The Sequester

[Seawytch]

The point of the BIPARTISAN sequester was to make it so unpalatable that Congress would have to work together. Well, the GOP , with their approval rating hovering at cockroach level, decided that nothing was more unpalatable than working with this President. (With his much higher approval rating...good plan)

 

[Seawytch]

I agree with you totally, great response! The budget cuts are a serious matter. FBI Agents will be furloughed, TSA will face layoffs, the Military will receive 20% paycuts, not to mention our fighter jets will be taken off line. For the one's that think it's just Obama playing scare tactics are not listening with their ears. Regardless of what side of the fence we are on this sequestor cannot happen.

I've spoken to friends of mine, civilian contractors, who have had planned projects with the military, put on hold already due to this.

 

[emptystep]

You can direct your anger towards the school board. Evidently, you haven't come to your senses.

"What happened instead was that Measure A led to a debt so large and long lasting that it mortgaged the future of their children's children.

With no public discussion, the school board had hired George K. Baum & Co. and its staff of political strategists to help push the measure through so the district could continue an ambitious building spree.

After the election, the board allowed the bank to sell some of the costliest bonds ever issued by a California public agency. Just one $22 million borrowing from 2011 will cost taxpayers nearly 13 times that amount – $280 million – to repay."

The fliers touted new ballfields, science labs and modern classrooms. They didn't mention the crushing debt or the investment bank that stood to make millions.

First sentence. How many sentences would you like me to cut-n-paste? Or you could have just read the article before you pasted the link. Any, oh yes, blame the school board. The banks were simply doing their jobs. **** republicans.

Yes, it was the school board's fault. They should have had the foresight to get the best deal that they could for the taxpayers who put them there to represent their best interests. Falls squarely on their backs. I sure as hell wouldn't have made a deal with a bank to screw the taxpayers in 30 years.

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified is hardly alone. Bankers from Stone & Youngberg, Piper Jaffray and other firms have traveled all over California in recent years, pushing capital appreciation bonds as a tool to vault over legal debt limits. Hundreds of school districts, including 14 in Orange County, signed up.

But Baum's deals stand out. According to an analysis of data from the state treasurer's office, Baum has issued more than 60 capital appreciation bonds for California school districts since 2007, including the single most expensive such loan. That debt – $283,612 borrowed by San Bernardino County's Rim of the World – will cost future taxpayers 23 times the principal.

Compare that with a 30-year home mortgage with a 5 percent interest rate, which requires payments of about twice the amount borrowed.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

First sentence. How many sentences would you like me to cut-n-paste? Or you could have just read the article before you pasted the link. Any, oh yes, blame the school board. The banks were simply doing their jobs. **** republicans.

Yes, it was the school board's fault. They should have had the foresight to get the best deal that they could for the taxpayers who put them there to represent their best interests. Falls squarely on their backs. I sure as hell wouldn't have made a deal with a bank to screw the taxpayers in 30 years.

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified is hardly alone. Bankers from Stone & Youngberg, Piper Jaffray and other firms have traveled all over California in recent years, pushing capital appreciation bonds as a tool to vault over legal debt limits. Hundreds of school districts, including 14 in Orange County, signed up.

But Baum's deals stand out. According to an analysis of data from the state treasurer's office, Baum has issued more than 60 capital appreciation bonds for California school districts since 2007, including the single most expensive such loan. That debt – $283,612 borrowed by San Bernardino County's Rim of the World – will cost future taxpayers 23 times the principal.

Compare that with a 30-year home mortgage with a 5 percent interest rate, which requires payments of about twice the amount borrowed.

.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Erand7899]

Republican's golden past.

Carl E. Van Horn, Herbert A. Schaffner Work in America: An Encyclopedia of History, Policy, and Society ABC-CLIO (2003)

The KKK was formed by democrats, Robert Byrd was a democrat, George Wallace was a democrat, Bull Conner was a democrat.

Lincoln was a republican.

The democrat party is the party of racism, always has been.

Funny all those Democrats are now Republican with the same racist views.
Is this really news to you?

That is pure fiction created by the Democrat party for the Democrat party. The fact that you obviously believe it, is indicative of a lack of knowledge of American history.

First, racism did not just exist in the Southern states, and all Southerners were not racist. Some racists existed in the Republican party, and a few racist Democrats did switch parties. However, the vast majority of racist Democrats remained with the Democrat party, and still do so today.

During the years of Jim Crow laws, the Southern states were controlled by Democrats, and the Republican party was virtually non-existant in those states. If you wanted to vote in local and state elections, you registered as a Democrat, because almost all state and local political races were settled in the Democrat primary. No opponents from any other party.

When the back of this Democrat fiefdom was busted by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Republican party began fielding candidates for state and local offices. The people who were already inclined to the Republican position, switched to Republican, and the Southern states once more had a two party system. It had nothing to do with all the racists switching parties.

 

[Political Junky]

The KKK was formed by democrats, Robert Byrd was a democrat, George Wallace was a democrat, Bull Conner was a democrat.

Lincoln was a republican.

The democrat party is the party of racism, always has been.

Funny all those Democrats are now Republican with the same racist views.
Is this really news to you?

Wrong. They never changed their party affiliation. That's one of the many lies left-wingers tell to salve their bruised egos.

Do you deny that the once Democratic South, which was racist, is now Republican and still racist? I grew up there and know folks there who vote republican and are definitely racist.

 

[Erand7899]

I agree with you totally, great response! The budget cuts are a serious matter. FBI Agents will be furloughed, TSA will face layoffs, the Military will receive 20% paycuts, not to mention our fighter jets will be taken off line. For the one's that think it's just Obama playing scare tactics are not listening with their ears. Regardless of what side of the fence we are on this sequestor cannot happen.

Every Department of government will have more funds than they were authorized to spend last year. The $87 Billion in cuts are only cuts in the increases that they got this year. The sky will not fall. The Department of Defense is getting hit the hardest, and that ought to make all you liberal/socialists happy.

 

[healthmyths]

Whose sequester? Obama's!!!

In the debate, Obama said he didn’t propose sequestration, Congress did. (We asked the White House for comment, but didn't hear back.)

To determine the question of ownership, we turned to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.

Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House. But the intention was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect.
The White House crafted the sequester during the summer 2011 battle over government spending that almost saw the country default on its debt payments for the first time in its history.
Woodward summarizes the thoughts of the Obama team: "There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense." Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want to see their favorite domestic programs cut.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

AND NOW TODAY what does Obama say: He blamed the current stalemate on "partisan recklessness and ideological rigidity."

Read more: Obama pins blame on Republicans for looming cuts, as fiscal hawk warns of 'failed presidency' | Fox News

 

[Lakhota]

I believe Politifact has been proven wrong by John Boehner.

 

[Dante]

DUPE THREAD
dupe thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

 

[healthmyths]

I believe Politifact has been proven wrong by John Boehner.

OH... prove it!

Because Politifact quoting..
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome,said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense.

What the president said is not correct," Woodward told POLITICO. "He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him."

All Boehner did was follow Obama's lead and passed the resolution..
In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.)
In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

But Obama is once again getting a pass by the MSM and who is getting the blame for something Obama's WH suggested first???

 

[Lakhota]

Did you also believe this...

PolitiFact | Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign ad on Jeeps ...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The point of the BIPARTISAN sequester was to make it so unpalatable that Congress would have to work together. Well, the GOP , with their approval rating hovering at cockroach level, decided that nothing was more unpalatable than working with this President. (With his much higher approval rating...good plan)

By cutting 0.02% of the net yearly expenditures of the federal government?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are grossly misinformed.
Obama just took $800B from the economy in a tax increase. And that's supposed to benefit everyone. But a cut in gov't spending of 400B is going to plunge us into recession and abyss.
Hello?
Are you paying attention? You've been had.

This is a stupid statement.

Guess where the lion's share of the deficit is "borrowed" from? American citizens. Guess who pays it back? American citizens. Guess who gets the money when it is repaid? American citizens.

As long as you consider governance and monetary policy as being equivalent to business operations, you will remain clueless and ignorant.

The debt MUST be increased to reflect increased asset value of the goods produced in the economy. Debt creation is the way our system uses to create new money. I can't believe you people still don't get that concept.

What will happen if we reduce the money supply when the economy continues to expand? Any ideas?

Here's the problem....It NEVER will be "repaid" to the owners...That would be US..
Here's the difference between a private sector business and the federal government. First the only similarity. Both will go into debt to function.
Here's the differences.
A private sector business MUST pay back the creditor. In case of default, the business either declares bankruptcy so that it may restructure the debt with the promise that creditors will be paid back under different terms. Or the business fails, assets are liquidated to pay back the creditors. One thing is common. Those who lent money MUST be repaid.
The federal government borrows money and NEVER repays the debt. It simply prints more currency to cover the debt. Now, a side note. You mentioned "increasing the supply of money"...By believing this is a good thing, you show your ignorance. By creating more currency( increasing the supply of money) the value of said currency falls. Basic supply and demand. Money is a commodity. Increase the supply and the value of the commodity falls. Check the currency markets. Since QE III was enacted, which triggered the need to print more currency, the value of the US Dollar has decreased vs other major currencies( except the Euro...and that is another story for another thread on incompetence) hence the reason why oil, gasoline and yes even natural gas have been increasing. Have you noticed the pump prices over the last few weeks? Since one week before Christmas, gasoline at the retail level is up over 60 cents. 6 months ago Natural gas was under $3 per 1k cuft. Now it's up around $3.50...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny all those Democrats are now Republican with the same racist views.
Is this really news to you?

Wrong. They never changed their party affiliation. That's one of the many lies left-wingers tell to salve their bruised egos.

Do you deny that the once Democratic South, which was racist, is now Republican and still racist? I grew up there and know folks there who vote republican and are definitely racist.

You must have lived in some little hick town with dusty streets and a Co-Cola machine.
Look pal, the race card is DEAD. Its use is no longer accepted.

 

[asaratis]

Whose sequester? Obama's!!!

In the debate, Obama said he didn’t propose sequestration, Congress did. (We asked the White House for comment, but didn't hear back.)

To determine the question of ownership, we turned to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.

Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House. But the intention was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect.
The White House crafted the sequester during the summer 2011 battle over government spending that almost saw the country default on its debt payments for the first time in its history.
Woodward summarizes the thoughts of the Obama team: "There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense." Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want to see their favorite domestic programs cut.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says Congress owns sequestration cuts

AND NOW TODAY what does Obama say: He blamed the current stalemate on "partisan recklessness and ideological rigidity."

Read more: Obama pins blame on Republicans for looming cuts, as fiscal hawk warns of 'failed presidency' | Fox News

You can post all the proof there is regarding the FACT that Obama crafted the whole scene and our in-house Obamabots will counter with their usual "liar, liar, pants on fire".

You mustn't forget, we're dealing with mental midgets who've been drinking the liberal Kool-Aide since birth and cannot be convinced of the truth regarding any sort of blemish on their dear leader.

Liberalism is a mental disorder...and liberals have been breeding for centuries, procreating their misguided principles and socialist agenda despite historical records showing that socialism fails to deliver the utopia it falsely advertises.

 

[Darkwind]

I'd like to know the exact amount of 'cuts' that will happen when this hits.

A 'Cut' is NOT a reduction in growth.

An example. I have 10 dollars for this week. I had planned on having 15 dollars for next week, but because I need to watch what I spend, I only have 12.

THAT IS NOT A CUT!!!!

If I have 10 dollars for this week, and next week I only budget 8, THAT IS A CUT!


So, if someone would be so kind as to tell Me exactly how much money is being CUT??

 

[edthecynic]

I believe Politifact has been proven wrong by John Boehner.

OH... prove it!

Because Politifact quoting..
"While both parties are culpable for sequestration because the Budget Control Act passed Congress, the president proposed it originally and ultimately owns its outcome,said Mackenzie Eaglen, an expert on defense.

What the president said is not correct," Woodward told POLITICO. "He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him."

All Boehner did was follow Obama's lead and passed the resolution..
In the House, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for the law, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 269-161.)
In the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it, while 19 Republicans and 6 Democrats opposed it. (Final tally: Passed 74-26)

But Obama is once again getting a pass by the MSM and who is getting the blame for something Obama's WH suggested first???

Wrong yet again!

Your own OP admits the sequester was brought up in the Summer of 2011. When the negotiations between Boner and Obama broke down on July 22, 2011, Boner posted his sequester proposal on his own website July 25, 2011 as part of a "two step approach to hold Obama accountable." Obama then offered to follow it as an olive branch to Boner to restart negotiations.

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.
John Boehner, July 25, 2011

 

[francoHFW]

OP- If he did, it was just to get out of the disgraceful Debt Ceiling crisis. NOBODY can believe what stupid a-holes Pubs are, or how dumb you dupes are...

 

[francoHFW]

Brainwashed I mean lol...