Shared publicly  - 
House Speaker John Boehner fired back Wednesday after President Obama used the bully pulpit to pin blame on Republicans for the meat cleaver of looming spending cuts.
Matthew Agnich's profile photoAlan Williamson's profile photoJay Carlson's profile photoroscoe stark's profile photo
Democrats to play the race card in ....3.....2....
Well Speaker give the President a line item "Veto" and he will fix it
^^^^Always the fault of someone else.  The sequester was Obama's idea, and still can't accept blame.
I'm confused, when did the Dems or Obama ever play the "race card?"

Remember, it's Congress' job to create a budget and it's the executive's job to ensure they do. The GOP have stalled and stonewalled for years now, driving us to our current predicament. Maybe they thought they'd win the 2012 elections and could pick up on a good note by doing what they wouldn't do in 4 years, but that gambit failed them.

That GOP wrote their own ticket here. 
Again, never the fault of Obama or the democrats. ^^^^^^
So both sides agreed to the sequester, both sides voted for it and now it's one person's fault? Despite the fact that one person can not do anything on his own and has to work with the group that agreed to the sequester in the first place
Sequester was Obama's idea, but as usual can't take fault for anything.  You moonbats follow him precisely.
Let him stay. We all have a right to our phones and to express those opinions. He's only doing himself a disfavor here. 
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
+Spencer Scott
So he can't in any way implement something to avoid the sequester by himself, yet you still blame one person.
You truly are a lost cause
Yes this is Obama's on crisis, he made it and should fix it.
Matthew:  The sequester was his idea, now he has to live with the consequences.  Every libiot here blames the GOP for everything, but suddenly we have to "work together".
+john turner  Women are very capable of defending themselves.  However, husbands can get downright violent.  Keep it up.
+Jason ON
The lack of a budget doesn't have anything to do with Republicans, that is a conscious choice by the Democrats. Operating on short term budgets makes fiscal record attacks more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult during campaigns.
+scott tessandori, check your facts: Congress creates a budget. The executive submits a request (proposal) but it is non binding. 
+Spencer Scott
Once again, I'm not a liberal. There is a continuum of positions to take, not either/or. Now I realize critical thinking is difficult for you, by the way you portray yourself as an unthinking parrot for one side. But the President can't fix the problem alone, so if the only people who can fix it, won't, where does that leave us? With a broken system where every one is to blame
Hilarious.  Bush cut billions in taxes, started two wars, allowed the banks to treat our savings with criminal negligence and it's the Democrat's job to clean it up.

What an ass.  All to keep a bunch of rich people from having to pay their fair share of taxes.
We have a spending problem, and we need spending cuts.
"allowed the banks to treat our savings with criminal negligence and it's the Democrat's job to clean it up."

How many of these criminal bankers has Obama indicted?  Last I checked it was none, and one of them was a campaign bundler for Obama.
"I'm not a liberal", but all I do is blame republicans and praise Obama.  LOL, another useful idiot.
Government has billions and billions in waste and useless programs, and the idiot President complains about cuts. 
+Mathew McConnell
President Obama is a bigger corporatist than Bush Jr. No bankers even prosecuted and the war-industrial complex continues on the same course as Bush. Obama isn't saving anyone from anything
Obama sux, and is the worst President America ever had.
+Spencer Scott
Because you are too ignorant to notice nuance in arguments, I know this concept isdifficult for your limited brain. But not agreeing with you 100% doesn't mean I agree with anything else you try to put in my mouth. Your weak assumptions and inability to see fault in your own party makes you the second most worthless commenter on this board. Second only to Mr Turner
Again moron, I don't represent a party.  Try reading sometimes.
$2.8 Trillion in tax cuts is a spending problem?  I'm not defending the Dems, but at least they'll agree to compromise.  The Republicans/Tea Party will not.
I am not happy with this current administration. He has outspent previous administrations and the National Debt continues to rises. It's amazing how the main stream media is humping his leg though... LOL 
+Mathew McConnell LOL, what comprises have the democrats made?  Obama has spent more time with Tiger Woods than GOP leadership.  
+Spencer Scott There you go today spewing your incorrect information and making personal attacks. The sequester was something Obama proposed( mind you it had to be pass by congress to become law. Again GOP house passed it), but he didn't expect the idioted members of congress to actually let them happen( maybe he is an idioted for thinking that)
+Christian Williams look at the link I posted, every president spends more than the previous one, Obama is the first one however to start getting that under control and it has gone up the least under his watch. Data > Drama. 
Obama has not gotten spending under control.  You need to do some more research and not be a liberal tool.
+Paris Mosley Can't you just admit Obama has been a failure?  He proposes these stupid ideas because he knows the media will cover for him, and blame someone else. He has a stable of useful idiots like yourself to help as well.
+Spencer Scott Congress controls spending not the President. Give the President a line item Veto than we can start only blaming him. You act as if congress don''t even exist
+Paris Mosley
Spencer acts like a child blaming one side for everything. Trying to parse out common sense and critical thinking from him is a wasted effort.
His need to feel like a victim is too strong
Victim?, I'm not a democrat.

President Obama is promising to veto any effort to undo the automatic spending cuts that are set to take effect now that the congressional supercommittee has announced its failure to strike a deal to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."
Oh, and Matthew, I place plenty of blame on the GOP as the establishment is just as bad as the democrats.  But hey, keep reading nonsense from rawstory and thinkprogress.  LOL.
We're in debt to those guys hacking our computers.
The reason that the United States is in debt, is because it can only get it's money from the Federal Reserve, and it has to pay that back at interest so it will always owe money to the Federal Reserve. 
If Republicans really think that severe cuts are good for the economy, why would they be giving Obama credit for them?
+Michael Washington how can you say ". . . Obama is the first one however to start getting that under control. . ."? He, and his policies, are solely responsible for over 1/3 of the ENTIRE national debt. Data > Drama

In general, Democrats are not good with money (understatement of the century) the main reason being that they fail to acknowledge that government does not CREATE wealth. Hence, any money government spends is ours.

Capitalism is great that way, if the government stopped all social programs; it would take a while, but any one of them that NEEDED to exist, would eventually be privately created and help those in need, create jobs. . . and do so more efficiently.

Obama thought the sequester would be advantageous for him, his party, and his agenda because the Defense cuts would force the GOP to cave. However he, and his administration have managed to create an astronomical financial disaster. One which the GOP feels is more important to attempt to fix than the impending Cuts to defense. Now Obama is forced to ACTUALLY comprise.

Just as soon as he looks up what that word means. . . compromise. 
Uh, no: like every other disaster born of this president, this is HIS idea, destroying what HE wants it to.
If the Republicans do spending cuts and the economy tanks not many will get re-elected in 2014. Is this a bad thing?
+Peter Roto
If Republicans agreed to, then voted for a law that included the sequester, how are they blameless for the situation?
If you propose an idea, and I second it, are we both not to blame for the consequences of said idea?
More than find somebody to blame, is to get out of this mess. Bail out, free money by the US Mail, 2 stupid wars, millions spent searching for a damn sick crazy man, and now, a bunch of incompetents from both sides that only think on themselves and their political interests... screw the USA; that is what they think. Something must be done quickly...
+Matthew Agnich You know they are just talking with this sense of ignorance just to get you to comment on it right?
Obama's idea but now he wants out. Looks like the taxpayers will get some spending cuts. 2% of 3.6 trillion in spending. Really doesn't sound like scorched earth to me.
+Paris Mosley
It can't be purposeful, what point is there to act ignorantly on purpose? Me constantly pointing out their short-sightedness can't be their goal
+Michael Washington You forgot about the money Clinton stole from Social Security to create the illusion of a balanced budget.

BTW, we are in debt to the Chinese. Just not as much as most people think.
+Matthew Agnich solid point. The Republican Party, if you want to still consider them a party, definitely are not without guilt. However, regardless of your political paradigm, the ball is in Obama's court. So there are three options:
1)Fix it - Finally compromise

2)Don't - Continue acting like a 6 year old trying to convince the country that "the other guys are evil"

3)Find a way to throw the ball back - Pretend to do something about the problem that makes it seem like you are trying your hardest, so the other side is forced to reciprocate

My bet is Obamatron chooses option 3.
+Jay Carlson You are forgetting the GOP wants to change the Defense cuts as well. So really Obama still has leverage. Because none of those cuts are too the big entitlement programs. If the GOP wants to kick 70K little kids out of preschool go ahead. GOP has no leverage. I want see what happens when all the defense contractors start laying people off in those GOP states and districts. Let see how their constituency respond to that
+Peter Roto
1. Is not possible without Congressional Republicans. They can point fingers all they want, but they have to help too.

Of course it'll be option 3. Because Republicans will refuse any and all proposals from the White House, as they have consistently done for four years now
+Matthew Agnich Republicans refuse the proposals because their consistently terrible ideas, not solely because they came from the Whitehouse.

If you and I were compromising on how to make us more friends ("us" being yourself and I in this hypothetical), and I proposed we do this by making hateful signs and hang them up near a highway. You would (hopefully) refuse this option.

Now, if I was Obama in this situation, I would immediately go on national television and inform the country on how I'm doing my best and all your doing is shutting down my all ideas. You see then it would be YOUR fault we (again you and I) have no new friends. Its a facade and its all Obama has done since he's been in office. He is a campaigner. . . not a leader. 
+Jay Carlson
That's not even remotely true and referring to it as a cartel takes more credibility away from the comment
Yes, it is true, and no it doesn't.
+Matthew Agnich
I am being objective.

The difference here is that Obama is being obstinate and fighting to not give up anything.

Boehner is fighting to not give up everything.

Obama is a deceptive and manipulative bully, and this is the first time since he has been in office that he may not get his way.

Objectively, there is nothing in this country (politically) better than it was in 2007. I, personally, don't believe its because the Democratic Party is inept; but rather because our President is a narcissist. 
+Jay Carlson
Your complete lack of objective thinking is making you boring to respond too. Neither side has gotten everything they wanted.

When the sequester was agreed upon, John Boehner spoke these words.
"I got 98% of what I wanted..."
If you want the video, I can provide that proof too
+Peter Roto So things were better for Bush? Most Presidents are narcissist. They only compromise when they have too. Didn't Bush get everything he wanted after 9/11? Was he a narcissist when he was ramming tax cuts down people's throats?
Sure, Boehner got 98% of what he wanted in spending cuts. Now BHO wants to get out of the sequester so no spending cuts, just more taxing and spending.
+Kehr Bailey
So people who vote for a bill so it has the ability to appear before the President, carry no consequences? That is sure is beneficial to an easy outlook. Everything the President signs is his fault and his fault alone. Got it. Now I just hope you have the ability to stay consistent when the next controversy arises
+Kehr Bailey Because when you have a gun to your head " Go with sequester or default on our debt" Obama chose the sane approach. But this shows the American people yet again that the GOP is not capable of governing
+Paris Mosley we can't be reminded enough the terror resulting from "ramming tax cuts down people's throats" (drenched in sarcasm by the way). Yes, Bush did get what he wanted in order to respond to America being attacked. If Obama wanted to spend money trying to respond to the events of the most recent 9/11, he would be hard pressed to find an opposition. 
+Peter Roto
Projecting narcissism or any qualities onto some one you have never met doesn't bode well for taking your comment seriously.
But I get the drift of what you are saying. When someone stands up for they believe in, and you don't agree, they are a narcissist and 'obstinate'. When someone stands up for what they believe in, and you agree, they are 'not giving up everything'.
Yeah, clearly you have reviewed this objectively
+Peter Roto Bush got his way on everything even items that was not related to 9/11. Should I start listing them?
Well, It was the Obama Cartel's idea and it looks like it's the only way there are gonna be any spending cuts. BHO could work with the GOP to say ok, instead of cutting this much here why don't we cut over here instead but he has taken the hard line against any spending cuts what so ever.

These cuts amount to 2% of 3.6 Trillion dollars in spending. A drop in the ocean of debt.
+Kehr Bailey
My comment made perfect sense. You blame President Obama for everything cause he signed it. I was commenting on how I hope you are able to consistently apply that silly rule
+Kehr Bailey
If the Republicans threaten the full faith and credit of the United States by not raising the debt ceiling, that's a hostage negotiation, not a compromise.
The debt ceiling should be used to start talks of cuts, but it never should be threatened not to pay.
+Kehr Bailey Using the debt ceiling is not the forum to use to cut spending...maybe if CONGRESS refused to appropriate the money in the first place maybe the spending will be cut. But threatening to destroy the US economy and its global position as the World's reserve currency is putting a gun too his head. There are more effective forums to play hardball on spending, but not raising the debt limit to pay bills already occurred is foolish
+Jay Carlson Obama loses leverage if he allows the GOP to dictate where spending should be cut. Turn the Defense  Hawk GOP members against the budget cutters. Do you allow those defense cut to happen? Make your choice right now. I will get rid of the Defense cuts if I get more REVENUE
+Matthew Agnich Do you realize what you just said about "Republicans threaten the full faith and credit of the United States by not raising the debt ceiling"? So, with BHO spending like a drunken sailor in Bangkok the only responsible thing is to raise the limit on his credit card?
+Paris Mosley So you are saying that for the sake of politics he can't/won't work with the GOP to find alternative places to cut?
+Matthew Agnich I was discussing the matter with civility. Clearly you are opting not to reciprocate. Obama is narcissistic, not because of his beliefs on issues, but rather his actions, diction, and political process. If Obama was some sort of victim here, your last comment may have held merit, but he is not a victim of anything. He manifests a cause to fight against, and then paints the Republicans as the antagonists to rally support. I have formulated my distaste for Barack Obama very objectively. He is consistently radiating narcissism through almost every public interaction.

I will not be responding to your comments anymore, because I refuse to be a part of a discussion where I argue why I feel the president is not doing a very good job. . . while you counter with insulting my view and condescending quips. 
+Kehr Bailey You must don't understand global markets. If paying US debt( other than interest payments) is in question the market will still consider that a "Default". Rating Agencies will instantly degrade US debt under investment grade and you will see huge redemption in US Treasury and our economy will come to a halt
+Jay Carlson I don't think the GOP wants to find alternative plans either. They just want to attack programs that is geared towards the poor.. Because they don't have the BALLS to go after the real programs that is driving our debt. Notice how they don't say we should Cut Medicare/Social Security? They use terms like "Slow the Growth". If they knew they were not going to get punished by cutting these programs..they would have offered them back to the States( which we all know have constitutional amendments to balance their they outsource the BALLS)
+Kehr Bailey We were only degrade 1 notch and that was S&P spanking the elected officials on the hand about their political discourse, but if we have an actual defaulted our Rating Grade would go into junk Territory and that will make the Financial Crisis look like chicken little . America has a long-term debt crisis(revolving around our Health Care Acts) not a short-term one
Sending all social programs, Medicare and Social Security included to the states to fund and manage will save a lot of money. Get rid of the massive bloated federal bureaucracies. It would also be inline with the Constitution.

We'll never know because the Obama Cartel isn't willing to work with the GOP to cut even one dime of deficit spending.
+Paris Mosley as hard as Obamatron may try to change this, currently becoming wealthy is earned. Also, the "few amount of people" with the wealth are also footing the bill of a President who spends money like. . . I honestly don't have an analogy here, its unprecedented. Which points back to my original comment on this post. Government does not create wealth. Government just takes the money that others have earned. Taxes are necessary to keep some governing entity running, but be honest - the current spending situation is atrocious.

Keep in mind that "increased revenue" is political code for "take more of your money."

Any government spending is just money taken out of an already sophicating economy. 
Isn't that the House's why the fuck +Fox News and the republicans getting their panties in a bunch for!!!
Here is where you fucktards on here don't see...if the country goes bankrupt all of you are fucked, not the wealthy! Only you dumbasses who want to favor political parties. Lets just see how political you are when your broke, starving, jobless, and homeless...lets see then how being a democrat or a republican will help your stupid ass!!!
+Peter Roto Getting revenues back to its historical % of GDP which is around 18-19%. Right now Obama is spending 24% of GDP. When historical levels is around 20% of GDP. You may not want to admit it, but Obama's deficits are coming down as a % of GDP. But those tax revenues are staying stubborn at 15%
+Michael Washington The problem with the link you gave is the guy talks about the presidential spending in terms of percentages. From a statistics standpoint, that is one of the worst ways to prove anything because they can be easily manipulated. Just give flat dollar amounts. As one of the comments on the article nicely said, "If my town had 3 murders last year and 4 this year that's a 33% increase. If the town next door had 100 murders last year and 120 this year its only a 20% increase. Who did better in stopping murders?" While the percentage sure looks nice the actual hard numbers speak better for themselves.
+Garry Williams at least we won't all be rude. Haha

On a non-satirical note. I am inclined to agree.
+Kehr Bailey You haven't read anything but research from conservative think tanks and I don't want any cited work from the UOC... I think a lot Milton Friedman disciplines are still left in that University. You are not serious because you really don't know anything. You sound more like Glenn Beck. I like to talk with real numbers. Look at the % of spending according to GDP( You know that use to be the GOP argument on everything and what lead to the "Deficits don't matter" comment)
. Also who blamed Republications? Even though I think they are to blame now for the reckless behavior and lack of willingness to govern
+Paris Mosley how does the actual value of the US dollar fit into those statistics? (honest question) 
+Micah Swick Flat dollar amount does not put the deficit in context though. If I am only spending 25% of my income on bills that looks great. But if I just say I am running 400K deficits without stating my total income that is misleading. Even personal budgets use % of income compared to your expenses
on the backs of many do the rich stand and the poor blame the poor because no one wants to pay to have those backs straighten? a bunch of fools that have given up their rights by hiring people to smile in their face and do nothing....i think the closer the internet puts people the closer to the end of the world we are getting... democrats, republican, independents.. who cares....
+Paris Mosley In the example you gave it makes sense but the writer is only comparing spending while you are comparing spending to income.
Although both Obama and the lead house of republicans are to blame for this mess. We unfortunately voted for it. It's apart of checks and balances. Although Obama preaches save the poor etc.. he is actually hurting them with the policies he wants implemented. That's the reason politicians with no business or world experience shouldn't hold office from the start. 
The blame is on the people.. You fools that keep trying to sound intelligent as you debate this.. You should not have put Obama or Boehner in the positions they are in at the same time. Clinton knew how to bargan. Boehner tried to take Obama's manhood and now he won't stand for any of Boehner bullshit, and the poor will feel it. .  One hates the other and the other is as stubborn as the hatred the other has for him..We the people are the ones to stop crying and get Boehner out because we are stuck with Obama for at least 3 and some more months..
As Nancy Pelosi and other leasing democrats, namely Obama and Biden believe we have an unlimited treasury, they are wrong! Yes we can print more money to push for their goals. Unfortunately there are consciences for this. Inflation, the more money printed makes our dollars less compared to other countries. Money is still tied to materialistic wealth ( goods, services) we are going down hill on the express trip. The leading democrats are going to push us into a third world country.
I respectfully disagree with you Don. Getting rid of Bangor coincides to polices that the president wants. Not all the people voted for the president. 
and you know what.. it doesn't matter to me.. i'm not complaining.. I voted.. he won.. you voted.. he won.. so go about your business.. do you job and hope not to get fired.. and stop the crying.. not all people voted for Boehner....stop the crying.. do your job get paid.. bide you time and then as we all do.. DIE.. nuff said... sheesh...
Late bear that's about the stupidest thing said yet. How do I delete this ignorance.
+Jay Carlson 
"Do you realize what you just said about "Republicans threaten the full faith and credit of the United States by not raising the debt ceiling"? So, with BHO spending like a drunken sailor in Bangkok the only responsible thing is to raise the limit on his credit card?

If you actually read what I wrote, instead of making something up in your head to respond to me, you'd know that I said debt ceiling talks area  good place to start cut conversations, but the debt ceiling shouldn't be threatened. You clearly don't know what the debt ceiling is. 

The debt ceiling is for money already spent. It's not a credit limit increase, it's a promise to pay. Just the threat of not paying it can cause a downgrade of our credit. And that's exactly what happened. Republicans threatening to not increase the ceiling, thus paying off debts we already accumulated., because balanced approaches are 'evil' The threat of not paying the debt is why we were downgraded and Republicans were specifically cited in S&P's press release as to why we were downgraded. Because of their uncompromising nature that wouldn't have accepted a 10-1 cut- revenue deal.
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.(Budget Control Act)"
It's not difficult to fool people who make assumptions rather than ask questions. On top of that, you are a person of faith, someone who's even easier to fool.
+Peter Roto 
Mocking sarcasm really gets your panties in a bunch. 

When you are starting your third year as a President, if I was the leader of the opposition party and said my #1 goal, before curing the Great Recession or getting people back to work, was to make sure you didn't get re-elected, you are not going to proceed forward hand in hand with me as my friend.
The President not only invited Republican leadership to talks that made Obamacare, but Boehner and Cantor walked out of them claiming all kinds of partisan rhetoric. If the President invited them to talk about the legislation, they walked out of negotiations on a Republican idea and then they talk shit about him to the press once they are outside the door. There is nothing objective about how you have viewed his first years in the White house. He reached across again and again to only have the Republicans wail about him being a controlling dictator, then he asks them to take the lead and he's an inadequate leader. 
There has never been someone as damned if he does or as damned if he doens't.
Let me break it down for you Matthew. Increasing the debt ceiling ultimately means more spending. If the debt ceiling is not raised, REAL CUTS would to be made to pay these bills. Raising the Debt ceiling means the spenders in DC can just go deeper in debt. At some point it has to stop and HELL YEAH it's gonna hurt, but the longer it goes on the more it's gonna hurt.

As far as the 10 to 1 deal goes, we don't need any new taxes. The tax payers are being screwed enough.

You are pointing to the Republicans uncompromising nature, please list what the Obama Cartel has given up in the way of compromising. Every time he goes on TV he flat out says there will be no compromise on what ever the current crisis happens to be.

You claim to relate most closely with the GOP, would you please tell me what Republican values you find the most common ground with?
Mocking someone because of their spiritual beliefs is pretty low.
+Jay Carlson 
You fundamentally misunderstand what the debt ceiling is. Increasing the ceiling is NOT a debt limit increase on a credit card. Increasing the debt ceiling is telling all of our debt-holders that, "Yes, we are going to pay these debts that we have already accumulated". 
A threat to not raise the debt ceiling is a threat to not pay our bills we have already accumulated

AS for Jesus, it's a fact that faith-based people are just easier to mislead. They've already bought hook, line and sinker into some man made religious dogma used to control the masses in order to gain power over them. 
+Matthew Agnich You must live with parents and therefore have no understanding of SPENDING. Spending has to stop. I get what you are saying but raising the debt limit will only allow a future increase in spending. They are always gonna bump up against the limit, and this is not acceptable. There isn't enough money in the world to satisfy the spending of the US Government.

You like to keep saying "it's a fact". Let me clue you in, just cause you say it doesn't make it a fact and I still think you are narrow minded and intolerant with your remarks.
+Jay Carlson
Ok. You can't disprove anything I have said. So rather than try, you discount my facts by just saying they are not rather than proving they are not. That speaks miles about someone who always retreats to vague notions of small government rather than hard facts.
If we do not raise the debt ceiling, then the dollar becomes worthless over the course of six months or sooner. In that time we lose reserve currency status, only furthering the tumble.
I have repeatedly said the debt ceiling is fine to start talks, but the debt ceiling should NEVER be threatened. The very act of threatening to not raise it will lower our debt rating again. Moody's has specifically stated that.
Supporting hostage takers usually connotes into terrorism, yet somehow fiscal hard liners can hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, by not raising the ceiling, and they are considered patriotic?
Not one person is saying spending doesn't need to be curtailed, but threatening the debt ceiling hurts every single citizen because it threatens our reserve currency status by threatening our debt rating. There is absolutely no spending deal that could ever be agreed to to stop government spending once we've reached the limit. With out raising it, we default on our loans and become a dead beat nation. 
Dude, I am sorry that the simplicity of what I am saying eludes you. Something drastic must be done now! Postponing is only gonna make it more painful in the long run.

At any rate BHO has already stated an unwillingness to compromise and reach any sort of deal with the GOP. 
+Jay Carlson
The President has said no such thing. Step out of your echo chamber.
No one is saying something shouldn't be done. I am saying the debt ceiling is not where the fight should be
I'm saying the fight should be engaged on every possible front and yes he most certainly did say such a thing.
Well just so its clear this man of faith hasn't been fooled by your liberal tactics +Matthew Agnich

Defending Obama on sequestration is a joke. It was his idea, he's the one who pushed for it in the house and in the senate. So stop blaming the republicans for sequestration all they did was let Obama hang himself ( oops, wait did I just say hang and Obama in the same sentence, "racist" I can here you liberals already) which in my opinion they should do more of.

If you can't see the truth in Obama pushing for sequestration and then signing it into law, which makes him responsible for it, his idea he signed bill its his neck, (... oops I did it again, didn't I) if you don't agree with that, your a "liberal", and an"atheist". ;-)

We can barely pay our bills, goverment spends way to much money but I guess thats the only way to get liberals to vote for the Democrats spend, spend, spend. We know Obama thinks this country doesn't have a spending problem. Maybe by not raising the debt limit, will finally open his eyes.

Matt do you pay bills?

Do you have a car payment?

Do you have a mortgage?

Do you pay for groceries?

There's no difference in the way we should manage our money whether its in goverment or at home. Responsibility is key in both.
I forgot your a liberal, tax, tax, tax, Its so much easier to make decisions when its not your money isn't Matt? Or when you live with mom and dad.

Do you have an argument that doesn't put words in my mouth? Because you stalking me is just starting to get creepy. You never listen to what I say in response and always assume facts for me.

The government isn't a household, that comparison is apples and oranges. 
Spoken like a true liberal +Matthew Agnich

Paranoia, grandiose are serious signs of mental health problems.

I'm thinking narcissists? 
+Matthew Agnich Correct, but the principles of spending within your means are the same. As I said before, there isn't enough wealth in the world to satisfy the desire to spend of the US Government.

The Constitution tasks the Federal Government with two explicit things and a third implied. 

1. Provide a National Defense.
2. Settle disputes between states, prevent interstate trade wars, and enforce contracts between states.
3. Enforce the Law (The Constitution).

These are facts. Irrefutable.This is all that the Fed Gov should be taxing to support. These are the only roles permitted by the Constitution.

Refer to the Tenth Amendment for the importance of State Sovereignty.
There you go again, ignoring what I said in order to make assumptions.
The government isn't a household, that comparison is apples and oranges.
+Jay Carlson
I have not fought you once about how things should be spent or on what. Why are you explicitly stating that for me? My argument was tied purely to the debt ceiling and how it's in all of our best interests to not lose reserve currency status
My point is that there are worse things than defaulting. Namely continuing on the path we are currently on.
President Obama isn't in Congress. The Democrats didn't vote for sequestration, the Republicans did.