Obama created it, got it passed, and is now acting like he had nothing to do with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||02/26/2013|
and the media won't call him on it.
He's a charlatan!
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/20/2013|
Oh nos, what to do? How did we let this happen? Oh nos!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/20/2013|
In a few yrs, after the shit hits the fan, he'll also have the audacity to claim Obamacare wasn't his idea
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/20/2013|
Someone needs to bone up on how legislation is passed in the US and, in particular, where spending bills originate.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/20/2013|
Thank you, r4!
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/20/2013|
All of the articles I have read, regardless of political slant, do mention that Obama came up with Sequestration. The true impact of Obamacare is just beginning to unfold. Hours are going to be cut for hourly workers and companies are going to opt to pay penalties instead of paying the cost of healthcare for employees. Cost of goods are going to rise either way. This will not end well.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/20/2013|
won't someone think of the first responders
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/20/2013|
At least sequestration will pretty much eliminate the deficit, so Republicans won't have their main talking point to use against Obama anymore. Yes, it will hurt job growth for awhile, but after the deficit shrinks, companies will start hiring again. Howard Dean has been saying to let it happen for awhile now.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/20/2013|
Sequestration was the brainchild of Obama and Jack Lew.
They personally pitched it to Harry Reid.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/20/2013|
Oh well, we are better off with the lesser of the two evils, no doubt.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/20/2013|
Okay, I guess I'm out of it but what is "sequestration". I thought that was something juries were subjected to.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/20/2013|
This is going to help Obama in the long run. The deficit will shrink to almost nothing because of the massive cuts, which will in turn spur the economy.
It's the same scenario that happened when Clinton was forced into working with the Republican-controlled Congress during his second term.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/20/2013|
R6, R9 - it doesn't matter who thought of it. Thinking it up doesn't get it through Congress.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/20/2013|
Ok, the healthcare thing is not political at all. Its very simple. A civilized society does not let its citizens suffer because they don't have and extra $60,000 for chemotherapy.
The debate, then, is whether or not you want to live in a civilized society.
Healthcare costs were ALREADY going up every sing year. Remember? That is why the call was made for affordable healthcare in the first place.
Employers were ALREADY slashing benefits, which, again, is why the call was made.
Healthcare had gotten to be a bait and switch that would take your money up until you had a serious problem an then claim 'pre existing condition" in order to avoid paying the claim.
Unless you are being paid cash money by the healthcare lobby, then you look very foolish standing up for insurance companies. At least get a check out of it, like the good men on capitol hill.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/20/2013|
R11 Here is a website for your question.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/20/2013|
Can you get anymore naive, r13?
Harry Reid and the Dems fell in line and did exactly what Obama instructed, AND they had the numbers to get it through.
a republican here, a republican there, no problem Mr president.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/20/2013|
R14 - having coverage in NO MEANS AT ALL implies they will approve any procedure or treatment. Your $60k example is still an issue. If the insurance company and/or government look at you on a spreadsheet and you look to be a lost cause you WILL be denied. I'm assuming you do not work in healthcare?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/20/2013|
r16 - so 70+% of the house/senate republicans voting for the Sequester, John Boehner saying her got 98% of what he asked for, etc... is a republican here and there.
Grow up and learn something. The republicans voted for it along with the dems and now they are trying to lay the blame on the president ( who by the way doesn't pass any bills)
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/20/2013|
ALSO, for those of you with short memories, the sequester was a response to the repubs' effots to block an increase in the debt ceiling. That was a cynical effort by the repubs that would have included not paying money to federal employees whom had already done the work.
See, the republicans know how stupid you all are. It was that easy. Because they knew americans would be confused. And sure enough, you are.
The reasons dems went along with the sequester was so that the repubs would raise the ceiling. This, the dems believed, would get the economy going, and would give americans time to put down the xbox long enough to realize what was happening.
Well, americans just went back to playing video games and now we have the sequester to deal with.
Since about a week after Obama took office all we have heard is how horrible he is, and how he is single handedly ruining the country.
It's the American people that are at fault. Wake up and pay attention to Washington and your state houses. That is the only thing that can beat what's going on up there.
We need to stop fighting each other and pay closer attention to the facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/20/2013|
There is more than enough blame to go around on this issue. Trying to lay it at the feet of one party does your a disservice (I hope).
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/20/2013|
I thought they said the government ran a surplus in January. So how is it we are suddenly at the sequestration point?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/20/2013|
It's not the people who are saying how horrible Obama is, it is the Republican controlled media. The people did their job. A majority of all votes for Congress this year were for Democrats. It is only by unconstitutional gerrymandering and control of a right wing Supreme Court that the GOP is running the House.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/20/2013|
President Obama said in 2011 he would veto any attempts stop the Sequestration.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/20/2013|
It's 2013 now.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/20/2013|
R22 What are you talking about?? The mainstream media is very liberal, Democratic, and biased toward the left. As someone wrote once, we don't have journalism anymore but public relation media that simply tell us what they want us to know.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/20/2013|
Um, have you listened to mainstream fox news?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/20/2013|
R26 - that would be the only right leaning outside of breitbart and drudge. Cannot count the left leaning.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/20/2013|
Here's my hope with sequestration: that all those Tea Party fucks in KY, TX, OK and other far flung shitholes are about to get the big cuts they've been wanting - only now it's going to be to the military. Granted, active duty are exempt but all those businesses and contractors around Ft. Campbell, Ft. Bliss, Ft Hood - not exactly thriving metropolises - are going to be hurt by these cuts. Their ignorant lawmakers don't care about cuts to school lunches and Head Start, but once the military contractors start bitching, they'll have no choice but to pay attention because that's where their bread is buttered.
As far as Obama goes, I think he shares a measure of responsibility, but given the recalcitrant repugs, he didn't have much choice but to go along with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/20/2013|
I cannot think of many left leaning either, most are fairly centered.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/20/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/20/2013|
Exactly, R28. Howard Dean was on Lawrence O'Donnell's show stating that sequestration is the ONLY way that Democrats are going to get the big military cuts that they want. Dean went on to say that sequestration could end up being a very good thing for the economy and the Democrats long-term. It's going to be painful for about 6 months, but once the deficit starts shrinking dramatically, the economy will be in a much better place and Republicans will lose their biggest talking point against Obama and the Democrats.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/20/2013|
Lawrence O'Donnell has thoughtfully and suscinctly been pressing the case for going over the cliff since Summer 2012. He argues that it is important to do so because, while the tax rates go up on everyone for a while, it will not be enough to totally ruin anyone and it will drastically reduce the deficit, leaving the GOP without their favorite talking point.
The President will ultimately be left in a win/win position because not only will taxes go up on the rich but the federal budget will be close to Clinton era levels. He might even leave the White House with a surplus. This will of course help to usher in Hillary if she chooses to run in 2016.
The GOP will of course harp on the point of a sluggish economy for the short time that we'll have one but the people are so fatigued on the economy that it will have little effect.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/20/2013|
I believe and hope that Obama's lasting legacy is that he steered America out of the abysmal state it was heading when Bush left office.
But, you know, it does suck that Obama's legacy has to be cleaning up after a white man's mess....
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/20/2013|
R33 who is this 'Bush' you mention??
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/20/2013|
R32, you are extremely confused. Sequestration was one part of the Jan 1 2013 "fiscal cliff." Taxes were addressed by raising rates on those over $400k. Spending will be cut on March 1, but without new legislation, no taxes will change.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/20/2013|
R27 Clueless slut. The media is all owned by the wealthy, right wingers not the left. Sequestration was a bipartisan agreement. It was supposed to be such a horrific possibility that neither party would dare allow it to happen, thus insuring compromise. As usual the Dems didn't take into account the pure, batshit craziness of the Rethuglican shitheads like R27 It is now almost guaranteed that it is going to happen choking off the recovery out of pure spite from the wingnutz.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/20/2013|
Obama's solution to everything and anything is to raise taxes.
He refuses to cut a damn thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/21/2013|
r36 says "The media is all owned by the wealthy, right wingers, not the left". Ah, yes the radical right at The New York Times, Boston Globe and LA Times.
80% of print, radio and television reporters acknowledge voting for Obama the first time. Their prejudice in his favor shows by what they DON'T report.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/21/2013|
[quote]This is going to help Obama in the long run. The deficit will shrink to almost nothing because of the massive cuts, which will in turn spur the economy.
It's amazing how this conservative economic theory has never panned out in reality, but right-wing economists keep insisting it will work.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/21/2013|
"At least sequestration will pretty much eliminate the deficit"
Not even close. It only slows the out of control growth.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/21/2013|
OP and R1 are morons.
Republicans created the Sequester. Boehner bragged that he got 98% of what he wanted with it. And now they're trying to blame Obama for it? Please.
It's yet another entirely unnecessary, completely manufactured fiscal crisis created ENTIRELY because of Republicans.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||02/21/2013|
R37 is another brainwashed moron. Spending increases have been lower under Obama than under any other President going back to Ike Eisenhower. Obama has personally negotiated and signed into law TRILLIONS of dollars of cuts and spending reductions.
What the fuck is up with the influx of mouth-breathing ignorant FOX-News-Koolaid-Drinkers on this thread?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/21/2013|
Note that no Democrats voted for the Sequester... it was all Republicans in Congress.
They can't pass this off on Obama, sorry. It's their doing, and it's the result of their irrational and irresponsible brinksmanship over the Debt Ceiling. That's the only reason it exists.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||02/21/2013|
Obama got the tax increases he wanted earlier this year.
Now we need some spending cuts.
Where is the compromise?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||02/21/2013|
Now they are saying that there will be three hour waits at TSA security lines at the airports after sequestration kicks in....
Ah, the defense spending cuts we all wanted!
|by Anonymous||reply 45||02/21/2013|
Let it happen.
There's no other way to cut the DoD.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||02/21/2013|
Who created the sequester is irrelevant. It was a tool designed to get Republicans to settle the debt ceiling in 2011.
It was supposed to force compromise between Republicans and Democrats because it had cuts neither side could stomach. Republicans won't compromise without a lot of political brinkmanship.
Now, it's just a game of chicken. It's nice to see that Democrats can play with the big boys. Sequester will go into effect for a few weeks/months and then finally the Republicans will have to compromise.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||02/21/2013|
[bold]The PowerPoint That Proves It’s Not Obama’s Sequester After All[/bold]
Republicans have taken to calling the deep cuts that could reverse our hard-won economic recovery ‘Obama’s Sequester.’ But a July 2011 PowerPoint obtained by John Avlon shows the opposite may be true:
|by Anonymous||reply 48||02/21/2013|
R44, you're woefully ignorant and ill-informed.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||02/21/2013|
Over 2 trillion has already been cut in spending by Obama with not one dime of raised taxes from the richest in the country. The little bit of raised taxes taken in the fiscal cliff is nothing. Much more has to be taken in taxes to balance out how much has been taken from the middle class and the poor. That doesn't even take into consideration how much the rich have gotten away with in the past 35 years!
|by Anonymous||reply 50||02/21/2013|
Sequestration was a Republican idea, one that Obama made sure included defense cuts. In fact there is a now famous Power Point presentation on the net of Majority Leader B. selling it to the house.
As for Obamacare- and you really mean the Affordable Health Care Act- medical care costs on the last 6 months have leveled and even decreased for the first time in decades. And this Act is PAID for- you can to on line and Google it and see just how if you are curious. And the non partisan office of Federal accounting forecasted that the Affordable Health Care Act in its current form will reduce the Federal deficit.
Sequestration is another brinksmanship effort of the Republicans that they are brazenluy turning around- sure Obama agreed to it- and even was able to put in cuts (defense) that he thought the Repubs would never tolerate- they don't give a rats ass- they are more than willing to see Head Start fall appart than fight the defense cuts.
All reputable economists think this will throw us back into recession.
I think Obama is going to let it happen and then it will repealed after a few weeks when the impact is clear.
It is not good. But don't kid yourselves you crazy Repubs (or misinformed) in the early posts on this thread. Obama has gone 75% in the direction the Repubs want him and they only recently agreed to letting him raise taxes a little on those making more that a million per year. FYI, the level they were raised to are equal to the Clinton era, much lower than under any post war Pres except for the first cuts under Reagan (which were repealed, by Reagan.)
This standoff is totally about the right wing of the Republican party, which is in control, holding the country hostage. They do not compromise. They are the most intrangisent party in American history since the Southern Democrats in the 1850s and you know what that caused.
By the way, deficit cutting during recession is like trying to wash your hands with mud to clean them. This is an historical fact currently being played out in the present in the EU. You cut gov't spending during times of good growht.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||02/21/2013|
R51, we're talking a measly $85 billion on a budget deficit of nearly $1 TRILLION. Half of it comes from our obscenely bloated military.
When do the times EVER get good? We're 4 years out of the crisis. When do we cut?
Let it happen, I say.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||02/21/2013|
Those "cuts" are on paper only. THEY HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT EVER HAPPEN.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||02/21/2013|
R53 - agree. Is there a published schedule of cuts that have already been executed or a calendar of what to expect? Would be nice to be able to track this to hold both sides accountable.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||02/21/2013|
I say let it go through, too. We'll finally get the big military cuts that we've needed for decades. If the economy tanks, then Democrats can use it against Republicans to show that budget cuts actually do hurt the economy.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||02/21/2013|
It was created under the threat of destroying the world economy and throwing the nation back into recession (or worse). Blaming Obama is like blaming a kidnapping victim for the expense of the ransom.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||02/21/2013|
Could some of you geniuses explain step by step reducing the federal deficit spurs the economy? I hear this stated like it's a known fact but I'd like to know in detail exactly how this works.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||02/21/2013|
It doesn't, R57. That's a Republican stalking horse for their desire to shrink the federal government and reduce taxes. It will harm the economy by throwing people out of work.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||02/21/2013|
In addition to the European example right now R57, in 1937 FDR gave in to Republican pressure and cut back, and threw the country right back into depression.
Spend during recession, cut back during growth- that is the rule about 99% of economists agree on.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||02/21/2013|
[quote] Could some of you geniuses explain step by step reducing the federal deficit spurs the economy? I hear this stated like it's a known fact but I'd like to know in detail exactly how this works.
Good point. How does government spending and the existence of or lack of a deficit affect whether people are employed in the private sector and whether there is demand for goods and services?
|by Anonymous||reply 60||02/21/2013|
Eventually too much debt expressed as a percentage of income (in this case gov't revenue) drives up the cost of borrowing which in turn makes holding debt more expensive and can run any organization or gov't into the ground- also discourages borrowing for growth in the private sector. So reduction of debt long term is necessary- historically GNP and gov't revenues have stayed ahead of debt which is why economic growth is such a big deal.
Gov't spending stimulates the economy because gov't as an aggregate is the largest buyer of services, i.e. single biggest driver of employment as well. So when you decrease spending during a time when spending growth in the private sector is static, you slow the economy. When private sector spending (investment and borrowing) is good, then you can decrease gov't spending. During recessions like now, private sector spending and investment is low.
This is the stuff that Repubs tend to be completely ingornant of. The UK went on an austerity program and after a brief whiff of recovery threw themselves back into recession, just as gov't auterity in 1937 through the nation back into depression until huge gov't defense spending (WW@) revived the economy for good.
The Republican party has long been fixated on reducing taxes (particularly for the rich) on the assumption that they will reinvest their tax savings to spur economic growth, the so called trickle down argument which has never panned out in the US.
The current Republican Party is irresponsible and in the throng of its far right idealists, just as the Democratic party in the South was before the Civil War. Compromise is the life blood of democracies and when compromise does not happen, gov't comes to a standstill. Obama has slashed the Federal budget all over the place- as Boehner said, he got 98% of what he wanted. But the Tea Party wants 100% and they are not in control of gov't.
It is a real problem folks.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||02/21/2013|
[quote]Eventually too much debt expressed as a percentage of income (in this case gov't revenue) drives up the cost of borrowing which in turn makes holding debt more expensive and can run any organization or gov't into the ground- also discourages borrowing for growth in the private sector. So reduction of debt long term is necessary- historically GNP and gov't revenues have stayed ahead of debt which is why economic growth is such a big deal.
"Eventually" has been running a long time for this argument. Interest rates are at historic lows. And please stop the fallacy of comparing a nation, especially the issuer of the world's reserve currency, to an enterprise or household. It's a ludicrous comparison.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||02/21/2013|
[quote]Over 2 trillion has already been cut in spending by Obama with not one dime of raised taxes from the richest in the country. The little bit of raised taxes taken in the fiscal cliff is nothing. Much more has to be taken in taxes to balance out how much has been taken from the middle class and the poor. That doesn't even take into consideration how much the rich have gotten away with in the past 35 years!
Uh, taxes on the wealthy went up at the beginning of the year.
Taxes on capital gains went up at the beginning of this year.
Medicare taxes are uncapped and there is now an additional health care tax imposed.
Let's go back to the Clinton years that so many on this board seem to cherish.
If we did, taxes on the wealthy would go down (as they were lower under Clinton)
Taxes on everyone else, except the very poor would go up.
You do know where this going, don't you? To support all of these programs, we will have a value-added tax ....basically a national sales tax....like virtually every other country that has these programs
|by Anonymous||reply 63||02/21/2013|
R63 - Right on! I certainly notice a much bigger dent in my paycheck. VAT system is going to end up reality to fund all that we are expected to fund.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||02/21/2013|
[quote]If we did, taxes on the wealthy would go down (as they were lower under Clinton)
You're an idiot, R63. An ill-informed idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||02/22/2013|
[quote]Okay, I guess I'm out of it but what is "sequestration".
That's where people ride around on horses and jump over hedges and shit. It's an Olympic sport, I think.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||02/22/2013|
w&w for R66
|by Anonymous||reply 67||02/23/2013|
At least he gets paid while living in our house.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||02/25/2013|
Detained immigrants released; officials cite sequester cuts
By Kathleen Hennessey | 1:47 p.m.
'Several hundred' immigrants are released from deportation centers across the country, in what officials say is an effort to trim costs ahead of budget cuts due to hit later this week.
Obama rejects GOP call to appropriate sequester cuts
|by Anonymous||reply 69||02/26/2013|