Washington – Obama Calls Spending Cuts Dumb, Arbitrary

    18

    President Barack Obama speaks to reporters in the White House briefing room in Washington, Friday, March 1, 2013, following after meeting with congressional leaders regarding the automatic spending cuts. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)Washington – A combative President Barack Obama blamed Republican lawmakers Friday for failing to stop automatic spending cuts that were to begin kicking in later in the day, calling the cuts “dumb, arbitrary.”

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    Republicans said the fault was his, for insisting that increased taxes be part of the resolution.

    The president said the impact of the cuts won’t immediately be felt, but middle class families will begin to “have their lives disrupted in significant ways.” He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.

    “The pain, though, will be real,” Obama said.

    He said he still believed the cuts could be replaced but he wanted a deal that includes more tax revenue.

    “Let’s be clear: None of this is necessary,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “It’s happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. We shouldn’t be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things.”

    Obama met for less than an hour Friday morning with House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

    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.”

    On Thursday, two proposals aimed at blunting the blame over the cuts — one Democratic and the other Republican — were rejected in the Senate.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    18 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    yossele
    yossele
    11 years ago

    Can you imagine what this man’s personal finances must look like?

    MaverickThinker
    MaverickThinker
    11 years ago

    Both parties need to bend here. The Dems need to understand that the deficiat wasn’t created just yesterday, that baby boomers have contributed to the deficit by either insisting on spending or by acquiescing to it. So maybe we could raise Social Security and/or Medicare by a year or two for starters with a slow phase in.
    The Republicans need to understand that really wealthy people can’t spend it all but so fast and that estate taxes are about as painless a revenue tool as you can create.
    Or we could just pick one easily traceable commodity, maybe gasoline, and tax it at its source, and let added future costs trickle to all of society, and cut out tax preparation, tax planning, and tax collection costs altogether. And that would save a bunch.
    Have a nice Shabbos, everyone.

    nyker
    nyker
    11 years ago

    When your in debt thats the only thing to do. Stop taxing us so you can find a way to spend it. Enough spending money we dont have.

    Grumpy
    Grumpy
    11 years ago

    Obama blaming the republicans for something? When doesn’t he? His whole act is just getting tired.

    ItsMyOpinion
    ItsMyOpinion
    11 years ago

    I think spending cuts are necessary. I suggest that we start with Washington’s own. I am very sure that there is a lot of extra money that can be removed from the “pork” funds given to Congressmen and Senators. Overseas trips and excess abound in D.C. The elected officials are to blame for this. Now it is time to pay!!!

    Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov
    Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov
    11 years ago

    … Continued from before:

    If workers up to age 50 were able to invest the 12.4% of our income that we currently pay into social security, each of us would have more money at retirement time than if Social Security remained in its current form. Over the past 70 years, the stock market has averaged 12% annualized returns. So if a person making $50,000 per year were to invest 12.4% ($6,200) per year for 15 years, they will have just over $230,000 saved in their account. If they only used interest on that, it comes out to approx. $2,300 per month. Roughly what a current Social Security check looks like. If you take that with someone who is 30 and works for 35 years, that same person would have over $2.6M with monthly interest income of over $26,000. That’s a huge improvement over the current system and generally works for anyone planning to work for at least 15 more years.

    Plus, the best part of the privatized solution is the ability to bequeath the account upon death. Under the current system, there is a pittance of a death “benefit” paid to survivors.

    So, in summary, cut spending, revamp entitlement programs, stop the fantasy that government is the answer. Good Shabbos!

    Chuna
    Chuna
    11 years ago

    Not to sound racist, but isn’t this an example of the pot calling the kettle…?