Obama cranks up budget showdown blame game

World Feb. 20, 2013 - 04:47AM JST ( 14 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

14 Comments

0

SuperLibFeb. 20, 2013 - 11:11AM JST

Republicans argue that Obama came up with the idea for the sequester

Ah....thought so.
0

kurisupisuFeb. 20, 2013 - 11:44AM JST

What a joke the American system is!

It is a fact the the US spends more than it produces whilst subsidising huge military-bases in over a hundred countries!

How about foreign embassies?

The biggest building in Baghdad in Iraq is the US embassy with an Olympic sized swimming pool!

US tax payer money is being spent outside the US flagrantly ......

Americans need to wake up!
-1

Droll QuarryFeb. 20, 2013 - 12:29PM JST

@kurisupisu

US tax payer money is being spent outside the US flagrantly ......

Americans need to wake up!

...... Can't argue with that....
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 20, 2013 - 12:57PM JST

" Republicans argue that Obama came up with the idea for the sequester—but since it also passed both chambers of Congress, the blame is shared."

That's true, but let's not forget whose pen inked the deal into law. The pols created the Frankenbill, the leader breathed life into it, and now the monster is about to do as it was designed. Way to go.
1

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorFeb. 20, 2013 - 02:31PM JST

Let's have a reality check here. The sequester will cut about $85 billion from a federal budget of something like $3.5 trillion. That is less than 3% of the total. Hardly "taking a cleaver" to the budget as the President calls it. Even so, federal spending will remain roughly stable between 2012-13. After that, even with the sequester in place, spending will rise to nearly $4 trillion by 2016.

Some "meat cleaver". Some "slashing cuts"

Just for once, I would like a politician to say what will really happen in the near future. None of this "save ..... over 10 years" or "cut .... over 10 years" nonsense. Face facts. None of them will be in office 10 years from now. There is no way to obligate future politicians to honor such pledges. They are just useless soundbites.

Also, I'm getting pretty sick of the President surrounding himself with (insert victim group here) whenever he makes a speech. Shooting victims , little kids, emergency workers, cut it out! I'm tired of the cheap sleazy political theater of it all. He's the damn President, he should show some dignity. WIn the day with facts, not emotional appeals.
0

LagunaFeb. 20, 2013 - 03:49PM JST

Good point, VRWC, but remember that discretionary spending - that excluding (in order of size) social security, Medicare and other health, interest on the debt, and veteran's benefits - is only 31% of that amount, or $1.85 trillion, and it is from this that the cuts are coming. That means a roughly 21% cut to discretionary spending, which is rather large.
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorFeb. 20, 2013 - 03:57PM JST

Laguna, your math is waaaay off. IF discretionary spending is $1.85 trillion, then the proposed cuts are still only about 5% of that bloated figure. I find it hard to believe that government departments can't find 5% of their budgets to tighten up without holding a bake sale to buy paper clips.
0

LagunaFeb. 20, 2013 - 04:07PM JST

Whoops - my bad, VRWC. Many on both sides agree that the cuts aren't Armageddon -Howard Dean came out for them the other day as a generational chance to cut Pentagon spending, and many Republicans feel the same way about cuts to non-defense spending.

Considering this, the cuts will likely take place; they will no doubt cause a huge drag on the economy.

VRWC, these cuts are to the baseline; if they are matched with another stimulus round for infrastructure spending, etc., they might make sense - money can be borrowed for almost free now, the need is there, and the burst of short-term spending would buffer the longer-term reductions.

Of course, this is only logic; try selling it to the House GOP.
-1

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorFeb. 20, 2013 - 04:57PM JST

"Another" round of stimulus for infrastructure? What happened to the first one?

It didn'T happen. Instead, Pres. Obama made sure he took care of his friends and sponsors on Wall Street. He made the banks healthy again. Where are the big projects? Nowhere. Besides, infrastructure projects can often be done better and cheaper by the private sector, without borrowing money from China.

Yes, money can be borrowed for free now. But in the future? What happens when interest rates go up? The accumulated debt will destroy the economy. An increase in interest would be an economic catastrophe, unless the debt is controlled and reduced.

The government is already spending a far larger portion of the GDP than at any time in history, other than perhaps the second world war. The results speak for themselves.

Of course, this is only fiscal reality. Try selling it to people in government who haven't even passed a budget in 4 years.
0

LagunaFeb. 20, 2013 - 05:57PM JST

It didn'T happen.

Oh, yes, it did - it is why local governments did not completely collapse. A more robust stimulus program would have been preferable - one which would have led to rebuilding of the infrastructure. Many economists strongly recommended this, but political realities (i.e., the GOP congress) prevented it. It is not too late, though, and it would be extraordinarily foolish to pass up on this opportunity.

Besides, infrastructure projects can often be done better and cheaper by the private sector, without borrowing money from China.

The government very seldom constructs things on its own; it works through the private sector. Stimulus spending would thus go through the private sector. Infrastructure is by definition that which benefits all greatly but none so much as to require their own investment - if you'd waited for the private sector to build the interstate highway system, you'd still be waiting.

What happens when interest rates go up?

Nothing on debt issued to date; T-bills are issued at fixed, not floating, interest rates. To say we must worry about possible (though improbable) spikes in interest rates in future to justify deep cuts at present is foolish.

The government is already spending a far larger portion of the GDP than at any time in history...

Yes, but the US is also both performing more services than at any time in history and is also facing (along with other advanced countries) and unprecedented rise in average population age. Cutting spending does not eliminate the problem; in fact, government spending on health care and pensions has been found to be more stable and less costly than private alternatives.
0

sailwindFeb. 20, 2013 - 06:57PM JST

Stimulus spending would thus go through the private sector. Infrastructure is by definition that which benefits all greatly but none so much as to require their own investment - if you'd waited for the private sector to build the interstate highway system, you'd still be waiting.

And if you wanted vital infrastructure totally funded by private investment, didn't put a single tax payer on the hook and would be providing good paying shovel ready jobs in a heartbeat anyone with common sense would jump all over it in a heartbeat, except this President. He'll never approve the Keystone pipeline, it doesn't fit his taxpayer funded green jobs economic fiasco's.

We're still waiting
0

Surf O'HolicFeb. 20, 2013 - 07:02PM JST

Odama signed the bill into law. It's his.
1

LagunaFeb. 20, 2013 - 07:19PM JST

Right, Sailwind - and we're also ready to clean up the tanks leaking radioactive sludge at the Hanford site - heck, we've been ready for decades! - if only for the funding. It might be wise to solve one bioecological hazard before embarking on the next.
1

SuperLibFeb. 21, 2013 - 05:09AM JST

Surf: Odama signed the bill into law. It's his.

The whole "he technically singed this" might make people feel better in the Republican bubble, but surveys have shown that Republicans are taking the majority of the blame here and will take the majority of the blame if the sequester happens. At this point I'm assuming Republicans still haven't learned that self destruction is bad for their party.