The problem with the broken economy is it pays big money to those holding the money printers. Money is no object and when you find out they are numbers in a bank or numbers on paper and nothing more. Then you will know who really owns everything.

Dems & Repubs had a really strong point of view pre-sequestration, now Dems especially and their media voiceboxes seem...confused. I'm no where near Republican, but I must point a finger at Dems and their media spokesmen for partisanship and bad leadership. Those elected officials and media hosts are not going to suffer the harsh effects of the sequestration. They'll get their paychecks and their days off with pay. But the rest of us count our pennies wondering if we can afford gasoline or even a box of generic oatmeal whose price has more than doubled in just a year. Sequestration will delight local govts and provide them with cover when they beginning cutting unemployment checks and other services. There are still many workers who haven't gotten raises since the Great Financial Recession as businesses were afforded a reason to Freeze wages and raise the cost of contributions to benefits.

Even this site buries sequestration stories now that sequestration has occurred.

Seaskip, those loopholes for the 1%... they were on the table, Obama pushed them off. He included new loopholes to those poverty stricken Hollywood donors not even 3 months ago.

It amazing how Obama keeps pushing this "private plane" loophole, yet not one democrat bill that has passed the Senate has included language to end that loophole. It's almost like they keep pushing talking points to their low information voting base....

Hey Jesse and Jeremy, Seaskip doesn't let the facts get in his way of a good ole bashing of the Republicans.

Which, in reality, is the reason we have deadlock between the Congress (really the House) and the President. Each is waiting for the other to blink, rather than make concessions to the other.

Our President is the "leader" of our country, but he has exhibited very little leadership. Now, if he were the Campaigner In Chief, he'd get very high marks, but alas, he is not officially the CIC.

Jesse in AZ The budget surplus was not a myth! The minute Bush hit office, he gave everyone in America a $300 rebate check! It went by the last 2 digits of your social security # on who got theirs first! Mine was 01, so I was one of the first to collect. Didn't you get one? That was the $236 billion surplus Clinton left George! After that, George ran up a 10 trillion defecit in 8 yrs. from 2 unfunded (one unnecessary) wars and giving his billionaire business buddies subsidies and record low tax cuts, which finally were left to expire this year!! That is why we are so in debt now! Yes, President Obama has added 6 trillion to it but he more or less had to! When he took office, banks were closing left and right, Wall St. tanked, automakers were going down, housing was at a standstill and unemployment was sprialing! So he passed the $700 billion bail out bill which was ok'd bipartisanly by the way!

Hey Pigotry, Bonjour !!!

and yet they continue to send massive foreign aid for a second straight week... but -to hell with Americans- is the message..? Where are those cuts?!

Just in case you liberals missed it, tax revenue is up, way up. In fact the treasury will take in an estimated 2.7 trillion, a new record for tax revenue. So how much more does Obama need to raise taxes? It is not as if the economy is booming, unemployment remains high, and the country is mired in the worst recovery in US history. But even with all the bad news, Obama has managed to increase tax revenue to record levels. Obama and the Democrats can't find so much as a dime to cut, but there is plenty of talk about additional taxes. Yippee for us.

I think you guys are getting "deficits" and "surpluses" mixed up with the debt. A deficit and surplus is just a way of describing whether we spent more or less than we take in. What we DO with that money is a whole different issue.

There truly was a surplus created under Clinton...but idiots in Congress failed to use that surplus wisely to pay down the debt and instead gave it away through more government programs (Clinton) or reduced the tax rate to lessen the amount coming in (Bush).

And if we increase taxes on the wealthy and even create a surplus again...there is STILL no guarantee that it would be used to pay down the debt.

I agree with Jeb Bush that Republicans don't have any "positive agenda" (just hate speech); and I agree with you, Democrats good, Republicans, bad.

Should be Democrats bad, republicans bad.

Neither party is good for this country anymore.

Medicare and SS do need to be fixed because they are unsustainable currently. But if we're going to cut anything socially, put cuts into welfare, medicaid, ebt, etc.

I just wish these media twats would stop calling them 'entitlements'. I earned them - and more. If you want to balance the program remove all the worthless ghetto garbage that never payed into the system. For them, they are 'entitlements'.

I beg to differ that the Boomers are the problem. We actually bankrolled the last generation that lavishly spent on Medicare, SS emtitlements, etc. Now suddenly we can't afford the largess we allowed them with our bucks, because there are too many Boomers and not enough of the next gen.

The Boomers' parents squeal everytime their benefits are threatened saying they PAID FOR THEIR BENEFITS. Well no they didn't, the Boomers did.

Um, no! Baby boomers are not to blame. Boomers paid into medicare and medicaid. Our governmental leaders, spent it thinking no one would notice (at least while they were in office).

Hey Rick, nothing personal, but it's pretty cheap to say that tax revenue has reached record levels. Because of inflation, revenue is always at nominally record levels, which is why economists consider that number meaningless. The number which compares apples to apples is revenue as a percentage of GDP. Viewed correctly, tax revenue is nowhere near record levels. And of course, tax rates are comparatively very low as well, particularly corporate tax rates, but personal rates as well.

They AREN'T ENTITLEMENTS! It was NOT AN OPTION. We've been paying into those funds for 40+ years while the government has been taking it and spending it on other BS. It's OUR money. WTH... I'm fed up with everybody in Washington.

Your terminology is offensive. If you want to balance the Social Security program, lift the cap on SStaxable earnings and make payout income sensitive. Ifyou want to balance Medicare, get the market out, i.e., repeal the law that prevents the government from negotiating the cost of bulk drug purchases. If you want to balance Obamacare, put a single-payer national health insurance policy out there and watch the price of health care come tumbling down! The problems with all of these programs is not the membership, but that congress has "fixed" them to exempt their wealthy friends from payment and included their wealthy friends for payouts. Parliament of wh0rz.

Politically, the best-case scenario for Democrats is that Obama leads them to victory in the 2014 midterm elections and turns the clock back to 2009, when Democrats enjoyed a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate – which allowed them to enact the Affordable Care Act.

And that is exactly what all of this is about. President Obama isn't about to compromise or try to work with Republicans to solve problems.....he is only interested in creating as much suffering as possible with average people so he can point his finger at Republicans and hope the same "low information voters" who put him back in office will buy it and turn out for another election. With the help of a willing media, I am sure President Obama feels confident he can pull it off. After all, truth is the last thing our media is interested in these days. They simply line up and wait for the White House to tell them what to say.

If our politicians hadn't borrowed the Social Security Trust Fund, there would be plenty of money. But they raided the Trust Fund and spent that also......and now the country is broke!!

sharon - Your partisanship is showing. Bush could not unilaterally give away money without congressional approval. Nor did he go into those two wars that congress approved - including obama. The bush tax cuts that were left to expire this year were extended by obama. Those wars of bush were extended and expanded by obama despite his campaign rhetoric of getting out of the middle east. Bush didn't run up the debt to $10 trillion in eight years. Bush , in the words of obama, "inherited" $5.7 Trillion from BJ Billie. obama inherited $10.7 Trillion from bush - an increase of approximately $5 Trillion in 8 years. As of Dec 31, 2012 obama had increased his deficit to over $16.4 Trillion. To you that is just a measly $5.7 Trillion increase in only four years.

Everyone posting here's hunting money. Pointing accusing fingers at everyone and everything. Aye gwad!, democrats, and especially the President should know, least by now, one never hunts money in the company of the thieves who stole it in the first place. Get the republicans poles outta the water and the fish will begin to bite again. History proves it again and again.

A. Girl,

All that has to happen is for Obama to choose to cut things other than kids starving. The sequester abortion is ALL Obama's. He wanted it thinking he could force the GOP and got pimp slapped by it. Anything cut is HIS doing and he chose what was cut.

All can see well that he is not and has never been a leader. He could not even lead his own party in 2009-2010 and pass any budgets when the GOP could do nothing to stop him.

This sequester is tiny and a fraud. But it is the right direction. We need many more sequestrations that cut MUCH more!!!!!

Hey Mike, social security is fully funded and solvent at current levels until 2047. It is not adding a dime to our debt or our deficit.

TO: Jim-346431 who wrote:

"Um, no! Baby boomers are not to blame. Boomers paid into medicare and medicaid. Our governmental leaders, spent it thinking no one would notice (at least while they were in office)."

Democrat President Bill Clinton paid back all the money owed to Social Security and had a $40 billion dollar surplus in Social Security.

If anybody "borrowed or spent" our Social Security money, it could have only been Republican George "Curveball" Bush.

TO: NC-492358 who wrote:

"A. Girl, All that has to happen is for Obama to choose to cut things other than kids starving. The sequester abortion is ALL Obama's..."

Well alrighty then!

Let's plug up those nasty mega-billion dollar tax loopholes going to billionaires who don't need it because, we don't need no stinking Congress, right?

If it was all up to President Obama, and no one else, it would be done.

Republicans installed the Teagagger to make sure nothing gets done, now you want to blame President Obama?

All Republicans had to do was negotiate in good faith, and they couldn't even do that.

Your history Mac? I seem to remember the fish biting quite nicely during the GOP in charge....

Hey Snakebone......you might want to stop listening to all the propaganda and maybe check out the facts for yourself. It's the people who rely on the Democratic Leaders for their information that will be responsible for our downfall......the "low information voters".

For those of you who think that "leadership" from the President will just fix all of this, then you should try reading Article I. Section 7 of the Constitution :

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on
other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to
the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not
he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and
proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House
shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by
two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes
of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the
Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each
House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within
ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same
shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by
their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United
States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or
being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and
House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in
the Case of a Bill.

John Boehner, as the Speaker of the House, can allow resolutions to come to the floor for vote and find one that will fix the problem. He won't do this. The President nor the Senate can force the House to move on any legislation, so no amount of "leadership" from the President can force any change. The only the President can do, is to do what he is doing, telling all of his agencies to cut. Didn't any of you take Civics in school?

Bloggit - you are right - everyone is so focused on being politically correct - the entitlements that need to go away: Welfare, food stamps and Obama phones for those that are sitting in a nicer home than the rest of us - watching tv all day on a big flat screen and driving nicer cars than we ever dreamed of driving. Trust me - I have been behind them in the grocery store. Hair and nails perfectly done, nice clothes, steaks and a Chevy avalanche. We could all do that if our groceries were free. Obamacare - trash it - with all the fees, taxes and regulations it is already inflicting - it would solve the sequestration problem.

American girl...Hate speech???? Have you not been listening to your king/dictator for the past 4 months? On his Blame and bully tour? He bad mouths the republicans and blames everthing on them and Bush. He has had control four 4 years - he needs to quit golfing and flying around in his airplane (for which we pay for). Make the same sacrifices he has asked all of us to make.

Let's see - fly to play golf with Tiger or help the starving and disabled children...which one will he choose?

Liberals - climb out from under the rock you are hiding under and see what this man is doing - he will take this country down - so that when we have ALL fallen down to nothing - the American people will succumb to doing things his way - and we will have a socialistic country. You are a fool if you think he has your best interests at heart - he has his agenda - and nothing will get in his way.

Most transparent president....to those of us who are not misguided and uninformed and star struck.

I would like to point out to this blog just how unbalanced the policy making of the president has become.

First, he was the one that came up with the idea of sequester in the first place. Congress took his suggestion and wrote the sequester penalty into a Bill which went through the House and the Senate and the president signed it into law. It was his idea.

Next, he did nothing towards avoiding sequester for 16 months while he had time to vacation, golf, campaign, attack the second amendment, and golf some more.

Next, he refused the authority offered to him by Congress that would have allowed him to target the spending cuts under sequester instead of having those cuts be “across the board” so by his own decision, the cuts remained “across the board” and not targeted in some more logical manner.

Next, he campaigned again and again as to how dire the “across the board” cuts will be, and how “dumb” they are since they are not targeted.

Next, he had his minions, especially Janet Napolitano, get on TV and preach the doom and gloom and damage to come with the “across the board cuts” from sequester.

Next, Janet Napolitano ordered the illegal release of people in jail alleging the lack of funding from sequester made it necessary to do so. She also failed to notify local officials prior to doing this.

Now consider, with the above as the backdrop, the president and Janet Napolitano are spending nearly a billion dollars to give military grade armored vehicles (2500 of them in fact) that have never been used in this country before for civilian police work, to be used by the local police departments around the country. Let’s just stop the music and think about this for a moment.

The president is telling us that teachers and police, schools and universities, airport security and food inspectors, fire and other emergency responders, as well as the military and many others are going to have great harm done to them by sequester. Sequester was his idea, he signed it into law, and he refused to target the cuts. Sequester exists for the sole reason that we do not want to borrow more money.

Then the president spends nearly a billion dollars we do not have, increasing the borrowing sequester was supposed to reduce, for 2,500 armored vehicles that are not needed, that cost $250,000 to $300,000 each, so we can give them to local police units that did not ask for them, while at the same time we are cutting spending on necessary and vital services because we want to reduce the amount of money we are
borrowing. Yep. That about sums it up. Welcome to the real Obama in all his splendor.

All of this is being done under the president’s authority and approval. If you are gutting vital services to reduce spending and then spending on armored vehicles for the police no one needs, you are obviously unable to make logical decisions. Hence, Politics aside, I think the president is nuts.

Add to this presidential lunacy the fact that Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano, is buying and stockpiling five bullets for every American in the country, 1.6 billion bullets in total . Why? Homeland Security officially says they are buying ammunition in bulk to save money. If that is the case, then
why are you buying 2,500 armored vehicles? Janet has trouble connecting dots herself.

Obviously this is very deeply flawed leadership bordering on the very dangerous. If Obama really
believes that sequester is going to do the harm he and his minions said it would do, then why spend nearly a billion dollars we do not have, to provide armored vehicles to local police that are not needed, while cutting services you do need so you can save money?

So I have to ask this question. Is president Obama sane? Or should Vice President Biden take over. It really does seem that the president has lost control of his ability to reason effectively, so maybe we need a congressional hearing to ascertain the sanity of president Obama, and whether or not Mr. Biden
should be president in his place as stated under the law of the Constitution. The president is making decisions a sane individual simply would not ever make. Especially if his decisions were for the good and well being of the nation. Obviously, that too is not the case.

TO: NC-492358 who wrote:

"... Obama ... wanted [the sequester] it thinking he could force the GOP [to negotiate in good faith] got pimp slapped by it. Anything cut is HIS doing and he chose what was cut."

Republicans are the ones begging for "cuts" and think they can force the President to do the Republicans' dirty work?

This is just another example of Republicans not being able to "man up" and do the crap that Republicans are calling for all the time.

Republicans want to make "cuts", but don't want to be responsibile for the damage that their cuts will bring so Republicans want to use the President's hands to do the Republicans' dirty work?

No wonder the President btch-slapped Republicans, because Republicans are crooks trying to run game on the President of the United States, and ostensibly trying pimp-out the American People, lie to us even more, and do Republican dirt and then try to deny it was the GOP that did it.

Obviously, Republicans KNOW that what they are proposing is doomed to failure.

I told you, Republicans = Lie and Deny Politics.

Some of you, like American Girl, Pigotry, etc. do not seem to understand how the process works for passing a budget. Here are the steps and status so far:

• Step 1: President submits a budget request to Congress – 2/13/12
• Step 2a: House of Representatives pass a budget resolution – H Res 597 passed on 3/28/12 (Republicans 236 Yeas-3 Nays, Democrats 5-181)
• Step 2b: Senate passes a budget resolution – Not completed, Motion to proceed with Senate Concurrent Resolutions 37, 41, 42, and 44 were each rejected on 5/16/12 without a single Democratic Yea vote.
• Step 3a: House Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriation bills: All appropriation bills have been marked up and passed.
• Step 3b: Senate Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriation bills: Two appropriations bills were submitted by their subcommittees, but the remaining appropriations have not come out of committee.
• Step 4a: House votes on appropriations bills: All appropriation bills were passed between 5/10/2012 and 7/16/2012
• Step 4b: Senate votes on appropriations bills: No votes, no debate. Cannot be completed until Step 3b completed.
• Step 4c: House and Senate reconcile differences: Cannot be completed until Senate votes on appropriations bills.
• Step 5: President signs each appropriations bill and budget becomes law: Cannot be completed until Senate votes on appropriations bills and reconciliation is completed.

As Bob Woodward, Washington Post journalist, pointed out in his book, Sequestration was an idea that originated in the Obama White House. The sequestration would never occur if Democrats in the Senate and House would agree to a budget that met the required cost reductions. The House Democrats tried to block it in the House, but failed. They have blocked it in the Senate by not passing an alternative to the House version. How does an effort by Democrats to prevent the passage of FY13 appropriation bill provide any evidence that the sequestration problem is caused by Republicans?

@ Rick-3416939,

Why are you pointing out the unfunded Coporate tax cut expiration to Liberals on this blog that Republicans themselves legislated to expire after 10 years in 2001-2003 ???? All Obama did was enforce the GOP Party's legislative obligation they tried to violate by suggesting unfunded Coporate tax cuts go on forever........What's the point of your post ??? Go ahead and spin the truth another way to suit your needs for those making over $450k per year..........

All this talk about "entitlements" focused on Soc Sec and Medicare is designed to continue the decline of the middle class and complete the destruction of the US social system that once built the best economy in the world. They want to drive another wedge in the middle class to get one group feeling bad toward and attacking the other group. I saw a report from the social Security Administration showing a 66 year old that the money he paid into the tax, with no interest earnings on it, would if it had been set aside in an account for him, cover his Soc Sec payments till he was 83. If interest were on the account he'd be covered to above 100. How is a guy like that a burden on the 30 year olds ? Yes it is their turn to pay to cover someone, just like this older guy paid in to cover someone else. The welfare mentality, bailouts, lack of responsibility and coupled with the total lack of respect for their elders allows this wedge to be successful. Part of the corporate oligarchy running the country, they want to dump their 7.65% tax the same way they've dumped retirement plans and medical plans for their employees. We're about to become India or Brazil where we have multi millions of people in abject poverty trying to be in servitude to a few thousands ultra-rich. This wedge is all part of the plan.

This is a race to the bottom. Our higher standard of living is doomed because we do business with communist countries that pay their people 35 cents an hour and make them work 16 hour shifts. And our business leaders want that for the US working class as well. Our standard of living is falling to the lowest common denominator as businesses convince low information voters that unions are bad. Who speaks for the common worker if they can't use numbers to make their voices louder.

Capitalism works best when money is constantly circulated through the economy. When businesses and the rich have all the money, they sit on it and it doesn't circulate - it stagnates. Put money in the hands of those who will spend and get the circulation going again. Get the lifeblood moving and envigorate the body instead of being a couch potato and watching the paint dry.

For all of you who think the Baby Boomers had NOTHING to do with the problems we face, LET me, (a full fledged Boomer, born in 1951!) explain something to you. In HIGH SCHOOL, I wrote a paper for my Social Studies Class outlining the fact that due to the size of MY generation, we would need to CUT the amount boomers would draw, INCREASE the amount withheld, (both in percentage, and in lifting the limit on income withheld from)

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY--that we, as Americans, needed to REMEMBER that Social Security was NEVER meant to be your ENTIRE retirment fund. It was part, PART, of a 4 pronged attack EACH and EVERY American was supposed to follow, which INCLUDED earning a PENSION (which has largely been replaced by 401K's and other accounts similar), buying and PAYING OFF a home (which is an asset, in addition to being a free place to live!) and SAVING for your OWN retirement.

Instead, MY generation has spent EVERY PENNY and more of the money they earned on 'extras' like 2nd homes, grotesquely expensive cars, lavish vacations, extensive wardrobes, fancy jewelry and fancy electronic toys. And bought a LOT of that on credit, with NO IDEA how to EVER pay it back. We have sucked all the equity out of our homes, so that when the real extate bubble burst, many owed more on their homes than they will EVER get out of them, we have committed ourselves to sending our kids to hyper-expensive universities out of STATE, with NO expectation that that student would work part time or over the summers to help off-set that cost, much less work hard in HS to earn SCHOLARSHIPS to pay for them.

And then 65 hits, and boomers SOMEHOW think it is someone ELSE's FAULT that they cannot live in the manner to which they have been accustomed.

Me, my parents both grew up in the depression, and they TAUGHT ME to not buy things I could not afford to pay cash for, unless they were absolutely VITAL, and then to pay them off as soon as possible.

Result, at age 62, I've been retired for several years, OWN my own home out right, as well as my car, and have a sufficient 'nest egg' of SAFE investments that pays me to live fairly comfortably, but by no means lavishly. And I've never taken a PENNY from the feds.

So yes, the boomers ARE at fault for their situation now. ALL boomers SHOULD have done what we were taught in HS, (nearly 50 years ago!) but most did not. And their irresponsibility is NOT the 'responsibility' of either the YOUNGER generation, nor of the wealthy.

Many people are missing the point to this article. Despite obama getting re-elected and his months long campaign to blame the repubs for his inability to deal with the budget even after he got his tax increase, the dems are willing to acquiesce to the fact that they are less likely to garner more support for obama's "sky is falling" rhetoric.

Because the repubs stood their ground the president of the democrats now has the task of trying to save face. He realizes that he has been P!$$!NG into the wind and is trying to see how many people noticed.

SSSGirl

for those that are sitting in a nicer home than the rest of us - watching tv all day on a big flat screen and driving nicer cars than we ever dreamed of driving. Trust me - I have been behind them in the grocery store. Hair and nails perfectly done, nice clothes, steaks and a Chevy avalanche. We could all do that if our groceries were free.

First, you can tell all that by simply standing behind someone at a grocery store? So your life is so pathetic that you spend all your time over-analyzing the people who stand it front of you at a grocery store? You actually know what house they live in, how much they paid for it, and the type of TV they watch... all from standing behind them in line? I guess I am just more focused on my own life, as opposed to focusing on the person standing in front of me.

Second, you claim that you will be able to buy a nicer home, nicer car, flat screen TVs, more expensive clothes, manicures and steaks... if only your groceries were free. How much money do you spend on groceries? Jesus f***ing christ. I spend about $150 - $200 per month, max. So in your world, a mere $200 is the only thing holding you back from a more expensive house, car, electronics, and clothing? Last I checked, you will need slightly more than that for a car alone... I won't even get into what you would need for a house.

Can we get a little more Sequester - on this Obama Dog Economy please?????

The cuts - seem to be really energizing the markets - Go DOW Go!!

Stop the Bizzaro Spend-A-Holic Crazy Liberal Obama Democrats!

We have known for decades that boomers were going to retire and put pressure on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Rather than deal with this known problem long ago when it would be relatively easy to fix, Democrats used the issue as a cudgel to bash Republicans in elections.

Partisan demagoguery got us into this mess and partisan demagoguery in the form of "closing loopholes on the rich" is the only thing Democrats can come up with.

What a useless party.

Lost in all this posturing by both parties is the unvarnished fact that they've broken the promise they made to the middle class (and yes, even the poor) about the 'social safety net'. Remember, even if many failed (for whatever reason) to properly plan for their future, many more did. People looked at what resources would be available to them at retirement, and tried to plan for it. Now we find that these 'contracts' that were made are being broken by employers claiming 'poverty' (translation: they'll be unable to keep paying outsized dividends and executive salaries) and governments doing the same (translation: they'll be unable to shift public resources to benefit their corporate masters rather than the average citizen).

While both parties should share the blame, the GOP since Nixon (and sharply accelerating starting with Reagan) has turned on their propaganda machine to convince the public that they don't deserve any of the things they were promised, or at least much less. All to the tune of 'Personal Responsibilty'. A conveniently forgotten part of that is if you make a deal, you honor it. So the next time you hear a business complain about 'pension liabilties' or 'high labor costs', what they're really saying is 'We were stupid, and dividends and my pay will go down if we pay'. More or less the same thing goes when the government does it, with the major difference being we elected these people to represent us, so we as citizens are collectively on the hook.

We're being told as individuals to take 'personal responsibility', all while the special interests are trying to get out from under theirs....

marge:

I'm with you. I invested for 4 decades in (mandatory) retirement benefits, and I want my money and the accumulated interest on that money back. Yes, indeed, we have a demographic 'bulge' drawing these benefits - the same demographic 'bulge' that put up the capital.

If you want to place blame, you'll have to find someone, some agency, rather than us life-long investors. If it takes fewer aircraft carriers, submarines, gropers at customs, a reduced Congressional bacchanal, reduced welfare to those that despise us - live with it. We/I lived with the payroll deductions.

I read you--you are ASSUMING that a person's money (paid in) is saved for HIM, when in fact, SS was Always engineered so that CURRENT workers are the ones paying the benefits for the retired.

(and by the way, men are living longer than 83, and you also didn't account for inflation.)

The problem with your assumption of 'it is the younger kid's time' to pay for the benefits to YOU is that when YOU were paying for someone, there were 8 of you doing that, but due to the size of your 'class', NOW there are only 3 paying for you.

and nowhere is THAT fair. And BTW--how much did YOU personally save up for your retirement? If you bought a home, it should have been paid off by age 50, at which point, you should have been SAVING the amount of your housepayment.

Your kids should have been grown and gone by age 50, at which point, you should have been SAVING the amount you used to spend feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and providing medical care for, and 15 years of that would have been a NICE nest egg.

But I'll just BET you never saved ONE penny.

@ ban guns etc., etc, bullsh^t#1.37: Thanks for the gwaddamn lie. Watch them Carp bones.

Common Sense Mike (#1.30)

You need to change your name as you have absolutely NO common sense..

Can we get a little more Sequester - on this Obama Dog Economy please?????

The spending cuts - seem to be really energizing the markets - Go DOW Go!!

Stop the Bizzaro Spend-A-Holic Crazy Liberal Obama Democrats!

Color me absolutely unsurprised as to the reasons cited in this article.

IReadYou,Excellent comments.I like that you are a thinking person and haven't bought into the political bashing.

Hey Mike, it's not so much 'low information' as it is 'low sophistication'. The issue is a bit complicated, so it takes more than reading a headline from your favorite partisan pundit. This passage from George Washington public policy professor Robert Stoker might help:

"When the Social Security program has a cash deficit (as it does currently), the Social Security Trustees request repayment for some of the Treasury securities (the IOUs) they purchased in the past... However, the new borrowing does not increase total debt because this transaction is more akin to refinancing existing debt than accumulating new debt.

"Suppose you owe a $5,000 credit card bill and you take a home equity loan to pay off the credit card debt. You have not changed your total debt; you have refinanced the debt, transferring it from one financial instrument (and one creditor) to another. Much the same can be said about repaying the OASDI Trust Fund. The fund's assets are composed of debts already accounted for as part of the nation's total debt. When the Treasury Department borrows money to pay current Social Security benefits, the debt owed to the Social Security Administration is repaid, refinanced, and transferred to whoever purchases Treasury securities.

"...the only scenario in which repaying the OASDI Trust Fund can increase the nation's debt is if interest rates are higher now than they were when the original debt was incurred. Interest rates are presently quite low (the rate on 10-year Treasury Bonds is around 2 percent). Given current market conditions, the more plausible argument is that refinancing OASDI Trust Fund debt has reduced the nation's debt slightly by reducing interest costs." (Emphasis mine.)

Bottom line: social security neither caused the debt, nor is it contributing to the debt.

I don't recall us baby boomers start the last two wars that cost the Nation 10 trillion dollars borrowed from China...

Mguy - you are missing the freaking point!! Are you okay with going to work and busting it for 40 or 50 hours a week - only to see so many around you - do absolutely nothing and get everything. Maybe you are one of those that drives a great car and watches Maury - whos your daddy - all day?

You can not tell me that you haven't ever seen abuse of the system. Where is your pathetic life at? Hiding under your bed - hoping that the king will fix everything because he says he will.

During the election - I had a Romney sticker on my car - driving home from work one day - a car FULL of people pulled up next to me and yelled obscenities at me about them losing what "obama" "gives them" if Romney wins. Called me horrible names...How dare I have freedom of choice. And yes - I saw where their house was. I see them on a regular basis and have been behind them in the grocery store line.

Let me educate you: Most families - and I don't mean "single" - I mean "families with children" spend an average of $400 or more per month on groceries. If they got their food bill covered by the government as many do - then yes - they could afford a new vehicle.

The wasteful spending on able bodies people that have an ability to get up and go to work every day - is just one of the many areas we need to cut back on. Not completely remove it - many that are "entitled" to it and don't abuse it - deserve it. But many don't.

When all is said and done - and the government goes broke - and those that are abusing the system can't get what they are used to getting...then you can hide under your bed - because they will come and take it from you. That has become the American way.

TO: Jeremy-960164 who wrote:

"... Bon[e]head and company wanted to close said loopholes instead of raising taxes on the rich, but Obama not only said no, but HELL NO."

Because we need to do both.

Let's see......

This is The Obama's 2nd term, so blaiming Bush doesn't work anymore. 4 years to have addressed the problems while having control of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2 of those years. Sorry, but you made that.

Seems to me that it was the Dems that raided Social Security to pay for their vote garnering entitilement programs. SS wouldn't be at risk if they had kept their grubby paws out of the cookie jar. Don't know about you, but I don't like having the gov. giving the retirement set aside they mandated I contribute toward to a bunch of illegals and welfare freeloaders that have never contributed.

Personally, I'd like to see welfare taxed at double the rate of the SS I paid for. They are both MY money, and the welfare tax would create several times the revenue of taxing the top 1%.

" . . . but the underlying dynamics shaping federal spending, particularly entitlement programs for the aging Baby Boom generation, could make it harder for Washington’s leaders to resolve."

I hate that word, "entitlement." It sounds like something that's a freebie. I've got news for all you folks out there, I worked for my "entitlement." I paid into it, I did my fair share, I contributed to all the programs, and I deserve to get back what I paid. If no one else likes it, that too damned bad.

I have also saved for my upcoming retirement, put back some savings, and and paid for my home. HOWEVER, with our current leadership in our state of Ohio, my employment is vastly at stake, my home may need to be sold as the powers that be decided that the local workers aren't important, and I may not be able to make it the last two years to retirement without losing my job. I know, woe is me.

What are you going to do with us baby boomers, take us out and shoot us? Is that what all the little money grubbing economists on this forum think? I've got news for you, with my big car (Chevy Aveo--stop laughing), my giant home (20 year old mobile), and extreme living standards (my garden and grandkids), you should hope to do so well! I'm not complaining, I've been satisfied with my life, but I'm not taking it on the chin for those who think everything should be handed to them on a silver platter. I've been working sense I was 14, and I've paid into social security (and all the other "entitlements") since then. When the complainers put in half a century of labor, then they have my permission to complain. Until then, just shut up about it.

In my long life of "sucking on the system as a baby boomer," I've also reared my children, donated to charities, fed the hungry, clothed the needy, nursed the ill, and cared for the elderly. A bunch of us "entitled" baby boomers have done this and much more. We've also bailed out family members, taken in the homeless, worked two jobs that others might survive, and sold blood to put shoes our kids' feet. We are also volunteers, scout leaders, 4-H advisors, and other social contributors. When our generation is gone, who's going to be taking these challenges on? Certainly not the economists here, they're above all that.

By the way, one of my great splurges in life is to also own a couple of firearms; so if anyone of you comes gunning for me, beware.

American Girl:

I just saw a guy buy 6 burritos and 2 two liters of pepsi at a Kum and Go and pay for it with - you guessed it - EBT. So don't pull that crap of saying that you are taking food away from elderly and kids...most of the people on the entitlements don't deserve them...if you give them something they abuse it. They need to cut the aid and make it more difficult to receive.

But I'll just BET you never saved ONE penny.

Get off your high horse, momaid. Some of us boomers moved and still have mortgages - not all of us stay in the same place our whole lives. And some of us have another kid after 40, so we still have to deal with things. We have retirement accounts and manage our lives just fine. But SS is something we paid into and it is too late to make big cuts to benefits. It is part of our retirement equation. There are things that can be done to make both SS and Medicare operate more wisely, but privatizing or reducing it to vouchers and such is NOT the way.

Spend, spend, spend we have to keep spending because Ben is still printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending, because Ben is printing money, because we keep spending.

Mugatu was right, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills".

The standoff between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans

Lets me fix this so that the truth is at least part of that sentence

"The standoff between President Barack Obama and Americans who can think for themselves (aka not hanging on his every crisis)...."

.

Tax all the citizens and give all the benefits to the illegals

I think that's pretty much what The Obama wants

Why budget battles are worse: It's you, Baby Boomers

Tom Curry - you are a total ignorant a$$ for writing such misleading headlines. The budget problems are not the fault of the Baby Boomers. The government has known since 1945, when the first boomers was born, that this generation would someday reach retirement age. The benefits that they should receive are not "entitlements". They have paid for them with each paycheck through deductions for Social Security, etc. and deserve repayment during their retirement years. And yes, the Baby Boomer generation has actually worked to earn a living rather than leaving it up to the government to support them. Put the blame with the source, which is Congress for decimating the Social Security fund while robbing Peter to pay Paul. The problem also lies with all the presidents since 1945 who, like Obama, continue to buy votes by increasing welfare and other payments to ablebodied people so they could sit on their butts and contribute nothing to society except more illegitimate babies to earn larger government checks.

Get a life and report the news honestly and accurately rather than skewing it to obtain more clicks on you articles. Chances are that someday you will hit retirement age and grow old. See how it feels then.

REPUBLICON PLANS AND GOALS.......Protect the 1% rich from having to pay any taxes.

Give more tax breaks to the rich like Romney(Remember his plan to remove taxes on capital gains as if they are not low enough.)

Destroy all government offices to privatize everything the greedy rich can control to make more profits.(Postal service).

Keep sending American jobs overseas and blocking any laws to remove tax breaks for taking the jobs overseas. Republicons love protecting off shore bank accounts for the rich 1% like Romney, so they can avoid paying taxes.

American Girl

You are a mathematical moron. Show us your figures to close the gap. Remember there is a cause and effect for every action. Using the 1995 to express the Social Security crisis now is assine. In 1995 the baby boomers were just reaching their income max and were maximizing their taxes. With the baby boomers accounting for 40 percent of the population of course the SS income would be at its max. So now they are retiring at a rate of 10,000 a day, 300,000 per month or 3.6 million per year. Guess the country has changed its face. If you are still working and not a baby boomer you will be paying through the nose. SS is approximately 22% of the current budget and in 20 years will consumer every dollar raised in taxes. That is the fact, so give us your solution.

Can we get a little more Sequester - on this Obama Dog Economy please?????

The spending cuts - seem to be really energizing the markets - Go DOW Go!!

Stop the Bizzaro Spend-A-Holic Crazy Liberal Obama Democrats!

Budget Politics – Thomas Sowell

At the local level, the first response to budget cuts is often to cut the police department and the fire department. There may be all sorts of wasteful boondoggles that could have been cut instead, but that would not produce the public alarm that reducing police protection and fire protection can produce. And public alarm is what can get budget cuts restored.

The Obama administration is following the same pattern. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, released thousands of illegal aliens from prisons to save money -- and create alarm.

The Federal Aviation Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers, which would, at a minimum, create delays for airline passengers, in addition to fears for safety that can create more public alarm.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cut -- anywhere in the trillions of dollars of federal spending -- rather than being hemmed in by the arbitrary provisions of the sequester.

This would minimize the damage done by budget cuts concentrated in limited areas, such as the Defense Department. But it serves Obama's interest to maximize the damage and the public alarm, which he can direct against Republicans.

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

……..

Only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth of spending called a "cut." Moreover, costly boondoggles not covered by the sequester can continue and grow.

Obviously Obama wants public alarm, which he can use to help defeat the Republicans in the 2014 elections, so that Democrats can take back control of the House of Representatives.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323494504578340562616234822.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

@Q22

I am adding one vote to your tally (Currently @ 3). I assume you are one of the other votes?

Don't be flattered. I am only doing it because you are a fool and I want to bring your post to everyone's attention.

In Michigan - there's a strong movement of people wanting Mitt Romney - a Michigan/Detroit homeboy - to take over the long failing - liberal trashed city - as the Governor appointed Executive Manager - to help restore it to prosperity and it's rightful spot as the symbol of a hard working - successful America.

A Prosperous Detroit - think of that - not since the Democrats took over control of the city in 1962 - have those two words been linked

Many that live in Detroit have grown tired of the broken campaign promises made by the Liberal Democrats - for decades - leaving them and their families - in poor conditions - and the ruins of the city

Romney - was born and raised in the Detroit area - knows what Detroit could be - and has the knowledge to get it there - amazing stuff

And yes - the movement is real - for him to take the position if offered by the Governor

@ssgirl, you got so many racial stereotypes in you last two posts, I don't know where to start. If there were jobs, I'm sure people would line up to apply. But you forgot we lost 4 million jobs in the bushcheneny criminal regime of terror!! Also, food stamps are a minuscule percentage of the US budget. Turn off faux racist news, and get the true facts. CORPORATE welfare exceeds food stamp funding by billions!! Stop blaming Black folks, who have been discriminated against in America since the slave were freed, to feed your racial bias! The is more corporate abuse then food stamp abuse. Your blinded by hate, and prejudice!

Crackin me up. ReTea has its cuts! We've heard over and over how "CUTS" is the savior to save us all. Lets see how we do.

Let's see how unemployment falls a record 17 points in 3 months. Let's see how retained earnings are suddenly loosed on investment, research and expansion. Let's see how GDP shoots through the roof. Let's see how gas stays under 5 a gallon by May. Let's see how inflation fails to jump exponentially. Let's see how Standard and Poors deigns to a new AAA rating. Let's talk about a market at 18000. It's all gonna happen like Cringle down the Chimney. All we had to do was corporate raid america to propserity. Yeee Hawww! Cut cut cut. Ginsu to the rescue. "Always look on the briiight side of life!"

LOL Just look a all the boomers whine and squeal. Pretty apparent who the "entitlement" crowd is.

Really Mackman - at what point did I racially slur/profile anyone - if you think I did - then maybe you are. By the way - you have no idea what race I am?!?!?! I have never owned a slave - nor have I been one - so I am clueless as to where you get off on your statements.

I am not talking race - only racists do that. I am talking - get off your lazy behind and get a job and pay your own way.

Let's find cuts where we can - whether it is welfare, obama's luxurious life style, disability checks for someone with a sore toe...the study of robotic squirrels...give me a break!

You are a typical liberal - mad because someone else makes more than you do. I for one am thrilled that this country has so many successful people. Most have WORKED hard for it and they also are the ones that are still investing in this country - and employing people like me.

I get up every day and go to work - because that is the right thing to do. I pay my own way. No one does it for me. And I don't begrudge those that make more than I do. I do not care for those that are content to sit back and do nothing - and then gripe about it. Or make accusations that if we don't like Obama - then we are both racists and idiots...Really???? Oh and by the way McDonald's is hiring.

Jesse-Az

I wish MSNBC would stop promoting the myth of the 2000 "Surplus".

The Debt increased every year under Clinton. Likewise, tax revenues fell between 1999-2003 due to the Dot-Com bubble burst. Revenues were not being maintained to keep the fake "surplus" liberals love to tout.

Yes, we should definitely go back to the sound fiscal management practices of GW Bush.

Put all these goddamn politicians on minimum wages salaries, no more paid vacations, make them clock in and out (even for their lunch break), and make them buy their own lunch and meals also. and not more pension plans for life. a 1200 a mth SS check a mth and medicaid that is good enough for the rest of the Us citizens should be just as good enough for them. An no mire early retirement for politicians or Ford workers.

And if any politician is caught committing a crime, fire them, prosecute them, and toss their sorry azzes in jail where they belong. They should never be above the laws of America.

Stop bleeding the American people dry of their hard earned monies you lousy bloodsucking leeches like Boehner aka Boner.

Many of the cuddly newborns of 1947 are now wrinkled retirees...

love that line...

--------

star, amgirl... g'day...

SS is approximately 22% of the current budget

1. It should not be part of "the budget", it was funded separately. Too bad if Gen X or Y has to foot the bill, I want my investment back w/interest. 47 years ago, a week ago today, I received my first pay check with SS withheld, still paying it in today. Hopefully in six years or so I too will be able to retire. Twenty years of that 47 I was a business owner, double the SS and no ceiling, I want my $900k back.
2. Double the current SS ceiling and it will be funded from now until eternity.
3. Re-establish "poor" houses and take the spending decisions away from "welfare" recipients.

That's my take on it. At least for the so called "entitlements".

Why don't you just shoot us?

MOmaid--MY you certainly are arrogant. You seem to assume that everybody got married and had kids straight out of high school and/or college. Some of us had careers first and then settled into a family life in our 30's. Yes, I have money saved for retirement--money I made and invested on my own. I have a savings account too, by golly. But SS and Medicare is something I didn't necessarily WANT taken out of my paychecks--it's something that just IS taken out of my paycheck. I count on it coming back to me. It won't be my sole source of income after retirement, but I expect to get back what I paid in, WITH INTEREST.

This article states exactly why this was the worst time we could have ever decided to pass something like Owebamacare. We are already drowning in entitlements because of all the "wrinkled retirees" - the last thing we needed right now was another entitlement.

And now everybody is suffering - the people suffering the most is the middle class and minorities, when you look at average tax rates for middle class, decreasing income levels of middle class and minorities, and unemployment rates. Raising taxes isn't the answer. It never was, and it never will be.

The few cuts are insignificant when compared to the mountain of long-term debt:

Go read this by guys who worked with Clinton.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

This country has over $80 TRILLION in long-term UNFUNDED liabilities. There must be significant cuts in spending.

"Then, as now, one of the underlying causes of the dispute was the attempt by Republicans to bring market principles to the Medicare program."

The market principle they're referring to is the one where the 1% take everything, stash it in the Caymans, , crash the economy, and get the rest of us to pay the bill.

The "entitled" class is the military/industrial complex and their minions (Republicans). Cut taxes, wage war, enrich Halliburton, create financial crisis to rob the middle class and finally blame the Democrats.

Budget standoffs didn't occur during Shrub's reign, obviously there was no debt. A surplus maybe but they sent that slanted heavily to the richest amonst us. Looks like we've been tinkled down.

Shellie-657180"LOL Just look a all the boomers whine and squeal. Pretty apparent who the "entitlement" crowd is"

Yes it is--people who make statements like yours.

There must be significant cuts in spending.

Start with foreign aid. Follow it up with pensions and health care for useless politicians who are wealthy enough in their own right to afford their own. Cap it off with no "fact finding" trips by legislators to foreign countries that have already been visited within the last two years, and a severe and comprehensive (hate that damn word) overhaul on student loan policy.

It is absolutely illogical to provide loans to a group of people who have no prospects for repayment, and whose predecesors are picketing the lender to forgive billions in loans and interest right now.

"Entitlement programs for the aging Baby Boom generation, could make it harder for Washington’s leaders to resolve."

Why don't we take a look at the entitlement programs that allow the wealthy to pay a lower percentage in taxes than the middle class? That program was implemented so these wealthy would be able to create jobs - and they have, only they've created them in China and other countries where they can exploit workers at lower wages.

The middle class and the poor are not the ones who created this failed economy - that was all the doing of the wealthy! And now that they have created this mess and pocketed record earnings because of it - they do not want to spend money on the people their programs have caused to suffer the most!

Someone said they don't like busting their azz working while others don't, and just who's fault is that, is it their fault that Now Days Employers want only people with a college degree or in their 20's, is it their fault they live in places that people have shoved the un-wanted you know the Ghettos, of how's about this one Employers that pay less than they can collect, We are tired of hearing the sheep repeat the same old BS, when people have an equal opportunity for gainful employment then spout about how lazy people are till then STFU, people need to get down from their pedestal and see the real world before they spout BS.

SSGirl

Are you okay with going to work and busting it for 40 or 50 hours a week - only to see so many around you - do absolutely nothing and get everything.

Yes, because you can not live in my area unless you make A LOT of money. There is no one in my city living off the government. So I "bust my ass" to live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country, and I don't want to move.

So it doesn't bother me when people do nothing and "get everything"... because they DO NOT "get everything"... they get a sh***y life, in a sh***y neighborhood. I like luxury, and THAT luxury is what I work for.

You can not tell me that you haven't ever seen abuse of the system. Where is your pathetic life at?

No, I have not seen the abuse... but then again, I live in an area that is far too expensive for any of these "abusers" to live.

Let's put it this way. A 500 sq ft, 1-bedroom apartment, STARTS at $1,600 a month. No government subsidized housing or low income housing in the city borders. If you think welfare pays enough to live here, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

a car FULL of people pulled up next to me and yelled obscenities at me about them losing what "obama" "gives them" if Romney wins

I can make up stories too.

Most families - and I don't mean "single" - I mean "families with children" spend an average of $400 or more per month on groceries.

Perhaps if they were not "pro life" they would not have such high grocery bills, and we would not have to subsidize all these children.

If they got their food bill covered by the government as many do

80% of families receiving food stamps are working families. If their employers paid them more, we would not have to subsidize them.

SSGirl--I love what you said. Just want you to know that. It was beautiful!

hs321 sez...

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

This is just a GOP effort to shift blame for the cuts to him so they don't have come up with a 'plan', something they have failed miserably to do so far. Just be thankful he isn't vindictive because if he were, he would have taken it and done all those cut in GOP districts, granting them their professed wish: less government (and money) for their constituents.

There is a 30% minority (mostly older white people) that are holding everything up, It is the "tea party". The way people are talking on this vine is not how most Americans are thinking.

By the way, I am an older white male too, I just am not crazy.

This is supposed to be a democracy, how can 30% of congress hold everything up?

When you ask people do they want to cut government spending? 76% say yes, but, when you ask them what are you willing to cut, they are dumbfounded.

65% to 75% of Americans do not want to cut:

• social security
• medi-care
• medi-cade
• unemployment insurance
• education
• tuition help for college students
• head start
• defense
• highways and bridges
• food stamps
• police
• firemen
• teachers

Do not take my word, but, I am not doing the research for you, but, check it out. Which of these are you willing to cut. You should remember that most food stamps go to feeding hungry children, and, most of them have working parents, who just cannot get jobs that pay well enough to even get ahead.

We must raise taxes either this thing with the super wealthy, but, before long even Republican controlled state houses (example: Wyoming just raised their gas tax by $0.10 per gallon.) will start raising taxes, some of this stuff, we just cannot do without and we will not do without.

The peak of the Baby Boom came in 1947 (the year Hillary Clinton was born and the year after her husband was born): 26.6 births per 1,000 people.

Compare that to 14.6 births per 1,000 people in 1975 and you see why, in fiscal terms, there are too few workers and too many beneficiaries

And therein lies the lie this author and the Democrats like to sell to you, America. Regardless of the birthrate, if the government, mainly the Dems, would not have plundered the SS system, there would be more than enough money since we all paid it in every day!!!!
But no, the SS money and funds were raped for all kind of @!$%# but SS payments to you and me who did their part in contributing to it.
@!$%#s all together and thieves that follow the Liar-in-Chief.

Laffy Taffy

And if any politician is caught committing a crime, fire them, prosecute them, and toss their sorry azzes in jail where they belong. They should never be above the laws of America.

Unless of course the infraction is on the current administration, where the Attorney General will refuse to pursue charges - 'Above the Law'.

Sequestration was invented in the Graham-Rudman Act in 1985 under Ronald Reagan.. Until now Congress had acted every few years to prevent sequestration from happening and whoever was president went along. We have now reached the stand-off point. Just look at the comments here. All politicians tell untruths to further the end of their constituents, Congress has spent 28 years not solving a problem they created in 1985. It doesn't matter what party was in charge. They have both had their turns at this and simply put it off over and over until enough is enough was called. Everyone wants to cut the other guy. Everyone believes that to deserve help you must be destitue and eating dirt off the sidewalk before any help can be offered.The thing you don't realize is that people who were doing just fine not long ago are on food stamps. Many are still working and yes you need nice clothes to work if you work in an office at least. All of you complaining about what food stamp people put in their basket, I say you can spend your $156 a month food budget on anything you want. Yes folks $156 per person. It was $200 per person a couple of years ago, but cutbacks you know. I was on food stamps briefly long ago. I hated the grocery because of all the people who felt that their idea of how a poor person should eat was what I shouild be doing. Funny thing none of them agreed as to just what a poor person should be limited to in the way of food. But they were all sure that whatever it was I bought was wasting their money. The worse part was my daughter having to hear what they said about welfare people. About her Dad who had just been laid off, about her mom having children and about her as a welfare brat. I assure you that she and I can both make two family meals for three out of one good piece of steak. We are still in the same house we have rented for 21 years and she is on her way to becoming a doctor. Just another useless welfare brat bringing the country down.

MoMaid 1.48: First of all, I am also a "Boomer," however, I have not overspent and have little debt except my house payment. I would LOVE to have my house paid off, but with the drop in value of my house over the past few years, it was basically underwater (but, it's coming back up, thank goodness). Not everyone in my age group spent their money on lavish houses, fancy cars, jewelry, etc....most of us just used our paychecks to keep food on the table, raise our children, help our parents in their old age, and keep a roof over our family's heads!! It's the children of today who are spending like there's no tomorrow!!

Additionally, it makes sense to me that if most of us so-called Boomers also had children.....and if you consider that each "Boomer" had 2+ children, there should now be twice as many people out there to pay into Social Security....wouldn't you think? It certainly makes sense to me. The problem is that our children are the ones that think they HAVE to have the top of the line techie junk; have to have the HIGHEST PAYING jobs in the world when they graduate from school; have to have NEW cars from Day 1 (I was lucky to get a 59 Buick and ONLY after I got out of the service at age 21 and which my dad bought used and fixed HIMSELF); have houses that have granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, hardwood floors, open concept, etc., etc. etc.! They can't wait to get what they want until they actually save up for it....they've got to have ALL of it NOW. And, until they get everything they want....guess where they live? They most likely live with mom and dad (the "boomers," as you call them) and probably pay little or no money towards the household expenses. They are the ones you're talking about, not us Boomers!

Plus, the money that I personally paid into Social Security went to pay for my parent's generation....it certainly isn't going to pay for my generation! And, had President Johnson not changed the law and let the government "borrow" from the Social Security account and the Medicare account, we would have plenty of money to support each and every one of us that needs it! Because our politicians "used" our money to pay for their "pork" projects, the money is dwindling, and we're being blamed for it! It really bugs the crap out of me that people keep saying that the Boomers are the problem....we aren't the problem!! We worked for a living, paid our Social Security taxes and our Medicare taxes (involuntarily, I might add) and assumed that we would have that as one leg of our 3-legged stool to support us in our retirement. As it stands, most of us can't afford to even retire....I can't retire until I'm 70 (3 years from now), and I have no plans to apply for my Social Security until then. In fact, I'll probably have to work until I'm 75 and pray that my health holds out until then!! Yes, I do have a 401(k) plan and I do have savings, but it takes a lot out of my paycheck to put into both of these! I'm also certainly not living the life of luxury by any means, and I doubt if many of us Boomers are!! In the meantime, I live in a regular house in a regular neighborhood, drive a car that is over 5 years old, and I don't wear or buy expensive jewelry. The biggest purchase I've made this year is a new central heating system to replace the one that took a dump!! So, most of my hard-earned money goes to pay for repairs for a house (which, by the way was built in 1954 and NOT a mansion by any means) that I don't even own (thanks to the bank for allowing me to live in it and keep it standing)!

You may be a Boomer yourself, but you certainly have NO idea what you're talking about.....your perceptions of what we are going through are totally backwards!!! You need to do a little more research before you start talking about something you know nothing about!!!

By the way, I went into the military in 1964, upon graduating from high school, and I sent myself to college on the G.I. Bill....no one paid my way to college. I worked 40 hours a week and went to college 3-4 nights a week. I have a Bachelor's Degree AND an MBA.....guess what I do for a living? I'm an Executive Assistant.....making those so-called "big bucks." LOL!!! So, I'm certainly not living the life of luxury that you seem to think most Boomers are!

Realist17

This article states exactly why this was the worst time we could have ever decided to pass something like Owebamacare. We are already drowning in entitlements because of all the "wrinkled retirees" - the last thing we needed right now was another entitlement.

And now everybody is suffering - the people suffering the most is the middle class and minorities, when you look at average tax rates for middle class, decreasing income levels of middle class and minorities, and unemployment rates. Raising taxes isn't the answer. It never was, and it never will be.

You talk about the middle-class as though it's important to you and yet you want to cut funding to the safety net. You Teabaggers make me want to puke.

Ol Doc, here is a quote regarding the death of Hugo Chavez:

"And I think he'll be remembered for having tried to make a life of poor people in Venezuela better but in the end of the day, having made it worse. When the consequences of his economic policies become apparent, it will end up that he spent an enormous amount of money to make people a little better off for a short period of time."

That is exactly what is happening right now in the US. The progressive policies are hurting the very people that you're trying to help. I understand that's an inconvenient truth for you to grasp, but that's frankly what often happens when you think with the bleeding heart, and not the brain. Good intentions, but completely blind to the law of unintended consequences.

Bill-314065, that's a pretty good list. Here's another one: how many Americans would rather spend 3 billion in DOE R&D (a 29% increase over last year) or 1 billion to Egypt or any number of other pet projects in lieu of financing the list you have shown.

You say 76% of the population favor cutting the budget; where do you propose we start. Many on here favor increased taxes and closed loopholes without any corresponding budget cuts which is NOT the 'balanced' approach on which the POTUS won re-election.

The old 'starving children' and 'granny off the cliff' analagies are running thin for this administration, and all but a few on here are beginning to see through them.

Realist17

Ol Doc, here is a quote regarding the death of Hugo Chavez:

"And I think he'll be remembered for having tried to make a life of poor people in Venezuela better but in the end of the day, having made it worse. When the consequences of his economic policies become apparent, it will end up that he spent an enormous amount of money to make people a little better off for a short period of time."

That is exactly what is happening right now in the US. The progressive policies are hurting the very people that you're trying to help. I understand that's an inconvenient truth for you to grasp, but that's frankly what often happens when you think with the bleeding heart, and not the brain. Good intentions, but completely blind to the law of unintended consequences.

You're kidding me, right? Hugo Chavez? Why not Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Hitler, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun? You TeaPublicans have to have your bogy man don't you? Tell me all about the "liberal" slide into Socialism...but please don't quote Glenn Beck; he's busy taking on God right now. Keep working at it, I'm sure you'll find a way to the the "guvmint out of your Medicare".

Ol Doc, Actually, my quote was taken directly from an NBC article - from an NBC affiliate reporter in fact - not Glenn Beck. OOPS!!!

Sorry libtard - Looks like you can't avoid the substance by focusing on the criticizing the source this time... so now what??? It's panic time for old lefty!

When was the last time/ever have you seen Obama or Biden carrying a brief case?

From what leaks out of the white house Obama only works from 9 to 5.

"….The media presentation of the sequester as a symptom of "gridlock" and bitter policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans is a cynical fraud. While the corporate flunkies in the press promote the myth of "divided government," the two big business parties move in lockstep ever further to the right.

Both parties embraced the sequester, which was initially proposed by the Obama White House, as the best means for imposing immensely unpopular cuts and creating the conditions for even more brutal austerity measures. In reality, there has never been a period in US history where there was such a degree of unanimity within the political establishment on basic policy issues—from war and subversion abroad to attacks on democratic rights and the social conditions of working people at home…"

Sequester cuts boost corporate assault on American workers

By Kate Randall

5 March 2013

It is becoming increasingly clear that the so-called budget "sequestration" order signed Friday by President Obama not only threatens the jobs and social conditions of millions of workers and their families, it also signals a further shift of wealth to America's corporate elite under what are already staggering levels of income inequality.

The order sets in motion $85 billion in across-the-board cuts in 2013 that will impact a broad range of social services. Over the next decade, the sequester will slash federal spending by $1.2 trillion.

The Obama administration and both big business parties are in agreement that the attacks on jobless benefits, education and other social programs triggered by the sequester are only the starting point for even more draconian cuts to come. The main targets of the next round of cuts will be the core programs that provide health care for seniors and low-income families and benefits for retirees—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The media presentation of the sequester as a symptom of "gridlock" and bitter policy differences between the Democrats and Republicans is a cynical fraud. While the corporate flunkies in the press promote the myth of "divided government," the two big business parties move in lockstep ever further to the right…

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/05/sequ-m05.html

Momaid: your are schizoid. You also are not good at reading comprehension. Don't be too sure nobody saved anything except you. Schizoid because you say you are a boomer, boomer caused all the misery and yet you are completely opposite from your generation because you worked and saved, you are the only one who did it right. That makes you crazy, unintelligent and wrong. No reading comprehension because you read an example of how the math on contributions would work in the given scenario, then attribute a different scenario to the example in order to declare the math wrong. That makes you either a liar or a failure at basic reading skills.

I agree with SDN - think you said it well.

I agree with Didi-376, another great example of a person well founded and doing the right things.

ssgirl, what a load. We probably pay more than you do and before Bush crashed the economy we were in the top 5-10%. There are more republicans voting against their own best interests that are part of that 'entitled' group you keep talking about.

Let's find cuts where we can - whether it is welfare, obama's luxurious life style, disability checks for someone with a sore toe...

Pretty bitchy there, for someone who just accused 'liberals' of jealousy. It brings out the hate you have for all things Obama. I know many people at the bottom of the food chain, and not ONE is living high on the dole. Most can't even feed their kids or find rent money and are one illness from starving. You obviously don't give a @!$%# about anybody but yourself, but some of us do care. Get off your ideological high horse, it is an illusion.

Calling your party morons is not nice, If you are going to call the Republicans anything it should be Jellybeans !!!

seaskip,

What?

Seriously; if libs are morons, than the Lefties are a bunch of boat anchors. I'm pretty sure the elderly who need their retirements are or should feel angry at anyone brave enough to call their life's savings as an entitlement. Sonmanvb, please go bury your head in the sand, its safer than opening your mouth here.

Quoting Newsbuster does not give you credibility. Quite the opposite.

Jessie,Right on.We did as a generation bankroll the Greatest Generation.My 87 year old mother will attest to that statement.The government does census taking and knew full well that the boomers would soon be receiving benefits that we worked for.The government has borrowed from the Social Security fund,moved it and Medicare into the general fund.They are thieves plain and simple.If they get their heads out of theiri behinds they can fix the problem to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent for the boomers and generations to come.It wouldn't hurt for them to tell corporate America that not hiring baby boomers,letting us go before full retirement and reducing promised pensions and benefits are problematic which have led to less taxes in the federal governments coffers.

@ sonmanvb,

I don't think quotations from any Conservative editor expressing personal opinions at Time magazine while moonlighting as a posing Political Analyst poser substantiates anything.....except a joke in conservative editing.

CommonSenseMike,Your comments are truthful and excellent.NBC needs a good reporter such you.Not one U.S. representative has ever been honest enough to tell the American taxpayer how much was borrowed from Social Security and when they propose to pay it back with interest.

@!$%#ers ...phones WERE part of the SO-CALLED WELFARE REFORM ACT.spent mor money than if they would have just stayed on welfare .OBAMA phones.... your WHITE PUSSED FILLED ASSES!!!!!!!!

Seaskip you sound like a moron so can't take the heat get out of the Kit. (That's kitchen for all you morons )

Seaskunk,

Have you ever had an original thought? Must be a nightmare to have a wet dream about the "Tea Party" every night.

mikeb2013

You do mean the democrats broke it with now close to 9 trillion in spending

King fish, no, dems did not break it with 9T; the Leftists are still dragging the US under for their own personal gain.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323494504578340562616234822.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

cleaning lady "The government has borrowed from the Social Security fund,..."

And what generation put that government in office? Baby boomers never elected any politicians?

Baby boomers, better known as the generation who is more than willing to screw their own kids and grandkids to make sure they "get theirs".

Shellie-657180

We're not all Teabaggers!

Well Shellie, we helped fund the "Me" generation and the "X" generation and the "Y" generation and whatever other generations of kids there are now.

What I mean to say is, if things go as planned, my kids will have a nice inheritance when I croak unless it gets taken away from them by the government. In turn, that should help provide my grandchildren with a nice life as well. I don't know how old you are Shellie, but your statement is indicative of your selfishness.

douglas oates

@!$%#ers ...phones WERE part of the SO-CALLED WELFARE REFORM ACT.spent mor money than if they would have just stayed on welfare .OBAMA phones.... your WHITE PUSSED FILLED ASSES!!!!!!!!

Holy @!$%# Dougie...get back on your meds! The program you are referring to with the Obama phones thing? That was initiated by Ronald Reagan (home phones not cell phones) and updated to cell phones by GW Bush.

Sorry Marge; when further taxes on the 1% and closing loopholes funds the government for only another 3 weeks, we'll be looking at tapping into that equity you have for your kids and grandkids. Don't worry, there will be enough social assistance to go around, especially since those greedy 50%ers will have to ante up their 'fair share' to fund it all.

@ calmbeforethestorm,

I find it the excuses many conservatives have extremely juvenile about why they shouldn't be paying their equal share of taxes. All their excuses have something to do with everyone else except themselves. Illegal aliens, people on food stamps (EBT), Liberalism,gun control, etc. It's pure bullish*t. And it started within the Baby Boomer generation who expected generation X would be stupid by allowing a previous generation leave them previous expenditures to pay, as the previous generation walked off into the sunset, leaving younger folks to pay their bill. I don't think so. Listen, those making over $450k per year should be paying the same ratio as those making $60k per year with loop holes for interest rates on accumulated debt. Otherwise, stop bitching about everybody else and contribute your ratio to help pay down our deficit.........period. Conservatives cry about deficits and debt bbut never responsibly agree to raising revenue for paying off the debt they bitch about. It's totally juvenile and selfish. Like a teenager with a job refusing to help pay off a phone bill within the parents house they helped accumulate from long distance calls to their friends......

@ Tony,

I'm all for paying down the debt using the 'balanced approach' the POTUS ran on. I don't mind closing loopholes and raising revenue as long as it's accompanied by REAL spending cuts. Not cutting a percentage of spending increases or running the cuts over a 10 year period so future administrations can reneg on the cuts.

If the cuts aren't real then keep your hands out of my pocket. I pay my fair share of taxes as do many Americans, but this runaway spending has to be addressed. Also, I'm an Independent; I voted for Obama the first time, before it became apparant that he was one of the most divisive figures I'd seen. So keep categorizing and stereotyping everyone who doesn't agree with you; if the POTUS can do it, it must be alright. BTW, look at the excuses used by the left. All of them have to do with everyone else except themselves as well. Doesn't make it right or any less bullsh*t.

Funny Mike since the top 3 Democrats have received the top 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians, by Judicial watch, sounds like your proud to have voted for a bunch of crooks to run this country

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-of-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2012/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-of-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2012/#obama

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-of-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2012/#reid

http://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/#pelosi

That socialist thing is so idiotic, I'm surprised anyone can say this without embarassment. There is no Socialist on this planet that would accuse Obama & Dems as being socialist. I wish they were socialist. Maybe if we were socialist, we wouldn't subsidize Big Oil...or perhaps we would give foreign aid to Detroit instead of to Syria. If we were socialist, perhaps we would have allowed the bucks to fall where they may and let the Criminal Big Banks all fail.

Start with wikipedia. Learn the meaning of socialism. Obama is actually right wing.

No. I am not proud of anyone I voted for. Government and private industry work hand in hand to maximize gains. I think under Obama we have a better chance for recovery. Thats is my opinion. The fact that bloated corrupt politicians wielding hundreds of millions of dollars to strengthen their following is an offshoot of modern American economics.

If the government is in debt so are the people. Private industry holds vast cash reserves from cutting rights from workers and because they are still selling goods and services at large profits. Not only do we have to pay the money government borrows back, we have to suffer under oppressive work conditions with maxims like -at least I have a job- -unemployment is still 6 months--itll get better-- we all are losing our jobs--I was rehired at half pay but so was my neighbor-. Maxims created in a mass marketing ploy to sell us the removal of our rights and property.

Uh, KeenInSight, while I don't believe our President is pushing our country into a Socialist Government, many of his policies resonate with Socialistic governments. So you can see why he is accused of that.

And without the subsidies for "Big Oil" your gas prices would go up. It's simple logic. Less revenue from the Government equals higher prices for the product. So don't complain about gas prices if the government cuts the subsidies.

As for giving money to Detroit? Are you kidding me? The city is bankrupt. It would be the same as giving money to Solendra.

Obama vs. Romney was Clinton vs. Bush Sr. round two. The same ole we have to sacrifice in this hard economic times a one sided sacrifice from Romney and get America working. When did we stop working?

Obama is Center Right. Calling someone a Socialist and living under a socialist Government just are far out claims. Too far out to even call them Conservative. If you receive Government subsidies you are poor. If you earn decent money and can afford the basics and more you are a Capitalist. Sorry calling someone a socialist under those conditions is pathetic.

The US outbuilt Soviet Russia militarily and subsidized the Soviet people with food. Do not feed me this bs.

TO: KeenInsight who wrote:

"That socialist thing is so idiotic..."

So are the rest of the names Republicans like to call people who disagree with them.

Republicans needs to find something "positive" to do with their free time because, right now, Republicans seem to conduct themselves more and more like a hate group.

It is so tedious reading about deficits from the side that caused most of them. If people would look at what republicans do instead of what they say, at least they would see the truth. Republicans economic policies are FAILED, yet they keep pushing them. The US economy is NOT a household budget and the austerity republicans are forcing is BAD for recessive economies. And for godssake go back to school and learn what a socialist REALLY is.

Think about it .. are you kidding me? "Big Oil" subsidies does not have anything to do with the price of gas. With all the billions of dollars the oil companies make in profit each year gas prices should be low. They need these profits to pay the bonuses for the big shots We are being ripped off by the oil companies because they pay the congressmen to keep the additional subsidies so they have bigger bonuses. Even with the price of oil as high as they are reporting, gas prices are way out of range. Exxon/Mobil had a profit of $44 billion last year, Chevron/Texaco $29 billion. Do you really think they need the subsidies??

The treasury will take in an estimated 2.7 trillion in tax revenue this year. A new record. So Obama has been busy raising taxes while the country has been mired in the worst recovery in US history. Any talk of getting spending under control in Washington, nope, just more tax increases is all Obama has been proposing. Well not actually proposing, since there is nothing in writing and the Democrats in the Senate haven't passed anything. But more taxes is all the Obama is talking about these days, while he attempts to make the cuts from sequester noticed but not too painful.

No, that was the rethuglicans and their Wall Street masters who helped destroy our economy. Unregulated capitalism has been a disaster. Time to start putting a transaction fee in place on EVERY Wall Street transaction.

Stop allowing those who make billions doing nothing to only pay 15% or less in taxes. Rethugs are petulent children, they broke it but want to blame someone else.

Conservative policies have never worked, anywhere, ever. Name one conservative country that is a leader in anything. And all of those silly European countries that have embrace "AUSTERITY" are now experiencing double dip recessions.

Obama is right wing? LOL. The further Left a person gets, the further to the right everyone else appears. If you are extreme left, you think other leftists are moving to the right. Same goes the other way.

Obama is a socialist Democrat. It is what he embraces. He admits it even. He cannot get to where he wants to be because there is another party to contend with. Republicans are anti-socialist. Hell, many Democrats are anti-socialist.

There are 4 parties in Washington and they are covered by the names of 2 parties. Democrats house regular Democrats and Socialist Democrats (Liberals of today). The Republican party houses Regular Republicans and extreme right Republicans. This is where the problem lies. Politicians from both sides vote for things and support things they really do not want to support. They do that in the name of the Party. Moderates on both sides do not really like what the extreme elements of the party is doing. They simply support it so they can make it look like their party is strong.

The real question is this. Which is worse? Yep, that is the point we are at in this country with our politics. Which Party will do the least amount of damage. Personally, I think The economy should take center stage. Fix it, and it starts with government spending. Government spending and the refusal to control the debt situation are the biggest danger we all face.

KeenInsight,

"That socialist thing is so idiotic, I'm surprised anyone can say this without embarrassment. There is no Socialist on this planet that would accuse Obama & Dems as being socialist. Obama is actually right wing."

Well little liberal naive bitty buddy, wake up your definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed!! I hate to break it to you but, your full of #$%#$@!!!!

mike -

Obama is far from center right. In fact, the only way he could even appear to be 'center right' is for the individual making the observation to be so far off in left field that they are no longer on the planet.

This country, as a whole, tends to be center right in its views and Obama is nowhere on the map as he and his followers tend to be off in left field someplace.

Rick...taxes revenues are up....yes....but as a percentage of GDP they are down. It's a much better barometer than looking at un-depreciated and non-inflationary dollars that you choose to spout about....twice now.

In addition real wages for the middle class have been stagnent for nearly 30 years while the uber-wealthy have seen theirs skyrocket. It basically tells us that the government is collecting less of the pie....the middle class is collecting less of the pie....and the wealthy are getting everything that the government and middle class lost....just like Republicans want. After all who donates to Republicans?

Tammy, Obama is as 'left' as Reagan. The republican party has moved so far to the right, their fringe now runs the show. Reagan would not be acceptable to the republican party today, that is how far they've gone off the cliff. Your post is one of the reasons most of the country doesn't agree with republicans. They live in an alternate reality. Wake up,princess.

woody:

I simply don't understand these subsidies either. Those profits you mentioned are just that - what remains after all expenses - operations, wages, exploration, capital equipment, etc. "Profits" - not all that complex a concept.

welcome:

Your second paragraph: A compelling argument for compulsory Prozac treatments, and trillions of dollars of federal investment in education. The bell curve never lies.

kevin--as a distincly lower middle class person (my yearly income is less than $50K) I find it AMAZING that you seem to believe that by virtue of 'showing up' for work, regardless of the difficulty, training, and performance of the work done, the so-called 'middle class' has been entitled to get more and more money every year for doing the same thing.

I will be the absolute FIRST to agree that the salaries of many CEO's are out of whack,( ESPECIALLY those of a company that is losing money!) the notion that any employer OWES his workers more money for doing the same job is LUDICROUS.

And as for those who feel that 15% is too low a rate to pay on dividend income--I DO hope that when you sell your HOME, you too are willing to pay 39% income tax on the proceeds?

Because every stock I own was PURCHASED with money I paid income tax already on.

MOmaid...I merely pointed out that the wealthy are the only ones who've seen their share of the pie increase over the last thiry years...and it has done so at the expense of the middle class and the government....don't put words in my mouth.

As for your silly argument that the money you bought stocks with has already been taxed....you do know that when you sell your stock the portion of the proceeds represented by the purchase price is not taxable don't you....they're called capital GAINS.....and stocks are the most passive investment there is. There's no reason that those capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than normal income (you came up with the 39% rate....not me).

Rick-3416939

The treasury will take in an estimated 2.7 trillion in tax revenue this year. A new record. So Obama has been busy raising taxes while the country has been mired in the worst recovery in US history. Any talk of getting spending under control in Washington, nope, just more tax increases is all Obama has been proposing. Well not actually proposing, since there is nothing in writing and the Democrats in the Senate haven't passed anything. But more taxes is all the Obama is talking about these days, while he attempts to make the cuts from sequester noticed but not too painful.

Uhm Rick...Wall Street set a record today...

The lay off wont hurt no one, besides government employees get over paid for the jobs they do vs private sector jobs.

With a 4 year degree in science working in industry, you can make the median American income, about $50k. With a 6 year degree in science working in government, you can make $5,000 less for the same job. I know because I checked during my last job search.

You have a warped sense of reality. Im a federal employee. You probably think I make $125,000 a year like the media likes to propagate.

With a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration, 12 years active duty, 5 years in the federal civilian sector (17 years total federal service) AND disabled vet status...I still make under $46,000 a year GROSS salary. We dont get free medical NOR free retirement. In fact basic medical coverage is $270.00 per month and basic retirement is 1% of your gross pay invested for a whopping 1% per year of service. Wow. How stellar. If I work for 40 years and make $100,000 a year at retirement I get $40,000 a year before taxes to live off of.

Go to opm.gov and do some research on pay scales, benefits and retirement. They arent what you think. My girlfriend works for St. Joseph Medical and gets comparable benefits to mine (better in some cases).

We all have choices. Thanks for ur service. How about being part of the majority of the population retired and living off s.s. at approx. 10k a yr minus the 135. for health ins. that doesn't leave mush for anything. Then politician try to use fear an intimidation to keep us in line and use us as a political football for there political purposes or gains.

Rob, that's a lot better than what the majority of the private sector gets.

So go work in the private sector if you think you could do better...

The attractiveness of a Government Job is several things, but mainly stability and benefits. With the sequestration and cuts to state and local governments, the very things that attracts people to government will no longer be there. The pay for government jobs is not the reason to work for government.

I once read in an Engineering Book, when an engineer graduates he has two career paths. He can work for the private sector and reap big financial rewards, work on innovative projects, be recognized for good work and move up rapidly up the ladder for success, or "you can work for the Government for great personal satisfaction".

So if you think Government Jobs are so great, try working for one and then come back and say it's great. And now with the loss of job stability and benefits, the only other incentive is "great personal satisfaction". Feed your family on satisfaction.

Rob, you are making way over the median income in the U.S. which is about $39000! I worked for 46 yrs. and never made more than $31000 and that was the last year I worked (I retired at the end of 2011) and had been with the same company 25 yrs! I lost my insurance when I retired and couldn't afford COBRA so now don't have any. I am very healthy tho and think I can last one year till my medicare plan b kicks in. I will barely be able to break even once they start taking money out of my ss check for that. My situation is partly my own fault because I retired early and therefore don't get full ss. However, with gas prices and having to travel 280 miles per week just for work, I was better off retiring. I had to live so far from my work because I couldn't afford the astronomical rents of the big city near my work. So I moved 27 miles away to a smaller town where I could afford the rents. Part of my plan was to get ss and p/t work locally, so I didn't have the gas expense. I have been looking for a p/t job but so far no luck. I'm sure eventually I will find one and then I should be doing ok even with smaller ss and medicare plan b. l also get minimal foodstamps but I'm sure the minute I get a job, they will kick me off. Marco, what you get per year in ss depends on how long you worked and how much you made all the prior years before retiring. I get $11616 per year, which is hard to live on but I know how to live cheaply and do ok.

So go work in the private sector if you think you could do better...

Given the recession, what an @!$%#y statement. We don't want to race to the bottom like republicans do.

Social Security tax rates were raised on the boomers and the retirement age was raised. in order to cover the large population of retirees when the time came. It's not the boomers fault that the 'greatest generation' used our tax money to live large and that the Reagan administration took the trust fund cash to hide his awful deficits for most of his administration. Elected President (and denied by the Republican Supreme Court) Al Gore had a good plan to keep Social Security solvent for everyone, but instead we got Bush spending America's future like a drunken sailor on his wars and tax cuts. If there is not enough now we will just need to get the money back from those it was transferred to during the Bush years. There must be plenty sitting in offshore secret accounts to pay for it.

Grownupguy...you hit the hammer on the head!

those criticizing Rob,

try comparing apples to apples. You cant compare your situation to his and complain about salary.

for a business degree + 17yrs experience, 46k is extremely low. I also have a business degree and with only 4 yrs experience am making 49k in a private company.

fact is the gov't employees with degrees are very underpaid compared to their private counterparts.

for example, i personally know for a fact that someone working in a govt health lab with 2 bachelors (organic chem and biology) and a masters makes 55k a year. That is almost HALF of what they would be making if they were in private industry, say with a pharmaceutical company.

I worked for 46 yrs. and never made more than $31000 and that was the last year I worked (I retired at the end of 2011) and had been with the same company 25 yrs!

But you don't have the same education level as Rob I bet. A Bachelor's in Business Administration is a 4 year college degree. The figure Rob cited is about the median pay for an entry level position with a BBA in the private sector. For 5 years experience, the median pay is about $10k more. Plus better benefits.

i personally know for a fact that someone working in a govt health lab with 2 bachelors (organic chem and biology) and a masters makes 55k a year. That is almost HALF of what they would be making if they were in private industry, say with a pharmaceutical company.

Being of this industry, I think a master's level is more around $80k in the private sector, depending on experience, location etc etc. Either way though, it is significantly more than the public sector.

Ricardo98, If the government tweaks ss a little (which they did already raise the ss and medicare taxes for younger workers) and , even tho I did it, I think they would be wise to get rid of early retirement altogether because then people would stay working longer and pay in longer and raise full retirement age to 68. We babyboomers (which some on here seem to be confused on what years are considered baby boomers) who were born between 1946-1964, are the biggest generation there ever was. We paid for our parents retirement. They are the ones who lived lavishly back in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, while we were working our butts off raising kids and/or going to college and working too. However, we babyboomers had less children than our parents and our kids are having less children, so there are not near as many workers paying in for us, who are the largest generation ever! Therein lies the problem. Right now ss is solvent till 2024 and will probably be ok as if they tweak it. We need more people to be working tho and the Repugs are not helping at all! President Obama presented them a jobs bill over a year ago and the poo pooed it. Then they (the GOP congress) presented one but they snuck ammendments in it to decrease foodstamps and to ok the XL Keystone pipeline, so it got shut down in the senate and/or was vetoed by the President. Therein lies the problem. The GOP is always trying to "sneak in" things to benefit their rich business buddies, who don't need anymore tax cuts, subsidies etc. but when it comes to the middle class and poor, the won't budge! Why? because those programs don't make them any lobbying money! Plain and simple, it's greed! And they think we 98% don't see that? That is why their approval ratings have been in the toilet (15%) ever since the Teabaggers duped us in 2010! They are all up for re-election in 2014 and the Dems only need about 30 seats to take the house back! If you want the gridlock in Washington to end and want to see things get done in a more balanced way, vote straight Dem in 2014 and send the Teabaggers to hell where they belong!

Sharon, I agree with everything you say.

Rob, i also am a federal employee and can attest what Rob says is correct: Our pension is 1% for every year we have worked. To even have a pension is a miracle. So i wouldn't complain about that. In addition, you get a 5% TSP (401K) match. Many private companies do not offer such a benefit. Personally, I would like to see them do away with the pension. It's an expensive proposition that only hurts future generations. Your TSP and proper savings along with working longer, should cover you in later years. Of course, I would only do away with our pension if the politicians suffered the same fate

meetooboo

Best government is limited government, Place non-essential government on a one month lay off to cut the deficit even more. The lay off wont hurt no one, besides government employees get over paid for the jobs they do vs private sector jobs. Start government back up after you get a budget from te Senate by at least May 1st.

First of all, what do you consider non-essential? Would that be the military? First Responders? Customs and Border Patrol? FBI? CIA? Dept of Homeland Security? ...How about those of us that have oversight responsibilities? Right now if you file a claim with Social Security or the Veterans' Administration how long will it be before they approve or disapprove it? What's the backlog like? What do you suppose it would be if the entire FED took a month off? Your mother just received an overpayment notice instead of a Social Security check...who do you appeal that to before she is kicked out of her home? ...you have a nice day.

Your completely wrong. Jobs will be booming this year and next.

@markinbecker

What crack are you smoking? And where do you get this information from? Nothing is pointing to that data as far am I am aware. My company is shipping jobs to Montreal...for the first time in six years since I have been with them. Which clearly states the opposite of your "claim".

Links please....

My company is shipping jobs to Montreal...for the first time in six years since I have been with them.

Your company isn't the broader American economy.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/04/168566715/as-2013-begins-a-pretty-positive-job-outlook

http://www.strategiceconomicresearch.org/business_forecast.html

http://www.economy.com/home/products/samples/press/2012-10-11-Moodys-Analytics-US-Macro-Outlook-Growth-Will-Pick-up-in-2013.pdf

Etc etc etc

My company has over 250,000 employees and is in over 80 countries WORLDWIDE ....LOL

NPR is a complete liberal rag

Your second link highlights Sacremento?! lmaooooo

Your third PDF doesn't work, yet was forecasted in October of 2012?

And last I checked, the official unemployment numbers are at 7.9%, and holding. For close to 5 years now to boot.

But nice try at the BS spin..

NPR..., funded by the federal government...

My company has over 250,000 employees and is in over 80 countries WORLDWIDE ....LOL

Your company is still not representative of the economy. My company is hiring workers in America. Does this information mean anything? Nope. Because my company isn't representative of the economy.

NPR is a complete liberal rag

They cite the US Department of Labor, the CEO of an employment consulting firm, and an economist with a forecasting firm.

Your third PDF doesn't work, yet was forecasted in October of 2012?

It's a forecast from Moody's.

And last I checked, the official unemployment numbers are at 7.9%, and holding. For close to 5 years now to boot.

But nice try at the BS spin..

The unemployment rate 5 years ago was around 7.3%. By 2009 it was over 10%. It hovered around 9.5% for all of 2010. It was only around late 2011 that it fell below 9% and then it was pretty stubborn in the 8% range until 2012. The 7.8-7.9% unemployment has only been the trend for 4 months. But nice revisionist history there.

NPR..., funded by the federal government...

Less than 5% is funded by the government. Individuals and corporations make up the lion's share of their funding.

But why am I even bothering to argue facts with folks who don't value them? Y'all will just claim some gubmint conspiracy and dismiss reality outright.

This about a STUPID plan. Did you copy and paste from some Obama site?

The DoD is ALREADY being cut, to the point that EVERY government employee is taking a 20% pay cut, but are still expected to support the war fighter just like they always have.

Are YOU willing to take a 20% pay cut and stay on the job, doing the exact same thing you were before you got the pay cut?

And Obama got 620 BILLION in tax increases with HIS promise of a "balanced approach" that ended up being raise taxes and cut nothing.

REPUBLICANS balanced the budget in the 90's and did NOT hurt defense, Medicare, Social Security, the taxpayers, or anything else.

And all we get from the left is the MORONIC raise taxes and cut defense, and they think the world will be just Kumbaya.

Markinbecker,
We don't have 10 yrs !!! Have All lawmaking Gov take a Huge Pay-cut and use the same Medical we do,quit giving them Golden Retirements And I bet we could get this place cleaned up a heck of a lot faster ! None of them including The President Deserve to be paid as they currently are!! Period! They are doing a civic service when their term is up they go back to their Regular jobs...They have made their contracts a winning lotto ticket At American Tax Payers Expence !!!

Mark has a point. In reality, we have to start somewhere. An idea is better than no idea.

To be realistic about it, this is what an independent economic study came up with to balance the budget. Requirements that would be necessary to simply balance the current spending.

81% corporate tax

86% income tax on high earners

68% income tax on the middle class

25% tax on the rest of those tax eligible.

That doesn't include the debt getting paid down. We are in bad shape in this country. Dismissing ideas is the last thing we need to do. If both sides keep dismissing each others ideas, we will end up with a financial disaster the likes of which have never been seen. We use an unbacked currency in this country. It has only the value of the work performed to earn each dollar. It is basically a barter system with paper credits. You do something for someone (your boss or whoever), they give you some paper that you can trade for other goods or services. The government is killing that paper.

They all need to sit down and start fixing stuff instead of pointing fingers back and forth (Democrats are the worse finger pointers ever right now). Obama needs to lead instead of making excuses and trying to dictate to the houses. In other words, we are pretty much effed because we have the most unqualified people in history running this country.

WHITE/PUSS honkies are evil!!!!!!!!!

Cheryl, Republicans DID NOT balance the budget in the 90s! President Clinton (a democrat) did! He was President from 92-99! You better go study your history better!

CherylLM: What was the tax rate when the repubs balanced the budget? What is it now? Wouldn't we have to raise taxes to get where we were in the 90's?

Also, to get where we were in the 90's we'd get rid of Homeland Security, about half of the 16+ intelligence agencies we have today, and we'd bring our troops back from the middle east. And when did we ever fund a $1T weapon - the F-35?

President Clinton and the Democratic congress achieved, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a $69 billion surplus in 1996, $126 billion in 1998, and $236 billion in 1999, which he left as a present for President George W Bush, who promptly squandered it!

You need to read the TIME magazine article by Steve Brill. It talks about out-of-control medical costs and why they're so high.

President Obama didn't 'get' any new taxes. These were tax cuts schedule to expire, passed by W. The President extended the expiration, no taxes were raised. In fact, for most Americans taxes were lowered. You are proving once again that Fox News viewers are the least informed people on the planet.

@ CherrlLM,

The only propaganda within this row of entries is your own. Mathematics are not propaganda. Math is fact.

The $716 billion eliminated from Medicare Advantage expenditures of waste and fraud were listed in the losing Paul Ryan 2010-2011 Budget proposal, as a savings of the same exact amount........$716 billion. Case closed on that issue.

You see, Republicans can't wrap their heads around the concept of an expenditure cut in wasteful/fraudulent spending because they prefer looking the other way, as Lobbyists lobby for Coporations to pocket the waste in their pockets just like they did from 2003 until Obama eliminated it. Before that...Paul Ryan's HR1 from 2003 left the Medicare Part D donut hole unfunded for Seniors prescriptions. These folks (Seniors) paid into the Medicare system via FICA payroll deductions their entire working careers and were defrauded by Republicans on the Hill during this era. You're either stupid or you were looking the other way just like the GOP. Afterwards, Republicans tried to lie Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare Advantage before the 2012 election. Now their saying Obama offered no entitlement cuts. Which is it ??? An elimination of expenditures on an expense is still a cut (reduction) in the spending on the expenditure. hello ??? The GOP are pathological Liars. But, in your case, I'll make an exception. You're just delusional or plain stupid..

This is true, HOWEVER there are plenty of loopholes that the high income earners use to dodge taxes that can be closed before we resort to pulling the plug on grandma's health insurance. That idiotic 'carried interest' loophole needs to go away. Capitol gains need to be taxed as ordinary income as there is not even decent anecdotal evidence that suggests that lower capital gains tax rates lead to jobs. The corporate tax code needs to be revamped, lowered significantly and made into a flat tax. Subsides for oil companies is the stupidest thing of anything in the tax code. Farm subsides are mostly obsolete and should be eliminated. Social Security and Medicare should be means tested. The cap on the payroll tax should be dumped (that alone would cut the annual deficit by one third). A small financial transaction tax would stabilize the markets as well as make the playing ground more fair and would raise $50 billion per year. Enactment of the 'Buffet rule' would bring in $37 billion. Doing all of these would bring us significantly closer to a balanced budget and would not harm the middle class or the poor one iota.

The CBO takes into account all of the possible routes for bringing in additional tax revenue. After doing all that, they still come to the conclusion that the CBO Director talked about yesterday.

I didn't say that we won't have to make cuts to entitlements and raise taxes on the middle class. I am saying that we need to do all of things I listed first.

LOL. closing loopholes is a drop in the bucket.

I don't understand why politicians want to make the people believe that Billionaires are getting tax refunds. The Rich send the IRS money at tax time. It is the amount they send that is the issue. Make a million bucks and send the government 400,000 of those bucks (state and federal on average). and somehow you are screwing the middle class. How can anyone think that a million dollar earner paying 400,000 dollars in tax is simply not paying enough? I don't get it.

You're both correct!

Means test Social Security and Medicare savings $31 billion

A small financial transaction tax $50 billion in new revenue.

Tax Capital gains as ordinary income $100 billion new revenue.

Eliminate payroll tax cap $375 billion in new revenue.

End tax subsidies to oil companies $6 billion savings

End farm subsidies $35 billion in savings

End carried interest loophole $10 billion new revenue

Enact the Buffet rule $37 billion new revenue

Total = $644 billion

If you live in CA and earn $1M in salary/wages a year you will end up with approximately 40 cents on the dollar after taxes. Fed rate is now 39.5% over 400K. CA state rate is now 13.3% over $200K. SS, Medicare, unemployment/disability insurance, and other taxes amount to about 10%. At this income level, most of your deductions (including home mortgage) are either eliminated or greatly reduced under existing tax law. This is way more than my idea of "fair share". Its Robin Hood style confiscation.

Zero.

You believe whatever you want to believe. I don't care.

@ Citizen -XX,

Ironically,

Unfunded Coporate tax cuts were legislated by law in 2001-2003 after it was first proposed the costs would be a drop in the bucket towards our Federal deficit during a time when there was a $175 billion surplus in 2000. It ( unfunded Coporate tax cuts ) continued drop by drop into the bucket of our debt until Bush left office by Jan 2009 when the Federal deficit was at $1.4 trillion. And the bucket overflowed............with Baby Boomers expecting Generation X to pay for their party.

The ultimate in both narcissism and egomania. He is under the belief that Americans want or care to see his face on TV. Makes one wonder how he is able to tear himself away from the mirror each day.

Chicken Little made no bones about it. He was already bragging about pressing for more tax increases before the red ink was dry on the last increase. That is part of the reason that the repubs stood firm on this latest tax campaign by the Little Chicken. He dared the repubs to stand up to him during his chest thumping and they did.

This is not a comment about the president. It is sarcasm directed at Government that uses our money to enrich themselves and their peers. The Republicans merely find themselves in the same position as the Democrats were in in Bush's second term. It is laughable that people say that Clinton's economy was not real. Bush Jr. inherited a very strong economy with almost no problems.

I agree. As a federal employee I am NOT a union member and have never paid union fees or dues. I despise the employees who use the union as a catalyst and blinder for their mediocrity and whining. I'll give you ONE guess what group of people make up our union reps and members despite the fact that their is ZERO disparity in pay, hiring and benefits in the government sector.

However, there is certainly some disparity in merit promotion selections. It's all about what gender and race you are...not your qualifications.

If the government will cut out the fraud of public unions by deeming unions in public jobs as unconstitutional.

People have the right to freely associate.

These unions contribute government tax dollars to Democrats that hold public office to gain political power.

How come Republicans win elections then?

The government employees will have more money in their paychecks that will help after a month of government stoppage.

They just won't have a paycheck for a month. That's some pretty twisted thinking there. If you were my boss and tried that, you'd be before a judge trying to explain it and failing.

Shut food stamps off for a month too (there are organizations to help feed the poor), let everyone share in the sacrifice.

Food is a pretty big sacrifice for a month. And odds are if you just shut down government, the organizations that do feed the poor would go broke quickly from the sudden increased demand for their charity.

Why does it always have to be the workers to sacrifice, why cant everyone?

Wait, I don't get it. Are you now saying the poor government workers have to sacrifice?

While I agree that a good many unions are run poorly and should be reformed to actually represent those they serve. I think you are missing that a good many companies that receive government contracts give quite a bit of money to political campaigns. I am all for getting money out of politics no matter where it comes from. Also it is always the workers who sacrifice but you seem to want to make them suffer more. A majority of those on food stamps work and food stamps provide little as it is. Yes there are organizations that help feed the poor but why don't you go ask them if they could meet the demand if government assistance were cut off. Why don't you try to follow the money, because it's not down here.

Pragmatic-3918582 if I were your boss Id put you at part time so I wouldn't have to be penalized for Obama care.

Prag - Not all federal employees are entitled to union representation. Which in your terms would mean that they are not allowed to "freely associate". There are certain levels of government pay and certain positions that are considered "professionals" in goverment positions and they are not allowed union representation. That means that every person outside of those positions in "unprofessional" and only unprofessionals are allowed representation.

meetooboo,

Pragmatic-3918582 if I were your boss Id put you at part time so I wouldn't have to be penalized for Obama care.

Fine and dandy, so long as you pay me regularly and not cut me off for a month, then pay me a little extra and say "it's fine, take it."

Prag - Not all federal employees are entitled to union representation. Which in your terms would mean that they are not allowed to "freely associate". There are certain levels of government pay and certain positions that are considered "professionals" in goverment positions and they are not allowed union representation. That means that every person outside of those positions in "unprofessional" and only unprofessionals are allowed representation.

There is a major difference between a policy and declaring a union unconstitutional. Policies can be changed with ease. Barring unions on constitutional grounds infringes on the right of free association. Having a policy doesn't impact the ability of workers to form a union and change policy.

meetoo - So just how are public unions defrauding the government. Considering that the unions and the government sign a contract for specific pay, for a specific job. Do you not think the US government would bring charges against the union for fraud? I work at a hospital and there was an accountant who used whiteout instead of starting a new form. He is still in jail for suspected fraud against medicare. So what conspiracy can you come up with to explain?

You know, if companies like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. would pay their workers a decent salary, most of them would not have to also be requesting food stamps, etc. The biggest problem is that these companies make a major profit, but they refuse to pay their employees sufficient pay to allow them to subsist! The thing that makes me mad is that Wal-Mart says they want to hire soldiers just getting out of the service.....but, they want to hire them for a pitiful salary so that they will still have to apply for food stamps and welfare to keep their families fed and clothed! It's really sad what some corporations are doing....and, some of them are even cutting hours on their employees so they don't have to pay the penalties for not insuring their employees!!!

Im sorry I wasnt raised in the public education system, I wiil dumb it down a bit..

The "Ryan plan" or something similar to it will eventually happen. The current Medicare structure cannot survive. The math doesn't work.

LOL You have hit it on the head my friend. You see we have a diease in america known as Liberals.

These Liberals are miserable little weak bed wetting babies that have been suffering of "life isn't fair" since they flopped out of their welfare widened mommas (God only knows who daddy is).

All this living scum can think is give me everybody elses stuff and I'll just steal what the government doesn't steal for me.

These sub humans don't dare fault the Hobama tit that they suckle and don't care about anything but their drugs and foodstamps anyway.

And yes the government will get away with whatever they want because these worms have become over half of our country.

As long as everyone is dragged down and miserable the Libs are doing their job.

Think fat little retard or skinny geek that is still mad because he/she wasn't picked for a game or dem and you are on target.

Noel Franz:

What's wrong with you? (Obviously plenty.)

We have a REPUKLICAN Congress that will NOT compromise..........

the truth can hurt. people are being lied to. why because its all about Money. no one want to change.

buy change can be good. if you give it a chance.

Noel - That is rather socialist idea and I don't think you meant it that way. Cost of living is tied to a free market, capitalist system.

Ihateliberals - Are you the low info Republican that we all here about? Inflation has been flat during Obama's term, mainly because the credit rates have been kept low. You really should try researching before making unfounded statements. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi. It is currently at 1.6 percent. Expanding your knowledge will enlighten you.

IhateLiberals7

Ok...so you hate liberals.

What is your argument against closing tax loopholes?

We're not talking RAISING taxes, we're talking about CLOSING LOOPHOLES.

What was your grading for reading and comprehension? Not too impressive I presume.

Really simple stuff: we need more revenue. Profits are thru the roof, so time to pay your fair share rich people/corporations. You can close loopholes or raise their taxes, but it has to happen. Conservatives like to try and say "but we did that!" Thing is, we didn't do enough, so now we have to compromise and get it done. By the same token, us liberals need to look at our safety programs and see what we could change to make them more efficient, cut out the scammers, etc... but more revenue is a must.

What is your argument against closing tax loopholes?

I'll answer for ihateliberals. It doesn't shrink government. It gives government money to grow with.

Leo the builder, what do you build? A pile of dog dump? Nice job!

7,
Doesn't the House control the pursestrings?
Taxing authority originates there also I believe.
You can blame Obama all you want, but you can also put the cart in front of the horse also.

Let's try this again...President Obama can not generate spending. He can propose policies that cost money, but he cannot just write a check, or an IOU.

If you're trying to post a link, remove the http and add spaces between www the site and dot com

It seems to work okay just removing the http:// also.

Except that is not the only reason we have sequestration and no budget.

Poof! Bye Bye logic.

mitch,
According to Boner himself that is the ONLY reason there is no comprimise.

bullshiat.......anyone can become rich in our nation.....get off your ass and quit whining...

mitch,
According to Boner himself that is the ONLY reason there is no comprimise.

That's according to Obama. In December, to get agreement to raise taxes, Obama agreed that spending would be cut, in the future, the near future. Where are the cuts? That's what is holding this up. The Dems promised to cut spending. They lied. Everyone knew they lied. Now we have the consequenses.

Dio - You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

Boehner's no genius, but I'm suuuuuure he said, "You know, we wouldn't have this sequestration if it weren't for our stubborn refusal to close loopholes. It's all our fault, so blame us.";)