Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Sequester blame game

February 25, 2013

Politicians and government officials from both parties were busily attacking each other on Sunday, hitting the talk shows to blame the other side for the sequester cuts that are coming nearer and......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-25-13 8:18 AM

As if the Journal isn't right up there pointing fingers. Pot, meet Kettle.

It is far time to close the offshore tax haven loopholes, among others.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 11:55 AM

Rising Federal income and cutting spending is what everyone says that we need to do to put government back on track. Just don’t raise my taxes and don’t cut my project. The real name of the blame game in Washington. Then sit back an see who loses in the next election.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 1:13 PM

Both sides can't come to grips with what amounts to less than 3% of the annual federal budget. If they can't figure out where to cut a mere 85 billion and are forced to let it be done by the sequester process then so be it.

This just demonstrates just how bloated our federal government has become and just how dis-functional Washington continues to operate. This is a time for leadership and our current president refuses to step up.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 4:07 PM

A Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carrier costs $28.6 billion, not including the planes, ammo and dinnerware.

Cut two and call me in the morning.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 5:55 PM

I could not agree more with Sven. JR get real, this fight is all over "discretionary" spending it's not as simple as you make it sound. The Republicans are trying to figure out how to save face and when they do this will be all over. The "Tea Party" crew caused all this crap and the sooner we can get rid of those idiots, yes I said idiots, the better off this whole country will be.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 2:14 PM

Its time to put some facts on the table, not innuendo nor accusations as some are. The President announced both chambers had agreed to the proposed sequester agreement on July 31,2011. 95 out of 193 Democrats voted for the sequester agreement in the House. 45 of 51 Democrats voted for the sequester agreement in the Senate. The President signed the sequester agreement in August, 2011. I don't think the people I listed above, who voted for the agreement, are "Tea Party Crew" nor are they "idiots" as someone has posted. They recognized we have a spending problem and voted more the way their constituents wanted them to. As the President said " Is this the best deal I would have preferred? No, but this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balance plan done before the end of the year". We know they cobbled some sort of year-end "crisis plan" together but totally

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 2:16 PM

(cont) ignore the real problems to make political points in a manufactured "crisis".

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 7:35 PM

On the Republican side, 174 in the House voted for the agreement, 66 against. Down the line both parties failed us and took what seemed to be the easy way out. Since that the House Republicans passed 2 bills with no attempt to find middle ground - because they could. Democratic House & Senate proposals of half revenue (including closing loopholes) and half cuts (including agriculture subsidies) get no Republican interest. Can't compromise a penny. So there it is.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 11:49 PM

More facts for the table. The two House bills passed contained no new revenues but included entitlement matters. Senator Reid would not bring the two bills up for a floor discussion or a vote. Today there was information Senator Reid will be bringing a bill forward on Thursday and will be allowing a Senate Republican bill to be heard - to be voted on possible on Thursday. The Dem plan will kick the can down the road until the end of the year at which time they will have a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases($55B) to cover the $110 billion cost through the end of the year. The Republican bill will give President Obama the flexibility to determine where cost reduction could be best applied. Either plan will face a tough battle to be passed. The Dems don't want cuts and some Dem senators up for re-election in conservative leaning states might balk at the revenue increases.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 11:59 PM

I guess at this point I can only say the Government, in January, made us reduce our spending budgets 2%(increased payroll tax), why can't the government make a likewise spending budget cut of 2.4%?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 12:48 PM

Avoice, you sound like a beltway insider who has all the answers. Why don't you get to work and solve this. Across the board cuts are stupid when good programs suffer, there are much better ways to handle all of this if the Republican Party would get their you know what together and stop with all the Obama obsesing. We all know that seeing the president gets what is coming to him is what this is in most part due to. It is petty politics on their part plain and simple. Have a nice day.

1 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 1:52 PM

Schnauser, if the President were a fulltime leader instead of a fulltime campaigner, maybe something would and could be done. By the way, the sequester is nothing but reducing(cutting to you probably)the growth of the budget for the budget period. The budget will grow but will be limited in the growth by the $84B over the next 7 months. I am not inside the beltway but believe true facts need to be known and discussed, not demonization and campaign rhetoric.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 7:46 PM

Okay, AVoice, let's get the facts straight here. Jeez, I feel like I am watching nan episode of Fox and Friends when I read some of your posts.

Neither Congress, nor our President "raised taxes by 2%" in January. They let the Social Security tax rate return to where it was before the TEMPORARY rate cut. This was always meant to be temporary and in my opinion should have never happened in the first place, since we keep hearing that Social Security is running out of money. Somehow, I don't understand how cutting approximately 18% of its income for a good half year helped that situation.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 9:22 PM

"Across the board cuts are stupid when good programs suffer, there are much better ways to handle all of this if the Republican Party would get their you know what together and stop with all the Obama obsesing."

I don't know if you've been following what's been going on lately, but the Republican Party agrees across the board cuts are stupid. That's why they ae proposising a bill to allow the flexibiility to make the cuts where they would do the least damage instead of hacking everything.

Yes, the Reps are actually proposing a viable alternative to the blind cuts.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 12:02 AM

middleclassworker - for the low information voter, I should have said it was the end of the "payroll tax holiday' which increased the payroll tax deduction by 2%. Regardless how you want it said , you still had your tax deduction increased by 2%.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:35 AM

Avoice- was cutting SS funding by 18% or so ever a good idea? (2% divided by the 12% that comes out of our checks). I thought they said they were having money problems.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:32 AM

I always thought taking $$ from an underfunded SS program was a dumb thing to do. But hey, it got Democracts elected/reelectd, so it did its job for them. Elections are over. Now they are free to take that refund back.

The point, I believe, is that those in government thoght that now was the time that we could all afford to have less money in our pockets. We need to make due with what we're allowed to keep.

Why can't our government, who works for us, do the same?

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:33 AM

The repeal of a tax cut is a tax increase MCW. If your last pay check in 2012 was larger than the first paycheck you received in 2013 guess what ??? You've just witnessed a tax increase. Get used to it we're going to have four more years of this crap thanks to our beloved king.

His "balanced" approach to fixing our/his debt problems contain almost exclusive use of tax hikes... wait "tax" is such a dirty word, let's just call them revenue increases shall we ? Much easier to sell this to the ignorant masses when you re-brand.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 2:32 PM

Wow, JR, I don't know if we can take four years of your constant crankiness.

"Ignorant masses"?

Have you been taking charm lessons from MIT?

Are you secretly getting tips from Concerned73?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:21 PM

JReader, can you please provide the link where you were praising President Obama for giving you a tax cut two years ago? Or, do you only say negative things about him?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:23 PM

How about we just eliminate Social Security all together? I could use the extra cash and all you baby boomers can fend for yourselves. I am tired of supporting your retirement that I will not get any of anyway.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:24 PM

Better yet, they can divvy out the money in the SS fund to all the people who paid into it.

If we aren't going to fund it, like JReader suggests, then we may as well dismantle it.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 10:50 PM

GopherState, do you mean the link "payroll tax holiday" as it was called?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 4:33 PM

Actually I've never once said SS should be eliminated. I actually think the income cap should be raised on it and there should be some form of a means test.

You can dream up whatever you like, though.


Just go back on your meds - you are much more fun to deal with when you are in your "happy" place.

I'll leave you with this to ponder. If Obama were more like Bill Clinton we wouldn't be in this sequester mess we now find ourselves in.

'Ol Bill knew how to cross the aisle when he had to and get something doneb politically. He just never learned how to keep his pants zipped up.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 6:28 PM

So which is it, JReader. First you call the end of the Social Security tax holiday a tax increase and blame it all on our president, then you advocate for more funding.

I would also like to see where you praised our president for the tax holiday, since you sure like to blame its expiration on him alone. I'm beginning to think that you like to blame everything on him, even with our do nothing congress and its lackluster pig-headed leader.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 31 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web