Exposed: Obama’s Hysterical Reaction to “Sequestration”

Posted in the Rochester Forum

Comments
1 - 4 of 4 Comments Last updated Feb 22, 2013

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Guy covered this in detail a few days ago, but there’s at least two points worth re-emphasizing:(1) The budget process commonly known as “sequestration” originated in the corridors of the White House, and was signed into law by President Obama himself. Hence, the president’s insistence that Republicans are somehow solely responsible if the negotiations fail -- and the cuts kick in -- is erroneous.(2) The negative consequences of sequestration -- discussed endlessly by this president and his lieutenants -- are exaggerated to a mystifying degree. Yuval Levin blew the lid off Team Obama’s opportunism and endless fear-mongering yesterday in a piece at National Review Online:

Let’s get a grip. In its first year, fiscal year 2013, which ends September 30, the sequester would involve a total of $85 billion in spending cuts. That’s a reduction of 3% from what federal spending otherwise would have been this year.But even that significantly overstates the effects the sequester would actually have this year. The federal government is so lumbering and huge that it can’t even reduce its own spending that quickly. That’s why “first year” cuts are always so difficult in even the most fiscally conservative budget proposals. The Congressional Budget Office (on page 11 of its latest budget outlook, published earlier this month) estimates that while FY 2013 spending will ultimately be reduced by $85 billion,“discretionary outlays will drop by $35 billion and mandatory spending will be reduced by $9 billion this year as a direct result of those procedures; additional reductions in outlays attributable to the cuts in 2013 funding will occur in later years.” So in this fiscal year, we would actually be looking at a $44 billion spending cut, or less than a 1.5% reduction from what federal spending otherwise would have been. It would mean that federal spending in 2013 will be about $3.553 trillion. In 2012, federal spending was $3.538 trillion. Yes, that means that even with the sequester we will be spending slightly more in 2013 than we did in 2012. In fact, we will be spending more than we did in any year in American history except for 2011 (when we spent $3.598 trillion). Here’s a quick sense of what we’re looking at (the historical figures are from this CBO spreadsheet and the 2013 ones are from this one, both are updated as of earlier this month):

In other words, the sun will still rise on March 1, 2013 if the “sequestration” cuts go into effect. Murderous criminals will not go free and millions of Americans won’t die of food poising. Put simply, these cuts are anything but “draconian”(from the article):
This is not to say that “sequestration” is sound public policy, although I think (like most liberal ideas) it was well-intentioned.(Clearly, it is far from sound). But it is worth pointing out that the president is once again trying to demonize his political opponents and absolve himself of any wrongdoing by not letting this latest crisis “go to waste.”

For what it’s worth,“sequestration” will do absolutely nothing to solve the nation’s long-term budget deficit problem. And yet the president’s histrionics suggest Republican obstructionists are actively seeking to destroy America.

We shouldn’t let him get away with it.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/20...

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The only ones out to destroy America are this president and his party of progressive/NWO thugs.Obama wanted,pushed and signed the bill trying to call the GOP's bluff.Guess what Obama,it didn't work for you and your gang this time,you wanted it,you got it so put on your big boy pants and live with it without trying to blame someone else.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 22, 2013
 
rePIGpublican wrote:
Lord have mercy. I'm not going to waste my time on this one. Sucks to be a conservative.
Why Steve,because you know that it is Obama's bill and now he is crying like the man boy he is because it will go into play or because you can't face the truth about Obama and his(your)party of liars?? Just asking.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Even the liberal lamestream media is starting to question Obozo and his never ending Lie's..

Nothing Obama says adds up with the facts.

How can even lamestream media NOT question the Lie's and save face.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Rochester Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Rochester Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Rochester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Rochester News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Rochester
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••