• #1

    Not one agency or department has lost one red cent.


    Think Independently!

    Wake Up!
  • #42
    @Thunderchicken As long as we only have Obama in the White House Americans will lose each time his Handlers believe they have more to gain from Chaos.
  • #80
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @BossTweed - Just wondering how you think President Obama should have delt with the sequester? For example, should he have agreed to all the Republicans legislative demands to avoid the sequester, while receiving nothing in return?
  • #81
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    * I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the sequester is no "myth" as you claim. Federal agencies ARE cutting programs, training, and needed innovations which are beneficial to America -- as well as furloughing employees for at least five days. And who is doing the "lying"?
  • #93
    @DB-Grinberg - With all due repect, the sequester is based on a false premise and an over-reaction.

    As a business owner for over 35 years and one who is active in politics I have learned to both listen and research claims made by my government in their often over-reaching solutions to relatively simple problems.

    I have a very good friend who works in DC as one of the legal council team to the House of Representatives on the Democratic side. We discuss often and with much embarrassment the created "cause and effect" of this fiscal panic.

    In this case, we have a group of elitists who have been arguing back an forth about budget and budget issues along with borrowing monies in support of efforts that have no benefit to our country and work against our national budget.

    Most Americans recognize that politicians use a lot of fiction when it comes to things like budget calculations. That is especially true in the nation's capital, where simply NOT increasing spending as much from one year to the next qualifies as a real budget cut.

    So it is no surprise that President Obama, who is on pace to add more to the U.S. debt than all previous presidents combined [], has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that he says cuts spending in a major way, but really increases spending in a major way (as well as taxes).

    In fact, according to an assessment of his budget by Investors Business Daily, it is far from the "balanced" approach to "revenue increases" and cuts, and is rather more like "a monument to fiscal irresponsibility."

    Currently, the White House has shut down White House tours, cut spending on National Parks and furloughed some Federal Employees.


    To cause a sense of panic and to keep the public off balance.

    In the meanwhile we still have Senate and Congressional Junkets, vacations, parties, limos, private planes and extravagant gatherings of the rich and famous...all uneffected by our fiscal panic.

    We continue to fund pork-barrel projects and pie-in-the-sky projects like Obama's "High Speed Rail" project, backed by Senator Feinstein and have billions awarded to who? Richard Blum - Senator Feinsteins husband.

    From a business standpoint, one does not invent panic to ones clients in the hopes of gaining more profit and control...unless one is an unscrupulous businessman.

    If I ran my business based on the idea that I will only increase my expenditure budget by 9.9% rather than 10% and began laying off my employees and cutting services I would be the laughing stock of the business community. I would also soon be out of business.

    Ergo - The Sequester is a myth. It is a created panic with a created, painful solution that will allow our overpaid, elitists in DC claim a victory to a non-problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    I think the since 2011, the House has done an admirable job of standing up to the Obama Administration's desire to spend even more than we already are. I cringe to think about where we would be if the Dems had held the House in the 2010 elections.

    As I've said on here more than once, sometimes gridlock is the Constitution doing what it's supposed to do... Defending the people against government.
  • #6
    Another example is the Senator who is preparing more gun control legislation. The country is dying and he is preparing to attack the Second Amendment. Yes, maybe a furlough would prevent Congress from violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
  • #8
    I worked for the FAA for thirty years and their employees are highly trained, dedicated civil servants. They were forced to take a 10% pay cut because Obama wanted to make the American people who fly suffer for political reasons. Let's furlough Congress and the president.
  • #63
    The FAA's cost should be paid by the airlines and people who fly, or are you willing to argue that it isn't welfare and an entitlement for big corporations and people who fly?

    Socialism and super welfare applied for airlines, and everyone that uses that subsidized service, nothing less.

    Good to know for all your blow hard pontificating bizarre right talking points and advocating worship of the wealthy, you made your living off the people in masse. The truth comes out as it has a way of doing.

    BTW.... how did you manage to make it past the firings when Regan fired all you spineless mammals and no other union workers showed any willingness to stand and lock down the whole country, on the day the unions died, well except for the morally wrong public unions.

    So what if the flight controllers got a little battered. They and all non-public union workers got what they deserved for being cowards and lacking principles.
  • #65
    @TheHandsomeOne All of the means of transportation costs are shared by the taxpayers, roads, highways, railroads and air travel. No welfare, we provide a product, safe air travel and the taxpayers pay the cost. You probably are very familiar with welfare. Not that it's any of your business but management didn't go on an illegal strike and were not fired. Your bizarre posts indicate that you should ease off the white powder a little bit.
  • #66
    @TheHandsomeOne "The FAA's cost should be paid by the airlines and people who fly."
    The people who use private schools still pay school taxes. My three children never set foot in a public school yet I paid their tuition and school taxes. Your argument falls apart.
  • #69
    @earl Seriously, I'm thrilled to know what you are and aren't. An overpaid government pension drawing hot air winbag that society has no reason to keep paying you, that's who you are.

    Wrong guy here, I've never drawn welfare in any form or fashion, and certainly not the real welfare thats doled out to overpaid government employees or the bigger stuff that goes to the very wealthiest that outsource jobs and pay poverty wages.

    Now on a lighter note, how about sharing some of that head numbing powder you have in that huge scarface mountain on your mahogany desk?
  • #70
    @TheHandsomeOne Try keeping airplanes from running into each other for a few hours and I would see you doing what I have seen often. New controllers heaving their guts all over the scopes and screaming, "I can't do this." It would probably take you about 10 minutes. A large part of the economy depends on air travel and transport. Do you have any idea what FAA guys earn.? Of course not.
    As to the white powder, I've never seen it except on TV but it appears that you have.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    No I don't. For the first time we have peopl there that want to cut spending and reduce the debt. And an administration that wants to spend more. If left unchecked the democrats would go on a spending spree like no other. Our constitution would be wrecked. And we would be taxed until the economy was driven to a complete stop.
    Am I happy about this Sesquester? No but the president forced us into it. It's a spending cut sort of. At least it's a cut in spending growth. Obama has pulled every dirty trick in the book trying to make this Sesquester as painful as possible for as many people as possible to pressure the GOP but its backfired on him.
  • #47
    I see that the author gave this president a pass -- Why? Obama, as the Chief Executive Officer of this nation sets the tone in the house and senate. Also noted -- the author didn't mention Obama's failure to adhere to his oath of office to enforce laws of this nation under our Constitution....
  • #83
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @S-N-A-F-U * You're correct that th ePresident HELPS set the tone in Congress, but he certainly doesn't do it by himself alone. Remember, there are also constituents, public opinion polls, and a tsunami of lobbyists influencing members of the House and Senate virtually around the clock. Regardless, it is the absolute responsibility of Congress to appropriate the funds -- that's their job. They failed to carry out this inherent and critically important duty. Also, can you specify what you mean by the President's alleged "failure to adhere to his oath of office..." Can you offer up some examples, please. I'm just curious what you're exactly referring to Thanks.
  • #92

    "He announced that his DoJ will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, thereby violating that oath and Rule of Law. Agree or disagree with the law it is the law."

    "By signing NDAA for the year 2012, Obama has authorized the arrest and the indefinite detention without trial of citizens and residents of the United States, which is both immoral and cruel and violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including---

    Article 1, Section 9, the privilege to petition for habeas corpus;
    Article 3, Section 3, stronger due process for claims of treason;
    Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures; Fifth Amendment prohibition of loss of liberty without due process;
    Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial with representation."

    "NDAA violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. has signed. We therefore declare that, because President Obama has signed NDAA for 2012 and thereby violated his oath of office,"

    .NOTE: For more legal analysis, see

    Furthermore, he is currently being sued by ICE agents,(which was recently approved by a Fed. Judge to go forward) for imposing new regulations (by passing congressional authority ) that violate ICE agents and other law enforcement agencies oaths in protecting this country from illegal entry -- and with the threat of termination.

  • #101
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @S-N-A-F-U - Thanks for that informative and comprehensive reply. Thus my next question is: why doesn't the GOP controlled Congress try the impeachment route if the POTUS is in such blatant and egregious violation of the Constitution on all the fronts you claim? Any theories on this? Thanks again.
  • #109
    @DB-Grinberg the president is the head of the Democratic Party. It's Obama that is negotiating this with the republicans. This situation was originally Obama's idea. The republicans fell for it and let Obama have his tax increase by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire. Everyone's taxes went up by at least 2%
    Then when it was time to cut spending Obama balked and demanded more tax increases with out any spending cuts. The republicans said no not without a real spending cut.
    The sequester was the only way to get any type of spending cut. This is what THEIR constituents demanded them to do get the spending under control.
    Obama has deliberately tried to make the sequester hurt as many Americans as a political tactic. A 4.5% cut in increased spending doesn't shut the country down. Inflation isn't growing by 4.5%. He got a minimum of 2% more revenue so that's really only a 2.5% cut in increased spending. Nobody believes Obama and his sky is falling rhetoric. And your assertion that Obama only suggests to congress is false. He puts tremendous pressure on democrats to do what he says. Ask Sen Blanche Lincoln how he strong armed her into voting for Obamacare. Oh wait, you can't because she isn't a Senator any more. Obama threw her completely under the bus to get that train wreck passed. So go try to sell that bullshit somewhere else.
  • R Load more replies

  • #29
    @DogLady_1 Too often when the media talks about "Congress" they mean only the House of Representatives. Since all three have proven to be ineffective and unwilling to work together - I would rather they stay home and stop finding new ways to spend money.
  • #31
    @vws - The writer of the above article is referring to Congress as House + Senate... and I think that is an assumption that people make because of a lack of civic education. I wouldn't blame that on the media.
  • #26
    The sequester is nothing but a tool being used by the Democrats to make the country suffer. They are still crying over the gun bill that was thrown back in their faces as the people spanked their asses for being dumb and trying to screw with law abiding Americans.

    How about doing the unthinkable and dismiss all government people for 30 days. No pay, add their money to the pile and if they do ok then let them come back. If we got along without them, then terminate those positions.

    It's really easy. If we have to lay people off, then do it. But don't be an ignorant Democrat, lay off the people that are useless, like the President, Democrats in Congress, you know, people that offer nothing to the countries issues. But it is dumb to lay off the things we the people need when we have an abundance of people that fail to earn the money they suck from their jobs.
  • #87
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    * "The sequester is nothing but a tool being used by the Democrats..." How's that when Republicans control the House and Dems don't even have the votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate? The Congress is virtually controlled by the GOP, not the Dems. We have divided gov, but that's nothing new and should not have resulted in this unprecedented sequester -- which ultimately hurts average Americans. There's plenty of blame to go around from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue (ie. Congress and the White House).
  • #17
    Or maybe "We the People" should hold them responsible by not voting them back in.
    If people would stop voting the party line, this might actually happen.
  • #27
    "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." -John Adams
  • #10
    Strangely I do agree with this view. CONgress, all 535 of them should be the first to be furloughed. Crazy Uncle Joe Biden and King 0bama himself should be numbers 536 and 537 respectively. Look how much taxpayer dollars were wasted on the WHCD this weekend, yet they had to furlough hundreds of FAA air traffic controllers (you know, people who actually work for a living). They want to do this to the DoD and FDA as well. Nope, I say furlough CONgress, VPOTUS, and POTUS first. They can afford to go without a few paychecks.
  • #3
    Agree in part. Take a couple years off. Passing and trying to pass laws that are already on the books or go against the Bill of Rights. If you look at Obama's record trying to undermine Congress, though, and appoint people under the table while Congress is out of town, that is the only downside. So, the entire Hill should take some time off, let the people rebuild this country without interference. Sequester is not a bad thing, it forced them to look at waste. Look harder, longer, from a distance.
  • #82
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    * Just an FYI that Presidents of both major political parties have used the "recess appointment" -- it works both ways. This is nothing new!
  • #22
    the obama administration used this as a way to release thousands of criminal illegal aliens from detention centers. fist said it was 100s then told the truth later. these people were criminals on top of being here illegally,it was first said they only released low risk,yet before said they only hold and deport criminals illegals who are a danger.
  • #20
    I totally agree with this view. We should reduce Congressional salaries to the national median income of $65K/yr. Then we should deduct the hours they spend in partisan conferences, conventions, committees, etc. The only time they shoud be paid for is when they are talking together and solving problems. And I doubt we would miss them if they took a furlough... in fact, I think they shoud voluntarily take furloughs and be compelled to volunteer their time off at local charities, and spending a day in each of its many ma and pa businesses, in their respective districts... They just don't see the consequences of their decisions from an ivory tower view and only spending time with the few who benefit from their decisions.
  • #4
    Yes, let the congressional clowns collect their living expenses from the lobbyists, and not the taxpayers, since that is whom they are beholden to anyways.
  • #44
    That has been evident for several years. They now serve Wall Street and corporations only, bought and sold by lobbyist, and not US corporations for a large percentage.
  • #35
    This is a do nothing congress, just send them home and at lest they cannot spend more money. Obama is doing enough Executive Orders to cover congress's failure to act on anything. Not constitutional but its been a while since we have seen any actual constitutional actions out of this congress or administration. (Also Furlough Obama).
  • #30
    The cuts should come from within before cuts are forced on the people.

    These morons in Washington (several administrations deep) are the ones who have put us where we are. THEY are the ones who should suffer, no us. Why are they allowed to spend us into the red and then expect US to fix the problems.

    I say, cut their salaries. Cut their benefits. Take away their overpaid secretaries. Take away their free haircuts. Close the gym. Cut their travel budgets. In other words, make THEM suffer the consequences for THEIR actions.
  • #25
    Trust Obama. He wouldn't have dared have that lavish Party at the White House over the weekend if America had any financial issues. All Hail THE Obama!!
  • #16
    No. The writer is moaning about fictitious "cuts" in the budget.
    If the editorialist believes a smaller increase is really a "cut" then that writer is probably either a former member or a former staffer in Congress.
  • #18
    Ask him whose checks he is cashing. That will tell you where he stands. Paid mouth pieces say what you pay them to say.
  • #84
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    * Actually, in some instances "a smaller increase" IS technically a cut because it fails to account for inflation and other annual cost of living increases -- which, by the way, is real money. When you do the math, it's a cut, period, in most instances.
  • #85
    Politix Op-Ed Contributor
    @GvtMule - Interesting observation, however, no entity or individual is paying ME to say or write anything here. I know it's hard to believe that some folks in Washington really do have independent opinions rather than just rehashing political talking points and being boxed into one party or ideology like a robot. Many are like that, but not every single person. FYI -- I say what I think and mean what I say. Nobody tells me what to say or write in this forum. The only one allowed to tell me what to say is my wife -- and, if you have an issue with that, you may gladly take it up with her -- thank you very much!
  • #89
    @DB-Grinberg - and budget increases which are (if your claim is to be believed) merely smaller than the rate of inflation amount to:

    <<<Draconian and needless across-the-board federal budget cuts>>>¦?????? What are truly "needless" is many of those programs.

    You claim we have "Less law enforcement and national security", but they can put Boston under martial law, while producing five infantry divisions and two tank brigades to chase and capture one teenager.

    But you call Head Start "vital", and see nothing "draconian" about the deficit (only the non-cuts).It's obvious you came here with a political agenda.

    You'll see real "cuts" when there is a monetary collapse.
  • #90
    @DB-Grinberg - Thank you for confessing you live in the beltway.
    When you leave the confiscate-and-consume culture, and step out into the wealth-producing part of America you might butt heads and opinions with the peasant class.

    But Don't worry. DHS is apparently preparing to "thin the herd" out here. Those "draconian" cuts you moaned about haven't prevented the stockpiling of ammunition.
  • #9
    I'm not sure about furloughs because they are going to get paid anyway. Take that money out of their paycheck and furlough them until they make promises to work together and show their serious, then put them back to work. There's another problem. Our president is equally culpable. What do we do about him? He's just to go on doing things the same way, which is the wrong way.
  • #14
    But congress gets paid a bit differently. That's why I said what I did. They probably have already been paid for the year since they voted to give themselves a raise despite our country being in physical trouble.
  • #34
    @earl Maybe we could have the President introduce legislation to do this. It would be sort of like the one to stop them from insider trading. Oops. Wait. That might not work. ;)

    Isn't it ironic that we have this huge checks and balances system in place yet there is no way to actually add checks and balances because it would be voted down?
  • #61
    @Firestorm It is ironic, the checks and balances are between the the three branches of government. There is no way to force furloughs on the House and Senate since they would have to vote on it themselves.
  • #99
    Obama should have vetoed their raise. With our fiscal trouble being as bad as he said it is, why didn't he veto and use executive privilege to keep them from over powering him with a second vote?
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...