Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

WATCH: Obama Slams House For Sequester At Event With GOP Congressman

WATCH: Obama Slams House For Sequester At Event With GOP Congressman

President Barack Obama delivered another stern warning about the potential consequences of sequestration during a Tuesday afternoon event at a shipbuilding plant in Newport News, VA. In a rare show of bipartisanship, the president was joined by U.S. Representative Scott Rigell (R-VA).

After touring the plant with Rigell, Obama took the stage to reiterate his opposition to the impending $85 billion in across-the-board cuts. “These cuts are wrong,” Obama said. “They’re not smart, they’re not fair, they are a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen.”

The president warned that sequester could force 90,000 Virginians who work for the Department of Defense to take unpaid leave from their jobs, causing a ripple effect that would damage the state economy. “The threat of these cuts has already forced the Navy to cancel the deployment and delay the repair of certain aircraft carriers,” Obama noted. He then went on to lay out the cuts’ dire consequences for education, law enforcement, and health care.

Calling the sequester “a dumb way” of reducing the federal budget deficit, the president slammed the Republican majority in the House of Representatives for refusing to compromise to avoid it.

“I’ve laid out a plan that details how we can pay down our deficit in a way that’s balanced and responsible” Obama said, referring to this document.

“But I’ve just got to be honest with you,” he continued. “Too many Republicans in Congress right now refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. And that’s what’s holding things up right now.”

Although Rigell didn’t speak at the event, his presence loomed large. Before the event began, Rigell told reporters “I knew that I had to accept the invitation because that’s how I best serve the second district of Virginia.”

During his speech, Obama praised Rigell for breaking party lines. “I’ve got to give Scott Rigell credit,” Obama said, acknowledging the political risk for the second-term congressman. “That’s not always healthy for a Republican, being with me.”

Rigell isn’t the only Republican to publicly lobby the leaders of the House majority to make a deal. Over the weekend, several Republican governors spoke out in favor of compromise. Then on Monday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he would back a budget deal averting the sequester by trading including $600 billion in new revenues for unspecified spending cuts; that leaves Graham’s position far closer to President Obama than to House Republicans, who have flatly refused to consider any deal that contains new tax revenue.

Republican leaders in the House have shown no indication they are willing to compromise with the president. During a Tuesday morning press conference, House Speaker John Boehner denied that the House bore any responsibility at all for the impasse, and instead passed the buck to the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” Boehner told reporters.

With the cuts scheduled to take effect Friday, there are still no serious negotiations to avoid them taking place. The House is not even scheduled to be in session on Friday, but Boehner has vowed to mobilize his majority in the extremely unlikely event that the Senate passes a bill by then.

President Obama’s speech can be seen below, via NBC News:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

AP Photo/The Virginian-Pilot, Steve Earley

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • Pamby50

    Same old song & dance. When those republican districts start feeling the heat, they will act.

  • Here is why what happens in Europe matters to U.S. investors: >1. In 2011, the United States exported $319 billion in goods to the 17-nation euro zone, which makes it our biggest trading partner. American exports to the broader 27-nation European Union totalled $463 billion during that year. 2. Europe represents more than 10% of S&P 500 revenue, and 20% of the Gross World Product comes from the euro zone. According to the IMF, the 27-nation European Union had a GDP of over €12.629 trillion (US$17.578 trillion) in 2011, making it the world’s largest economy. 3. The euro zone has been in recession since the second quarter of 2012, when its economy contracted by 0.2%. On Feb. 14, Eurostat reported that the euro-zone recession deepened as fourth-quarter GDP fell by 0.6% in the 17-nation euro area (EA 17) and by 0.5% in the broader 27-nation European Union (EU 27). A Feb. 25 report from the European Commission forecasts the euro-zone economy will contract by 0.3% in 2013. 4. The “core” of Europe is shrinking as France and Britain are in recession, and even Germany, the euro zone’s strongest economy, is starting to sink with a 0.4% contraction during the fourth quarter. 5. Italy was the big newsmaker this week, and the election outcome casts a longer shadow over the future of the country and Europe as a whole. Italy is important because of its gigantic debt load, second only to Greece in terms of high debt-to-GDP ratio. At just over $2 trillion American dollars, Italy has the third largest amount of outstanding government debt in the world and the largest amount of debt in Europe. U.S. banks have “moderate exposure” to Italy, according to Fed Chairman Bernanke’s testimony to Congress on Tuesday, and the prospect of a hung Parliament puts the country’s austerity programs in jeopardy. Bond yields are spiking, a sovereign default is a more likely possibility, and this is bad news for countries like Germany which owns over $40 billion worth of Italian bonds. A look at iShares Italy ETF EWI +0.74% tells us all we need to know about Italy: I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

  • montanabill

    Same old song & dance. This President has been raising boogey men since he started running for public office. If this was such a bad idea, why did he propose it and then sign it into law. Now he’s trying to pretend he didn’t have anything to do with it. He still uses the word ‘compromise’. His meaning of compromise is exactly as it was the last time he used it: more taxes, no spending cuts. He’s of full mind to know that the bill for his foolish programs will come due after his term is over. He also understands that most of his zombie followers react to emotional snake oil pitches rather than to facts or logical thinking. He’s been successful enough at making Bush the fault of all the failures of his past four years and he figures, probably correctly, that the zombies will blame the next President when there is hell to pay. That is something Hillary better consider before she runs for the job of trying to stop what then be a 2nd rate nation from becoming a 3rd rate nation. No matter. Michelle will be proud that her husband gave America its comeuppance.

    • jmprint

      The division fault is not because of President Obama, but because of the Tea Party republicans that refuse to close loop holes and tax break for the rich and their attack on women, racist, and trying to shove their religion believes on everybody.

      • montanabill

        If you can remember that far back, Boehner offered to close ‘loop holes’ and ‘tax breaks’ for the rich in exchange for spending reductions. Obama wanted tax increases, instead, for his ‘compromise’. Obama got his tax increases. There were no spending reductions. Again, Obama comes to the well. Tax increases for spending cuts. Only again, only the tax increases would ever occur.

        Now that you are thoroughly familiar with ‘loop holes’ and ‘tax breaks’ for the rich, tell me what they are and how many of the ‘rich’ they would effect and how much additional revenue would be generated. Also, can you tell me if there would be any ‘unintended consequences’. Time to get off the talking points and learn something.
        You can also specifically define for me, the exact spending reductions the President is proposing.

        • hilandar1000

          Montana, you are so far off base on this one, it is hard to see your posts and not point out your lack of accurate information. Obama has not increased taxes. The only thing he has done is to refuse to sign an extension of the Bush tax CUTS that were due to expire. Obama did extend the bush tax cuts once when we were in the worst part of the recession, and the legislative branch was refusing to pay the bills that congress had already voted to pay for in the former year’s budget. When the subject came up of extending the Bush tax cuts a second time, Obama refused unless the GOP would reach a compromise on re-establishing the tax rates for the wealthy — to the rate at which they were taxed before the Bush tax cuts. The compromise was that no person would have any increase on any amount of earnings under $400 K. Earnings over that amount would be taxed at the same rate as they paid before the Bush tax cuts. This was not a tax increase. It was a compromise relating to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. In order to get the GOP to agree to the plan, Democrats had to raise the ceiling on the tax rate for the wealthy from $250 K — as it was originally, and re-set that figure to $400 K. You are very correct to state that Boehner agreed to close the loop holes. He did agree to that. However, when it came time to reach a compromise to avoid sequestration, he had changed his mind and would not accept any closing of loop holes for the very wealthy of the country. In any plans proposed by the GOP, only reductions in spending were proposed, and Boehner refused to consider even suggesting any of the loopholes that he had formerly agreed to close. You can look up the reductions in spending suggested by the president by going to the White House web site. President Obama has bent over backwards to try to reach compromises with this group of GOP legislators, but, since their avowed number one priority is to do anything they can to make this administration fail, the GOP is not at all interested in compromise. They are sticking to their original plan of attempting to make this president look bad, even to the extent of making the nation suffer in order to do it.

          • montanabill

            Did your taxes return to previous rates? It was Democrats who refused to make Bush era tax reductions permanent. You are one of the many who are perfectly ok with tax increases, so long as they don’t impact you. You can use semantics all you want to pretend that one class of Americans did not get a tax increase but simply went back to older tax rates. It was still a substantial tax increase no matter how you frame it. Progressive tax rates are not only unfair, they are immoral. Simply because one person has used his skills or determination to earn more money should not be reason why that person is to be targeted for penalties. That is all a progressive tax is: a penalty on success. A way for people like you to get something from the government you didn’t pay for.

            The President is now pushing for closing loopholes and ending tax breaks. You are probably all for that. However, I consider your mortgage interest deduction a ‘tax break’. I don’t get one. Why should you? Are you willing to give up all the deductions you get? Those are ‘tax breaks’. I’m willing to give up all the tax breaks I get, which boils down to my losing the Standard Deduction. How does ending all deductions stack-up for you?

            The nation is suffering because of the outrageous debt and the deficit spending from all administrations, including and especially, this one. It impacts every segment of the economy. We cannot tax or spend our way out of the danger. This President talks, but refuses to make the hard decisions. Your belief that the President has ‘bent over backwards’ is simply a fallacy. He has not made one concession without attaching a gotcha with it.

    • Replying to montanabill –

      It’s obvious that you decided to ignore the link in this article that goes to the proposal made by President Obama.

      If you had read the proposal rather than repeat the blather from the talking heads at Faux Snooze, you would see that there is far more reduction on the spending side than any increase on the revenue side.

      Of course, that would not fit into the “Conservative” mantra you like to believe.

      • montanabill

        We have heard those same ‘spending reduction’ claims all too often. Every single time, the tax increases occurred, the spending reductions didn’t. Matter of record.

    • hilandar1000

      Give it up, Montana Frill. You have no facts to back up anything you say. Why don’t you submit your opinions to comedians — you make such totally ridiculous statements, I’m sure any good comedian would have a field day with them. Were you really trying to say that Obama “made Bush the fault of the difficulties in the last four years”? News break —- Obama didn’t need to do a thing to make it Bush’s fault — Bush did that himself. Is your memory so poor that you’ve forgotten the state of the economy when Obama took office? Where were you when Bush was signing all of his tax breaks for the wealthy and his prescription drug program that certainly was of more benefit to the drug companies than to anyone else? Where were you when Bush told us that the war in Iraq would be over quickly and the oil in Iraq would pay for rebuilding that country? Did that happen? Check the comparisons on rate of growth in spending between the Bush years and the Obama years in office. I’ll give you a hint — Bush had the highest rate of growth in spending in history, and Obama’s is the lowest rate since Eisenhower was in office. Yes, there are zombies in the country, but they are the ones who are falling for the lies told to them by rich men who do not care about the country. The only thing they care about is getting all the resources and power of the country in the hands of the wealthy — and there are plenty of your fellow zombies in congress who are trying to make that happen.

      • montanabill

        Is your memory so bad that you have forgotten that it was Barney Frank and the Democrat controlled Congress that would not back off of the easy mortgage loan situation that created the financial down fall when they were warned that it would explode?

        I don’t suppose you were around when Kennedy and Johnson were ‘winning’ in Viet Nam either. And which party was it that raised such a stink about us being in Iraq simply for the oil. That effort negated any possibility of using Iraqi oil to pay for anything we were involved in. Wise up.

        In terms of the rate of growth, Obama raised the rate immensely during his first two years and has been since held in check by a Republican House, but it is still the reason for the bad economy and the continuing decline of America. Those of you who blame Bush place the growth on the first two years of Obama on Bush. Ridiculous.

        • hilandar1000

          Thanks for your concern, but my memory is fine. Yours, however, needs a little refreshing. Here are a few facts that might help you recall events as they really were.
          In 2004, the Bush administration began a plan to try to increase levels of homeownership as part of its “Ownership Society,” raising housing targets for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats opposed this policy because they feared people could end up with mortgages they could not afford. Subsequently Barney Frank and his colleagues attempted to pass legislation to reduce predatory lending — this was blocked by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. They then worked with moderate House Republicans to try to pass legislation to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — this was killed by the Bush administration. They did finally get a type of regulation passed, but, by that time, it was too late. Freddie and Fannie were the victims of predatory lending and lack of regulations, not not the cause. Barney Frank was merely a convenient scapegoat for disastrous Bush administration policies.
          Yes, I was around at the time of the war in Viet Nam. However, you seem to have a problem with “selective memory”. The war started in 1955 and did not end until 1975. Kennedy and/or Johnson were in the White House from 1960 -1968. Yet you mention only Kennedy and Johnson in connection with that war. Seems as if you’ve forgotten some things there too.
          You better check the facts on rate of growth in spending. I can’t remember exact figures, but rate of growth in spending during the Bush years was a percentage somewhere in the teens, compared to Obama’s — which is between 2 and 3 percent. The national debt is declining under Obama as well which certainly was not the case with the Bush administration, was it? Like I said before, you’d better try to sell your allegations to comedians, the rest of us are laughing at them already.

          • montanabill

            On May 23, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1427, reforms of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank system, allowing these entities to purchase more loans in higher cost areas (lowering interest rates for new homes and refinances in those areas). The bill also seeks to increase liquidity now by asking federal regulators to reconsider artificial restrictions on the number of loans that the GSEs can own.

            Oct. 11, 2007. The Democrats may be headed for another showdown with President Bush as the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday passed H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. The bill will initially allocate between $800 million and $1 billion annually directly to states and local communities, without increasing government spending or the federal deficit. The administration was on record threatening to veto this measure earlier this week.

            This was the start of the housing bubble, firmly pushed and supported by Democrats.

            Like Obama, Nixon inherited a war. Since our involvement in Viet Nam was in far worst shape than our involvement in either Afghanistan or Iraq, it took Nixon awhile longer to get us out. The Viet Nam didn’t start in 1955. It unofficially started when Kennedy sent ‘advisors’. Then Johnson used the phoney ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ attack to escalate our involvement.

            If you think the national debt is declining under Obama, I refer you to
            www dot usdebtclock dot org.

          • hilandar1000

            Thanks, Silly Billie, You just made my case. The HOUSING CRISIS — not the “housing bubble” began in 2007. The crisis happened as a result of adjustable rate mortgages coming due for adjustments — to a higher rate of interest. These mortgages had been made years earlier. As I said, Barney Frank had introduced the legislation you mentioned years earlier — when the House was controlled by the GOP. It did not pass the house until the Democrats took the majority in 2007. By that time, it was too little, too late.
            More news for you is that Eisenhower was the president who started sending “advisors” to Vietnam — in 1955. It was continued under Kennedy, and actual combat troops were not sent in until 1965 after two of our ships and a military installation were attacked. Another news flash — for you — is that Nixon did not end the war in Vietnam. It did not end until after Ford had taken office. The reason it was ended was because Saigon fell to the communists. Nixon assuredly did not “get us out” of Vietnam.
            New reports have shown that the nation’s debt has shrunk to a level not seen in 6 years, and the trend is continuing. As the economy continues to improve and people are put back to work, it is projected to continue shrinking. However, with the latest self-inflicted crisis of the sequestration, who knows what will happen. Is this just another ploy of the GOP to “make Obama a one-term president”? They don’t seem to realize that the election is over, the people’s voice was heard, and the GOP lost the election.

          • montanabill

            We have completely differing analysis of the housing bubble. I believe the trouble didn’t really start until lenders were ‘encouraged’ to make risky loans. Adjustable rate mortgages are always unwise, but until the push to get people who couldn’t afford any loan, there was no crisis potential.

            Eisenhower’s advisors (trainers) were hardly the impetus for the war. President Kennedy secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed.

            The first Gulf of Tonkin attack resulted in one our ships getting hit by a single bullet. Days before the attack, we had been provoking North Vietnam. The second attack, as McNamara admitted, was bogus. Nixon was drawing down the war, exactly as Obama is doing today in Afghanistan. If we are lucky, Obama will be impeached and it will be his successor who finally ends our involvement.

            As Woodward reported and Carney confirmed, the sequestration was the President’s idea. The implication that a simple reduction in this year’s increase in spending will have disastrous consequences is ludicrous.

            However, it would be nice if the press would do their job and find out just who are the supposed high ranking ICE officials (per Napolitano) that released illegal aliens, so it could be confirmed that a) it was really just their initiative, and b) they are no longer employed.

          • hilandar1000

            Yes, we certainly do have a different view of the housing crisis among other things. There are, unfortunately many parts of the political spectrum that are not a clear black and white, but rather shades of gray — with many contributing factors and a number of politicians from both parties who share the blame in some of the issues. However, I must warn you it doesn’t work well when you try to push a double standard on the person with whom you are disagreeing —- like complaining about liberals blaming Bush for the lions share of the financial crisis and the slow recovery and then follow that complaint with you, yourself, blaming Barney Frank — who, like Bush, is also no longer in office.

          • montanabill

            I have vivid memories of Barney on television vehemently denying that there was anything wrong with the easy loan policy, just weeks before the whole thing collapsed. And I remember it was his leadership in Congress that fought against Bush’s last ditch efforts to avoid the collapse, even though it was probably too late by then.

          • hilandar1000

            I’m not sure about what you think you are remembering. I would imagine that it was a dispute about Fannie and Freddie having to buy up some of the loans made by predatory lenders who were considered as being “too big to fail”. Actually that’s how Fannie and Freddie got into problems. They originally were much more careful in their lending practices. The lion’s share of the problem was with private predatory lenders. As early as 2005, Barney Frank was warning us about predatory lending. He was suggesting rehabilitation of existing housing for low-cost rental to people who were not in a position to take out a loan — particularly the kind of loan where the interest rate was going to be readjusted after a few years. Predatory lenders had no problem offering that type of loan and then selling them off. That is basically how Freddie and Fannie became involved, but at a much later date than in the early days of offering loans to people who could not afford to purchase a home.

          • montanabill

            Sure you are right about F & F, but you seem to overlook the pressure that was put on all banks by Barney and his House Financial Services Committee to make loans without regard to credit rating so that the poor could have housing. The loans were sold off simply because the lenders knew they would probably never be paid back and they didn’t want to be caught holding them. They were attempting to make lemonade out those lemons. This affected thousands of banks nationwide, not just F&F and the big banks.

    • Sand_Cat

      Your projection is excellent. And your post is more of the same old song and dance. He didn’t propose it; you’re gulping the Repub koolaid by the gallon. Remember, it was Boehner who said he got 90 (or was it 98?)% of what he wanted.

      Obama signed it because he is all too willing to do what you and all the other wingnuts say he won’t: compromise, if you can call giving the other side most of what they want in return for postponing the inevitable disaster they insist on bringing “compromise.” on again and again “compromise.”

      “Logical thinking”? Not anything you might do.

      Obama (and anyone else with any sense not blinded by rightist religion) blames Bush because Bush is the one who brought the economic problems we face by multiple acts of negligence and stupidity (not to mention criminality), and it is his party – thanks, Bill – who have worked diligently for the last 5 years to assure it doesn’t get better.

      Being a “zombie” isn’t as bad as being an liar who has lied so often he believes his own BS, as you and your Repugnant buddies are.

      • montanabill

        You need to read information provided by non-partisan sites. If you had, you would know that the sequester idea came from the White House. Obama personally approved of the plan for White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

        I will give blame to Bush for his role in initially approving the easy loans. I will give the majority of the blame to Barney Frank and the Democrat controlled Congress who refused to back off the program when it became apparent that it was creating an enormous potential problem. Had there not been billions in bad mortgage paper, there would have been no Wall Street shenanigans in an effort to cover it.

        You mention criminality. Cite one. By the way, is it not criminal to chose which laws to enforce or directly violate the Constitution?

        • Sand_Cat

          Of course it was all Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. Sure, you’ve been reading “non-partisan” sources of info. The ‘easy loans” weren’t the problem: packaging and selling such crap as first-class investments was the problem, and Barney and Ted had nothing to do with it.

          I love your last sentence. Bush was probably the greatest practicioner of this, which you admit is a crime. I was thinking more about his appointing people chosen because they wouldn’t enforce what few laws we have against the financial industry, or who would not enforce environmental, civil rights and other laws, a practice at which the last three Republican presidents – and especially Bush – excelled, but sure, I’ll go with your suggestion, too. But for criminality, one can’t beat starting a war based on fraud and torturing POWs, though Bush and Cheney probably came close in other areas.

          And you conveniently ignore the sequester was created to avert a crisis deliberately created by your buddies in Congress, and that when it was passed, John Boehner announced he’d gotten 98% (or was it 90? does it matter?) of what he wanted with a smug smile I can easily picture on your face.

          Face it, Bill. You’re full of it. Why don’t you spend all your time on those “non-partisan” neo-Nazi sites you’re obviously so fond of?

          • montanabill

            I never mentioned Kennedy. Frank and Dodd were the primary defenders of the ‘easy’ loan fiasco.

            It seems to be a very convenient ruse of the left to ignore the utter disaster of the Obama administration by pointing to Bush, as if he was still President. Does your self-righteousness also include the Viet Nam era? Which Republican was responsible for that?

            Even Jay Carney admitted the President was responsible for suggesting the sequestration. Your definition of a Congress caused crisis, means that the Republicans didn’t agree to spend as much as the Democrats wanted. You are probably one of those who don’t think this country has a spending problem. You are also probably one of those who wouldn’t like it if it was your taxes being raised to pay for more spending.

  • It is impossible to live pleasurably without living prudently, honorably, and justly; or to live prudently, honorably, and justly, without living pleasurably. -Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE) And this goes to BC I thank you FirozaliA.Mulla DBA And where are we in 21st century? Divided . self styled living alone or selfishly??

  • I am so tired of the blatant hate the current GOP has for our President!! They need to be ousted and put where the sun don’t shine!!

    • DurdyDawg

      It goes way beyond hating the President Kitty, they’re snubbing their noses up and attempting to punish every citizen who voted for him.. Now THAT’S a pile of hate.

  • Charles2051

    we’ve got to stop a;; this spending, Leader we don’t have. most company fire their GOP if they don’t do their job, We have guy that sings good song but does nothing.

    • All what spending?? there’s no wild spending going on. Obama has cut spending by 1/2 a trillion/yr over the past 3 years – fastest that’s been done in American history and he’s done it for 3 straight years for the 1st time in over 60 years (since Truman). That’s not to say that judious cuts couldn’t be made in many places, but the spending isn’t such that we need a clever like the Republicans keep trying to implement. We’re running deficits not because of overspending but because tax revenues are still down by over 1 trillion per year because of all the companies that went belly up that aren’t paying corporate taxes and all the people unemployed who aren’t paying taxes either, both caused by the 2008 economic bust and then there’s millions of others not paying taxes because clueless GOP legislators in Red States threw them out of work by their idiotic budget and state services cuts during a deep recession. Cutting spending further is not going to solve anything, in fact, doing so would do exactly what budget cuts have done to Europe, put America into the same talespin and push us back into another deep recession. The solution is creating jobs and new companies to drive up the revenue – reving up the economy. And you don’t do that with austerity!!!!

  • tobewan

    The battle Royale between Boehner and Obama reminds me of the ascendency in
    Isa. 14:12-14.
    Someone should remind Boehner that he is NOT the President, and that he should not aspire to ascend above or be greater than the President.
    In this face-off with Boehner, Need to congratulate Obama – he must have nerves of steel!
    And he needs them!
    The repubs back early 2009, started showing they cared not if they sank the nation, when their Iman Rush called for doing whatever to make Obama a one-term president. Obama has proved to be smarter than they all. And if he can, and we help, he’ll continue to “clean house” of the corruption that has existed there for decades.

    Question: Can Boehner be impeached? He needs to be ‘out of there.’

    • hilandar1000

      I think your idea of impeachment is a good one, but I feel it would be better to start with McConnell. How could any politician have made a statement that his “number one priority was making sure that Obama would be a one-term president” and expect to stay in office. It was evident at that point that he had no interest in doing the task he was sent to Washington to do.

  • birch869

    as i predicted i see the house republicans losing about 65 seats come 2014 because of stalling the progress of this country or stonewalling also dem will take the 2016 election.blame it all on house tea party and republicans

    • Nothing could be better for the country than for the GOP to lose as many seats in the House as is possible – 65 sounds like good number to start with – higher would be better.

  • latebloomingrandma

    The Republicans refuse to compromise, because they declared that Obama already got his “tax cut” and he won’t get another one. But–technically speaking, this is not true. The Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut for all working Americans were meant to be TEMPORARY. therefore, when the rates for those who make > $400,000 and for all workers for the payroll tax returned to their “normal” rate, it was not a tax increase. A tax increase would be taking the rates back to the Reagan years (oh, the horror) or how about the Eisnehower years, when the economy was humming right along, we built the interstate highway system, and the tax rates for the wealthy were around 70%? (I’ve also read that it was actually 90%. Astonishing! )
    Romney campaigned on re-doing the tax code and simplifying rates and getting rid of loopholes. Obama is asking for that now, and is labelled a tax and spend socialist. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
    “Washington” is now a name that is almost an epithet. Our elected officials should be ashamed of themselves to sully the name of our First President. They are not showing him any respect or taking their duties seriously. Remember that movie where Cher smacks Nicholas Cage across the face and says “Snap out of it!?” I’d like to do that to each Republican in Congress, to get off their high horses and make a deal!.

  • Eleanor

    This sequestration was of Obama’s making in order to get his way last time, but he is denying he had anything to do with it. As usual he is blaming others, like the Republican party. He is so intent in keeping the devision going that he will not do anything without raising taxes. If you think this only affects those in the higher percent, think again. These raises in taxes will only be passed on down to you and I. Can’t he once say, that he had any responsibility for the way things are today?? I am a long time Democrat, but disagree with many things taking plae in our country today.

    • Sorry to burst your bubble Eleanor but the Sequester resulted because the super committee set up to actually come up with some reasonable way to reduce spending couldn’t come up a plausible way to do that. The Sequester was thrown out as a bad idea to put some pressure on the committee but it didn’t help, so THE COMMITTEE ended up presenting it to Obama as a solution at the very last minute and with no time for him to veto it and restart the committee. Obama signed it. It was not Obama’s idea – it was forced on him. And although it was a bipartisan committee that came up with the disaster, the majority of Americans blame Republicans for it for good reason – the Dems had offered numerous options with combined cuts to the budget along with revenue increases, but because the revenue increases required raising taxes by ever $1, the Republicans refused because of their treason vow to Grover that they would never vote for a tax increase – despite whatever damage that ridiculous vow would cause the country, its people and the planet.

  • TZToronto

    “We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” Boehner told reporters.

    Huh? Haven’t the Republicans introduced a bill dozens of times trying to kill the Affordable Care Act? Futility at work. But they can’t get motivated to try one more time to avert economic disaster? If the sequester happens, let it be on their heads, and may the electorate in 2014 recognize whose fault it is.

  • hilandar1000

    The tax rates did not change — except for amounts over 400K. To assume that a person who has taught school all through life has never paid taxes is an egregious error in rational thought. Also to declare pompously that you have never gotten something from the government you didn’t pay for is, in all probability, another egregious error. Have you never traveled on a public road? Did you pay for it? Have you never used electricity? Have you never visited a national park? Have you never traveled on a train? — and, of course, the list could go on and on. Although my house is paid for, I do not feel that the basics of life are unreasonable deductions — like housing and medical care, and I certainly do not begrudge those who are able to claim a deduction for those types of expenditures. The people who benefit most from a society should be willing to pay more for the benefit of living, doing business in that society and using the resources of the society.

    If you are an employer and do not pay your employees a living wage, then you are. in all probability receiving help from all taxpayers — taxpayers are subsidizing your business by paying for housing of your employees, medical care, food stamps, and quite possibly benefits from locating your business in a certain area, not to mention your corporate jets and yachts, etc. The gap in earnings between workers and corporate employers is getting forever wider, and we, as taxpayers are paying the price of corporate loopholes.

    The wealthy were doing fine under the “older tax rates”, as the charts show. In large part, it was the Bush era tax reductions that caused the debt to rise to unprecedented proportions.

    Once again, I must remind you that the president cannot make the decisions on his own, but must have the support of a congress who is willing to work with him in order to implement his proposals for the country. With the congress he has had to work with, we’ll probably never know if many of his ideas would have worked or not, since the only priority of the present congress is to make sure the president does not succeed in implementing his proposed programs for improvement.