Happy Sequester Day.

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Soul Crusher]

Lol.    Obama blames. . Z a

[Fury]

Great day!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

Senator: Obama's Golf Weekend With Tiger Cost As Much As 341 Federal Workers Furloughed

"There is nothing just or virtuous about protecting a stale welfare state that is failing the people it is supposed to help."

1:52 PM, Mar 1, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER




   



Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts

 

























































In a sharply written statement, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama blasts President Obama for campaigning and not governing. He calls Obama's response to the sequestration "the most cynical behavior I have seen during my time in Washington."




Adds the senator, "Replacing the sequester would require the President to save $85 billion out of a $3,500 billion federal budget. One would think that any President would leap at the opportunity to make government more effective and responsive. But what does the President do instead? He says Republicans are ‘cutting vital services for children’ in order to ‘benefit the well-off and well-connected.’ This has been the strategy now for years: block any attempt to reform the government and then relentlessly attack the reformers. Does any lawmaker, reporter, or citizen believe that the only way to save taxpayer dollars is to hurt children, that every government program is effective and helpful and not one penny is wasted?"
 
Sessions is the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
 
"While the White House operatives may think this attack is clever, it betrays an astonishing elitism: the federal government is perfect and requires no reform. That is why they have no plan to make our government leaner and more efficient. The President had 18 months to develop reforms to improve the government, but instead he announced furloughs of federal workers as a political cudgel. Yet, his golf weekend at the yacht club with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers over a million dollars—enough money to save 341 federal workers from furlough," Sessions writes.
 
"These workers know firsthand how much waste and inefficiency exists in the government. Our Budget Committee office will look for a way to solicit federal employees to send suggestions for how to save money in their departments, agencies, and divisions. What is better? To furlough someone or to empower them to make their office more efficient?










Related Stories
Obama: The Pain 'Will Be Real'
Obama: Republicans 'Paint Horns on My Head'
McConnell: 'No Last-Minute, Back-Room Deal and ...
Military Reduces Aircraft Carriers in Persian Gulf to ...
Kristol Podcast: 'Time for the GOP to Send the ...


More by Daniel Halper
Obama: Republicans 'Paint Horns on My Head'
Obama: The Pain 'Will Be Real'
Obama: 'I Am Not a Dictator. I'm the President.'
Al Qaeda Mag Publishes 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' List
$10 Million Payday for DNC from Energy Corporation


"Now, we learn that the President is going to submit his budget plan—which contains his recommendations to Congress, the reason the law requires it to be submitted early in February before our budget work begins—on March 25th. Yet he will be submitting it after the House and Senate have produced a budget proposal and adjourned for Easter. So while the President speaks of his deep concern for American workers and families, he fails to even submit to Congress his financial plan to help those workers and families. Why then doesn’t the President furlough his entire 500 person staff at the Office of Management and Budget instead of threatening teachers and law enforcement personnel? The budget deals with more than just deficits. It is the chief executive’s plan for American prosperity. What does it mean that he doesn’t want to lay that out? He is the CEO of the Executive Branch and every cabinet official and government employee answers to him. It is his duty to the American people to be the person advancing reform, not blocking it.
 
"Also at issue is the fact that our massive federal government is, right now, creating poverty and hurting families. Look at cities like Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit. Raising taxes—instead of reforming government—denies struggling Americans the help they need. There is nothing just or virtuous about protecting a stale welfare state that is failing the people it is supposed to help. President Obama is defending the bureaucracy at the expense of the people.
 
"It is time for the President to end the permanent campaign and work with both parties to make this government work better."
 - See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-obamas-golf-weekend-tiger-cost-much-341-federal-workers-furloughed_704915.html#sthash.dbJBY1FM.dpuf

[Roger Bacon]

These cuts are killing me!!  You guys are heartless bastards!!!!!!! 

[Soul Crusher]

[Soul Crusher]

Obama To AP's Julie Pace: 'Give Me An Example Of What I Might Do' (VIDEO)


Posted: 03/01/2013 11:58 am EST  |  Updated: 03/01/2013 1:46 pm EST


Barack Obama , Video, Obama AP, Julie Pace, Obama Associated Press, Obama Julie Pace, Obama Reporters, Obama White House Reporters, Media News

Notably jocular President Obama sparred with White House reporters during his press conference about the budget sequester on Friday.

Obama's most notably tense moment came with his first question, the AP's Julie Pace.

"It sounds like you're saying this is a Republican problem, not one that you bear any responsibility for," she said to him.

"Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do," Obama shot back. "Just trying to clarify," Pace said.

"Well, I'm just trying to clarify your question," Obama said.

The Republicans, he said, didn't want to increase revenues in any deal. "So, what more do you think I should do?" he asked the room at large. When there was silence, he said, "I just wanted to clarify. Because if people have a suggestion — this is a room full of smart folks."

Obama also riffed with the Washington Post's Zach Goldfarb, telling him, "I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys." He also told CNN's Jessica Yellin, "I'm not a dictator. I'm the president."






LMFAO!!!!!   Ha ha ha !!!!!

[Necrosis]

Obama To AP's Julie Pace: 'Give Me An Example Of What I Might Do' (VIDEO)


Posted: 03/01/2013 11:58 am EST  |  Updated: 03/01/2013 1:46 pm EST


Barack Obama , Video, Obama AP, Julie Pace, Obama Associated Press, Obama Julie Pace, Obama Reporters, Obama White House Reporters, Media News

Notably jocular President Obama sparred with White House reporters during his press conference about the budget sequester on Friday.

Obama's most notably tense moment came with his first question, the AP's Julie Pace.

"It sounds like you're saying this is a Republican problem, not one that you bear any responsibility for," she said to him.

"Well, Julie, give me an example of what I might do," Obama shot back. "Just trying to clarify," Pace said.

"Well, I'm just trying to clarify your question," Obama said.

The Republicans, he said, didn't want to increase revenues in any deal. "So, what more do you think I should do?" he asked the room at large. When there was silence, he said, "I just wanted to clarify. Because if people have a suggestion — this is a room full of smart folks."

Obama also riffed with the Washington Post's Zach Goldfarb, telling him, "I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys." He also told CNN's Jessica Yellin, "I'm not a dictator. I'm the president."






LMFAO!!!!!   Ha ha ha !!!!!

this article actually shines positive light on Obama, he is asking a rhetorical question stemming from the inability of him and congress to work together. The GOP will have no revenue in the deal while Obama wants cuts and revenue.

The deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in history amongst other positive economic signs.

[GigantorX]

Oh dear.......

[Emmortal]

Thankfully the Fed issued $80 billion in debt today totally offsetting an entire year of cuts in less than a single day.

[Straw Man]

this article actually shines positive light on Obama, he is asking a rhetorical question stemming from the inability of him and congress to work together. The GOP will have no revenue in the deal while Obama wants cuts and revenue.

The deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in history amongst other positive economic signs.

this fact is completely overlooked by most people on this board

[GigantorX]

this fact is completely overlooked by most people on this board

"Shrinking" to what, exactly?

Take it for what it's worth but in its 10 year forecast the CBO predicts the fiscal deficit will be above 1 trillion U.S. dollars by the end of Obama's 2nd term.

Obama's own budget would have the U.S. running a 901 billion dollar deficit.

You use the word "shrinking" in such a way as to make it seem like the President is really vaporizing our fiscal woes at an astounding rate and that simply isn't true.

And with GDP flat-lining you can make a safe bet that tax revenues won't be growing enough to make those CBO predictions accurate.

[tonymctones]

the libtard delusions on this board are causing epic face palms...

[GigantorX]

I find it amusing that Obama is blaming the Republicans for all of this just days after Jay Carney admitted that the Sequester was an idea that originated from the White House. Funnier still, he blamed (shocking!) it all on the Republicans because they didn't want to give in on closing loopholes for "millionaires and billionaires" ( ) which is interesting because that is exactly what the Republicans wanted to do a few months ago but Obama shot it down.

He wants more revenue. That is the crux. The Democrats "solution" to the Sequesters would add almost around 50+ billion to the deficit.

His speech was incredibly misleading and disingenuous.

Again, when the illusionist tells you to pay close attention to his left hand you better ignore that and watch the right hand, instead.

[Straw Man]

"Shrinking" to what, exactly?

Take it for what it's worth but in its 10 year forecast the CBO predicts the fiscal deficit will be above 1 trillion U.S. dollars by the end of Obama's 2nd term.

Obama's own budget would have the U.S. running a 901 billion dollar deficit.

You use the word "shrinking" in such a way as to make it seem like the President is really vaporizing our fiscal woes at an astounding rate and that simply isn't true.

And with GDP flat-lining you can make a safe bet that tax revenues won't be growing enough to make those CBO predictions accurate.

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

[tonymctones]

I find it amusing that Obama is blaming the Republicans for all of this just days after Jay Carney admitted that the Sequester was an idea that originated from the White House. Funnier still, he blamed (shocking!) it all on the Republicans because they didn't want to give in on closing loopholes for "millionaires and billionaires" ( ) which is interesting because that is exactly what the Republicans wanted to do a few months ago but Obama shot it down.

He wants more revenue. That is the crux. The Democrats "solution" to the Sequesters would add almost around 50+ billion to the deficit.

His speech was incredibly misleading and disingenuous.

Again, when the illusionist tells you to pay close attention to his left hand you better ignore that and watch the right hand, instead.

what I find just sad is that we arent even talking about cuts in spending were talking about reductions in future spending increases.

Not only do the libtards think we cant reduce spending without adverse effects they think we cant reduce future increases in spending without adverse effects.

I MEAN COME THE FUCK ON!!!!

[Necrosis]

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

10 year projections are bad when it relates to cuts, when it relates to nebulous deficits 8 years post obama it is ok.

[tonymctones]

what I find just sad is that we arent even talking about cuts in spending were talking about reductions in future spending increases.

Not only do the libtards think we cant reduce spending without adverse effects they think we cant reduce future increases in spending without adverse effects.

I MEAN COME THE FUCK ON!!!!

[dario73]

Oh Happy Dayyyyyy!  Ohhhhh Happy Dayyyyyy!!

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572180/u.s-capitol-official-obama-wrong-on-janitors-pay-cut


Obama lied - go figure. 

[Soul Crusher]

DHS plans to release 5,000 illegal immigrants due to sequestration

March 5, 2013 | 1:45 pm

Joel Gehrke


The Washington Examiner

✉ Email AuthorE@JoelmentumDJoel on FB
 

House investigators learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials developed plans to release about 5,000 illegal immigrant detainees, although Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has denied responsibility for the decision.
 
“An internal document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee shows that Administration officials at ICE prepared cold calculations to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets and did not demonstrate any consideration of the impact this decision would have on the safety of Americans,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced.
 
The ICE document contains a table that proposes “reduc[ing] invoiced daily population by 1,000 weekly.” Between February 22 and March 31st, this plan would drop the number of detainees from 30,748 to 25,748.
 
“The decision to release detained aliens undermines the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to keep our homeland secure and instead makes our communities less safe and more vulnerable to crime,” Goodlatte said. “[R]egardless of sequestration, DHS actually has plenty of funding to pay for the detention of criminal aliens.  Unfortunately, it seems Administration officials are more interested in using sequestration to promote their political agenda than as an opportunity to get our nation’s fiscal house in order.”

Napolitano said that it wasn’t her decision, even though ICE is part of DHS. “Detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field,” she told ABC.
 
She also confirmed that the releases would continue. “We are going to manage our way through this by identifying the lowest risk detainees, and putting them into some kind of alternative to release,” Napolitano said at a Politico event, per The Daily Caller.
 The New York Times profiled a “low risk” detainee released by ICE. The detainee was taken into custody “when it was discovered that he had violated probation for a conviction in 2005 of simple assault, simple battery and child abuse, charges that sprung from a domestic dispute with his wife at the time.” NRO’s Jim Geraghty asked, “If convictions for ‘simple assault, simple battery and child abuse’ make you ‘low-risk,’ what do you have to do for Janet Napolitano to consider you ‘high-risk’?”

[Straw Man]

DHS plans to release 5,000 illegal immigrants due to sequestration

March 5, 2013 | 1:45 pm

Joel Gehrke


The Washington Examiner

✉ Email AuthorE@JoelmentumDJoel on FB
 

House investigators learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials developed plans to release about 5,000 illegal immigrant detainees, although Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has denied responsibility for the decision.
 
“An internal document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee shows that Administration officials at ICE prepared cold calculations to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets and did not demonstrate any consideration of the impact this decision would have on the safety of Americans,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced.
 
The ICE document contains a table that proposes “reduc[ing] invoiced daily population by 1,000 weekly.” Between February 22 and March 31st, this plan would drop the number of detainees from 30,748 to 25,748.
 
“The decision to release detained aliens undermines the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to keep our homeland secure and instead makes our communities less safe and more vulnerable to crime,” Goodlatte said. “[R]egardless of sequestration, DHS actually has plenty of funding to pay for the detention of criminal aliens.  Unfortunately, it seems Administration officials are more interested in using sequestration to promote their political agenda than as an opportunity to get our nation’s fiscal house in order.”

Napolitano said that it wasn’t her decision, even though ICE is part of DHS. “Detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field,” she told ABC.
 
She also confirmed that the releases would continue. “We are going to manage our way through this by identifying the lowest risk detainees, and putting them into some kind of alternative to release,” Napolitano said at a Politico event, per The Daily Caller.
 The New York Times profiled a “low risk” detainee released by ICE. The detainee was taken into custody “when it was discovered that he had violated probation for a conviction in 2005 of simple assault, simple battery and child abuse, charges that sprung from a domestic dispute with his wife at the time.” NRO’s Jim Geraghty asked, “If convictions for ‘simple assault, simple battery and child abuse’ make you ‘low-risk,’ what do you have to do for Janet Napolitano to consider you ‘high-risk’?”

I knew you would be the first person to complain about the results of spending cuts

the very cuts you've said many times that you want

you're getting exactly what you've said you wanted so how about you

STFU

[Soul Crusher]

Why can't Oh-Shit! cut the obamaphones off or stop the $450 million to Morsi? ? 

[Straw Man]

Why can't Oh-Shit! cut the obamaphones off or stop the $450 million to Morsi? ? 

maybe because there is no such thing as Obamaphones

how about we stop paying Congress until they come do a deal

how long do you think it would take to come to an agreement

I'd bet they'd have it done before dinner time today