How much are the mid-east countries earmarked to receive?
@worfI dont know worf, how about you tell us and tell us why they are
receiving the money they receive rather then make vague innuendoes?
Let's see, a $68 billion cut from a $3.8 trillion budget: That amounts to
2.24%. If my household budget of, let's say $100,000, was cut by that same
percentage, then I would be $2,400 short, or about $200 per month. Yes, that
would be slightly painful, but it would hardly be catastrophic. As we have done
many times before, we would tighten out belt, eat out less, cut out some
perks...and be just fine! So, dear Uncle Sam, tighten your belt,
cut out some perks, and you'll be just fine--and so will the citizenry!
This problem won't be fixed.It's biblical.
@AZKIDright because our government functions on the same economic
principles as your household.
what a president. He waits till the dam is about the break and then he decides
to meet with the engineers to see what can be done to stop it. A bit too late
Barack. Maybe had you canceled your golf lessons with Tiger or a dozen of the
other time-waste leisure things you do or maybe stopped campaigning and started
acting like someone who had clue how to govern and sat down with congress
months ago.... but no ....no sir. Let's wait til zero hour and then pretend
to care. I guess the foolish and gullible in this country who actually think
this man cares ...I am sorry for you. You are being mislead. It's hard to
even care about this country anymore ...what a mess...what a joke of a
president. The US has to be the laughing stock of the world.
@George"right because our government functions on the same economic
principles as your household."You must be talking about the
economic principle of spending within you means.
Republicans howled at the moon for budget cuts but now that they are set to
happen they are whining. Now the Republican heavy states are realizing how much
they are on the Federal Dole. Both parties ran up the debt, everyone will feel
the pain so just stop with the whining about how unfair it is. Especially
Republicans who have done nothing in the past 3 years but obstruct on the
grounds of spending.
"worf--Mcallen, TX --How much are the mid-east countries earmarked to
receive?"I am willing to guess you NEVER COMPLAINED while the
payments to Mideast countries under Reagan, GH Bush and GW Bush were going on
were you? Stop the hypocrisy of all of a sudden caring about how much we are
spending to keep allies in the middle east. It worked for 3 Republican
patriot: We are the laughing stock, but not for the reasons you assert!
Jjjjhs,The repubs already gave BO tax increases. When is he going to give
spending cuts? All we have seen from him is more spending, not less.
Looks like we only need about 10 more sequestrations to get where we need to be.
VST is correct. The almost 20% increase in federal government spending since
Obama took over is way more than inflation would justify, and the 140,000 new
federal employees is not even close to any correlation to population increases
since then. It reaks of pork and fat. The sequester amount is less than
one-tenth of the amount of increased spending Obama has enacted since becoming
president and only 2% of the current overall budget. As long as the ability to
make these cuts in the proper areas is given and enacted, it truly will not be a
big deal... certainly not "the sky is falling" scenario some critics are
promoting. In fact, when it comes to the important need of balancing our budget,
it will be only one small step in the right direction.
Lost in DC,He has been trying, remember the summer of 11 when we
could have avoided all this sillyness but Mr. Boehner couldn't get the tea
party crowd to agree to the cuts the negotiated. He has repeatedly said that he
is willing to look at entitlement cuts. It is the republicans who are holding
that up because for some reason they think the President should propose massive
cuts to everything and then they can come back and say which ones they want and
blame the President.
In all my years I have never seen such a strange President, laking in leadership
and trancperency. America deserves better in times like these. He seldom shares
or sits down with anyone but his Chicago based crowd. He is against half of the
electrate and lets them know it. We need to pray for our country.
Fred,I think your memory may be faulty. It was reid and schumer who told
BO the negotiated cuts would not make it through the senate. I did not know
reid and schumer were part of the tea party.Now there may have been
tea partiers who rejected some of the proposed cuts, though since the tea party
is all about cutting government and its spending, I find that hard to believe.
But your failure to recall reid and schumer telling BO to forget it is puzzling.
lost in DC,Not sure I am the one with the memory problem. Here is a
quote from Forbes Magazine (wanted to make sure it was a right leaning
publication)on 7/22/2011; "President Obama said that Speaker of the House
John Boehner (R-Ohio) had informed him that he would be “walking
away” from talks about an expanded deal to raise the debt ceiling in
return for billions of dollars in spending cuts, tax reforms and revenue
increases.Those increases — up to $1.2 trillion — would
not have come from tax hikes, Obama said Friday, but from closing loopholes and
other measures as outlined by a proposal from the so-called “Gang of
Six,” a bipartisan group of senators.Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer
may have said that, but we will never know how the vote would have gone because
Mr. Boehner walked away. Maybe the President could have rallied the democrats
in the Senate, but again we will never know because Mr. Boehner walked out.So yes I think I will stick with the Tea Party as the ones who ended