Sequester, What is the big deal?

The republicans have forced Obama's government
to spend less and look at balancing the budget.

Nothing wrong with that, it's actually a good thing.

Are you a comedian by any chance?

This sequestration plan that was initiated on March 1st barely makes a dent in federal spending over the next decade. Estimated is $3.6 trillion is the federal spending in 2013 and projected to grow more than $6 trillion by 2023, which is a ~69 percent increase without sequestration. Even with sequestration, federal spending would still grow by ~67 %. Sequestration barely even slows the growth in spending, let alone cuts any spending out of the overall budget.

Did you laugh?

85 billion is a drop in the bucket, but it has forced more people to
look at cutting government spending & growth, this is a good thing.

See, I think people have been aware of the looming debt before sequestration. You need to look at this from the point of view of generation Y. Sequestration’s cuts to nondefense spending would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product during fiscal years 2012-2021 by a greater amount than cuts to defense spending.

This just tells where America's priorities lie. The obtuse aspect about it is congress salaries is not being cut; that should have been the first thing to happen. Unproductive expenditures destroys any positive growth, and incentives for the private sector to flourish.
What do you suspect is the sequel to the sequestration?

It isn't that productive to be pointing at fingers this far into the mess. Both sides know they can't get what their constituents want. They know, also, that compromise makes their constituents angry. This time, both parties came up with something that they believe most constituents on both sides will see as a failed attempt not to compromise but to force the other side to concede. But, in fact, and obviously so, it was a deal in which both sides (the politicians) got exactly what they wanted -- which, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, isn't what any of their constituents want.
That being said, there is no reason to believe that the constituents want what is really best even for the constituents themselves.
We should have little difficulty believing that, if both sides agreed to something, given that they have access to much more information than does the public and the resources to process that information, the something to which they agreed probably is better than what it is being made out to be.
The government really can't control the economy. To the extent that problems continue to exist, and problems always exist, each side can blame the other, because the other voted for it. And to the extent that the economy improves, each side can claim credit, because each side voted for it.
To the extent that it doesn't work, and nothing will work perfectly or for everyone, we can never know if some alternative could, would, or should have been found that would have been better. And if things improve, well, isn't that what we want after all?

Leaked email from Agriculture Department field officer on impact of budget cuts adds fuel to claims Obama is playing politics by making cuts as painful as possible to win public opinion battle against Republicans.

Actually you may have a point of some people not understanding the sequester.

It sounds like Obama's buddy Van Jones isn't happy with PrezBO's performance...

I swear I recently heard Van Jones call Obama a lazy, shiftless Negro.