP spending like crazy in the USA. Not Europe.

jaham wrote:
“Government can create jobs in the short term, but they can’t sustain them in the long term”

Nobody (except maybe you…) is expecting them to, so what is your point exactly? You are arguing with yourself again.

jaham wrote:
“We accuse Obama of doing a poor job because the unemployment rate is higher today than it was when he first took office four years ago.”

More Fox News mis-information, and you just can’t stop yourself from believing it without question, can you?

Of course it is higher now than when Obama took office. He took office in the middle of the Republican Recession, when the Republican Recession was killing jobs at a rate of hundreds of thousands a month and unemployment was soaring. Luckily for the USA, Obama did manage to fix that Republican Recession but expecting him to stop it in one day (as you seem to…) is ridiculous.

If you do the sensible thing and look for the peak, which was October 2009 at 10.1% and shortly after Obama returned the USA to economic growth, unemployment levels have been in steady decline for over three years. Of course, you just hate that don’t you? You can’t stand the idea that Obamas policies have reduced unemployment. You hate the idea that he has delivered steady GDP growth with US businesses making record profits.

Instead of being happy with this improvement, you would much rather see the USA fail so you can accuse Obama of failing to fix the mess you lot left. So much so that all you ever do is cry that the sky is falling and the USA is about to collapse. Have you really not noticed how none – none! – of your Glenn Beck doomsday predictions ever happen? You should learn something from that…

Feb 23, 2013 12:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
capryla wrote:

So this Illinois RINO talks about the horror of cutting $1 billion from a $70 billion budget? Seems that if every DOT employee took a 2% overall pay cut, that would save about $1.4 billion. No furlough or layoff.
Why do we let Chicago and Illinois politicians (such well-run, honest economies) try to run the US economy?

Feb 23, 2013 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Globalman wrote:

History teaches us that Presidents who are leaders unite the country and move it forward. Presidents who are not leaders divide, cause dissent, and blame others for lack of progress. You judge.

Feb 23, 2013 8:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Globalman..unite the country and move it forward. Could you possibly be more subjective? If we look at job growth and the economy…then hands down walking away Bill Clinton is the king. 21 million new private sector jobs were created during his tenure and the last 4 years he was in office is the ONLY time we have EVER had a budget surplus. But then again he was impeached by the Republican Congress he had to deal with. Ronald Reagan. 15 million new private sector jobs were created during his tenure and the most significant world event was the tearing down of the wall in East Berlin. But he also doubled the debt and was the 1st president were debt crossed the $1T barrier. No other president over the past 75 years is even in league with these two. But your cliche is subject to much individual interpretation and personal preference. It other words…it’s worthless. My guess would be that it’s in reality a back door smack on Obama.

Feb 23, 2013 11:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
obeone1954 wrote:

I work for a company in the health care field that will be directly affected by the automatic cuts to Medicare. My company has listened for nearly 18 months to the warnings of doom and destruction if sequester takes place. Well, my company spent the last 18 months planning for the cuts rather than complaining about them. Last week we were told by our administrators that they had a plan in place, one they had been implementing for months, and that no one would lose their jobs and that the company would continue on as before with no threat of closure or downsizing. My question is this: Instead of singing a song of glum and doom, with a continued chorus of imminent failure to provide government services, why hasn’t our government agencies spent their time putting together a plan and budgets that would address a cut in funds like my company has? Why hasn’t our government agencies addressed expected decreased in manpower through attrition over the past 12-18 months by not replacing retirees and negotiating extending contracts for military hardware to extend delivery of hardware longer with a decreased outlay of money up front? Seems to me if government would act like a business instead of a perpetual spending machine that sequester would not be the disaster that our politicians are predicting it to be. I say let sequester come and learn to live with it. After all, isn’t this what we have been demanding of European countries like Greece, Italy, Spain and others? What hypocrites we turn out to be, especially our politicians!

Feb 23, 2013 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Just start cutting defense spending in Republican districts. Wack defense contracts in say Dallas and Ft. Worth and I guarantee the Republicans in those districts will roll over…..

Feb 23, 2013 12:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
obeone1954 wrote:

I work for a company in the health care field and we depend on Medicare for 90% of our reimbursement for the health care we provide. My company has been preparing for these cuts (2% across the board) to the last six months or so. At a meeting last week, our administrators informed us that plans had already been placed in motion to prevent us from having to have layoffs or a cut in services we provide for our patients (this comes on the heels of 7% cuts we have had over the past several years). If our company can make contingency plans to survive these new cuts without a reduction in services and personnel, why hasn’t government agencies made the same types of plans? Why haven’t they cut personnel cost through attrition by not replacing retires or others who have left their jobs, rather than continue to hiring people in the face of budget cuts only to cry how bad it will be for people to lose their jobs in government? Why hasn’t the military begun to renegotiate contracts for big money items (planes, ships and other systems) by lengthening the contracts to deliver this items over a longer period of time, thereby reducing cost up front and over the next few years? Why hasn’t the military cut back on expensive meetings (parties and trips) for military brass? Why hasn’t the executive branch cut back on presidential trips (vacations and fund raising trips as well as trips to promote agendas that further divide our country)? No our government lives from crisis to crisis and if they create enough fear they get their higher taxes and spending. Let sequestration come. After all, isn’t this the same thing we have demanded of European countries life Greece, Spain and Italy? What hypocrites we are to cheer on tough budget cuts for other countries, but refuse to accept the same thing here. It is time that Americans and our politician take the bitter medicine we have to take to bring this country and it’s deficits and spending back under control.

Feb 23, 2013 1:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Speaker2

“Just start cutting defense spending in Republican districts. Wack defense contracts in say Dallas and Ft. Worth and I guarantee the Republicans in those districts will roll over…..”

Most of the people on the government teat vote Democrat. Republicans who take care of themselves and their own families wont be hurting.

Feb 23, 2013 5:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@xyz2055

Sadly, if we cut all of the new government programs created by Bush and Obama, and went to Clinton levels of spending and taxes, Democrats and Republicans would be screaming how the world is going to collapse. We are what 14 years removed from one of the best economies of our lifetime. Since then the government has expanded drastically, and the economy has suffered. Republicans and Democrats don’t get it. Neither party deserves another vote.

Feb 23, 2013 5:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@burf

“Yup, the economy is Obama’s fault., spending as a percentage of the GDP, is at the lowest since the 1950s. Unfortunately, the GOP borrowed money to pay for two unfunded wars, an unfunded medicare part d, & the unfunded Bush Tax Cuts. The national debt has skyrocketed because of this, and the extreme reduction in revenues due to job losses, as the result of the GOP Recession.”

You are wrong.

jerked above 24 percent as a result of World War I and then declined in the 1920s to 3 to 4 percent by 1929. Federal spending started to increase after the Crash of 1929, and rose above 10 percent in the depths of the Great Depression.

Federal spending exploded during World War II to nearly 48 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 15 percent in the late 1940s.

In the Korean War of the early 1950s federal spending increased to over 20 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 17 to 18 percent by the end of the 1950s. In the 1960s federal spending began a slow increase to about 22 percent of GDP in the early 1980s, and then declined modestly to about 18 percent by 2000.

In the 2000s federal spending increased modestly to about 20 percent of GDP before exploding to 24 to 25 percent in the Crash of 2008.

Feb 23, 2013 5:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TheNewWorld..what new government created by Obama? Other than the Affordable Care Act about the only thing created under Obama (Congressional bills) has been renaming federal buildings. The difference between Clinton and Obama is entirely in the circumstances. Both had a gridlocked Congress. Obama inherited the problems of the largest financial collapse in our history. Millions of jobs lost. Those 21 million new private sector jobs (largest peace time expansion of all time) during the Clinton administration created budget surpluses. Those jobs made gridlock work under Clinton. Obama inheriting $1T + annuals deficits..Not so much. Spending under Bush made government bigger. Obama spending has been mostly stimulus. In 2002 under Bush and a Republican Congress they created the Department of Homeland Security. Current budget of more than $60B and 240,000 employees. Name the creation of any new government programs since Obama took office that comes anywhere close to that.

Feb 23, 2013 7:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

President Obama is the one who insisted on the sequester, and then refused to cut anything. He is driving this nation to bankruptcy. It would have been far better if meaningful cuts could have been made, but the president would have none of it. Never the less, we’re still talking a 2.3% reduction in this years budget, a fraction of what most families have cut in the past few years.

Feb 23, 2013 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

actnow..Congress wrote and passed the legislation creating the sequester and then sent the bill to Obama to sign. Obama can insist on whatever he wants..Congress is under no obligation to take on the presidents agenda. If they were, Obama’s American Jobs Act (stalled in the House) would be law. Under the sequester on January 1, 2013 the 2001 Bush era tax cuts would have expired. Boehner had his own spending bill that he couldn’t get Republican’s in the House to agree on. Both parties agreed to the tax bill and to push the spending cuts to 1 March 2013 to give both sides time to negotiate a compromise.

Feb 23, 2013 9:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Well said Dragos111. I’m a libertarian and I would blame the white house and Dem party. What the Rep. party offer might be hard for a lot of people to swallow and it mostly sucks but your suppose to offer a rebuttal.

Feb 23, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Well said Dragos111. I’m a libertarian and I would blame the white house and Dem party. What the Rep. party offer might be hard for a lot of people to swallow and it mostly sucks but your suppose to offer a rebuttal.

Feb 23, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Well said Dragos111. I’m a libertarian and I would blame the white house and Dem party. What the Rep. party offer might be hard for a lot of people to swallow and it mostly sucks but your suppose to offer a rebuttal.

Feb 23, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Thenewworld,

You must live in a different reality. Most defense vendors tend to be Republican. Those companies of course cover the bases with both parties. Has nothing to about right or left, just keeping gov. Contracts.

The idea that most republican take care f themselves without the help of the government is funny…..

Feb 24, 2013 12:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikefromaz wrote:

If this whole sequester think was a public vote by the tax payers it would die like a fish out of water. The only control the republicans have left is their ability to influence from within Congress. They have no meaningful public support and they know it. I believe they will do anything and everything they can to discredit and impede the Obama administration, and care nothing at all about the American public.

Feb 24, 2013 8:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055: According to Jay Carney: “and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president’s team.” So, it was:

1) Conjured up by Obama’s team (Democrat)

2) Passed by the House (Republican)

3) Passed by the Senate (Democrat)

4) Signed by the President (Democrat)

Feb 25, 2013 10:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.