Shikha Dalmia in the Washington Examiner on Obama's Sequester Hysteria


President Barack Obama has been jetting around the country warning that we'll all be turning into pumpkins now that the sequester deadline has come and gone. But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia writing in the Washington Examiner notes that there is a simple way for Obama to postpone apocalypse: Recall the nearly $60 billion in bailout money that auto companies and Wall Street fat cats are still sitting on. She notes:

It is offensive to hold basic government services hostage to tax increases, while at the same time lavishing billions on corporate entities. To be sure, at some point, these services must be cut, since this year's sequester is just a tiny down payment on what's needed to restore America's fiscal health. But it will go down much easier if taxpayers have confidence that corporate fat cats are not living it up on their dime.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: David Lampo on Harvey Milk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Check this out: on one day, Feb 28, the Treasury borrowed $80B, the entire amount of the sequester. from ZH

    1. But to be fair,

      they promised not to spend it all in one place.

    2. Tax refunds, fool.

      Expect the obligatory story about how February is negative $200 billion any day now.

      Tax refunds.

      Two words.

      Learn them.

      1. You don’t know shit.

        Four words.

        Learn them.

      2. So all that borrowing the fedgov did from June-December needs to be scaled up to account for the fact they were also “borrowing” excess tax receipts?

        I don’t remember you doing that at the time.

    3. what Stephanie answered I am inspired that a mom able to get paid $5680 in 1 month on the internet. have you seen this web page..

  2. A Haiku to honor our dear leader:

    Budgets, one so far
    Golf, more than one hundred rounds
    Priorities, What?

    1. needz moar dronez

    2. There once was a prez who would pester
      everyone about a dire sequester
      didn’t matter he owned it
      his job, in, he phoned it
      leaving cross aisle ill will to fester.

      1. That was fucking impressive.

      2. Something’s off with the meter.

        1. Nothing’s ever good enough for you, is it?

          1. Don’t be bitter just because it’s the weekend and you can’t be first.

      3. There once was a man called Barack
        And the press liked to swoon as he talked
        So he lied about spending
        Said “The economy’s mending!”
        And they sloberred all over his cock.

        1. You sir, are this century’s Shakespeare.

          1. Hey, Shakespeare liked dick jokes too.

        2. If this was what we studied in english class back in school…I would definitely have paid attention.

    3. Of course, the most we could really expect so far would be four budgets, so I’m not sure the numbers really tell us all that much.

  3. It’s Obama’s uterus that causes him to become hysterical.

    1. His uterus was strangled to death by his momma jeans. Now there is a barren womb to match his hollow soul and Potemkin heart.

      1. His womb was a rocky place in which the Wookie’s seed could find no purchase.

  4. Unfortunately, hysterectomies are not covered by ObamaCare, oh, the Irony.

  5. Let’s see…the sequester will cut the budget for security guards at top-secret military facilities where they have been researching methods of reanimating dead tissue…without security guards, the zombies at these facilities will break out and infect the whole country…


    1. Now is our chance to rob Fort Knox!

  6. OT:

    Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Causes School District Lockdown.

    A voice mail message quoting the theme music from Will Smith’s “Fresh Prince of Bel Air” led to panic and a school lockdown Thursday in Ambridge, Pa.

    The confusion started when a receptionist from a doctor’s office called to remind student Travis Clawson about an upcoming appointment. Clawson didn’t pick up, so the call went to voice mail, Yahoo reported.

    The receptionist heard what sounded like a threat about “shooting people outside of the school” on Clawson’s outgoing message. Apparently, the message was intended to quote a lyric from theme of the 1990s sitcom: “And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school.” It was unclear if the receptionist misheard Clawson’s message or if the student actually altered the lyrics.

    The receptionist notified police, who warned school officials, who instituted a lockdown on every school in the entire county. After 20 frantic minutes, authorities located Clawson in the high school’s guidance counselor’s office and arrested him.

    Failure to enunciate will not be tolerated in our glorious school system.

    1. Yeah that’s a bit of local stupidity for me. Got sent this link a bit ago and thought it was a fucking joke.

      Nope, the pussification of America is officially completed.

      1. It wasn’t so different back then, after all one little fight was all it took to scare his mom.

    2. Fuck, it’s so over.

  7. She ntoes? Is that some sort of kinky foot maneuver?

    1. ok they fixed it. But I still did not get an answer to my question.

  8. Excellent article Shikha! It’s unfortunate most people will never hear this truths because the msm is too busy playing Pravda for Dear Leader.

    1. If the MSM is pravda, then Gawker is the Komsomol.

      1. My great uncle used to call the UAW’s monthly newsletter “Pravda”. For a union worker (now former and retired) he’s never had a good thing to say a

      2. So I go to this Gawker thing and find this:

        “Full disclosure: As soon as my husband decided he wanted an open marriage, I got myself a married boyfriend. Other than that, I’d never cheated on my husband, except once when I gave a guy a blowjob. So, anyway, technically, I was poly, maybe, but one who believed in non-disclosure”

        Sp is this the Lifetime website? I’m not sure I get it.

        1. I will say though that I loved the comments.

  9. Obama could do his part by perhaps “jetting around the country” a bit less.

    1. I thought those jets were powered by his aura.

    2. “Obama could do his part by perhaps “jetting around the country” a bit less.

      It’s common knowledge that “The ONE?” has replaced his crude, carbon spewing jet for something a little more noble . Behold the his vision for the future of green, privileged transportation.

      1. That unicorn on loan from Pyongyang?

        1. “That unicorn on loan from Pyongyang?”

          No, those were all culled and slaughtered for their army during the last famine. Indecently, the horns were ground into an aphrodisiac powder and shipped to China.

  10. The saga continues.

    At an Australian air show, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan accused the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), of trying to “squeeze every nickel” out of the U.S. government for the planes.

    Bogdan, who took over the $396 billion program in December, told reporters it’s not his job to be a “cheerleader for the F-35.” But for some in the industry, the words stung.

    “Airing dirty laundry in front of a key customer who’s on the fence about buying more competing aircraft, is a very dangerous game,” said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. He said Australia is already considering plans to buy more Boeing (BA.N) F/A-18 Super Hornets, which could wind up reducing its planned purchase of 100 F-35 fighter jets.

    “By implying that the contractors are greedy … he could inspire politicians to cut funding as a form of punishment, which would raise unit costs and inspire them to cut funding again. It’s the classic death spiral,” Aboulafia said.

    This program is past the point where pretending everything is proceeding according to plan is going to work.

    1. It worked before?

    2. This program is past the point where pretending everything is proceeding according to plan is going to work.

      I wish. Our very own Fransico d’ Ancona is former Chair Force and he has assured me in numerous threads that the security of the entire US is threatened if we don’t build a fighter jet that is 10X what the Russians and Chinese can build.

      The Chair Force does not care about anything but the security of Americans. If we have to spend the entire national budget on a single fighter it is OK because we might need it to fight aliens in fifty or a hundred years.

      1. I didn’t really have the free time to follow that discussion to the extent it likely deserved but I thought his argument was that the current purchases and acquisition system in the Pentagon is so assbackwards a sequester would not make a dent. Until the system is reformed from the bottom up, it would do more harm than good. I could very well be misinterpreting his take though.

      2. That’s not FdA’s point.

        The point is that the F/A-18 Superhornet is not some sort of amazing killer plane that we missed out on because of the greedy contractors, and that if we want to stay ahead of the game we need to invest in things like the F-35. Procurement processes need a major overhaul, but that’s no good reason to be a Luddite about new tech or to exaggerate or outright fabricate problems where those problems are a normal part of any procurement and development cycle.

        1. if we want to stay ahead of the game we need to invest in things like the F-35
          And why should we blow billions “staying ahead of the game” when we’re already sitting on top of an enormous nuclear stockpile and a bunch of ICBMs?

          1. Among other things it would be nice to have options between no response and cratering a couple dozen cities to win a war.

            1. Why are we “winning” a war not involving an invasion of the United States? No response sounds pretty good to me.

              1. It would be nice to not have to annihilate a country to defeat it, invasion or not.

              2. The hypothetical you imply is one where the US may not hold an advantage in conventional terms, but where they do hold an advantage vis a vis nukes. In such a scenario a nation might decide to attack the US or its interests under the notion that the US wouldn’t risk using nuclear weapons again.

                And there are a whole number of scenarios which don’t involve an invasion of American soil that the US would be in its rights to respond to. Attacks on our mercantile shipping, attacks on our embassies, hosting and supporting third parties that attack US citizens, punitive expeditions against our sovereign territory (e.g., Pearl Harbor), etc.

        2. If it were up to me, just putting my minarchist cap on, and understanding that new technology when applied to military hardware is usually a tangled web of headaches, we’d be purchasing nothing but F-4 (let’s call this the Z series for arguments sake) at this point. Lighter materials, more efficient fuel and communication systems, more powerful loads packed in smaller spaces, are produced every few years so surely even an f-4 when efficiencies are accounted for were to be produced today it would be a markedly improved product than one made even ten years ago. Why not stick with a proven design?
          Is an entirely redesigned from the ground up modern aircraft really to your advantage if you can only produce a fraction of them for deployment compared to cheaper, older models?

          1. Particularly when what’s important nowadays is the missiles, the electronic warfare, the information warfare stuff. 50 year old B-52s loaded with modern smart weapons are a hundred times deadlier then they were even 20 years ago.

            Not to mention there is a very good chance that UCAVs will render manned aircraft obsolete at some point in the future.

            1. Having piloted UAVs in the USAF, I’m dubious about air-to-air or multirole being replaced by UCAVs. Even now, the main mission of UAV pilots is overwhelmingly to provide reconnaissance. We haven’t been up against a nation or group with a real ability to threaten our air superiority, and until then we won’t know how well UAVs can do or how far they can be developed compared to their counterparts.

          2. just putting my minarchist cap on, and understanding that new technology contracts when applied to military hardware is usually a tangled web of headaches

          3. Eventually cheaper, older models, tactics, and paradigms become obselete models.

            Countries often find this out too late. In our case, we have scads of areas where we can save money in development of counter-insurgency stuff, a whole raft of domestic military bases, a good number of foreign bases, and simply by not getting into unnecessary wars every goddamn decade.

          4. You can’t just say “hey, this new material is way lighter and stronger; let’s slap it on an airframe designed for standard aircraft aluminum and steel!”

            That’s not how it works.

            1. Oh, no? Somebody forgot to tell Boeing they can’t just strip out obsolete parts from a frame and replace them with modern components. Could have saved them a lot of trouble and embarrassment there in their futile attempt in the video there:


      3. Russians and Chinese are already making gen 5 aircraft (Super hornet is Gen 4+). If we kill the F-35, the replacement will not arrive for 20 years. We would potentially be fighting gen 5+ with gen 4+.

        It’s not survivable. The new stuff is a LEAP ahead.

        And as I said earlier, it’s not really the fighters we are concerned about. It’s the SAMs. You go into a SA-10/12/20 MEZ with gen 4, you don’t come out. F-22 and to a lesser extent the F-35 were created to be able to operate in those environments.

        If it’s any consolation, this will probably be the last iteration of manned fighters/bombers. I’m fairly certain the next generation of weapons won’t require a delivery platform. Just sensors and long range precision munitions.

        As far as sequester, it is going to hurt the AF. While it’s true military spending has gone up over the last 10 years, it has been going to the war (in various forms) and has NOT been going to reconstitute the jets. Aircraft are designed to operate for a finite number of hours. Given the incredibly high ops tempo for the last 20 years (remember Northern and Southern Watch?) everything is well beyond it’s design specs. The F-15s have upwards of 3 times the number of hours on them that they were designed for. A very large part of the fleet is on its last leg.

        Yet another reason to not go to war unless it’s an absolute last resort.

        1. Of course Obama, being the executive, decides where in the military the cuts come from and god forbid it be from the wars or closing down overseas bases.

    3. proceeding according to plan

      Program Manager: “Do I look like a guy with a plan?”

    4. I think Lockheed would spend less time “squeezing every nickel” out of the government if the government (read: the program office(s) of each branch) would put a fucking lid on requirements creep and the usual antics that make these programs end up running forever and costing more.

      And maybe the General can blame some of his predecessors for signing a cost-plus contract (he’d only be whining if it were cost-plus).

      1. The reason his predecessors used a cost plus contract is, that in the long run, they usually cost the taxpayer less. At least, so the current theory goes. What it boils down to is who assumes the risk.

        Cost plus contracts usually end up being roughly 1/3 (ish) of what contractors will bid on a firm fixed price contract. For no other reason than this is brand new technology. You don’t know, what you don’t know. If the contractor assumes the risk up front, they are going to need to ensure that no matter what happens, they are going to make money. To ensure that, they jack up the bid to cover every possible contingency. If the government is willing to assume the risk (cost plus), the contractor can bid significantly lower. The acquisition gurus firmly believe the taxpayer ends up paying less when the government assumes the risk.

        Of course that doesn’t incentivize the contractor to get it right the first time and it also incentivizes them to bid low to get the job, knowing the government will still pay when they overrun.

        Is cost plus cheaper? Probably. But it usually comes down to the integrity of the contractor.

        Bottom line…

        In a system without competition, the taxpayer is going to get fucked.

  11. The sequester turned me into a newt!

    1. I…I got richer…


  12. OT: Question: I’ve been reading up on some of the proposed plans for development and construction for a trans-lunar injection launch vehicle for future NASA missions to the moon. Why the need for a new launch vehicle when the Saturn V is already a proven device?

    1. In the 50 years since the Saturn V was designed, there have been magnificent advances in materials, control systems, fuels, etc.

      Also, NASA sucked at archiving stuff, and I doubt they have the plans on file that would be required to build a new one.

      1. Yeah, but Apollo was developed based on knowledge learned from the Mercury and Gemini missions. I’m not saying that the Saturn V would be the ultimate product, having a lead-up project using the Saturn V as a launch vehicle might allow NASA use real-life data in developing the final lunar launch vehicle for the sustainable projects.

        1. If nothing else, it would allow NASA to place astronauts in lunar orbit in order to gauge the readiness of our current training programs.

    2. Had they kept the Saturn V and not adopted the Flying Brickyard, they could have continued evolving the design. The original Saturn V would be woefully out of date in terms of its electronics and material technology, but had they simply adapted the design as new technology came out, they might still have a viable heavy lifter. Not to mention Saturn V had a LES, so the Challenger crew would still be alive.

      1. How much of the “evolution” would have been focused on the spacecraft itself (the CSM)? After trans-lunar injection (only a few hours after launch), the CSM/LM spacecraft is the left that hasn’t burned up over the Indian Ocean.

        1. Whoops, I forgot that the S-IVB is left in heliocentric orbit to become man-made asteroids.

        2. How much of the “evolution” would have been focused on the spacecraft itself

          I don’t know. But since Saturn V was basically massive boost stages stacked on top of each other, they could have upgraded each boost stage to a new version. If they removed the CSM/SM/LM/S-IVB assembly, just the S-I and the S-II could push an enormous load of cargo into earth orbit. Just the Skylab mission alone seemed to show that Saturn V was a whole lot more flexible than the Shuttle.

          1. Good point about Skylab. I assume a large scale lunar project would involved separate launches for payload and personnel. Not having to account for human delicacies is an enormous advantage.

  13. Has anyone watched the ‘House of Cards’ series on Netflix? I’m really enjoying them, and prior to this I’ve never thought much of Kevin Spacey — but he is great in this role, a sort of Tony Soprano of DC. We are about 2/3 of the way through the season now.

    I do appreciate their not doing typical Hollywood, where you’d see good-guy Democrats and bad-guy Republicans (with 99% of the public demanding liberal reforms, only the selfish GOP and their evil CEO friends won’t cooperate). Instead, you have a Democrat-majority Congress causing a teachers’ strike because the Dems want vouchers and teacher accountability (!). And on several turns so far Spacey’s character has ridiculed the far-left elements of his party.

    The episode last night seemed like it might have been written by H&R posters, with Kevin Spacey telling an opponent to take the union’s cock out of his mouth.

    If only it could be so……

    1. That actually sounds interesting and I’ll probably check that out at some point. For various reasons what you said brings to mind a conversation I had several months ago with someone who was quite adamant that The Newsroom had no political slant.

      1. House of Cards was good. It will take some work to make a second season(not announced yet afaik) since there are a ton of loose ends. They absolutely skewer teachers and teachers in general. Generally, everybody in the city comes of as out for their own interests over everything else. Pretty much exactly what I think of DC now.

    2. Anyone else watch the UK version?

      There Francis Urqhart (he’s a Brit!) is really fun. And it has two pretty fun sequel series that should spoil nothing going forward (because there are certain political situations in the UK different from the US)

  14. If $700 billion wasn’t enough to stimulate the economy in 2009 how is an $85 billion reduction in new spending going to bring it crashing down around us? Especially when we consider that $85B in 2013 dollars is worth less than $85B in 2009 dollars.

    This is all much ado about nothing and the only thing at risk here is government power. Setting the precedent of reducing the size of government is terrifying to both main stream parties and the president is using scary words to try and coerce citizens into to supporting more government spending/power.

    1. I doubt anyone will fill the pinch. There’s got to be some clever accountants out there that shift enough money around to keep everyone happy.

      1. Surely we can borrow some money out of the Social Security IOU Box Trust Fund.

        1. Sure they can, it’s immune from accountability.

      2. Anyone who feels a pinch will only do so for political reasons.

  15. All we have to do is get a few White House staffers to set up their laptops and send them this

    “Oaken45| 2.28.13 @ 11:11AM |#

    til I saw the paycheck which was of $9582, I have faith …that…my mom in-law woz like they say actualy making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop.. there best friend has been doing this 4 less than fourteen months and resantly cleared the loans on there house and bourt a great Car. we looked here, http://WWW.FLY38.COM

    Budget problem solved!

  16. But electrolytes are what plants crave.

  17. The Saskatoon icicle has been taken down.

    1. Noooooo!

      I love the giant icicle.

      First they came for the giant icicle and I said nothing…

    2. Dang man, pens piling on now.

      Keep it up.

      1. Good bounces indeed

        1. OFF SIDE. Bettman just doesn’t want his golden boy Cyndi Crysby to suffer another loss.

          1. Matt Cooke has his 2nd goal of the game.

            And Boom goes the dynamite.


              1. You still have season tickets?

                1. If you want to call it a season.

                  1. Hopefully they gave you a discount and some free shit.

                    1. The first four games Consol shops gave everyone a 50% discount and the concession stands two free items. I didn’t buy any merch because those stupid stores were packed with cheap a-holes you couldn’t even move. Fucking fat Yinzers.

                      And now they tied it. Thanks for distracting me.

                    2. I know the feeling. When I went to see a game the stores were fucking jam-packed with fat grazers. A lot of people have a bad habit of parking their fatasses and texting on their phones right where people need to walk.

                      And they give you this look when you say excuse me that nearly drives me to homicide. This fat, stupid, entitled fucking look.

            2. I was worried that when Cooke said he was gonna change that he either wouldn’t change and face a ban, or that his game was going to suffer, but man, I think he’s been a lot better since easing up.

        2. Canadiens have Therrien. Guy gave great press conferences; didn’t give a fuck.

          1. unreal

            1. What the hell is up with Tyler Kennedy? His ass needs benched.

              Every time I hear his name is when he fucks up, maybe a couple games off will help him get back into things.

          2. Shit, wake the fuck up guys.

            Dang it.

            1. oh dear

              1. Kunitz coming through.

                Crosby-Kunitz can put together some shit when they want to.

                Especially this season. Kunitz is looking real good.

            2. Well this is a fucking fuck of a goddamn thing. Jesus, wake the fuck up sheeple!

              1. well how about that

                1. I’ll take it.

                  Jesus, the canadiens love them some screamy-ass music.


                  1. and it’s officially a barn burner.

                  2. Fuck, I don’t even care anymore…

                2. and Sid makes it good

                  1. A minute makes all the difference.

                    I think Voukon has been sucking on fentanyl patches.

                    1. Boom. That that, Kanuckistanis.

  18. OT:

    Don’t know if anyone posted this yet,but a Wyoming state legislator told a transplanted liberal to pound sand.

    1. You know who else named Hans was blunt?

      1. Hans Christian Anderson?

      2. Hans und Franz?

      3. Hans BlixBrinker?

      4. Hans-El, of Hans-El and Gret-El fame?

    2. Awesome

      And Republican Rep. Hans Hunt has spotted an opening, pow! Right to the hubris maximus gland,…thats gotta hurt,?she’s hemorrhaging sanctimony,.. And Rev. Audette Fulbright goes down….this bout is over!

      1. Here’s her response.

        Basically a bunch of platitudes and nonsense. A sample:

        Fulbright wouldn’t comment on how widespread such angry responses are relative to positive responses, instead suggesting that it wouldn’t make any difference to her. “I don’t see any usefulness in mentioning how many pro versus how many con, since I think that’s not the best way to view this issue,” Fulbright wrote. “I think our focus would be more effective if we took seriously the value of civil discourse in politics -and the role of elected leaders in being examples of how public discourse should be handled.”

        She’s talking about civil discourse after implying that all the smart people agree with her, then stomping her feet and threatening to leave the state (with her genius snowflakes in hand, no less).

        I’m sorry lady, your butt, does it hurt?

        Oh and it’s funny that she won’t say how many positive and negative responses she’s gotten. Makes me think that the latter far outnumbers the former.

        1. My little slice of S.W. Florida is absolutely crawling with New England fuckwit refugees, incessantly pontificating the social, political and cultural superiority of the over taxed, crime ridden, decaying blue state shitholes that they just fled (whilst leaving all sense of irony behind) like the fall of Saigon. I can deeply empathize with Rep. Hunt. Why their U-Hauls couldn’t have broken down somewhere in Virginia?

          1. I hear this same story from a lot of people. Take Colorado, do you think they’d pass a magazine ban 20 years ago? I don’t.

            If you love the policies of Detroit, or Washington DC, or Baltimore, or Chicago you should probably move there.

            1. Uh, the new population in Colorado that’s helping along gun control and bluification in general, ain’t retirees from the Northeast. The newcomers come from a different place with restrictive gun laws, a bit further south.

        2. Did you look at her picture? She has the craziest crazy eyes I’ve ever seen.

          1. “Did you look at her picture? She has the craziest crazy eyes I’ve ever seen.”

            She’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When she comes after ya, she doesn’t seem to be thinkin’ until he bitches ya, and those black eyes roll over white, and then – aww, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin’



    1. I went to buy a case of beer today but had to turn back ’cause when I went to get in my truck I noticed that there weren’t any fucking ROADZ!

      I was going to walk, but tired quickly trying to traverse the mountains of dead orphans and old people.

      1. The horror. The horror.

        1. That’s not even the worst of it.

          Last night a plane crashed in my backyard and a bunch of illegal immigrants ran from the crash into my basement. I tried to call the police but they’ve all been put on furlough.

          Do mexicans like poutine or tacos? I always get the two mixed up and have to feed these guys.

          1. According to Sally Struthers, they eat rocks, wood, and about .75? a day.

            1. Yeah I know. I’ve heard the “All for the price of a cup of coffee…” bullshit.

              Well these goddamn guys already drank all of my coffee and now are demanding food.


              *shakes fist at uncaring sky*

              1. Subway platter.

                1. Would you trust food from a restaurant right now?

                  I don’t. Not with all the food inspectors on furlough, that is.

                  1. When has a food inspector ever been to the Subway?

                  2. Feed them horse hooves, and hard labor, they crave structure and discipline. That is, unless “SEQUESTRATION” somehow boarded up your sulfur mines.

                    /polishes monocle

              2. *shakes fist at uncaring sky*

                *drone operator waves back*

                1. I thought all the tuurst fightin’ drone operators were put on furlough, leaving the American people at the mercy of Al Queda and sharia law?

    2. The local news right now is doing sob stories about what we’re all losing due to the unbelievably harsh sequester. Current whine is they will be cutting back on Blue Angels performances! Not only will children be starving because of the sequester, they won’t be able to forget their hunger at an air show.

      To be honest, this one actually makes little sense to me, as it should be under the Navy’s advertising budget — and no doubt they can find other marketing things to cut back there instead. They probably get more future squids signed up after a Blue Angels show than due to a TV ad during a baseball game.

  20. So Obama’s to blame for the sequester and the sequester is a good thing. Got that right? Republicans and libertarians cheering on an Obama policy. Miracles can happen.

    1. You might have a point if Obama weren’t trying to kill the sequester.

      1. It owes its existence to the necessity of it being killed. Obama apparently didn’t understand that small-government types don’t concern themselves with details. Cuts are all that matter, and here’s some cuts!

        1. And yet, life goes on.

          How about some more of these “cuts”?

          1. Not everyone is an anarchy fetishist. There’s no reason to cut right now. Unemployment is still high. One would think that there should be an extremely good tradeoff for making even more people unemployed. And avoiding a phantom debt crisis nobody can offer evidence for or even describe is hardly worth making the economy worse for.

            1. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Anarchy fetishist? Spending has increased 40% the last 6 years and we just cut 2% off the budget.

              Tony logic: A 40% increase followed by a slight decline = Anarchy. Words have definitions, idiot, and none of the words you use seem to mean what you think they mean.

              1. Yeah, tony is all concerned with people’s jobs when they work for the government, but all of us peons are fucked.

                How many people have/will lost their jobs or had their hours cut because of Obamacare?

              2. If you’re for cutting government for its own sake alone then what should I call you? What purpose is served by making more people unemployed? What are you trying to accomplish?

                I know exactly what small-government advocates want to accomplish, but it’s curious that they never actually say it out loud. They just invent crises out of thin air in order to pretend that their ends are necessary.

                1. If you’re for cutting government for its own sake alone then what should I call you?

                  A realist.

                2. They just invent crises out of thin air in order to pretend that their ends are necessary.

                  Sort of like Obama claiming teachers would lose their jobs due to the debt ceiling, even though teachers aren’t paid by the federal government? Or Obama claiming $40 billion worth of cuts off of a military budget of 650 billion dollars would devastate our military? You know, even though we’re still spending more than the next 6 countries in military spending, and most of those six countries are allies?

                  1. That’s rich as the only thing this administration has been good at is inventing crises.

                    No scratch that, they’ve also been pretty good at furthering the policies of the Bush administration.

                3. Hey Tony, what happened to the spaces between the letters in your name, when you post as T o n y? Or is that a different person’s sockpuppet?

                4. If you’re for cutting government for its own sake alone then what should I call you? What purpose is served by making more people unemployed? What are you trying to accomplish?

                  Keep railing against the Plans/Reality Mismatch, Tony.

                5. “They just invent crises out of thin air in order to pretend that their ends are necessary.”

                  Ever notice that the left constantly accuses it’s opponents of exactly what they are doing themselves?

            2. Unemployment is still high

              That’s the best reason of all to cut.

        2. Necessity of it being killed?

          1. The fact of being required or indispensable: “the necessity for law and order”.
          2. Unavoidability: “the necessity of growing old”.

          The sequester is neither of those things. You don’t know how words work, do you?

          1. It was not meant to be policy, it was meant to motivate policy. Obama has always been against it happening, as was everyone else in government, ostensibly.

            1. Jesus tony, that’s really sycophantic, even for you.

              Does your boyfriend get jealous having to share your ass with the administration?

            2. “Obama has always been against it happening

              Yes…while he was drafting it, signing it into law, and while doing absolutely nothing what so ever about forever after, and even right now while still demagoguing on it.

            3. Obama was for the sequester before he was against it.

            4. Obama was for it before he was against it.

              Sheesh, no wonder he’s a big Kerry fan now.

            5. “It was not meant to be policy, it was meant to motivate policy. ”

              Wow. Just wow Tony.
              I cant tell you how much pleasure I get watching you flail around in panic like this…..and God you are spewing out some gems here tonight. Real keepers.

            6. Right, that’s why Obama said he would veto any attempt to avoid the sequester in ’11. Because he was totally against it happening.

            7. If Obama plays poker does he get this pissy when someone calls his bluffs?

        3. Obama is obviously the victim of circumstance, he just put too much faith in the humanity of others…pure as the wind driven snow, he is.

          1. You see, it’s like this. If Barack Obama puts a bomb in a school and says ‘If the Republicans don’t do what I want, this bomb will go off!’ and then the bomb goes off, it’s the Republican’s fault.

            They’re just being unreasonable.

            1. Damn straight, it’s almost like the Rethuglicans? put that bomb in the school themselves, like terrorists, or Nazis,…Hmmmm…Wait a minute!..the Rethuglicans? are intercity school bombing Nazi terrorists,.. and..racists!?.they should all die! I’m gonna tweet that shit right now!

          2. Whatever Obama is, he is not the problem. The major problem with this country right now is Republican elected officials.

            It’s right-wing ideologues/corporate whores fucking everything up through idiocy, stealing the country’s wealth, and stashing it in the Caymans. Obama, who has only intangible power with respect to budget legislation, is not your problem.

            1. It’s right-wing ideologues/corporate whores fucking everything up through idiocy, stealing the country’s wealth, and stashing it in the Caymans.

              No one can be this stupid. The number of lies in this sentence are so many and so profound that they may be uncountable.

              1. Irish, there is an easier way than dissecting it. Just change ‘right’ to ‘left’ and voila…all fixed.

            2. I think I see your problem now. You still see a difference in them, and thats why you think you still have hope, I bet you still believe that all of your pets you had when you were a kid really did go to a “Farm”, like your folks told you…thats sad…

      2. The only point Tony has is on top of his head.

    2. “So Obama’s to blame for the sequester and the sequester is a good thing”


      “Got that right?”


      “Republicans and libertarians cheering on an Obama policy””

      Not according to the news.

      “Miracles can happen.”

      Only on T.V.


  21. Dude really does make a lOT of sense man.

  22. The good news is the FEMA camps can be used for unemployed federal workers.

  23. Gotta love US POlitics, best politics money can buy!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.