Dod personell working 4 days instead of 5 a week? At doing What job? I worked and needed Dod people that I dealt with 5 days a week. I couldn't get my job completely done each if they weren't there when I needed them.

This is about the Sequester and if it happens it only reduces EVERYTHING 2% across the board. Less than a year ago they were looking for some money and the Military said that didn't need all the money they were getting. Now Congess is saying, in essence, that the sequsetor will cause the Military to have to take a second job. BS, they are just playing Politics here. The Sequestor and the amounts set on it was agreed to by Boehner and Obama last year before News Year. They already know the spending is going to be 1.7 Trill and the whole thing is weighing on the Senate to get it to 1.6 Trill. The Sequistor will set it at 1.6 Trill automaticly. 2% of 1 trillion is 20 Billion that sounds like a lot but with numbers this large it is peanuts.

This is how the government grows out of control. Try and cut any spending, which of course is not real spending but reductions in future spending increases, and out come the Democrats screaming doom and gloom. They are taking food out of the mouths of children, they want you to breathe dirty air, drink dirty water, this is being done on the backs of seniors, it will cost jobs, it will cause another recession, and it only benefits the wealthy. To mention but a few of the Democrats favorite. They never mention cutting things like the Cowboy Poetry Festival in Nevada, or all the pork they stuff in must pass legislation. Washington is all about waste. They never mention the fact that every department knows that if you don't spend your entire budget, you won't get a raise next year. Now that is a formula for waste.

"Try and cut any spending, which of course is not real spending but reductions in future spending increases, and out come the Democrats screaming doom and gloom"

You seem to forget that the largest surplus of all times became the largest deficit of all times when George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate. This idea that Democrats spend money and Republicans don't is nothing but BS.

There never was a surplus, only a projected surplus.

Rex this is crap! You have said this quite a few times! During the .com boom there was indeed a surplus! We had twenty yearold's becoming millionaires over night! The economy was a an all time high! No surplus, Seriously? Go sell that some where else!!!!!

Dmajesty: Read the following. On the last article, Note this was written before Bush took office. Pay special attention to the prediction made in last paragraph.

Excerpt from: DEAN: Clinton, Gingrich and the balanced budget myth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/6/clinton-gingrich-and-the-balanced-budget-myth/

According to the Bureau of Public Debt of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the federal debt actually increased in each of those years. In other words, the supposed surplus was never realized. Can it be a myth? Can it be the “surplus” was just another gimmick that Washington uses because it makes up its own rules? Let’s look even closer.

As anyone unfortunate enough to work in the private sector understands, there is a huge difference between a budget and actual results. The first is an aspiration, the second is reality. But Washington plays a different game. Congress invents its own rules, uses those rules to prepare a budget and then passes it in the form of legislation. Then they say it is real. Whether it actually is to the rest of the country just doesn’t matter.

It turns out the budget scored a surplus only because it borrowed money from the “trust” funds that secure entitlement payments, such as Social Security and Medicare. Since, in the real world, those funds would be considered obligated, those intergovernmental borrowings actually increase the federal debt. They are included in the debt figure that is published by the Bureau of Public Debt.

Bill Clinton claimed "Budget SURPLUSES" for 1998 – 2000 of $428 Billion, so most people believed that we were on track to pay off the National Debt, yet the National Debt INCREASED by $259 Billion in those years – a "swing" difference of $687 Billion more spending than the "surpluses" would seem to indicate.

The difference is about $340 Billion the government "borrowed" from the Social Security "Trust" Fund and claimed it reduced the Deficit, when in reality it INCREASED the National Debt by that amount ($340 Billion + $340 Billion = $680 Billion difference).

Excerpt from: Budget Bunk: The Old Pox on Both Your Houses Game

“The Democrats rely on their great myth: Bill Clinton made the hard choices, cutting spending and raising taxes. This led not only to a balanced budget, but to large surpluses. As former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said, he had the privilege as Treasury Secretary to be buying back federal debt. In this story, the economy was rewarded with strong growth, low unemployment, and a declining national debt, all by virtue of President Clinton's courage in reducing the budget deficit.

It's a nice story, but it's long past time that we put this fairy tale to rest. …..

In short, the real story of the balanced budget in the '90s had little to do with Clinton's hard choices. It was attributable on the one hand to an eclectic Fed chairman who was prepared to ignore the orthodoxy within the economics profession and allow the unemployment rate to fall to levels generally thought impossible to attain by economists. On the other hand, it was driven by an unsustainable asset bubble.

This is key part that people want to remember going forward. The prosperity at the end of the Clinton years was unsustainable because it rested on a bubble that was destined to burst. And it did burst exactly as President Clinton was making his plans to leave the White House. The economy did not regain the jobs lost in the 2001 recession until 2005, and even then it was on the back of another unsustainable bubble, this one in the housing market. And we know how that one ended.

So the Democrats' morality tale of hard budget choices and virtuous austerity turns out not to hold water.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/budget-bunk-the-old-pox-o_b_1466789.html

Excerpt from: The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.

Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.

A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

The Surplus Hoax

November 03, 2000 by Hans F. Sennholz - http://mises.org/daily/542

The ever-growing budget surplus of the U.S. Government is exciting the spending instincts of most politicians. It stirs their passions and encourages them to find and concoct new spending programs that will tap into the surplus.

In defense of their position and income, most politicians are ever eager to take as much money as possible from taxpayers so that they may buy the favors of the voters. They wax eloquent about the great benefits of spending but fall silent about the costs and consequences of taxation. Most of them may even engage in the art of fiscal legerdemain which turns a tax into a benefit and a deficit into a surplus. The budget surpluses of the Clinton Administration are current examples of such deception.

A budget reflects a president's aspirations and hopes, his wishful thinking as well as his philosophy of politics. It's a mixture of financial planning and political campaigning in which fiscal legerdemain knows no limitations of party or time. The federal budget surpluses since 1998 are no exception to the rule. They obscure significant federal expenditures through bookkeeping gimmickry, such as borrowing new money to pay off old loans and calling it "debt reduction."

Imagine a corporation suffering losses and being deep in debt. In order to boost its stock prices and the bonuses of its officers, the corporation quietly borrows funds in the bond market and uses them not only to cover its losses but also to retire some corporate stock and thereby bid up its price. And imagine the management boasting of profits and surpluses. But that's what the Clinton Administration has been doing with alacrity and brazenness. It suffers sizeable budget deficits, increasing the national debt by hundreds of billions of dollars, but uses trust funds to meet expenditures and then boasts of surpluses which excites the spending predilection of politicians in both parties.

If a corporation executive were to engage in such deceit, the Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who are supposed to promote full public disclosure and protect the investing public against malpractice in the securities markets, would intervene with severity; when a president of the United States and his appointees engage in similar practices, all his men fall silent.

The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion. Since then it has risen to $5.643 trillion today, October 15, 2000, with another deficit of $117 billion.

The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.

In the coming years, the trust fund surpluses are estimated to grow significantly, inviting ever more fiscal legerdemain.

Estimates of Trust Fund Surpluses
(In billions of dollars)

1998 - $99.195

1999 - 123.690

2000 - 147.834

2001 - 159.639

2002 - 172.002

2003 - 184.318

2004 - 194.618

2005 - 213.654

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is the research arm of Congress, is rather pessimistic about future trust fund surpluses. It warns of lurking deficits in the distant future. Within a decade the members of the baby-boom generation will retire and put financial strains on Social Security and Medicare. The number of beneficiaries will soar as will the cost of health care due to advances in medical technology.

CBO estimates that federal total spending on retirement and health programs will more than double, rising from 7.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)in 1999 to more than 16.7 percent in 2040. Deficits are expected to reappear in 2020 and climb to 9.5 percent of GDP by 2040. CBO suggests that structural reforms are needed, no matter how politically difficult they may be. Without such reforms the trust fund deficits together with the Treasury deficits would soar to record levels.

The present trust fund surpluses do affect the capital markets in a favorable manner, which most critics do not care to mention. Whenever government suffers a budget deficit, it drains the capital market of valuable liquid funds, which otherwise would have produced capital investments or private consumption; and it raises interest rates and crowds out private activity. Trust fund surpluses offset the ill effects of Treasury deficits. Whenever the surpluses exceed the deficits, they even provide productive capital as Treasury obligations are retired. But, no matter how advantageous the trust fund surpluses may be for the capital market, they constitute tax exactions that reduce the income and level of living of taxpayers.

The Treasury's dependence on trust fund revenue is visible also in the shift of the national debt from the hands of individual and institutional investors to the coffers of federal trust funds, that is, from marketable obligations to non-marketable IOUs. The Treasury calls it "debt reduction"; it actually is mere "debt shifting" from bill and bond holders to Social Security claimants. During the past two years, the marketables declined by some $223 billion while the non-marketables rose by more than $450 billion, the balance representing new debt. At this time, the marketable debt of some $3 trillion still surpasses the non-marketable debt of of $2.6 trillion.

President Clinton proposes to devote the entire Social Security surplus to reduce and finally eliminate the Treasury debt held by the public. He reasons that "creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt service costs and result in substantial interest savings."(The Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 36). He obviously infers and wants us to believe that "debt shifting" is "debt reduction," that the U.S. Treasury will be debt-free when the Social Security Administration holds all its debt, and that this shift will result in substantial interest savings. The President palpably engages in the art of legerdemain which turns debt shifting into debt reduction, a huge national debt into freedom from debt, and interest payments payable to the Social Security Administration into interest savings.

The "Miscellaneous Receipts" of the Treasury are legerdemain revenues created by the U.S. Congress. They consist primarily of the net earnings of the Federal Reserve System. In fiscal 1998 and 1999 the System deposited $32.658 and $34.929 billion respectively with the Treasury; in fiscal 2000 they are estimated to exceed $37 billion.

The Budget document unfortunately does not reveal that the System financed massive U.S. government expenditures by purchasing $507 billion of U.S. Treasury securities with money it printed; the Treasury then paid an interest of more than $30 billion to the Fed, which then returned the funds to the Treasury as "Miscellaneous Receipts." In short, one government agency, the Fed, now prints money at minimal costs; another agency, the U.S. Treasury, spends it, but pays an interest to the Fed, which then returns the funds to the Treasury. (Federal Reserve Bulletin, October 2000, p. A5, A26) If a corporation were to engage in such practices, its officers would soon be languishing in federal penitentiaries.

Such machinations obviously build on the power of the Federal Reserve System to print legal-tender money which every American is forced to accept. Having grown accustomed to this force, most Americans no longer question it although it is the very essence of wrongdoing. The power to print money and force it on the people is the power to engage in inflation, which is one of the political evils of our time.

The money thus printed, the Federal Reserve notes, constitute "high-powered money" and as such serve as the base for multiple credit expansion of M1, M2, and M3, which continually erode the purchasing power of the American dollar. Throughout the years, the $507 billion of Treasury securities bought by the Fed not only enriched the Treasury directly, but also indirectly provided annual depreciation gains on the Treasury debt of $5.6 trillion. At an inflation rate of just 3 percent, those gains amount to some $168 billion annually; the U.S. Budget makes no mention of them.

Whoever takes office in 2001 is likely to make short shrift of any and all trust-fund surpluses. If we add his budget proposals to the expenditure growth of the last three years, when spending on domestic programs increased an average of 5.5 percent a year, the future deficits may soar to the lofty levels of the 1980s. Moreover, the remarkable rise in federal revenues in recent years, which flowed from the feverish boom on Wall Street and greatly boosted capital gains tax receipts, is bound to come to an end. When economic activity declines and unemployment rises, most politicians are likely to go into overdrive spending. After all, they always delight in seeking to amuse, coax, and engage the fancy of the electorate.

All I can say hs321 is WOW! It really puts things in perspective. I plan on researching your information, but most sounds legit. Thanks.

Think: Your right thinking would be to research yourself and check your sources! What you read and hear is sometimes inaccurate!

"There never was a surplus, only a projected surplus."

Is that so Rex? So tell us --- when your buddy George W. Bush said “we have surpluses for as far as the eye can see” as a justification for his tax cuts, was he lying???

The libertarian party does exist.

LOOKING FOR THE NEXT PARTY ????

Perhaps you are correct !!! The two we have today do not work, let alone work for us.. In that case YES I am looking for another party.

The libertarian party seems to be part of the Tea Party.

Gov. Chris Christie (G) of New Jersey has the popularity among Democrats and Independents to be able to start a new political party. The Boss might even make a donation. Christie would need a reliable running mate. I haven't figured out who that could be yet.

There is a reason Washington is silent on sequester, they know the sky isn't going to fall. These cuts are paltry, and the worst thing for Washington is that people learn these cuts caused no pain. No pain will mean more cuts are possible, and that is the last thing Washington wants the American people to learn. Obama has been giving speech after speech about how devastating sequester will be for the nation, and yet once they happen no one is ever going to notice. Sequester is as Obama said in the SOTU address, just another manufactured crisis.

Call the bluff and let the cuts happen. This is just doom & gloom guerilla warfare by the dems so they can scare the public into over reacting. The American people should be smart enough to know that if you are spending more than you generate, the correct path isn't to continue spending even more. We need to have a sense for why austerity measures need to take place. We can't keep skyrocketing our deficit, year after year. If there isn't enough money to pay out expenditures, why would we continue to do so. And for the president to begin banging the drum about Military cuts being devastating to our readiness then why isn't he more willing to equally cut social programs so the cuts are fair across the board. We have to start treating the Government like a business and whatever isn't making sense or money, cut it. Instead we get politicians uber-pandering to groups with giveaways that cannot be paid for under current budget restraints, all in the least transparent way to garner votes, IE, Illegal amnesty, Gay marriage acceptance, Health care act rammed thru, Over the top rhetoric after natural disasters. Running a country shouldn't be a popularity contest. Big headed Dems running around with their chests puffedout thinking they have the Repub's on the run should be more concerned with how our countries finances are ruining our present and our children's futures. Here's a thought, REP's- Get over Roe Vs Wade, get past the gay marriage deal, Get your heads out of the azzes of rich business leaders and their lobbying arms. Dem's- Stop trying to waive amnesty and uphold the law, illegal is illegal. Make them go thru the correct process and get rid of anchor baby protections. Stop demonizing religion, it is obvious that the Liberal wing of your party is anathema to anything religious in nature. Even better, When a majority vote leans one way, stop skirting/ignoring the results and pass minority friendly statutes. It pisses people off when you ask ten people's opinion and 8 tell you one thing and two say another and you push for the two people's opinion. Make the word majority mean something again.

The best idea congress has had is a 4 day work month! Things are greatly improved when they go home. Perhaps we can convince them to STAY home!

Yes but their salary should be equivalent to the amount of "work" they do which is very little.

Mike, you are correct. MANY upstate NY towns are in similar situations. Industry in general can not compete against China and its wage structure. IF any one country has a 17 cent an hour labor rate and a 14.00 hinge is able to me mfgd in China for 1.50, how can we compete? Overtaxation, which we now have is only part of the problem. Most companies first migrated to the south, then found they could not compete either. But there is hope. EVERY empire in the sun has its day and China's will end. The next will be Russia, India, or Brazil, in the foreseeable future. Your thoughts gentlemen?

China wages $1.00 an hr and India is .20 an hr. Around 1960 I was 12 and started working for farmers aand Potatoe shippers when I wasn't in school, weekends, summers and school vacations. When I worked I got a mans wage, $.80 cents an hour. It will take a while but they will be unionized and Striking for higher wages and more benifits to. I see History repeating itself and than the Capitalist will find it harder to find cheap labor. The Capitalist will ultimate create their own Demise. The government keeps the Capitalist from having a Monoply on things for price competeing purposes for the average family. A Monopoly to me is nothing more than one Capitalist screwing the another Capitalist. Unfortunatly, we the family units suffer at their expense. The Capitalist has more than they need and are fighting to keep what they don't need. It all boils down to this how rich does some one really need to be. They are just playing a game that working people play back in the 50s and 60s and some are playing it today.It's called keeping up with the Jonses.

You misspelled a Dan Quayle potatoe (no "e").

Industries are hurting all over this country, yet all Obama can think of to do is demand higher taxes and impose more regulations on them, plus chase any investors away.

So why are corporations making record, all time profits?

I like the idea of everyone having a job that pays roughly the same and everyone having a house roughly the same. Everything fair and square.

Problem is, that only works in La La Land. That's exactly what they had in the former USSR. It goes against the grain of human nature. One guy works hard and gets paid the same as the guy who hardly puts out any effort. The hard worker eventually gets resentful and becomes a slacker like the other guy. Productivity takes a nose dive. The only thing worse than a corporate monopoly is a government monopoly.

Harley

If tax cuts actually would do what the cut proponents claim, why did not the huge tax cuts of 2002 and extended in 2011 make further cuts needed. As far as the level of tax rates at the present time of our troubles, check and see what the tax rates were during the 1950's through the 1970's. Also, check the period of maximum economic growth and prosperity. Interesting right?

Mr. Markinbecker;

The record profits you speak of are from re-investment in foreign countries. When they shut down the companies here in the states they took the money and ran to these countries and invested in slave labor. they then shipped the same goods with the same products, same looks, same packaging, and same "American" company name on it and kept selling it to us as if nothing happened or went wrong.

An old friend once told me the easiest way to bring a lot of that back because of "brand name recognition" would be to have like RCA or Motorola have to put their company (like Hang Su Electronics instead of RCA or Motorola) that manufactures their electronics for them on the package. He calls it the: American Made/American Name Law.

Mr. Roger;

As I said I am not the SHARPEST knife in the drawer, all I know is what I see, and here in "The Land That God Forgot, but the democrats didn't" I see year after year my taxes increase, and my spending/buying power decrease (I usually make around $30/hr on most of my jobs) I now spend over 57% of my pay for taxes, when in 1972 I worked for $1.85/hr at 1 job and $2.15 at my other I had money to play and do things, my bills were always paid a week to 2 weeks ahead of time, If I wanted to take off and go to the shore in Jersey for the week-end I could. Now I have to plan every thing down to the dime when I go on Vacation. And last year My property taxes jumped another 18%.

.

Roger....it would be nice if it were a black and white situation.

Politicians raise taxes when the economy is steam rolling, bringing in more revenue. Yes it helps in the short run, but eventually people start dodging the taxes or not investing or opening businesses because the gains are reduced by the taxes. It hurts in the long run. Reagan said his tax cuts would start helping the economy in about ten years. Ten years...macroeconomics. Who was in office then? Clinton, who also had the .com boom generating revenue which Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with.

You might be interested in reading this. It's principles are verified all up and down comment sections all over the web. I'm an independent and I do it as well:

“While individuals can and do appeal to principle in some cases to support their moral positions, we argue that this is a difficult stance psychologically because it conflicts with well-rehearsed economic intuitions urging that the most rational course of action is the one that produces the most favorable cost-benefit ratio. Our research suggests that people resolve such dilemmas by bringing cost-benefit beliefs into line with moral evaluations, such that the right course of action morally becomes the right course of action practically as well. Study 3 provides experimental confirmation of a pattern implied by both our own and others' correlational research (e.g., Kahan, 2010): People shape their descriptive understanding of the world to fit their prescriptive understanding of it. Our findings contribute to a growing body of research demonstrating that moral evaluations affect non-moral judgments such as assessments of cause (Alicke, 2000; Cushman & Youn g, 2011) intention (Knobe, 2003, 2010), and control (Young & Phillips, 2011). At the broadest level, all these examples represent a tendency, long noted by philosophers, for people to have trouble maintaining clear conceptual boundaries between what is and what ought to be (Davis, 1978; Hume, 1740/1985).”

What Dilemma? Moral Evaluation Shapes Factual Belief – by Brittany Liu - University of California, Irvine & Peter H. Ditto - University of California, Irvine - May 18, 2012

Summary by John Mauldin: The studies further show that this effect is stronger in well-informed, politically engaged individuals. The more information we have, the higher our propensity to cheat with it. I've been talking to a lot of people on both sides of the election, and the thing I'm often struck by is an inability to find any validity in the opposing side's arguments. By blocking our ability to have meaningful conversations, this effect is actually harming political discourse.

------

"People shape their descriptive understanding of the world to fit their prescriptive understanding of it."

Practically everyone of us is guilty of this, but clearly it is human nature.

Mr. HS;

Thank you for the open and honest info for us to read and give pause for thought with, it is truly informativeand your last paragraph is the most powerful and totally reinforces your last sentence.

Yeah, but the overtaxing in NY is state taxes. It is not due to Federal taxes.

Well, we could cut the minimum wage to $1.36 and reduce benefits to $0. That would level the playing field.

Or we could institute tarrifs. One problem there, the Chinese financed two wars for us and and have us by the balls. Thanks Republican party and George W Bush.

The department of defense is in process of being cut. All programs should be cut. Cut 1% out of the budgets off all departments. Then you will be cutting. Cutting the projected growth of programs isn't cutting.

Cut Congresses Pay!

this is all a bunch of smoking mirrors, there are so many cut they can do and would have to raise taxes. Change the tax system 7% across the board and get rid of all deductions and loop holes. Close some over seas bases. Get out of wars. Cut the fat in the government all of them have some so the 1% would be a start. Cut congresses the preses benifits, why do they get different care and not on Obamacare. Get ride of the 1 term congress does and they get full retirement pay. Most people dont want the illegals here since they are leaching of our system kick them out and then the people on unemployment would have jobs.

They are cutting a lot in the DOD. Their employees are going to only work 4 days out of the week. People are getting their pay cut by 20%. This is going to harm several people including the local economy,as well. Congress needs to get get a substantial pay cut, it does not matter which side of the isle they are on, all politicians are to blame for this bulls*#t.

Umm, no.

As you may recall, the sequester was the result of the Tea-Bagger's last summer.

My how quickly we forget.

The summer of 2011, not last summer.

No, it was Obama's idea, check you facts.

Bohner didn't have anything to do with it?

It does not matter whose idea it was, let it happen. Over time we will see who screams the loudest and what gets put back in. Once this kicks in, entitlements are "off the table". See, two can play that game.

It's funny how if politicians say something long enough "Obama's sequester" then it must be. What you conservative morons don't realize is it was voted on by both Dems and Rep. It's both their ideas. The only difference here is Obama has the balls to see it through unless hypocrat Party is willing to sit and talk it through to work out a deal!

Actually, Captain Jack, the sequester "idea" came from the WHITE HOUSE.

How quickly YOU forget.

I agree, let it happen. The "doom and gloom" is hype...

Will some jobs be lost? Sure. But big and bigger government has gotta go- and this is the ONLY way to get this Administration to slow it's out of control spending.

Rott2011, all you need know:

"Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.

During the debate, however, Obama said the idea originated on Capitol Hill.

"First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed," Obama said,..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html

Obama, like most politicians, is a liar. Sequestration originated in his White House. He owns it.

OK, let's blame Obama and make sure he only gets to serve two terms. What you don't realize is that the Republicans agreed to the sequestration because they did not want to give Obama a big legislative win in 2011 that he could tout during his re-election bid. You see, they thought they would win the White House and essentially undo this thing. They lost! They can't blame the Democrats in the House because, it passed overwhelmingly with Republican support. In 2014 Republicans will own the Sequestration. Now, the only thing remaining is to blame Hillary for the sequestration in 2016!

LOL B707320C!

Everybody knows it's Bush's fault!!

Being an independent I'm well aware both parties are to blame. But the point was that Obama tried to disown his part in it and lay it on the shoulders of the Republicans. He should follow this guys advice:

"Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demands more." - Barack Obama - First United Nations Speech - September 23, 2009

Hs321,

Obama won. The other guys lost. So, Obama is right. If he was wrong, the other guy would have won. That's politics.

Replace ALL members of congress with potted plants. Water them every day and you will see better results than we receive at present.

They are effected as well. In fact Nancy is all upset about it....that a cut to the Congress is beneath them...

If Democrats in Congress fail to prevent across-the-board spending cuts (AKA ‘the sequester’) their own $174,000 salary gets trimmed too, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi is offended by the notion.

“I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

Independant.....no one is innocent in this but Republicans want to continue to play the field to gain some sort of advantage at the publics cost. This deal would have never made to this point if both sides had not agreed on it to begin with. You know as well as I do that regardless of who's in the majority or minority it takes both to get something like this done. If it were truly an Obama idea they never would have let it pass through the house let alone the filibustering minority Republican Senate!

Rott2011...Significant spending cuts must be made if our situation is to ever improve. It's the Democrats who refuse to make any significant cuts. And the reason they do not want to do so is out of fear they might lose votes.

“The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.” -- Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill, Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt, March 16, 2006

"Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demands more." - Barack Obama - First United Nations Speech - September 23, 2009

NY is getting more like CA every day. Disgusting is it not?

Tax Weary 1, the problem is with the voters, they are so party strong minded that they keep putting in the same crooks. The voters is ones here that need to get their heads screwed on straight. Believe it or not there are many voters that say," My Great Grandfather was a Republican/Democrat, so wasn't my Grand Daddy and Daddy so I am one to." If I'm lieing I'm Dying, I've said this fact for 45 years and God has not struck me dead with Lighting yet. By following this thought you are giving up you Freedom of Choice, it is not being taken from you. So, you others, don't even use that line on me.

Why are politicians allowed to meet in private? We need a sunshine law. Congress needs to meet together with members from all parties. Take the caucus out of government.

We moved from the hellhole that is upstate NY a little over a year ago when my wife got caught in Mario's teacher layoffs, and have moved to a right to work state, and it's been FABULOUS!!! Over 150 bucks a week DIFFERENCE in taxes (not to mention reduced insurance costs, lower sales tax, etc.). I let Mario know that we'll be spending our 401k's in a state that's NOT NY, and will be paying taxes to NOT NY. I suspect that more and more of the taxPAYERS will be abandoning that welfare infused hellhole. How many congressional seats did they lose? How many did Texas gain? How come that happened?

I totally agree. This sequester deal was done behind closed doors.

To tell you the truth, if I didn't have a really good job right now I would try my luck in another state. But at my age and with the economic situation the way that it is, it isn't feasible for me to give up a good job and move. I am happy that my children were smart enough to leave NYS and when I retire, I will be right behind them.

Joanie,

But that's just the GOP, Right? I mean all those Democrats don't follow the same rules of conduct or when the house is not in session they are HARD at work, Right?And Pelosi didn't make 2 million dollars off of basically insider trading Right? And I'm sure all those democrats just donate their salries right back to the treasury.,Right? Get a grip. Your dumb azz democrats are every bit as bad as the GOP you are complaining about. But you give them a free pass because after all THEIR DEMOCRATS!

If the President took off two days, the lines would light up complaining about how many vacations he takes! When the congress only works part time you don't here a peep about it from the ones who complain about the President!

Paul. Insider Trading is not Illegal for a politician, I am not kidding, it is Legal. I cannot do it, and you cannot do it, unless we are politicians. How do you think that these Politicians go into politics with just a pittence in there pocket and come out as Millionaires many tims over? I know that they take some small payoffs to get started, but when they save about five hundred thousand, with there Legal insider Trading, they become Multi Millionaires overnight. I want to know why it is Legal for Politicians, but not for the common person.

Dale, let me point this out and everybody that doubts me can fact check it to see I'm telling the truth. George Bush took a 2 week vacation every 2 months while he was in office. The Trolls never said a word about it, probably because he white or they were so dead in the head from all the Troll Aid they drink.

The EPA has also caused rivers not to catch fire and canals to not emit toxic fumes that cause people to vomit blood. Incandescent bulbs can be found at every grocery store. Got anything else?

Vern I gave you vote and what you say is true. Unfortunatly we won't be around to see that happen. They say History reapeats itself but they don't say where. We however are smart enough to make a logical decission on where, how and why. Benn there done that, sound familiar?

"The EPA has caused more business to fail than anything else."

And you can back that up with ----- what????

Federal employees must be 55 years of age and have served for 30 years. There are very few left under the old CSRS program, which is all they get. They are denied from receiving social security. The new plan, FERS, allows federal retirees to collect social security, and there is also something similar to a 401K called Thrift Savings Plan so personnel can contribute throughout their careers up to a certain limit. Retirement benefits are dependent on the size of the annual salary. Federal salaries have been frozen for the last two years and look like being frozen for another two. Nobody is getting rich in the civil service unless they're crooked.

sunnythunder, I recall reading about the end of Jan the Obama had lifted the wage increase freezethat had been inplace for about 2 years. I think it was NBC News or Msn that ran the article.

Saranac Lake is 300 miles away from the city that Bloomberg is mayor of.

Voter56, it's like this, I finally paid off the debts of my Grandfather (I'm 65) by the time Bush came to office. I feel I did my share. Now it your turn to pick up the tourch and pass it on. Only problem is it's going to take 2 or 3 generations more than you think this time. From the appearences of things and the way this country is going, paying off the debt is going to be the least of their worries.

Obama hasn't back down on the Sequestor, that is the thing you are having a problem with. Also Boehner agreed to the terms of the Sequestor before New Years. All the Republicans are doing is Political Posturing, you know, bending over so you can kiss their assas with your vote next election.

agreed - we are so far in debt, I suspect we will have to increase taxes even with spending cuts just to stay 'even'. But, we have to start somewhere... libs (and repubs) bitch about the tea party, well, it arose because of 'taxation without representation' just as it did 240 years ago. Like them or not, they've underscored a huge issue and keep it in the forefront. We've gone from a nation of 'let's get it done' to 'let's get it for free'...

Braindead, Dammit boy, the SS is doing just fine, yes it needed a little tweak, That crap about SS going broke was a campaign bunch of lies. every News show was saying it is going to belly up in 20, 15,5 years to it is already bankrupt (that one by FOX). Yes it probably needed a few dollar to get past the Baby Boomer Group coming through. I don't mind a few Tax dollars going to a short time fix that will smooth back to normal after a few short years. 99.9% of anything you hear about the problems with SS is done by the Communist Koch Bros who have been trying to end SS for years and they donate more money towards it's down fall that it would to leave it alone. Another reason you heard about SS falling was because the Republicans wanted you to by into the Ryan Plan, The Ultimate Spiral of Death.

New political party: Christie and Bloomberg?

Oh come now not all the republicans or Democrats are bat but you have a majority in the senate not to mantion the same for the House. You don't hear much about the House, in fact you almost forget about them, but I suggest keep a close eye on them to. Now as for the Legisltve, you really don't hear about them, do ya?

Paleeze, If you make a pay check aand spend all of it for bill and still need 10% more income just to break even would you settle for a payraise of 3, 4, 5,%?

@drunk n drinking, some businesses run on a very low overhead and want to grow but can't, there options are limited if they are to survive.

I agree Realist -- I mean who cares if we bankrupt the country. Let's take the easy way out!

Realist, you are wrong. Congress is quite adept at blocking each others legislation, been doing it for @ 5 years now. Also, the president is inept. If it weren't for his misuse of 'executive order', many of his efforts would be non-history. He is a horrible consensus builder - in his first four years he played 102 rounds of golf, one with a democrat and one with a republican. He's ignored relationship building in the extreme. Look back at Bush II, Clinton, Reagan - they all got spanked at midterms and reached across the aisle in order to get things done. Why is our congress so partisan? Look to obama... he doesn't have the ability (or the stones) to lead as his predecessors did.

Obama didn't get spanked after his first term, he won big time. The American people gave him a mandate to turn this economy around and that is what he is doing. The economic numbers since the first of the year have been outstanding. The teabaggers are in big trouble and they want desperately to tank this economy or they will get absolutely wiped off the map in 2014 and 2016.

The sad irony is that the 4th Quarter in 2012 that contracted .1% did so because of REDUCTION of government spending....the rest of the economy grew at close to 3%. There is a reason why the GOP isn't beating Obama over the head with that number because it proves that government spending is vital to our economy.

So your solution, is to keep printing money, so we can hire more government "workers" that we can't afford to pay?

BRILLIANT!

markinbecker - A "mandate"??? Really? Almost half of the voters voted for the other guy. Yes, we know, the other guy lost. So near 50% makes it a mandate? President Benghazi will go down in history as either the worst or last president of the United States. He's a disgusting POS.

Yes Steve a mandate. Remember the democrats also won back and increased their lead in the Senate and took back about 13 house seats. It was a overwhelming victory, a mandate. Live with it.

Doc logic, We have a surplus of over 2,500 m1 Abrams Tanksand it is still growing, How many tanks do we need in reserve? It's time to retool that factory back to making stuff for Civilians and Exports.

Our exports are too expensive to make and therefore too expensive to compete in the market.

The Sequistor is only 2% across the board, I don't think that will make much of an issue on anything.

And here's another one:

"Those who think the government can take care of them should take a closer look at the American Indian" Henry Ford

And Here's another one:

"My job as Senate minority leader is to make Obama a one term President and in order to do so I intend on destroying the American Economy." Mitch McConnell, 2009, standing on the senate floor.

Independent, you are not a native American. Interesting thought, If the Native Americans had Immigration Laws back than you butt would be something else and be somewheres else.

Anyone born on American soil is a native American. While we're quoting lets not forget the venerable Thomas Jefferson who truly understood Government when he said: A Government large enough to give you everything you want is also large enough to take away everything you have. Be nice if Progressives figured out that Obama thinks he belongs on Mt. Rushmore and as such believes in nothing else and doesn't care how he gets there.

You make me laugh, 22nd century, LOL.

You do realize Den, that this whole affair is the result of Obummers insistence on having his way or the highway in all matters. Thanks to his intransigence about demanding even more tax hikes with not a hint of any spending cuts, the sequestration is drawing nigh and will most likely happen.

Time is running out for this president to do anything worthwhile and leaving any kind of positive legacy. The ball is in his court, but I'm not expecting much out of him.

Obama got the TAX INCREASE on the wealthy he wanted.

So where's the "balanced approach"?

Entitlement spending MUST be reformed, or they will be bankrupt.

Period. NO ONE disputes this.

But this President will not override the rabid far left of his own party to do what must be done.

And you libs rant about the Tea Party "controlling" the Republican party...

Truly you are an idiot Den1953. Obama and you other idiots have stalled the economy with BS EPA regulations, Health "care" laws that have doubled the cost of insurance, and with SPENDING that has now left us with NOTHING LEFT TO SPEND, and NO ONE WILLING TO TAKE ON MORE OF OUR DEBT.

Republicans have always done what they believe is best for the economy, Democrats have always done what is best for themselves and MORE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY and BS.

ms (tomany letters) Republicans have always done what's best for their wallet.

Rex, it was that way with GWB and you didn't say a Freaking word. You are one Moronic Troll.

Sequester was Obama's idea and the Republicans want a balanced budget and debt reduction so they have gotten zero from our feckless leader.

how about stopping welfare,foodstamp

What happens to all those businesses that make part of their money from people who receive welfare or use food stamps? Believe it or not....the 'welfare' money is worth just as much as any other money that is spent and has the same impact on business. If you eliminate it, what type of an effect would that have on the economy?

What SHOULD be the more troubling question....what happens to those people? My guess is, however, you're not so concerned about moral questions of the debate.

Rather than dump on the poor and their children, why not eliminate Agricultural and Oil subsidies.

markin...

Because that would make sense. There has to be a time where the general public looks at these obstructionists straight in the eye and tell them they are stupid and solely the ones holding this economy back.

If people don't want to believe Obama....fine.....look at what independent analysts say will happen to the economy. They won't because they all side with Obama.....not because he's Obama; but, because he is right.

What SHOULD be the more troubling question....what happens to those people?

They'll have to get off their dead a$$es and work for what they get, that's what. Like the rest of us.

" why not eliminate Agricultural and Oil subsidies"

Guess who is most affected by higher costs for gas and food. Yup, the working poor.

These subsidies have nothing to do with the costs of oil and food. They go right into CEO bonuses. Get a clue.

Fact: the ETR is the lowest it has been in over 50 years.

Fact: You cannot wage two decade long wars without raising taxes....and you REALLY can't cut taxes at the same time.

Fact: No business grows without investment. It is nonsense to assume the economy is going to grow if we continually remove capital from it. How do we expect recovery and jobs when we continually do self inflicted damage to it. We are akin to the lung cancer patient who is getting better but continues to smoke.

Fact: Inflation is the last thing we need to worry about right now.....if we have 7.9% unemployment, we need to get more people working and contributing to the economy.

One thing you said that I really do like is some sort of a tie from CEO pay to their worker's pay.

One thing you said that is completely dishonest is that the "forecasts of budget surpluses" must have occurred long before the Wall Street crash.

Fact: You cannot wage two decade long wars without raising taxes....and you REALLY can't cut taxes at the same time.

During the first two years of the Obama administration, when the democrats had total control, I don't remember them wanting to raise taxes to pay for these wars. I remember that Obama was going to stop the wars and bring the troops home as soon as he got into office.

The Iraq war was immediately stopped. Afghanistan was more difficult primarily because Bush ignored it in order to start the Iraq war. Afghanistan is now ending, mercifully. As you recall Bush threw us into a depression in late 2008 so that had to be dealt with first.

markinbecker

Stopped immediately? So what where those troops doing there until December 2011. Knitting scarfs for the indigs?

martinbecker- we pulled out of Iraq on bushes scheduled time table,so your hero had nothing to do with it.