Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Who Recommended Sequester?

A couple links for your amusement.  Not sure why it matters, but quite a few people seem to care.  It is ironic that Obama is working to delay the implementation of what apparently was his "bluff". Thoughts?

His video below definitely sounds like he is blaming others rather than accepting personal responsibility.  Go figure.
Fact Checker Obama Recommended It
MPP You Voted For Sequester
White House President's Video Statement
Chicago Tribune Obama's Sequester Bluff
Politico Obama on Sequester Cuts

As I asked TwoPuttTommy at MPP...  How can anyone look at this graph and say that it is not a spending problem?
Revenue vs Spend
Historical Cost of Government vs GDP
FOX News Pelosi and Obama Disagree

15 comments:

John said...

This was interesting.

CNN Gergen on State of Union Address

John said...

Kind of funny that Obama blamed Congress for the sequester again during the SOTU... Like he did not sign it...

It also sounds like he wants to keep raising government spending and taxes... It looks like gridlock will continue...

Laurie said...

Obama did not propose to keep raising govt spending. You have just provided a good example of people hearing what they want to or expect to hear.

I am not even going to argue with you about whose has the greater responsibility for the sequester, as you seem as set in your views as J and it is not worth my energy.

As I am participating in an online spirituality class/forum starting tomorrow I will likely go back to little to no comments on your blog again. I can't believe how much my interest in politics /current events has decreased since the election.

One last comment about what struck me most about Obama's speech is that it is too bad we have such a screwy democracy. I think the party that won the presidency and received more total votes for both house and senate candidates should get to set the policy for the next 2 years. Kind of like what we have in MN.

John said...

I thought you were the one that supported that fact check site. And they clearly state that the sequester was Obama's idea.

The speech definitely would resonate with Progressive folks. Politico SOTU
Mercury News SOTU
Forbes SOTU

Early education grants, climate change regs, manufacturing hubs, higher minimum wage, science curriculum rewards, extra infrastructure expenditures, gov't grades for colleges, etc. They may useful or wasteful, but they certainly are not free.

Obama says they will not impact the deficit and yet he did not explain how that magic would be pulled off. I assume he thinks they will be paid for by the tax increases he wants to implement by changing the tax code. (ie eliminate loopholes)

That is why I said it seems he still wants to increase spending and taxes. I know it shouldn't surprise me...

I don't know if we could have afforded both the state and fed spending increasing by 10% per year... Ouch...

Have fun studying spirituality, send me an interesting links you learn about.

Laurie said...

The sequester was Obama's idea to head off the financial crisis that could have been brought by the GOP brinksmanship over raising the debt ceiling. More importantly only congress could/can avoid the sequester budget axe we are heading for by negoiating more sensible cuts.

As I can't sleep I am getting one last comment in as I am contemplating givng up politics completely for the lent. I'm thinking it might not be that hard.

Lastly, perhaps it was me hearing what I want to hear. I did some brief research and learned the federal budget is mostly holding steady under Obama (after the initial big stimulus jump) it goes down some years but overall trend is slightly up.

My other favorite part of Obama SOTU was related to climate change. I don't think it will do much good but maybe Obama can make a slight difference through his executive actions.

John said...

I like this headline best. It sums up what I heard well.

MSN Obama Not in Mood for Compromise

Anonymous said...

To answer your question about "how can anybody look at this chart..." it is simple, really. Liberals look at the world the way it really is and say exactly the same thing they did before. Facts and logic do not exist for these people. De Amazon is more than a river in Brazil.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

I glanced at that chart, by the way. The thing about charts like this is that they are the economic equivalent of Rorschach tests; we tend to read things into them far more than we discern messages from them. But in this case, what I would say is that the chart highlights the problems associated with seeing the issues here in binary terms, in this case, that we have either a spending or a revenue problem. What the chart shows is that exactly what we would expect to happen in an economic slowdown, happened. Revenues went down, and government expenditures, because people who lose their jobs call on government services, went up. In my own view, the problem isn't with revenues, it isn't with spending, the problem is that the trends in those things are set by what is the problem, the slowdown in the economy.

==Hiram

John said...

The chart is nomalized by GDP, so the spend should be coming back down now that the GDP has recovered. Unfortunately that does not appear to be haappening. And it until the spend is reduced.

Or we would need to hold the spend constant until the GDP and revenues can catch up. Where as Obama wants to raise spending to fund his new programs.

Anonymous said...

GDP, so the spend should be coming back down now that the GDP has recovered.

The problem is with other countervailing trends, in particular, the aging of the population which is driving up both Social Security and Health care costs.

The fact is we are getting older. Tell me, is that a revenue problem or a spending problem?

==Hiram

John said...

Apparently it is both in this case.

The Government did not charge high enough premiums (ie payroll taxes) to be able to fulfill the benefits they promised. Thus the trust funds are going to run short. (social security disability 2016, medicare ~2024, social security retirement ~2034)

That is why I say there are 2 simple solutions... Increase the premiums (ie payroll taxes) or reduce the benefits.

Or my very unpopular favorite, dismantle social security and medicare ASAP, discontinue collecting payroll taxes and roll them into welfare and medicaid. That way the needy will get money and care, and the savers will have to spend until they are also poor. Seems like a Liberals dream come true.

Anonymous said...

The Government did not charge high enough premiums (ie payroll taxes) to be able to fulfill the benefits they promised. Thus the trust funds are going to run short. (social security disability 2016, medicare ~2024, social security retirement ~2034)

Seems there is a revenue problem.

--Hiram

John said...

TOMAATO vs TOMAHTO...

Either reducing benefits or increasing payroll taxes are reasonable answers to me... Or maybe a combination of both...

Anonymous said...

Here's a crazy idea. Just get the government out of the middle of both the retirement income and retirement health care functions, and the money now spent on "premiums" would quickly become enough to fund a competitive health care market for seniors, while the investment of all those social security taxes in private business would accelerate economic growth enough to pick up the slack. It couldn't be done cold turkey, of course, because Congress has dallied too long, but a phase-out would solve the problem. To the degree the phase-out put some people in a pinch, the "welfare" nature of these programs could kick in.

J. Ewing

John said...

Cold turkey works for me. See this comment string for details.

G2A Govt Causes Poverty