Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Some frank talk about the sequester

March 11, 2013

Federal spending cuts labeled “the sequester” will be a terrible calamity, the White House warned during the weeks before they kicked in on March 1....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-11-13 11:12 AM

I guess you missed the memo about the 46 MILLION that the state of Iowa alone will lose because of this. 46 MILLION.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 2:28 PM

And 46 MILLION that will not come out either of some present or future taxpayers' pockets, all dollars that those taxpayers then don't - or won't - have to spend on things the production of which would have employed others to produce in some more useful employment than Obama has dreamed up so he can hire yet more federal bureaucratic drones and, thus, create still more govt dependents - and Democrat voters. Better brush up on your economics, Cranky; try Hazlitt or Sowell, as they write at a pedestrian level than Hayek.

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 6:37 PM

For god's sake, Anderson. Even YOU have to get tired of that rhetoric after a while. The sequester solves NOTHING. It doesn't create anything, it doesn't produce anything.

It short changes education and human services mostly, followed closely by inspections and appeals, public health, homeland security, public television and natural resources.

In other words, it's just a hurtful cut for no reason other than to hurt those least able to recover.

Better brush up on the republican party, Andy. It's a sinking ship and there are only a few aging rats clinging to the side... you included.

I truly wish you understood economics as well as you think you do. Licking the pages of a couple of libertarian books does not an expert make. Nor do pedestrian childish posts badly attempting to deflect from the issue - and failing, I might add.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 9:58 PM

So, if the taxpayers now pay 2% more after 1 Jan 13, and the sequester amounted to a 2% reduction - then things should equal out, right? Even the beloved Commander-in-Thief is now recanting his predictions, as his approval numbers continue to fall and Americans begin to place the blame partially on his leadership authority. I’ll take media bail out for 16 trillion…

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 10:40 AM

You clearly know nothing of economics, Cranky, and very little about Obama's sequester. On the non-military side, the sequester does not "cut" anything, only REDUCES the amount of increase projected over last year's expenditures under the federal govt's inflationary, base-line budgeting system. My knowledge of how economies work does not come just from books,Cranky, but a lifetime's employment experience that began at age 12 and ended as Vice President Europe of the world's 7th largest manufacturing company, then international president of the videophone developer. Since you are so utterly devoid of any economic moxie, I suggested a couple of simply written books on economics to lift you out of ignorance. As usual, when you have no substantive rejoinder, you slur your interlocutor and any source of info with whom you disagree - a basic Obama/Democrat ploy right out of Saul Alynski's "Handbook for Radicals." Socialist collectivism is, as always, the road to ruin.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 11:03 AM

Last year, the state of Iowa finalized a 2013 budget of more than $6.244 BILLION. Simple math shows us that the $46 million that will not be provided due to the Obama Sequester accounts for less than 1% of the State of Iowa budget. Our state surely can find some means of recovering that by removing waste, fraud, or abuse.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 1:40 PM


Do you haters recall when we were discussing the horrifying 500 million (or was that billion?) dollars in CUTS TO MEDICARE that the new health care bill would create? Do you?

Do you remember that you were all calling them CUTS, when in reality it amounted to projected savings from not spending?


So why is it that the sequester is GREAT, but the healthcare bill was slashing?

Anderson, this time when you reply, you CANNOT use:

1. I lived in Europe 2. I read two books

Oh, so easy! HA!

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 5:24 PM

Haters? Gotcha? What are you 12, CrankyTroll?

0bamacare cut an estimated $716 billion in increases from Medicare over the next 10 years. It then simultaneously reallocated that money towards the 0bamacare program. No reforms to attempt to save Medicare, No savings, No true cuts in overall government spending, and in the end we are still borrowing ~$0.46 on the dollar to pay for both programs.

The 0bama Sequester cut $85 Billion from a number of programs this year and that was it. That money was not funneled, laundered, or otherwise moved to any other program. The Sequester simply stopped the U.S. Government from needing to borrow or print that money.

The boy cried “Wolf,” and his lie was exposed. The sun rose. The world didn’t come to an end. Planes didn't fall from the sky. Hospitals didn’t close. The air didn’t turn to ash or the water to blood. The only major thing that has happened was that a petty and childish President kicked us out of our White House.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 5:45 PM

HOW IDIOTIC - AND INFINTILE - CAN YOU GET, CRANKY? The sequester applies only to discretionary spending, not entitlements, and is NOT rpt NOT comparable to the latter. Obama's cutting of funds from Medicare was a real "cut," ostensibly to help "pay" for Obamacare. Sequestration merely REDUCES the planned INCREASE in discretionary spending that would occur this year under the DEMOCRATS' absurd baseline budgeting system, which assumes continual annual increases in discretionary spending - confused now by LBJ's 1968 sleight-of-hand incorporating Social Security receipts into the General Budget in order to hide the uncovered cost of the DEMOCRAT's Vietnam War and our largest federal deficit since WWII. As for books, Cranky, do you ever read any, have experience in anything you write about, or is it all a priori?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 7:06 PM

Has anyone noticed when you hit the "agree" or "disagree" tab, it registers both?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 9:00 PM

Good Lord, Andy! Are you seriously this dumb?

First of all, under the health care bill, Medicare spending continues to go up year after year. The health care bill tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the law makes to reduce spending.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're gettin' too old to play with the big kids, Andy.

And you can't spell. Time to wheel back in your room.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 10:58 PM

Dispute with ignoramuses, not play with big kids, Cranky. One as ignorant of business and economics as you might begin by googling "crusoe economics" to learn how they really functions in language you might understand. Meanwhile, dare you tell us upon what experience or other authority you rest your opinions, or what psychological problems prompt you to so constantly put your ignorance on public display and incessantly append silly personal attacks on every interlocutor? Twelve-year-old, indeed; more like five!

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 10:11 AM

Keep trying to back peddle, Andy. That's what makes this so funny! When reducing the amount of anticipated spending was done by Obama, it was treason - when it's done in the way of sequester by the repubs - the ones refusing to stop it - it's genius.

Your hypocrisy is on display once again!

And regarding my credentials - I lived in Europe and read two books.

That should qualify me as an expert.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 11:10 AM

That wasn't a cut, Cranky, it was a transfer of funds from Medicare to Obamacare, but then I wouldn't expect you to comprehend the difference. Obama only EXPANDS govt spending. Experience tempers what we are taught and read, which is why wisdom comes with age. In the real world, some ideas work; most, do not. So, how about a full CV w/o anonymity if you stand behind what YOU think and write?

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 11:16 AM

Meanwhile, cranky, as Obama & Co., do eat, drink and be merry - your kids and grandkids can pick up the bill.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 12:41 PM

But Andy! At the time YOU said Obama was CUTTING medicare! YOU! Remember? You argued with me that about the reality that it was simply recalculated disbursement due to less than anticipated expenditures!


And now that it's ANOTHER number shuffle (because it is) you're trying to back peddle your histrionics and muddy the water with pomposity and self-aggrandizing tripe.

Cranky - 1

Andy - 0

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 3:09 PM

Don't know what you guys are all lathered up about. Prez. O himself this morning said there's no debt problem.

"We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt," President Obama said in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos for "Good Morning America." "In fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place."

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 6:05 PM

Yes, cranky, a REAL cut to Medicare as part of the false calculation that supported the DEMS claim that Obamacare would not only add nothing to the deficit but actually SAVE money, and we know the LIE that was. In no way is Medicare OR Obamacare affected by the sequester. With leftists like you it is always pure legerdemain. For heaven's sake get Economics in One Lesson and READ it before trying to address economic issues again.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 6:09 PM

One more time, Anderson. And try to pay attention.

The point I have made repeatedly, and the one you are trying to deflect from, is that YOU have situational ethics. The numbers game is the same, but your reactions were completely different.

Why? Because you are a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with economics, although I have been running circles around you for a while on that issue. Nay, this is about hypocrisy. Yours.

You don't give two hoots about the economy, even if you DID understand it. You just hate Democrats.

No clothes ONCE AGAIN, Emperor Andy.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 10:26 AM

To CG: please give up on these trolls please, they know not. This paper teases these bone heads with lies and false statements and then the hate juices comes out and away they go on another fantasy trip to the land of conservative hash. Forgive them CG for they no not and never ever will.. andy is your kite broke or are you out of books of distrust. Get the motorhome warmed up and take a trip somewhere far away please...

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 11:59 AM

Brucee and CG, I just have to laugh at both of you. None of your comments have done anything to advance the original anti-sequester argument that this state cannot get by with a reduction in the amount of money it is getting from the Federal Government. Remember 46 Million Dollars, Cranky? Why can’t the State of Iowa or the Federal Government do with one or two pennies less per dollar spent? Plus, the State of Iowa was running a surplus of something close to $650 Million last Oct. Couldn’t we use some of that money and still come out ahead?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 11:59 AM

Brucee, did the Messenger come up with such whoppers as: “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.” “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.” “Taxes will not go up on those making under $250,000.” Nope, those were just a few of the greatest hits from the Dope of Hope himself.

In the end, all the two of you have are insults spawned by your hate, fear, avarice, and idiocy. Maybe if the two of you trolls would pick up a book, you could quit parroting lines from MSNBC and learn to think for yourselves.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 2:26 PM

(This is great!)

Hawk sez: "In the end, all the two of you have are insults spawned by your hate, fear, avarice, and idiocy. Maybe if the two of you trolls would pick up a book, you could quit parroting lines from MSNBC and learn to think for yourselves."

Did you catch that? He is sniffing at us for "using insults" by insulting us.

Is that the best ever? You guys are going to go into kidney failure if you don't simmer down! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 2:29 PM

But to answer your foolishly obvious question, Hawk, nobody is going to "replace" these cuts in federal funding. Do you really think Terry the Midget Dictator is going to allow that? Or worse yet the crackpots in the House?


Do you have the interwebs? TV?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-14-13 4:04 PM

I haven’t seen this many HAHA’s since my last Batman. That Joker had to laugh at his own jokes too. You don’t get it Cranky, I said that all you have is insults. You two just criticize, scapegoat, troll, and name call. You don’t refute arguments; you don’t make your own points or offer your own solutions. Wow, are you related to Obama?

Some of the cuts will supposedly furlough meat inspectors, but the USDA is still hiring interns at $30k -$80k? $250 Million sent to Egypt and Obama takes a 21 car convoy 1/4 mile to dinner, but we close the White House to tours? And this admin is still on track to spend $15 Billion more than in 2012. This President’s priorities are out of order.

If you want to insult me, go ahead CG. I’m thick skinned enough to take it, but after these actions you can’t be thick headed enough to still believe that any of the bedlam that this Chicken Little President has been crying about is actually going to happen. Actions speak louder than liberal spin.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for: