Why do some people blame the president for the Sequester issue, when it was Congress who enacted it?

    Congress enacted it, but some will say that the president could stop it by signing some bill that could act targeted spending cuts, but the Democrats could also say more or less that same thing in the cuts and spending issue?  What's the solution?

    0  Views: 829 Answers: 2 Posted: 11 years ago
    Tags: sequester

    2 Answers

    What's the solution?  The president backing down on his stance that he will not cut any spending at all other than SS and education. Unless he agrees to cuts on out of control government spending, then congress will not cede to his demands. 

    Congress did enact it, but it was a decision reached by both the president and congress as a garantee that something would be done because the sequester was so extreme that neither party would like to see it take place. However, the GOP is being disingenous when they try to say that the sequester is Obama's plan, it was a co-operative effort , so,  maybe the congress is trying to say that they were too stupid to realize what was being proposed. This is just an example of both sides posturing instead of getting the job done.The democrates need to acknowledge that we need cuts in entitlements and the republicans need to realize that there needs to be an increase in revenue that can only come from taxes whether its streamlining the tax code or raising current taxes. One of the major problems here is that both side are listening to their bases whose ideas are both radical and extreme and the reason they do that is that the extremes are strident and combative which plays well with the media.


    What are entitlements in your mind? Social Security? That is not an entitlement. Anyone on SS paid for their SS. Welfare is a system any modern culture has. Is it an entitlement? Yes, only if you have never worked a day in your life to put money into the system. BUT we are a liberal nation so because of that, many would not agree to helping only those who have at least worked at some point in their lives.

    Okay,if you want to be precise,social welfare programs. Those programs put in place to help those that need help and they are absolutely necessary. But, you can only do what you are able to do and to exceede that resourse to a great degree for an extended period of time is irresponsible to the point of being a crime. If you use up a resourse then no one gets helped and thats where we are heading. Its true that people have paid into social security and deserve to get it, but that doesn't preclude the program from needing to be altered to make it last longer and be more effecient. Entitlements or social safty nets? Semantics. The fact is that programs like food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare, medicade, need to be streamlined, cut, adjusted, whatever term you choose or they will cease to exist. You are right in saying that people paid into social security, but when social security was first instituted approx. 10 workers paid for a retired person and today its more like 2 or 3. Also, age 65 was chosen because most people didn't live much past that age and today they are living into their eighties. The program wasn't mean to support people for that long a time. It was meant to keep people from sliding into poverty after they could no longer work. Then there is the matter of taxes. They need to be reformed to increase revenue. I don't pretend to know what the changes should be and neither do most people, but cuts in social programs aren't going to do it by themselves. The trick is not to kill business in the process.

    Time limit for welfare and the government giving back all the money they stole from SS would solve the biggest part of the problem for both services. At what point do you suppose people should be able to retire? Do we really need 70 year olds still in the workforce taking jobs that men and women raising kids need? 65 is still a good age to retire and make room for a younger person to get a job.

    People can retire at 62 if they wish, but at a reduced percentage of monthly income. As far as social security is concerned, at the time it was introduced people on the average didn't live much beyond 65 and it was never intended to last decades beyond retirement and as a result of people living longer they draw far more money out of social security than they ever put in. As far as whether people should be able to take jobs away from younger workers, I have no idea. But, just because people get older doesn't mean that they are necessarily unproductive and people get the jobs they deserve and can do, no one is entitled to a job, no matter their situation. Also, with people living so much longer and more people retiring social security is going to have a problem sooner or later. And about the money that they government has taken from social security,well, good luck getting that back.

    I didn't note 62 because of the reduced amount. Most wait until 65 because of that. As for seniors living longer, that's what obamacare is for. The non productive ones will be quietly put to sleep. The tax produced from this giant tax bill will go towards covering some of the money they stole from SS. No matter what, we will end up paying back what they stole from the people. Again, we pay for their theft.

    Top contributors in Other - Politics & Government category

    Answers: 10 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 4965
    Answers: 93 / Questions: 7
    Karma: 4285
    Answers: 63 / Questions: 0
    Karma: 4095
    Answers: 35 / Questions: 1
    Karma: 3585
    > Top contributors chart

    Unanswered Questions

    Answers: 0 Views: 1 Rating: 0
    Answers: 0 Views: 3 Rating: 0
    Answers: 0 Views: 18 Rating: 0
    Answers: 0 Views: 20 Rating: 0
    Answers: 0 Views: 24 Rating: 0
    > More questions...