Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Political games and gains

March 13, 2013

The pending doomsday with locusts descending upon us as a result of the “Sequester” has become the talk of the land latel....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(28)

Steiner

Mar-13-13 7:52 AM

Vicki, you are confused. revenue increase ? if the rich gave everything to the govt it would not be enough. entitlements will sink us. we spent more on defense in the 60's.obama had hoped to use the sequester to sink the repub party. It is part of his chicago skills. I love the sequester, where is the doom or the end? If its not global warming, trans fats, obesity , tobacco, it must be the sequester !. The democarts are hooked on the dole. In erie county, Buffalo is 1/3rd population but 2/3rd county budget. that would be social services, welfare. Those helpless democrats. These are perpetual democrats, going to jails and cemeteries to prove their loyalty. lets have more sequester !

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 8:19 AM

Vicki..AGREE with most of the article.

We ALL are sick and tired of the Congress who just cannot seem to get it together to debate, amend and pass bills for the benefit of our country. Ha..did notice they were able to give themselves more vacation though.

"We need to find a balance. There must be a way to increase revenue while making intelligent spending cuts." Exactly. This is exactly what the White House has proposed and which some in Congress refuse to do. Some in our Congress though think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on those making more than $400,000 a year is enough of an increase in revenues, so that the rest must come from cuts. Cuts that will hurt our veterans, our seniors and even our children. It is a DISGRACE.

The President has proposed cuts to programs, including some cuts that many in his base (like me) disagree with. Yet he is willing to make cuts but he has refused to permit the entire burden to be placed on working people and senior

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 8:29 AM

There needs to be a balanced approach which will include cuts in spending....as well as INCREASES in revenues. (like closing tax loopholes) We all should DEMAND that they come together and find a compromise for the good of our Country.

Wished we could put them into a room, like the cardinals in Rome, and they cannot come out until they have a working plan for all of us.

Oh..NO CUTS to social security or Medicare...and YES the are entitlements...We put money into each our entire working lives.

As for National security...statement by James Clapper, Dir of National Intelligence..."In my considered judgment, as the nation's senior intelligence officer, sequestration jeopardizes our nation's safety and security, and this jeopardy will increase over time,"

Now that really scares me..especially with N. Korea..who is making me very nervous these days. We cannot take the risk of our entire security because our congress cannot do their job. Time they LISTEN to us, the PEOPLE

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-13-13 8:44 AM

The income tax rate went up, what happened to the cuts? Obama didn't want to make them, so he let the sequestration go into effect. Now he can blame those nasty Republicans for this coming mess. Great, he gets to go "Na,Na" at the other side of the aisle and Americans pay the price. Almost 9 million on permanent disability payments and shysters shilling daily for you to call and see if you "qualify" to get on the bandwagon. Motorized wheel chairs for the to fat and lazy to walk on their own paid for by medicare. "Not a dime of out of pocket expense" is the selling point. The country is collapsing under its own financial stupidity. But, why worry, after all the band played on as the ship sank. This is just the DC symphony. Isn't it a great tune?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FredoniaFred

Mar-13-13 8:47 AM

Last week, economist Thomas Sowell relayed in his weekly article a question he used to ask his students. "If there was a government agency who's only duties were to build statues of Benedict Arnold and give life saving medicines to sick children, where would budget cuts be made?" If you answered "cut medicines to sick children", you would be correct. If cuts were made to the statues, people may begin to ask why we built them in the first place, but by cutting where the most outrage will be directed, the agency will be able to get the cuts restored.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Mar-13-13 9:06 AM

Fix the darn tax code.

From the Tax Policy Center: 4,000 high-income households paid no federal taxes in 2011 – but their adjusted gross income was over $22 million for the year. For 6 who paid no federal tax, their income was over $202 million! Another 14,000 earned between $500k-$1M and paid no federal income tax.

So 18,000 multi-millionaire households paid less than my retired Mom and Dad. Fair?

Mind you, I voted for Romney, but I never got comfortable with him paying a federal tax rate 1/2 of mine on his tens of millions of income, especially the “carried interest” exception (taxed at just 15%) that goes to hedge fund owners.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 9:10 AM

MikeDavis..you know it only went up on those making more than $400,000. It was called..letting the Bush tax cuts for the very rich expire.

Have you read the President's plan? If you had, you would see the proposed cuts.

Hard to believe anyone disagrees that we need a balanced approach..ie cuts AND increases in revenues.

Guess the old myth that the poor are draining us all is actually working. Meanwhile, look at all the corporations who are making record profits..and yet pay NO taxes.

Who thinks that is a balanced approach?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Mar-13-13 10:15 AM

Vicki -- Welfare, whether is ADC or TANF, is paid to only 3% of our population -- a measly 3%. In fact, TANF is paid for only 60 months in a lifetime! To believe the poorest 3% is seriously impacting & hampering the remaining 97% be stupid beyond belief.

The same with food stamps: 15% receive them, which means 12% are working but are in jobs which don't pay enough to feed their families. Food stamps recipients are equally white, black & Latino, more rural than urban, more single moms than married. Should we penalize folks who are actively working, paying into SS & Medicare, albeit in minimum wage jobs?

With SS, every 1 recipient is being supported by 2.1 workers, not 1 out of 25 like welfare. Medicare & medicaid are so costly because of health care costs -- have everyone look at their current health insurance. Every year, they have to pay more & more out of pocket for the same/lower amt of services.

Next time, get some data proof points behind your thought

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-13-13 10:24 AM

I'm not disagreeing that we need a balanced approach Judeye, I am waiting to see the BALANCE, not the tax increases only. Obama took the cowards way out. Rather than make the cuts he let the sequestration do it...that way he gets the political coin because he can blame those darned republicans. Democrats are preparing a plan to get another trillion dollars in taxes and fees. Add this to the income taxes people will soon start paying courtesy of Obamacare and we can watch the next wave of foreclosures and bankruptcies of the working class. But you don't seem to understand that, which is the frustrating part. In the next year or two working people getting employer paid (even partially) health insurance have to claim that as regular income and pay tax on that also. How does that help the working class Judeye? I know it helps his staunch supporters, but exactly how does that help the working class?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Mar-13-13 10:48 AM

Maybe we should cut 20% of Congress' pay like they'll do to federal workers via furloughs - maybe that'll get 'em off the dime...

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GStephens

Mar-13-13 11:15 AM

Let me point out that our Government was founded on the premise "Taxation without Representation". Have we not return to why we rebelled against Great Britain... I think we have. All Three Levels of our Government are now so Politicized no one can do anything. Even the Most Well Intentioned elected official can't move in DC today. We the People spoke at the Local, State & National Level to keep the status quo. Why? It is time we the people clean house politically. We need a National Referendum to Limit the PAY of our Elected Officials. If they can’t balance the National Budget, their Wallets get hit FIRST not ours. Big Corporations & Wealthy alike PAY YOUR SHARE we the Middle Class have been doing it for to long. Help Us here at home, limit the Global Loan Program until we can balance our house first.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-13-13 11:18 AM

"Oh..NO CUTS to social security or Medicare...and YES the are entitlements" They are not entitlements. You paid all your life for them and pay even more if you use all parts of medicare.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 12:03 PM

MikeDavis..have you read the plan? I saw cuts in it. Some that I disagree with and will fight him on.

Dcronlg..in our County..even with a high level of poverty..only 2% are on cash assistance..and then only 1% are employable. Most of the other that get assistance, other than cash, are WORKING..many full time. They just make such low wages that they still qualify for help. And..why did I have to use FOIA to get this information? Hmm do you think it is because they might want us to think more people are on pa than actually are on? Or do they not want us to know most are working, but our wages are so low that they still need food stamps, heap, medicaid, etc just to get by.

American..EXACTLY...that is why ss and medicare are entitlements..we PAID for much of what we get.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-13-13 5:11 PM

Judeye-could you please post the cuts you speak of? How did you digest the budget(first one in 4 years)from the Harry Reid crowd so fast? Do you really think we need to fund the MA hospital study to the tune of 1.5 Million on why lesbians are obese but gay males are not? Do we need to really send 20 MILLION to Morocco to teach pottery making? How about the study using robotic squirrles interacting with rattle snakes? What about the funding for the talking urinal cakes to detect high levels of alcohol. I could go on forever with the spending BS Judeye. The problem once again is not revenue,it is spending!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-13-13 5:53 PM

Michigan " Actually the cakes offer a message that is short, sweet and entirely nonjudgmental: “Listen up. That’s right, I’m talking to you. Had a few drinks? Maybe a few too many?

“Then do yourself and everyone else a favor: Call a sober friend or a cab. Oh, and don’t forget to wash your hands.”

The cakes are about $21 each, last for about three months — and your federal tax dollars pay for them" What a waste and a joke. Only a far left liberal could think this one up.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 7:06 PM

Beach Grants, Environmental Protection Agency.....2012 Enacted: $10 million; 2013 Request: eliminated; Saved: $10 million Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, Health and Human Services

2012 Enacted: $265 million; 2013 Request: $88 million; Saved: $177 million

The program trains pediatricians who specifically work in the nation's freestanding children's hospitals.

Why cut?: The administration said it will no longer fund "indirect costs" associated with the program. "Indirect graduate medical education (IME) costs are not well-documented and studies indicate that they may be overstated,

Clean Automotive Technologies, EPA

2012 Enacted: $16 million; 2013 Request: eliminated; Saved: $16 million

The program has researched, developed and evaluated advanced vehicle engines that help increase fuel efficiency, reduce pollutant emissions and cut greenhouse gases.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 7:09 PM

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, EPA

2012 Enacted: $2.38 billion; 2013 Request: $2.03 billion; Saved: $359 million

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program, EPA

2012 Enacted: $30 million; 2013 Request: $15 million; Saved: $15 million

Helps states reduce emissions from diesel engines by replacing or retrofitting older diesel engines that pollute more than newer ones.

Health Care Services Grant Program, Department of Agriculture

2012 Enacted: $3 million; 2013 Request: eliminated; Saved: $3 million

The 2008 Farm Bill created this program to provide health needs to people living in the Delta region. It specifically develops health care services, health education programs and health care job training programs.

There are many more....street dot com

of course you can also go to the white house and see the actual proposal with CUTS IN IT

In fact, are there not $3 in cuts for every $1 in revenues?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-13-13 7:13 PM

joew..oh those are outrageous examples you cited. Oh yes we need to cut more..on waste things like that.

But really...just cuts and NO revenues? Would you run a business or even your own home like that? I know in our family when things were tight we did BOTH. We cut expenses..things we could cut and do the least harm. But we also increased our revenues...a second job, sell things, etc

cuts and revenues is clearly what we need. For one side to try to hold out..protecting the super rich...while children go hungry in our country..to me immoral and unjust.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Mar-14-13 9:17 AM

Agree with most of what you said Vicki. But Mike Davis, you seem to be unsure of the process. The President does not have the authority to decide where the cuts go, it is written in the law. They made it so bad because they thought it would force themselves to come to an agreement. This is shown by the fact that some republicans wanted to pass a law giving the President the sole authority to decide where the cuts go, to take the pressure off themselves. We need both increased revenues and cuts to crazy spending, including many in the military mentioned In Paul Christopher's article.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Mar-14-13 9:24 AM

Great job of presenting the facts, Judeye. It was reported that some congressmen who met with the President were surprised to find out about the cuts he made and proposed. Now why would our representatives be so misinformed?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Mar-14-13 5:03 PM

Cracks me up when people disagree with me..presenting FACTS not opinions.

Guess that says a lot...some just refuse to accept facts over what ever opinions that they might have heard...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-14-13 10:59 PM

Judeye your numbers are impressive indeed. So the cuts are at 3 dollars for every dollar of raised taxes? The total of your numbers was 580 million dollars. So the increased taxes are about 193.4 million according to that ratio. But the number is 600 Billion more in taxes. Over 1000 in new revenue per dollar in cuts. Yep, that's fair...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-15-13 12:10 AM

"But we also increased our revenues...a second job, sell things, etc " So maybe Obama and congress could all get new jobs. Impeachment works.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-15-13 6:33 AM

Judeye-outrageous examples they are and there are many more,too many without overloading the Observer server in fact. Tell me why this President needs to spend 7 BILIION on babysitting services. 7 billion would go a long way in keeping the White House tour office running and providing the educational benefits to Veterans as promised. Oh that's right,providing the babysitting services equals more votes.(AKA bribery)

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Mar-15-13 6:36 AM

Mike-that was genius like putting those numbers out on PI day.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 28 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web