Plenty of blame, but no action on spe...

Plenty of blame, but no action on spending cuts

There are 15 comments on the KIDK CBS 3 story from Mar 1, 2013, titled Plenty of blame, but no action on spending cuts. In it, KIDK CBS 3 reports that:

With no deal in place in Congress, $85 billion in sweeping federal spending cuts will take effect Friday, targeting everything, from defense to education.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KIDK CBS 3.

King Rodman

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#1 Mar 1, 2013
i lik chopin lyrics..........
March Madnut

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#2 Mar 1, 2013
hav a good One day of March!! ;-000
drama class 101

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#3 Mar 1, 2013
Robot! what is DCstand4?!!!;-000

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Mar 1, 2013
And the world didn't come to an end.......

Gee, what a suprise.
Roger Edgar

AOL

#5 Mar 1, 2013
Sad times. The Repub controlled House passed two Bills to stop the Sequester but the White House's Chicago handlers wouldn't allow the Democrat controlled Senate or the President to do anything.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6 Mar 1, 2013
Roger Edgar wrote:
Sad times. The Repub controlled House passed two Bills to stop the Sequester but the White House's Chicago handlers wouldn't allow the Democrat controlled Senate or the President to do anything.
the republicans tried to stop the deal they had agreed to? why? are they afraid their base will be hurt by cuts to the gov't teat they live off of?

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#7 Mar 1, 2013
Here is some food for thought. To me it is just more than a coincidence.

These cuts (that are only 2.4% of the 2013 calendar year budget) will be $83-$85 billion.

In 2012, the big financial institutions on Wall Street received $83B in 0% interest rated loans from the Federal Reserve.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8 Mar 1, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
Here is some food for thought. To me it is just more than a coincidence.
These cuts (that are only 2.4% of the 2013 calendar year budget) will be $83-$85 billion.
In 2012, the big financial institutions on Wall Street received $83B in 0% interest rated loans from the Federal Reserve.
is it 83 or 85 billion dollars?

why is it more than a coincidence because the numbers may or may not be close?

(You're not supposed to eat the tin foil...make a helmet out of it.)
Roger Edgar

AOL

#9 Mar 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the republicans tried to stop the deal they had agreed to? why? are they afraid their base will be hurt by cuts to the gov't teat they live off of?
It is astonishing that Pres Obama signed the Sequester Bill into Law and now is the fear monger in chief pretending he had nothing to do with it. It is a real tragedy for the power of TRUTH and an insult to thinking Americans everywhere.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#10 Mar 1, 2013
Roger Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is astonishing that Pres Obama signed the Sequester Bill into Law and now is the fear monger in chief pretending he had nothing to do with it. It is a real tragedy for the power of TRUTH and an insult to thinking Americans everywhere.
where did you get that impression?

it was up to congress to make the cuts. they agreed to that deal.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#11 Mar 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>is it 83 or 85 billion dollars?
why is it more than a coincidence because the numbers may or may not be close?
(You're not supposed to eat the tin foil...make a helmet out of it.)
Depends on the source. Some say 85 some say 83. Looks like it depends on the individual writer. This article for instance calls out $83B.

However, Bloomberg reports it at $83B.

But, there is just too much of a coincidence that the same amount was given to the Wall Street backs just this prior year.

It is just like John Corzine saying he did not know where the stolen MF Global money went too and JP Morgan saying they did not have it even though JP Morgan had preferred stock on MF Global and had first to call rights. Coincidently, where was $700M of the 1.6B that was stolen found? JP Morgan London.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Mar 1, 2013
While I support the President, I do think he overplayed his hand with the non-stop end-of-the-world doom & gloom over the sequester.

These "drastic cuts" are neither cuts nor drastic. It's a minor reduction in the annual INCREASE in federal spending.

Overal federal spending will still be HIGHER in 2013 than it was in 2012, just not AS much higher than originally planned.

Only in Washington is that considered a "drastic cut".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Mar 1, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the source. Some say 85 some say 83. Looks like it depends on the individual writer. This article for instance calls out $83B.
However, Bloomberg reports it at $83B.
But, there is just too much of a coincidence that the same amount was given to the Wall Street backs just this prior year.
It is just like John Corzine saying he did not know where the stolen MF Global money went too and JP Morgan saying they did not have it even though JP Morgan had preferred stock on MF Global and had first to call rights. Coincidently, where was $700M of the 1.6B that was stolen found? JP Morgan London.
My uncle turns 83 this month and his first inital is "B"; uh-oh, he must be somehow involved........
Roger Edgar

AOL

#14 Mar 1, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
While I support the President, I do think he overplayed his hand with the non-stop end-of-the-world doom & gloom over the sequester.
These "drastic cuts" are neither cuts nor drastic. It's a minor reduction in the annual INCREASE in federal spending.
Overal federal spending will still be HIGHER in 2013 than it was in 2012, just not AS much higher than originally planned.
Only in Washington is that considered a "drastic cut".
Everything you say is true. Why is the media so afraid of obama that they refuse to tell the truth?
Why are CNN and the Networks willing to make fools of themselves in service to the Boogy Man in Chief's agenda driven madness? Are they really that afraid of Chicago's retribution?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Mar 1, 2013
Roger Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything you say is true. Why is the media so afraid of obama that they refuse to tell the truth?
Why are CNN and the Networks willing to make fools of themselves in service to the Boogy Man in Chief's agenda driven madness? Are they really that afraid of Chicago's retribution?
They are telling the truth as they see it.

ABC, NCB, CBS, & CNN have liberal bias and generally support the Dems.
FOX has a conservative bias and generally supports the GOP.

This isn't news to anyone (pardon the pun).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Democrat Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min swampmudd 1,582,648
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Trump Lies 287,788
News Arpaio pardon would refute key theme in immigra... 12 min Trump_Is_Fake 42
News Ohio to feel the Bern again 19 min WRONG 9
News Trump bans transgender people from military 23 min TomInElPaso 365
News California sues Trump administration over sanct... 41 min george 13
News Owning Up to 'Mistake' Dem apologizes for hopin... 1 hr FormerParatrooper 6
More from around the web