Sequestration Madness

[CharlieK]

Here is how Jackasses use what they think of as logic. First their leader thinks of Sequestration. And then when it starts coming to fruition, he starts squealing, and pulling the Chicken Little move, followed by fellow Jackasses braying all over the place.

And as usual, the opposition party, like good little Dumbasses, is in the corner, shuddering over being blamed for the move of the Jackasses. If this wasn't so serious it would belong on a comedy channel program.



But now, the bamster, in his usual Collectivist mentality, is going an extra step: Barack Obama Pulls a Move Almost Worthy of Saddam Hussein.

Shortly before U.S. troops stormed Iraq to oust its dictator, Saddam Hussein released thousands of prisoners from Iraqi jails. Some were petty criminals, some were hardcore, some were terrorists. Hussein unleashed them to build his own popularity and to sow chaos.

Today, Barack H. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security is doing this:

The sequester is officially still three days away, but the Obama administration already is making the first cuts, with officials confirming that the Homeland Security Department has begun to release what it deems low-priority illegal immigrants from detention.

The move is proving controversial. Immigrant-rights groups say it shows the administration was detaining folks it never should have gone after in the first place, while Republicans questioned the decision-making.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that runs the detention facilities, said in a statement that the “current fiscal climate” has forced it to do a review of spending, and part of that is taking a look at who is being detained.

“As a result of this review, a number of detained aliens have been released around the country and placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” ICE said in a statement.

The cynicism of the move is breathtaking, even for this cynical administration. The “current fiscal climate” is one in which we are spending more than a trillion dollars per year than we take in. The 2009 stimulus spending is locked in. The sequestration threatens just $22 billion this year — and the president gets to choose where to cut. If the sky falls, it’s being brought down on our heads by this unethical rogue president.

So these releases are his choice. And he’s choosing them for pure racial politics and demagoguery. He’ll blame it all on Republicans, while shoring himself up with the amnesty chorus.

More: The president is also threatening to drop our border guard. In a rational age, these acts would be impeachable. Not too many years ago Californians recalled a governor for offering drivers licences to illegal aliens, and here we have a president flagrantly violating his oath to defend the nation

Even some in the Whore Media are not impressed with all this childishness.

Bob Woodward on Fox News Sunday: Sequestration...

Here Woodward goes even further, calling all this madness. You will have to turn up the volume, because it is very low on the video.

Bob Woodward Calls Out Obama For Sequestration...

[The Great Catpiss]

Obama's Sequester Flip-Flop - YouTube

[CharlieK]

He's a real jewel of virtue, honesty, and integrity, isn't he?

Must take after his Marxist father and Socialist mother. What a combination of ingredients.

[CharlieK]

Looks like the retribution is about to strike out at the coming dissent. And as time goes by, the dissent will only become louder.

Woodward now at war with the White House

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

In truth, they really aren't confused one bit. They are doing what the Ruling Class does, and especially the Collectivist Ruling Class. They are going to go out of their way to squash Woodward if at all possible. And in the end they will have shot themselves multiple times in the foot for doing what they did in the first place, and also for attempting to punish someone for actually claiming that the emperor really isn't wearing any clothing.

This should get interesting as the Bamster's approval rating gets an early start on the long slide into oblivion.

[DosEquis]

One side says its bad. The other says its no big deal.

Let it happen.

[Carter Raines]

Sequestration: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

Originally a legal term referring generally to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved. But the term has been adapted by Congress in more recent years to describe a new fiscal policy procedure originally provided for in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985 -- an effort to reform Congressional voting procedures so as to make the size of the Federal government's budget deficit a matter of conscious choice rather than simply the arithmetical outcome of a decentralized appropriations process in which no one ever looked at the cumulative results until it was too late to change them. If the dozen or so appropriation bills passed separately by Congress provide for total government spending in excess of the limits Congress earlier laid down for itself in the annual Budget Resolution, and if Congress cannot agree on ways to cut back the total (or does not pass a new, higher Budget Resolution), then an "automatic" form of spending cutback takes place. This automatic spending cut is what is called "sequestration."
Under sequestration, an amount of money equal to the difference between the cap set in the Budget Resolution and the amount actually appropriated is "sequestered" by the Treasury and not handed over to the agencies to which it was originally appropriated by Congress. In theory, every agency has the same percentage of its appropriation withheld in order to take back the excessive spending on an "across the board" basis. However, Congress has chosen to exempt certain very large programs from the sequestration process (for example, Social Security and certain parts of the Defense budget), and the number of exempted programs has tended to increase over time -- which means that sequestration would have to take back gigantic shares of the budgets of the remaining programs in order to achieve the total cutbacks required, virtually crippling the activities of the unexempted programs.
The prospect of sequestration has thus come to seem so catastrophic that Congress so far has been unwilling actually to let it happen. Instead, Congress has repeatedly chosen simply to raise the Budget Resolution spending caps upward toward the end of the legislative session in order to match the actual totals already appropriated, thus largely wiping out the incentives that the reformed budget procedures were expected to provide for Congress to get better control of the budget deficit.

It came from Congress and more pointedly the republicans wanting to send us over the fiscal cliff last year. That act resulted in us being downgraded on our credit due to the instability of our Congress.

WHEN we get the automatic cuts, and get them we will, the economy will spiral downward which is what the Koch brothers want because they and the republicans won't be happy until 1/4 of American are homeless in the streets and the other 3/4ths are willing to take BIGGER pay cuts to keep their jobs; lose their houses, but keep their jobs.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Carter Raines

WHEN we get the automatic cuts, and get them we will, the economy will spiral downward which is what the Koch brothers want because they and the republicans won't be happy until 1/4 of American are homeless in the streets and the other 3/4ths are willing to take BIGGER pay cuts to keep their jobs; lose their houses, but keep their jobs.

^^This guy has been brainwashed. Not sure if there's enough tin foil hats to go around.

[Donkey®]

It came from the Republicans...and it's a good idea. Let the cuts happen.

[Salty Dog]

It's only 85 billion? That's a drop in the bucket. What will Congress say when they run to cable news (instead of doing their job and working for the People) when numbers like 850 billion in cuts are on the table (because they should be)?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

It's only 85 billion? That's a drop in the bucket. What will Congress say when they run to cable news (instead of doing their job and working for the People) when numbers like 850 billion in cuts are on the table (because they should be)?

What we really need is a slow series of spending cuts spread over a few years that phase in, and a slow series of tax increases to get them back to a more realistic level like they were during clinton's administration.

We do something like that over a spread of 5-10 years we'll see a balanced budget again without as much economic impact.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

What we really need is a slow series of spending cuts spread over a few years that phase in, and a slow series of tax increases to get them back to a more realistic level like they were during clinton's administration.

We do something like that over a spread of 5-10 years we'll see a balanced budget again without as much economic impact.

I don't disagree but we also need to address health care costs. Cuts need to be made to Medicare or better yet the system needs a complete overhaul. The problem is both parties would have to come together and jeopardize their individual elections to achieve such legislation. NOBODY on the Hill has the balls to do that.

I know someone who doesn't have insurance at the moment and he slipped on black ice, cracked his head and had to go to the ER to get a CAT scan. He's fine but it's costing him 7500 bucks: 2500 for walking into the ER and 4800 for a CAT scan. That's ridiculous. Conservatives can scream all they want about the evils of socialized medicine but any American who pays his/her taxes shouldn't have to pay 7500 bucks for minor medical treatment. Yes, I would consider a CAT scan minor if the person is conscious and doesn't require surgery.

Health care, college tuition and defense spending are three areas that need some sort of legislation by Congress to fix. Tuitions have gone up 300% in two decades. Make college affordable. The current problem is when someone says "make college afforable," it usually is talking about affirmative action. That's bullshit. It needs to be affordable for the sake of our country's future. Face it. Parents will not be able to flip the bill (a lot can't right now) and students are fearing taking out massive loans (which they should be at 18 years old). Obama likes to talk about education like a lot of others but I don't see any of them addressing the fundamental challenges of our education system: How do we educate in the 21st Century? And better yet, how do we make sure we are correctly educating people for places in the workforce that will exist in 20-30 years?

And with defense spending. If you want to cut spending, use it for cyberterrorism. Use it for upgrading our energy grids. Use it to train soldiers in guerilla warfare/counterterrorism. And most importantly, use it for when soldiers return from battle so they have a nationally funded program for debriefing and de-warring them. I'd rather have our money go toward better treating our PTSD/wounded vets than drowning out those ideas with techies screaming for new SkyNet-type technology that makes human involvement in war irrelevant. If you take humans out of war, war just becomes another thing to play on your joystick. That may be inevitable one day but I won't buy into that premise in 2013. There are far too many better ways to use funding than that at the moment.

[The Great Catpiss]

What should congress do about college tuition? Why should it do that? Does that really matter?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

What should congress do about college tuition? Why should it do that? Does that really matter?

They thought they were helping by rubber stamping loans for people. Turns out the colleges just charged more. The money came easy and they are not liable for the bill after the fact. Now we have more student loan debt than we do credit card debt.

At the same time a decent general education needs to be something that is equal opportunity. In many cases education is the difference between poverty and middle class, or middle class and wealthy. Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule but statistically speaking high school and college graduates are more likely to be successful. Not everyone should be able to go to harvard but they should be able to go to a decent highschool, trade school, or local state college without being in debt until they are 50 years old.

State colleges that are partially tax payer funded need to chill out. Private institutions, let them do whatever.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I don't disagree but we also need to address health care costs. Cuts need to be made to Medicare or better yet the system needs a complete overhaul. The problem is both parties would have to come together and jeopardize their individual elections to achieve such legislation. NOBODY on the Hill has the balls to do that.

I know someone who doesn't have insurance at the moment and he slipped on black ice, cracked his head and had to go to the ER to get a CAT scan. He's fine but it's costing him 7500 bucks: 2500 for walking into the ER and 4800 for a CAT scan. That's ridiculous. Conservatives can scream all they want about the evils of socialized medicine but any American who pays his/her taxes shouldn't have to pay 7500 bucks for minor medical treatment. Yes, I would consider a CAT scan minor if the person is conscious and doesn't require surgery.

Health care, college tuition and defense spending are three areas that need some sort of legislation by Congress to fix. Tuitions have gone up 300% in two decades. Make college affordable. The current problem is when someone says "make college afforable," it usually is talking about affirmative action. That's bullshit. It needs to be affordable for the sake of our country's future. Face it. Parents will not be able to flip the bill (a lot can't right now) and students are fearing taking out massive loans (which they should be at 18 years old). Obama likes to talk about education like a lot of others but I don't see any of them addressing the fundamental challenges of our education system: How do we educate in the 21st Century? And better yet, how do we make sure we are correctly educating people for places in the workforce that will exist in 20-30 years?

And with defense spending. If you want to cut spending, use it for cyberterrorism. Use it for upgrading our energy grids. Use it to train soldiers in guerilla warfare/counterterrorism. And most importantly, use it for when soldiers return from battle so they have a nationally funded program for debriefing and de-warring them. I'd rather have our money go toward better treating our PTSD/wounded vets than drowning out those ideas with techies screaming for new SkyNet-type technology that makes human involvement in war irrelevant. If you take humans out of war, war just becomes another thing to play on your joystick. That may be inevitable one day but I won't buy into that premise in 2013. There are far too many better ways to use funding than that at the moment.

Did you see the article in Time magazine about healthcare costs killing us? I think it addresses part of the problem really well. Or it at least describes the start of the snowball that is healthcare costs

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They thought they were helping by rubber stamping loans for people. Turns out the colleges just charged more. The money came easy and they are not liable for the bill after the fact. Now we have more student loan debt than we do credit card debt.

State colleges that are partially tax payer funded need to chill out. Private institutions, let them do whatever.

That's essentially where I stand at the moment.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Did you see the article in Time magazine about healthcare costs killing us? I think it addresses part of the problem really well. Or it at least describes the start of the snowball that is healthcare costs

Yes I did and I think it would behoove everyone to read it.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

8 days of 3% budget cuts run deep at the White House.

Washington (CNN) - Visitors to Washington D.C. hoping to take a tour of the White House will soon be out of luck. The White House Visitor Center has canceled all tours effective Saturday March 9, a move meant to cut costs in the wake of forced spending cuts that hit the entire federal government last Friday.

An automated message at the visitor center's hotline informed callers of the news on Tuesday.

"Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration we regret to inform that White House tours will be canceled effective Saturday March 9, 2013 until further notice," the message said. "Unfortunately we will not be able to reschedule affected tours."

A White House spokesman said this is the first consequence of the forced budget cuts on the White House. The reductions will hit Secret Service staffing and staffing at the visitors office that processes the names of tour participants.

source


What's even better is that the tours are self-guided and the workers are volunteers.


Obama is such a piece of shit president and human being.

And the security for the tours? That's the issue...not the volunteers.


Salmon? Bass? No...herring...of the red variety.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And the security for the tours? That's the issue...not the volunteers.


Salmon? Bass? No...herring...of the red variety.

Yes, there are costs. Someone broke it down and determined that Obama's visit with Tiger Woods cost more than keeping the WH open to the public for 1 year.

When you put it that way... Obama felt it was better for him to meet with Tiger Woods than to keep the WH open. (Of course, I am just using Obama's standard debate logic here)

It was suggested that closing down the tours was a political showboating move.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

It was suggested that closing down the tours was a political showboating move.

Considering how much fraudulent spending has continued, shutting down the White House public tours was a pretty lame move. Whoever suggested that one to Obama should watch the skies for an incoming drone strike.

[The Great Catpiss]

White House calligraphers have combined salary of $277,050 | The Daily Caller

The white house staff's 3 calligraphers. Their job is to hand write invitations. Such work can be easily done with software today.

It costs the white house over $300k per year to staff it. They were not affected by sequestration.

White House Chief Calligrapher
GCO

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Turns out you were wrong, as usual.


White House said today that it was not Secret Service who prompted them to cancel tours, that it was strictly a White House decision. There was no concern that Secret Service would fail to keep up with security on account of reduced budgets.


It was just Obama being an idiot, as usual.


And you riding his nuts, as usual.

Explain how I am wrong? The cited reason was "security for the tours"...which is what I stated dipshit. I don't care if the Secret Service wanted it or not.


Pathetic attempt to be snarky. Idiot.


This bullshit about the tours is being blown out of proportion. Why not focus on the cuts to housing assistance for low income earners as a more important issue coming out of the sequestration shit? Oh, that's right...must hate Obama.