Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The sequester was part of a budget deficit deal whose purpose was reducing the deficit. Both spending cuts and revenue increases reduce deficits.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.
I read the weekly standard article. That one is from 2011. It's title suggests more economists agree (not most). As a general principal I don't read op-ed pieces in any paper.. I.e. no krugman from the NY Times and nothing from the WSJ. I base my knowledge on factual articles and not from someone else summary. However, I read the wsj op-ed piece but I lend it less credibility b/c its an op-ed piece. It however, did not dismiss the effects of the stimulus, but its called them minorly positive.
As I said before, I don't really see the point of debating this. I won't convince you. My position is that it probably helped, but I can't say with certainty because I'll never know the path not taken.
So your position is, DOn't confuse me with the facts? that isn't any way to go about it. The administration made claims for its stimulus that did not pan out. We have the worst recovery on record. All of those are facts. What fact can you point to that it worked, other than "it might have been worse"?
The only fact you have there is you're a fucking liar!
