The Upside of the Sequester - A Democratic Congress after 2014.

[Dubya]

Partisan is in the eye of the beholder it seems you say your avatar is not partisan it shows Bush was backwards. Yet most in the media don't question or challenge Obama in a serious way they just accept what he says and follow him and even though Obama has continued many of the Bush trends Gitmo, patriot act, drone strikes, massive spending to name a few the left follows him without question. Her avatar depicts the lefts seemingly blind loyalty to Obama as accurately as you say yours shows how backwards Bush was.

Partisan is what it is. Having an avatar showing Democrats being Sheeple is laughable when it comes from a lock step Republican.

The states refused to allow Gitmo prisoners to be move there, so how is that on Obama? The fact is, why weren't these people tried just after being caught and Obama wasn't in office then.

What is wrong with drone strikes against terrorists? Who crashed the economy and caused the massive spending needed to fix it, in fact, who has kept this economy hostage since crashing it?

If you haven't figured it out yet, Americans are getting tired of your right-wing bullshit.

You claim the media does whatever, but your FOX bullshit news is just as much a part of the media as anything else.

You want to talk Bullshit? Obama has had going into 5 years now to close Gitmo, which would have or could have included trials but he stopped the trials.
No problem with drone strikes to me.
Who crashed the economy? Debatable. Who said Fanny and Freddie had no problems?
Who had the Whitehouse, Senate, And the House for 2 years (and the congress for 2 years before that) and squandered it?
Now who is talking Bullshit?

Start off with your own bullshit! How many years has it been, so break it down to years and months?

Crashing the economy isn't debatable to people who look for the facts. Fanny and Freddie bonds didn't turn into junk bonds, so try facts for a change!

Bush had all three branches of government before the crash for 6 years and the cause of the crash was already present when the Democrats came to power in the House. The Senate had 49 Democrats and Republicans, but the two independents caucused with the Democrats. The Republicans didn't have a problem making the Democrats needing 60 Senators under Obama, so don't claim they were forced to pass any legislation under Bush. The crash of the economy had nothing to do with Congress.

 

[SFC Ollie]

All moneys has to do with congress....

Why hasn't there been a budget in what? 4 years now?

 

[edthecynic]

spending has produced positive GDP uninterrupted since June of 09 - no surer way exists to reduce the deficit than a growing economy, and likewise nothing will increase the deficit more than a stagnant one - the direction of Tea Party Republicans as the same Great Recession.

hello , the Q4 gdp was after readjustment from -.1% to, =.1%...thats 1/10th not 1.0 by the way...the economy is dead on its feet.


the TP wants spending cut, obama got his revenues, it was time for his "balance" thats is cuts, we cut a BS 2% of the growth built into the new federals depts budgets in the new federal year which starts October 1st....so the cuts in the end are only for the next 7 months of the budget left.......do you know anything about this , at all?

Apparently more than a know-it-all like you.

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

 

[Dubya]

You mean there are no career construction people? Really? So that framer never becomes a finished carpenter? For instance.....

Remember that the government can pay nothing that it hasn't first taken from someone else. Government expansion of jobs is unsustainable. And temporary jobs don't help much. BTW did you know that even though they say the unemployment number is down there are about 2 million less people working now than there was 5 years ago?

The government funds projects and not careers. Don't they teach you any better at the American Legion?

 

[J.E.D]

I want to see a zero deficit.

Then you shouldn't have voted for Shrub

 

[SFC Ollie]

You mean there are no career construction people? Really? So that framer never becomes a finished carpenter? For instance.....

Remember that the government can pay nothing that it hasn't first taken from someone else. Government expansion of jobs is unsustainable. And temporary jobs don't help much. BTW did you know that even though they say the unemployment number is down there are about 2 million less people working now than there was 5 years ago?

The government funds projects and not careers. Don't they teach you any better at the American Legion?

And those projects do not create new jobs. They mostly create more work for employed people.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I want to see a zero deficit.

Then you shouldn't have voted for Shrub

Another one who doesn't listen....


Bush spent too damned much, Obama is trying his best to double down on that.....

See the problem? Bush spent money off budget, but now We haven't had a budget in years it's all off budget... See the problem?

No, you probably don't.......

 

[Dubya]

All moneys has to do with congress....

Why hasn't there been a budget in what? 4 years now?

If law is made requiring money to be spent, it takes more than a majority vote in Congress to change that. Claiming Congress was involved at the time of this finanical crisis is just lying about the subject. Congress doesn't control the economy, fool!

The pathway to destruction was created before Bush became President and Bush is only guilty of pressuring government agencies like the SEC from doing their job. If the SEC was doing it's job, those triple A bonds would have never been traded as triple A securities. The government should have known there was no real money backing those bonds, so the guarantee was worthless. When bonds are owned and you can't even get fifty cents to the dollar of their former value, then the owner takes a big loss.

 

[Dubya]

I want to see a zero deficit.

Then you shouldn't have voted for Shrub

Another one who doesn't listen....


Bush spent too damned much, Obama is trying his best to double down on that.....

See the problem? Bush spent money off budget, but now We haven't had a budget in years it's all off budget... See the problem?

No, you probably don't.......

You're the one who doesn't listen and you'll be a fool until the day you die.

Is the economy good? You need to fix it before worrying about cutting government spending and anyone who knows about economics knows that. Revenues to the government drop when the economy declines and the only way to restore that revenue is to improve the economy or tax parts of the economy that don't spend. The key to government spending is to spend it in ways that transfer the money to places that will quickly spend it. That provides the most stimulus for the dollar. The economy already has too much money waiting on the sidelines for investment once there is a signal the times will get better. You don't need investment in new capacity when you aren't even working near capacity. The ability to produce more is already built into the present economy.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yet you admit that the government cannot create jobs.............

 

[Dubya]

You mean there are no career construction people? Really? So that framer never becomes a finished carpenter? For instance.....

Remember that the government can pay nothing that it hasn't first taken from someone else. Government expansion of jobs is unsustainable. And temporary jobs don't help much. BTW did you know that even though they say the unemployment number is down there are about 2 million less people working now than there was 5 years ago?

The government funds projects and not careers. Don't they teach you any better at the American Legion?

And those projects do not create new jobs. They mostly create more work for employed people.

What do you do, just run your mouth to make noise? If you build a bridge, highway or any kind of infrastructure, it makes jobs. The people who have to work there aren't already working.

Now, are you sure about your numbers or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

Here is a link that shows the amount of people in the workforce, so use it and prove you aren't lying again! You can zoom in to easily see the numbers.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

There are presently 155,654,000 people in the civilian workforce and there has never been that many before in our history.

That means you are lying again!

Let's go back to what you were saying about the government taking money from someone else to pay for something. The government isn't taking money from a taxpayer to pay for a project, because they borrow the money, fool! That's another lie you keep telling.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah right, people are going to elect democrats because they lie about the impact of a 2% cut in spending and the president pretends to be a helpless pawn in a political struggle. That looks real good.

Again we see the Misinformation Voter mindless parrot the disinformation from the GOP echo chamber without any thought or research. You ought to know by now that no stat from any Right-wing source is ever accurate and always exaggerated!!!

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

ywait a minute, didn't you say in another thread that sequester would not be 85Bn? you argued that my 3-1 formula number was wrong becasue the sequester would not run on the annual budget due to time left in the year....are you flip flopping or misinformed?

 

[Friends]

According to a Pew Research Study survey released February 22, 2013 majorities of the American people oppose cuts in every spending program in the Federal budget other than "aid to the world's needy." This is less than two percent of the budget.

As Sequester Deadline Looms, Little Support for Cutting Most Programs | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

On the other hand, for several years public opinion surveys have indicated considerable support for raising taxes on the rich.

Google

Unfortunately, President Obama has not been good at taking his case to the American people. The Sequester is likely to do serious damage to the American economy. The American people usually blame the president for a bad economy.

 

[Lakhota]

The Upside of the Sequester - A Democratic Congress after 2014.

Yep, I agree. And the outrage will become louder as more facts and truth are exposed and digested by the public at large.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The government funds projects and not careers. Don't they teach you any better at the American Legion?

And those projects do not create new jobs. They mostly create more work for employed people.

What do you do, just run your mouth to make noise? If you build a bridge, highway or any kind of infrastructure, it makes jobs. The people who have to work there aren't already working.

Now, are you sure about your numbers or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

Here is a link that shows the amount of people in the workforce, so use it and prove you aren't lying again! You can zoom in to easily see the numbers.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

There are presently 155,654,000 people in the civilian workforce and there has never been that many before in our history.

That means you are lying again!

Let's go back to what you were saying about the government taking money from someone else to pay for something. The government isn't taking money from a taxpayer to pay for a project, because they borrow the money, fool! That's another lie you keep telling.

According to your chart, in 2008 62.2% of the population was employed.
Today that's down to 58.6%

Ah yes so instead of taking the money from someone else they borrow it so that they can pay it back by taking it from the unborn generations...Smart move......

 

[SFC Ollie]

And even with the so called cuts yes the government is spending more this year than they did last year.......

How Much Does the U.S. Government Spend? - Bloomberg

 

[edthecynic]

You mean there are no career construction people? Really? So that framer never becomes a finished carpenter? For instance.....

Remember that the government can pay nothing that it hasn't first taken from someone else. Government expansion of jobs is unsustainable. And temporary jobs don't help much. BTW did you know that even though they say the unemployment number is down there are about 2 million less people working now than there was 5 years ago?

And there are about 1.2 million more people working now then when Bush left office.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You mean there are no career construction people? Really? So that framer never becomes a finished carpenter? For instance.....

Remember that the government can pay nothing that it hasn't first taken from someone else. Government expansion of jobs is unsustainable. And temporary jobs don't help much. BTW did you know that even though they say the unemployment number is down there are about 2 million less people working now than there was 5 years ago?

And there are about 1.2 million more people working now then when Bush left office.

Unemployment falls, but 2012 ends with no job growth | The Connecticut Mirror

There Is No Job Growth

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah right, people are going to elect democrats because they lie about the impact of a 2% cut in spending and the president pretends to be a helpless pawn in a political struggle. That looks real good.

Again we see the Misinformation Voter mindless parrot the disinformation from the GOP echo chamber without any thought or research. You ought to know by now that no stat from any Right-wing source is ever accurate and always exaggerated!!!

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

ywait a minute, didn't you say in another thread that sequester would not be 85Bn? you argued that my 3-1 formula number was wrong becasue the sequester would not run on the annual budget due to time left in the year....are you flip flopping or misinformed?

As you always dishonestly do, you try to switch YOUR BS onto others.

YOU were the one who said the sequester was less than 1.2 trillion because you thought the 85 billion was for all of the 10 years. I pointed out to you that the 85 billion was for the remainder of this year and that a partial reduction in spending had already been agreed to to cover the sequester requirements for the delay from January to March. The sequester is 1.2 trillion for the all 10 years, not the 85 billion per year you stupidly claimed.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Then you shouldn't have voted for Shrub

Another one who doesn't listen....


Bush spent too damned much, Obama is trying his best to double down on that.....

See the problem? Bush spent money off budget, but now We haven't had a budget in years it's all off budget... See the problem?

No, you probably don't.......

You're the one who doesn't listen and you'll be a fool until the day you die.

Is the economy good? You need to fix it before worrying about cutting government spending and anyone who knows about economics knows that. Revenues to the government drop when the economy declines and the only way to restore that revenue is to improve the economy or tax parts of the economy that don't spend. The key to government spending is to spend it in ways that transfer the money to places that will quickly spend it. That provides the most stimulus for the dollar. The economy already has too much money waiting on the sidelines for investment once there is a signal the times will get better. You don't need investment in new capacity when you aren't even working near capacity. The ability to produce more is already built into the present economy.

Government can't fix the economy. Government doesn't run the economy. All government can do is get in the way, and it's doing a fine job of that.