Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Washington - Obama Calls Spending Cuts Dumb, Arbitrary

Published on: March 1, 2013 12:06 PM
By: AP
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
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)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.”

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.

Advertisement:

“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.


More of today's headlines

Newark, NJ - Two New Jersey men were formally charged Friday in a series of firebomb attacks on synagogues across northern New Jersey. A grand jury in Hackensack... Washington - House Speaker John Boehner says higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess. Boehner emerged from a White House meeting...

 

You can now automatically hide comments - New!

Don't worry, you can always display comments when you need to.

Total18

Read Comments (18)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Mar 01, 2013 at 12:10 PM yossele Says:

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

2

 Mar 01, 2013 at 12:26 PM MaverickThinker Says:

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.

3

 Mar 01, 2013 at 12:47 PM Kzler Says:

Reply to #2  
MaverickThinker Says:

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.

First have a nice shabbos and I hope you have a direct input to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Reid and they follow your logical, reasonable and practical suggestion. Very well said

4

 Mar 01, 2013 at 01:11 PM nyker Says:

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.

5

 Mar 01, 2013 at 01:20 PM Anon Ibid Opcit Says:

Reply to #1  
yossele Says:

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

Absolutely clean according to the 12 years of tax returns he made public plus the new one every year. And since his assets are in a blind trust for the duration of his term in office the opportunities for Romney-esque theft, fraud and deception are minimal.

6

 Mar 01, 2013 at 01:40 PM Grumpy Says:

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

7

 Mar 01, 2013 at 02:09 PM ItsMyOpinion Says:

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!!!

8

 Mar 01, 2013 at 02:12 PM Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov Says:

Reply to #2  
MaverickThinker Says:

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.

First of all, let's not forget that the sequester was Obama's own suggestion. The irony of him railing against his own solution to another manufactured crisis is quite fun.

Back to your comment, you're correct in saying that both parties bear responsibility for our financial place and both need to take a fundamentally different position than they've heretofore taken. Both parties need to realize that government, in its current form, has a negative impact on the economy. If you've taken a macroeconomics course, you've probably learned that taxation results in deadweight loss to the overall marketplace. Systems with deadweight loss are definitionally underperforming. If we want new, better-paying jobs in this economy, we need to help the economy get back closer to equilibrium. To do this, we need to shrink government and do away with policies which hold our economy back.

As far as Social Security, the way things currently stand, it is conceivable that most people receive less in benefits than they pay in premiums. This is the definition of a tax. We would be much better off if Social Security were to be completely privatized for people up to a certain age. To be continued...

9

 Mar 01, 2013 at 02:21 PM Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov Says:

... 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!

10

 Mar 01, 2013 at 02:30 PM charliehall Says:

Reply to #8  
Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov Says:

First of all, let's not forget that the sequester was Obama's own suggestion. The irony of him railing against his own solution to another manufactured crisis is quite fun.

Back to your comment, you're correct in saying that both parties bear responsibility for our financial place and both need to take a fundamentally different position than they've heretofore taken. Both parties need to realize that government, in its current form, has a negative impact on the economy. If you've taken a macroeconomics course, you've probably learned that taxation results in deadweight loss to the overall marketplace. Systems with deadweight loss are definitionally underperforming. If we want new, better-paying jobs in this economy, we need to help the economy get back closer to equilibrium. To do this, we need to shrink government and do away with policies which hold our economy back.

As far as Social Security, the way things currently stand, it is conceivable that most people receive less in benefits than they pay in premiums. This is the definition of a tax. We would be much better off if Social Security were to be completely privatized for people up to a certain age. To be continued...

Actually, if you took a macroeconomics course, you would have learned that government spending is included in the gross national product, and that reductions in government spending can create unemployment and shrink the economy.

And I'm surprised that anyone is bringing up the idea of privatizing social security after what happened in the financial markets in 2008.

11

 Mar 01, 2013 at 02:19 PM Mark Levin Says:

Reply to #2  
MaverickThinker Says:

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.

You are right!!!

How about YOU show the way and give ALL money you make over 10k to the govt????? You don't need more. You can't spend all of it.

In simple English, you are a socialist!!

12

 Mar 02, 2013 at 07:03 PM Kzler Says:

Reply to #8  
Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov Says:

First of all, let's not forget that the sequester was Obama's own suggestion. The irony of him railing against his own solution to another manufactured crisis is quite fun.

Back to your comment, you're correct in saying that both parties bear responsibility for our financial place and both need to take a fundamentally different position than they've heretofore taken. Both parties need to realize that government, in its current form, has a negative impact on the economy. If you've taken a macroeconomics course, you've probably learned that taxation results in deadweight loss to the overall marketplace. Systems with deadweight loss are definitionally underperforming. If we want new, better-paying jobs in this economy, we need to help the economy get back closer to equilibrium. To do this, we need to shrink government and do away with policies which hold our economy back.

As far as Social Security, the way things currently stand, it is conceivable that most people receive less in benefits than they pay in premiums. This is the definition of a tax. We would be much better off if Social Security were to be completely privatized for people up to a certain age. To be continued...

Your long diatribe lacks knowledge. Any person who is covered under SS and has 40 qtrs. of coverage is entitled to retirement benefits, disability benefits, and if married his wife is entitled to widow's benefits and if chas vesholom he has a disabled child the child will receive disability benefits. You prove to me who will sell all that coverage for the same as you get under SS. The phony war against SS has been conducted by omitting all those benefits

13

 Mar 02, 2013 at 07:05 PM Kzler Says:

Reply to #11  
Mark Levin Says:

You are right!!!

How about YOU show the way and give ALL money you make over 10k to the govt????? You don't need more. You can't spend all of it.

In simple English, you are a socialist!!

You need a purification of your gray matter and someone explain to you what socialism, fascism and pure lack of knowledge are.

14

 Mar 02, 2013 at 07:49 PM Shula Says:

Reply to #8  
Mordechai_Ben_Yaakov Says:

First of all, let's not forget that the sequester was Obama's own suggestion. The irony of him railing against his own solution to another manufactured crisis is quite fun.

Back to your comment, you're correct in saying that both parties bear responsibility for our financial place and both need to take a fundamentally different position than they've heretofore taken. Both parties need to realize that government, in its current form, has a negative impact on the economy. If you've taken a macroeconomics course, you've probably learned that taxation results in deadweight loss to the overall marketplace. Systems with deadweight loss are definitionally underperforming. If we want new, better-paying jobs in this economy, we need to help the economy get back closer to equilibrium. To do this, we need to shrink government and do away with policies which hold our economy back.

As far as Social Security, the way things currently stand, it is conceivable that most people receive less in benefits than they pay in premiums. This is the definition of a tax. We would be much better off if Social Security were to be completely privatized for people up to a certain age. To be continued...

Thank you for your coment and for pointing out that the "dumb" idea was Obama's to begin with and for your entire post. Mr Obama could have started the cuts by cutting his numerous vacation trips, not to mention Mrs. Obama's vacations that cost taxpayers a pretty penny in fuel and security, if nothing else. At least half the MANAGERS on Governement payroll should be let go. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, as any bureaucracy is simply a self-perpetuating moster. Those people who believe government should take care of them from cradle to grave make willing constituents for a Congress full of clowns who give them "largesse" in return for giving up their rights. Remember, Rome was once a republic too. Then it became an Empire because people wanted "bread and circuses."

15

 Mar 02, 2013 at 08:20 PM Chazzan Says:

Reply to #13  
Kzler Says:

You need a purification of your gray matter and someone explain to you what socialism, fascism and pure lack of knowledge are.

"Kzler"- I love all your comments on this page and plan to keep an eye out for your pseudonym when skimming through comments on other political articles.

My only question would be why you would think anyone who calls himself "Mark Levin" has any brains to begin with. While I might be able to understand why people listen to him for the entertainment value, anyone who actually thinks Levin has even a modicum of brains or knowledge is quite openly displaying his own lack of an actual functioning mind.

Btw I am solidly conservative on economic matters, but I do have a working brain of my own and am very aware of why the extremist opinions on both sides of the aisle are absolute lunacy.

16

 Mar 02, 2013 at 11:00 PM Chuna Says:

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

17

 Mar 03, 2013 at 07:27 AM Kzler Says:

Reply to #15  
Chazzan Says:

"Kzler"- I love all your comments on this page and plan to keep an eye out for your pseudonym when skimming through comments on other political articles.

My only question would be why you would think anyone who calls himself "Mark Levin" has any brains to begin with. While I might be able to understand why people listen to him for the entertainment value, anyone who actually thinks Levin has even a modicum of brains or knowledge is quite openly displaying his own lack of an actual functioning mind.

Btw I am solidly conservative on economic matters, but I do have a working brain of my own and am very aware of why the extremist opinions on both sides of the aisle are absolute lunacy.

If you are a conservative as you state you should know that the first working program of social security and health insurance was created and made into law by Otto Fuerst [Duke] von Bismarck as conservative as anyone of those posting on this website. Today Germany has the most solid economy in Europe and is exporting to this country BMW,Audis, Mercdes Benz all bought by Borsalino clad solidly conservative Jews. Everyone of these companies has a Union member on its Board of Directors. Our problem is you cannot export "financial wizard certificates". Maybe every solid conservative should read the bitter pill and will understand when a solid conservative named Paul Ryan, graduate of the University of Chicago wanted to preserve a facsimile or skeleton of Medicare for the Health Insurance industry

18

 Mar 03, 2013 at 07:30 AM Kzler Says:

Reply to #15  
Chazzan Says:

"Kzler"- I love all your comments on this page and plan to keep an eye out for your pseudonym when skimming through comments on other political articles.

My only question would be why you would think anyone who calls himself "Mark Levin" has any brains to begin with. While I might be able to understand why people listen to him for the entertainment value, anyone who actually thinks Levin has even a modicum of brains or knowledge is quite openly displaying his own lack of an actual functioning mind.

Btw I am solidly conservative on economic matters, but I do have a working brain of my own and am very aware of why the extremist opinions on both sides of the aisle are absolute lunacy.

It is ad nauseam to read his foul mouthed diatribes

19

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!