Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I've been wondering what he'd had in mind that Congress was balking at. Now I'm not sure knowing is making me feel a whole lot better. Congress has no answers or solutions that are the least bit helpful. Either side of them. however, this is hardly a solution either. It's just more digging and deeper all the time.



Budget: When President Obama put out his "balanced" plan to avoid the automatic sequester cuts, no one noticed. Which is probably just as well for Obama, given how embarrassingly unbalanced it is.


The article details, point by point, what the proposals are for what they do as individual things but the bottom line comes out about the same. The cuts aren't really cuts and taxes are the rule of the day. More, higher and across the board. Either directly to us and by Government or in 'hand me downs' from those who ARE being taxed higher.


Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases.

As a result, instead of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts called for by the sequester over the next decade, Obama would add more than $1 trillion in revenues, while cutting outlays only about $600 billion. And much of those aren't real cuts, but tiny reductions in projected spending growth over the next decade.

And in the end, his plan, such as it is, will do nothing to forestall the nation's oncoming debt crisis.
Source

I'd love to say we need a change in leadership. We really DO need that. The problem is, a change to what?? Boehner's outlook? Aside from just being a brick wall to ANYTHING being done while doing nothing positive to bring action himself, what precisely would his way be anyway? No leadership seems to exist anywhere in sight here. They're all following and reacting to each other.

Heck of a way to run a Government, isn't it?




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Makes me want to go back to the Reagan years even more. Tip O'neil and Reagan would go at each other relentlessly and could still get something accomplished... Both men shared a common belief!! To ALWAYS put our country First. Far ahead of personal demands and party politics...


However, when it came down to it Thomas O’Neill says Reagan and his father put country first.What both men deplored more than the other’s political philosophy was stalemate, and a country that was so polarized by ideology and party politics that it could not move forward.”

O’Neill says that commitment is needed again now “That commitment to put country ahead of personal belief and party loyalty



Read more: www.irishcentral.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
George Orwell would be proud of the use of the language here.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Well we know that something will give eventually.

We aren't changing from our current course and we are running full speed into a dead end and will hit that wall eventually.

What form it takes is still a mystery but we all know its coming. I highly doubt that either party are going to change their ways. The hole is simply too deep at this point.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I really do agree. I vaguely recall the tail of that and Daddy Bush's years, of course. Both came when Congress and the White House still worked together and could produce results. Either end of that would take full advantage of the other if the opportunity came, but they still worked together in the end.

I think it really started in serious war between the Presidency and Congress with Bill Clinton being impeached by the House. It never really has been the same since then and the fact that died with the Senate trial sure didn't lessen the damage done. Since then, it's been no holds barred partisan warfare ....while at the same time, oddly, pushing toward the same general end results. Each party just wants to be on top of the ash pile in the end.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The problem with the leadership is from the top down.

You can't be an effective leader if you are constantly throwing half of your team under the bus to win points for your party.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I really just hope that TSHTF quickly for crisake. I tire of this endless banter back and forth. All many of us are waiting for...is that NEXT first shot heard around the world. Yeah...Im an old white guy with guns...but doesnt make the TRUTH any less relevent...and the truth is....we are in dire need of a hard reset. Nothing else will work.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Bob Woodward made Obama look like a fool.

The heat is on now. Destroy Bob Woodward.

Obama has to make the sequester as painful as possible now. Make the Republicans

rue the day they dared to reduce spending under the Obama administration.

Cut the muscle and then ignore the fat. Then hope the Republicans don't

drag the Obama Administration members up to the House of Representatives

to be SHAMED into doing the right thing.

Cut the fat, not the muscle

edit on 1-3-2013 by TauCetixeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'

You seem very confused. As well as the blog post you seem to be treating as actual news.

(A) The Sequester is aimed at reducing the deficet...Has the GOP become so "cut spending" focused that they now seemed to have forgot that increasing reveneues also reduces the decifit?

(B) Here is the one page summary of what the President offered the GOP...where are the 300B in new revenues labled as "spending cuts"???
www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

And in the end, his plan, such as it is, will do nothing to forestall the nation's oncoming debt crisis.
Source



And BTW...

edit on 1-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
yes we do we could start with oh say this years Defense budget
www.defense.gov... from the link

President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $613.9 billion for fiscal 2013. The request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $525.4 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $88.5 billion to support Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan.
this does not include the Kerry care package for Syria
iipdigital.usembassy.gov... from the link

Kerry announced that $60 million in additional U.S. aid will be put directly into the hands of the Syrian opposition leaders to help them strengthen their organizational capacity as well as provide sanitation, food delivery and medical care in areas they control.

Kerry said the Syrian rebels will receive the U.S. aid without delay because part of the money has already been programmed and because members of Congress are ready to allocate more funds to bring about the downfall of Assad.

Read more: iipdigital.usembassy.gov...
there you have it it is all free money at the taxpayers expense. this does not include the F35 nor the F22, it does not include the Navy's up grade or repairs, so is the money being spent or is there cuts? or is it being swept under the rug, to fill other needs CIA DHS NSA TSA or FEMA.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Increasing revenue - are you trying to sugar coat tax increases? (and if you want to go that route you are going to increase "revenue" by at least 90% to cover the deficit)


reply to post by Indigo5
 


Again, more smoke and mirrors from the Obama team - projected figures. These projected figures the government has been throwing out there is about as accurate as a 7 day weather forecast.


Now before you get your panties in a bunch, the GOP has nothing in its bag of tricks to fix the mess either.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


A staunch Ron Paul supporter think's sequester working. Ben Sawns take, is he right or wrong? Cut defense and domestic spending.





posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


A staunch Ron Paul supporter think's sequester working. Ben Sawns take, is he right or wrong? Cut defense and domestic spending.




Why quote a claimed Ron Paul supporter who says the exact opposite as Ron Paul on the subject????
edit on 2-3-2013 by yellowsnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowsnow
 





Why quote a claimed Ron Paul supporter who says the exact opposite as Ron Paul on the subject????



Just because you support someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they say.
edit on 2-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


BTW took the time and watched your video. Please explain to me how the views are opposite. The points made are the same. What Ron Paul was talking about at the end of the video, were the long term effects of the deficit
edit on 2-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
we need to stop giving money away to ALL other nations and to the UN and we would have enough money for what is in place already and pay down our debt at the same time.

Cruz and Paul 2016!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Hmmm...the most amazing thing about this is that nobody in Congress 'noticed'.

Is it normal for a sitting President to issue statements on a subject that is at the top of the current public and political radar, during a period of economic strife not experienced in the US since the 1930's, and is threatening to possibly ruin the economic future of the entire country...and nobody in Congress notices???

Looks like the good folks in Congress are sticking their fingers in their ears, la-la-la-ing and hoping it'll all go away on it's own!

Perhaps it's not just the leadership that needs to go.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
It's a common liberal thing calling increased revenue "spending cuts". It's always spoken of in percent of revenue versus spending. Take in 10% more and we cut 10% of spending.

It's just like when they reduce an increase in spending from 6% to 3% they call it a "spending cut" in order to illicit fear and motivate the voters to endorse legislation increasing taxes. It is still an increase in spending, but it is that they can't spend as much as they predicted they could.



I often wonder what would happen if a significant portion of the populous (corporations included) suddenly didn't pay taxes. Would the cost of recuperating those taxes cost more than the revenue received from said taxes?


edit on 3/2/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'

You seem very confused. As well as the blog post you seem to be treating as actual news.

(A) The Sequester is aimed at reducing the deficet...Has the GOP become so "cut spending" focused that they now seemed to have forgot that increasing reveneues also reduces the decifit?

(B) Here is the one page summary of what the President offered the GOP...where are the 300B in new revenues labled as "spending cuts"???
www.whitehouse.gov...





This plan is obviously not sufficient to free the market for retirement products from competition by social security.
What's next? Lockheed-Martin making planes they can actually sell?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Thanks Obama, House and Senate!

Starting Monday I'll be furloughed one day a week for 22 weeks, resulting in a 20% pay reduction.
Why is it that those of us who manage to meet our deadlines, get our jobs done receive the pay cut, when these tards in Washington can't get anything done and keep full pay? Somethings wrong here folks.

Second;
It appears most of you have some seriously valid points. If Sequestration increases "revenue" (let's call it what it is - increased taxes) then WHY would the GOP allow this to happen? Supposedly they are all against increased taxes, and yet the majority of them were happy to let sequestration happen.

Are they just that stupid? Is it truly stupidity? I saw a great comment on an article this morning and I think it sums this situation nicely:

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

Now, I can't do much to illicit change. But, what I can do - and what I implore ALL of you to do -

Next election cycle, do not vote for any incumbent. Kick all of these worthless a*holes out of office, and lets get some new blood. That is what I'm going to do.





new topics




 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join