GOP passes massive tax break for millionaires, billionaires

for sequestration....you give him far too much credit for something the Reps/Dems in Congress actually wrote. The trouble with what got written was that there wasn't any allowance for transfer of funds between depts and agencies as needed. Some dept were hurt more than others, but the deficit still was reduced drastically BECAUSE of sequestration, NOT because of this 'leader'.

financial and jobs chaos, a new division in classes and incomes, pitting races against not only against each other against law enforcement, pitting religions against each other, continuous lying to meet his agendas, raising energy costs to unsustainable and unreachable levels by the poor, worldwide terrorist levels, complete compliance with Russian advancements into the old Soviet Union territories, deals with the devils for personal legacy reasons alone, total abandonment of our allies...........

just to name a few.........

At least he got sequestration right

HE proposed it as a way to back the Reps off and his 'dare' blew up in his face.......

Where would you cut the budget to make up the money?

hungry children, Diana, if this administration would back off their policy that government needs to take care of people from cradle to grave and let the jobs come back in the natural way.....government doesn't create jobs and never has unless it's to make itself bigger and paying their workers twice what the private sector does for the same work.

I would go thru every single agency and department and get rid of overlapping/duplicate programs, give the departments/agencies REAL budgets that they have to stick to without extravagant 'conferences' in locations that aren't necessary because government owns so many empty buildings that could be used, sell a good many of those buildings and pay down the national debt, do away with agencies/departments completely that are a waste of money and give that power back to the states (such as the Dept of Ed).

There are hundreds of ways to cut spending, Diana.....that's been proven over and over....and they don't involve starving the kids, which is a normal liberal 'argument' right from the gitgo in order to avoid ANY cuts. One of the most important and easiest ways is to set automatic term limits for Congress so we don't have people there for forty years getting those automatic huge paychecks that are unrealistic for people who work part time anyhow.

Not children, unless they have no parents. It's also a misleading statement, because "American poverty" is a far cry (pun intended) from other nation's "poverty".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/29/child-poverty-in-the-u-s-is-among-the-worst-in-the-developed-world/

"The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.

In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty. Let that sink in.

The UNICEF report ....."

Ah yes, UNICEF another big Liberal money suck.

The "poverty" is based on national income, so each child could be better off than more than half the children in any other of the "richest nations" and because the USA was the richest, these money suck organizations would label it "poverty".

Here, let me show you some of this "poverty".

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313466
52% of kids under 8 using iPods, iPads and mobile devices
More than half (52%) of all children under the age of eight have access to mobile devices at home including smartphones, iPads, iPods and other tablets. And the rate at which kids are adopting technology is also perhaps surprising: 40 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds are using everything from TV to mobile devices and apps.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46857053
Half of all U.S. households own at least one Apple product, according to CNBC's All-America Economic survey. While growing up in the tech age makes a difference, the age gap isn't as wide as you might think. In fact just as many Americans between ages 18 and 34 count themselves among Apple users, as those ages 35-to-49 (63 percent). Sixty-one percent of households with children own Apple devices, compared with 48 percent of homes without kids.

Oh, even this Liberal bastion of Political Correctness admits it;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/visualnewscom/90-of-kids-have-used-a-co_b_3104999.html
Strikingly, the studies reveal that 90 percent of kids have used a computer by age 2. Those surveyed also noted that by age 5, 50 percent of children use computers or tablet devices on a routine basis.

Lift our voices and wail for these poverty striken couch potatoes as they play on their poverty computers at home, hoping another bag of potato chips comes there way, but wail if there's no dip for it too.

Don't look at this graph if you still want to believe in the carefully crafted lies of UNICEF that big money suck.
http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/69_fig1.jpg

"The proportion of children with home access to computers has increased steadily, from 15 percent in 1984, to 76 percent in 2003, to 83 percent in 2011. In addition, the percentage of children who use the Internet at home rose from 11 percent in 1997, the first year for which such estimates are available, to 42 percent in 2003, and to 58 percent in 2011. "
- See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=home-computer-access

Oh my head is bowed down in sorrow as I view these poverty stricken children, playing away at their computers, what a horrible thing they have suffered here in America.

Look! Oh, what a relief!! Nobody is starving!!! Hurray!!!!

Throughout the year in 2003, 88.8 percent of U.S. households were food secure, essentially unchanged from 2002. The remaining 11.2 percent (12.6 million households) were food insecure. These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all members due to a lack of resources. Within the 11.2 percent, 7.7 percent were food insecure without hunger, and 3.5 percent had one or more household members who were hungry at some time, unchanged from 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger among children was 0.5 percent of all U.S. households with children, essentially unchanged from 2002

everyone except Democrats realize it's spending that increases the debt and excessive spending is what increases the deficit.

That money is either being spent or invested. It's in the hands of other people as well...those who are working and those who are not. As for income for 200k workers, the wealthy don't get wealthier when no one is working. It's their investments that help to pay them.

That money isn't piling up in a closet in the form of cash

some of it isn't even in a closet in America.

of community doing it, not governments. Governments are NOT inclined to help....they are more inclined to TAKE....as history has proven time and again. There is nothing in our Constitution that says government's responsibility is to take from the rich and give to the 'poor' and then take from the rich again in order to give to even more of the 'poor' when it is the government itself that causes the situation over and over. Our Constitution specifically is geared to having the people govern themselves and be self-sufficient and self-reliant. The sole responsibility of our government is to protect the nation.........that's all....it is NOT to have the people become slaves to the government.