Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised [Mainstream Media Ignores]

[RoadVirus]

Obama's lies are falling apart.

 

[Truthmatters]

your eyes are blind

 

[zeke]

Yes sir ree, the American people are absolutely behind the rethugs to impeach the President.

Go for it. Please.

 

[Intense]

How is it you people confuse what following a law means?

The sequester was part of a negotiated compromise to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Included in the Budget Control Act of 2011, its intent was to act as a poison pill to encourage deeply divided lawmakers to forge a compromise that would result in savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That compromise never came to pass, and the sequester was ultimately activated March 1.

The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.

But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent. For a full accounting of the programs subject to, and exempt from, sequestration cuts, see the White House’s September report on sequestration transparency.

According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction. (See Table 1-2 on page 14.)

Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.

– Robert Farley

FactCheck.org : Underselling the Sequester Cuts

Still, when the intent is to cause undue hardship intentionally, where should the blame lay?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How is it you people confuse what following a law means?

The sequester was part of a negotiated compromise to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Included in the Budget Control Act of 2011, its intent was to act as a poison pill to encourage deeply divided lawmakers to forge a compromise that would result in savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That compromise never came to pass, and the sequester was ultimately activated March 1.

The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years). The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year, so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.

But that’s misleading, because large parts of the federal budget are exempt from the sequester cuts — including such “mandatory” programs as Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and food stamps. The sequester cuts are split between defense and nondefense spending. They include cuts to discretionary defense spending (such as weapons purchases and base operations, but not military personnel) and to both discretionary and nondiscretionary domestic programs (everything from airport security to education aid to research grants). Cuts to those programs will be much deeper than 2.3 percent. For a full accounting of the programs subject to, and exempt from, sequestration cuts, see the White House’s September report on sequestration transparency.

According to a February report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the sequester includes $42.7 billion in cuts to discretionary defense spending, a 7.9 percent reduction; $28.7 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, a 5.3 percent reduction; $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts, a 2 percent reduction; and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts, a 5.8 percent reduction. (See Table 1-2 on page 14.)

Claims that the sequester only cuts 2.4 percent (or 3 percent) of the federal budget ignore that the sequester does not apply to the entirety of the federal budget. Rather, it mostly targets discretionary defense spending and domestic spending. Those programs will see budget reductions more than two to three times higher than the amount claimed by the Public Notice ad and some Republicans.

– Robert Farley

FactCheck.org : Underselling the Sequester Cuts

Still, when the intent is to cause undue hardship intentionally, where should the blame lay?

So....just to point out.
Your quote from above to Truthmatters is read like this...

The sequester was part of a negotiated lie by Republicans to raise the debt ceiling (and blame it on Democrats) in 2011. Included in the Budget...what?.... its intent was to act as a poison pill to destroy Obama...f*cking Republican liars and thieves... encourage deeply divided Republicans who refuse to cooperate... to forge a obvious lie..f*cking Republicans... that would result in savings of ...bullshit numbers...Obama is great!!. That compromise never came to pass, and the sequester was ultimately activated March 1.

The sequester would reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion, which will destroy the economy which is what the f*cking Republicans bastards all want....random numbers...damn conservatives... The federal government will spend about $3.55 trillion this year...all lies..., so $85 billion amounts to about 2.4 percent of all federal spending.
F*cking Republicans!!
But that’s misleading,...yeah because you are a Republican liar!!!...forget reading this Republican bull shit...I am going to respond to this....


– Robert Farley

FactCheck.org : Underselling the Sequester Cuts

Still, when the intent is to cause undue hardship intentionally, where should the blame lay?