The Sequester

[RandallFlagg]

I agree with you totally, great response! The budget cuts are a serious matter. FBI Agents will be furloughed, TSA will face layoffs, the Military will receive 20% paycuts, not to mention our fighter jets will be taken off line. For the one's that think it's just Obama playing scare tactics are not listening with their ears. Regardless of what side of the fence we are on this sequestor cannot happen.

Where in the world do you get your information!?!?! Fighter jets "taken off line"?? What does that even mean!?! They are saying that CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES will have to do the "unthinkable" and take ONE DAY OFF. ONE DAY.

Obama wanted the sequester BEFORE he didn't want it. Let's get that clear from the start, shall we?

20% pay cuts!?!?! Again, who in the world is spreading this nonsense??

Frankly, I wish the sequester was more along the line of 180 Billion. 80 billion is NOTHING.

Here's an idea - tell your president to go back to all these "green" companies that he pumped BILLIONS of dollars into only to watch them go belly up (Solyndra, Fiskers, et al) to pay back all the money they stole from us - that might help a little, don't you think??

Please. The sky is not falling. a decrease of 2% from the TRILLIONS that they are soaking us for is a drop in the bucket. Frankie say RELAX.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are grossly misinformed.
Obama just took $800B from the economy in a tax increase. And that's supposed to benefit everyone. But a cut in gov't spending of 400B is going to plunge us into recession and abyss.
Hello?
Are you paying attention? You've been had.

This is a stupid statement.

Guess where the lion's share of the deficit is "borrowed" from? American citizens. Guess who pays it back? American citizens. Guess who gets the money when it is repaid? American citizens.

As long as you consider governance and monetary policy as being equivalent to business operations, you will remain clueless and ignorant.

The debt MUST be increased to reflect increased asset value of the goods produced in the economy. Debt creation is the way our system uses to create new money. I can't believe you people still don't get that concept.

What will happen if we reduce the money supply when the economy continues to expand? Any ideas?

You're an economic nincompoop. Gov't sucks money out of the private sector (both US and CHina), making it unavailable for constructive purposes.
But in any case that misses my point: How is a tax increase positive but a spending decrease negative? They are roughly the same thing.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Does anyone buy into Obama's BS on this? He is claiming that the entire economy will collapse if 80 billion is cut from the federal spending.

The congress just spent almost that much on Sandy relief.

This is just more scare tactic rhetoric by the marxist kenyan.

If the sequester kicks in, no one will feel it--no one. If anyone thinks there is not 10% fat in the DOD budget then I have some underwater investment property to sell you in the swamp.

Obamaturd has been full of bs since he first announced his plan to run for office in 08, after lying saying he wasn't going to run by the way. He is the one that wants sequestration.

 

[UKRider]

You are grossly misinformed.
Obama just took $800B from the economy in a tax increase. And that's supposed to benefit everyone. But a cut in gov't spending of 400B is going to plunge us into recession and abyss.
Hello?
Are you paying attention? You've been had.

This is a stupid statement.

Guess where the lion's share of the deficit is "borrowed" from? American citizens. Guess who pays it back? American citizens. Guess who gets the money when it is repaid? American citizens.

As long as you consider governance and monetary policy as being equivalent to business operations, you will remain clueless and ignorant.

The debt MUST be increased to reflect increased asset value of the goods produced in the economy. Debt creation is the way our system uses to create new money. I can't believe you people still don't get that concept.

What will happen if we reduce the money supply when the economy continues to expand? Any ideas?

You're an economic nincompoop. Gov't sucks money out of the private sector (both US and CHina), making it unavailable for constructive purposes.
But in any case that misses my point: How is a tax increase positive but a spending decrease negative? They are roughly the same thing.

I'd like to hear how this works as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

The point of the BIPARTISAN sequester was to make it so unpalatable that Congress would have to work together. Well, the GOP , with their approval rating hovering at cockroach level, decided that nothing was more unpalatable than working with this President. (With his much higher approval rating...good plan)

Actually ALL of Congress enjoys a miniscule rating. So fail on that.
Second, what was Obama's proposal? Oh yeah, to hell with spending cuts. Give me more tax money. Give me unlimited access to the credit card. He has never proposed any serious cuts of any kind.
Shit on that.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Does anyone buy into Obama's BS on this? He is claiming that the entire economy will collapse if 80 billion is cut from the federal spending.

The congress just spent almost that much on Sandy relief.

This is just more scare tactic rhetoric by the marxist kenyan.

If the sequester kicks in, no one will feel it--no one. If anyone thinks there is not 10% fat in the DOD budget then I have some underwater investment property to sell you in the swamp.

Perhaps you don't understand that the U.S. economy, since Ronald Reagan was elected, has been largely supported by federal deficit spending. I have no doubt at all that a severe recession will revisit us if we have the sequester.

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what it will take to get these stupid fucking Republicans in Congress to think beyond "deficit reduction."

It is the stupid f&**&^^% dimwits that are and have been the problem, LIARS all of them!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

our tax base is to small.


a quick look at the history of taxes proves that

 

[Truthmatters]

File:USTaxRevenue1945-2011.jpeg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AmericanFirst]

our tax base is to small.


a quick look at the history of taxes proves that

Libtards are idiots, a quick look at history will prove THAT!

 

[Truthmatters]

File:Historical Mariginal Tax Rate for Highest and Lowest Income Earners.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[healthmyths]

I believe Politifact has been proven wrong by John Boehner.

OH... prove it!

Because Politifact quoting..
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome,said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense.

What the president said is not correct," Woodward told POLITICO. "He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him."

All Boehner did was follow Obama's lead and passed the resolution..
In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.)
In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

But Obama is once again getting a pass by the MSM and who is getting the blame for something Obama's WH suggested first???

Wrong yet again!

Your own OP admits the sequester was brought up in the Summer of 2011. When the negotiations between Boner and Obama broke down on July 22, 2011, Boner posted his sequester proposal on his own website July 25, 2011 as part of a "two step approach to hold Obama accountable." Obama then offered to follow it as an olive branch to Boner to restart negotiations.

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.
John Boehner, July 25, 2011

From this source:
Obama?s fanciful claim that Congress ?proposed? the sequester - The Washington Post

and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Now tell me which is first 7/12/11 for WH... or 7/25/11 ??

 

[Truthmatters]

from 1930 to 1985 our country did FINE.

what was the top tax rate those years?

 

[Truthmatters]

60 to 90%.


the big collapse the right predicted didnt happen and it wont happen now if we increase taxes on the very people who made bank during the crash.


pandering to the wealthy is all the right knows how to do

 

[AmericanFirst]

60 to 90%.


the big collapse the right predicted didnt happen and it wont happen now if we increase taxes on the very people who made bank during the crash.


pandering to the wealthy is all the right knows how to do

LYING is all the left knows how to do.

 

[mudwhistle]

60 to 90%.


the big collapse the right predicted didnt happen and it wont happen now if we increase taxes on the very people who made bank during the crash.


pandering to the wealthy is all the right knows how to do

Actually raising rates hurts everyone. Removing targeted loopholes effects the rich more but Obama doesn't really want to hammer the rich. He just wants you to think he does. All of his friends are rich. Oprah. Tiger woods. Beyonce. All rich as shit. They wouldn't back him if he was going to screw them.

 

[edthecynic]

OH... prove it!

Because Politifact quoting..
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome,said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense.

What the president said is not correct," Woodward told POLITICO. "He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him."

All Boehner did was follow Obama's lead and passed the resolution..
In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.)
In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

But Obama is once again getting a pass by the MSM and who is getting the blame for something Obama's WH suggested first???

Wrong yet again!

Your own OP admits the sequester was brought up in the Summer of 2011. When the negotiations between Boner and Obama broke down on July 22, 2011, Boner posted his sequester proposal on his own website July 25, 2011 as part of a "two step approach to hold Obama accountable." Obama then offered to follow it as an olive branch to Boner to restart negotiations.

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.
John Boehner, July 25, 2011

From this source:
Obama?s fanciful claim that Congress ?proposed? the sequester - The Washington Post

and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Now tell me which is first 7/12/11 for WH... or 7/25/11 ??

Again you are using Woodward's already discredited book as the sole source of your claim.

There was no discussion of "triggers" until Wednesday July 20, 2011 and the triggers discussed were completely different from Woodward's. The mention of the sequester first appeared when Boner posted his framework on his website July 25, 2011 after all negotiations had broken down by July 22, 2011. Woodward has both the date and triggers completely wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...all&adxnnlx=1361426630-JudYfmwSRFzWshPBZBhdwA

The other remaining area of contention had to do with the problem of enforcement provisions, or “triggers,” in the deal. Because tax reform would take some time for Congress to puzzle out, while the spending cuts were relatively straightforward, the White House had been concerned from the start about being double-crossed. How could Democrats be assured that the Republican-controlled House wouldn’t simply announce a deal, enact only the spending cuts they wanted and then sabotage the revenue piece? The answer, Obama’s team decided, were a couple of “triggers” — something both sides really hated — that would automatically kick in if they didn’t come up with a version of tax reform that each party could stomach.

Specifically, Obama had two triggers in mind. The first, for Democrats, would have rescinded the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners. Boehner rejected this idea. He pointed out that Democrats themselves would have little incentive to pass tax reform if, by not passing it, they could achieve one of their most cherished policy objectives — the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

The second trigger, to appease Republicans, would include an automatic $425 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. But Boehner repeatedly said that he wanted his own “political trophy” as a trigger, something that had the same resonance for the right as the Bush tax cuts had for the left — namely the elimination of the “individual mandate,” the central plank in Obama’s health-care law that required every American to be insured. Striking down the provision was a top priority for the Tea Partiers in Congress, who saw it as evidence of Obama’s tyrannical tendencies. Obama wouldn’t entertain the possibility. The argument had been going on since the first round of negotiations between the two men and their staffs, but now that a deal seemed imminent, the question of how to enforce it had taken on a new urgency. At its core, the trigger debate was a matter of trust; each man had to be assured that the other wasn’t going to let his party renege on the tax-reform agreement when the inevitable arguments arose. And because they hadn’t worked together much and barely knew each other on a personal level, the only way for Obama and Boehner to feel reassured was if the political cost of pulling out was intolerably high to both of them.

Obama and Boehner argued heatedly but respectfully over both sticking points — the revenue number and the triggers — during a two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Wednesday, July 20. By the next morning, both men were facing rebellions on the Hill. The Times’s Carl Hulse and Jackie Calmes had written a front-page article disclosing the existence of the new round of talks and asserting that a deal was very near. Arriving for the weekly lunch of the Democratic Senate caucus, Jack Lew found himself berated by senators who were angered by the talk of entitlement cuts in exchange for the relatively paltry $800 billion in tax money, and livid at having heard about it from The Times. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, had been fully briefed (along with the House leader, Nancy Pelosi) only the night before. He remained stonily and pointedly silent in the meeting, while Lew absorbed one verbal blow after another.

At that very moment, Boehner was dialing Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, unbidden, in an effort to quell the eruption on the right. It wasn’t only the additional revenue that conservatives hated. Having campaigned in 2010 against Obama’s health-care plan, which included future Medicare cuts, conservatives in Congress were no more eager than Democrats to give the issue away in advance of 2012. (Their resistance to this part of the grand bargain highlighted what is perhaps the central paradox of budget politics on the right: Republicans have defined themselves almost entirely by their determination to reduce debt, but virtually every means of actually getting there — taxes, defense cuts, restructuring entitlements — strikes them as politically unpalatable.) “There is absolutely no deal,” Boehner assured Limbaugh on air.

And yet, even then, as powerful contingents in both parties rose up to oppose a deal that was already tenuous, negotiations were proceeding amiably and apace. At the White House that Thursday morning, July 21, Jackson, Loper, Nabors, Sperling and Lew, among other aides, agreed to set aside the revenue question and focus on hammering out some of the smaller discrepancies in the two offers. By now, a level of trust had grown among them; the mere fact that they had exchanged so much paper, and that none of it had been leaked to reporters or bloggers, seemed to cement their working relationship. To hear aides on both sides tell it, anyone who wandered into Nabors’s West Wing office would have thought they were moving, inexorably and constructively, toward a final agreement.

 

[Truthmatters]

but the right claims Obama invented the word

 

[NYcarbineer]

The administration was simply trying to find something that the Republicans would support so the country wouldn't go into default.

The President has a responsibility to protect the full faith and credit of the United States; one would think the GOP majority in Congress would consider that their responsibility as well,

unfortunately, they don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

our tax base is to small.


a quick look at the history of taxes proves that

Even a blind pig.
Yes, we rely on taxes from top earners to too great an extent. The GOP plans put forth would have expanded the tax base--something the Dems demagogued into "tax cuts for the rich".

 

[mudwhistle]

I believe Politifact has been proven wrong by John Boehner.

OH... prove it!

Because Politifact quoting..
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome,said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense.

What the president said is not correct," Woodward told POLITICO. "He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him."

All Boehner did was follow Obama's lead and passed the resolution..
In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.)
In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

But Obama is once again getting a pass by the MSM and who is getting the blame for something Obama's WH suggested first???

Wrong yet again!

Your own OP admits the sequester was brought up in the Summer of 2011. When the negotiations between Boner and Obama broke down on July 22, 2011, Boner posted his sequester proposal on his own website July 25, 2011 as part of a "two step approach to hold Obama accountable." Obama then offered to follow it as an olive branch to Boner to restart negotiations.

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.m
John Boehner, July 25, 2011

Wrong.

Boehner proposed spending caps to avoid the President's sequester. He didn't claim ownwership of it. It's spelled out in this letter 2 days ago.

Speaker Boehner Statement on the President?s Sequester | Speaker Mobile

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement after the president’s campaign-style event criticizing his own sequester.
“Today the president advanced an argument Republicans have been making for a year: his sequester is the wrong way to cut spending. That’s why the House has twice passed legislation to replace it with common sense cuts and reforms that won’t threaten public safety, national security, or our economy. But once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes. Just last month, the president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he’s already back for more. The American people understand that the revenue debate is now closed. We should close loopholes and carve-outs in the tax code, but that revenue should be used to lower rates across the board. Tax reform is a once-in-a generation opportunity to boost job creation in America. *It should not be squandered to enable more Washington spending. Spending is the problem, spending must be the focus.
“Washington Democrats’ newfound concern about the president’s sequester is appreciated, but words alone won’t avert it. Replacing the president’s sequester will require a plan to cut spending that will put us on the path to a budget that is balanced in 10 years.* To keep these first responders on the job, what other spending is the president willing to cut?”