We got an Albatross called "Sequester" heading straight to Obama
Obama on hearing the news that "Sequester" IS COMING HOME TO ROOST.
Posted on 03/04/2013 5:13:45 PM PST by Libloather
The $85 billion in federal spending cuts triggered by the sequester will hit low-income Americans dependent on government assistance especially hard, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive-leaning think tank.
According to organization, about 3.8 million long-term unemployed workers with federally funded benefits will see about an 11% cut in those weekly benefits. The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program will have to turn away as many as 600,000 to 775,000 women and children by the end of the year. More than 100,000 people will lose housing aid.
"There is no way to cut $85 billion in a single year, mainly from discretionary programs -- which include most defense spending as well as medical research, education, help for low-income families, food and water safety, law enforcement, and so on -- and not see real impact," writes Sharon Parrott, on the think tank's blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.msn.com ...
No worries. The Obamaphones won’t be affected.
I bet women and minorities will be disproportionally hurt too...
So rich that it was Obama that first proposed it.
It should actually be people dependent on the government hit hard.
If you are poor but self reliant, there would be no difference in your condition. If you are dependent on the government for your day to day needs, you are screwed.
Unfortunately this story happens to be true. Obama does nothing but hurt the people who are poor, unemployed, or both. http://www.uc.pa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/uc_pa_gov/11449
Nutrition programs, I read as school breakfast, lunch and dinner, long term unemployed? Excuse me? Some of them have been on the dole for more than two years!
Housing assistance? What, they get rent so the can afford the new car and big screen tv ? Yes, that happens, watched a HUD house go up, and when it was done, it had a brand new “dooly” pick up parked in the drive way.
So here is what I have to say I WOULD LOVE to see these “poor” people hurt during the sequester.
The taxpayers have supported them without so much as a thank you for way too long.
I'd rather the poor eat dirt than cut the military benefits.
There. I said it. Flame away.
But the Pubbies can’t construct a message that continually and consistently points that to the mouth breathing masses.
Close the EPA, completely, then fire all the TSA employees and hire returning vets to profile passengers. How much would that ‘save’? And I am certain there are entire agencies which could be shuttered without major negative impact on the taxpayers. But of course a lot of government slugs would be out of ‘jobs’ ... which is a good thing dontchaknow.
If we profiled airline passengers, Senator Obama would probably have had to drive to Wash DC.
Oh I’m sure Indonesia would give their famous son a passport to visit the USA. If not, his Cnadaian birth records could be unsealed so he could cross that border. ... Sadly, Brennan has probably erased those ties by now for his criminal little bastard boy.
All, remember that TARP (passed at the end of the Bush term) added about 800 billion to his 2008 budget. When Obama came in he passed ‘Stimulous’ which essentially cooked the extra 800 billion into the budget ever since. Now, remember, sequestration is only a cut in the growth of spending. All I’m saying is “what the heck is going on here?” Even if these were real cuts, where’s the 800 billion/yr going that we added to the budget about five years ago? The politicians are all criminals. Obama is an especially brutal criminal because he’s lying the worst about our spending problems. If we can’t even cut a sliver off of our bloated budget, how in the heck are we going to reform enitlement spending? We’re doomed. Obama is an out of control ego maniac with a huge chip on his shoulder. I’ve never seen a more angry condescending President in my life. He’s in way over his head. Oh well.
Good.
The Federal Government is bloated with unnecessary departments and positions doing jobs the Federal Government was never intended to do.
Many of those positions have actually contributed to the economic malaise which has stopped people who want to work from having jobs.
Granted, there are the slackers and those who are taking advantage of a system they have made it their profession to exploit. They should be removed, not added to by the same Government which is claiming it cannot take care of those for whom it has already claimed responsibility.
Instead of battering the elderly and the poor, instead of cutting "essential" services, have a day when "nonessential government employees" stay home (like a snow day), and decimate their ranks (reduce by 10%).
If they aren't essential, then why are we paying them?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Those of us in the private sector have had to adjust our spending and behaviour while those in our employ remove even more (forcibly) from the productive, not just to redistribute to the 'poor', but to line the pockets and feather the nests of our alleged servants at our expense.
We got an Albatross called "Sequester" heading straight to Obama
Obama on hearing the news that "Sequester" IS COMING HOME TO ROOST.
The "complaint" is that the "cuts" are across the board ("chainsaw" approach, according to the article) and that some "cuts" shouldn't be as much in some areas. "The poor will be affected the most!!!" How about cutting off the "poor" receiving welfare but living in a 2000 square foot house with a 2 year old car, a couple of big-screen TV's with cable, XBOX's, internet, and who Ground Round burgers and Mahi-Mahi for dinner every night? Leave the really desperate poor alone, but get the moochers off.
And still I ask, "What CUTS?????"
The 800 lb gorilla in the room are the non essential personnel used to run a bloated government. I agree.
But it is not constitutional to feed the poor, house, medicate and school the illegal.
Fine. We have social security ingrained. Social security is unconstitutional as well, but I can live with it. For citizens only.
Cut the spending on illegals. Period. Cut spending on benevolent programs in other countries.
Cold hearted? Perhaps. But this is in part, MY MONEY. And I do not choose to give it to third world countries no matter what age the starving are , I do not choose to give it to illegals, or to people who have children they can not afford.
All this benevolent spending belongs to the Church and other benevolent, non governmental agencies. So, the poor feel demeaned by that? They don’t want to have to hear a sermon before their free meal?
I DON’T CARE. Get out of my pocket. I work for a living....battering the poor? I’m battering the government who takes MY MONEY and gives it to deadbeats. I can no longer give to the needy as I see fit, because the government is handing out for votes.
“Sequester” is just the latest buzz phrase generated by an incompetent buffoon who tries to be the Dictator that Communist Frank Marshall Davis always wanted to be.
Precisely.
Fine. We have social security ingrained. Social security is unconstitutional as well, but I can live with it. For citizens only.
Agreed, and it should be phased out.
Cut the spending on illegals. Period.
The money spent on them should be spent primarily on repatriation.
Cut spending on benevolent programs in other countries.
More often than not, those funds only establish and maintain the instruments of subjugation of foreign populaces, and do not go to feed the poor there. If it isn't Constitutional to feed our own poor, how can it be said to be Constitutional to feed the poor elsewhere?
It isn't charity if the Government forcefully takes our funds and redistributes them. There's no option to give.
Charity should be in the hands of civic organizations (Churches and others) to which people can freely donate of their goods, services and money. Those organizations don't have an incentive to keep people on the dole, but rather to give them a hand to get out of poverty and become self-sufficient. They also know who is in need and who isn't in a local community, and can better allocate limited resources.
It isn't "cold hearted" to place expectations on those capable of meeting them, to expect those capable of taking care of themselves to do so. It is far more demeaning and damaging to them to instead insist on their protracted dependency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.