Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Obama’s sequester dodge

March 4, 2013

The sky will fall, all over the world, now that Congress did not give in to President Barack Obama’s demand for higher taxes, he and others in his administration claim. Poppycock....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-10-13 10:53 PM

Who said it was fun and games? I think you're missing out on the big picture here. In 2001, we as a nation spent ~$1.9 trillion while taking in ~$1.9 trillion. In 2012, we as a nation spent ~$3.8 trillion, an increase of 100% in spending while revenues were ~$2.5, about a 33% increase. Clearly we cannot continue on that path and while I don't favor the sequester (mostly because it doesn't go nearly far enough-spending should be cut by at least 25% and entitlements must be addressed) if that's the only way Congress can agree on cuts, then sequester it is.

I will say this. The President has been telling us that the economy is growing and his administration is responsible for adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month so if you did lose your job, you shouldn’t have a great deal of trouble finding one in the private sector, right Mr. Hughes!!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 4:20 PM

Sequester is all fun and games until you're the one loosing your job because of it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-13 10:00 PM

Ask Harry Reid Tassie. He agrees with Romney, as does Obama. So both were intiailly against closing loopholes before they were for them. Are you in that same boat?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-13 6:34 PM

What loopholes was he going to close Aaron???

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-13 11:30 AM

You're not making any sense Tassie. You know that Romney campaigned on closing loopholes as a means of raising revenue and flattening the tax code along with reducing the tax code for all Americans. Obama and Democrats were against that plan but now it seems they supportat it. So what gives?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-08-13 12:37 AM

Yeah, rayduck, I'm sure it goes down great with the kool-aid you're drinking!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 7:02 PM

So Aaron what was that you were saying about “Closing tax loopholes…” was Mitt Romney’s plan during the election. {And if you recalled, "Obama told us repeatedly how it would not work."

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:59 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has had plenty of criticism for 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but during an appearance on ABC's "This Week," the Democrat said he's found one Romney view he agrees with.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), stressed in interviews on Sunday that they would offset tax cuts for the wealthy by closing tax loopholes. {But pressed on which loopholes they would close, both of them dodged the question}

.President Barack Obama echoed Reid's claims during a live interview before Super Bowl XLVII, saying the U.S can reduce its budget deficit by closing tax loopholes and making "smart" reductions in spending.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:25 PM

Could that have anything to do with the 16 trillion dollar debt?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:20 PM

And the unfunded republican tax cuts for the last 13 years

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 7:36 AM

It's nice to see you admit you were wrong dever when implied that the stock market had anything to do with government spending by acknowledging te debt created by the Obama/Bush warmongering. If only you were smart enough to understand that the real damage doesn't come from discretionary spending.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:21 AM

Could two unfunded wars for the last 12 years have anything to do with it?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 8:40 PM

If the stock market is at all time highs denver, why is the national debt still $16,000,000,000,000.00 headed towards $20,000,000,000,000.00 by the end of the President's term? Why does unfunded liabilities exceed $100,000,000,000,000.00?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 8:32 PM

Economist state that the money coming out of the economy is slightly LESS than what came out of the economy with the President's tax increases. If we can withstand that shock to the economy, why can't we withstand the cuts from the sequester?

As for where I get my information about the tax loopholes, do you not recall Obama slamming Romney for not announcing what loopholes he would close? His who tax package was based on closing loopholes and flattening the tax code.

Google Harry Reid agrees with Mitt Romney. What you’ll find is that on Meet the Press, Reid stated Romney was right on loopholes. “I think that what we need to do is do some of the things that Mitt Romney talked about," Reid said. "He said there's some low-hanging fruit; there are a lot of tax loopholes that should be closed. I agree with him. We haven't done that." That’s a direct quote.

Don’t take my word for it though, educate yourself.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 7:03 PM

So President Obama's goal, is to bankrupt our country is it? Is that why the Dow hit a record high for the second straight day?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 6:02 PM

AaronS I'm not talking about the sequester, By the by when it comes to the sequester all you are doing is repeating right wing talking points, no proof what so ever, I'm talking about you when say this "“Closing tax loopholes…” was Mitt Romney’s plan during the election. If I recall, Obama told us repeatedly how it would not work." I think it was the other way around! I think you need to do a little research.

And Freedomnow you don't know what your talking about!!!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 11:43 AM

AaronS - your comments are on target and are correct

Gorilla - you are correct about cutting spending.

Brooks you are in lib lying land. Obama has every intention of taking all guns. YOu better wake up and get some real facts Denver - you are stuck in the dark ages and do not seem to know and understand that Obama's goals is bankrupting our country. All you have to do is look at every blue state. They are all bankrupt. Who do you know that spends their way out of debt

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 8:31 PM

One note about the Sequester. While the current situation may very well be painful to those who are part of the reduced spending, it's not actually a reduction in spending. Our government is still spending more than in previous years and the reduced spending reduces the 10 year projected debt increase from $2.5 trillion to $2.4 trillion so we’re still on the wrong path. If we as a nation are going to truly reduce our debt then we need to find the next Calvin Coolidge.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 8:19 PM

Unfortunately tassie, this site will not allow me to post links or I would show you. If you truly want to know if what I'm saying is true, you are going to have to some research yourself. You can start by researching the Budget Control Act of 2011. Under that bill, the $918 mandatory cuts we are currently undergoing were in exchange for the $900 billion increase of the debt ceiling over 2011 and 2012. Bob Woodward has written extensively about this, including the fact that the sequester was proposed by the President and not Congress. It’s out there if you check it out.

Does that answer your question?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 7:29 PM

AaronS care to answer my question?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 6:48 PM

Fox talking points. Good one!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 12:05 PM

“Spoken like a true republican”

I expect nothing less from you denver. About all you can do to respond to facts is come up with asinine comments instead of participating in an intelligent conversation.

“Cuts should be phased in…”

Why do they need to be phased in? History proves otherwise. From 1920 to 1921, the GDP plunged 24% and unemployment skyrocketed by 133%, a situation as bad if not worse than the conditions that led to Hoover’s recession. President Harding responded by cutting spending by 21% in 1921 and by 36% in 1922-granted, that was before entitlements and the massive military industrial complex-and slashed tax rates from 73% to 24% on top income earners and to .5% on everyone else. As a result, an economic downturn was avoided, resulting in the roaring 20’s. Since then, every time taxes are lowered, the economy increases. That’s a fact that cannot be denied. Americans spend better than government.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 11:26 AM

Cuts should be phased in. We need to get across the gulf. We shouldn't do it by taking a long walk on a short pier.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 7:09 AM

President got what he asked for. Now he is trying to dodge the responsibility.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 5:56 AM

Spoken like a true republican

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 51 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web