Pres Obama Using Sequestration For Political Gain

[vulgar_newcomer]

He has NO INTEREST in curbing spending or reducing the deficit.

Oh look Chance has posted something that's incorrect, wrong, a lie. Imagine that!
Don't feel bad because not many get the question right. Then there are people like you who really don't know but toot your gossip horn leading to more incorrect information moving further.
Obama has not spiraled or ballooned the deficit. It has fallen every yr since 2009, not stayed the same but is decreasing.
This message is smothered by "The Big lie" thug machine and a lack luster low information populous who can't do a little research because they will miss 5 minutes of the walking dead.











http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2df_story.html

[Kulindahr]

None of them were interested in compromise. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that another increase in taxes needed to be a part of the sequestration negotiations. If they were actually interested in compromising, none of that would have ever been on the table.

If that's so, there's absolutely no reason that spending cuts should have been a part of the sequestration negotiations.

For that matter, there would be no reason that congresscritters should have been part of the sequestration negotiations.

[Kulindahr]

There was not ever a compromise on the table. We've already had the biggest tax increase in American history, and it was a deal that was forged specifically to avoid the inclusion of any taxes in sequestration. Any offer that included it was DOA, which the president has known for several months.

The biggest tax increase in American history was the Revenue Act of 1951, passed because the previous largest tax increase in American history, the Revenue Act of 1950, didn't garner enough revenue.

[Kulindahr]

The President won't get his way on more new taxes IMO. I think the republicans are willing to let the government shut down then agree to anymore new taxes. I think Obama will most likely falter first before both parties come to the table. Even then, nothing real good is going to happen.

I really want to like Obama more, but I don't see him handling this budget situation very well sadly.

He really ought to walk into the next negotiating session with members of Congress flipping a $1tn coin in the air.

[chance1]

Last I looked - our national debt is $17T - when The President took office it was $11T

my simple math (more of an english guy as u know) that's $6T ADDED

GWB took a full 8 years to add $5T

beautiful day in NYC

[vulgar_newcomer]

someone's cotton pickin' hands is going to have to touch them eventually, they're not sustainable without reform.

and yes, they're entitlement programs and are broadly referred to as such by just about everyone.



I'd think that basic demographics and falling birthrates ensure the insolvency of Social Security without reform/change, but the sequestor's only about a small fraction of non-entitlement spending, which is why I'm rolling my eyes when the GOP talks about this like it's key to solving our fiscal future.



but, er... back on topic.

Hmm I always thought it was called social security insurance, and this covers Medicare. Medicaid is not a social security insurance program.
So if everyone is calling social security insurance a entitlement I would assume that everyone calls State Farm auto insurance or United Healthcare medical insurance a entitlement too?


You are not entitled to Social Security if you and your employer didn't pay into it. The exclusions would be if a legal guardian, or legally married spouse is the beneficiary to a payee who has died.
No matter what you think you are not currently entitled to Medicare if you didn't pay into the system. Medicaid may assist in payments but Medicaid is a welfare program or a entitlement for US citizens.

Do not confuse Social security with SS supplemental which is a welfare program.

Yes there are people working in the USA who don't or didn't pay into Social Security such as civil service employees that are still in the work force, though they do pay medicare portion since 1984.

While you have some valid points about reform or problems with the current system. As usual with your post only mention "the big lie" thug party POV, but fail to bring up that stagnant wages or more to the point declining wages also mean less taxable income. A welder making $18.50 a hr in 1995 is lucky to find a job for $12.75 a hr in 2013 in my region.
A construction concrete carpenter making $21.00 hr with OT in 2000 is lucky to be driving a school bus part time for $10.00 a hr in Las Vegas in 2013.
Pretty much you could use any income for numerous jobs and they are not paying what they used to for the masses. A $8.25 hr wage working 25 hrs a wk at wal-mart for 5 yrs isn't increasing the revenue to the system. You walk in the door at 8 bills a hr and 10 yrs later you are about where you started in 2013.

[Rolyo85]

Last I looked - our national debt is $17T - when The President took office it was $11T

my simple math (more of an english guy as u know) that's $6T ADDED

GWB took a full 8 years to add $5T

beautiful day in NYC

u no, meyb not such en english guy after all...

I have a new concept for you. I like to call it economic process. It's that weird thing where something that has been started at point A, still exists and works through points B and C. The Obama administration is STILL dealing with the evisceration of the economy Bush did. With the Stalin Congress preventing any action, I would say "ONLY 6T? Phew". Of course, you see every situation in pure vacuum, completely divorced from anything that may have led to it. That's how the world works after all - nothing follows from anything else, it just happens spontaneously, it's all in the now.

Oh wait...

[tigerfan482]

Last I looked - our national debt is $17T - when The President took office it was $11T

my simple math (more of an english guy as u know) that's $6T ADDED

GWB took a full 8 years to add $5T

beautiful day in NYC

Since you're really good at math, how much of that $6 trillion that was added was as a result of the previous administration's holdovers? That's how the national debt works you know. You don't just pay a couple billion up front and then are done with it. Policies instituted by one administration can easily carry over 2 or 3 administrations down the road, if not more. It also gets more expensive each year due to inflation. So while it may cost me $15,000 per soldier to fight a war one year, it will costs me $20,000 in 3 years to pay for that same soldier to be in theater.

[Rolyo85]

Since you're really good at math, how much of that $6 trillion that was added was as a result of the previous administration's holdovers? That's how the national debt works you know. You don't just pay a couple billion up front and then are done with it. Policies instituted by one administration can easily carry over 2 or 3 administrations down the road, if not more. It also gets more expensive each year due to inflation. So while it may cost me $15,000 per soldier to fight a war one year, it will costs me $20,000 in 3 years to pay for that same soldier to be in theater.

No, no, no, that's just Obama apologetic! In truth, NOTHING that's ever happened before his administration counts. It's been four whole years (imagine Manila Luzon voice), so clearly we should've had a clean slate by now, the Stalin Congress notwithstanding.

[tigerfan482]

no, no, no, that's just obama apologetic! In truth, nothing that's ever happened before his administration counts. It's been four whole years (imagine manila luzon voice), so clearly we should've had a clean slate by now, the stalin congress notwithstanding.

bandwagoner!!!!

[GiancarloC]

Um dude, the Presdient has submitted his budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The link to read it is right here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Thanks. I should have posted that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/budget.pdf - The actual PDF of the budget submitted. Interesting, but it's still mostly up to Congress to come up with the actual budget.

And thanks for that special note, Jack. I'm sure I know how the government operates quite well because of my educational background in that field.

[GiancarloC]

No, no, no, that's just Obama apologetic! In truth, NOTHING that's ever happened before his administration counts. It's been four whole years (imagine Manila Luzon voice), so clearly we should've had a clean slate by now, the Stalin Congress notwithstanding.

According to some on here, the Bush administration never happened and we are not allowed to talk about the Bush administration. Everything is Obama's fault. EVERYTHING!

Never mind that most of the debt added was because of the two failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... and by Bush's tax cuts... so I would hope some on here would cut the bullshit Obama attacks.

[xbuzzerx]

According to some on here, the Bush administration never happened and we are not allowed to talk about the Bush administration. Everything is Obama's fault. EVERYTHING!

Never mind that most of the debt added was because of the two failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... and by Bush's tax cuts... so I would hope some on here would cut the bullshit Obama attacks.

That's exactly the ruleset. "If you blame anything, however much it IS ACTUALLY TO BLAME, on the Bush Administration, you're just doing apologism for Obama's poor leadership."

Granted, if I were them, I'd want everyone else to pretend like the 8 Bush years didn't happen too, but that doesn't change the fact that we are living with the fallout of his fiscal and war policies to this day, and likely will be for administrations to come.

The fact that Bush did his spending largely off the budget like a credit card and pawned it off as the next President's problem is fact. The fact that Obama is President now doesn't mean that debt is to blame on Democrats, even though that's the history being rewritten here.

[tigerfan482]

The fact that Bush did his spending largely off the budget like a credit card and pawned it off as the next President's problem is fact. The fact that Obama is President now doesn't mean that debt is to blame on Democrats, even though that's the history being rewritten here.

A fact quickly forgotten by those who like to throw around figures when talking about budgets under Bush.

[GiancarloC]

That's exactly the ruleset. "If you blame anything, however much it IS ACTUALLY TO BLAME, on the Bush Administration, you're just doing apologism for Obama's poor leadership."

Obama's leadership led us out of one of the worst republican caused recessions in decades. I've brought up the eight years of Bush and the right wingers pretend like it never happened. They just want to sweep it under the rug.

The fact that Bush did his spending largely off the budget like a credit card and pawned it off as the next President's problem is fact. The fact that Obama is President now doesn't mean that debt is to blame on Democrats, even though that's the history being rewritten here.

And that's exactly the problem. Some here engage in historical revisionism, deliberately leaving out the facts while putting all the blame on the current President.

[CowboyBob]

Where were all these deficit hawks when Reagan and Bush doubled and quadrupled it?

Where were the howls of protest when war criminal Cheney said deficits don't matter?

[White Eagle]

And while we're waiting:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...18372120_n.jpg

Gotta love that chest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jack Springer]

Um dude, the Presdient has submitted his budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The link to read it is right here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Dude. You're in the same time warp as JH and GiancarloC. The 2013 budget is the budget for 2012 to 2013.

The budget the President was supposed to propose in February is for 2013 to 2014.

Maybe this explains a lot. If liberals can't get the year correct maybe they can't add and subtract either.

[xbuzzerx]

Dude. You're in the same time warp as JH, and GiancarloC. The 2013 budget is the budget for 2012 to 2013.

The budget the President was supposed to propose in February is for 2013 to 2014.

Maybe this explains a lot. If liberals can't get the year correct maybe they can't add and subtract either.

Using this logic, Republicans are unable to tell what number is a minority after an election.

[GiancarloC]

Dude. You're in the same time warp as JH and GiancarloC. The 2013 budget is the budget for 2012 to 2013.

The budget the President was supposed to propose in February is for 2013 to 2014.

Maybe this explains a lot. If liberals can't get the year correct maybe they can't add and subtract either.

Read it again.

And once again, some have said the President has only passed one budget. But it isn't up to the President to pass budgets. He can only submit suggestions. Now if one is suggesting we become a dictatorship and the President gets whatever he wants... that'll be a different story. But this isn't a country with Kings and Queens, or strongmen... this is a country where the budget is for the most part formulated in the legislative process.

Shall I post what the legislative process is? Shall I go through the details? I am in no fucking time warp.

[T-Rexx]

more of an english guy as u know

No, I didn't know!

I thought English guys used capitalization and punctuation.

[Kulindahr]

The fact that Bush did his spending largely off the budget like a credit card and pawned it off as the next President's problem is fact. The fact that Obama is President now doesn't mean that debt is to blame on Democrats, even though that's the history being rewritten here.

This is a good point in counter to those who lie about Obama not having a budget: however much you may not like Obama's budgets, at least they're honest.

Well, as honest as any since LBJ started fudging the figures by counting Social Security in the mix.

[JB3]

If that's so, there's absolutely no reason that spending cuts should have been a part of the sequestration negotiations.

For that matter, there would be no reason that congresscritters should have been part of the sequestration negotiations.

I agree with that. The negotiations should have gone something like 'Do you want these cuts? No? Well we're done then.'

[JB3]

The biggest tax increase in American history was the Revenue Act of 1951, passed because the previous largest tax increase in American history, the Revenue Act of 1950, didn't garner enough revenue.

Didn't clarify what I meant by biggest. Didn't mean dollar wise, meant breadth of who it affected. (which, in the case of the payroll tax holiday, was everybody)

[GiancarloC]

And the tax increase still wasn't enough. It was a compromise itself.

[Jack Springer]

The article that you and Jayhawk quoted is talking about last year's budget -- not the budget for the coming year. The article is from 2012.

I don't know anyway to make this any simpler for you to understand.

The US President presents a budget to Congress and Congress acts on it or comes up with one of it's own.

Read it again.

And once again, some have said the President has only passed one budget. But it isn't up to the President to pass budgets. He can only submit suggestions. Now if one is suggesting we become a dictatorship and the President gets whatever he wants... that'll be a different story. But this isn't a country with Kings and Queens, or strongmen... this is a country where the budget is for the most part formulated in the legislative process.

Shall I post what the legislative process is? Shall I go through the details? I am in no fucking time warp.

[GiancarloC]

Again, please read it more carefully and read the other article that was posted. There has been a budget pushed. The President only pushes suggestions for the budget. The Congress and specifically it's committees and subcommittees is where most of the budget originates.

http://budget.house.gov/

I see the douchebag is in charge. No wonder why we aren't seeing any action in the house. I've already stated this very precisely... I understand the process at a far greater level.

And it's not my fault some refuse to listen and understand the process of legislation.

[Jack Springer]

Why not just admit you were wrong?

[GiancarloC]

I am not because I was not wrong. Try again.

[loki81]

I believe Obama's been presenting budgets (nevermind the fact that they probably wouldn't garner more than a half dozen votes if they were ever brought to the floor)

what hasn't been happening is the Senate passing a budget and reconciling the legislation with the House budget, which hasn't happened since the GOP took the HoR in 2010.

Since the GOP won back the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has held back from writing a full budget blueprint: Democrats have instead resorted solely on omnibus appropriations and continuing resolutions to keep the government going, thwarting the GOP’s ability to offer amendments to cut spending or put political pressure on Democrats. “The party in the minority has traditionally used the budget debate to score political points with amendments that mean little but are intended to put senators on record on contentious political issues,” Jonathan Weisman explains.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...pass-a-budget/

In 2010, the then Democratic-controlled House and Senate did not adopt a budget resolution or adopt a single spending bill "because the Democrats were afraid of being labeled big spenders," said Steve Ellis, a budget expert with Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that analyzes federal spending.

Senate Democrats didn’t pass a fiscal 2011 budget because "Republicans were threatening to hijack the budget process and waste the American people’s time with pointless political votes," a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told PolitiFact Florida. "Faced with this obstruction, we decided it would be a more productive use of the American people’s time to move on and address other issues critical to middle-class families."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...passed-budget/

don't think it has much to do with Obama at all, just more Congressional gamesmanship.

[rareboy]

I think Loki has summed it up quite nicely.

[Jack Springer]

Partially. Obama has not submitted a budget this year.

The article that JH and GC was a 2012 article -- not 2013. I don't understand why neither one can admit they were wrong.

Another fact -- the US hasn't had a budget for years -- they just pass spending bills -- and that is not a republican problem.

[GiancarloC]

It isn't up to Obama to come up with a budget for the last time. The White House can submit suggestions in the form of a budget, but it's up to the Congressional Committees to come up with a budget. Particularly the one in the House. The committee headed up by no other than Paul Ryan. And we wonder why nothing happens in the House.

Oh and yes the US has had a budget. It's called appropriations. Get a fact check please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

It's a budget. End of story. Saying that the US hasn't had a budget for years is an absolute FALSEHOOD. And definitely NOT a fact.

Obama has an approval ratings in the mid 50s. Congress, and particularly the House, has an approval rating barely hitting 10%. So please tell... who the problem here is... Without the blinders.

[loki81]

Partially. Obama has not submitted a budget this year.

it's unofficially scheduled for March, after an announced delay.

The Obama administration’s fiscal 2014 budget is widely expected to arrive late on Capitol Hill, possibly not until sometime in March, primarily as a result of uncertainty created by fiscal cliff negotiations...

Preparation of the fiscal 2014 budget has been complicated by greater than usual uncertainty. Congress has not settled on final spending levels for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/obamas_...-220638-1.html

[opinterph]

Obama Fiscal 2014 Budget Said to Be Delayed Until March

Republicans seize on Obama's blown 2014 budget deadline

President Obama’s Missed Budget Deadlines
An Unprecedented Disrespect for the Law

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year no later than the first Monday of February.

[GiancarloC]

The House website cannot be trusted. Deadlines are often not met in the legislative process. There are other more pressing matters. The morons in the House will of course say that... saying it is an "unprecedented disrespect for the law". The act isn't binding and hasn't always been met historically. I didn't expect any less from the obstructionists in the House. And budgets still come from Congressional Committees. The blueprint the President submits is merely a suggestion.

[tigerfan482]

The House website cannot be trusted. Deadlines are often not met in the legislative process. There are other more pressing matters. The morons in the House will of course say that... saying it is an "unprecedented disrespect for the law". The act isn't binding and hasn't always been met historically. I didn't expect any less from the obstructionists in the House. And budgets still come from Congressional Committees. The blueprint the President submits is merely a suggestion.

A suggestion they have yet to follow. Demanding a budget just so they can throw it in the trash publicly gets nothing accomplished and has been characteristic of the Republicans in Congress since Obama was elected in 2008.

[Kulindahr]

Obama Fiscal 2014 Budget Said to Be Delayed Until March

Republicans seize on Obama's blown 2014 budget deadline

IIRC, he has the option of informing Congress it will be submitted late, along with the reason why.

[opinterph]

IIRC, he has the option of informing Congress it will be submitted late, along with the reason why.

I don’t see it.

31 U.S.C. § 1105 : US Code - Section 1105: Budget contents and submission to Congress

[JayHawk]

Partially. Obama has not submitted a budget this year.

The article that JH and GC was a 2012 article -- not 2013. I don't understand why neither one can admit they were wrong.

Another fact -- the US hasn't had a budget for years -- they just pass spending bills -- and that is not a republican problem.

I will admit after you shaped the argument to mean this budget and this year, I am then wrong.

However, your all encompassing statement indicated that Obama had NEVER provided a budget. That is pure ignorance and you are well aware of it.

The bottom line is neither side can force their way so neither side can approve budgets they have submitted. So while we twist our panties in a knot over whether Woodward has his feeling hurt, whether Obama golfs with Tiger, or for that matter whether Boehner has a soul. The bottom line doesn't change.

No! We just have to see who suffers first and loudest. They will be heard and the other party will reluctantly cave. My bet is that the republicans will be caving and Obama will have won yet another tussle. Here is me hoping that it will last three years so our lawmakers can just sign the funding check and get on with the rest of our very pressing business.

[Apollo]

The proposed budget for FY 2013 if you guys missed it the first time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

[Apollo]

Dude. You're in the same time warp as JH and GiancarloC. The 2013 budget is the budget for 2012 to 2013.

The budget the President was supposed to propose in February is for 2013 to 2014.

Maybe this explains a lot. If liberals can't get the year correct maybe they can't add and subtract either.

Um brodog, a Federal Fiscal Year for 2013 starts on October 1 2012 through till September 1 2013

[GiancarloC]

Um brodog, a Federal Fiscal Year for 2013 starts on October 1 2012 through till September 1 2013

Thanks for the link. It was helpful.

[bankside]

Um brodog, a Federal Fiscal Year for 2013 starts on October 1 2012 through till September 1 2013

September 31?

[Apollo]

^Whoops! Yeah, you right!

Link explaining fiscal years: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscal...iscal_Year.htm

[palemale]

September 31?

30 days hath September . . .

[lambdaboy]

Do not want to throw anyone off Obama can not run again. He can not be the king of England so spare me with stupidity. What he is doing is showing what pricks the republicans are and it will work in 2014 when the Dems take back over the House.