Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts', page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
Topic started on 1-3-2013 @ 09:26 AM by Wrabbit2000
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?


reply posted on 1-3-2013 @ 10:10 AM by Wrabbit2000
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.


reply posted on 1-3-2013 @ 01:13 PM by TauCetixeta
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)



reply posted on 1-3-2013 @ 05:34 PM 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...


reply posted on 1-3-2013 @ 06:23 PM by bekod
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.


reply posted on 2-3-2013 @ 08:56 AM by MidnightTide
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.



reply posted on 2-3-2013 @ 09:01 AM 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.





reply posted on 2-3-2013 @ 01:07 PM by yellowsnow
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)



reply posted on 2-3-2013 @ 01:54 PM by rockymcgilicutty
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)



reply posted on 2-3-2013 @ 08:55 PM by MysterX
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.


reply posted on 3-3-2013 @ 06:55 AM by narwahl
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?
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^