Sequester "Catch 22"

[edthecynic]

Boner said the House was done negotiating over spending cuts until the Senate “begins to do something."

And Turtle McConnell filibusters whatever they begin to do in the Senate!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Boner said the House was done negotiating over spending cuts until the Senate “begins to do something."

And Turtle McConnell filibusters whatever they begin to do in the Senate!!!

It is quite obvious that the GOP have no intention of being honest brokers in replacing the sequester.

 

[Rozman]

Well that pretty messed considering it's gonna cost 170 million Americans their job.

Maxine Waters: 'Over 170 Million Jobs Could Be Lost' Due To Sequestration | Jobs | Fox Nation

 

[edthecynic]

Well that pretty messed considering it's gonna cost 170 million Americans their job.

Maxine Waters: 'Over 170 Million Jobs Could Be Lost' Due To Sequestration | Jobs | Fox Nation

You are obviously trying to change the subject!

 

[OKTexas]

Boner said the House was done negotiating over spending cuts until the Senate “begins to do something."

And Turtle McConnell filibusters whatever they begin to do in the Senate!!!

It is quite obvious that the GOP have no intention of being honest brokers in replacing the sequester.

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

 

[blackhawk]

Enlightening us what exactly have Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats begun to do are they finally going to pass a budget after four years?

 

[uscitizen]

Well that pretty messed considering it's gonna cost 170 million Americans their job.

Maxine Waters: 'Over 170 Million Jobs Could Be Lost' Due To Sequestration | Jobs | Fox Nation

LMAO! just LMAO is all I can say about the 170 million jobs lost over this.
You actually believe that bull crap?

 

[edthecynic]

Boner said the House was done negotiating over spending cuts until the Senate “begins to do something."

And Turtle McConnell filibusters whatever they begin to do in the Senate!!!

It is quite obvious that the GOP have no intention of being honest brokers in replacing the sequester.

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

 

[kyzr]

Oh fer chrissake. BO has mo money this year than last year. Sequester is a joke on taxpayers. Like we'uns is sposed to thro mo money at them hard working gubmint folks before we all starve to death, or lose our obamaphones.

 

[blackhawk]

It is quite obvious that the GOP have no intention of being honest brokers in replacing the sequester.

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

No the sequester was put in place to try and force both sides to make a deal to keep the sequester cuts from happening it was not part of a budget deficit deal. Yes spending cuts and revenue increases the new Democrat term for raising taxes which is fooling no one by the way will reduce deficits the thing is Obama got his tax increases not once but twice this year when the Social Security tax went back to 6.2% and in the fiscal cliff deal when he got his tax increase on the rich. Now he wants another tax increase three tax increases in two months with minimal spending cuts is not my idea of a balanced approach.

 

[BreezeWood]

Sequester "Catch 22"


so what excuse will the Republicans have now for not raising the debt limit ?

 

[freedombecki]

Boner said the House was done negotiating over spending cuts until the Senate “begins to do something."

And Turtle McConnell filibusters whatever they begin to do in the Senate!!!

The Senate does what Harry Reid pulls out from under the table. Guess what. It always involves spending and not cutting spending!

Boehner is Speaker because he opposes overspending. And he will stay the speaker because it takes a real man to stand up to liberal spendthrifts who think it is their duty to overspend America into oblivion.

Maxine Waters squawking anything is always panic-driven to poison the well against Republicans for her party's spending blunders. And yes, overspending is relative because it's what the fuss between the two parties is all about.

 

[edthecynic]

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

No the sequester was put in place to try and force both sides to make a deal to keep the sequester cuts from happening it was not part of a budget deficit deal. Yes spending cuts and revenue increases the new Democrat term for raising taxes which is fooling no one by the way will reduce deficits the thing is Obama got his tax increases not once but twice this year when the Social Security tax went back to 6.2% and in the fiscal cliff deal when he got his tax increase on the rich. Now he wants another tax increase three tax increases in two months with minimal spending cuts is not my idea of a balanced approach.

Wrong again, Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax holiday for a third year but the GOP would not go along with it.

 

[OKTexas]

It is quite obvious that the GOP have no intention of being honest brokers in replacing the sequester.

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

Your memory must be a bit defective, they did the revenue in January.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

Your memory must be a bit defective, they did the revenue in January.

Yeah Obama got a big increase in revenue/ But not enough so now he wants more.
What is the Democratic plan to reduce spending? Ohyeah, they have none. We gotta keep spending to avoid bankruptcy.

 

[edthecynic]

Sequester is about reduced spending, not tax increases, if the dems would stay on point there would be no problem. Instead the dems want increased revenue for promised future cuts, which have never materialized after past promises so the republicans aren't buying their BS.

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

Your memory must be a bit defective, they did the revenue in January.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can only do revenue in January?

 

[The Rabbi]

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

Your memory must be a bit defective, they did the revenue in January.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can only do revenue in January?

Nowhere. Thanks for the red herring.
But Obama got a revenue increase. And now he needs to cut spending. This is the "balanced" approach he keeps talking about. SO where are his cuts?

 

[OKTexas]

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

Your memory must be a bit defective, they did the revenue in January.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can only do revenue in January?

Your dear leader was offered revenue by eliminating deductions, he refused and demanded a rate increase. He got the rate increase he demanded, now he wants another bite at the apple with the deductions, FUCK HIM! He chose is route, he can live with it.

 

[blackhawk]

The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.

No the sequester was put in place to try and force both sides to make a deal to keep the sequester cuts from happening it was not part of a budget deficit deal. Yes spending cuts and revenue increases the new Democrat term for raising taxes which is fooling no one by the way will reduce deficits the thing is Obama got his tax increases not once but twice this year when the Social Security tax went back to 6.2% and in the fiscal cliff deal when he got his tax increase on the rich. Now he wants another tax increase three tax increases in two months with minimal spending cuts is not my idea of a balanced approach.

Wrong again, Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax holiday for a third year but the GOP would not go along with it.

Not wrong and you ignored the fact Obama got his tax increase on the rich on the fiscal cliff deal without giving any spending cuts so he got his tax increase the Republicans now have their spending cuts. That is the balanced approach everyone claims they want so what's the problem?

 

[blicht10069]

Yeah Obama got a big increase in revenue/ But not enough so now he wants more.
What is the Democratic plan to reduce spending? Ohyeah, they have none. We gotta keep spending to avoid bankruptcy.

Hi, I'm new here. I understand that the issues concerning how to best deal with the debt are a hot button issue. If we had an ideal world, I think the best solution would be to have legislative targets for budget cuts based on economic performance. For example, it would have been better for the economy if we had committed to reduce spending (or increase revenue) by a certain percentage once unemployment falls below X% (fill in your number here, I'd personally say about 6.5%). This would have the effect of telling the world were serious about controlling our deficit, but at the same time it would not have but our economy in further jeopardy while we were still trying to recover from a general global economic malaise.

Unfortunately, we're not in *my* ideal world (I have no doubt, some people would disagree with my perspective of ideal). So the issue is being dealt with today. If we can drop out the rhetoric I think we're more likely to come up with reasonable solutions. As a general principal, in the short term, tax cuts or spending increase do stimulate the economy whereas, tax increases and spending cuts have an adverse effect on the economy. It is illogical to suggest that tax cuts help the economy and spending increases don't or vice versa, from a budget stand point they do the same thing. To prove this is relatively easy:

If you were making government policy and you wanted to stimulate technological growth and provide better resources to our people, you might very well consider trying to get more smart phones in the hands of the public. You could do this in one of two ways: 1) You could allow a $50 deduction on your taxes for any smart phone you bought, or 2) You could hand out a $50 coupon to people to use towards the purchase of a smart phone.

In one case you're implementing policy via a tax break and in the other your implementing policy via a spending increase. The net effect on the economy will be exactly the same. The net effect on the gov't budget will be exactly the same.

This isn't to say that all tax breaks and all spending increase have an equal effect at stimulating the economy. Also, much of the effect is temporary in either case. In the example above, initially this might cause more smart phones to be bought and get a great number of them into the hands of the population, but eventually the manufacturers of smart phones will increase the price by $50 and pocket the stimulus money.

The real way to solve the budget crisis is to review every single tax deduction, and every single spending program and figure out which ones are the best candidates to reduce or illuminate. Statistically I don't know what the breakdown would be, but it certainly wouldn't be all of one or the other.