Democrat hysteria over sequester political drama

  The press is currently obsessed with the Republicans' lack of willingness to accede to Obama's demand to put off the sequester. The Prince himself has declared that the oceans themselves will overtake the planet if the sequester isn't stopped from happening next week.
  Today he declared, with the usual sob story props beside him, that the end of the world is near:

The "meat cleaver approach" will lead to such things as the layoffs of teachers, cutbacks in the air traffic control system, furloughs of FBI agents and a compromised military, Obama said as he again called for heading off sequestration with a "balanced" debt reduction plan -- and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if the automatic cuts come to pass.
"These cuts are not smart, these cuts are not fair," Obama said. "People will lose their jobs."

  Of course, the sequester was Obama's idea because he knows he can roll the Republicans' whenever he feels like it. He doesn't reason with them, doesn't attempt to govern, first and always resorting to bullying the poor dummies.
  But let's take a look back at what Obama said about the sequester cuts back in October when he declared that the Des Moines Register had taken an "off the record" conversation and publicized it. The scandal at the time, if you'll recall, was that Obama expected the sequester to take effect: 

"The good news is that there's going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now ... when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of myself and my opponent ... we're going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business," Obama said.

“It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs,” Obama said.

  Brian Preston at PJ Tatler commented at the time of the Register interview:

Recall that in the third debate, President Obama claimed that he did not come up with the sequesters and that “it will not happen.” It has already been reported that his administration did come up with the sequester. Now, in that Des Moines Register interview that was briefly off the record, he touts the sequester as a means by which he will achieve spending cuts. 

  Hello? Anybody out there? Let's connect the two.
  It sure sounded then ---THE SEQUESTER IN PLACE--as if POTUS was planning on the sequester going through, his using it as a bludgeon against Republicans and then claiming, "Oh! People will suffer if it happens!!"
  This is just more political theater.
  From Front Page Magazine, we learn how much the sequester really matters compared to other commitments and debts:

 In FY2013, the sequester would result in cuts totaling $85 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), federal spending for 2012, excluding certain credit adjustments for items such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was $3.5 trillion. Assuming federal spending would stay completely flat, such a “massive” spending cut would comprise 2.4 percent of the 2013 budget. For perspective’s sake, as well as a good indication that flat federal spending is an elusive reality, it should be noted that Congress recently authorized a total of $60.2 billion in additional deficit spending for Hurricane Sandy relief.

  So Boo-Freakin-Hoo.
  You're all actors on a stage and not very good ones at that.