11 Feb

Obama wanted the sequester- give it to him. Straight down his throat.

                                       

fiscal cliff 2

The White House has warned of the devastation that would result from sequestration:

The White House warned Friday that allowing the $85 billion sequester to happen would devastate the economy and disrupt the everyday lives of millions of people.

In a move intended to intensify pressure on Congress to prevent looming spending cuts set for March 1, White House officials told reporters the cuts would hamper law enforcement, hurt federal education programs, withhold mental health services and furlough thousands of workers.

One horrible thing after another would come to pass:

In a fact sheet, the administration said some 373,000 “seriously mentally ill adults” and “emotionally disturbed children” would go untreated because of cuts in health care spending. Thousands of fewer food safety inspections would occur, and the FBI would see a workforce reduction of some 1,000 agents.

Social safety net programs for the poor would be among the hardest hit by the sequester. More than half a million women and children would be dropped from food assistance programs, and 125,000 low-income families receiving rental assistance would lose their aid. Recipients of long-term unemployment would see benefits decrease by an average of $400, and more than 100,000 formerly homeless people would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs.

Programs for seniors — including federally-assisted programs like Meals on Wheels and offices that process Social Security and Medicare claims — could see stark cutbacks. And while most Americans are unlikely to mourn the cuts to the Internal Revenue Service that would reduce the number of audits performed, the Justice Department would furlough hundreds of federal prosecutors responsible for trying criminal crimes.

Oh the humanity:

The White House also argued that sequestration would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of federal and contracting jobs and deal a blow to the overall economy, pointing to recent fourth-quarter gross domestic product projections — dragged down by a slowing of defense spending — as evidence of the danger.

Now for a little history. Barack Obama signed the sequester bill into law on August 2, 2011

This is a law Obama wanted:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise – not turn off the pressure.”

sequester_121023_woodward

The harsh cuts came from the White House:

“The book ‘The Price of Politics,’ by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts originated in the White House – and not in Congress … Woodward describes the behind-the-scenes haggling last year that laid the groundwork for sequestration.” (“Bob Woodward Book Could Bolster Republican Attack On W.H.,” Politico, 9/7/12)

WOODWARD: “Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger.” (Bob Woodward, “The Price Of Politics,” Pgs. 339-340, 2012)

WOODWARD: “At 2:30 p.m. [on July 27] Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ … Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.” (Bob Woodward, “The Price Of Politics,” Pg. 326, 2012)

And they targeted the military specifically:

WOODWARD: “Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good.'”

Obama: Save the country from me:

“So let me just repeat: Our economy right now is headed in the right direction, and it will stay that way as long as there aren’t any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of Washington. So let’s keep on chipping away at this problem together, as Democrats and Republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead.”

The irony abounds:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says the sequester was President Obama’s idea: “He proposed it and he insisted it be a part of the 2011 debt limit deal. House Republicans have voted twice to replace the arbitrary and harmful sequestration cuts with targeted, common-sense spending reductions that do not threaten our national security. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats rejected those plans, offering no replacement solutions of their own.

“While it is encouraging to see that the president now agrees that his sequestration plan is ‘harmful’ and ‘economically damaging,’ his call for higher taxes on hard-working American families will only serve to discourage economic growth.”

…HIS sequestration plan…”

This fiscal cliff- this sequestration- is something Obama wanted and Obama signed into law. The GOP must remind people of it.

Let it happen.

Make him own it. Tie whatever happens to Obama. If it devastates the lives of millions of people and disrupts the economy, let Obama explain why he wanted it. Let the media ask Obama why he wanted the sequester. Let the media ask him why he signed it into law. Let the media ask Harry Reid why he wanted it.

Obama played chicken with the debt ceiling in 2006 and now he is playing chicken again, this time with sequestration.

The GOP has Obama’s fate in its hands. He wanted this. Give it to him.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Disasters, Economy, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, February 11th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
| 1,277 views

51 Responses to Obama wanted the sequester- give it to him. Straight down his throat.

  1. FAITH7 says: 1

    “This fiscal cliff- this sequestration- is something Obama wanted and Obama signed into law. The GOP must remind people of it.

    I’m all for shoving this down OFrauds throat and let him eat it…he SIGNED IT…

    The Republicans?? Oh, sure just like they “Forcefully” Remind People of ALL the other harmful Policies hoisted on Americans by this President/Left Wing Administration...Please don’t make me want to gag…Again….

    This is what the Democrats/Left does then FALSELY paints the Evil Right [Republicans as not having "their own Plan" to Offer]:

    “Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas):
    Unfortunately, Senate Democrats rejected those plans, offering no replacement solutions of their own.”

    ” Unfortunately, Senate Democrats rejected those plans, AND AS USUAL =Democrats offering no replacement solutions of their own.”

    ReplyReply
  2. Rides A Pale Horse says: 2

    And just as unfortunate, the dominant, liberal, establishment mass media will blame Republicans no matter the facts.

    ReplyReply
  3. Doramin says: 3

    Obama, his minions and lackeys are going long on this one. You may be certain the administration and the MSM sat down to long strategic confabs in anticipation of their co-ordinated campaign to defy reality and hang this on the Republicans. They are betting big time on the public’s fruitfly attention-span and the Pubbies’ pusillanimity. I’m not sure they’re going to lose. They remember the shut-down of 1995 and they’re convinced they can do it again on a larger scale.

    Obama’s entire career has been built on threatening to incite mob violence against his opponents, and it’s gotten him this far.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 4

    Would the cuts mean there wouldn’t be any more obama phones? Would the cuts include the politicians salary and massive benefits they get?

    Since we no longer have a republican party, just a branch of the democratic party, I don’t expect them to do anything except what obama tells them to. Why would they stop now?

    Even if the republicans let the sequestration happen, the propaganda media would still say it is the republican’s fault.

    ReplyReply
  5. Doramin says: 5

    Exactly, which is why I say let it happen. Either way, we’re in for a bumpy ride. The Republicans can assume the position, drop trou, spread their cheeks and put the ball gag in their mouths. It won’t make any difference. They are going to be blamed for what goes wrong no matter what they do, so why not fight back hard and see what happens?

    ReplyReply
  6. Old Guy says: 6

    Do the Republicans not have anyone that can voice these facts? We are losing the PR war.

    ReplyReply
  7. Doramin says: 7

    Wish I knew. It was obvious after ’95 that the Old Bulls were uncomfortable being in charge. I think too many of them would secretly prefer to be His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, a comfortable rump party to return to the good old plantation days of democrat rule where they could content themselves with scraps from Massa’s table.

    ReplyReply
  8. Nan G says: 8

    @Smorgasbord: Would the cuts mean there wouldn’t be any more obama phones?

    The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven’t proved they are eligible to receive them.

    Guess what that large number was.
    15%?
    No.
    25%?
    Guess again.
    41%.
    41% of their more than six million Lifeline subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.

    Americans who have phones pay an average of $2.50 a month per household to fund Lifeline.

    ReplyReply
  9. IT’S A REPETITION OF THE SAME,
    OBAMA is running the WHITE HOUSE WITH FEAR, AND THREAT,
    ALL THE TIME , LIKE HE DID HIS CAMPAIGN WITH REVENGE
    AND INTIMIDATION,
    THEY SHOULD HOLD THEIR GROUND AND PROVE TO THE PEOPLE THE LIES ,
    THOSE BEING TOLD AND HE USE THE PEOPLE AS A PAWN TO GET WHAT HE WANT.
    IT WAS DONE AND REPEATED ON AND ON,
    OBAMA WON’T COMPROMISE ON NOTHING,

    ReplyReply
  10. Blake says: 10

    We are going to have to cut finances somewhere- and, it might just get the bloat out of the Defense Dept.
    For sure, we could do without the Dept. of Education, the EPA,HHS, and the Presidency.
    Defund all of them.

    ReplyReply
  11. drjohn says: 11

    @Nan G:

    Nan,

    That presumes any of it is a mistake. I don’t believe it is. It’s simply another redistribution effort.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G says: 12

    @drjohn: Good point.

    Remember when Biden claimed that having background checks on gun purchases wouldn’t be good enough because who has time to check if each line is filled out correctly?
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
    Gov’t workers USED to take the time to check each line whether it was for a gun permit, a Housing Authority home, to get Food Stamps or any other gov’t largess.
    When Obama took office he shortened the amount of time that may be spent on each application for largess.
    For Food Stamps is was less than 2 minutes per application.
    This has everything to do with our problem.
    Biden as much as admitted this is STILL a problem when he said they wouldn’t have time to check truthfulness of gun permit applications.

    ReplyReply
  13. @Old Guy: Old Guy, you are correct, there seems to be a lack of Republicans with guts to speak up. Couple that fact with an Obama-protecting MSN and we get this current situation.

    ReplyReply
  14. Dumbplumber says: 14

    Ah, I hate to point out the obvious, but the sequestration WON’T cut one nickel of waste, fraud and corruption. Let the plundering continue!

    ReplyReply
  15. Nan G
    THEY NEVER BOTHER TO CHECK UNLESS IT’S THEIR INTEREST,
    SAME AS THE ELECTION, THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO CHECK THE VOTES FOR OBAMA,
    AND LORD KNOW ABOUT WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND,
    IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE,

    ReplyReply
  16. Blake
    hi,
    the insider told the JOURNALIST TO CHECK VERY CAREFULLY OBAMA ,
    WHEN HE START TO TALK ON ECONOMY,
    HE SAID HE WANT THE ECONOMY TO CRASH TO ADVANCE HIS AGENDA WHICH IS THE DESTRUCTION TOTAL OF AMERICA, USING, ONE THE ECONOMY, 2 THE GUN ORDER, AND 3, I FAIL TO RECALL THIS ONE, BUT THERE IS A NUMBER 3, AND IT SHOULD BE DONE IN AROUND TWO YEARS.
    BUT HE STRESS OUT THE ECONOMY ON OBAMA SPEECH,
    I’LL GIVE YOU THE LINK WHERE IT COME FROM, IN A FEW MINUTES,
    EDIT; I remember the number 3, that is the immigration,

    ReplyReply
  17. Blake
    okay I got it
    the post is ; billions of rounds…..
    the comment from JIM Griffin on 101 comment
    and his link from CANADA FREEPRESS,
    THAT THE INSIDER CONVERSATION EXCHANGE,
    BYE
    THE INSIDER GAVE A LOT OF INFOS MANY TIMES BEFORE, BUT THIS ONE IS AN EYE OPENER

    ReplyReply
  18. anticsrocks says: 19

    As long as Boehner is Speaker and as long as the GOP cannot find their balls, then nothing will get tied to Obama.

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks
    hi,
    could it be they are being threaten by OBAMA MACHINE,
    IF THEY TALK,
    it seems to me they are scare to make them mad, and it’s been like that in the last 4 years and more,
    did you check the new exchange with the insider at CANADA PRESS.
    I saw the link , it’s a must read,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  20. anticsrocks
    hi,
    just want to say that SENATOR MARCO RUBIO WILL TALK AFTER
    THE OBAMA STATE OF UNION SPEECH,
    THAT WILL GIVE HIM AN UPLIFTING ON THE NEXT ELECTION,
    AND IF THE OBAMA CREW CRITISIZE HIM, THEY WILL FALL IN THE TRAP BECAUSE THE LATINO MIGHT FAVOR ONE OF THEIR OWN NEXT TIME.

    ReplyReply
  21. DORNER SPOTED, HE COMMITED BURGLARY, FLED IN STOLEN CAR,
    TOOK A COUPLE HOSTAGE,
    EXCHANGE GUN FIRE WITH CA AUTHORITY,
    THERE IS AN ONGOING FIREFIGHT ,
    A POLICE OFFICER DOWN, MIGHT BE ANOTHER OFFICER DOWN THEY SWARMING THE PERIMETER, THEY WON’T RETURN FIRE,
    THEY’R WAITING FOR THE SWATT TEAM,
    the police should maybe have an helicopter bring down a bear around where he is, to distract him.
    they say , manhunt in lockdown, i DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEAN
    ROAD BLOCK SET UP AROUND BIG BEAR AREA,
    FOX HAS THE AIR AREA WATCH, IT’S IMPRESSIVE TO WATCH THAT WOOD FROM UP THERE.

    ReplyReply
  22. The dude says: 23

    @Blake: Cut everything and then let congress fund the military. Make Obie and his millions of unemployed “believers” suffer. everyone is going to be hit hard. Might as well start with the freeloaders.

    ReplyReply
  23. Doramin says: 24

    Cabin now in flames, Rancho Apocalypse-style. You can be sure they had orders direct from Valerie Jarret to kill this SOB before he steps on Obama’s airtime.

    You had to love Anderson Cooper and co. go at it. They want so badly for their #1 fan to be captured alive and become the new Mumia Abu Jamal/persecuted black man.

    ReplyReply
  24. Doramin
    hi,
    yes, and now the tactical are going to analyse
    but it was written below at FOX , WHICH I DON’T UNDERSTAND,
    IT SAID THE VICTIM OF THE CARJACKING SUSPECT WAS DONER,
    I miss that one,

    ReplyReply
  25. Petercat says: 26

    @Doramin: #5
    If only we had a political Bruce Willis who would escape and return with a sword. But since the Republicans will willingly bend over, we have no hope.
    Let it happen.

    ReplyReply
  26. Petercat says: 27

    @Nan G: #8
    This is purely a vote buying scheme.
    The Lifeline program is in no way necessary, ANY cellphone, even one that has never been activated, will call 911.
    Christmas is the busiest day of the year for emergency telephone operators, as people who got cellphones for gifts dial 911 to test them, then activate them the next day.
    Our $2.50 a month buying votes for Democrats. Sickening.

    ReplyReply
  27. they clap on anything,
    OBAMA IS TALKING OF SPENDING, and they clap,
    all modern new infrastructures, clap clap,

    ReplyReply
  28. anticsrocks says: 29

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Who knows, Beezy. But I can tell you one thing, if the Dems keep this crap up, then all those rounds the gubbermint’s been buying may just get put to use….

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @Old Guy: #6
    When was the last time you can remember the republicans in congress acting like the old-time republicans?

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord says: 31

    @Nan G: #8
    Let’s not forget about the woman who brags about having 30 obama phones:

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/obamaphone-jackpot-woman-has-30-obamaphones/

    The welfare agencies are advertising for people to sign up for welfare. Some who told the welfare person that they don’t qualify were told that they could still get the welfare. One more person on welfare usually means one more vote for whoever will keep their welfare money coming.

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 32

    @Petercat: #27
    The first cell phone I had was a used one I bought at a store just so I could call 911 and get the drunks off of the road. I used it several times before I signed up for service.

    There are organizations that take old cell phones and distribute them to the elderly, and others who might need to call 911. Every car should have a cell phone in them.

    ReplyReply
  32. Aqua says: 33

    @The dude:
    There Are NO Cuts! Even the Sequestration is not a cut. It is a reduction in the growth of spending.

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord says: 34

    @Aqua: #33
    You reminded me when Hillary was a senator, and she said the republicans wanted to cut Social Security, when what it was, was the republicans didn’t want to raise the amount of increase to SS as much as the democrats wanted to.

    ReplyReply
  34. Aqua
    if it’s no cut ,
    why does the MILITARY SAY IT WILL DISABLE THEM TO A DANGEROUS POINT,
    THEY SURE KNOW MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, BECAUSE IT TOUCH THEM IN WARZONE
    HOW DARE THEY DO IT TO THE BRAVEST OF THIS NATION.
    WHILE HALF OF AMERICANS ENJOY THEIR FREE BENEFITS.

    ReplyReply
  35. anticsrocks
    hi, that’s why the frenzie is still on for citizens to buy guns,
    they are one step ahead,
    does he think he can fool the AMERICANS.
    AGAIN AND AGAIN, YES HE DOES,

    ReplyReply
  36. anticsrocks
    why would he bring foreigners to fill the HIGHTECH JOBS HE SAID NEEDED,
    WHAT DOES HE THINK IS THE 23 MILLIONS UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE ARE,
    MOST OF THEM COULD FILL THOSE JOBS,
    WHY NEED THE FOREIGNERS TO TAKE JOBS OUT OF THE HANDS OF AMERICANS?
    CHECK IT UP. THIS IS A BLATTANT TREASON ON AMERICANS

    ReplyReply
  37. Aqua says: 38

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    Because Washington runs on baseline budgeting. Every budget year starts with a set increase in the amount of spending to the year before. Any reduction to the amount of that increase is called a cut by the people it affects.
    As for defense, instead of being upset at the process to reign in spending, you might want to redirect your anger. The DoD decides where the money in their budget goes. Just like the democrats claim a reduction in spending will hurt the poor, you will hear DoD hawks claim the first cuts will go against military pay. The total amount of the DoD budget spent on military pay, and dependents is 22%. Yet the first thing they claim they will cut is military pay. They do this to elicit the exact response you gave:

    HOW DARE THEY DO IT TO THE BRAVEST OF THIS NATION.
    WHILE HALF OF AMERICANS ENJOY THEIR FREE BENEFITS.

    ReplyReply
  38. Aqua
    yes but why did they take 4 years to do one budget,
    it doesn’t sound right does it?
    that is not following the law of the way they are use to do,and
    why that astronomic spending spree, oversea?
    when AMERICANS MUST DIG IN THEIR PENSION TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN BUDGETS,
    so many flaws are observed from now, it surely beat any previous government,
    now it’s the socialist prime interest of the government,
    as oppose to the need to create a climate of feel good to have a business to be encourage by THE GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF BULLYING THE GOOD PEOPLE BY THEIR ENTITLEMENTS OF MULTI THOUSAND PAGES WHICH MAKE SURE THAT YOU WILL BREACH AT LEAST ONE JUST BY GETTING IN YOUR CAR TO GO TO WORK AND PARK YOUR CAR,
    YOU HAVE AGENCIES JUST TO FIND YOU GUILTY ON ANYTHING AS LONG AS THEY GET YOU TO PAY THE FINES.
    NO BUSH WOULD HAVE NEVER PLAY THAT THUG GAME , HE HAD MORE CLASS,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  39. The dude says: 40

    @Aqua: Either way the cuts have to occur. I hope for deep cuts. I would settle for cuts in the rate of growth. At this point, I support cutting everything ans shutting down the Gov’t. Obama has no clue how to fix it. His handlers are only interested in plundering our money. Obama cares so little about the Sequester that he isn’t even paying attention. He is talking about guns which are the least of anyone’s concern right now. He needs to have his TAKERS start working and become productive. That isn’t going to happen until the money for the TAKERS is cut off completely.

    ReplyReply
  40. anticsrocks says: 41

    @Smorgasbord: I’m thinking it was the second Tuesday of last week…

    ReplyReply
  41. The dude
    how about cutting the earning of all the people I saw on the place where OBAMA GAVE HIS SPEECH,
    ALL OF THEM DOING IT AS A GOOD WILL GESTURE, OR BE FORCE TO , because it’s THE PEOPLE who pay them,
    and if they don’t help THE PEOPLE to advance in wealth, IN BETTERNESS OF THEIR SITUATION,
    they must be all downgraded according to their own earning, like the rich give 37per cent, they also must come down 37 per cent of their earnings to be channeled toward the debt that they all allowed OBAMA TO RAISE,
    UNTIL THE DEBT IS PAID UP ALL, INTEREST INCLUDED,
    THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB, SO THEY SHALL BE CUT AND THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE WHEN
    THE PEOPLE HAVE UPGRADED THEIR OWN LIVES, AND
    ALL ARE WORKING, THAN THEY WILL RAISE THEIR EMPLOYEES EARNING,
    THIS AMERICA IS SUPPOSE TO BE RUN BY THE PEOPLE, AND THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO
    ANYTHING THEY WANT TO STOP THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT OVER THEM, WHO ARE THE PAYERS, AND IT WOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHERE THE MONEY COME FROM.

    ReplyReply
  42. Smorgasbord says: 43

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #42
    I like the idea someone came up with where the politicians are paid a percentage of the GDP. If the economy goes up, so does their pay. If it goes down, so does their pay.

    ReplyReply
  43. Smorgasbord
    hi, yes that was a good idea, I remember you had it on another POST,
    but I feel they cross the line of a minus pay off,
    it must be a radical new deal and it should come from each worker in the GOVERNMENT, THEN YOU WOULD SEE REAL FAIRNESS WHAT IT MEAN,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  44. Jo Ann Chandler says: 45

    Hey idiot – The sequester was suggested by President Obama (yes, he is our president) as an incentive for congress to work…to actually PREVENT the sequester by doing their job to fix the problem that will prevent the extensive cuts. Congress passed the sequester. They still did not work to fix the problem. Go figure.

    ReplyReply
  45. Smorgasbord says: 46

    @Jo Ann Chandler: #45
    I wonder how many people actually thought that this would get congress to do what they should have been doing a long time ago. A lot of us KNEW this was just a stalling tactic, and it worked.

    ReplyReply
  46. Jo Ann Chandler
    hey idiote
    what a way to communicate to my friend,
    learn your manners when you visit here

    ReplyReply
  47. Greg says: 48

    Democrats come up with $110 billion plan to delay sequester — Republicans reject it

    “This is not a solution — even they know it can’t pass,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday.

    That’s in part because it includes approximately $54 billion in new taxes on millionaires, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, raising the money by implementing a policy named after billionaire Warren Buffett. It would require millionaires to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.
    Also included in the plan is $2 billion from closing a tax loophole that oil companies enjoy. The Democrats’ plan doesn’t include any changes to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

    Republicans have said they won’t accept a deal that includes new taxes after the recent deal to avert the fiscal cliff included higher tax rates for wealthier Americans.

    Here we are again, at the same sticking points we were at before the November elections.

    Apparently 30 percent is too high a tax rate on that portion of a person’s net taxable income that exceeds one million dollars a year; the “Buffet Rule” would eliminate the ability of the wealthiest to pay effective tax rates lower than middle class American earners.

    Apparently direct federal farm subsidy payments are still necessary to farm owners, even during years when their yield, farm prices, and farm profits are optimal. (This part of the democratic proposal falls into the category of spending cuts.)

    Evidently corporations still require tax breaks to cover the costs of shipping American jobs overseas.

    Apparently oil that is produced from tar sand and oil sand is incapable of doing any environmental damage, so that product should not be subject to the normal federal taxes designed to cover the inevitable costs of spill cleanup that otherwise fall to the taxpayers.

    The democratic bill also includes $27.5 billion in Defense spending cuts for 2013. This is less than the Defense spending cuts that would automatically by imposed by sequestration: $500 billion over 10 years, or $50 billion per year.

    An outline of bill provisions can be found in Business Insider.

    This is a serious proposal, providing a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts as an alternative to automatic sequestration. Unfortunately republicans refuse to see it that way.

    ReplyReply
  48. GREG
    THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A DETAIL INFO,
    AND NOW IT IS STILL ON HOLD,
    BECAUSE OBAMA REFUSE TO GIVE UP HIS COSTLY
    FOR AMERICANS ENTITLEMENT AGENCIES,

    ReplyReply
  49. Pingback: Flashback Video: Obama said he would veto any attempt to stop Sequestration | Politisite

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>