In regards to the federal government, following is the situation:
“If the dozen or so appropriation bills passed separately by Congress provide for total government spending in excess of the limits Congress earlier laid down for itself in the annual Budget Resolution, and if Congress cannot agree on ways to cut back the total, then an ‘automatic’ form of spending cutback takes place. This automatic spending cut is what is called “sequestration.”
So basically, the Senate should have acted on the budget bills that were approved in the House of Representatives, but as they did nothing, Congress had to pass a series of short-term overrides.
The Republicans and Independents said to the president’s party (in essence) “OK, you are running the show, we’ll do things your way for now. But we must be responsive to the needs of our citizens, so when then next deadline comes, you should work with us to maintain the Rule of Law.” Meanwhile, when the next times came, Democrats changed the rules, the boundaries and the goal lines.
Can you blame responsible members of Congress when they finally say, “We are not playing your game anymore; we will be trustworthy, and do our duty”?
The House of Representatives has acted responsibly by passing the Annual Budget Resolution each year. The Senate has not reviewed, revised or passed even one resolution for the past four years.
Who, then, is to blame for this upcoming budget “crises”?
Patrick Shepherd
Mesa
Bluepoet posted at 10:04 am on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.
Hoc est avibus...
Meanwhile, the politicians are sitting down to dinner, and planning how to use the latest cash cow ruse, to further exploit the middle class...ooh, the Republicans now in ascendancy, maybe they'll be more "reasonable", and agree to open the supply side of revenue a bit, since the poor Dems were stupid---I mean--reasonable enough, to cut some fat off the social pogr--er programs.
Politics--the "Wrasslin' "wing of the business cabal...(and Wall street keeps getting higher and higher)
onerebel posted at 8:18 pm on Thu, Mar 7, 2013.
Look folks, Willie knows Latin, so he must be an Educated man. Here is one back for the sophisticated gentleman. - Argumentum ad ignorantiam [wink]
Arizona Willie posted at 9:38 am on Wed, Mar 6, 2013.
onerebel: reductio ad absurdam
onerebel posted at 8:33 pm on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
Willie, That's your answer? You can't be serious! And you think I'm crazy for backing the attack on Afghanistan? So using your logic during World War II were we wrong for fighting the Germans and Japanese in France, Africa, the Marshal Islands or any other country, other then their homeland? Lets say those so called extremist you HATE from the Tea Party decided to become a more radical group then you already believe they are. They all set up a terrorist camp in Panama, and set off some bombs in Russia. By your own words you feel Russia should then retaliate against the United States not the terrorist camps in Panama correct? If that's the case I think we should nuke Ireland for their cluster bomb Joe Biden!!!
sockratties posted at 4:09 pm on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
Willie... McVey is an American. Should we have nuked Washington D. C. after the Oklahoma bombing? Terrorist groups, while they may have nationalities, don't necessarily act with the sanctions of those nations. el Qaeda is a rogue group of loosely organized cells. I think we have to root them out where they live. Osama bin Laden couldn't have cared less if we removed Saudi Arabia from the map. It would have just stoked the fire and made us the fool.
Accuracy posted at 2:52 pm on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
The sequester cuts is in place as of yesterday – and many federal agencies are proceeding to still be hiring MORE instead of letting people go. More than 400 government job ads were posted this week. Not increasing their savings by attrition – reduction in numbers usually as a result of resignation, retirement or letting people go. Preparing for Obama’s “Big Government.”
VofReason posted at 1:55 pm on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
I am always glad when someone who knows all the facts is nice enough to join a local chatboard rather then pursuing a successful career in global intelligance. Willie really is a man of the people. Few warts in his shopworn liberal talking points though. The President does not create intelligence and so he recieved iit from much of the same places as the members of Congress did to make their decision. Not only did our intelligence site Iraq as a villan, so did many in Europe. If attacking Saudi Arabia was the "smart" move, why didn't President Obama (who clearly always makes smart moves) attack them? I know you don't get poiniant questions like this in the echo chamber, but maybe you should consider them.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:53 am on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.
Onerebel: you asked “ We were attacked by groups based there. What would should we have done? Don't avoid the question like you have every time This comes up. “
First of all, I don’t believe I have ever dodged this question because I have always had an answer for it.
What should we have done? We should have nuked Saudi Ariabia. 19 out of 21 hi-jackers were Saudi citizens. Not Afghanis.
But, oh wait, yeah the Saudi royalty was personal friends of the Bush Dynasty so they got a pass. Not to mention the Saudi’s control a lot of OIL.
Because they were operating in Afghanistan didn’t make the government of Afghanistan the culprit.
If a band of terrorists snuck over our impenetrable border and had a terrorist training camp in the middle of Death Valley that perpetrated acts of terror against the Mexican government --- would that make the U.S. responsible?
It was very clear that it was the Saudi’s who were behind the 9/11 attack if any government could be said to be responsible for it.
Would the U.S. be responsible for an act of terror committed by one of the hundreds of right wing militant groups we have in the U.S?
Suppose on of our homegrown right wing skinhead Nazi groups attacked Israel … would the U.S. be responsible?
WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE?
We should have used our intelligence people and used the Seals to go after the people who ACTUALLY were behind the 9/11 attack.
Somewhat like Obama did and Bush refused to do. Yes our military told Bush the Lesser they were sure where he was and they wanted to go get him and Bush said “ NO “.
Obama said “ YES “.
And Iraq had not one darn thing to do with 9/11 and the Bush the Lesser administration KNEW that.
There was NO valid excuse for waging war against Iraq. NONE
onerebel posted at 2:46 pm on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
I agree with that assessment sockratties, a couple of individuals on here have been avoiding my question. Appeasement shows weakness, however I do believe we should hit back hard and then get out as soon as reasonably possible. Remember in school when someone finally popped the bully in the nose and made him cry? They never had any more problems with him did they?
sockratties posted at 11:26 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
1reb...I'm an independent, liberal in some areas and conservative in others but your question is valid. I do think we had to go into Afghanistan but not hang around for the housekeeping chores. We needed to leave and say we'll be back if we have to. al Qaeda is in most of North Africa, too, but we need to let other countries be the policeman where they have national interests. Benghazi was a mistake but it shouldn't have been allowed to become a blame game. Nothing to gain there except press and photo ops for the likes of McCain. If a person doesn't consider every issue on its own merit they are giving away their votes to big politics and joining brain dead minions.
downtownresident posted at 8:45 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
Sequestration means MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars to every member of Congress.
As do cliffs and every other pitfall. Politicians can beat their chests and say how wrong this is while smiling all the way to the bank.
They will never kill the goose that lays the golden campaign contributions.
sockratties posted at 8:31 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.
The amount of sequestration cuts is small compared to what needs to be cut. It's how the cuts are made that screws things up. The "grunts" that actually do something are being furloughed while inflated middle management keeps getting paid. Contracts to suppliers for repair parts and upgrades are cancelled but will cost more later while unneeded F-35s keep rolling off the line. All because these are the things that most effect the public and leave the bureaucracy virtually untouched. Lots of show without much go.
onerebel posted at 5:12 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
Rich is right Willie, neither party has been fiscally responsible lately ,however your golden boy Obama has taken irresponsibility to a new level. At his current rate, he will have racked up more debt then ALL the President's before him COMBINED. Even though I do not agree with them totally, the Tea Party, who you Libs love to trash are the one's on the Right that are fighting for fiscal responsibility. Bush didn't lie about Iraq just like Obama didn't lie about Benghazi, it was bad intelligence they both received remember? You never have answered my question to all you Liberals that said the war in Afghanistan was wrong. We were attacked by groups based there. What would should we have done? Don't avoid the question like you have every time This comes up. I have stated several times I did not agree how Bush racked up the debt, unfortunately it happened, and they should have had a tax for just the wars. To say anyone in Washington is NOT pushing the bills off on future generations has proven to be false. We need a compromise. The Democrats need to stop giving out free stuff to buy votes, and the Republicans need to stop giving out tax breaks to buy votes! Until people agree with the recent description that a eagle must have a right wing and a left wing to fly, we will all be stuck here in the dirt defenseless from the predators !
Rich posted at 12:47 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
Neither party has any fiscal responsibility. However both parties are rigorously defended and hold a species of monopoly on voting. Until, at least, a third, if not a fourth and fifth party get involved things will just continue to deteriorate. Every election is an attempt to find the lesser of two evils, and all we end up with is an evil.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:01 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
In the past when we engaged in a war, we had TAX SURCHARGES to help pay for it.
But when the administration of Bush the Lesser started two wars they refused to raise taxes to pay for them and instead BORROWED the money.
Now the Republicans REFUSE to pay ANY tax to pay the bills for the wars they started.
Now that's fiscal responsibility, eh?
Arizona Willie posted at 11:58 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
onerebel ... you said: " I find it interesting how those on the left like you label those of us on the right that believe in pulling your own weight and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY as Regressive. "
Come on now ... how can you possibly claim that the right wing believes in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY when it was the right wing administration of Bush the Lesser who started to unfunded wars ( BORROWING THE MONEY ) and the unfunded Medicare Pescription benefit ( again BORROWING THE MONEY )? Yes some Democrats voted for the wars because they were LIED to and the made the mistake of TRUSTING a Republican President. Boy did they goof up!!
The Republican Party has only two goals
1) protect the rich from paying any taxes
2) make Obama look as bad as they possibly can, or try to
The Republican Party REFUSES to pay the bills they created and yet you persist in claiming to be the party of FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY. How can you possibly claim that at the same time as you refuse to pay the bills?
The Republican Party is the party of BORROW AND SPEND.
The Democratic Party is the party of TAX AND SPEND.
I'll take the Democrats thank you. At least they believe in paying their bills and not pushing them off on their grandchildren and great grandchildren.
chatmandu002 posted at 9:29 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
Cut till it hurts then cut some more.
Rich posted at 8:13 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.
"Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows we cannot get out from under this tremendous National Debt without..." cutting spending.
To avoid falling over the dreaded 'financial cliff' taxes were raised, now it's time to balance that with spending cuts that horrible and terrible 'sequester.' It is the balanced approach you have been screaming for Willie. In actuality both are just politicos practicing CYA. While menacing you with imaginary hobgoblins. The government will spend more in 2013 than they did in 2012, nobody 'cut' anything at all, except fantasy figures in cooked books. Although they will stop services to the public in some very visible areas while leaving their graft intact, so that we won't raise a fuss next time they need to max out the next generation's Mastercard.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 9:44 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
The "truth" of the matter is that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was very specific as to what dollar amount was to be cut from each and every Department of the United States Government.
The Democrats and President Obama are lying when they go on the TV and are quoted in the newspapers about ..."not knowing how much this would hurt the poor, the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, the children and the US Military". Each Department's cut was exactly spelled out. Where to cut was left up to the Head of each Department.
The Democrats and President Barack Hussein Obama have had.....549 DAYS....to sit down with the Republican Legislators and come up with a bi-partisan Budget to replace the Sequestration. Instead the Democrats in Congress and in the Senate go on the TV and.....lie.....to the American People. President Barack Hussein Obama does the same.
onerebel posted at 5:56 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
Willie, I have to say I agree with your first part, we can not pay off the debt with with cuts alone, however that's where we part ways. If you had a son that was ALWAYS begging for more money from you and then kept wasting it, would you continue to give him an increasing amount of money to waste? If you CAN NOT manage what you are given what makes you think you will be able to manage even more? I would be willing to pay a tax that went specifically to pay off the debt, after Washington learns to pull their pants up like a big boy. I find it interesting how those on the left like you label those of us on the right that believe in pulling your own weight and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY as Regressive. Yet the left embraces an entitlement mentality with unlimited spending and no responsibility. So that's your idea of progress is it?
truth posted at 2:40 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
It's amazing that the far-right and Tea Party brain can only comprehend a small part of a article full of facts.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:29 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
President Barack Hussein Obama has been out of Washington, D.C., more that he has been in Washington, D.C., since he signed the ...BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 (SEQUESTRATION).
More Democrat Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen.....VOTED FOR SEQUESTRATION.....than against it.
The President has been lying to the Citizens of the United States and should be ....IMPEACHED.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:28 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows we cannot get out from under this tremendous National Debt without more INCOME.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to pay off the National Debt by cutting social services, which is all the Republicans want to consider.
If we completely eliminated Medicare and Social Security it would not pay off the debt.
If we completely eliminated the Defense Department it would not pay off the debt, but it might come close.
CUTTING SPENDING, by itself will never get the national debt paid off.
Republicans politicians know that but they are playing to their insane base and the Tea Partiers and refusing to raise revenue. They will let the Sequester happen because then there will be spending cuts AND tax increases mandated by prior legislation.
That let's the Regressives blame the Liberals.
And the Liberald DEMAND more revenue ( justly ) and will not accept any " solution " that does not include MORE REVENUE because it will not work.
That lets Democratic politicians play to their base and say " we demanded more revenue and it's the Republicans standing in the way " ... and they are.
Both sides take credit for standing on their principles and blame the other side ( one side justly ) and the sequester happens and the nation gets what it needs.
SPENDING CUTS and REVENUE INCREASES.
VofReason posted at 12:55 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
Truth- 6 trillion national debt- try 17 trillion and counting. President Obama has 6 trillion and counting on his watch. Candidate Obama would have never stood for such debt, but President Obama is much more agreeable. Sure, this company and that company get tax breaks becuase they cozy up to this politicaian or that. How about a flat tax with no chicanery. That way it takes favoritism out of the equation. Good for citizens too. Oh wait, unless all that adds up to the 1 trillion per year the government spends above what it takes in currently, it doesn't solve the problem.
sockratties posted at 9:11 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
While everyone’s playing the finger pointing game, those that actually roll the dice and decide what numbers come up are betting that the blame game continues. If we work ourselves into another recession (while blaming the other guy) more homes will belong to the bank, more people will become slaves of the public dole, and more money will go from the disappearing middle class to the rich. Want to complain about crime, suicide, shootings, civil unrest, failure to compete? You ain’t seen nuthin yet! The good ol’ days most of us pine for were the result of a growing middle class.
sockratties posted at 8:52 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
truth… nice plagiarism. your lengthy opinion can be found, word for word, on a number of sites attempting to trash individual congress people (choose one, they’re all culpable). Ex-Im bank has been around for over 50 years and has a number of detractors. Your outrage seem belated. Although there have been and probably still are abuses and favoritism Ex-Im actually makes a little money from interest and fees. The problems with the bank seem to be because of too little oversight by congress.
Accuracy posted at 8:31 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.
Rebuttals?
President Obama has been playing the government budget cuts fear card across the country . . . Now on "sequester day" the Democrats are getting their wish.
Abstract01 posted at 11:27 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
Where are all the rebuttals?
onerebel posted at 7:56 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
Unbelievably the Republican's did MORE then compromise the first time by giving in to Obama's WANT of a tax increase, and not receiving any cuts. Now he wants more tax increases? Are you on the left so blinded by your unfailing love for this guy that you can not see the deception? Do you REALLY believe there is no waste that can be cut ? Or if he does get the increase that will be the last one? Is this morally right to spend money like this and let our children suffer with the bills? It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson
Ateam1 posted at 6:40 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
Mr. Obama has figured he would receive a BLANK CHECK To WRITE.!!! HE IS Wrong! I Don't care what party line your on, HIS FOOLISH SPENDING MUST STOP!!! I Can't Imagine Anyone Ever Voting For This IDIOT SPENDTHRIFT!!! LOL! The Liberals Should Have To Pay IT BACK! LOL! Are we Hearing That SUCKING SOUND AGAIN?[sneaky]
Accuracy posted at 6:09 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
It’s President Obama’s sequester. Back in August 2011, the White House recommended the sequester . . . so now we're feeling the effects of it.
This “sequestration’ (the act of sequestering) means that there is $85 billion at stake in cuts set to be kicked in Friday at midnight. And the Pentagon announced it will furlough most of its 800,000-strong civilian workforce if the cuts happen.
“Who, then, is to blame for this upcoming budget “crises”
Certainly not the Republicans – that Obama has blamed all along.
Obama is now suggesting the impact may not be felt immediately . . . If Congress will “kick the can down the road” after the cuts.
truth posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
Here are a few examples of your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work:
The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. - exacerbating the crisis in our steel industry.
Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was "not economically viable."
The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinists' Local 751: "Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?"
The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances to export back to the United States. This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American jobs in Bloomington, Indiana.
And on and on it goes. The bottom line is that if the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed so as to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated. American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers.
truth posted at 3:07 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal!
For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."
General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000.
Motorola has received almost $500 million in direct loans and loan subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank. The result? A mere 56 percent of its workforce is now located in the United States.
truth posted at 3:06 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.
One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.
You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.
mesateacher posted at 1:31 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
This argument just falls on deaf ears. Conservatives get it. But in our current society, no one wants bad news and hence, the Republicans are made out to be the bad people. Some of them are the only mature ones in the room, but they will continue to be bullied by Obama, Reid, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York TImes and other left-wing media outlets. Even though sequestration was Obama's idea, this is the republican's fault. Even though Obama ran in 2008 on the idea that budget deficits were morally wrong, the current deficits are the fault of republicans. He gets away with lying, changing the subject, and hiding the truth. The republicans get the blame. Conservatives need to start a national boycott of all liberal media advertisers until those news organizations start being fair and calling Obama out for the fraud he is. He is ruining this country.