namsaev

Gosnell didn't use an assault style weapon with a high cap magazine to do the damage, So there's no story here. Just someone who took a page out of Joseph Mengala's play book.

If executions were carried out with a guillotine of convicted criminals the ACLU and others would be all over it. But clipping the spine of a baby with scissors? No big deal.

The stimulus didn't live up to it's hype, the ACA (Obamacare), isn't going to, the EPAs fuels ideas math doesn't work. I could go on and on. When is the American public going to realize Reagan just may have been right. Government isn't the solution--It's the problem.

Pick an agency or department, the concept is always good. But when government builds giant catapults and starts throwing money these agencies seem to think their sole purpose is to be able to say look what we've done.

Well it is and it isn't. They should be able to say look what we've done. But they should also be able to say and prove what they are doing is actually making things better. I head politicians preaching about all the "investments" government has made. But I don't see the results in these investments being positive.

IF you were giving your money to an investment broker and after a year, two years, five years or more you had less money than you started with. Would you stay with that broker?

Me I'd change brokers! The goal is to make money. You know have a ROI in dollars that is greater than 1. I may not have much money but when I invest it, I expect some growth.

Well the Democrats in the Senate, after 1414 days have finally come up with a budget proposal.

I guess Democrats really don't think we have a spending problem.. According to the report after all the studying over the budget and massaging spending at the end in 2023 there will still be a $566B deficit IF the Democrat plan were selected.

With the current national debt at $16.6T don't Democrats think it would be a good idea to start reducing the deficit so eventually we can start paying down the debt instead of piling on more ad infinitum. I understand under the Senate proposal would add another $5.5T to the debt. Which would bring us to $22.1T.

Right now interest the government is paying on the debt is at a historic low. Whether Congress likes it or not that will not always be the case. What will happen to the interest paid when that rate goes up.

Now I understand why Democrats don't like the Ryan proposal. But with all due respect, the Ryan proposal does take the deficit to zero in ten years. If Democrats don't like how it's done, provide their own plan that accomplishes the same goal.

The last budget under Clinton was $1.9T. Eight years later Bush's last budget was $3.1T. The Democrat plan has projected Obama's last budget will be $4.3T. And in 2023 the federal budget will be $5.7T. That would be three times what the federal budget was the last year Clinton was in office. And the national debt will be over three times what is was when Clinton was in office. Inflation hasn't tripled. The number of people in the US hasn't tripled. Why should the budget and the national debt have tripled over the same time frame.

My guess is they don't want to believe there is a spending problem AND they are afraid to cut anything.

The 2001 Budget (Clinton's last ) was $1.9T. Spending of the federal government for 2013 is projected to be between $3.6-$3.8T depending on your source. That's a 233% increase in just 12 years. Over the same time, and this is according to CBO figures, inflation was 38.3%. You can check my math. That should have put government spending at $2.628T. Now I can understand there were two conflicts that went on past of the time. But one is over now and the other one is winding down. So why are we so far over where inflation adjusted levels should be? That's 1T-1.2T more! Are we getting $1T-$1.2T more in services?

We haven't had one in over four years.

I have my thoughts. Without an actual budget US Representatives and Senators can't be held responsible for the debt the country is incurring.

With a budget they are on record for A. Spending more than the government takes in. B. Actually voting for funding of programs which are wasteful, duplicities, or filled with fraud.

I don't think so. Sequester wasn't the reason the tours were shut down. Tour guides are volunteers who consider it an honor to be a tour guides.

Obama was afraid all those illegal aliens Napolitano released were going to come to the White House and move in. And if ICE couldn't get them out of the country, Obama was afraid Janet M couldn't get them out of the

White House either.--*G* And he doesn't speak Spanish!

The current administration has stopped White House tours due to lack of funding caused by sequester.

But they have planned to give 20 F-16s, 200 M1A1 tanks, and $250M to Egypt.

How does this sound to you? Logical, illogical, or just plain stupid?

I have no problem with that. As long as they are released in their HOME country!

Sequester will only be $85B in cuts to the proposed increases. The original numbers will not be cut. There will still be a $15B increase in government spending.

So where's the logic? Government spending is going to increase by $15B but because it's not going to increase by $100B the country is going to fall apart?

Then there is the matter of the $600B tax increase. I guess he forgot about the $600B in increased revenue he's going to get. Now that figure will come out of the economy. How much damage will that cause? How many jobs will be lost because of that?

Supposedly cutting $85B from government spending is going to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs because it is going to keep that $85B out of the economy. I can't remember all the 'horrendous' things Obama and the Democrats have said are going to happen.

But when Obama got his $600B increase in revenues, won't that TAKE money out of the economy? The last time I checked and what I learned in school was $600B is a lot bigger than $85B. How can Democrats say sequester is going to be worse than the tax increases?

The public reason they gave was they wanted more taxes. The Senate Democrats have such a short memory. They just got $600B in NEW tax revenues, AND they got 2% more taken out of workers pay checks. But that's not enough for them? Give me a break.

The last budget submitted by President Bush was $3.1T for '09 the last budget submitted by Obama for '13 was $3.8T. That's a 22%+ increase in just four years. At a time I might add when the economy was faltering.

What the Republicans offered was just this. Mr President you don't like what the cuts sequester would cause. YOU do something about it! The President has said he'd go over the budget line by line and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. OK maybe two weeks was too short a time frame. How long do you want? One Month? Two months? President Obama has had four years to study the budget. Isn't he ready yet?

Here's why the Senate voted against it. It would be put up or shut up time for the President. The cuts would be his cuts. And Democrats couldn't shuffle the blame off on Republicans.

If this panic attack Obama is having over this budget stuff helps end things like 30 million going to Pakistani Mango farmers, 10 Mil for a Pakistani Sesame street, 120 mil being paid to dead govt workers, 1 Mil for menu development for a not even planned Mars mission, 1 Mil to study the sex lives of fruit flies, along with Congress shelving a reduction to their pay, then lets have at it.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=tom%20coburn%20wasteb...

Those examples are just drops in the bucket. But Like Senator Tom Colburn's annual waste list indicate. There are billions of drops what could go into the bucket. And it happens every year!

I think he'd veto the bill in a microsecond. Why? Because he wouldn't be able to blame the cuts on Republicans. He would have to OWN them.

Congress authorizes the Executive branch X amount of money. It's allocated to be spent by Department. What sequester will do is reduce (well not really, it's just a reduction of increase) that amount. Now it's up to the individual departments to look at what the department is spending and see where cuts can be made which will maintain the most function.

Janet Nepalitino's crew decided in order to reduce the cost per person awaiting deportation from $150 a day to $10 a day they would just release detainees on the promise they would show up later. Where were they released? Inside the US.

Homeland Security couldn't keep these folks from getting into the US in the first place. What makes them think they will show up in court? Because they crossed their heart and hoped to die? Or was that a pinkie swear. I was born at night but not last night. Now a liberal might buy that. But I won't.

OH and here's the best part! Obama didn't know this was going to happen. Janet didn't know it was going to happen. It wasn't decided in court. It was just done because some career official said do it. Want to bet nothing of consequence will happen to that 'official'.

I can understand releasing them but in their home country not the US. If it's so expensive to detain them then let's have a speed line. You are here illegally? Rather than spend the money feeding and housing them put them on a C-130 and fly them back.

Think of all the savings

I was wondering yesterday, if the looming sequester will be so devastating, and since Congress is not in session. If that is why Obama reached out to Tiger Woods to advice on what to do about it or--Was Tiger asking Obama for tips on how to improve his golf game.

It was Obama's idea to have a sequester law enacted. Congress agreed and passed in what has to be termed a bipartisan manner since neither side in either house had enough vote by themselves to push the bill through. And after it went through Congress Obama could have changed his mind and vetoed it.

That looks to me like everyone in DC said something has to be done about spending. Sure the consequences would hit both sides if sequester went into effect. And supposedly both side wanted to avoid sequester happening.

Here's the idea sequester would MAKE them work together and the necessary spending cuts would be found in ways that would avoid the most vital programs. Guess what? It didn't happen.

They had 18 months to work out a mutually agreed upon plan. The President got $600B in increased tax revenue. But what has the left given up.

To avoid sequester Congress needed to come up with $85B in budget reductions for next year. Now to this country boys way of thinking with expected expenditures of $3.6T next year. They should be able to find $85B they can do without. That's less than 2.5%. That shouldn't be that hard. That's not hack and slash, that's not devastating, that's not draconian. That's like dropping HBO and CineMax from you satillite bill compared to your entire budget for the year.

And lets look at what we will supposedly lose if this HORRIBLE sequester goes into effect. Police and fire? Does the federal government pay for ALL the policemen, firemen, and EMTs? Or is that paid for locally? Massive teacher layoffs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't teacher employment taken care of by local administrations?

Close scrutiny doesn't provide much validity to Obama's claims of the world coming to an end if sequester goes into effect. A close look would say it would have about the same effect as the Mayan Calendar running out.

As far as the over all claims by the left. I'd trust a used car salesman more.

It actually looks like smoke. I found that very interesting. Meteors are to my knowledge (and what do I know) supposed to be mostly rock or mostly ice. Rocks don't burn. And Ice will go to steam but condensed steam is white. The contrail appeared to have a slightly brown cast. And if you watch the videos there was only a contrail for a short period of time. I thought that odd as well. And what caused the bright flash?

http://news.yahoo.com/possible-meteor-shower-repor...

Sequestration was originally an idea put forth by Obama. Boehner and and Reid got it passed through both Houses of Congress. If it was a really bad idea, Obama could have vetoed it.

The House has passed not one but two budgets and sent them to the Senate. They still sit on Harry Reid's desk. Whether or not they are good budgets remains to be seen. However if passed either one would have avoided sequestration. But the Senate has not be allowed to vote on either.

During the last four years no budget has been presented by the Democrat controlled Senate. The Presidents budget proposals have been allowed to be voted on. Now not a single Democrat voted for either proposal. If the House budget is that bad. Bring it to the floor and reject it. Bring both of them to the floor and reject them.

But come on now. Democrats don't like the Presidents proposed budget. The Senate isn't even allowed to vote on the House budget. But it's all going to be Republicans fault if sequestration comes into effect?

Look at the math. If sequestration goes into effect $80B gets cut from the budget(which we don't actually have). The budget is $3.8T. $80B is only going to be 2.1% of the budget. Now if Congress can't find a way to cut 2.1% of the budget let me do it. I'll bet I can find that much and a lot more.

Or they could get a good CPA. Oh WAIT! They have the CBO let them do it. Don't want to take the heat for cuts? Give the CBO a free hand and pre-approve anything they cut. The CBO is supposed to be non-partisan. Let's find out if they really are?