Comments about ‘Washington leaders indicate that spending cuts seem here to stay’

"This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired," McConnell said.

EVERYONE who works saw their paycheck drop by 2% when the new year started, to call these cuts anything but modest is ridiculous. Please keep in mind that this is a "Washington" cut. The money spent didn't decrease by 2%, the decrease is 2% from the planned increase.

@ SME."The money spent didn't decrease by 2%, the decrease is 2% from the planned increase". Thanks for pointing that out. The news media and the President neglected to tell us that interesting fact! Ummm, I wonder why?

We need leadership in Washington and instead we have the most divisive president in my memory. Instead of reaching out he insults and blames. If Romney could cooperate with his highly democrat state representatives in Massachusetts, what's the matter with Obama that he can't work with Republicans in Washington? Romney's right. Obama is squandering a great opportunity.

So, now the sequester is a good thing?

Since many have tried to paint this as Obama's idea, will he get the credit?
As I recalled, there was bi-partisan support. Paul Ryan praised this a very good.

In reality, these guys (both R and D) cant do their job like normal people.

Yes, some will feel some pain. And it will be the poorer Americans, but EVERY cut we make will cause someone some pain.

Some of them may not be able to buy that new boat, some will have more problems putting food on the table.

And, it will certainly hurt the economy. But, no spending cuts come without pain.

I'm ok with it. Just dont put the blame all on Obama when unemployment rises and the economy slows.

@ SME."The money spent didn't decrease by 2%, the decrease is 2% from the planned increase". Thanks for pointing that out. The Republican leaders and Congress neglected to tell us that interesting fact! Ummm, I wonder why?

@JoeBlow (referring to some pain that will be suffered by the people) said, "Some of them may not be able to buy that new boat, some will have more problems putting food on the table."

Please explain how this sequestration is going to prevent people from buying a new boat or putting food on the table when their income is not being impacted by the sequestration?

"how this sequestration is going to prevent people from buying a new boat or putting food on the table when their income is not being impacted by the sequestration?"

Well lets see.

If a defense contractor cuts employees because of the Sequestration reduction of military spending, that is one way. I have a relative that cancelled a business trip because of it. No flight, no hotel, no restaurant money, no car rental. It trickles down.
If Hill AFB cuts back, people and local businesses are impacted.

Every dollar that the Govt spends in this country helps the economy.

Can you name one that doesn't?

But Joe, the sequestration does NOT cut current expenditures – it only prevents them from increasing.
No one is immediately going to be laid off. But yes, in the long term, some whose jobs are dependent upon contracts from the federal government will have to find new jobs, and they will because they can plan for it.

You said that "Every dollar that the [government] spends in this country helps the economy." You are correct, and I will also add, "Every dollar that is not taxed by the government is also spent in this country and helps the economy."

Obama created these sequester cuts, then claims congress did it.

Go figure.

@ One old man. Maybe the Republicans were too busy dodging all the bovine excrement flying out of the white house!

The press keeps getting this wrong.

We are not talking about cuts.

It should be called "lowering future increases in spending"