How sequestration will affect Ga. citizens, businesses
Because of required furloughs and spending reductions for TSA security agents, FAA air traffic controllers, customs agents and other personnel, flight delays of up to four hours are predicted at major airports such as Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.
——————————–
On Friday, March 1, federal spending cuts forced by sequestration will be implemented. The total amount of spending to be cut — $85 billion — is somewhat small, but its impact is magnified by three specific provisions of the sequestration law:
1.) Major budgetary areas such as Social Security, interest on the debt, the Department of Veterans Affairs and military pay are off-limits to cuts. Cuts in Medicare reimbursement are limited to 2 percent. That concentrates spending reductions to remaining portions of the budget.
2.) By law, federal agencies that do face sequestration do not have the ability to pick and choose which programs will be cut or by how much. All cuts must be across the board, by meat cleaver rather than scalpel.
3.) The law requires savings in the current fiscal year, which began in October 2012. Because the required cuts are not being implemented until March, they must be backloaded into the final months of fiscal 2013, compounding the impact. As a result, non-defense discretionary spending will be cut by 9 percent for the remainder of the fiscal year; defense spending will be cut by 13 percent.
As a result of the provisions outlined above, the consequences of the sequestration are relatively simple to project. Here is a sampling of the impact on Georgia, as outlined by the Office of Management and Budget:
Teachers and Schools: Georgia will lose approximately $28.6 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 390 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 54,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 80 fewer schools would receive funding.
– Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Georgia will lose approximately $17.5
million in funds for about 210 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.
Military Readiness: In Georgia, approximately 37,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $190.1 million in total.
– Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $233 million in Georgia.
– Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Georgia would be cut by about $5 million.
Vaccines for Children: In Georgia around 4,180 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $286,000.
———————————
Aviation is a major industry in Georgia. Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport boasts the busiest airport in the world, and many businesses are located in the metro Atlanta region because of easy access to Hartsfield. However, spending cuts required by sequestration will greatly reduce the efficiency of the national system. As the OMB reports:
Aviation – At the major gateway airports, average wait times could increase by 30-50 percent. At the nation’s busiest airports, like Newark, JFK, LAX, and Chicago O’Hare, peak wait times could grow to over 4 hours or more.
Aviation security – The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would reduce its front-line workforce, which would substantially increase passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints. TSA would need to initiate a hiring freeze for all transportation security officer positions in March, eliminate overtime and furlough its 50,000 officers for up to seven days.
Aviation safety – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would be forced to undergo a funding cut of more than $600 million. This action would force the FAA to undergo an immediate retrenchment of core functions by reducing operating costs and eliminating or reducing services to various segments of the flying community… The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians would require a reduction in air traffic to a level that could be safely managed by the remaining staff, resulting in slower air traffic in major cities, as well as delays and disruptions across the country during the critical summer travel season.
—————————————-
Other impacts, also as reported by OMB:
Small business assistance – Small Business Administration (SBA) loan guarantees would be cut by up to approximately $900 million, constraining financing needed by small businesses to maintain and expand their operations and create jobs.
Oil and gas permitting – Development of oil and gas on Federal lands and waters would slow down, due to cuts in programs at the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other agencies that plan for new projects, conduct environmental reviews, issue permits and inspect operations. Leasing of new federal lands for future development would also be delayed, with fewer resources available for agencies to prepare for and conduct lease sales.
Veterans services – Although the Department of Veterans Affairs is exempt from sequestration, the Department of Labor’s Veterans Transition Assistance Program, which serves over 150,000 veterans a year, would have to reduce operations – leaving thousands of transitioning veterans unserved as they move from active duty to civilian life. The Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program would also experience cuts, translating into a reduction in the capacity to serve tens of thousands of veterans in their efforts to find civilian employment.
Title I education funds – Title I education funds would be eliminated for more than 2,700 schools, cutting support for nearly 1.2 million disadvantaged students. This funding reduction would put the jobs of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides at risk. Students would lose access to individual instruction, after-school programs, and other interventions that help close achievement gaps.
Senior meals – Federally assisted programs like Meals on Wheels would be able to serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors. These meals contribute to the overall health and well-being of participating seniors, including those with chronic illnesses that are affected by diet, such as diabetes and heart disease, and frail seniors who are homebound. The meals can account for 50 percent or more of daily food for the majority of participants.
Mental health and substance abuse services – Cuts to the Mental Health Block Grant program would result in over 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children not receiving needed mental health services. This cut would likely lead to increased hospitalizations, involvement in the criminal justice system, and homelessness for these individuals. In addition, close to 8,900 homeless persons with serious mental illness would not get the vital outreach, treatment, housing, and support they need through the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) program.
FBI and other law enforcement – The FBI and other law enforcement entities would see a reduction in capacity equivalent to more than 1,000 federal agents. This loss of agents would significantly impact our ability to combat violent crime, pursue financial crimes, secure our borders, and protect national security.
Customs and border patrol – U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would not be able to maintain current staffing levels of border patrol agents and CBP officers as mandated by Congress. CBP would have to reduce its work hours by the equivalent of over 5,000 border patrol agents and the equivalent of over 2,750 CBP officers.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,346 comments Add your comment
williebkind
February 25th, 2013
9:59 am
“Williebkind
Who is King Obama?”
It is the POTUS who thinks he can make law without interference from that little pesky thing called the constitution.
williebkind
February 25th, 2013
10:00 am
The sequester will rid the country of approximately 800,000 federal workers. Now that is good.
Granny Godzilla
February 25th, 2013
10:01 am
Bemused
Deceit? Where?
DownInAlbany
February 25th, 2013
10:01 am
2.4%…2.4%! We are arguing over 2.4%! Do you want to avoid sequestration? Do you believe the federal government is a bloated, wasteland? If the President wants to show some leadership, why not call upon all federal entities to cut 3% from their budget? In the REAL world, it’s not unprecedented. Of course, we are talking about fairlyland (DC).
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:01 am
“Because the Republicans were stupid enough to believe Obama would actually get serious about spending cuts.”
I think “gullible” is the word. Obama is all talk. But his lies and hypocrisy are really starting to show at this point. We have a used car salesman in the Oval Office.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 25th, 2013
10:02 am
Obama is all talk. But his lies and hypocrisy are really starting to show at this point.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
We will be greeted as liberators.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:03 am
I love how everyone is laying blame on the President when we have an 11% approval rating do-nothing Congress. Obama is not your “King” you keep repeating. We have balanced government. I will be blaming the tea party when my food is compromised and I have to get to the airport 4 hours before a flight.
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:03 am
Recon
Pres Obama signed the legislation and the cuts are going thru as specified; therefore he was serious.
Bemused
You don’t have a clue what your sound bites mean, do you? LOL!!!
alex
February 25th, 2013
10:03 am
@ Paul, the sequestration cuts are non selective and a good approach to the overspending problem is SELECTIVE cutting, nobody is highly pleased with this for that reason! However, in general to begin reigning in govt. spending is good, very good. Using a “meat cleaver”, pass the paring knife…
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:04 am
indigo
Obama proposed it.
Republicans in the House voted for it.
Dems in the Senate voted for it.
Obama signed it into law.
Logic would tell you that dems shoulder 2/3’s of the blame.
There. Fixed your typo.
TaxPayer
February 25th, 2013
10:05 am
Karl Rove says don’t change a thing, cons. That “blame Obama for the spending cuts” is working great according to his latest unskewed polling data.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:05 am
This is not “good” when it’s going to end up costing more money later via job loss. These are horribly planned “cuts.”
TBS: Posting on weekends so PD can cry on Monday
February 25th, 2013
10:05 am
“It is the POTUS who thinks he can make law without interference from that little pesky thing called the constitution.”
What law was that? Obamacare? Guess you missed the SC decision.
He did make some appointments that he was slapped for, but he wasn’t “making law”.
Do you just regurgitate what you hear or actually research it before posting?
stands for decibels
February 25th, 2013
10:06 am
I must add, actual left wingers (as opposed to most elected “liberals”) have been right about virtually everything, not just throughout history’s various social upheavals (you’re welcome! no, really, it was nothing…), but with regard to our last decade-or-so’s economic progress, or lack thereof.
We are right about what spending cuts will do to the economy. We are right when we criticize our own vain Senators and President Middle-Man for being complete supine crap-for-brains in thinking that there is ANY value whatsoever in trying to co-opt the conservative meme by talking up “tightening our belts” and, essentially, accelerating deficit reduction for deficit-reduction’s sake.
I guess I could be a decent human being and try to forgive these “liberal” Villagers, elected and otherwise, for thinking that all the those highly paid consultants actually know what they’re doing, but it is very hard for me to do given that their mistakes have resulted, and will continue to result, in a collective anal rape of the American public.
(To put it nicely.)
/back later, maybe, but this subject pisses me off so much I might not be able to manage basic civility.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:06 am
49-31, Americans will blame Republicans for the sequester
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/22/wonkbook-49-31-americans-will-blame-republicans-for-the-sequester/
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:06 am
Alex
I’ve made the same case. Congress could amend legislation and do selective if they wanted.
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:06 am
Its really sad most Americans are not engaged in this ridiculous sequestration debate.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/woodward-pushes-back-wh-confusing-distorting-facts-157717.html
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:07 am
0311/8541,
I saw your post quoting then Sen. Obama. He gets elected and discovers he doesn’t know how to lead the country, so his cover is to be continually campaigning. Of course it did somehow get him reelected. The question is will he be able to continue dodging his responsibilities or will the country finally catch on.
Brosephus™ - Mobile and Multitasking
February 25th, 2013
10:07 am
Paul
My favorite is that some conservatives whine about Obama shredding the Constitution, yet they whine because he won’t do Congress’s job for them.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 25th, 2013
10:07 am
Well, the trailer’s paid for and people will always drink lots of beer, so I’m ready for these budget cuts. I call them that because I always thought sequestration was something the Gays done to one another when we ain’t looking.
Anybody besides me and the missus watch the Oscars last night? I sure hate the politics of Hollyood but I like the stuff they turn out. We go to the movies once in a while but it’s always to the theaters that have the wide seats because . . . well, we like to be comfortable and all.
I just wonder why there ain’t more creative Republicans in the movie business. Seems like about 99% of the Hollywood people support the librul Democrats. Maybe the Republicans took a right turn toward Idaho or Wyoming on the way out there.
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:08 am
“Deceit? Where?”
Do you believe someone like Woodward?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html
Do you not know that Obama last year threatened to veto a bill that would reduce the sequester cuts?
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120912/DEFREG02/309120006/White-House-Issues-Veto-Threat-Sequestration-Bill
Is your head in the sand?
Uh Huh.......Old email throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester."
February 25th, 2013
10:08 am
A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner’s Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. .
•Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across-the-board—and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts—IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T in deficit reduction.
•If this happens, POTUS may request up to $1.2T for a debt limit increase, and if granted, then across-the-board spending cuts would result that would equal the difference between $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.
•Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.
•Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.
•SEQUESTRATION process is designed to guarantee that Congress acts on the Joint Committee’s legislation to cut spending.
And that’s pretty much exactly what’s scheduled to start happening on March 1. Democrats could just as easily spin this as “Boehner’s Sequester” or “Cantor’s Sequester” and OFFER INDELIBLE DIGITAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM.
Vinny
February 25th, 2013
10:09 am
Jay — If obama elects to use this as an excuse to impose the most draconian cuts in order to hurt Americans, that’s his choice.
If he were smart, he would target waste, fraud, and inefficiency.
But your ’sort of a god’ obama is not smart. He wants to impose the most pain on America that he can for political purposes.
This is the OBAMA sequester.
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:09 am
Steve:
1-0 I blame obama and the dems.
But I’m actually for it because its a made up fairy tale….
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:09 am
Paul, do you recall him saying during I believe the final debate with Romney that sequester would not happen?
Erwin's cat
February 25th, 2013
10:09 am
lol..a meat cleaver analogy for a 2.5% cut…that’s rich!
a 4 hr wait at airport security check points?…more fear mongering or better..extortion by the TSA?
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:09 am
Brosephus
Just another contradiction they refuse to examine.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 25th, 2013
10:10 am
OH NOES! NOT THE BOB WOODWARD OP-ED PIECE!
I’m melting…melting…melting….
Robert
February 25th, 2013
10:10 am
Will Republican governors put pressure on the Congressional GOP to agree to new revenues?
Politico has a roundup of quotes from Republican governors, and some seem to be edging up ever so gingerly to the idea. They don’t say so in those terms, but many of them are urging all parties to come to the table to make a deal. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is urging lawmakers to figure out a way to avert the sequester, but as Politico notes, he no longer appears to be willing to blame only Obama for the current standoff.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
February 25th, 2013
10:10 am
oh, they’re getting sooo clever with their dog whistles –
arrogant = uppity
King Obama = a black man rules over yewww!
plantation = no explanation necessary
golf = this is fer the wwe/tractor-pull fanbase – see uppity
Checking in after the dictator gets another 4 years
February 25th, 2013
10:11 am
Will we ever get any leadership out of Obama. Leadership would be to me to get both sides of different opinions together and work out a deal.The problem appears to be that Obama, rather than be the leader of ALL America, is all wrapped up in a liberal mind set farther left, way farther, than the body of men/women elected from around the country to represent Americans. Thus, rather than lead and solve problems, He takes his ball and goes home and sulks.America has never seen a man in this office before.
Moderate Line
February 25th, 2013
10:12 am
Jay
February 25th, 2013
8:47 am
So judge for yourself who is being reasonable and is willing to compromise, and who is not.
+++
Both sides are being unreasonable.
1)We are talking about 2% of the budget.
2)A small tax increase was just passed. Do we really need to raise taxes to prevent a 2% cut?
3) It is ridicoulous to cut this in the middele of the year.
4) Obama wants it because he believes it will help him gain the Senate in 2014.
5) Republicans want it because the tea party does not care what the impacts are because they just want cuts. They don’t believe anything the government does is important.
Granny Godzilla
February 25th, 2013
10:12 am
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:08 am
Woodward messed up …
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/23/how_bob_woodward_s_book_debunks_his_big_washington_post_op_ed.html
The other is certainly true…now how is that deceit?
TaxPayer
February 25th, 2013
10:15 am
Swedish meatballs are made with horse meat! So that’s why I never could duplicate them.
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:15 am
I looked at the state by state White House list of cuts and there were only 51 states listed. I thought obama told us there were 57?
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:16 am
Recon
Sure. Even Republican congressmen were saying they wouldn’t be dumb enough to let it get to that.
Bemused
Many here say ‘of course the White House” originated the idea. What we laugh about is that all the pres did was SUGGEST and Republicans said ” Oh my! The pres suggested something! Hurry! Make it a law!! He suggests, we act!!!”
Pres said it would happen when Republicans wanted to renege.
kayaker 71
February 25th, 2013
10:16 am
Liberal plan….. moan and groan because those evil Republicans won’t give in, gather a number of first responders around you and tell a TV audience that their services will be drastically reduced, get the media on board so that you can look presidential with every statement, flip flop on the support for these budget cuts, then when the pain ratchets up, blame those evil Republicans for something that was your fault in the first place. Bozo wins again.
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:17 am
The federal gubmint spends $3.1 billion a day. And they can’t cut $85 billion? Shameless…
Doggone/GA
February 25th, 2013
10:17 am
“What deceit?”
Beat me to it!
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:17 am
Granny, we already know where you get your information and to think Woodward was once the darling of the far-left.
Uh Huh.......Old email throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester."
February 25th, 2013
10:18 am
@Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it)
February 25th, 2013
10:07 am
I just wonder why there ain’t more creative Republicans in the movie business. Seems like about 99% of the Hollywood people support the librul Democrats. Maybe the Republicans took a right turn toward Idaho or Wyoming on the way out there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CREATIVE REPUBLICANS?
heeheeheeheeheeheehee
“Creativity takes courage. ”
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:19 am
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:06 am
How many folks actually know or care what the sequester is? I recall a number like 27% or so. Also rasmussen reports 64% of folks think too many are too dependent on government.
Anyhow, we should make Obama decide what to cut. The problem of focus is that these cuts are indiscriminate.
Barack Obama wants to blame Republicans for the looming across-the-board spending cuts that will take effect this week. Well, here is a simple sequester solution for the GOP: Let Obama decide how to make the cuts.
“The problem with the sequester is not the amount of cuts it requires. Cuts of $85 billion this year is about 2 percent of our $3.5 trillion federal budget, or about nine days of federal spending. Even after the sequester, we will still spend about $15 billion more this year than we did in last year. The sequester does not actually “cut” spending — it simply slows its growth.”
Great Wash Post column I doubt most of you will read…it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-make-obama-decide-which-sequester-cuts/2013/02/25/26169d22-7ee2-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z3
Welcome to the Occupation
February 25th, 2013
10:20 am
Hey Jay I think your forum here attracts a particular sort of right wing participant. I have never heard a single one of them ever concede something. It’s kind of interesting, really. What does that say about them? They NEVER offer the slightest concession. EVER. For example, starting an argument with a gracious “you’re right about X, but here’s where you’re wrong….”. Do you notice that they NEVER do that?
Perhaps so-called ‘conservative’ ideology is a manifestly inferior way to be?
Or maybe these people are just uncultured rubes. Dunno.
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:20 am
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:17 am
Nine days of financing our government.
Granny Godzilla
February 25th, 2013
10:21 am
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:17 am
Granny, we already know where you get your information and to think Woodward was once the darling of the far-left.
.
.
.
WHen you can disprove the source you just let us know?
Kthxbye.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 25th, 2013
10:21 am
Granny, we already know where you get your information …
Granny, I gotta go with Del on that one. You need to sole source your news to one of the following: Fox Unskewed, Brietbart Completely Unscrewed or Drudge. Then you can have “informed opinions” telling us how the real polls show Obama losing.
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:21 am
Paul,
I think before Friday they’ll come up with a way to kick this can further down the road , although I don’t think there’s that much road left.
TBS: Posting on weekends so PD can cry on Monday
February 25th, 2013
10:21 am
“Great Wash Post column I doubt most of you will read…it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear..”
Sort of like the dreaded NY Times you love to cry about
just saying
Brosephus™ - Mobile and Multitasking
February 25th, 2013
10:22 am
EC
You should spend a day with TSA officers to see how warm and kind the public treats them. Then consider how much kinder and warmer the instant gratification -public will treat them
Granny Godzilla
February 25th, 2013
10:22 am
Keeps
I did earlier for that “commonsense” person but alas to no avail.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:22 am
Again, if we have a Congress that is going to be opposed to everything Obama does, nothing is going to get accomplished. I don’t care if Obama was Jesus Christ himself – this Congress has gots ta go.
Uh Huh.......Old email throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester."
February 25th, 2013
10:22 am
@Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:15 am
I thought obama told us there were 57?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that the best YOU GOT?
‘WE” thought BUSH told us there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
At least OBAMA did not CREATE a war on A MADE UP LIE.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:23 am
Outside of the lunatic fringe in this forum, Americans (who have half a brain) are going to blame Congress for this.
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:23 am
Granny, as Woodward has said, sequestration was Obama’s creation. Nothing to disprove.
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:25 am
Welcome to the Occupation
February 25th, 2013
10:20 am
What concession are you looking for? Or better yet, what do you feel that should be conceded by the crooks on the right?
Is it the idea that we can’t afford to cut 2 cents for every dollar we spend…..80 cents borrowed of course.
These cuts can easily be absorbed just focusing on the fat….BO is playing hysterics as a political game of chicken..
Welcome to the Occupation
February 25th, 2013
10:25 am
Checking in after the dictator gets another 4 years: “The problem appears to be that Obama, rather than be the leader of ALL America, is all wrapped up in a liberal mind set farther left”
If you think that Barack Obama, who is essentially center-right-leaning, is “far left” in any way, shape or form, then you show only your own idiocy.
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
February 25th, 2013
10:26 am
Americans (who have half a brain) are going to blame Congress for this.
Americans with a full brain, will blame President “I won” for this.
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:26 am
The Editorial Board of The New York Times states in Defense and the Sequester:
After 9/11, the Pentagon was handed a virtual blank check and its base budget soared from $397 billion in 2001 to $557 billion in 2013. Spending is expected to decline in real terms this year, but after that it will rise slightly, even if the sequester takes effect, experts say. By some calculations, President Obama will still spend more on defense than most postwar presidents. The Pentagon needs to focus on shaping the force for new threats. Now that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ending, it also needs to make reforms and rein in spending.
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:26 am
“Many here say ‘of course the White House” originated the idea.”
Really? Is that what you were saying the day after Obama publicly said the sequestration was NOT his idea but Congress’? Or is that what you say now, to deflect criticism and maintain your blind devotion to a politician?
“What we laugh about is that all the pres did was SUGGEST and Republicans said ” Oh my! The pres suggested something! Hurry! Make it a law!! He suggests, we act!!!”
ROFL. All by their lonesome? Did they hypnotize Reid and the Democratic Senate? Did Obama choose not to veto his “suggestion”?
Reload. You are out of bullets.
TBS: Posting on weekends so PD can cry on Monday
February 25th, 2013
10:26 am
Stevie
Article wasn’t bad. It certainly was liked by you because it meets your narrative, however it was alright if a bit simplistic.
indigo
February 25th, 2013
10:27 am
tevie ray – 9:52
Are you saying my hero conned your idols?
Steve
February 25th, 2013
10:27 am
Those same Americans with a “full brain” who declared loudly on these forums that Romney was going to sink Obama in the election?
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:27 am
TBS: Posting on weekends so PD can cry on Monday
February 25th, 2013
10:21 am
Fair except I do read many of the opinion columns in NYT…excepting the ones that have no independent thought and simply regurgitate WH talking points…I should tell you that I did go back an find some right sided arguments..of course I disagreed with many of them too:-)
Erwin's cat
February 25th, 2013
10:27 am
Bro – I must be one of the few polite ones to the TSAer’s. I know, I certainly don’t wanna tick them off…could make for a long day…but a 4hr wait to get thru security won’t happen more than once if ever…If it gets in the way of commerce it’ll get fixed in a hurry
St Simons - he-ne-ha
February 25th, 2013
10:30 am
Dangerous Beach Game – Exposed
me & mrsstsimons sat down on YOUR favorite golden isles beach
yestiddy, and decided we weren’t leaving until we spotted JUST ONE
local Teapublican that wasn’t on some gubmint program assistance.
This proved to be too dangerous, for we are both burnt to a crisp
and dehydrated from exposure. She’s at the hospital
(because she works there)
but it sounded dramatic didn’t it?
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:30 am
“Woodward messed up …”
Or perhaps you did by appealing to a silly Slate editorial. Obama stated publicly that sequestration was NOT his idea, but Congress’. THAT was a lie.
TBS: Posting on weekends so PD can cry on Monday
February 25th, 2013
10:30 am
Stevie
Not too hard to find right leaning arguments when they employ right leaning Op Ed writers, just like most major papers. And of course they all have the left leaning arguments as well.
I just mess with you because you seem to get worked up about the NY Times. I don’t even read it that often to be honest.
stands for decibels
February 25th, 2013
10:31 am
Next to that Slate piece Granny linked @ 10.12, about what a WATB Woodward is being these days, is a link to an article entitled “What are the chances humans could go extinct?”
In light of what I’m reading…I guess I don’t see why anyone should especially care about the answer to that question.
Let the friggin’ cockroaches become the planet’s caretakers, if Bob Woodward is the best we manage to do as a species, I say.
(here’s a follow-up to provide even more ammo to those of us rational folks who know a WATB Villager when we see a WATB Villager. last graf quoted below.)
Again: Everyone in Washington is trying to change the terms of the agreement. That’s why the agreement was designed to be such a rough beast. It’s true, the Budget Control Act specifies that a “joint committee” has to come up with cuts, but it also says that in a failure to do so “the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.” But in 2012, Republicans passed a “sequester replacement” bill that altered the spending limits, turning all the cuts to defense spending into cuts to non-defense discretionary spending. Right now Senate Democrats have a sequestration fix that would replace the cuts with a combination of cuts and tax increases. You could say that both parties are “shifting the goalposts,” but that would be strange. You could accuse the White House, alone, of shifting the goalposts, but that would be even stranger, because they’ve been talking about a fix that would raise revenues since before sequestration even passed.
Welcome to the Occupation
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
Stevie Ray: “What concession are you looking for? Or better yet, what do you feel that should be conceded by the crooks on the right?”
Paradoxically, I kind of would “look for” them to be ruthless in a minimally sane way, such as for example to actually call Barack Obama’s bluff and let him do what he obviously desperately wants to do and start cutting into Social Security, thereby cutting his own throat. This could have happened during the previous showdown, for example.
The bizarre thing here is that the GOP is actually giving Obama a huge pass, not realizing what a huge trap has been set for Obama, which he’s shown again and again that he’s perfectly willing to walk into for just the minutest token concessions from the opposition (minimal revenue).
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
INDIGO
Really? Can anyone possibly bestow hero status to the likes of that pink man Boner, Limbaugh, or any number of the GOP who make decisions based on mystical/imaginary friends?
I have a few heros. My favortie political hero for many years is named Bullworth. He crystalizes my views on all things politic.
I don’t see anyone getting schooled….it doesn’t matter who’s fault or who wins..it matters that by any measure, we are fiscally devastated and its getting worse. We are creating warfare over 2% of a swelling budget number that will only sifle costs and not cut. While our politicians mire in the twigs, a look at 60k feet suggests a very depressing overview.
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
Recon
I think the cuts will go through. We may see a better discussion on where to make future cuts. I’d imagine many will rethink the idea of concentrating on low and middle class and exempting Defense.
Granny Godzilla
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
Recon 0311 2533
February 25th, 2013
10:23 am
Granny, as Woodward has said, sequestration was Obama’s creation. Nothing to disprove.
.
.
.
.
So you missed Woodwards error in the OP Ed too?
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
“OH NOES! NOT THE BOB WOODWARD OP-ED PIECE! I’m melting…melting…melting….”
Wow. The word “melting” is now slang for “deflecting”? You da man, cuz.
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:34 am
Steve
Again, if we have a Congress that is going to be opposed to everything Obama does, nothing is going to get accomplished. I don’t care if Obama was Jesus Christ himself – this Congress has gots ta go.
Sequestration was bipartisan. obama proposed it and the House(Republican) and Senate(dem) passed it.
ITS STILL ALL BUSH'S FAULT
February 25th, 2013
10:34 am
CONS, your attempts to destabilize your own government is very childish and unfortunate, you are cementing your place in history . # 1 LOSERS…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 25th, 2013
10:35 am
Wow. The word “melting” is now slang for “deflecting”?
Person with multiple sock-puppets on this thread says, “What?”
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:35 am
Steve
Those same Americans with a “full brain” who declared loudly on these forums that Romney was going to sink Obama in the election?
I will admit admit I totally misjudged just how stupid the American people are.
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:36 am
“Let the friggin’ cockroaches become the planet’s caretakers, if Bob Woodward is the best we manage to do as a species, I say.”
ROFL. Must be hitting a nerve. My guess is that liberals like you were not singing that tune back in the 70s. Liberals cannot suffer the truth if it does not comport with their worldview or beliefs.
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:36 am
Welcome to the Occupation
February 25th, 2013
10:33 am
I couldn’t agree more. Too bad it’s simply a political game. How else can we look at the furor over even slowing spending by 2 cents on the dollar?
GOP’s only real sane response is to call his bluff. Be great theatre…
ODDS REMAIN:
Kick the Can: 25:1
Sequester: 2:5
F. Sinkwich
February 25th, 2013
10:36 am
“Americans (who have half a brain) are going to blame Congress for this.”
The mushroom gun is a smoking cloud. **
** KammieSpam. All rights reserved.
Jefferson
February 25th, 2013
10:36 am
If the GOP got the gov’t they were willing to pay for and the D’s got the gov’t they would would be willing to pay the GOP would wonder why they have to drive on bad roads, wait for gov’t services, have to pay privates schools to teach their kids, drink bottled water, breath bad air… what would that do to their party of “NO”, “STUPID”, and “GREEDY”.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 25th, 2013
10:37 am
I will admit admit I totally misjudged just how stupid the American people are.
With the Oscar in that category going to the ones that continually asserted that “even Elmer Fudd could defeat Obama.”
Redcoat
February 25th, 2013
10:37 am
Didn’t Obama sign the bill?……I think he wants this “manufactured crisis”……but we all know who will be out front taking credit when the economy, on it’s own, starts picking up…..this is getting old from all these politicians…..
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:37 am
“Person with multiple sock-puppets on this thread says, “What? [sic]”
Person with 800 word vocabulary says “What”?
RB from Gwinnett
February 25th, 2013
10:38 am
Jay, “Obama proposes two dollars in cuts for every dollar in revenue.”
Didn’t Obama already get the tax increase on the rich he was asking for? Going back to the Clinton era rates for the rich.
Is he now asking for more tax increases, Jay, and if so, what’s the plan for the increase and on whom?
too little time
February 25th, 2013
10:38 am
Its all hyperbole. Any government entity that cant find a couple % of fat in their budgets just isn’t looking hard enough.
Obama is the originator of these cuts. Let them happen. Whatever the fallout, its on him… unless he can offer a package of alternate cuts that will pass the Congress. He got his debt limit increase. He got his tax rate increase. Now he will get his sequester.
Rightwing Troll
February 25th, 2013
10:38 am
It’s hysteria to point out the effects of the cuts… but sound thinking to assert that people need AR’s to fend off tornados and hurricanes?
Who REALLY needs a swooning couch here?
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:39 am
Liberal Mess
February 25th, 2013
10:35 am
I think many are simply smarter than us and simply don’t care or want to know all this frivilous picking of nits. IMO its not the intellecual capabilities of the electorate as much as it is the way all DC politicos treat us like a bunch of stooges..
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:39 am
“** KammieSpam. All rights reserved.”
ROFL. If only he could find some customers beyond the flock of parrots on this blog.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 25th, 2013
10:40 am
Cry baby has a new sock-puppet.
Which one will you choose under the new format?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:41 am
WELCOME
The odds were reversed sorry:
Kick the Can is 2:5
Sequester is 25:1
Doggone/GA
February 25th, 2013
10:41 am
“Didn’t Obama sign the bill?……”
Yes, he did…and for the same reason ALL Presidents have signed bills that contained something they didn’t like. Because it also contained something they WANTED more than they didn’t want what they didn’t like. The bill he signed was more than JUST the sequester.
Rightwing Troll
February 25th, 2013
10:42 am
I’m with too BTW. .. 85 bil is a small % of the budget. If people really wanted too, this amount could easily be cut without killing granny or making vets live in cardboard boxes… easily…
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:42 am
Bemused
Technically Obama was correct. Idea was from staffers. But so what? More republicans supported it than did democrats. Rest of your post deflects from that.
Bemused, why won’t you thank the pres for the sequester and forcing cuts in spending?
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:43 am
Bemused
Don’t you want to cut government spending?
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:44 am
F. Sinkwich
February 25th, 2013
10:36 am
I keep hearing this chat of the people will blame the GOP if the sequester happens AND all the cheap hyperbole comes true…
If that is the case, why don’t more liberals want us to go over cliff?
Bemused Observer
February 25th, 2013
10:44 am
“Inquiring minds want to know.”
ROFL. I guess that excludes you, genius. But please, grace us with more of your trademarked idiotic KamSpam.
Stevie Ray
February 25th, 2013
10:45 am
Paul
February 25th, 2013
10:42 am
It was too good a deal for the GOP to refuse. What was the downside for them? I think they got over WH on that deal.
Class of '98
February 25th, 2013
10:45 am
Soothsayer at 9:10 said the only thing that needs to be said.
If we can’t find a way to slash $85 billion (it may sound like a lot, but it isn’t) from our incredibly bloated budget, the cause is hopeless, the republic will collapse, and we’ll need to start over anyway.
Btw, Jay is a parrot who likes the “meat cleaver, not a scalpel” line.
Well, if you are trying to cut the fat off a steer, if you use a scalpel by the time you’re done trimming the fat, all the beef will have rotted.
Forget the meat cleaver, I want them to use a chainsaw.
alex
February 25th, 2013
10:48 am
@ Erwin, meat cleaver in regard to the non-specificity of the cuts, not as to their size..Personally, their “size” is small, their impact on the military, in certain regions of the country (Hampton Roads) is enormous. Fortunately, this country is not ALWAYS legislated by polling data (?) @ Jefferson, are you talking about Atlanta already (roads, water prices, public schools) ?