In response to:

Both Parties Agree: Sequestration Is Bad, but Better Than The Alternatives

Ress Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 4:11 PM
D G, don't fall for the "balanced budget amendment" baloney. That is nothing but a red herring to distract attention from the Republicans' own fiscal irresponsibility. Even if such a thing were enacted, Congress would slip around it just as easily as they bypass every other Constitutional limit on their power. On the other hand, if Congress actually obeyed the Constitution, there would be no spending problem.
Dave M Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 5:21 PM
I concur. The vast majority of this countries problems- whether financial or social come form not following the Constitution - primarily the Government doing things it is prohibited from doing and the Supreme Court looking the other way or redefining "prohibit" to mean "required"

D G Wrote: Feb 24, 2013 5:09 PM
Ress .... Thanks for your thoughts. Everything is out of control in DC.

We need a real president for starters.
Sequestration Is the Worst Option Except for All the Other Options Both Democrats and Republicans have been roundly criticizing the security and economic effects of sequestration and, at the same time, taking very little action. The only logical conclusion is that both parties agree that sequestration is an awful, terrible, harmful set of policies - except the other proposed replacements are worse.

President Obama said "these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy." Speaker Boehner, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said "there's nothing wrong with cutting spending that much......

Related Tags: Barack Obama Sequestration
Wednesday, May 22 | 11:06 AM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 11:06 AM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 11:06 AM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 11:06 AM ET