O refuses to cut one penny

[northgagator]

Obama does not want a cut to spending that really amounts to just one cent to every dollar in the budget. Yet he wants the tax payers to consent to a more that one percent cut to their take home pay. Please explain to me how Obama is not using this current sequester issue to destroy political opposition. In my opinion he and his fellow Libs are out to create one party rule in this country to force an one ideology on all Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/opinion/how-obama-overplayed-his-hand-on-the-sequester.html?_r=0

From the Morning Joe:

THERE are cracks in time when history bends and for an instant it seems as if the world itself stops turning,
This is how Obama and the Libs are describing the Sequester

Despite the rhetoric from the White House, years from now, historians will not be sifting through the cultural wreckage that is America and discover the remnants of what some in both parties see as some cataclysmic fiscal event.
Americans who endured the grimmest warnings from President Obama and his administration need not fear that the cuts will jeopardize military readiness; limit our nation’s ability to forecast hurricanes; compromise food safety; lead to outbreaks of E. coli; undermine airport security; and cause older Americans to go hungry. Since today’s Republican Party knows a thing or two about assisted suicides, you would think its leadership would have taken to heart Mr. Obama’s warnings and struck a deal before their abysmal approval ratings sank even lower. Should the G.O.P. enter into yet another budget showdown with Mr. Obama in which they appear to be intransigent, eager to slash spending programs for the poor and determined to secure tax breaks for the rich? My theory: perhaps, in spite of the president’s best efforts to frame the debate in that way, Republicans are finally on the winning side of a fight.
For once, Mr. Obama seems to be the one who has overplayed his hand.


Way more truth here than most Libs will ever admit to.

But it is also a fact that this year’s reductions will not do great damage to domestic and defense programs. Congress will have $85 billion less to spend this year, but the Congressional Budget Office projects that the actual cuts implemented this year will amount to only $42 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. That means that politicians will have to cut a little more than a penny out of every dollar that it spends this year.

Does Mr. Obama really want to claim that his administration, which has added $6 trillion to the national debt, is unable to save a penny out of every dollar it spends? Does he really expect Americans to believe — after four years, the banking and auto bailouts, several stimulus bills and a run of record deficits — that our $16 trillion economy cannot absorb $42 billion of spending reductions?

Question to the Libs: Brother do you have a penny to spare?

[tegator80]

This is news? You could see this one from a LONG ways away.

[northgagator]

This is news? You could see this one from a LONG ways away.

I agree tegator.

Yesterday I noted two items.
1, I listened to O's press conference yesterday and his lies, denial, smugness, and arrogance was way over the top (even for him).
2, I saw the item that linked to and the one cent per a dollar statement hit home.

This year The common citizen is having to do with less money on pay day. Either due to taxes or price increases (like gas). However Obama wants more and expects us to make do with less. This man is backasswards. It is the gov't needs to learn to get by with less and to learn get that we need more of our paycheck.

[gatordowneast]

We all know that a very high % of democratic voters are on the dole and have been convinced by their political leaders that "they" are the sugar daddies and those mean old pubs want to take their programs away. It's called creating a dependent class and the demos (especially the lefty libbies) are experts at it. War on Poverty began in the 60s and we have a higher % of our population in Poverty today inspite of hundreds of billions spent on "programs". And of course food stamp #s, ssdi #s and children born out of wedlock are at record highs. And of course out of wedlock births are astronomical inspite of abortion on demand paid for by taxpayers through Planned Parenthood and other scams.

Why does the media not investigate? It's racial. Yeah, right.

The democratic party stealing from taxpayers to fund their social experiment make Bernie Madoff look like a lightweight. Hell, they steal Madoff level scam dollars monthly. And Obama, the greatest scam artist of them all, claims when we don't agree or want to grant this ponzi scheme more of our tax dollars that is because we favor the elite over the poor. Yeah, thats it...we need more balance.

[dangolegators]

Where is the part about Obama refusing to cut one penny?

[northgagator]

Where is the part about Obama refusing to cut one penny?

I know that you are trolling to start a whiz zing contest and I am not joining in.

Not to duck what can be an honest quest I will provide and honest and civil answer.

First of all Obama's purpose spending cuts are bogus, vague, and smoke and mirrors. In fact the budget grows larger than he tax increases he got at he beginning of the year. Thus he does not offer one cent in real cuts.

Obama got what he want on Jan 1 of the year when the the 2012 Tax Relief bike was passed by both Houses. To be precise 13 tab increase went into effect.
[ President Obama promised the American people a “balanced approach” of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce deficits and debt. He has achieved the tax increase portion of that approach. Now Congress needs to force him to follow through on the spending cuts portion.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/08/tax-changes-2013/

As for spending cuts in the bill there were not any to speak of.
Key Spending Provisions

Sequestration

The scheduled automatic, across the board spending cuts are delayed for two months, through March 1, 2013.
The $24 billion cost to delay the cuts is offset by $12 billion in further spending reductions by lowering the discretionary caps for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 established by the Budget Control Act and $12 billion from a Roth individual retirement account conversion provision.
Other Key Provisions:

The 50% bonus depreciation provision is extended for one year.
The American Opportunity Credit, the enhanced Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit are extended for 5 years.
The legislation includes an extension of the Medicare "doc fix" and the Transitional Medicare Assistance program.
The legislation also rescinds all un-obligated funds for the new Consumer Oriented and Operated Plans (CO-OPs) established as part of the health care reform law. A contingency fund of 10 percent of the current amount on un-obligated funds to further assist CO-OPs that have already been created. Previously obligated funds are unaffected.
http://independentsector.org/american_taxpayer_relief_act_of_2012

As noted in in the first link the real budget cuts were supposed to be negotiated and agreed upon before the Sequester began. Now lets discuss what Obama brought to the table.

HEATHER CHILDERS (guest-host): Let's talk a little bit more about entitlement reforms. As it stands right now, the president's plan, it calls for 1.6 trillion in tax increases. And it roughly doubles what was previously suggested. And 200 billion in new stimulus spending. So what guaranteed cuts is the president offering?
CUSACK: Nothing yet. He put a lot on the table in the summer of 2011. Boehner again, and Obama, they almost got a grand bargain. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to over 67 after a certain amount of time. Making some changes to cost of living. Payments for Social Security. But right now, there's nothing on the table. [Fox News, Happening Now, 12/7/12]

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/12/07/fox-news-papers-over-obamas-proposed-spending-c/191748

Obama does talk a good game in spending cuts but like the skillful magician he distract many people away from looking at his spending increases.
The 2001 Gov't spending was $3.4 Trillion
The 2003 Gov't spending was $3.9 Trillion
The 2005 Gov't spending was $4.4 Trillion
The 2008 Gov't spending was $4.9 Trillion
The 2009 Gov't spending was $6.0 Trillion
The 2010 Gov't spending was $5.9 Trillion
The 2011 Gov't spending was $6.1 Trillion
The 2012 Gov't spending was $6.2 Trillion

The 2013 Gov't spending was $6.3 Trillion
The 2008 Gov't spending was $6.8 Trillion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2016USri

Under Obama's plan there are not any real spending cuts. The fact is that the deficit is going to grow by $200 billion.

Also, Obama talks about reducing the deficit by $4 Trillion in ten years. There three things wrong with his goal.
1. It still leaves us $2.8 Trillion in deficit spending.
2, It does not address about paying Dow the existing debt. Talk about kicking the can down the road. By the way the Debt clock shows us at
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Mar 2013 at 11:27:44 PM GMT is: $16,695,282,695,638
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

3, it is projecting the economic conditions for the next ten years. That is a crazy prediction considering how unstable the world is today.

As for our Federal debt for next year and the prior years, we do not need an increase in spending but a cut in spending.
Projected and Recent US Federal Debt Numbers
Gross
Federal Debt Debt Held
by Public Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2013* $17.5 trillion $10.6 trillion $2.1 trillion
FY 2012* $16.4 trillion $9.7 trillion $1.9 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion $8.5 trillion $1.7 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion $8.2 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion $6.8 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2008 $10.0 trillion $5.3 trillion $0.5 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt

[surfn1080]

dude way to many facts in there. You know libs don't read anything before voting(passing judgement for that matter) on it.

[ncgatr1]

North, numbers don't matter, look at the last election results. What matters is bogus sensationalized talking points, ones that that ride on high on the low information voters. Please use brief snide one liner comments next time. They are much easier to respond to.

[dangolegators]

I know that you are trolling to start a whiz zing contest and I am not joining in.

Not to duck what can be an honest quest I will provide and honest and civil answer.

First of all Obama's purpose spending cuts are bogus, vague, and smoke and mirrors. In fact the budget grows larger than he tax increases he got at he beginning of the year. Thus he does not offer one cent in real cuts.


Not trolling, just asking a legitimate question that you still haven't answered. You are linking things from Heritage and something called 'usgovernmentspending.com' that clearly has bogus spending numbers. This does nothing to answer the question.

The sequestration cuts took effect yesterday and the Obama admin has begun to implement the cuts, so I'll ask the question again. Where is the part about Obama refusing to cut one penny?

[The_Graygator]

Well, he's already spent around 58.6 trillon dimes he said he wouldn;t add to the national debt, so I guess pennies are all that's left. :roll: :wink:

[g8orbill]

danglo-would it really matter to you?

[dangolegators]

danglo-would it really matter to you?

Would what really matter to me? Truth and accuracy? If that's what you are asking, then yes, it would really matter to me for the OP to answer the question.

[g8orbill]

so the fact that the OP has not answered you bothers you but I fail to see you criticizing Obama for his lies

[dangolegators]

so the fact that the OP has not answered you bothers you but I fail to see you criticizing Obama for his lies

Name a lie, and if it's valid, I'll criticize Obama for it. But your criteria for presidential lies has really changed now that there's a D in the office.

[wygator]

Obamacare won't add one dime to the deficit, I'll close Guantanamo, you can keep your insurance, no lobbyists in his administration, transparency...just off the top of my head.

[wygator]

All legislation will be posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote...

[dangolegators]

'Obamacare won't add one dime to the deficit'

Not a lie

'I'll close Guantanamo'

A failed promise that Obama should not have made

'you can keep your insurance'

Not a lie.

no lobbyists in his administration

A failed promise Obama shouldn't have made

'transparency'

Not a lie, though Obama could have done better.

[The_Graygator]

Name a lie, and if it's valid, I'll criticize Obama for it. But your criteria for presidential lies has really changed now that there's a D in the office.


Ah, I see. It must first be "validated" by you whether it's a lie or not. Geez, you sound just like me when I was a lib a dozen years ago. :roll:

But just for giggles, how about Obama lying about "not signing bills that would add a single dime to the deficit", or perhaps "The attack on our Benghazi embassy was a spontaneous act by a crowd of protestors angry about a Youtube video"?

[nlsfive]

What exactly is stopping the republicans from coming out with their own plan to balance the budget primarily behind massive spending cuts? Obviously these cuts are unpopular so they don’t want to take the political heat but want Obama to propose the cuts and take the heat in the name of “leadership”. The irony is if these cuts lead to another economic catastrophe then they would blame him for that.

[ncgatr1]

He is president, don't presidents step up and lead? The problem is Obama wants want nothing with his name attached to it because the Dems want to continue to shift the economic woes on the Repubs until 2014, that's just the fact.

[northgagator]

Not trolling, just asking a legitimate question that you still haven't answered.

I did answer your question.
Perhaps the other posters are correct in their comments that my use of facts only add confusion.

Here is the nut shell version.
1, Obama got over a trillion dollar tax increase back in Jan 1 of this year.
2, The Repubs did not get any significant spending cuts in return.
3, In the past two months Obama has requested more tax revenue. At the same time he has not offered any real cuts. Also, the size and cost of gov't is growing.
4, The Sequester spending cuts amounts to just 1% of total spending. In reality these cuts are not that harmful.
5, We have yet to set any real spending cuts from Obama that come close to the 1% of cuts that the Sequester delivers.

In closing on this item Obama could of received more revenue had he accepted the requested Repub spending cuts that would of been less than the Sequester cuts. What we are seeing here is a President who is more interested in party politics then he is in leading our (not just his) country.

You are linking things from Heritage and something called 'usgovernmentspending.com' that clearly has bogus spending numbers. This does nothing to answer the question.

I suggest that you research my sources first before you criticize them. You would not look as foolish.
1, The Heritage link provided a link that offers an honest observation of the Repub point if view. I don't think that you would get an accurate opinion from ABC or MSNBC.
2, One of the links is from Media Matters. Now are you going to tell me that Media Matters is not an acceptable source?
3, The Independent Sector is actual an offshoot of Common Cause (a lib organization).
4, usgovernmentspending.com is referred to by other media like the New York Times. Also the data that the usgovernmentspending uses is from the Federal Gov't. Before you go ant further please provide a link that this data is bogus.

You are linking things from Heritage and something called 'usgovernmentspending.com' that clearly has bogus spending numbers. This does nothing to answer the question.

I suggest that you research my sources first before you criticize them. You would not look as foolish.
1, The Heritage link provided a link that offers an honest observation of the Repub point if view. I don't think that you would get an accurate opinion from ABC or MSNBC.
2, One of the links is from Media Matters. Now are going to tell me that Media Matters is not an acceptable source?
3, The Independent Sector is actual an offshoot of Common Cause (a lib organization).
4, usgovernmentspending.com is referred to by other media like the New York Times.

The bogus issue is my fault. I did not notice the tab on the page was set for all taxes (fed, state, county, city)
Here are the correct Fed figures
2001 $1.9 Trillion
2003 $2.2 Trillion
2005 $2.5 Trillion
2007 $2.7 Trillion
2009. $3.5 Trillion
2010. $3.5 Trillion
2011. $3.6 Trillion
2012. $3.8 Trillion

2013. $3.8 Trillion
2014. $3.9 Trillion
2015. $4.1 Trillion

Even with the correct data, the budget is still climbing. Nor does it change the 1% statement.

[/QUOTE] The sequestration cuts took effect yesterday and the Obama admin has begun to implement the cuts, so I'll ask the question again. Where is the part about Obama refusing to cut one penny?[/QUOTE]

First of all these are not Obama's cuts.

He did not claim ownership.
In fact he demonized the Repubs with them.
The only reason we are in the Sequester is that Obama wanted more revenue without giving any spending cuts.

[g8orbill]

Name a lie, and if it's valid, I'll criticize Obama for it. But your criteria for presidential lies has really changed now that there's a D in the office.

thanks for proving my point

[northgagator]

'Obamacare won't add one dime to the deficit'

Not a lie

Not a truth yet either.

However several news outlets report that it will add to the deficit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

The true nature of Obamacare has been dripping out like Chinese water torture for three years.


'I'll close Guantanamo'

A failed promise that Obama should not have made. A failed promise does equate to a lie


'you can keep your insurance'

Not a lie.

Many employees have, are, and will loose current cover coverage.
http://www.examiner.com/article/22-000-lose-their-health-insurance-due-to-obamacare-as-healthcare-costs-rise


no lobbyists in his administration

A failed promise Obama shouldn't have made
So you approve of the buy and selling of special interest in our gov't.
A failed promise does equate to a lie


'transparency'

Not a lie, though Obama could have done better.

This last statement is a contradiction. you can not have it both ways. Did he lie or did he keep his promise?

[neisgator]

'Obamacare won't add one dime to the deficit'

Not a lie

'I'll close Guantanamo'

A failed promise that Obama should not have made

'you can keep your insurance'

Not a lie.

no lobbyists in his administration

A failed promise Obama shouldn't have made

'transparency'

Not a lie, though Obama could have done better.

This crap post should be THE REASON no one engages you further about anything. Truly sad.

[surfn1080]

How about no new taxes? Obamacare and 2% increase payroll tax he let expire. Payroll tax increase I can deal with. The huge failure we are now about to see in obamacare I cannot.

[chemgator]

Name a lie, and if it's valid, I'll criticize Obama for it. But your criteria for presidential lies has really changed now that there's a D in the office.

Obama's actions speak far louder than his words. He was careless enough to let slip in his first term that he no intentions of cutting any gov't program any time, anywhere. He disavowed his own "Debt Reduction Commission" and all of its findings and recommendations. His top priority every year seems to be getting the debt ceiling raised--why do you think that is? Under his administration, discretionary spending has increased 84% (21% per year). George W Bush, the Great Drunken Sailor Big Government Spender, only increased discretionary spending 7.5% per year (60% over 8 years). Where's the fiscal responsibility?

And are we getting anything for this spending? High speed rail? Smart energy grid? Anything?

[ncgatr1]

Obama's actions speak far louder than his words. He was careless enough to let slip in his first term that he no intentions of cutting any gov't program any time, anywhere. He disavowed his own "Debt Reduction Commission" and all of its findings and recommendations. His top priority every year seems to be getting the debt ceiling raised--why do you think that is? Under his administration, discretionary spending has increased 84% (21% per year). George W Bush, the Great Drunken Sailor Big Government Spender, only increased discretionary spending 7.5% per year (60% over 8 years). Where's the fiscal responsibility?

And are we getting anything for this spending? High speed rail? Smart energy grid? Anything?

Don'tforgwet he was the first one that went on record that proposed sequestration, yet the liberal media has short memory once again.

[wygator]

National review list of Obama falsehoods as reported by Politifact, the Washington Post fact checker:

While writing the previous piece where Washington Post’s The Fact Checker gave Barack Obama four Pinocchios on a statement he made on April 30, 2012, I clicked over to PolitiFact and took a look at the Obama File they keep where they have three pages of statements made by Barack Obama that were rated false statements.

Obama- If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact- Slim majority, not unprecedented)

Obama- “For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

Obama- “Preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact- Wrong in 2009, and wrong today)

Obama- “Thirty million Americans, including a lot of people in Florida, are going to be able to get healthcare next year because of that law.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

Obama- “I made a bunch of these promises during the campaign. … We’ve got about 60 percent done in three years.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact- “In the Works” does not equal “done”)

Obama Admin.- Under President Barack Obama, the United States has “doubled our exports.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

Obama Admin.- The president’s proposed budget “will help reduce the deficit by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was president.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-A mangled reference to a prior talking point)

Obama- Under the White House’s budget proposal, “we will not be adding more to the national debt” by the middle of the decade.
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-Revenue would equal outlays, but he ignores growing interest on the debt)

Obama- Twelve judges have thrown out legal challenges to the health care law because they rejected “the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-Score two to two on judges’ decisions on constitionality)

Obama- “I didn’t raise taxes once.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-We’ve tracked a few increases)

Obama- When President Franklin D. Roosevelt started Social Security, “it only affected widows and orphans,” and when Medicare began, “it was a small program.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-A grain of truth in the big picture, far off on the details)

Obama- The Bush administration had been “giving (auto companies) billions of dollars and just asking nothing in return.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

Obama- “The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-Big donors bankrolled much of Obama’s campaign)

Obama- “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-We found at least four)

Obama- When Obama was interviewed by American reporters in Asia, “Not one of them asked me about Asia. Not one of them asked me about the economy.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-More than one did)

Obama- Insurers delayed an Illinois man’s treatment, “and he died because of it.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(Insurer’s decision was reversed and man lived three more years)

Obama- Health reform will “give every American the same opportunity” to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

Obama- Preventive care “saves money.”
Truth-O-Meter rating: False
(PolitiFact-Covering preventive care for everyone is a net cost)

Obama- (No earmarks in spending bill)
Truth-O-Meter rating: False

That was only from page one of Obama’s false statement PolitiFact files.

(Note- Skipped one from page one because while PolitiFact rated it as false it was because Obama misspoke and quoted the wrong time frame, so I don’t count that as an outright lie to the American people, just sloppy.)

Page two is here and page three is here.

Noteworthy- Those three pages do not include the five instances where Obama was ruled worse than “false” but were called “pants on fire” false.

The another three pages of statements that are listed as “mostly false” on the Truth-O-Meter.

Mostly false statements by Obama or his administration- Page one here, page two here and page three here.
- See more at: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/#sthash.qAz1NM5Y.dpuf

There's more if you follow the link:

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

[northgagator]

National review list of Obama falsehoods as reported by Politifact, the Washington Post fact checker:

There's more if you follow the link:

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

If Obama were Pinocle he would have a strained neck holding his head up (the weight from the nose).

[gatorpa]

'Obamacare won't add one dime to the deficit'

Not a lie

'I'll close Guantanamo'

A failed promise that Obama should not have made

'you can keep your insurance'

Not a lie.

no lobbyists in his administration

A failed promise Obama shouldn't have made

'transparency'

Not a lie, though Obama could have done better.

Even the GAO disagrees on that, and we know what crappy accutaries they are!


When pitching the bill in 2009, President Barack Obama said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “would not add one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”
But a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “Obamacare” will take a .7 percent bite out of GDP over a 75-year period, amounting to $6.2 trillion in deficits.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/27/gao-report-says-obamacare-not-paid-for-despite-presidential-promise/#ixzz2MVu05twr

But perhaps Obama wasn't lying on purpose, he just did not read or understand the bill either!!

[Gatorrick22]

Not trolling, just asking a legitimate question that you still haven't answered. You are linking things from Heritage and something called 'usgovernmentspending.com' that clearly has bogus spending numbers. This does nothing to answer the question.


:laugh::laugh::laugh:


He answered it - you just refuse to see it in his post.

[Lawdog88]

Could we just take a vote of no confidence, and make all of them resign ?

[northgagator]

Could we just take a vote of no confidence, and make all of them resign ?

Question: Is the vote based on their idiocy or their end game for political destruction of each other? I will vote yes either way!

[squigator]

......Question to the Libs: Brother do you have a penny to spare?

Libs are always demanding our spare change:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155590/i-dont-have-change

[jmoliver]

The sequestor will not happen.

Lie

Teachers are losing their jobs.

Lie

[Matthanuf06]

Obama's actions speak far louder than his words. He was careless enough to let slip in his first term that he no intentions of cutting any gov't program any time, anywhere. He disavowed his own "Debt Reduction Commission" and all of its findings and recommendations. His top priority every year seems to be getting the debt ceiling raised--why do you think that is? Under his administration, discretionary spending has increased 84% (21% per year). George W Bush, the Great Drunken Sailor Big Government Spender, only increased discretionary spending 7.5% per year (60% over 8 years). Where's the fiscal responsibility?

And are we getting anything for this spending? High speed rail? Smart energy grid? Anything?

You last point is key. I hate government spending and it's highly inefficient. But Obamas spending takes it to a new level. Instead of having a ROI that is a tad below the private sector for a comparable project it is totally nonexistent. For this spending we've gotten pretty much nothing. It's amazing

[PSGator66]

Everything he says is a lie.

[The_Graygator]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


He answered it - you just refuse to see it in his post.

LOL!

Touche'!

Libs absolutely cannot stand being refuted, and if they are, either they won't aknowledge the info you refuted them with or they just declare themselves the "winner" by calling you a liar. :laugh:

[dangolegators]

I did answer your question.
Perhaps the other posters are correct in their comments that my use of facts only add confusion.

Here is the nut shell version.
1, Obama got over a trillion dollar tax increase back in Jan 1 of this year.
2, The Repubs did not get any significant spending cuts in return.
3, In the past two months Obama has requested more tax revenue. At the same time he has not offered any real cuts. Also, the size and cost of gov't is growing.
4, The Sequester spending cuts amounts to just 1% of total spending. In reality these cuts are not that harmful.
5, We have yet to set any real spending cuts from Obama that come close to the 1% of cuts that the Sequester delivers.


Obama's plan to avert the sequester included about 800 billion in spending cuts. Your title, 'Obama refuses to cut one penny' is not true. On top of that, your post was based on a column that described the effects of the sequester as cutting one penny from every dollar in the budget for 2013. There is nothing about Obama 'refusing' to cut one penny. Obama was hoping to avert the sequester with a better deal. That didn't happen. Obama is complying with the sequester and the executive branch has begun making the cuts. Your thread title is a lie.

[wygator]

Obama's plan to avert the sequester included about 800 billion in spending cuts. Your title, 'Obama refuses to cut one penny' is not true. On top of that, your post was based on a column that described the effects of the sequester as cutting one penny from every dollar in the budget for 2013. There is nothing about Obama 'refusing' to cut one penny. Obama was hoping to avert the sequester with a better deal. That didn't happen. Obama is complying with the sequester and the executive branch has begun making the cuts. Your thread title is a lie.

That's 800 billion over 10 years, right?

All it does is slow the rate of growth. Is that really a cut?

[g8trjax]

Once the sequestration kicks in good and half the country is out of work, does this mean no more lavish vacations for the Obama's? Or is it only the little people that will suffer?

[newkastle]

That's 800 billion over 10 years, right?

All it does is slow the rate of growth. Is that really a cut?

Not taking sides in this discussion, but to this point, yes. Our beloved friends in Washington do call it a spending cut if they simply reduce the amount of growth. It's a wonderful way to confuse/deceive the voters.

If a politician spends $100,000 this year and $101,000 next year, they would call that a cut because it falls below their automatic increases. Crazy.

[dangolegators]

That's 800 billion over 10 years, right?

All it does is slow the rate of growth. Is that really a cut?

Yes it is over 10 years. As are the 1.2 trillion in sequester cuts.

If it reduces the amount of spending as a percentage of GDP, it's really a cut. If it reduces real spending per capita, it's a cut. I know you guys want to think that GDP, inflation, and population growth don't matter, but they do.

[dangolegators]

If a politician spends $100,000 this year and $101,000 next year, they would call that a cut because it falls below their automatic increases. Crazy.

If inflation is 2%, this would be a cut. I know it's crazy, but inflation actually matters. Do you think you got a raise when you get a 1% increase in salary when inflation is 3%.

[newkastle]

If inflation is 2%, this would be a cut. I know it's crazy, but inflation actually matters. Do you think you got a raise when you get a 1% increase in salary when inflation is 3%.

Yes, I would think I got a raise. That 1% raise may result in less spending power, but it is still an increase in income.

[dangolegators]

Yes, I would think I got a raise. That 1% raise may result in less spending power, but it is still an increase in income.

Well then you got fooled by the company you work for into thinking they gave you a raise. When in fact they are paying you less real money than they were the year before.

[Lawdog88]

Do any government agencies ever return a portion of their allocated budget back to the Treasury because they either didn't need it all, or through efficiencies, they found ways to save ?

Ever heard of that ?

My late father-in-law worked high level civil service after retiring from the Navy (WWII Mustang Officer), and said that the orders from his superiors - all the way to the top - were to spend every dime, every year . . . because if you didn't, your departmental budget could get cut next year.

And part of those cuts could be your salary . . . and your job.

I just don't see any incentive, anywhere, top to bottom, to come to grips with excessive spending in government - or perish the thought - that maybe we should rethink what we spend on, and how much, from the get-go.

[northgagator]

I just don't see any incentive, anywhere, top to bottom, to come to grips with excessive spending in government - or perish the thought - that maybe we should rethink what we spend on, and how much, from the get-go.

I wish I could say that your entire post is BS, but I truthfully cannot do so.
I wish I could say that just one small part of your post is BS, but I truthfully cannot do so.
I have actually seen the very scenario that you described. My scenario was not the US Navy. It was the Duval County agencies and departments. I used to be a sales rep and I did a lot of business with these people. You could tell when fiscal year was coming. The city/county trucks were at our warehouse loading up with merchandise. They told me that if you don't use it you loose it. And some of us wonder where our tax dollars go.

[northgagator]

Yes it is over 10 years. As are the 1.2 trillion in sequester cuts.

If it reduces the amount of spending as a percentage of GDP, it's really a cut. If it reduces real spending per capita, it's a cut. I know you guys want to think that GDP, inflation, and population growth don't matter, but they do.

If? I
So now this debate comes do to ifs and buts.

When looking back into past, you can look like a genius play "If's".

When projecting into the future you cannot rely on "If's". Especially when you are planning ten years in advance.

We need to do two thins to ensure our national security. One eliminate the annual deficit spending ASAP. Adding on to our current debt is not part of the solution. Two, aggressively pay down on the current debt.
Also, we need to rethink how entitlements should benefit our citizens. The objective should be to empower them instead of making them dependent.

[dangolegators]

If? I
So now this debate comes do to ifs and buts.

When looking back into past, you can look like a genius play "If's".

When projecting into the future you cannot rely on "If's". Especially when you are planning ten years in advance.


Um, yeah, when someone asks a question, then 'if' can be an important qualifier when answering the question. Like when someone asks 'Are you going to the game' and the answer is 'if I can get a ticket I am'. The 'if' is an important piece of information.

As for projecting into the future, 'if' is the only thing you can rely on, unless you can actually see into the future and know what's going to happen. Projections are based on a lot of assumptions (or 'ifs'). What do you base future projections on, if not a series of 'ifs' (in other words, things that might or might not happen)?

[wygator]

Fun Fact:

The federal government borrowed during February six times the amount of the sequester cuts for a year.

[dangolegators]

Fun Fact:

The federal government borrowed during February six times the amount of the sequester cuts for a year.

What are the 2 numbers? How much was borrowed in February and how much are the sequester cuts for a year?

[wygator]

What are the 2 numbers? How much was borrowed in February and how much are the sequester cuts for a year?

(CNSNews.com) – During the month of February–as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in–the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion.

That one-month increase in the debt was nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in spending cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimates will take place in all of fiscal 2013 as a result of sequestration.

link (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2535b-obama-borrowed-nearly-6x-much-february-sequester-cuts-all-year)

[dangolegators]

link (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2535b-obama-borrowed-nearly-6x-much-february-sequester-cuts-all-year)

Yeah, I kind of figured that was it. Calling the sequester cuts 'all year' is kind of misleading because there's only 7 months left in the fiscal year. So that's not really 'all year', is it? And I am not downplaying the size of the deficit, it's very large. But month-to-month borrowing fluctuates wildly. Only 1 billion was borrowed in all of January, while 254 billion was borrowed in February.

So another fun fact would be 'Sequester cuts for the 7 months left in the fiscal year 2013 are 42 times more than what the federal government borrowed in January.' And that would be factual, insofar as the CBO estimate is factual.

But yeah, the deficit is very large. That's why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

[wygator]

Yeah, I kind of figured that was it. Calling the sequester cuts 'all year' is kind of misleading because there's only 7 months left in the fiscal year. So that's not really 'all year', is it? And I am not downplaying the size of the deficit, it's very large. But month-to-month borrowing fluctuates wildly. Only 1 billion was borrowed in all of January, while 254 billion was borrowed in February.

So another fun fact would be 'Sequester cuts for the 7 months left in the fiscal year 2013 are 42 times more than what the federal government borrowed in January.' And that would be factual, insofar as the CBO estimate is factual.

But yeah, the deficit is very large. That's why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

Facts are facts. Use the ones you want.

Are we still borrowing 40% of what we're spending?

If the $85 billion figure is used for sequester, it's still barely 2.5% of the new budget. If the the President and the Dems are squealing this much about cuts this small, I can't imagine what they'd do if anyone were making cuts that were actually meaningful in the long run.

[dangolegators]

Facts are facts. Use the ones you want.

Are we still borrowing 40% of what we're spending?

If the $85 billion figure is used for sequester, it's still barely 2.5% of the new budget. If the the President and the Dems are squealing this much about cuts this small, I can't imagine what they'd do if anyone were making cuts that were actually meaningful in the long run.

No, actually we are projected to borrow about 25% of what we spend this year. Still way too high, which is why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

[northgagator]

Um, yeah, when someone asks a question, then 'if' can be an important qualifier when answering the question. Like when someone asks 'Are you going to the game' and the answer is 'if I can get a ticket I am'. The 'if' is an important piece of information.[/QUOTE{
We are not talking about going to a game . We are talking about the financial stability of our country!
Budgeting is a risk and with our Federal budget those risks are very high. In the mud to long term future we have a hell of a lot to lose than not getting a $50 or a $100 ticket for a game!.
Next time you compare lets keep it apples to apples in stead of BB's to cannon balls.

[QUOTE] As for projecting into the future, 'if' is the only thing you can rely on, unless you can actually see into the future and know what's going to happen. Projections are based on a lot of assumptions (or 'ifs'). What do you base future projections on, if not a series of 'ifs' (in other words, things that might or might not happen)?

No offense intended but you show a lack of experience in financial budgeting. It is more than wetting your finger and pointing it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
I will acknowledge that to a degree "If's" are used in budget tug. However a lot if empirical evidence is used on those "If's". For instance you can take your total electric bill from last year, exclude the out of the normal costs/savings and project that you electric bill for the coming year.

In the case of our Federal gov't we do not have enough empirical evidence to make even a half ass projection. On second thought we do have enough empirical evidence. We should used the Federal gov't past failed budget projections as factors for budgeting ten years out. Doing that would soundly defeat The Dems/Obama's projections. In fact it would scare the chit out of all of us (a good cure for financial constipation we have in Washington DC).

[northgagator]

No, actually we are projected to borrow about 25% of what we spend this year. Still way too high, which is why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

The track record on Obama's financial projections is abysmal. Yet you are still betting the house on him. I hope that you have a good plan B come eviction day.

First of all Europe and Asia are in or headed into a recession fie this year. This bit if news is very important because it impacts our exports and eventually our revenues.
Second, the US middle class Will be hit hard by the recent Fed, State, and local tax increased. The money diverted from consumer spending is not going to help those revenue you are expecting.

We all have some nasty medicine to swallow for a while. That medicine is budget cuts in all areas and a new view point our gov't policies and entitlements.
1, Successful families rely on the family members to survive and not a giv't check
2, Life is not fair and cannot be legislated to be fair.
3, When our economy and our citizens are struggling our leaders need to feel the pain too. There should be cut backs in in gov't salaries, perks, and other spending.
4, When many Americans do not get a pay raise, get a cut in pay then the entitlements should not get a raise and if necessary there should be a cut.

[PSGator66]

He is more like a president over the Democratic party that of the nation itself.

[neisgator]

Well then you got fooled by the company you work for into thinking they gave you a raise. When in fact they are paying you less real money than they were the year before.

Good Lord.
Umm, you think the company is spending the same on him?
Incredible

[G8trGr8t]

You last point is key. I hate government spending and it's highly inefficient. But Obamas spending takes it to a new level. Instead of having a ROI that is a tad below the private sector for a comparable project it is totally nonexistent. For this spending we've gotten pretty much nothing. It's amazing

We've gotten 4 more years of 0 and that is what was important