Anyone of you leftists want to take a stab at this?


March 4, 2013
Obama's Mythical Spending Cuts
By Peter Wilson




President Obama has engaged in a two-pronged attack during the recent budget battles -- which, given the failure of sequester negotiations, will continue with our next budget crisis on March 27th when the Continuing Resolution funding the federal government expires. On the one hand the president uses scare tactics to make the point that cutting any government spending will cause pain. On the other hand, he praises himself for his enormous ongoing deficit-cutting efforts.

We read about this latter strategy on a recent post at whitehouse.gov:

The President has already reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, cutting spending by over $1.4 trillion, bringing domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the Eisenhower era. As a result of these savings, together with a strengthening economy, the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace of anytime in American history other than the demobilization from World War II.

The $1.4 trillion in spending cuts referred to is for a 10-year period -- $140 billion for each year. In a $4 trillion budget, this amounts to cutting spending by 3.5%.The ten-year timeframe isn't clear in the above statement -- in fact the word "already" is confusing. The White House email on Friday afternoon announcing the failure to stop the sequester is similarly unclear; it refers to a chart with Obama's "$4 trillion of Deficit Reduction," which begins with: "Spending cuts to discretionary programs enacted over the past two years: $1.4 T." Apparently the cuts were enacted in the last two years but will unfold over the next ten years.

This ought to lead to some head scratching, since there have been no spending cuts in the last two years. Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year of his presidency. According to the Treasury Department's "Debt to the Penny" calculator, on Inauguration Day, 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Obama's deficits have increased our debt by $6.1 trillion to $16.7 trillion -- a 58% increase.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Obama's claim comes from comparing projected deficits to a baseline projection of the 2010 budget, allocated in 2009, excluding stimulus funds. Under the government's "baseline budgeting" rules, budgets are increased every year by around 6% to account for population growth and inflation. Ultimately the concept that government spending grows with inflation is not unreasonable, but it is often misused by politicians, leading to Newspeak situations where a spending increase in actual dollars can be called a "spending cut" if the increase is less than the preordained increase. Obama therefore can spend 2.5% more each year and claim that he's cutting spending by 3.5%.

It gets worse. For one, there's not really any such thing as "the deficit." A deficit is the difference between receipts and outlays in a single budget year. In 2012, for instance, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenue but spent $3.8 trillion, running a $1.3 trillion deficit for that year. The national debt is the cumulative total of all this deficit spending. The statement that Obama "reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion" is deliberately obfuscatory. We know he didn't reduce a $1.3 trillion deficit by $2.5 trillion, and even if we are aware of the 10-year timeframe, it's tempting to assume that Obama is referring to reducing the national debt. In fact, an email Friday from my Congressman Michael Capuano reports: "In the past two years, total debt reduction amounts to approximately $2.4 trillion." Note that bit about "the last two years" comes up again. While Capuano refers to debt reduction rather than deficit reduction, but the resulting statement remains complete nonsense; in the last two years the national debt has risen from $14.1 trillion to $16.4 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion, up 16%.

Obama wants to give the impression that he is spending less, cutting deficits and debt, being a fiscal hawk who knows how to spend wisely, unjustly accused of excessive spending by duplicitous Republicans. None of this is true, which becomes clear when we look at Obama's projections for 2011 to 2022, presented in Summary Table S-1 of the 2013 federal budget.

The top line is "receipts," or income from taxes and fees. Receipts dropped during the recent recession, but the budget optimistically projects a rise from $2.3 trillion in 2011 to $5.1 trillion in 2022 -- more than a doubling of tax revenues. Either our economy has to grow dramatically, or taxes will be punitive.

"Outlays" -- federal government spending -- likewise follow a steep upward trajectory, growing every single year from $3.6 trillion in 2011 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. This compares to Bill Clinton's 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion and George W. Bush's 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion (unadjusted for inflation).

In every one of these years, the federal government will run large annual deficits. The trend in deficits is down, falling from the $1.3 trillion to a low of $575 billion in 2018, and then climbing again. Even when you reduce a deficit, however, you're still spending more than you take in, still adding to the national debt.

And the national debt picture is not pretty. Obama's budget table reveals a sharp increase, nearly doubling from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $19.5 trillion in 2022. These figures disingenuously omit debt classified as "intergovernmental holdings," which this year adds another $4.8 trillion to our total debt. A closer estimate for 2022 is a national debt of over $25 trillion.

Obama's chart illustrating that the deficit is coming down at an historically rapid pace contains this footnote: "3% Threshold for Debts Stable as a Share of GDP." It's referring to the out years, from 2015 to 2023, when deficits "stabilize" at under 3% of GDP.

There is however nothing stable about this situation. Obama wants us to focus on the change in the slope of the line, doing budgetary calculus, but the simple arithmetic is what counts. Adding hundreds of billions to the national debt every year is better than adding a trillion every year, but it's still destabilizing and dangerous.

In the next ten years, according to Obama's own projections, taxes, spending, and the national debt will roughly double. Obama's rapidly rising budgets are only offset by unreasonably optimistic revenue projections, and the 3% ratio will only hold if we have 4.3% GDP growth assumed in Table S-1, every year for the next decade. Given our current anemic growth and the historical U.S. average of 3.2% growth, it won't take much for everything to spin out of control.

The interest on this debt will be staggering, and if rates spike, we'll have to learn to calculate oil prices in Chinese Yuan. And we won't go into the depressing subject of unfunded liabilities for pensions and medical benefits, which are rocketing toward $100 trillion, with a T

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/o..._cuts.html

Never let the truth or facts get in the way of the Obama administration. They know that the majority if their voters are either unable to understand the numbers or just don't care about the truth.

As long as the fawning, slobbering media don't call Obama on his lies, he will continue to tell them and get away with it.

Of course the reason they don't is because they don't understand the numbers either.

But then we have the republicans who SHOULD understand the numbers, and SHOULD want to expose the lies, but somehow are so wrapped up in their own political lies that they can't. OK, I know the republicans would have a hard time getting the word out on the left-leaning media outlets. But they can't even get it out on Fox, and the bias there is not against them. Instead of Sean Hannity screaming about what "Ronald Reagan would have done" (and half the time it's about nothing that Reagan would ever have done), there needs to be someone with some kind of intellectual approach pointing out the obvious errors in everything Obama puts forward--and continuing to point them out until at least some of them gain traction.

It's absolutely incredible to me that the guy gets to peddle lies right and left, and even the opposition doesn't call him out on it.

It's instructive that it was Wolf Blitzer, of all people, who called out Debbie Wasserman Schultz on her never ending trail of falsehoods. She's on Fox spewing lies all the time, and nobody there has called her out on it yet. It's really incredibly frustrating. Maybe they ALL want us to fail.

(03-04-2013 10:34 PM)maximus Wrote:  Anyone of you leftists want to take a stab at this?


March 4, 2013
Obama's Mythical Spending Cuts
By Peter Wilson




President Obama has engaged in a two-pronged attack during the recent budget battles -- which, given the failure of sequester negotiations, will continue with our next budget crisis on March 27th when the Continuing Resolution funding the federal government expires. On the one hand the president uses scare tactics to make the point that cutting any government spending will cause pain. On the other hand, he praises himself for his enormous ongoing deficit-cutting efforts.

We read about this latter strategy on a recent post at whitehouse.gov:

The President has already reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, cutting spending by over $1.4 trillion, bringing domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the Eisenhower era. As a result of these savings, together with a strengthening economy, the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace of anytime in American history other than the demobilization from World War II.

The $1.4 trillion in spending cuts referred to is for a 10-year period -- $140 billion for each year. In a $4 trillion budget, this amounts to cutting spending by 3.5%.The ten-year timeframe isn't clear in the above statement -- in fact the word "already" is confusing. The White House email on Friday afternoon announcing the failure to stop the sequester is similarly unclear; it refers to a chart with Obama's "$4 trillion of Deficit Reduction," which begins with: "Spending cuts to discretionary programs enacted over the past two years: $1.4 T." Apparently the cuts were enacted in the last two years but will unfold over the next ten years.

This ought to lead to some head scratching, since there have been no spending cuts in the last two years. Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year of his presidency. According to the Treasury Department's "Debt to the Penny" calculator, on Inauguration Day, 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Obama's deficits have increased our debt by $6.1 trillion to $16.7 trillion -- a 58% increase.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Obama's claim comes from comparing projected deficits to a baseline projection of the 2010 budget, allocated in 2009, excluding stimulus funds. Under the government's "baseline budgeting" rules, budgets are increased every year by around 6% to account for population growth and inflation. Ultimately the concept that government spending grows with inflation is not unreasonable, but it is often misused by politicians, leading to Newspeak situations where a spending increase in actual dollars can be called a "spending cut" if the increase is less than the preordained increase. Obama therefore can spend 2.5% more each year and claim that he's cutting spending by 3.5%.

It gets worse. For one, there's not really any such thing as "the deficit." A deficit is the difference between receipts and outlays in a single budget year. In 2012, for instance, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenue but spent $3.8 trillion, running a $1.3 trillion deficit for that year. The national debt is the cumulative total of all this deficit spending. The statement that Obama "reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion" is deliberately obfuscatory. We know he didn't reduce a $1.3 trillion deficit by $2.5 trillion, and even if we are aware of the 10-year timeframe, it's tempting to assume that Obama is referring to reducing the national debt. In fact, an email Friday from my Congressman Michael Capuano reports: "In the past two years, total debt reduction amounts to approximately $2.4 trillion." Note that bit about "the last two years" comes up again. While Capuano refers to debt reduction rather than deficit reduction, but the resulting statement remains complete nonsense; in the last two years the national debt has risen from $14.1 trillion to $16.4 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion, up 16%.

Obama wants to give the impression that he is spending less, cutting deficits and debt, being a fiscal hawk who knows how to spend wisely, unjustly accused of excessive spending by duplicitous Republicans. None of this is true, which becomes clear when we look at Obama's projections for 2011 to 2022, presented in Summary Table S-1 of the 2013 federal budget.

The top line is "receipts," or income from taxes and fees. Receipts dropped during the recent recession, but the budget optimistically projects a rise from $2.3 trillion in 2011 to $5.1 trillion in 2022 -- more than a doubling of tax revenues. Either our economy has to grow dramatically, or taxes will be punitive.

"Outlays" -- federal government spending -- likewise follow a steep upward trajectory, growing every single year from $3.6 trillion in 2011 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. This compares to Bill Clinton's 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion and George W. Bush's 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion (unadjusted for inflation).

In every one of these years, the federal government will run large annual deficits. The trend in deficits is down, falling from the $1.3 trillion to a low of $575 billion in 2018, and then climbing again. Even when you reduce a deficit, however, you're still spending more than you take in, still adding to the national debt.

And the national debt picture is not pretty. Obama's budget table reveals a sharp increase, nearly doubling from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $19.5 trillion in 2022. These figures disingenuously omit debt classified as "intergovernmental holdings," which this year adds another $4.8 trillion to our total debt. A closer estimate for 2022 is a national debt of over $25 trillion.

Obama's chart illustrating that the deficit is coming down at an historically rapid pace contains this footnote: "3% Threshold for Debts Stable as a Share of GDP." It's referring to the out years, from 2015 to 2023, when deficits "stabilize" at under 3% of GDP.

There is however nothing stable about this situation. Obama wants us to focus on the change in the slope of the line, doing budgetary calculus, but the simple arithmetic is what counts. Adding hundreds of billions to the national debt every year is better than adding a trillion every year, but it's still destabilizing and dangerous.

In the next ten years, according to Obama's own projections, taxes, spending, and the national debt will roughly double. Obama's rapidly rising budgets are only offset by unreasonably optimistic revenue projections, and the 3% ratio will only hold if we have 4.3% GDP growth assumed in Table S-1, every year for the next decade. Given our current anemic growth and the historical U.S. average of 3.2% growth, it won't take much for everything to spin out of control.

The interest on this debt will be staggering, and if rates spike, we'll have to learn to calculate oil prices in Chinese Yuan. And we won't go into the depressing subject of unfunded liabilities for pensions and medical benefits, which are rocketing toward $100 trillion, with a T

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/o..._cuts.html

You can't handle the truth.

(03-05-2013 01:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:34 PM)maximus Wrote:  Anyone of you leftists want to take a stab at this?


March 4, 2013
Obama's Mythical Spending Cuts
By Peter Wilson




President Obama has engaged in a two-pronged attack during the recent budget battles -- which, given the failure of sequester negotiations, will continue with our next budget crisis on March 27th when the Continuing Resolution funding the federal government expires. On the one hand the president uses scare tactics to make the point that cutting any government spending will cause pain. On the other hand, he praises himself for his enormous ongoing deficit-cutting efforts.

We read about this latter strategy on a recent post at whitehouse.gov:

The President has already reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, cutting spending by over $1.4 trillion, bringing domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the Eisenhower era. As a result of these savings, together with a strengthening economy, the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace of anytime in American history other than the demobilization from World War II.

The $1.4 trillion in spending cuts referred to is for a 10-year period -- $140 billion for each year. In a $4 trillion budget, this amounts to cutting spending by 3.5%.The ten-year timeframe isn't clear in the above statement -- in fact the word "already" is confusing. The White House email on Friday afternoon announcing the failure to stop the sequester is similarly unclear; it refers to a chart with Obama's "$4 trillion of Deficit Reduction," which begins with: "Spending cuts to discretionary programs enacted over the past two years: $1.4 T." Apparently the cuts were enacted in the last two years but will unfold over the next ten years.

This ought to lead to some head scratching, since there have been no spending cuts in the last two years. Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year of his presidency. According to the Treasury Department's "Debt to the Penny" calculator, on Inauguration Day, 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Obama's deficits have increased our debt by $6.1 trillion to $16.7 trillion -- a 58% increase.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Obama's claim comes from comparing projected deficits to a baseline projection of the 2010 budget, allocated in 2009, excluding stimulus funds. Under the government's "baseline budgeting" rules, budgets are increased every year by around 6% to account for population growth and inflation. Ultimately the concept that government spending grows with inflation is not unreasonable, but it is often misused by politicians, leading to Newspeak situations where a spending increase in actual dollars can be called a "spending cut" if the increase is less than the preordained increase. Obama therefore can spend 2.5% more each year and claim that he's cutting spending by 3.5%.

It gets worse. For one, there's not really any such thing as "the deficit." A deficit is the difference between receipts and outlays in a single budget year. In 2012, for instance, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenue but spent $3.8 trillion, running a $1.3 trillion deficit for that year. The national debt is the cumulative total of all this deficit spending. The statement that Obama "reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion" is deliberately obfuscatory. We know he didn't reduce a $1.3 trillion deficit by $2.5 trillion, and even if we are aware of the 10-year timeframe, it's tempting to assume that Obama is referring to reducing the national debt. In fact, an email Friday from my Congressman Michael Capuano reports: "In the past two years, total debt reduction amounts to approximately $2.4 trillion." Note that bit about "the last two years" comes up again. While Capuano refers to debt reduction rather than deficit reduction, but the resulting statement remains complete nonsense; in the last two years the national debt has risen from $14.1 trillion to $16.4 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion, up 16%.

Obama wants to give the impression that he is spending less, cutting deficits and debt, being a fiscal hawk who knows how to spend wisely, unjustly accused of excessive spending by duplicitous Republicans. None of this is true, which becomes clear when we look at Obama's projections for 2011 to 2022, presented in Summary Table S-1 of the 2013 federal budget.

The top line is "receipts," or income from taxes and fees. Receipts dropped during the recent recession, but the budget optimistically projects a rise from $2.3 trillion in 2011 to $5.1 trillion in 2022 -- more than a doubling of tax revenues. Either our economy has to grow dramatically, or taxes will be punitive.

"Outlays" -- federal government spending -- likewise follow a steep upward trajectory, growing every single year from $3.6 trillion in 2011 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. This compares to Bill Clinton's 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion and George W. Bush's 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion (unadjusted for inflation).

In every one of these years, the federal government will run large annual deficits. The trend in deficits is down, falling from the $1.3 trillion to a low of $575 billion in 2018, and then climbing again. Even when you reduce a deficit, however, you're still spending more than you take in, still adding to the national debt.

And the national debt picture is not pretty. Obama's budget table reveals a sharp increase, nearly doubling from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $19.5 trillion in 2022. These figures disingenuously omit debt classified as "intergovernmental holdings," which this year adds another $4.8 trillion to our total debt. A closer estimate for 2022 is a national debt of over $25 trillion.

Obama's chart illustrating that the deficit is coming down at an historically rapid pace contains this footnote: "3% Threshold for Debts Stable as a Share of GDP." It's referring to the out years, from 2015 to 2023, when deficits "stabilize" at under 3% of GDP.

There is however nothing stable about this situation. Obama wants us to focus on the change in the slope of the line, doing budgetary calculus, but the simple arithmetic is what counts. Adding hundreds of billions to the national debt every year is better than adding a trillion every year, but it's still destabilizing and dangerous.

In the next ten years, according to Obama's own projections, taxes, spending, and the national debt will roughly double. Obama's rapidly rising budgets are only offset by unreasonably optimistic revenue projections, and the 3% ratio will only hold if we have 4.3% GDP growth assumed in Table S-1, every year for the next decade. Given our current anemic growth and the historical U.S. average of 3.2% growth, it won't take much for everything to spin out of control.

The interest on this debt will be staggering, and if rates spike, we'll have to learn to calculate oil prices in Chinese Yuan. And we won't go into the depressing subject of unfunded liabilities for pensions and medical benefits, which are rocketing toward $100 trillion, with a T

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/o..._cuts.html

You can't handle the truth.

and right on que......... a response devoid of any thinking.

See how easy.

(03-05-2013 03:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 01:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:34 PM)maximus Wrote:  Anyone of you leftists want to take a stab at this?


March 4, 2013
Obama's Mythical Spending Cuts
By Peter Wilson




President Obama has engaged in a two-pronged attack during the recent budget battles -- which, given the failure of sequester negotiations, will continue with our next budget crisis on March 27th when the Continuing Resolution funding the federal government expires. On the one hand the president uses scare tactics to make the point that cutting any government spending will cause pain. On the other hand, he praises himself for his enormous ongoing deficit-cutting efforts.

We read about this latter strategy on a recent post at whitehouse.gov:

The President has already reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, cutting spending by over $1.4 trillion, bringing domestic discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the Eisenhower era. As a result of these savings, together with a strengthening economy, the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace of anytime in American history other than the demobilization from World War II.

The $1.4 trillion in spending cuts referred to is for a 10-year period -- $140 billion for each year. In a $4 trillion budget, this amounts to cutting spending by 3.5%.The ten-year timeframe isn't clear in the above statement -- in fact the word "already" is confusing. The White House email on Friday afternoon announcing the failure to stop the sequester is similarly unclear; it refers to a chart with Obama's "$4 trillion of Deficit Reduction," which begins with: "Spending cuts to discretionary programs enacted over the past two years: $1.4 T." Apparently the cuts were enacted in the last two years but will unfold over the next ten years.

This ought to lead to some head scratching, since there have been no spending cuts in the last two years. Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year of his presidency. According to the Treasury Department's "Debt to the Penny" calculator, on Inauguration Day, 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Obama's deficits have increased our debt by $6.1 trillion to $16.7 trillion -- a 58% increase.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Obama's claim comes from comparing projected deficits to a baseline projection of the 2010 budget, allocated in 2009, excluding stimulus funds. Under the government's "baseline budgeting" rules, budgets are increased every year by around 6% to account for population growth and inflation. Ultimately the concept that government spending grows with inflation is not unreasonable, but it is often misused by politicians, leading to Newspeak situations where a spending increase in actual dollars can be called a "spending cut" if the increase is less than the preordained increase. Obama therefore can spend 2.5% more each year and claim that he's cutting spending by 3.5%.

It gets worse. For one, there's not really any such thing as "the deficit." A deficit is the difference between receipts and outlays in a single budget year. In 2012, for instance, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenue but spent $3.8 trillion, running a $1.3 trillion deficit for that year. The national debt is the cumulative total of all this deficit spending. The statement that Obama "reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion" is deliberately obfuscatory. We know he didn't reduce a $1.3 trillion deficit by $2.5 trillion, and even if we are aware of the 10-year timeframe, it's tempting to assume that Obama is referring to reducing the national debt. In fact, an email Friday from my Congressman Michael Capuano reports: "In the past two years, total debt reduction amounts to approximately $2.4 trillion." Note that bit about "the last two years" comes up again. While Capuano refers to debt reduction rather than deficit reduction, but the resulting statement remains complete nonsense; in the last two years the national debt has risen from $14.1 trillion to $16.4 trillion, an increase of $2.3 trillion, up 16%.

Obama wants to give the impression that he is spending less, cutting deficits and debt, being a fiscal hawk who knows how to spend wisely, unjustly accused of excessive spending by duplicitous Republicans. None of this is true, which becomes clear when we look at Obama's projections for 2011 to 2022, presented in Summary Table S-1 of the 2013 federal budget.

The top line is "receipts," or income from taxes and fees. Receipts dropped during the recent recession, but the budget optimistically projects a rise from $2.3 trillion in 2011 to $5.1 trillion in 2022 -- more than a doubling of tax revenues. Either our economy has to grow dramatically, or taxes will be punitive.

"Outlays" -- federal government spending -- likewise follow a steep upward trajectory, growing every single year from $3.6 trillion in 2011 to $5.8 trillion in 2022. This compares to Bill Clinton's 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion and George W. Bush's 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion (unadjusted for inflation).

In every one of these years, the federal government will run large annual deficits. The trend in deficits is down, falling from the $1.3 trillion to a low of $575 billion in 2018, and then climbing again. Even when you reduce a deficit, however, you're still spending more than you take in, still adding to the national debt.

And the national debt picture is not pretty. Obama's budget table reveals a sharp increase, nearly doubling from $10.1 trillion in 2011 to $19.5 trillion in 2022. These figures disingenuously omit debt classified as "intergovernmental holdings," which this year adds another $4.8 trillion to our total debt. A closer estimate for 2022 is a national debt of over $25 trillion.

Obama's chart illustrating that the deficit is coming down at an historically rapid pace contains this footnote: "3% Threshold for Debts Stable as a Share of GDP." It's referring to the out years, from 2015 to 2023, when deficits "stabilize" at under 3% of GDP.

There is however nothing stable about this situation. Obama wants us to focus on the change in the slope of the line, doing budgetary calculus, but the simple arithmetic is what counts. Adding hundreds of billions to the national debt every year is better than adding a trillion every year, but it's still destabilizing and dangerous.

In the next ten years, according to Obama's own projections, taxes, spending, and the national debt will roughly double. Obama's rapidly rising budgets are only offset by unreasonably optimistic revenue projections, and the 3% ratio will only hold if we have 4.3% GDP growth assumed in Table S-1, every year for the next decade. Given our current anemic growth and the historical U.S. average of 3.2% growth, it won't take much for everything to spin out of control.

The interest on this debt will be staggering, and if rates spike, we'll have to learn to calculate oil prices in Chinese Yuan. And we won't go into the depressing subject of unfunded liabilities for pensions and medical benefits, which are rocketing toward $100 trillion, with a T

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/o..._cuts.html

You can't handle the truth.

and right on que......... a response devoid of any thinking.

See how easy.

Oh come on now. You know damn well stealing a line from a movie involve some thinking.

(03-06-2013 02:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 03:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 01:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:34 PM)maximus Wrote:  Anyone of you leftists want to take a stab at this?




http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/o..._cuts.html

You can't handle the truth.

and right on que......... a response devoid of any thinking.

See how easy.

Oh come on now. You know damn well stealing a line from a movie involve some thinking.

So, you believe your whole life involves some effort?

Another day, another Obama lie

Gotta say I continue to be shocked that certain media is actually calling Obama out on his lies.

The White House tours that were canceled due to sequester cuts... the tour guides are volunteers. They work for free.

(03-06-2013 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The White House tours that were canceled due to sequester cuts... the tour guides are volunteers. They work for free.

It's nothing but a temper tantrum from a spoiled brat who's never been a leader.

(03-06-2013 09:05 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Another day, another Obama lie

Gotta say I continue to be shocked that certain media is actually calling Obama out on his lies.

If they were really going to do their jobs, they should start having ongoing segements titled: "Obama's lie of the day" - then they could report every day on the latest lie the President told.

They would be able to run the segment 7 days a week - the only off times would be for vacations and golf outings..........about 30% of the time. During that 30% of down time they can substitute "Congressional Lies".

The truth can set you free. Of course finding the truth now a days takes some digging.

(03-06-2013 09:05 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Another day, another Obama lie

Gotta say I continue to be shocked that certain media is actually calling Obama out on his lies.

I suppose it can be considered a lie. I can tell you I would consider not getting overtime during the Christmas season a pay cut. I would think many who work at an hourly rate would consider it a pay cut even though their actual 40 hour work week isn't cut.

(03-06-2013 11:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 09:05 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Another day, another Obama lie

Gotta say I continue to be shocked that certain media is actually calling Obama out on his lies.

I suppose it can be considered a lie. I can tell you I would consider not getting overtime during the Christmas season a pay cut. I would think many who work at an hourly rate would consider it a pay cut even though their actual 40 hour work week isn't cut.

That's like someone not getting their pay raise complaining they got a pay cut.

Quote:I suppose it can be considered a lie. I can tell you I would consider not getting overtime during the Christmas season a pay cut. I would think many who work at an hourly rate would consider it a pay cut even though their actual 40 hour work week isn't cut.

Did you read this article? The average overtime these guys pull in comes to about $6.50 per week, on top of the 1000 a week salary they are paid. So, if my limited math skills are correct, a 50% cut in their overtime pay would equal about $3.25 a week.

Maybe, just maybe Taco Bell money for one day a week. No soda though, gonna have to order water.

Give us a break.

(03-06-2013 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The White House tours that were canceled due to sequester cuts... the tour guides are volunteers. They work for free.

Purely for show It illustrates the type of people they are.

But we found $250 million to give to the Muslim Brotherhood.

You gotta wait in line at the airport because they can't pay for enough TSA molesters... but they are spending 50 million on new uniforms for them.

(03-06-2013 11:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 09:05 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Another day, another Obama lie

Gotta say I continue to be shocked that certain media is actually calling Obama out on his lies.

I suppose it can be considered a lie. I can tell you I would consider not getting overtime during the Christmas season a pay cut. I would think many who work at an hourly rate would consider it a pay cut even though their actual 40 hour work week isn't cut.

Robert - again!!! Read the F'ing article before you comment. Their avg. overtime is $6.50 PER WEEK and so far this year they've actually worked MORE OVERTIME than usual due to the inaguration.

Do you still consider that a pay cut?

Just comment without ANY facts and look the fool again...........

(03-06-2013 01:10 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 09:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The White House tours that were canceled due to sequester cuts... the tour guides are volunteers. They work for free.

Purely for show It illustrates the type of people they are.

But we found $250 million to give to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The admin line is the tour cuts were done to save money on the secret service agents that oversee those tours. I saw where it saved maybe $180,000. Now, are Secret Service agents hourly? If not, I'm guessing they still got paid, so no money actually saved. Yes, this was just a politcal stunt and the admin should be ashamed.