Well, we now know what President Obama means by his plan to pursue a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction: First, you go after tax increases by way of higher tax rates; then, you pursue more tax increases, this time by way of closing loopholes. But no serious spending cuts are on the table. (Why would they be? After all, President Obama has declared that Washington does not have a spending problem; just a revenue problem...)
What do you expect? Obama keeps showing all the pain and suffering that cutting spending will cause. The Republican's haven't been able to show the pain and suffering the future tax payers will suffer. Have the Republicans put together the tragectory of entitlement spending? Have they shown how much payroll tax needs to increase to keep Medicare and SSI solvent? Have they even capitalized on how little the "tax on the Rich" is expected to bring in?
And he apparently hopes to maximize that pain (by refusing to go along with the Republicans' plan for prioritization), in order to try to rally a majority of Americans to his side. Sadly, "future" taxpayers do not tug at most people's heartstrings the way that current ones do. They remain nameless and faceless; so they have rather limited power to sway people's sentiments. It is a bit like current hostages versus future hostages: To negotiate with terrorists over current hostages is to create an atmosphere in which it becomes much more likely that more hostages will be taken in the future. But that does not do much to dampen the (understandable) desire to negotiate, in order to spare the lives of those whom we can immediately see...
Granny says, "Dat's right - ya can't have it both ways... Having Added Record $5.9T to Debt, Obama Claims He’s Cut Deficit $2.5T February 19, 2013 - President Barack Obama claimed today that since he has been president both parties have worked together to cut the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion—despite the fact that the national debt has increased $5.19 trillion during Obama’s presidency, which more than it increased under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined. See also: Obama: Sequester Will Furlough FBI, 'Let Criminals Go' February 19, 2013 – President Barack Obama warned that if the automatic cuts in the sequester take effect next week, criminals will go free, parents will lose day care and airport security will be compromised. Related: Republicans Would Rather Protect the Wealthy Than First Responders, Obama Says February 19, 2013 - President Barack Obama says his top priority -- the "north star" of his second-term -- is to do "everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs." And that means taking more tax money from wealthy Americans, on top of the higher tax rates that Congress went along with a few months ago.
There will be no spending cuts - Obama says "not my problem". He can't flush this country down the toilet fast enough.
I dont believe anything that Obama says concerning republicans. He is always using some group of people that is going to be effected in some way and saying that the repubs do not care about them. I would like to see this balanced plan that the dems have. I bet there is not a single significant cut to the budget. He again is trying to raise taxes on a group that is paying the bulk of the taxes. With 46% of households not paying any taxes, he is trying to get 1% to cover them. Maybe we should look at the tax breaks that are letting these people off the hook. At least 60% of the nontax payers have a job that supplies them with income but since it isn't that much the 1% that make the most money should just pay more. How is that a rational thought. And please don't tell me how the rich are getting richer. They have the money and everyone else wants it, and are using the government to get it. If you argue that point then just say you want socialism. Let the bashing begin because talking about these 46%, means that I hate the poor.
46% of the US taxpayers are poor? Or, is that the percent of the population needed to keep the Democrats in power? (two chickens in every pot, a car in every garage....)
Please note that the Department of Homeland Security had ALREADY released hundreds or even THOUSANDS of illegal immigrants well before the sequester. Obama is doing everything he can to maximize the "pain" to the american people. Does anyone really think he has our best interests at heart? Not a chance my friends. Obama is a flaming socialist wanting nothing more than to expand government power and RULE. I for one am glad the sequester is happening. If people PAY ATTENTION to how Obama is handling himself and his party it will do them damage. The democrats will apparently do everything they can to TEACH YOU A LESSON. Get in line or we will punish you. The same with the "cuts" to social security - the HAVE TO HAPPEN. We don't have the money people - haven't had it for decades, but politicians get re-elected on "credit".
Many people don't realize why government is having such turmoil in Congress over the budget. Obama himself stated that the deficit was not a big deal and it obviously shows that when he purposely spent over a trillion over the normal overspending for 4 consecutive years. The real issue here is the Social revenue collected from the tax payers and the money that is mandatory to be spent for retirees. In the past, revenue has always exceeded expenses and still continues to do so but now there is not that big of a surplus with the baby boomers coming into retirement. Government has been spending those surpluses on government activities which has been the driver of why government has gotten so big today. They were accustomed and dependent on those large surpluses with very little regard as to how it was going to pay back the social security treasury bonds. For example, in 2007 social security receipts were 888 billion and what was spent to retirees was 563 billion leaving a surplus of 325 billion. In 2010 social security receipts were 813 billion and what was paid out to retirees was 717 billion leaving a surplus of only 96 billion. That is 229 billion in reduced surpluses (cash) that they need to cover their bloated budget. If the government had never been allowed to borrow those social security surpluses, our taxes would be much higher today but politicians know that raising taxes doesn't get them votes. It is also important to realize that even though are "on budget" is always showing a deficit, the "off budget" is always showing a surplus.
