Automatic cuts are getting a big yawn...

Automatic cuts are getting a big yawn from Washington

There are 79 comments on the The Washington Post story from Feb 15, 2013, titled Automatic cuts are getting a big yawn from Washington. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

As deadlines go, the March 1 sequester lacks punch. Nobody's taxes will go up; the U.S. Treasury won't run out of cash.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#48 Feb 17, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Its already happening. Nothing can be done about it until the politicians change the laws. They can't. So tyranny laws will be their way out. They vote for the legislation and then blame the laws enacted when used. Everyday just with local police I see them work their magic on the internet. Yesterday a pregnant woman on the highway who did not stop her car quick enough due to construction got her due from 6 of them. She earned it. Bwhahahaa....zee ovens zee ovenss bwahhaahaha1
I want is a balance budget - and the pay raises taken away from Obama's favorites. If America is going threw a recession so should Biden and company.
Gold Smith

AOL

#49 Feb 17, 2013
Hello,
Are you in need of a loan? if yes,contact us at goldsmithloancompany@gmail.com with:

Name..........
Amount..........
Loan Duration..........
Country..........
City..........
Cell Number..........
Zip code..........

We are highly helpful to all applicants and we promise to pay maximum attention to you to ensure that your loan will be delivered to you on time.
Regards.
1 post removed

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#51 Feb 17, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
I want is a balance budget - and the pay raises taken away from Obama's favorites. If America is going threw a recession so should Biden and company.
The only way to balance the budget is to cut social security & medicare benefits for current recipients in half, or completely eliminate the Dept of Defense.

Neither of those will ever happen, so our budget will never be balanced.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#52 Feb 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to balance the budget is to cut social security & medicare benefits for current recipients in half, or completely eliminate the Dept of Defense.
Neither of those will ever happen, so our budget will never be balanced.
We can not eliminate the Dept of Defense - we would be attacked immediately if that ever happens.

We could cut a portion of the pensions of CONGRESS since most of them are double dipping. They retire making over one hundred thousand and that is way over the limit for a twenty year time frame. For a start that could be done for both state and federal. We have one in IL that is making 60 thousand for his 6 months part time (State) and his retirement will be over 120 thousand a year - made the news here big time. Of course nothing will be done.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Feb 17, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can not eliminate the Dept of Defense - we would be attacked immediately if that ever happens.
We could cut a portion of the pensions of CONGRESS since most of them are double dipping. They retire making over one hundred thousand and that is way over the limit for a twenty year time frame. For a start that could be done for both state and federal. We have one in IL that is making 60 thousand for his 6 months part time (State) and his retirement will be over 120 thousand a year - made the news here big time. Of course nothing will be done.
Like that's gonna get anywhere near the $1 TRILLION in cuts needed just to balance the current budget, much less start paying down the $16+ trillion in national debt.

Our debt will continue to increase by about a trillion dollars every year for the foreseeable future whether the Dems or the GOP are in charge.

There's no way around it at this point.
1 post removed

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#55 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What, no poll from Rassmussen showing Romney's going to win?
Poor Le Dumbo, can't get over losing the last election.
How soon before you start posting polls for 2016?
President Obama's latest uphill battle: Playing golf in Florida with Tiger Woods

but but but I'm going to pivot to jobs just any year now.......

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#56 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to balance the budget is to cut social security & medicare benefits for current recipients in half, or completely eliminate the Dept of Defense.
Neither of those will ever happen, so our budget will never be balanced.
bs, both are self paid.........Obama's vacations aren't.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#57 Feb 18, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>bs, both are self paid.........Obama's vacations aren't.
If both social security & medicare are self paid, then why are the GOPasaurs constantly trying to cut them?

Oh that's right, to give more tax breaks to the oil companies & the rich.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#58 Feb 18, 2013
These cuts will be the best thing for our debt. It's the only way to start cutting spending.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#59 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If both social security & medicare are self paid, then why are the GOPasaurs constantly trying to cut them?
Oh that's right, to give more tax breaks to the oil companies & the rich.....
Actually, the rich benefit now. One of the plans was to reduce millionaire benefits.

They are trying to reform an archaic system that's going broke.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreybrown/2012...
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#60 Feb 18, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can not eliminate the Dept of Defense - we would be attacked immediately if that ever happens.
We could cut a portion of the pensions of CONGRESS since most of them are double dipping. They retire making over one hundred thousand and that is way over the limit for a twenty year time frame. For a start that could be done for both state and federal. We have one in IL that is making 60 thousand for his 6 months part time (State) and his retirement will be over 120 thousand a year - made the news here big time. Of course nothing will be done.
Pensions for congress probably equal less than one-tenth of one percent of the budget. 80 percent of the budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and defense spending. The tea party has gone on and on for years about "cut spending" but they do not want any of the 80 percent of spending cut. They want no cuts to SS, to Medicare nor to military spending, so you HAVE to borrow $1 trillion a year to keep those three programs going. Our number one spending item is Social Security. It's over $700 billion a year. Second is Medicare, also over $700 billion per year and then military spending, also over $700 billion per year. Why does the tea party want government Medicare and government pensions from SS? Those are socialism programs. Those two programs are European socialism.

The Tea Party is only out to get THEIR socialism by trying to end all OTHER spending. They hate socialism for other people and they love socialism for themselves. And they want to be a big, huge military empire, yet the Founding Fathers did not want the country to be nor have any of these things. They warned about becoming a military empire and they did not exactly set up socialist security and government Medicare.

I have been trying to tell the tea party the whole entire time that most of the budget goes to them and that they would be the ones taking the cuts. It has always been the truth, and now every single day the "news" channels talk about cutting the old age entitlements and about how that's where all the debt is.

Glenn Beck was the first one who said it. He pointed out that SS and Medicare have over $122 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. But the tea party has always blocked out the truth, ignored it when anyone on their side tells the truth about their social programs. Playing the game of "give me government money but don't give any to anyone else" is a loser, especially when the government spends 4 times more money on old people than on everyone else and when SS and Medicare have over $122 trillion of unfunded promises.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#61 Feb 18, 2013
The ONLY issue the tea party has is they are dependent on the government to live retired and they want $122 trillion in socialism, in their social programs, and their only case they ever make for them wanting $122 trillion of socialism for themselves is they say that they hate socialism. Sounds insane, and proves it's all nothing but greed of money and people fighting over who will get the government money. Everyone is just fighting over wanting the government to pay them.
1 post removed
Micheal Larry

AOL

#63 Feb 18, 2013
Welcome to Micheal Larry Loan Firm PLC.
We offer loan to applicants at a percentage interest rate of 2%. If you are in need of our loan offer,kindly contact us with your name and amount need at micheallarryloanfirm@gmail.com . We are highly sincere to all applicants a we also regard applicants as people that are to be helped with our loan offer. We have been operating for over 15years now and we are experienced in the field of loan offer. Apply now .

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#64 Feb 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Like that's gonna get anywhere near the $1 TRILLION in cuts needed just to balance the current budget, much less start paying down the $16+ trillion in national debt.
Our debt will continue to increase by about a trillion dollars every year for the foreseeable future whether the Dems or the GOP are in charge.
There's no way around it at this point.
Correct
The Spending cuts and tax increases required to balance the budget in the near future would gag the ecomomy and in the process reduce tax revenue and create an upwards pressure on spending.
The budget imbalance and the line term debt were not created overnight and they wont go away soon either.
If we want to see a large savings lets try to spend a little less defending Wester Europe and Japan from the Soviet Union.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#65 Feb 18, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the rich benefit now. One of the plans was to reduce millionaire benefits.
They are trying to reform an archaic system that's going broke.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreybrown/2012...
you tea guys are correct here, if we have programs cut across the board than those with the greatest needs will be hurt the most. If there is a reduction or elimination of millionaire benefits the neediest might be spared severe cuts, and politically and morally putting an income cap is the right thing to do. The rational for the Gov't spending on the programs is to help those in genuine need not drop 18k in a millionaires bank account.
One thing that has to be viewed as undoable would be to turn to the stock market as a savior for SSI. Privatize SSI and One bear market and you would be hearing talk about socializing the market
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#66 Feb 19, 2013
Cutting the cost of living increases on SS is not going to save one cent. They gave a total of $25 increase in FOUR YEARS. Zero one year, zero one year, and about $12 one year and another $12 another year in the last four years. Big savings if you cut out $25 in four years. It shows that they already have it rigged where the consumer price index is NOT linked to the price of food and gas. It's all crap.

And, just cutting back on the $25 in 4 years on a few millionaires is not going to solve anything.

And, Newt's crazy plan stops funding SS for those on it, so that is insanity. If you stop paying into SS, everyone on it stops receiving SS.

They are going to have to means test everyone. Anyone who has other pensions is going to have to take half as much and women who never worked will have to go without. You didn't pay in, you don't get paid out of it. Then, if their husband dies, fine, give them the husband's SS then, but they can no longer give men double payments, one for themselves and one for the wife who did not pay in, especially when most of these tea party folks get union pensions, VA pensions, some are on like 3 government pensions. It's all tax money they are getting. They are the only ones who are still middle class but it's all tax money. It can't go on. And those people who get several pensions should be paying a lot more for their Medicare. they want health care from the government almost for free and they want SS money and other pensions, and they don't want to have to spend anything on their own health care. Well, if you didn't save any money and you want to live for 30 years retired, you DO have to pay something for your basic needs yourself. What they do now is the government pays for all of their health care and gives them many pensions and they live super fat traveling and going shopping all the time. They want to live fat off of the government without having saved nor invested any of their own money into their retirements. And the women who never work expect to get government health care and money for as long as they live after they turn 67. This is where all the money is going.
1 post removed

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#68 Feb 21, 2013
Pamela wrote:
Cutting the cost of living increases on SS is not going to save one cent. They gave a total of $25 increase in FOUR YEARS. Zero one year, zero one year, and about $12 one year and another $12 another year in the last four years. Big savings if you cut out $25 in four years. It shows that they already have it rigged where the consumer price index is NOT linked to the price of food and gas. It's all crap.
And, just cutting back on the $25 in 4 years on a few millionaires is not going to solve anything.
And, Newt's crazy plan stops funding SS for those on it, so that is insanity. If you stop paying into SS, everyone on it stops receiving SS.
They are going to have to means test everyone. Anyone who has other pensions is going to have to take half as much and women who never worked will have to go without. You didn't pay in, you don't get paid out of it. Then, if their husband dies, fine, give them the husband's SS then, but they can no longer give men double payments, one for themselves and one for the wife who did not pay in, especially when most of these tea party folks get union pensions, VA pensions, some are on like 3 government pensions. It's all tax money they are getting. They are the only ones who are still middle class but it's all tax money. It can't go on. And those people who get several pensions should be paying a lot more for their Medicare. they want health care from the government almost for free and they want SS money and other pensions, and they don't want to have to spend anything on their own health care. Well, if you didn't save any money and you want to live for 30 years retired, you DO have to pay something for your basic needs yourself. What they do now is the government pays for all of their health care and gives them many pensions and they live super fat traveling and going shopping all the time. They want to live fat off of the government without having saved nor invested any of their own money into their retirements. And the women who never work expect to get government health care and money for as long as they live after they turn 67. This is where all the money is going.
You make a solid case against cuts in benefits. If every choice the has to be made could be decided only on humanitarian grounds I would be screaming for benefit increases. If changes are phased in they will have a smaller impact. Keeping our safety net solvent requires that we put some savings on the table, if we expect the GOP to put taxes on the table. Until we can nudge the budget towards balance it's hard to argue else wise. However unless taxes and defense are on the table the safety net shouldn't be.
Defense can be cut painlessly. Stop defending Western Europe and Japan from the Soviet Union
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#69 Feb 21, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a solid case against cuts in benefits. If every choice the has to be made could be decided only on humanitarian grounds I would be screaming for benefit increases. If changes are phased in they will have a smaller impact. Keeping our safety net solvent requires that we put some savings on the table, if we expect the GOP to put taxes on the table. Until we can nudge the budget towards balance it's hard to argue else wise. However unless taxes and defense are on the table the safety net shouldn't be.
Defense can be cut painlessly. Stop defending Western Europe and Japan from the Soviet Union
Ann Coulter said that in five more years just Social Security and Medicare will be using up 97 percent of the federal budget. Those two programs are where the money is going. SS, Medicare and military spending use up 80 percent of the federal budget and those are our number one, two and three largest spending items. People say they want spending cuts, this is where you have to cut.

I don't see why people who never worked should be able to get SS. Why should women who never worked get paid and get free medical from the government? Had I known I would get SS and Medicare just for getting married, I wouldn't have bothered working. A woman who never works gets the same SS and medicare as a woman who works for 40 years. It's all utter crap. Why should a man who works get double payments and a woman who works gets one payment? Complete and totally unfair crapola. And why do all of these people who have big union pensions or who get other government pensions from the state or federal government get these big SS payments and then someone like myself gets one lously tiny SS payment and I have no pensions, so I have to go without a car year after year and don't have enough money to pay rent nor to buy clothes nor furniture and yet some B who never worked feels perfectly entitled to and SS payment and to Medicare while her husband also draws down some big union pension and 2-3 government pensions. If the government cared one thing about poor old people, they would stop paying people who do not need SS and stop giving it to people who never paid in and freaking pay dirt poor people like myself the double payments and give me a 10 percent cost of living increase every year like the government workers get. I have a neighbor who has NO higher education who gets a 60K pension and a 10 percent increase every year and she also gets SS and Medicare. So she gave Obama $25 donation and yet she gets about $600 a year raise in her pension every year, while I got $25 raise in 4 freaking years on SS. She gets about 7,000 a month in tax money, I get about $1,100 and no matter how many pensions people have, no matter women didn't even work, the government gives everyone the same SS. I really like Ralph Reid's idea of giving dirt poor seniors the double payments. It's not fair because it is all welfare after two years anyway. Why does the government give some people so much money that they can live so fat and then it gives other people just about nothing? And it doesn't matter if you worked or not. It's all crapola. Not one thing has changed in my life in the four years Obama has been in office. Nothing has changed here, still no jobs, no living wage jobs, no raises in SS, no nothing. I don't even use traditional medicine and I have NO choice about it. The government stinks on ice. Why doesn't the government pay to let me go to nontraditional doctors? It's my business. The government sucks.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#70 Feb 21, 2013
I have to go without a car and without food and without everything so some idiot who gets a bigt union pension can suck up two SS payments so him and his low IQ fat ass wife can take trips to Europe on their SS checks while I go without everything. they do not need the money. Let those people pay a lot more for their health care. We are financing the retirements of people who have multiple pensions and letting poor old people go without everything and it's not like them spending all that free money on themselves is making them one bit happy anyway. Same men who get those 3-4 pensions and who have wives who piss it all away at the mall and on traveling hit on me cause they are all in dead marriages and can't afford divorces, as if I am going to have NOTHING and let them use me cause they are bored having everything. they need to live like I do and have nothing like I do and get off of the governemnt and then they won't be bored and they won't think they are all that cause big daddy government gives them so much money.
1 post removed
o s a r

Cynthiana, KY

#72 Feb 22, 2013
The only economic segment that has enjoyed good times and hasn't had to tighten its belt is the ones who will be effected by sequestration. Let the cuts fly. Yippee!!

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min USAsince1680 1,234,525
News Ireland same-sex marriage 3 min NorCal Native 331
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 4 min Le Jimbo 1,103
News Immigration ruling will hurt the GOP in 2016 5 min Okie Fenokie 3
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 164,412
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min Eagle 12 7,474
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 14 min HILLARY 2016 182,841
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 25 min Black Rhino 284
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 27 min Silent Echo 2,488
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 31 min - Lady Liberty - 328,689
More from around the web