Quantcast
  

Saturday, April 19, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 99 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama signs order to begin spending cuts

By Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 04:52 p.m. HST, Mar 01, 2013



WASHINGTON >> President Barack Obama has signed an order authorizing the government to begin cutting $85 billion from federal accounts, officially enacting across-the-board reductions that he opposed but failed to avert.

Obama acted today, the deadline for the president and Congress to avoid the steep, one-year cuts.

Obama has insisted on replacing the cuts, known as a “sequester” in government budget language, with tax increases and cuts spread out over time. Republicans have rejected any plan that included tax revenue.

The government says the reductions will soon result in furlough notices to government employees and will trim government spending on defense contracts and in domestic government programs. Active military personnel and anti-poverty and low-income assistance programs are largely protected from the cuts.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 99 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(99)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
palani wrote:
"For Obama, today's session would be his first opportunity to spell out his 10-year, $1.5 trillion deficit reduction plan..."

Great. While increasing the deficit by $1 trillion every year for the next decade, our imperious President has a "plan" to reduce it by one-tenth, if we're lucky. It's time for the media to call him out on his deception instead of serving as his propaganda ministry.


on March 1,2013 | 04:46AM
serious wrote:
Agreed, he got elected by his tax the rich scheme and don't touch the benefits. Okay, the tax the rich is in the law---now about spending. I'd start by grounding AF ONE for a month. And limiting Michelle and crowd to one vacation a year. Remember when Jimmy Carter would go around the White House turning off lights to save on utilities? Austerity has got to start at the top--lead by example. And stop campaigning--the election is over!!!
on March 1,2013 | 04:53AM
OldDiver wrote:
Republicans are so beholden to their corporate masters they are willing to send this country into another recession to protect their tax breaks. Patriotism to corporate America instead of Country has turned Republicans into lapdogs.
on March 1,2013 | 05:19AM
TMJ wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
on March 1,2013 | 06:01AM
OldDiver wrote:
The Republican bloggers here have a love for corporate subsidies and profitable corporations who pay no taxes. They prefer cuts to Social Security and Medicare than have their corporate buddies pay their fair share. You are correct, the Republican Congress is asleep on the job.
on March 1,2013 | 08:07AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Would these be the same corporations that provide tens of millions of paychecks to people like you and me so we can eat, buy things, and pay taxes?
on March 1,2013 | 08:35AM
OldDiver wrote:
President Obama has made $2.5 trillion in cuts to the budget while Republicans have not budged an inch to eliminate subsidizes and tax breaks to our most profitable corporations. Republicans instead have offered to cut Social Security and Medicare. How is that fair?
on March 1,2013 | 10:23AM
what wrote:
OldDiver, your hatred of rich people, like Obama's hatred of rich people, blinds you. You can tax rich people for all the money they have, and it will never balance the budget. Social Security and Medicare are so huge, so gigantic compared to the small fortunes of rich people, that to ignore it is just blind stupidity or irrational hate.
on March 1,2013 | 10:52AM
what wrote:
Obama's proposals are dumb because he ignores that if he got what he wanted, it would not balance the budget or cut the debt. Republicans, on the other hand, know that we are in deep in ssit and are fighting tooth and nail for realistic solution to the debt, while Obama wants to play a petty ridiculous class warfare game while Rome burns.
on March 1,2013 | 11:26AM
ballen0607 wrote:
Yes, great start. However, they are also huge authorities in society that profit off of low wages, lobby congress to no limit and hide most of their earnings in off shore accounts and loophole tax shelters. The only reason why you feel this way about "job creators" is because it is a term fabricated by these corporations who have the money that talks in congress. That government oppression you feel is a feeling these guys want you to feel. Look up Jack Abramoff, he'll tell you all about it.
on March 1,2013 | 12:51PM
Goodmedivice wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on March 1,2013 | 09:38AM
ballen0607 wrote:
GM made record profits in the 80's and 90's while cutting workers in order to do so. Kaiser created a privatized healthcare system to provided incentives to doctors for DENYING patient care. And Carnegie made millions in steel profits from child labor and hiring thugs to shoot unionizing workers who wanted a livable wage. It's not liberal, it's history.
on March 1,2013 | 12:46PM
goinglobal wrote:
Like facebook? Ge ? or maybe all the tax breaks hollywood gets? Wait these dont count since they are big Obama donors???
on March 1,2013 | 11:07AM
tiki886 wrote:
OD. How can corporate America make money if the Republicans send the country into a recession?
on March 1,2013 | 06:16AM
OldDiver wrote:
Like Mitt Romney they have their billions stashed away in offshore bank accounts. Many of them are already headquartered offshore. They will just move their business where ever they can make a buck. There is no corporate loyalty to America they pray to the money god.
on March 1,2013 | 08:10AM
goinglobal wrote:
Like Jack Lew? You know the guy who authored the sequestration bill? the same bill that Obama approved with Harry reid before it was presented to the speaker of the house? You know the same bill that Obama signed into law? So how now is it the republicans fault when obama wrote it and threatened to veto anything that replaces it without tax increases? What about the 600 Billion in tax increases Obama got 2 months ago with no cuts? Where was the balance there??
on March 1,2013 | 10:52AM
cwo4usn wrote:
OD, are you a White House plant? You sure speak the party line. Speaking of off shore accts or moving companies off shore. What about Mr. Lew and Mr. Kerry? Did not Kerry's wife move Heinz off shore. There is enough blame to spread across both parties but you have drunk too much kool aid. You liberals only know 1 thing - blame the GOP. You disregard facts because facts don't meet your agenda. I believe this whole sequstration thing was His Majesty's idea. Or is that fact wrong also. Stubborn individuals like you make me ashamed of America.
on March 1,2013 | 11:26AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Then why doesn't America provide an environment that will keep corporations and money here? You keep harping on Romney, but that's his money that he's earned. He can do whatever is legal to keep in growing as long as it can. Everyone should be doing the same. If you don't look for advantages for your own money, then you are a fool.
on March 1,2013 | 11:43AM
ballen0607 wrote:
An environment that corporations would like would be comparable to Beijing, China. A society without human rights, labor or environmental laws are great for corporations. If you feel that is a better sacrifice, then you are the fool. And you feel that Romney fortune is EARNED?! I didn't know the fortune daddy made you was EARNED. Your name is a contradiction.
on March 1,2013 | 12:56PM
hawaiikone wrote:
OD, I'm broke. Can you share some of your fortune with me? Before Obama forces you to... and before you move it "offshore".
on March 1,2013 | 11:45AM
walrus808 wrote:
OD, both parties are beholden to corporate America just the same. The President received a ton of money from Wall Street and big business for his reelection. Your statement is both partisan and ridiculous. There are many of us out in the real world today that realize we're getting the shaft from both parties on a variety of issues. The sooner you wise up to the fact that your blind loyalty to party (as well as those who blindly support the republicans), the better off our country will be.
on March 1,2013 | 06:46AM
hawaiikone wrote:
"Obama calls spending cuts dumb", says far more than you ever will.
on March 1,2013 | 06:48AM
palani wrote:
And Obama certainly knows "dumb".
on March 1,2013 | 12:27PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Oh yeah, bad ole big business republicans, champion of the wealthy cigar smoking set. Meanwhile, Obama just selected a former Citibank executive as Secy Treasury and participates in quarterly meetings with big bucks donors in exchange for a $500K contribution. Shoot, your man of the common people, just met with his "Jobs" council ONCE and now he's happy to sell presidential access for big bucks. (That whole jobs council thing isn't necessary anymore because unemployment is so much better, you see.)
on March 1,2013 | 07:08AM
Anonymous wrote:
Wow! Is that right? Please explain why BO picked one of those responsible for the Wall Street debacle to be Secretary of the Treasury and another to head the Federal Reserve? Were you paying attention to what it cost to attend his fund raisers during the last campaign? Do you think the middle class or poor people could afford to attend? Would you be surprised if BO now owes them?
on March 1,2013 | 07:20AM
serious wrote:
Now, OD, would you believe Bob Woodward or YOUR President? And, I think Obama has as many corporate masters as the Republicans--check the facts--the donations.
on March 1,2013 | 09:35AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Cut spending! Cut wasteful spending! Cutting 85 billion is fruitless compared to trillions in spending. My wife and I take home less money since Jan. 1st. Why is the POTHUS spending money that USA is borrowing?
on March 1,2013 | 12:40PM
ahi1pfb wrote:
No Democrats keep spending money we don't have. When you create a society that rewards laziness in exchange for votes you end up with the mess we are in. And the president comes out against sequester when it was his administrations idea. It's time to call this liars' bluff. No matter what happens he will be remembered as the darling of the media and the welfare state who destroyed this country.
on March 1,2013 | 01:10PM
Allenk wrote:
Used to be that what the President suggested was followed implicitly without question. However, if there was a question, then it was negotiated or debated in congress. Today, if the Republican's don't like it, they just stick it to you and don't budge an inch to detriment of everyone else!
on March 1,2013 | 04:08PM
Grimbold wrote:
Dumb is the irresponsible runaway deficit - not the spending cut which he calls dumb!
on March 1,2013 | 06:50AM
HLOEWEN wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on March 1,2013 | 09:32AM
palani wrote:
Better to make the minimum wage $100 per hour. That way, every worker would be part of the evil 2%. Taxing them at 90% would "solve" the deficit problem.
on March 1,2013 | 12:30PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
TWO important points that are lost with Barry's wala'au (pointless rhetoric): First, sequestration was HIS IDEA, and yet somehow he tries to blame Republicans. Second, well over 90% of the total annual federal govt expenditure is from just three sources: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; yet NONE of these things are being sequestered. So what's the point of making any of these cuts? Yes it's helpful that govt reigns in the rate of spending elsewhere, but without addressing the BIG THREE elephants in the room, the underlying problem still remains. How's all that hope and change for you Obama supporters working out?
on March 1,2013 | 10:25AM
goinglobal wrote:
Hope and change means that Obama hopes you dont notice you only have change left in your wallet.
on March 1,2013 | 10:55AM
peanutgallery wrote:
The fool can't lie his way out of this one. He created this mess along with Jack Liu. The media will help run cover for him as best they can, but this is the old puttin' lipstick on a pig routine. Obama just can't lead anything. He's a whiner, and casts blame on all those around him. Pathetic.
on March 1,2013 | 12:10PM
Maipono wrote:
King Obama will be exposed as all shibai when the sequesters take place, that's what he is afraid of, as he goes around the country scaring Americans about the cuts. He will try to inflict maximum pain by not showing any leadership in this "crisis". History will not be kind to the King, but does he care? No, because he is a local boy and we support him, right?
on March 1,2013 | 04:47AM
cojef wrote:
Did you see the flap about the "deep throat" author and the President's press corps, wherein he indicates that in a previous interview the President was in favor of the so called "sequester" and then reneged? This is the whole issue, the Prez spews something out from one side of his mouth and spews another line out the other side. Plus, why was he wasting time flying around in his toy visiting different localities spreading spin about gloom and doom. Now, he is inisting in partisan negotiations, after the sequester begins. He should have been leading the negotiation,. Now that cat is out of the bag he wants to put it back. You cn't have both ways.
on March 1,2013 | 09:36AM
Kalli wrote:
So are the grandparents going to steal from the grandkids to protect their benefits or will the grandkids get the greediest generation to give back some of what they have all ready stolen?
on March 1,2013 | 05:00AM
wiliki wrote:
Terrible of Republicans to force the govt to lay off people.
on March 1,2013 | 05:24AM
soundofreason wrote:
So WHO was it that forged O'bama's signature on the LAST fiscal cliff deal HE made and then HE did not follow through on?
on March 1,2013 | 05:47AM
tiki886 wrote:
The government doesn't create wealth.
on March 1,2013 | 06:18AM
jtamura69 wrote:
Why do we need Republicans, this is a Democracy? Congress is the opposite of Progress. Lol!!
on March 1,2013 | 06:46AM
purigorota wrote:
We are a republic not a democracy.
on March 1,2013 | 08:09AM
palani wrote:
And "progressives" are the enemies of freedom.
on March 1,2013 | 12:32PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Very excellent comment, as usual. Except that the Republicans aren't forcing layoffs, Obama is by dredging up another tax increase scheme despite prior agreement with Republicans. Carl Bernstein, Washington Post reporter, states that, in doing so, Obama has "moved the goal posts" in the debt/deficit negotiations. So, to sum up you are 100% wrong and Obama, as quoted in this story, is a liar. In fact this whole matter seems to be a test to see whether or not his low information supporters will finally get the picture. Doubt it.
on March 1,2013 | 07:01AM
hawaiikone wrote:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" For this particular article, that's good advice for you today.
on March 1,2013 | 07:06AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Government agencies are bloated with people they do not need. They can easily spend the money they have been spending with half as many people.
on March 1,2013 | 07:48AM
pcman wrote:
The president is not a Republican. Congress, the House (Republicans) wanted to pass a bill that would give all the branches of the Executive Branch to decide what to cut, so layoffs would not have to be affected. Guess what? The Senate(Democrats) would not agree to give the branches the option, but to force personnel furloughs. The President agreed with the Senate. What's with that? The Democrats, therefore,are pushing for the furloughs.
on March 1,2013 | 08:15AM
goinglobal wrote:
Why are you not asking why Obama needs more tax increases? He just raised taxes 2 months ago and gave up no cuts. Why should we not cut the budget now?
on March 1,2013 | 10:57AM
pandadaddy wrote:
What a mess. I hope all of you Obama supporters are proud of yourselves (or is it Bush's fault again?)
on March 1,2013 | 05:43AM
soundofreason wrote:
Bumper Sticker: " Does your O'bama sticker make you feel stupid yet?"
on March 1,2013 | 06:20AM
mayihavesumor wrote:
Bad time to send a bunch of flyweights to represent us in D.C.
on March 1,2013 | 06:02AM
tiki886 wrote:
Liberals across the country hate the military. The hippies of the 60s are in charge in Washington DC. The girls and boy from Hawaii have to make believe they don't hate Hawaii's military as well so they can stop the hemorrhaging of military spending in Hawaii.
on March 1,2013 | 06:23AM
tiki886 wrote:
Liberals across the country hate the military. The h i p pies of the 60s are in charge in Washington DC. The girls and boy from Hawaii have to make believe they don't hate Hawaii's military as well so they can stop the hemorrhaging of military spending in Hawaii.
on March 1,2013 | 06:23AM
medigogo wrote:
We don't hate our military, especially when you live in Hawaii. But what's plain clear is we can no longer afford such a size and sophistication. And there isn't a big need for such a big military. So from the historical standpoint, a downsize/downgrade is quite inevitable. It's only about how you do it. Are Congress and the prez doing it right with a right vision and plan? I don't see that.
on March 1,2013 | 08:50AM
tiki886 wrote:
Sequestration is not a "cut". It is a reduction in the rate of spending. The feds will spend more money this year than last year even with Sequestration.
on March 1,2013 | 06:26AM
Grimbold wrote:
Obama's and Democrat's: Spend today - never pay back!
on March 1,2013 | 06:53AM
9ronboz wrote:
Fiscal deception beginning to crumble
on March 1,2013 | 06:30AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Sorry, I tried to understand and embrace this guy, but he is very disappointing and lacks any type of leadership skills. It's my way or the highway, nothing else.
on March 1,2013 | 06:31AM
Ronin006 wrote:
He reminds me of Alfred Newman.
on March 1,2013 | 07:51AM
Allenk wrote:
What me worry?
on March 1,2013 | 04:12PM
SteveToo wrote:
First of all the "dumb idea" was his and he signed the bill. Second it's NOT CUTS. We will just be SPENDING LESS than people wanted to spend and still will be SPENDING MORE than last year.
on March 1,2013 | 06:34AM
Allenk wrote:
While Obama points blame at the Republicans, he was the one that initiated the bill as leverage. Who loses? Us.
on March 1,2013 | 07:25AM
st1d wrote:
maxine waters, the highly regarded representative, stated that sequestration will cause the loss of 170,000,000 jobs across america.

since there are only about 140,000,000 jobs in america according to the latest labor reports, none of us will be working in the next few weeks if maxine waters math is right.

perhaps she was talking about obama's america that has 58 states.


on March 1,2013 | 06:54AM
Pacej001 wrote:
On the positive side, with people like Waters in congress our delegation doesn't look so bad.
on March 1,2013 | 07:23AM
sluggah wrote:
Yeah it does!
on March 1,2013 | 09:46AM
lee1957 wrote:
You certainly deserve an A for creativity, using Maxine Waters and highly regarded in the same sentence.
on March 1,2013 | 10:51AM
hauula1 wrote:
Our great leader, The Blamer!
on March 1,2013 | 07:00AM
lee1957 wrote:
Oblamer!
on March 1,2013 | 10:51AM
phyllum69 wrote:
DUMB?? How is cutting spending dumb? A 16 trillion dollar deficit is dumb, Mr. President. Way to play the blame game.
on March 1,2013 | 07:13AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Spending money you don't have, is Dumb!
on March 1,2013 | 07:24AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Gotta give the guy credit. When he tells a whopper he not only sticks with it, he enlarges it, like the fisherman with a fish that gets bigger with each telling. Pretty obviously he's banking on the ignorance of the American public since the sequester thing was his idea in the first place and was part of a negotiation that had nothing to do with tax increases, something he's thrown in as a purely political move. So, here's what this whole thing boils down to. Obama is out to wreck the Republicans in advance of the 2014 Congressional election by forcing them to accept another tax increase (He just got a big one in January on top of all the Obamacare taxes) and cause the Republican base to abandon the party.
on March 1,2013 | 07:16AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Banking on the American public's ignorance, good investment!
on March 1,2013 | 07:25AM
sluggah wrote:
It reminds me of an old "Seinfeld" episode where George says, "It's only a lie if you don't believe it." Therein the problem, he believes his shibai. Sequester away, cut out the bureaucrats.
on March 1,2013 | 09:50AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Gotta give the guy credit. When he tells a lie he not only sticks with it, he enlarges it, like the fisherman with a fish that gets bigger with each telling. Pretty obviously he's banking on the ignorance of the American public since the sequester thing was his idea in the first place and was part of a negotiation that had nothing to do with tax increases, something he's thrown in as a purely political move. So, here's what this whole thing boils down to. Obama is out to wreck the Republicans in advance of the 2014 Congressional election by forcing them to accept another tax increase (He just got a big one in January on top of all the Obamacare taxes) and cause the Republican base to abandon the party.
on March 1,2013 | 07:19AM
ShaveIce wrote:
President Obama getting fiesty and calling out the Republicans for what they are. I like it!
on March 1,2013 | 07:25AM
Ronin006 wrote:
The real dummy is the guy who signed the bill into law - President Obama. He should have vetoed the bill if he thought the spending cuts were dumb and arbitrary, but he could not do that because sequestration was his idea.
on March 1,2013 | 07:42AM
Ronin006 wrote:
"I am not a dictator. I'm the president," Obama said. And I say a dictator by any other name is still a dictator.
on March 1,2013 | 07:45AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Boehner's office said he and McConnell told Obama they're willing to close tax loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders have agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government beyond the end of March while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said. "The president got his tax hikes on January 1st," Boehner said bluntly after the meeting with Obama. "The discussion about revenue in my view is over. It's about taking on the spending problem here in Washington." Doesn't this make sense to everyone? How can you argue with this. Doesn't matter which side you lean on.
on March 1,2013 | 07:55AM
pcman wrote:
If Bush had to take the blame for the housing crisis, which caused the recession, led by the Democrat controlled House and Senate during his last two years in office, so should Obama take the responsibility for the problems he is blaming Congress for. That is, the lack of budgets, the fiscal cliff, the sequestration, the furloughs, the debt crisis, the inflation, the doubling of gas and food prices, the screwed up Affordable Care Act, the death of American diplomats in Benghazi, the loss of stabilization in the Middle East, and on and on, that occur on his watch. So Obama can stop blaming Bush. People are tired of it. I voted for Obama the first time but he lied and cried "Bush" so much I didn't vote for him the second time.
on March 1,2013 | 08:29AM
sluggah wrote:
The housing crisis goes farther back, to the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with Clinton and Franklin Raines.
on March 1,2013 | 09:54AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Even farther with Carter. Community reinvestment act. Also Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
on March 1,2013 | 11:44AM
retire wrote:
Would someone please inform our President where the buck stops?
on March 1,2013 | 08:28AM
goinglobal wrote:
Sorry no more bucks left only change
on March 1,2013 | 11:03AM
Waterman2 wrote:
Pretty obvious that Punahou School is not the place to learn logic, math, or manners. But spending.......... Hee hee hee.
on March 1,2013 | 08:48AM
LanaUlulani wrote:


The sequester was OBAMA's idea so yes HIS idea was dumb.

He is playing with peoples' lives yet arrogantly refuses to take responsibility for what he is DOING to LOCAL people. Auwe !!!


on March 1,2013 | 09:10AM
64hoo wrote:
this sequester that came on Friday was obamas idea a few months ago when he wanted it, so the congress when on board with obamas idea of sequester now he does a turn a arouind and blame congress on this sequester when it was his idea. but this will not cut any jobs presidents in the pass and present always say it will cut jobs. no it won't.
on March 1,2013 | 10:06AM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
TWO important points that are lost with Barry's wala'au (pointless rhetoric): First, sequestration was HIS IDEA, and yet somehow he tries to blame Republicans. Second, well over 90% of the total annual federal govt expenditure is from just three sources: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; yet NONE of these things are being sequestered. So what's the point of making any of these cuts? Yes it's helpful that govt reigns in the rate of spending elsewhere, but without addressing the BIG THREE elephants in the room, the underlying problem still remains. How's all that hope and change for you Obama supporters working out?
on March 1,2013 | 10:16AM
environmental_lady wrote:
What about the war in Afghanistan? You think it uses a lot less than 10% of the total annual federal government expenditure? Where are you getting your stats from?
on March 1,2013 | 12:40PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
I was quoting from news reports I've heard recently. Here are hard stats, which are less than 90% I stand corrected, anywhere b/t 45% and 61% (if you include all entitlements). BUT defense is still far less in comparison (no breakout of the Afghan war). AND entitlements are just that EXTRAS that people should NOT automatically be ENTITLED to if the nation cannot afford it. http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/62-percent-of-the-federal-budget-goes-to-entitlements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012
on March 1,2013 | 01:56PM
tinapa wrote:
The GOPs only political goal is to dismember the federal government and eventually drown it in the bathtub. Actions speak louder than words. The GOP led by the right wingers is not concerned with deficits, their actions over the years have unmasked their true intentions. They consider the government as an intrusive force. The current deficit is an offshoot to the previous administration's reckless and destructive policies (unfunded wars and medicare, lowering tax rates for the affluent, excessive laxity in the financial sector that brought about the severe economic downturn). The GOP response? The perennial gospel of cut social programs and lower taxes for the rich. If they are really sincere and truly concerned about the deficit and the increasing size of government , they should work in finding areas of ideological agreement with the President and the Dems to capture that elusive solution. The President has already presented a sensible solution. It is now the Repubs' call.
on March 1,2013 | 10:36AM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
"excessive laxity in the financial sector that brought about the severe economic downturn"? Uhh, check the facts, the root of the Great Recession is in housing, namely the policies of Fannie and Freddie, policies which were pushed through by Dems in Congress in the 90's. The WSJ mapped that very fact out extensively during and after the crisis months. And "The President has already presented a sensible solution"? What? Oh you mean that SEQUESTRATION WAS HIS IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE. Right. People like you should learn to keep quiet, b/c you just distort the facts and don't help the situation-- that or get your facts straight to begin with.
on March 1,2013 | 10:45AM
tinapa wrote:
Hapa...Your stated source materal (WSJ) is a conservative media and understandably, it reports matters that satisfy conservative views. No, the Fannie and Fredddie did not trigger the financial crisis of 2007-2008 (Great Depression?). If you want the truth behind this issue, read the article titled "What Went Wrong" published by Washington Post in which it asserted that the refusal of Alan Greespan to regulate financial instruments known as derivatives was one of the contributors of the crisis. Further, The US Senate's Levin-Coburn Reports asserted that the crisis was the result of high risk complex financial products such as questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, etc; but above all the lack of regulation to rein in the ecesses of Wall Street. So, do not give half-baked information about this matter.
on March 1,2013 | 03:40PM
false wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on March 1,2013 | 10:44AM
goinglobal wrote:
Military contractors are being layed off and govt civilians are receiving furlough notices to take 20% of their pay...
on March 1,2013 | 11:05AM
64hoo wrote:
and the star advertiser workers are going to lose there jobs and the SA is going to shut down, so now we can't make no more comments.
on March 1,2013 | 11:20AM
8085215361 wrote:
Most republicans and democrats understand that spending must be cut and taxes raised- the sequester is just a way for the pain to happen with political cover. Who could blame them for doing what works? Bottom line- we get the government we deserve. The sequester 'cliff' is not congress's or the President's fault, it is our fault, for electing them, for putting up with them, for believing them. We're too lazy to care and too quick to believe the first argument we hear. You really want things to change in Washington? Hold your representatives unconditionally responsible for the business of legislation and don't accept excuses for breakdowns. If congress and the president feel the sequester has political consequences it will not happen. Both sides clearly feel that their constituents 'voted for' an unyielding stance without compromise...do the majority of Americans really want that? I don't think so.
on March 1,2013 | 12:17PM
stanmanley wrote:
In his first term, he blames the previous administration. In his second, he blames congress and the GOP. Despite having a Democratic Congress in his first term, he should've gotten the job done at the end of his first term. At this point, it's not about being a Democrat or a Republican, it's about leading our country out of the mess we are in. It's about being a leader and taking accountability. It's not about appearing on talk shows and taking photo ops where ever he goes.
on March 1,2013 | 12:22PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
What's even more telling is that his own party-controlled part of Congress, the Senate, shot down a fix.
on March 1,2013 | 01:59PM
environmental_lady wrote:
First thing first, end the war in Afghanistan now and bring home the troops. Then cut subsidies for rich companies like oil companies. Why cut back on necessary programs instead of cutting on unnecessary programs? This is sheer madness! It's a lose-lose deal that will hurt most everybody. I blame both sides since no one has the guts to bring home the troops now. We need to stop the bleeding now, literally and figuratively.
on March 1,2013 | 12:31PM
juscasting wrote:
So true...While they are looking at saving money, the services are offering ridicules reenlistment bonuses such as 70K for Arabic speaking linguist to sign up again for 4-6 year tours.
on March 1,2013 | 01:06PM
64hoo wrote:
simple solution for all this problem, with thousands of budgets the government has all you have to do is cut 1% of every budget we have there will be none of this talk about lay offs losing jobs don't spend the 1% of the money they collect and use the money to create other jobs, and get the economy going.. that's all you need to do.
on March 1,2013 | 01:58PM
aionokea43 wrote:
God willing - have the Republicans stick to their plan. The president got his tax hikes in January. Now it is time to cut SPENDING from the Federal budget that is filled with entitlements. There are so many entitlement programs that are riddled with fraud waste and abuse and the President wants to spend spend spend. All Democrats are alike. Look at Gov Abercrombie, now he wants $25M to deal with the budget due to reduced federal assistance. Does he not know that with Senator Inouye gone, the State will not be getting its earmarks and let's see the Governor balance the budget.
on March 1,2013 | 03:25PM
HOSSANA wrote:
Ever since becoming POTUS, he has ALWAYS blamed everyone and everybody when things go wrong but when things go right, he always takes the credit.........that has been his mantra in his presidency.
on March 1,2013 | 03:33PM
jussayin wrote:
Same story as the past several years. A divided Congress. Obama is unable to cross the aisle and reach agreements on policies. Doesn't help that Obama continues in a campaign mode which always blames the republicans. Sure way to keep the division. Republicans should go more towards the center but won't because of Obama's attacks. Want to expect? Obama to highlight the impact of the forced spending cuts and blame that on the republicans. Very predictable.
on March 1,2013 | 03:34PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
These cuts in discretionary spending is like throwing a cup of water on a burning building. The only way to tackle the debt/deficit spending is to cut entitlement programs.....medicare, medicaid and SS. And neither party wants to tackle that one.
on March 1,2013 | 04:17PM
HD36 wrote:
Obama doesn't comprehend the concept of debt ceiling, credit limit, budget deficit, national debt, or sound money. He's going to learn real soon when America reaches its credit limit: the point at which nobody will lend any more money to the United States. When that point is reached, it will be too late to stop. Just like the collapse of 2008, it's going to happen very fast but the magnitude of the bond bubble collapse and the dollar collapse will make that one look like a picnic.
on March 1,2013 | 09:26PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News