The Sequester Is a Republican-Inflicted Wound

KEVIN DIETSCH / UPI / Landov

Speaker of the House John Boehner leaves a press conference on sequestration on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 28, 2013.

The sequester is here, with an initial $85 billion worth of haphazard and economically destructive spending cuts, a Washington wound almost universally described as “self-inflicted.” Let’s be clearer: It’s Republican-inflicted. It is a direct result of the insistence by GOP leaders in the summer of 2011 that they would not raise the federal debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to dramatic spending cuts. One can argue that the growth of the debt or the size of the government justified that insistence; I’d disagree. But it’s simply a fact that every budget crisis of the last two years—the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, the failure of the “supercommittee,” the fiscal cliff, and now this—stems from Republican debt-limit brinksmanship.

This is what makes all the Beltway back-and-forth about who came up with the sequester, and who moved which goalposts, and what Gene Sperling said to Bob Woodward, so annoying. The origin of this mess is absolutely clear. It was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the ransom Republican leaders received for agreeing to let the U.S. government pay its bills.

(MORE: The Sequester Fight Was the Pregame. Here Comes the Main Event)

Traditionally, the debt ceiling had been a symbolic cap, an opportunity for members of Congress in the minority party (including a certain Illinois Senator Barack Obama back in 2006) to grandstand about the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority party before the limit was increased. (In Obama’s semi-defense, the irresponsibility of tax-cutting, big-spending Republicans in the Bush era was truly breathtaking.) After their big congressional wins in the 2010 midterms, though, GOP leaders declared that the debt was out of control, so they would not raise the debt limit without an equivalent amount of spending cuts. They threatened to force the U.S. government into default—essentially, to crash the global economy—unless Obama accepted a massive rollback of the welfare state.

Let’s pause for a moment to discuss that threat. Republican leaders like House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t really want the Treasury to default on its obligations; they just wanted to use the debt ceiling as a hostage to extract spending cuts as a ransom. But some new Tea Party congressmen genuinely welcomed a default, because, well, let’s be charitable and say they didn’t understand the catastrophic consequences. In any case, the threat was real. Republicans say the debt had become so outrageous that drastic measures were necessary to prevent us from becoming Greece. I’d just point out that markets didn’t agree; interest rates on Treasury bonds were historically low and getting lower, a measure of financial faith in U.S. credit. I’d also point out that the kind of austerity the Republicans were trying to impose on the U.S. led to double-dip recessions in Great Britain and Spain; recessions make fiscal problems worse because they increase spending on social services, while decreasing tax revenues from workers without jobs and companies without profits. It’s also worth noting that the deficit exploded under Bush and has declined under Obama; federal spending has actually increased at the lowest rate since the Eisenhower years.

(MORE: A Guide to Sequestration, the Bad Budget Policy We May Not Be Able to Avoid)

But whether or not Republicans were right to threaten to create a fiscal Armageddon if Obama didn’t agree to reduce the deficit—through spending cuts, not tax increases, and non-military spending cuts only—that’s what they did. Obama wanted a “clean” increase of the debt limit; the GOP wouldn’t give it to him. That’s why Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating. Bondholders didn’t care about the debt ceiling when it was purely ceremonial, but now Republicans had dragged us into an era where we’d need to pass a bill through both houses of Congress just to pay our obligations. They had turned the debt ceiling into the fiscal equivalent of a bill requiring us to start a nuclear war every couple of years unless Washington could agree on an alternative foreign policy.

The political drama of 2011 was about whether we would default, or whether Obama could give Republicans enough of what they wanted to avoid a default. The president and Speaker Boehner tried to negotiate a Grand Bargain for $4 trillion in long-term deficit reduction, which would have taken the debt ceiling off the table for awhile, but they couldn’t. After their negotiations collapsed, Republicans continued to demand significant deficit reduction as their price for raising the debt ceiling, while refusing to include any new tax revenues in a smaller deal. Obama agreed to some cuts, but the GOP insisted on more. That’s when the White House suggested the sequester: $1.2 trillion in cuts that would be politically unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats, taking effect automatically in January 2013 unless a bipartisan “supercommittee” agreed on a better plan. The sequester was supposed to be so awful that it would force the two parties to come together to avoid it, which turned out to be wishful thinking.

(MORE: Does President Obama Really Believe in Deficit Reduction?)

The supercommittee failed. Obama comfortably won reelection, but not much has changed on Capitol Hill. January’s deal to avoid the instant austerity of the fiscal cliff—the expiration of the Bush tax cuts plus the sequester—merely punted the sequester to March. And that’s where we are, paying the ransom that Republicans demanded in the summer of 2011. Incredibly, Republicans (who overwhelmingly voted for the sequester) are now calling it the “Obamaquester,” like kidnappers claiming the ransom was their victim’s idea because he came up with the method of payment. If they really hate the sequester as much as they claim, they could always just cancel it—but of course, they don’t want to do that.

Incidentally, after enduring intense post-election criticism for their willingness to endanger the full faith and credit of the federal government, Republicans did agree to raise the debt ceiling for another three months in late January without demanding even more cuts. But they didn’t promise that they wouldn’t try to use it as leverage again. So even if Obama manages to work out some kind of deal with Republican leaders to undo the sequester, this entire cycle of budgetary insanity could begin again in May.

VIDEO: The Sequester Fight: TIME Explains

389 comments
garydoan
garydoan

Ask a Democrat to explain the sequester. I have been and I'm getting the funniest answers you can imagine.

ChHoffman
ChHoffman

The sequester, like a really ugly baby, is something neither parent wishes to acknowledge. But even the most elementary DNA analysis shows that it has 2 parents, one half-black/half-white, one half-orange/half-grey-suit.

Pablod
Pablod like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

Facts?  What facts did you use Grunwald?
'The ransom that Republicans demanded' - it was Obama's idea you simpering ninny.  You are a reinvenionist, just like the bloviating blunderer who leads our nation.  If you can't spin it right the first time, spin it again.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@Pablod I'm sorry can you remind us again of why Republicans held the country hostage over something as routine as a debt ceiling and lowered our credit rating in the process?

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91 @Pablod If you disagree with a democrat you are "holding them hostage". If you disagree with a Republican you are following the will of the people. 

Republicans are following the will of the 47% of Americans that disapprove of Obama. They showed they were willing to negotiate on the budget last year. They were willing to approve tax increase if there were also cuts. Obama agreed to this concept at the beginning. Later he pulled the rug out from under the Republicans when he took cuts off the table and just wanted tax increases. Everyone knows he's a liar. Even Bob Woodward called him on this.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 @Pablod If you turn down $10 of cuts for $1 of revenue which the Republicans did than yes you are holding the debt ceiling hostage. And as for Bob Woodward I can provide volumes of links to his recent lies and misrepresentations.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

When is Obama going to start governing and stop campaigning? He won the election. For the Obama administration here is the definition of govern:

1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. 2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate 3. To control the actions or behavior of. 4. To exercise political authority.5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on

I haven't seen any of this since he won. He's all about blaming and posturing 

We probably shouldn't be too surprised. He's never really accomplished anything of significance in his career.

CameronBartholomew
CameronBartholomew

"If Democrats had been in the minority these past four years and had been as dogmatic about no spending cuts as Republicans have been about no revenue, the Washington establishment would have pilloried them. Instead, now, it’s somehow Obama’s fault that he hasn’t made Republicans see sweet reason." --Michael Tomasky

EXACTLY.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

@ktanktan When will the Republicans realize that he won and start working with him as the American people want them to do. All I see is lies and posturing and even the posturing seems half hearted, Elections have consequences. The American people have spoken. Its time for the Republicans to accommodate their wishes.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan Perhaps you should watch a little School House Rock and learn how the US government functions. Just because you are the president doesn't mean you get everything you want. You still have to lead and govern. That means making compromises and reaching out to the 47% of Americans that disapprove of your presidency. If you look at those paying taxes the number is more like 80% disapprove of the president. The Constitution doesn't give a winner take all scenario.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

He is president because he is a better choice than any of the boobs Republicans presented us with. And if you don't think that going from a poor single parent home to the White House isn't a great accomplishment in itself than you are even denser than your posts suggest you to be.



ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan What has he accomplished? He graduated from college. Then he worked as a community activist? His stint in congress was full of great accomplishments. Come on. He's not president because he has a great record of achievements.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 Yes Obama is a loser. He was handed everything came from a rich family and accomplished nothing with his life. Do you even realize how idiotic that statement sounds?

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan You should write speeches for Obama. 4 years of being president and you are still looking backwards and blaming others. If this president could only look forward and do something proactive perhaps he would stop blaming and start leading. 

Let's face it, Obama is a loser. he has never accomplished anything in his life. His legacy will be one of blame and politicking. I was not a supporter of Bush but at least he didn't cry and blame everyone else for his mistakes.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 So how exactly does one compromise with hostage takers? Last time I checked during a time of two wars and the worst financial crisis in our lifetime the Republicans clearly stated that their number one priority was not dealing with these events, but making Obama fail. Adding insult to injury was the fact that they were responsible for both wars and the financial meltdown.

grape_crush
grape_crush like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Funny - Grunwald's tweet regarding this:

"Lots of anger about my biased post but nobody challenging facts"

If the facts favor one side of an argument, then is it really biased?

bobell
bobell

@grape_crush The facts are definitely biased -- in favor of Obama and the Demos.

Hollywooddeed
Hollywooddeed like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

For those who wanted austerity, you got it.  And you're blaming Obama?  How does that work?

SteveBeineke
SteveBeineke like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Hollywooddeed We have to have austerity.  Why?  Because everything obama does...doesn't work.  Although he is a very good liar...that works.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@HollywooddeedI think the sequester is a good start. Not the best way to govern but a start. We need the cuts and if Washington can't find a way to do it then a little pain for the American people may push us to elect politicians that will make difficult decisions. 

I'm sure if there was a slight gain in efficiency in government operations you could cut 10% of the budget. The problem is the government employees are not expected to operate efficiently. Low expectations = low performance

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@ktanktan @Hollywooddeed Oh a little pain will indeed provide incentive for  the American people to elect politicians who can make difficult decisions. Much as when Republicans pulled this stunt in 1995 get ready for an ass whopping in 2014

roknsteve
roknsteve like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@Hollywooddeed Republicans think the sequester is good.  They says it's Pres. Obama's sequester so they must think he's good too.

Pablod
Pablod like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Your are full of it Mr. Grunwald.  Are you a journalist?  You sure don't write like one.  You write like a White House flunkey regurgitating Sperling's fallcacious spin.  He sure looked desparate on the talk shows yesterday.  It's a fact Mr. Grunwald that the White House came up with this absurd drama, and now the White House is trapped with a host of new spending plans and not a nickel to be found.  Our nation has had it with big time BS artists double-talking us into more wasteful, ill-advised spending couched as recovery.   Some recovery!  So now the First Spender is going to have to simmer down, stop whining and start running a government with finite resources.  We can rest assured Chicken Little Grunwald that you'll cook up some more alarmist banter, but while you and our President are trying to whip the nation into a frenzy, a lot of level headed Americans can be grateful for the system of checks and balances to stop you.


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Speaking of looking desperate on talks shows have you seen Boehner lately. He know that much like what happened when the Republicans pulled this shit with Clinton in 1994-1995 the public will take it out on them when their services start getting cut. Enjoy life in the dust bin of history. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ghouls.



curt3rd
curt3rd like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

My first reaction to this article was it should be in the opion section, not politcal section.  However, as I read more, this should be in the fantasy section.  This writer lied and spun the truth in any direction that he wanted. 

NP042
NP042 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@curt3rd It is labeled "Viewpoint"


Reading is apparently too hard

mcjny
mcjny like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@curt3rd lied? Wow. Are there any real posters here today? Is everybody an astroturfer operative. what nonsense lol.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@curt3rd You should be in the Fantasy section since you still think the Republicans are a viable party after this fiasco.

curt3rd
curt3rd like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd Liberals alwalys on the attack.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd @mantisdragon91 You stated Liberals are always on the attack and I pointed out that it takes two to tango. See your side isn't exactly known for calm rational discourse.

curt3rd
curt3rd like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd You realize that not a single person you just mention is actually a politician.  Yall are so scared of Limbaugh. You do know Limbaugh is a radio personality.

tomsquawk
tomsquawk like.author.displayName 1 Like

Sorry, but today Jay "the kid" Carney blamed it on Reagan.

SteveBeineke
SteveBeineke like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

one word...b.s.

RealThought
RealThought like.author.displayName 1 Like

@SteveBeineke Care to elaborate? What parts of the column are not true?

mcjny
mcjny

@RealThought @SteveBeineke  hope you're not holding your breath waiting for the astro turfer to "elaborate". The script doesn't have that section. Ever hear those work from home commercials in the morning and late night. What do you think those jobs entail? This is how you hire people to act crazy and unreasonable then call themselves republicans. IT's to fracture public cohesion. We must stand together as an electorate. This government is a fail. both sides. And we have to get that to the story. Not obama, not boehner but their joint failure. 

SteveBeineke
SteveBeineke like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mcjny @RealThought @SteveBeineke 
A better question is "what is true??  None of it...obama gambled and lost.  He figured they would cave...and they didn't.  So, now, when we find out the cuts in government growth don't really "hurt":at all...obama will look like the liar that he is.  He is already backtracking...but has his little pigs like j-nap crying hysteria with absolutely no basis....and she is getting reamed for it....and rightfully so.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

We need to start cutting the budget now. I know the Demo-rats don't want us to hurt their constituents but it's time for America to get back to what made it great. Greatness was a result of hard work and innovation not creating government jobs and  handing out money to loafers. 

LBJ and the Great Society (government entitlements) has been a failure. It's not a safety net but a way of life. Sure it gets votes for the Dems but it's also created a class of people dependent on the government. 

Anyone who has studied OB knows that governments are the least efficient way to fulfill the needs and wants of a people.  Morons like Michael Grunwald have been sleeping with this ugly mistress so long they don't know they're in bed with a monster.    

We should start to reduce the this mess by cutting 10% of the government workforce. Use GE's performance based cuts to reduce the government workforce by 10% per year. I know people in the US and State of NY governments. They all say close to 25% of workers in their departments are useless. Reduce government employee's benefits to match the private sector's.

Create a system of rewarding employers for hiring unemployed workers. Stop just handing out money. It's impact on the economy is limited. Limit welfare.

ChristianSalafia
ChristianSalafia like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktan Just the fact you said "Demo-rats" means nobody, and I mean NOBODY should take one word of what you say seriously.

glennra3
glennra3 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan


No, what we need to do is first create an atmosphere of mutual respect that acknowledges that people of both parties are Americans first, who happen to have different ideas of what is best for our country.


Starting off by calling people who belong to the largest political party in our nation "rats" is not a good way to build that trust.  What it does is create animosity and confrontation.  You call me a rat, then I call you a fascist who doesn't respect the democratic process.  


Where are we then?  Right where our current congress is, because too many tea-party Republicans see Democrats as not just the opposition, but rather, enemies of the country. 



ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@glennra3 @ktanktan How can anyone respect a supporter of Obama. You are rats only looking for your next piece of cheese. Since you don't want to work, you expect me to buy you cheese. 

You only care about taxing me and my people so you can redistribute wealth and power through government force. You are one of the 46%ers that doesn't pay taxes and yet tells me I don't pay enough. Even though Americans like me pay a majority of the taxes, you feel it's not enough. You want to spend recklessly with no thought for my children's future.

How can I respect someone who just takes and never gives. How can I respect a party that is destroying this great nation? How can I respect you when you know your policies have been a failure and will continue to fail. 

You don't respect yourself and I'm certainly not going to lie and show false respect.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 @glennra3 What takers. Most of the states that went Republican are the real takers. News flash Pal, look at percentage of federal taxes paid to federal dollars taken, I can guarantee that the states that vote Republican are at the top of the list.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91@ktanktan@glennra3We lost because you takers now have a majority. Does that mean we should roll over and let you ruin this country? Mortgage our children's future? Hell no. We may be the minority but we still pay the taxes and run the businesses that keep this economy running. 

BTW Mitt has done more in private to help the poor and needy then Obama ever did. He just didn't earn his living as a political activist to show he could help. He did his quietly and without the praises of men. That's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. Conservatives work in private to help our neighbors and community. Libs want to spent other people's money to help the needy.

BobJan
BobJan

@glennra3 @ktanktan Mitch McConnell  (R) Senator of Kentucky whose span has been in the Senate for 28 years and he's worried about Ashley Judd who may run against him. Tells a lot about a man who has no accomplishments to run on. But that's par for the course for the whole Congress. They do nothing.

PaulDirks
PaulDirks like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktanGreatness was a result of hard work and innovation......

Sorta like DARPA and the Manhattan project?

ktanktan
ktanktan

@PaulDirks @ktanktan or the US Postal service

BobJan
BobJan like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@AlistairCookie @ktanktan @PaulDirks republicans have a following of voters with a 3 second time span. that's why they keep defunding public education while their families go to the most expensive, most elitist, and most white schools in the country.

AlistairCookie
AlistairCookie like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

PS.  I think I heard on NPR recently that the Post Office would be running at something like an $85B surplus were it not for the ridiculous pension requirement.

AlistairCookie
AlistairCookie like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

@ktanktan @PaulDirks The USPS is going broke, both for the reason mantisdragon shared, and because they have pre fund their pensions for 75 years in advance.  This is something no other entity does, or is required to do.  A Republican Congress passed this asinine measure because they wanted to do away with the Constitutionally mandated USPS and let privatization happen.  So they did what seems to be on the first page of the Republican playbook:  De-fund, legislatively cripple, or underfund a part of the government you don't like to the point of dysfunction, and then hold the dysfunction up as an example of Government Not Working.  It's perfectly circular and people keep buying into it.

And yes, mantisdragon is absolutely correct.  Even things shipped FedEx or UPS or any other carrier gets delivered by the post office in rural areas because it is not profitable for them to do so themselves.  The private carrier delivers it to the appropriate post office, and it gets taken from there.  Adds days to shipping; I go through this every Christmas sending stuff to IA.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan @PaulDirks The US Postal service is going broke because they make deliveries to rural areas which are not cost effective for any one else to service. Rural area which tend vote Republican by the way.

AlistairCookie
AlistairCookie like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@PaulDirks @ktanktan Or the entirety of NASA

AfGuy
AfGuy like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan @PaulDirks @AlistairCookie 

Really? The entire Apollo project cost around $100 blllion.  Which businesses can you name that would have developed the boosters to start the process, using their own funds, without a guarantee of a profit up-front? 

You do realize that our comm satellite network is a result of having this heavy-lift capability, don't you, and the developer of SpaceX is only as far as he is because of the availability of years of NASA research.

We've been waiting for a replacement for the shuttle for some time now. No one's close to doing it, because a decision was made some time back to let private enterprise do it.... and we're still waiting... because there's no immediate profit in the research.

AlistairCookie
AlistairCookie like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan @PaulDirks @AlistairCookie Private industry is reluctant (anymore) in doing anything that doesn't have clear road to profit in the next quarter, much less anything farther out.  No one has a long view anymore.  No one is willing to invest in something that won't come to fruition until farther down the road. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktan @PaulDirks @AlistairCookie But would they? Private enterprise is reluctant to invest in anything that has no clear road to monetazation which is why things like the InterState Highway system and the Internet would never have happened without government involvement.

mcjny
mcjny

@ktanktan "Create a system of rewarding employers for hiring unemployed workers" So welfare for the corporations is a better idea. Have you thought any of this through? I mean beyond the left vs right nonsense. I mean in sum. Because this post is one long talking point rather than an analysis. and the labels must go as well. It's not solving anything.



ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mcjny @ktanktan Yes I would rather a corporation hire the unemployed person and have them create a lasting impact on the economy. The current solution has less impact on the economy (Money goes to the unemployed - unemployed goes to Walmart - Walmart pays suppliers in China - China lends money back to US government).

Why do dems dislike corporations and profit? 

BobJan
BobJan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan @mcjny provide "facts" to back this up. I can provide a fact that shows McConnell absolutely dislikes taxpayers and steals taxpayer dollars to give to the "rich corporations". So, I guess I'd rather go with the Dem's at this point. 

mcjny
mcjny

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan @mcjny  let's keep it simple. NO welfare for anyone if welfare is bad. Corporations operate on a profit only basis. That means this that if that profit comes from killing, slavery, or death it doesn't matter. Profit is profit.  Why should the american people have to pay a vendor to provide a service that they pay for? There is no reason to interfere in the forces of supply and demand. The gov doesn't need to sponsor a private corporation. Simply give them license to operate and regulate them. That's it. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ktanktan @mcjny Why do dems dislike corporations and profit? And what are you basing this idiotic statement on? If history is any indication corporations do better under Democrats since its the Republicans that keep crushing the economy.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

@ktanktan Actually no we don't. Interest rates are ridiculously low at the minute, in fact when adjusted for inflation people are paying us interest on our bonds. As any smart business knows when interest rates are this low you borrow and invest in your organization's future (road infrastructure, employee training, etc) And yet brainwashed boobs like you run around screaming Demo-Rats and think they should be taken seriously.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91 @ktanktan Didn't they teach you to read at your community college. I didn't say "don't invest, borrow or train your employees". I said don't waste more money on government spending. 1 dollar of investment in the government creates 1.5 dollars of GDP. 1 dollar invested in private sector creates 5 dollars of GDP. Is that math simple enough for you? If you add in debt maintenance and the crowding out effect on investment, government spending is even more impractical. 

I also failed to mention that it's time for everyone in this country to pay taxes.  You don't pay taxes you don't have a say in how the money is spent. Of course that would eliminate 1/2 of democrats from voting.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 You do realize that part of the plea deal was anonymity. If he did take the amnesty deal as the evidence strongly suggests the IRS could not reveal that fact. That would be revealed by his 2009 tax return which he fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName 1 Like

@mantisdragon91@ktanktanOkay moron explain why the IRS's audits of Mitt showed he followed the tax code to the letter. He has never failed an audit. 

Here are some REAL politicians that have broken the law and filed illegal tax returns:

Harry Reid (ENN Mojave Energy LLC), Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and let's not forget Charlie Rangel. A true representative of the democrats.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 So please explain why Romney had his money in the same bank as the tax amnesty scandal and refused to provide the years that would have proven if indeed he had taken the amnesty deal.

ktanktan
ktanktan like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@mantisdragon91@ktanktanOkay please name the Republican candidates that didn't pay taxes. Of course there are none. They all paid according to the current tax regs. I suppose your comment is directed at Mitt. He paid his taxes just like Obama. Did Obama give more than he was legally required? Of course not. Why should Mitt have paid more? 

My comment about 1/2 of Democrats not paying taxes it true  and you know it. It's probably even higher than 50%.

Such a minor insult must have struck close to home if you took it so personally.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@ktanktan @mantisdragon91 It would also eliminate half the Republicans running for president. More importantly insulting me only makes you seem ignorant and insecure.