world

Obama orders $85 billion spending cuts; blames Republicans

34 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

Obstruction you can believe in.

Repubilcan my way or suicide politics take it to the next level...

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Will Obama ever admit his own wrong doing in anything? It truly is amazing that he gets away with blaming others every single time. Just once I want to hear him take responsibility for something.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

“The sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed,” Obama said. “It will not happen.”

President Obama in the third presidential debate last October ( he also proposed it).

3 ( +9 / -6 )

@war

Will Obama ever admit his own wrong doing in anything? It truly is amazing that he gets away with blaming others every single time. Just once I want to hear him take responsibility for something.

You will be waiting for a very, very long time, that'll never happen. In doing so would be admitting that his economical policies aren't working, which means, he has to take responsibility for his failures and that ain't gonna happen. This way is much easier shoving ALL the blame on congress and in particular, Republicans.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Here comes a flood of crocodile tears over, for example, unionized military contractors having to take furlough days. Who will be first to come up with a plan to restore their hours before the end of this year?

Less than half of federal employees have college degrees. Look at the extra time off as an educational opportunity.

-2 ( +3 / -6 )

Really? It's not, repeat NOT, a "cut". It is nothing more than a very slight decrease in the increased amount spent THIS year over last.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Loki,

It's not, repeat NOT, a "cut". It is nothing more than a very slight decrease in the increased amount spent THIS year over last.

It is, repeat IS, a cut in discretionary spending, though entitlement spending will continue to rise, thus increasing total Federal spending - and that is exactly what one would expect with an aging society.

Forbes notes:

Nearly half of the automatic sequestration under the fiscal cliff is expected to come from discretionary spending.

There are several good graphs here explaining the cuts and their anticipated results. Austerity at a time like this is foolish, but that is what the GOP has forced on us - remember, it was either sequestration or no rise in the budget ceiling, aka Armageddon. As I've said before, the sole advantage of a Republican presidency is that they tend to ignore their own austerity advice.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bloombergs-guide-to-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-9?op=1#ixzz2MNBY4y3Z

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sorry - that's Bloomberg, not Forbes.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Obama bemoaned his inability to do a “Jedi mind-meld” to get Republicans to change their minds, using imagery from “Star Wars” and “Star Trek.”

Mixing up Star Trek and Star Wars would have had a Republican crucified by the popular culture and the media talking heads for days on end but luckily for Obama he's already built and has released his "Debt Star" to keep the local systems in line.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

" a cut in discretionary spending…"

Yes, discretionary not mandatory.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

obama and his administration are committing a suicide of a nation. USA is in decline sad to say.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It is not a cut in discretionary spending or should I say excretory spending, it was not a cut. When will people realize that a cut in an increase in spending is not a cut in spending? If I decide to spend $15000 on a used automobile and someone tells me that I can only spend $1450 on the automobile, is that a cut in spending when I only have $500. Let's get real here and see that money does not grow on trees and that it is the people who have to work for every politicians desire to spend money to get votes to increase their pay. If he was so worried why did he give himself and every other government employee wage increases while cutting the necessary things?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Looks like Obama's "Jedi Mind Meld" did not work on the republicans.

RR

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

“The sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed,” Obama said. “It will not happen.” President Obama in the third presidential debate last October ( he also proposed it).

Well, the Republicans have damned well made sure it did happen Sail.

Can you just clarify, is this Obama's fault, or is the in-the-tank media to blame?

I realize the Republicans can't be at all be at fault for anything, ever, and that their right to permanent obstruction of the highest elected American office and obviously their right to low taxes (debt-be-damned) is actually a Divine Right. I hear that's why even Jesus always voted Republican....

The Republican party has been insane for quite some time now.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

That was a rather poor analogy, Kent, as it assumes that all spending is equal. Try this.

Say Grandma's age-caused infirmities become a huge drag on your budget, so you begin to look for some savings. You cancel your newspaper subscriptions - heck, you've only kept them out of habit as you get most news from the Net now anyway. That is a very smart move, but not enough.

So next, you quit playing golf and your wife restricts her beauty products to only those found at the local DIY store. Certainly, you have saved a bunch, but at a large cost to your quality of life.

You're on a roll now, though, so you gut further. You take your high-school age son out of cram school. You also put yourself on a diet of ten liters of gasoline a week. This is crazy as it is very likely hurting your son's future potential, and as a self-employed individual, you find that the value of the work you must turn down to stay within your fuel budget exceeds the cost of the fuel itself.

There is no doubt that cuts the GOP demand are similar to the second type - that the quality of life America enjoys, the way it sees and what it expects from itself is threatened; worse, America has in danger of entering the realm of crazy cuts, where the lower taxes resulting from lowered GDP do not cover the revenue saved from the cuts in the first place.

Many people on this thread have stated that these cuts - and, presumably, balancing the entire budget sans extra revenue is possible by eliminating waste and fraud; none have listed a single specific example. In that way, these posters are no different from the GOP at large.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Republicans are nothing more than parasites, bloodsuckers, do they care about the USA??? NO!!! They only care about $$$$!! I bet Rush Limbaugh is real proud of himself just about now, right Bassfunk??

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Madverts:

Can you just clarify, is this Obama's fault, or is the in-the-tank media to blame?

OK, let's try this one more time. It's really not that hard to follow.

In the 2011 fiscal cliff talks, Obama proposed the sequester idea as a means to ensure that the so-called Super Committee would meet a targeted budget goal. In exchange, the two sides also agreed to Obama's top priority for a long-term debt ceiling extension that would last through his re-election campaign. If the committee was unable to agree upon a plan to meet the targeted goal, spending reductions would be triggered automatically at the end of 2012 (note that Obama did not include any tax increases in his trigger). This is why Bob Woodward rightly pointed out that Obama was moving the goal posts when he insisted on tax increases in any deal to undo the sequester. Obama knew that the Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire at the same time and he could get his tax increases without having to do anything.

Fast forward to 2013, a newly re-elected Obama now tries to change the subject back to tax increases and the media obliges by failing to note that tax increases were not part of the fiscal cliff agreement. When Woodward made the mistake of stating the truth that no tax increases were a part of the sequester trigger agreement he instantly became persona non grata among his colleagues in the press. The press has essentially joined Obama in the bully pulpit by failing to mention that only cuts were agreed upon and by hyping the sequester Armageddon story that Obama has been pounding on the last few weeks. So much for journalism in the age of ideological polarization and agenda driven corporate news.

Obama was beaten on this one - there is no shame in that. He has won more than his fair share. The Republicans were beaten at the end of last year in the negotiations over the ending of the Bush tax cuts. Let's move on people - Obama lost one and the world didn't end on March 2nd. We have yet another debt ceiling deadline coming within a few weeks to start talking past each other about. :-)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All of us will regret that this will eventually lead into another global recession. Do not forget, we, US are responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008 and we almost took other countries along with us to the 2nd Great Depression as we are now closely connected in global economy. The stake is too high and we cannot fool around, period. I am very disappointed to read some posts that are totally disregarding this consequences.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Republicans are nothing more than parasites, bloodsuckers, do they care about the USA??? NO!!! They only care about $$$$!! I bet Rush Limbaugh is real proud of himself just about now,

Why get so hateful about this Elbuda Mexicano? Although it may be good sport for you, the back and forth of American budget negotiations has little to do with Mexico or her relations with the US. Besides, I think you have your bloodsuckers switched around - it isn't Republicans who have parasitically sucked the blood out of the American economy or saddled the countries children and grand-children with trillions upon trillions of debt. Don't forget, Fannie and Freddie's biggest supporters have always been Democrats and Dodd-Frank has made too-big-to-fail law of the land.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

bass4funkMar. 02, 2013 - 05:29PM JST

In doing so would be admitting that his economical policies aren't working -

LOS, bass, US economy has been doing fine.

Yesterday, the market hit the highest. Most of the people who invested in 401k should be very happy. Housing market is coming back. Unemployment has been improving. Durable goods order is increasing, Inventory is declining. Factory order is going up. Consumer Confidence is up.

Well, I can list you more, bass. Obama is doing very well.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

$85 billion is nothing. It would be nice if all the countries that receive foreign aid or have military presence reduce their income, but it won't happen. Okinawa is safe, financially, and otherwise. It will be the schools, parks, and other areas in the USA that suffer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The middle-class in Greece are eating out of trash cans. I wonder how long until this happens in America?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wolfpack: If the committee was unable to agree upon a plan to meet the targeted goal, spending reductions would be triggered automatically at the end of 2012 (note that Obama did not include any tax increases in his trigger).

This has already been proven to be inaccurate. The words they used were "deficit reductions," not spending reductions. You can go and read the language yourself if you want. The key difference is that deficit reductions can be met in a variety of ways whereas spending restrictions are one-sided.

This is supported in a number of instances. Go back to August 2011 and find me a single article that says tax increases are not possible with the agreement made. You will find numerous, numerous examples of people saying that Republicans do not support tax increases but you will not find a single article saying tax increases are outlawed as a point in the agreement. You will also find people saying that Republicans are under pressure to choose people for the super committee who would not agree to tax increases.

The super committee discussed proposals that included tax increases. Republicans refused to compromise, but at no point did they say the goalposts were moved.

Beohner himself said the following in August 2011 when asked what he would do if the super committee recommend tax increases: "We'll see what it does. But I'm confident their focus will be on reducing expenditures coming out of Washington." He also said, "I think [supporting tax increases] would be a stretch. It doesn't seem likely to me that that would be recommended, much less supported, but I've been surprised before."

A man who thinks he has already negotiated to eliminate the possibility of tax increases before the super committee even begins does not talk like that.

If you want to see some eye-opening parts of the book, read where Woodward says Cantor was nothing more an an obstructionist inserted to please the Tea Party. Read where it says Boehner had little influence on the radicals within his own party and the fractured nature of the party overall. Instead we are hearing about "goalposts" and threats that never existed. Must be that sneaky media playing against Obama again....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Kent is CORRECT! Obama gave all government workers a pay increase.

Why didn't Boehner and other Republicans cry "NO, NO, NO, NO! We want spending CUTS" ?

All politicians are in the same boat. (Give us more money, and screw the little fish) Republicans = Democrats Democrats = Republicans

The difference between the parties is their methodology on how to screw the little fish.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nice work, guys.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@SuperLib:

This has already been proven to be inaccurate. The words they used were "deficit reductions," not spending reductions.

Yes, I can accept that deficit reduction is the most accurate description of the goals of the Super Committee. But that doesn't make any difference given the fact that the Super Committee negotiations failed. Both sides failed to agree on raising taxes or cutting spending or any combination of the two. That's where the sequestration trigger comes in.

The trigger was designed to compel an agreement by threatening "only" painful reductions in government spending (sequestration) for programs that both sides had an interest in protecting? In other words, if the negotiations failed, there would be no tax increases - only spending cuts. That is the deal that Obama made and signed into law. Go back and read the law - does it say anywhere that taxes must be increased upon failure of the Super Committee negotiations?

You can make the argument that Obama made an error by failing to insist upon tax increases along with the sequestration but you can't say that it was a part of the deal - because it wasn't. The Super Committee could have raised taxes. However they neither raised taxes or cut spending. They did nothing. The fear that nothing would get done was the whole rational for Obama's sequester idea.

If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with Obama for making a bad deal. Can't you just admit that Obama got outmaneuvered in the fiscal cliff negotiations? He made an agreement that favored Republicans. You can at least take solace in knowing that Obama got the best of Republicans in the negotiations over the end of the Bush tax cuts. Taxes went up on the wealthy.

Overall, Obama got what he wanted - a hefty increase in taxes on the wealthy that went into effect on January 1st. Republicans didn't get the reform of entitlements that they wanted but they at least got a slight reduction in the future increase in government spending. That is about as close to a win-win as is possible in the hyper-partisan Obama era.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@globalwatcher:

LOS, bass, US economy has been doing fine.

Tell that to some of the 53% of recent college graduates that are either unemployed or underemployed. Or the 14.3% of unemployed blacks. Or the 46.2 million (1 in 6) Americans living in poverty. Or the nearly 8% that are without work. Or the 47 million on food stamps. The US economy actually fell into recession during the last quarter of 2012? I don't know how anyone could accurately describe America's economy as doing fine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WolfpackMar. 03, 2013 - 04:36AM JST

@globalwatcher:

LOS, bass, US economy has been doing fine.

Tell that to some of the 53% of recent college graduates that are either unemployed or underemployed. Or the 14.3% of unemployed blacks. Or the 46.2 million (1 in 6) Americans living in poverty. Or the nearly 8% that are without work. Or the 47 million on food stamps. The US economy actually fell into recession during the last quarter of 2012? I don't know how anyone could accurately describe America's economy as doing fine.

More than 68% of 4 yrs college graduates will end up taking jobs that do not need a college degrees. My state alone will see more than 50,000 graduating in May. New MBA graduates will end up taking 1/3 lower pays and benefits. This has been going on more than 20 years in both Japan and US. The kids gradulating with solid skills in engineering, medicine are doing just fine.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )

During one of the presidential debates, Obama declared that he did not propose the sequester, but that Congress did. Drawing largely on the reporting of journalist Bob Woodward, it was concluded that the President was telling a big, fat, fib.

The sequester was clearly an idea advanced by the White House in order to avoid a second debt-ceiling showdown in Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

I don't think Obama is really that upset about it. He's getting the revenue he wanted all along.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Globalwatcher, the western world is collapsing, drop the left-wing bs and face reality. Virtually everyone I've went to college with is either on welfare or working multiple minimum wage jobs.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

jeff198527Mar. 03, 2013 - 09:42AM JST

Globalwatcher, the western world is collapsing, drop the left-wing bs and face reality. Virtually everyone I've went to college with is either on welfare or working multiple minimum wage jobs.

It is nothing to do with Obama, we are competing with labor inexpensive countries like China and India. They can produce the same goods and services at 1/10th of our wages in global economy. Unless college kids have something unique to offer at work place, it is pretty touch world out threre.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wolfpack: The trigger was designed to compel an agreement by threatening "only" painful reductions in government spending (sequestration) for programs that both sides had an interest in protecting? In other words, if the negotiations failed, there would be no tax increases - only spending cuts. That is the deal that Obama made and signed into law. Go back and read the law - does it say anywhere that taxes must be increased upon failure of the Super Committee negotiations?

It's an odd argument to make since there really is no point to it. Obviously the deal was to work out an agreement before the sequestration took place, which relates to the points I've been making. It sounds like you're saying that since the sequester is happening then Obama must give up his position of tax increases during negotiations to undo it. Just odd overall.

In reality, if Republicans had zero tolerance for new revenues the speaker shouldn't have emerged from the meeting saying it wouldn't be the first time he'd be surprised if a deal is reached to raise taxes. He should have just come out and said that the Tea Party is calling the shots and there will never be tax increases and they won't even discuss it, even in the super committee. It would have saved us a lot of time.

One last thing. Why aren't Republicans owning the spending cuts? Wasn't that their goal all along? Why isn't Beohner getting in front of a microphone and saying that he successfully cut spending while not raising taxes? It seems like now that the cuts are here he's switching gears and saying that "the other guy" is responsible for doing something Republicans wanted all along. You'd think Boehner would be having a celebration party right now.

And what's with trying to protect defense? Republicans want zero new revenue and zero cuts to defense as a means to cut the deficit? Most economists agree that both new revenues and spending cuts are needed and Republicans are taking away half of the equation, then half of what's left. How can they be taken seriously as deficit reducers? Cantor himself only put social programs on the table during the negotiations. Do you agree with him?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@SuperLib:

It's an odd argument to make since there really is no point to it. Obviously the deal was to work out an agreement before the sequestration took place, which relates to the points I've been making.

What is odd is to continue to argue that sequestration has anything to do with tax increases. That ship sailed when the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement. Obama was outfoxed on that one. Obama got his big tax increase on January 1st. There will be no more tax increases. Any tax reform deal will have to be revenue neutral or there will be no tax reform.

It sounds like you're saying that since the sequester is happening then Obama must give up his position of tax increases during negotiations to undo it. Just odd overall.

No, I am not saying that at all. I fully understand that Obama wants to raise taxes in order to continue to postpone the reform of the big three entitlement programs. He refuses to acknowledge that these programs are unsustainable as they are currently constructed. It's just that Republicans knew that they could get spending reductions now without raising taxes just as Obama knew that he could get tax increases automatically without trimming entitlements when the Bush tax cuts expired. Both sides use the advantage when they have it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SuperLib:

In reality, if Republicans had zero tolerance for new revenues the speaker shouldn't have emerged from the meeting saying it wouldn't be the first time he'd be surprised if a deal is reached to raise taxes.

I really think that Obama burned his bridges with Boehner when they had a handshake agreement to trim entitlements and raise taxes by something like $800 billion. Obama took it to Pelosi and Reid and quickly found out that he couldn't get them to support the deal. Obama then came back and demanded another $400 billion in taxes. Now there is bad blood between the two. I don't believe there is any chance of a grand bargain until after Obama leaves office in 2016. Boehner doesn't trust Obama and will not negotiate directly with him anymore. From this point forward, if anything is to get done it will be through the regular order in Congress.

One last thing. Why aren't Republicans owning the spending cuts?

I think they are pretty happy to have a reduction in spending. They will make a point of this during the mid-term elections. They are not happy with the over emphasis on defense cuts. Conservatives take no joy in being responsible and saying no to spending on everything. But America's annual deficit and cumulative debt are unsustainable. At some point you have to pay the piper - better we start now than leaving it to our children and grand-children.

Republicans want zero new revenue and zero cuts to defense as a means to cut the deficit?

The fact that Republicans didn't panic and make a last minute deal to protect defense cuts proves this false. They are willing to cut defense. Taxes have already gone up by $1 trillion with ObamaCare and $650 billion this year. Democrats have yet to prove that they are willing to cut entitlements. American's annual budget has doubled over the last 12 years. Spending is the problem, not taxes. No amount of taxation can support America's entitlement programs over the long term without reform.

Most economists agree that both new revenues and spending cuts are needed and Republicans are taking away half of the equation, then half of what's left.

There have been tax increases. There has now been a small reduction in the growth of spending. Where are the spending cuts? Where is the entitlement reform? Now that there have been some substantial tax increases, there must now be some substantial entitlement reforms. I would counter with you that there has been tax increases and defense reductions. On the other side of the ledger, entitlements have exploded under Obama.

Where are the entitlement reforms?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites