As the cuts take effect, they will inflict widespread hardship. How?  But some Americans will be hurt more than others, and the people who will be hurt the most are those who are already struggling. In the months ahead, an estimated 3.8 million Americans who have been unemployed for more than six months face a cut in federal jobless benefits of nearly 11 percent — or about $32 a week — all from the recent average weekly benefit of $292. And won't this incentivize them to get jobs and become, better than unemployed...employed?  And an estimated 600,000 low-income women and toddlers will be turned away from the federal nutrition program for women, infants and children, known as WIC.
It should not be this way. Deficit reduction should not occur on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.  So is it now societies mandate to provide federal nutrition for all poor people?...sorry...but isn't it the poor peoples (gasp-he really said that!) responsibility to provide nutrition for their children?  Won't this reduction incentivize them to get off the program?  Does not the Federal program make them less likely to end their poverty?
 
WSJ
 
One reason the grind may intensify is that Mr. Obama spurned GOP offers Friday morning to grant him even more executive discretion than he already has to prioritize federal spending.
What he is trying to do instead is implement the sequester as rudely as possible so that he can extract another tax increase.
 
Mr. Obama pitches his tax increase as "tax reform" and merely cutting "tax loopholes" and "tax breaks for the well off and well connected." He also said he doesn't want to "raise tax rates." But the Senate Democratic bill he endorsed on Thursday included the "Buffett rule".  Real tax reform means reducing rates in return for closing loopholes. Mr. Obama wants to raise rates instead.
The President also stuck to his line that the sequester cuts will hurt the economy, even suggesting that any slowdown in growth in the months ahead is all the sequesters fault: "As long as the sequesters in place we'll know that that economic news could have been better if Congress had not failed to act." 

Sounds like the "stimulus" argument to me.


President Obama has implemented many new social programs that have satisfied many, including gay marriage, gays in the military, environmental issues and the like....some good, some debatable...(abortion certainly has two sides...you know the Mom and the Baby).


One cannot be objective, honest and pro our country without acknowledging the profound deficit of our Presidents ignoring of our deficit.

He, unlike Clinton, Bush I and II, stood up to their party placing country before..in Obama's case...him.

We have unsustainable overspending which cannot ever, ever, ever be addressed by tax increases.  We need to reform the entitlement programs.  We need to mean test them.  We need to raise the retirement age.  We need to quit making it a moral unargument, see above, that low income women need to pay for their own children's nutrition and everyone needs to get off unemployment and get a job.


And the fact that this is a "argument" remains amazing.