Sequester will be no big deal...

[asaratis]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[blackhawk]

That's my feeling in fact if the press and the politicians were not hyping it up so much I don't think anyone would have even noticed when they went into effect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It works out to a 2% cut in spending.

I'm sure we can live through it.

 

[emptystep]

It all adds up.

OUR OPINION: Simpson-Bowles plan offers escape from sequester » San Angelo Standard Times Mobile

As it happens, a potential solution has emerged, or re-emerged: an updated version of the Simpson-Bowles plan. President Barack Obama had appointed former Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles in early 2010 to head a commission to produce a deficit reduction plan.

And they did. Late that year, they proposed a balanced package of entitlement reforms, targeted spending cuts and new revenues created by closing tax loopholes.

Obama ignored their recommendations, though they weren’t terribly far from the “grand bargain” that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner reached last year — only to have it repudiated by House Republicans from the Tea Party movement. The House also repudiated Simpson-Bowles, 382-38, a vote that was meant as a slap at Obama and a warning to Boehner.

But virtually everyone who has studied the budget problem believes the solution will be a program very much, if not exactly, like Simpson-Bowles.

The plan is, as they say, shovel ready and could quickly be enacted.

McCain: Obama should have Camp David budget summit - US News and World Report

Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama should invite lawmakers to Camp David or the White House to hammer out a last-minute deal to avert deep budget cuts set to start taking effect at week's end.

C-SPAN

 

[Sallow]

It all adds up.

OUR OPINION: Simpson-Bowles plan offers escape from sequester » San Angelo Standard Times Mobile

As it happens, a potential solution has emerged, or re-emerged: an updated version of the Simpson-Bowles plan. President Barack Obama had appointed former Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles in early 2010 to head a commission to produce a deficit reduction plan.

And they did. Late that year, they proposed a balanced package of entitlement reforms, targeted spending cuts and new revenues created by closing tax loopholes.

Obama ignored their recommendations, though they weren’t terribly far from the “grand bargain” that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner reached last year — only to have it repudiated by House Republicans from the Tea Party movement. The House also repudiated Simpson-Bowles, 382-38, a vote that was meant as a slap at Obama and a warning to Boehner.

But virtually everyone who has studied the budget problem believes the solution will be a program very much, if not exactly, like Simpson-Bowles.

The plan is, as they say, shovel ready and could quickly be enacted.

McCain: Obama should have Camp David budget summit - US News and World Report

Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama should invite lawmakers to Camp David or the White House to hammer out a last-minute deal to avert deep budget cuts set to start taking effect at week's end.

C-SPAN

Simpson Bowles is the last resort. Mainly because it would embarrass house and senate Republicans because they would never vote for it.

 

[Wiseacre]

What this whole debacle shows is how dysfunctional Washington is. Don't give me this crap that it's all the repubs' fault, that's bullshit. There are just as many or almost as many on the other side who are just as adamant about raising taxes over and over again without and spending cuts at all. There's no real willingness to compromise or even cooperate with each other. It's all about political maneuvering, posturung and finger pointing, instead of problem solving. And frankly I think it starts in the WH with a president who wants to win and get his way more than anything else.

 

[longknife]

Lame Impasse Looms on Budget Cuts

by Donald Douglas

Well, it's Sequester Saturday. A boring Sequester Saturday at that. This is Obama manufactured crisis. The so-called "cuts" are minuscule to non-existent and if Republicans have a spine they'll continue to hold firm. We'll see.

The Wall Street Journal has a front-page report, "Budget Standoff Presents Political Risks on Both Sides." Lengthy Impasse Looms on Cuts - WSJ.com

I say to the GOP - DO NOTHING! Let it go through.

 

[emptystep]

It all adds up.

OUR OPINION: Simpson-Bowles plan offers escape from sequester » San Angelo Standard Times Mobile

As it happens, a potential solution has emerged, or re-emerged: an updated version of the Simpson-Bowles plan. President Barack Obama had appointed former Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles in early 2010 to head a commission to produce a deficit reduction plan.

And they did. Late that year, they proposed a balanced package of entitlement reforms, targeted spending cuts and new revenues created by closing tax loopholes.

Obama ignored their recommendations, though they weren’t terribly far from the “grand bargain” that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner reached last year — only to have it repudiated by House Republicans from the Tea Party movement. The House also repudiated Simpson-Bowles, 382-38, a vote that was meant as a slap at Obama and a warning to Boehner.

But virtually everyone who has studied the budget problem believes the solution will be a program very much, if not exactly, like Simpson-Bowles.

The plan is, as they say, shovel ready and could quickly be enacted.

McCain: Obama should have Camp David budget summit - US News and World Report

Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama should invite lawmakers to Camp David or the White House to hammer out a last-minute deal to avert deep budget cuts set to start taking effect at week's end.

C-SPAN

Simpson Bowles is the last resort. Mainly because it would embarrass house and senate Republicans because they would never vote for it.

It's not going to be the grand liberal pipe dream that Obama alluded to either. Everyone is going to blame the other person for what anyone doesn't like about this.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think it starts in the WH with a president who wants to win and get his way more than anything else.

he has already won and is not constrained by a future election.

it started in August 2011 with a downgrade to the nations credit rating due to Republican intransigence - the Administration has always been cooperative for an overall policy, it is Republicans who insist on only their proposals.

the Rs are getting what they have asked for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

 

[Darkwind]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Do you care about all the jobless people who cannot work because of Obama? Callous...what a laugh.

NO ONE will be losing a job because of sequestration.

 

[Darkwind]

There is no need to stop the Sequestration. Hell, a slow down in growth is practically worthless, but it is something. Maybe they can get together and do that "fair and balanced' approach Obama was talking about by actually having the President live up to his word and cut (real cuts) some shit from the continuing resolution they currently use as a budget? Is it really to much to ask that they cut something?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Do you care about all the jobless people who cannot work because of Obama? Callous...what a laugh.

NO ONE will be losing a job because of sequestration.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

 

[Darkwind]

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Do you care about all the jobless people who cannot work because of Obama? Callous...what a laugh.

NO ONE will be losing a job because of sequestration.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

Funny. A moron attempting to call someone else ignorant.

 

[blackhawk]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Were you as concerned about the people who lost there jobs or got reduced to a part time employee so a business could avoid the 50 full time employee financial hit they would have to take due to Obamacare? If not I don't think you really need to calling other's callous about job losses.

 

[Darkwind]

Obama is just trying to scare you. That is a liberal tactic!

Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?

According to Obama, the sequester would represent "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole." Obama's White House has also referred to the sequester as "devastating," saying its cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."

Sounds frightening - but is it true? Of course not. According to The Wall Street Journal "federal domestic discretionary spending soared by 84 percent with some agencies doubling and tripling their budgets" during Barack Obama's first two years in office. In fact the sequester would scale back just one of every six dollars in discretionary spending increases since 2008 - hardly a "huge blow." Also, discretionary spending in 2008 was already tremendously inflated - having increased by more than 60 percent over the previous eight years.

In other words this isn't even really a cut - "devastating" or otherwise - it's a modest growth rate reduction following years of unnecessary, embarrassing and unsustainable excesses.

Read more: Blog: 'Devastating' sequester cuts: True or False?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Were you as concerned about the people who lost there jobs or got reduced to a part time employee so a business could avoid the 50 full time employee financial hit they would have to take due to Obamacare? If not I don't think you really need to calling other's callous about job losses.

The funny part is that no one will lose a job because of sequestration. If jobs are cut, it won't be because of this.

 

[blackhawk]

I guess your job is not in jeopardy; it is a big deal to those who will lose their's. It must be nice to be so callous.

Were you as concerned about the people who lost there jobs or got reduced to a part time employee so a business could avoid the 50 full time employee financial hit they would have to take due to Obamacare? If not I don't think you really need to calling other's callous about job losses.

The funny part is that no one will lose a job because of sequestration. If jobs are cut, it won't be because of this.

Nope but God knows Obama and the left will sure try and blame any on this while continuing to ignore the fact this was his idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama ignored Simpson-Bowles the first time. Why would he pay any attention this one?
I'm only in favor of ignoring sequestration if it leads to bigger cuts in social spending.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It all adds up.

OUR OPINION: Simpson-Bowles plan offers escape from sequester » San Angelo Standard Times Mobile

As it happens, a potential solution has emerged, or re-emerged: an updated version of the Simpson-Bowles plan. President Barack Obama had appointed former Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles in early 2010 to head a commission to produce a deficit reduction plan.

And they did. Late that year, they proposed a balanced package of entitlement reforms, targeted spending cuts and new revenues created by closing tax loopholes.

Obama ignored their recommendations, though they weren’t terribly far from the “grand bargain” that Obama and House Speaker John Boehner reached last year — only to have it repudiated by House Republicans from the Tea Party movement. The House also repudiated Simpson-Bowles, 382-38, a vote that was meant as a slap at Obama and a warning to Boehner.

But virtually everyone who has studied the budget problem believes the solution will be a program very much, if not exactly, like Simpson-Bowles.

The plan is, as they say, shovel ready and could quickly be enacted.

McCain: Obama should have Camp David budget summit - US News and World Report

Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama should invite lawmakers to Camp David or the White House to hammer out a last-minute deal to avert deep budget cuts set to start taking effect at week's end.

C-SPAN

Sorry but obama back in Nov 2011 said their was no way to avert any cuts, he also said he would veto any attempt to try it.

 

[Darkwind]

Were you as concerned about the people who lost there jobs or got reduced to a part time employee so a business could avoid the 50 full time employee financial hit they would have to take due to Obamacare? If not I don't think you really need to calling other's callous about job losses.

The funny part is that no one will lose a job because of sequestration. If jobs are cut, it won't be because of this.

Nope but God knows Obama and the left will sure try and blame any on this while continuing to ignore the fact this was his idea.

I would not put it past Obama & Co. to fire some people just to make themselves look right. That says volumes about the people who support him if they go along with that.