This event reveals what is glaringly obvious to some but not enough of us: that
Obama is a ruthless, hardball politician who will do or say anything to get his
way, regardless of who it hurts. The fact that more Americans don't
understand this is a tragedy for the country. Saul Alinsky taught him well: go
for it. Run over whoever you have to. Say whatever you have to. Let 'em
sweat out there on the tarmac. I'm the boss, and I'm going to make the
Republicans buckle under, whatever the cost to the citizens and the economy.
"How about deranged liberal spending? Does that make you embarrassed to
admit voting Democrat?"I am amazed on a daily basis that you
blast the "liberal spending" by the Democrats, but give a pass to all
the "liberal spending" by the Republicans.I do not defend
the Democrats. What I don't understand is why you cant see the the GOP is
Re: " I sometimes vote GOP but things like this [exempting presidential
perks from sequester] make me embarrassed to admit it."How about
deranged liberal spending? Does that make you embarrassed to admit voting
Democrat?Makes me embarrassed.
"Was the White House bowling alley shut down?"Now we are
getting to the meat of the problem. It that darn bowling ally. Add in the shoe
rental and we have a real budget buster.Do you realize how petty
that is? I sometimes vote GOP but things like this make me embarrassed to admit
10CC, Tolstoy,yes, we want cuts, just not the cut BO CHOSE to make.let's use a steak as an example. We want the fat and grissle cut.
BO has purposefully cut the meat and fed us the fat and grissle so we will
complain, then he and his lap-dog comment board supporters can falsely blame the
problem on the repubs.
So conservatives clammeted on and on for draconian cuts and when they finally
get cuts they complain about being inconvenienced. Talk about people that want
something for nothing. What exactly did you think was going to happen? what
exactly do you think will happen if you get the type off cuts you all called
Re: "Why don't conservatives embrace these furloughs . . . ?"Oh, we embrace them, even though the "cuts" are not actual cuts,
this slight slowdown in deranged government metastasis is the closest we're
likely to come during the Obama regime.What we're having a
harder time embracing is the disingenuous liberal assertion that, somehow,
calling upon bloated government to get by on only a little more in this
year's budget than last, rather than the devastating budget explosion that
liberals had planned, necessarily causes pain to Americans using government
services.We're merely attempting to point out the hypocrisy of
a political regime that doesn't just accept inevitable, necessary pain, but
rather, artificially creates and inflicts unneeded pain, then attempts to
dishonestly blame its actions on those least responsible.
Obama is taking a 5% pay cut. He cut the FAA 10%. Is he too good to take the
same cut he forces on others?Shut down all staff services at the
White House. He's already kicked out all tourists. Why does he need
staff? Take away his bowling shoes and his golf shoes. Let him WORK , just
like every other American. Find an old DC3 that he can use. Maybe then
he'd get the message that we're sick of his antics. Throwing the
tax-paying public under the bus because he is a spendthrift who can't
balance a budget, is something that not even Democrats will tolerate.
Mike Richards:Obama already stated he was taking a pay cut, along
with Sec of Defense Hagel. Has the Utah congressional delegation followed
suit?Instead of cutting back on controllers, you'd prefer the
FAA reduce maintenance on air traffic control Radar hardware?A
fighter wing at Hill AFB recently returned from Korea, and have announced they
(essentially) won't fly for the rest of the budget year. Is this also a
manufactured crisis by Obama? Maybe the fighter wing can make money to fly by
letting cows graze next to the runway.Perhaps you think they should
ground Air Force One for the rest of the budget year, as well, so you can then
criticize Obama for being out of touch, stuck in DC?
@10CC,Let's use your logic to cut the budget. President Obama
is paid more than $400,000 per year. Should he be furloughed so 26 janitors can
keep their jobs? How many secret service employees were cut, you know, the ones
who guard the first family? Was the White House bowling alley shut down? Was
Air Force One grounded and all personnel connected to Air Force One furloughed?
Did the first family furlough the kitchen staff, or are they still having their
meals prepared and paid for by us tax payers?By now you should get
my drift. What "inconveniences" has President Obama assigned to himself
to show that he cares? If there have been any, the media has not reported
it.He was required to have the FAA to cut back 4%. That is the law.
He chose to have them cut back 10%, knowing that Democrats would see his guile.
They have - and they're angry for being used as his pawns. They're
beginning to see him for who he is and they don't like it.
Mike Richards:Air traffic controllers make about $130,000 a year.
Custodians make about $15,000 a year, office workers probably make a little
more. To get the spending cut by the required amount in the time
frame given, it probably makes sense to furlough some of the biggest salaries,
would you agree? Republicans in Utah are constantly complaining
about high salaries in public education administration, and that's where
cuts need to be made. It turns out that many of the high salaries
in the FAA are actually the people who do air traffic control, since it is a
highly technical skill with a lot of stress.You do the math. Do you
want the spending cuts, or not? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
High salaries need to be furloughed to meet the spending cuts specified. Cutting custodians' pay is not going to get the job done. There
probably aren't enough custodians in the FAA to put a dent in the required
This sequestration is cuts across many departments. Do you think the president
or the administration went in an micromanaged every departments' cuts, or
is this one just easy to gripe about? To me, it's just another opportunity
for people who dislike the president to throw rocks. No thought behind it.
As usual, some posters blindly support Obama without having noted the details in
the editorial. The Washington Post reported: "Sequestration
forces the FAA to cut 4 percent of its budget, and yet the administration has
made sure traffic controllers are cut by 10 percent and the furloughs are
distributed equally, rather than applying them strategically to the airports
that would least affect air travel."So, what has Obama done? He
has used Sequestration to slow down air travel 6% more than required. He has
ignored the harm that would come to Americans by adding that extra 6% of air
traffic controllers to the furlough list. He added unnecessarily to our misery.
He added to the problem when he could have minimized the effects that cutting
back on government would have normally caused. He looked for an opportunity to
lie about Republicans and to use the FAA for his political purposes.His actions show that he will throw air travelers under the bus if he can use
them to climb his political ladder. Unfortunately, he got caught. America now
knows that he lied and that he purposely caused flying slowdowns.
The only way to save America is to pain the people who are bent on destroying
America. These people are not the little people but those feverishly trying to
grab all they can before the end. If President Obama can give
business and the rich and powerful, a taste of what it will be like without a
federal government, Yea Obama. The republicans and their fellow
travelers only wanted to hurt the little people. It is unbelievable that a
president would actually do something to inconvenience themselves. As for myself, my greatest hope is that the rich and powerful and their
business friends should get to eat the supper that they are preparing for the
If you want to cut big government, please do not whine when someone makes cuts.
Sort of predictable that the D-news would cherry pick editorials that paint
Obama as a political manipulator. That's their prerogative, and easy to
foresee. What is curious is the reaction from other conservatives
that imply the sequester cuts should (somehow) be painless.Why
don't conservatives embrace these furloughs, why are they distancing
themselves from the effects? It's what they want, government cuts, right?
The debt ceiling showdown that produced the Sequester to begin with had a lot of
tea-partiers ready to let the debt ceiling freeze, eg, Michele Bachmann. That would have produced an instantaneous 41% federal budget cut. Why
are they so gun shy on these comparatively small sequester cuts? What happened
to the bravado?"No pain, no gain". Right?
Re: ". . . this is a result of a choice [Republicans] made to embrace the
sequester as — and I'm quoting Republicans — 'a victory
for the tea party' and 'a homerun.'"In other
words, the President and Congressional Democrats are saying, "the FAA's
government-called work stoppage is a result of a choice Republicans made, not to
cower before the awesome power of liberal, business-as-usual, tax-and-spend
Democrats, so here's you punishment, America."Figuring that
real Americans will blame Democrat-caused pain on Republicans just shows how
out-of-touch liberals have become from real America.
Did Obama really think that Democrats who were delayed at the airport would not
blame HIM for that delay when he purposely used his "authority" to
inconvenience as many people as possible instead of using his
"authority" to order the FAA to minimize the inconvenience as much as
possible? Did he really think that people would believe his lies that it was
Republicans who caused the problem? Did he really think that people cannot read
and that they cannot see that he overspent $6,000,000,000,000 ($18,000 of debt
for every man, woman and child in America) since he took office? Did he really
think that people don't care that he overspent?People are
putting the blame exactly where it should be - on him who sits behind the desk
of the Oval Office.