Sequestration doesn't cut anything. We will INCREASE Fed spending by 7% instead of 9%

[Little-Acorn]

All the politicians are screaming about how terrible the cuts will be in sequestration.

Just one problem: There aren't any.

For the last four years (2008-2011), we have increased govt spending an average of 9% per year.

The $85 billion in so-called "cuts" that sequestration will cause, are simply reductions in the rate of increase. And the amount to about 2% of the Federal budget - a relatively tiny amount.

If the Federal budget is scheduled to go up the same as it has in recent years, then this will be taken off the top. So, what would have been a 9% increase, will now become a 7% INCREASE because of sequestration.

That's still an INCREASE. It's not a cut at all.

We keep hearing stories about how teachers will be fired, National Parks will close, etc. etc. because of this coming sequestration. Excuse me, all these terrible things will happen because of a 7% INCREASE in spending???

And that's what they're saying will happen NEXT year, when sequestration kicks in.

Well... we lived through THIS year, without any of the 7% increase at all. Because we don't get that 7% until next year. We had even less govt spending, than we'll have after the 7% for next year. Why didn't any of these terrible things happen THIS year, when we had even less spending than in the "disastrous" year coming next year?

I am the only one who thinks these dire predictions make no sense at all?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I just heard yet another radio newsreader complaining how unfair the coming sequestration cuts are. Nobody asked him what cuts were coming from the 7% increase the government gets on average after sequestration.

We have a LONG way to go, to get back to reality with these people.

 

[The Infidel]

Oh stop being logical...

It's the end of the world you liar...!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Oh stop being logical...

It's the end of the world you liar...!

So they keep telling us.

All this terrible stuff will happen if we increase spending 7% next year???

(What's wrong with this picture?)

 

[Wiseacre]

I have not been able to find any numbers for what the current spending will be this year with and without the sequester. I have seen reports that the actual amount of the spending cuts is somewhere between $45 and $53 billion. So it shouldn't be that big a deal, except of course to a democrat whose goal in life is spending other people's money.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I have not been able to find any numbers for what the current spending will be this year with and without the sequester. I have seen reports that the actual amount of the spending cuts is somewhere between $45 and $53 billion. So it shouldn't be that big a deal, except of course to a democrat whose goal in life is spending other people's money.

I keep hearing 85 billion per year. That much, out of a 3-trillion-plus budget, and after an average of 9% increases per year, comes out to maybe 2%...

...which means you will "only" get a 7% increase in spending.

Oh, the horror!

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, why didn't all these terrible things happen THIS year? We didn't get ANY of the 7% increase this year, that will happen next year after sequestration.

How can a 7% increase next year, cause all these firings, furloughs, cutbacks etc.?

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, why didn't all these terrible things happen THIS year? We didn't get ANY of the 7% increase this year, that will happen next year after sequestration.

How can a 7% increase next year, cause all these firings, furloughs, cutbacks etc.?

Still nobody has answered this.

Basically the sequestration isn't reducing ANY spending from what it was this last year.

We are still increasing spending over what we spent before.

Just not by as much as the more rabid big-govt advocates wanted... but it's still an INCREASE in spending.

So, with this increased spending, why are they telling us we have to cut things?

 

[edthecynic]

All the politicians are screaming about how terrible the cuts will be in sequestration.

Just one problem: There aren't any.

For the last four years (2008-2011), we have increased govt spending an average of 9% per year.

The $85 billion in so-called "cuts" that sequestration will cause, are simply reductions in the rate of increase. And the amount to about 2% of the Federal budget - a relatively tiny amount.

As I have shown, the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood have think tanks who dream up the most deliberately deceptive way to present stats.

In this case, the sequester does not apply to the entire federal budget, so using the % of the entire fed budget dilutes the effect of the sequester on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget. Also the 85 billion is for 7 months, so it is also deliberately dishonest to compare it to 12 months of the fed budget. When you use the more honest effect on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget the % is much higher.

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Uncle is set to break its record on 'revenue' received.

And they still can't live within their means.

It's the spending, stupid.

Screw them.

In fact, the $2.7 trillion in revenue will be the most money the federal government has collected in history.

According to historical tables compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the government has never collected more than the $2.6 trillion it collected in 2007, meaning that if CBO’s projection is correct, it will set a new record for revenue collection in 2013.

This projection could undercut a key argument made by the White House that any balanced approach to deficit reduction must include more federal revenue in the form of “tax reform.”

CBO: Federal Revenue to Set Record in 2013 | CNS News

 

[Claudette]

Oh yeah. Anyone who thinks they won't spend every dime is an idiot. Those Clowns have already spent money they don't have. Higher revenue?? Just more money for them to waste.

These Clowns couldn't budget anything if their lives depended on it.

 

[DiamondDave]

All the politicians are screaming about how terrible the cuts will be in sequestration.

Just one problem: There aren't any.

For the last four years (2008-2011), we have increased govt spending an average of 9% per year.

The $85 billion in so-called "cuts" that sequestration will cause, are simply reductions in the rate of increase. And the amount to about 2% of the Federal budget - a relatively tiny amount.

As I have shown, the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood have think tanks who dream up the most deliberately deceptive way to present stats.

In this case, the sequester does not apply to the entire federal budget, so using the % of the entire fed budget dilutes the effect of the sequester on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget. When you use the more honest effect on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget the % is much higher.

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

The whitehouse has not been HONEST on this all along.. NOTORIOUS for lying...

Most every legit source (and no, I am not including Fox, or Huffo Puffo, or Stink Progress, or Savage, or whatever)..

There are no actual cuts... these 'reductions' are still a reduction in increase, and are still higher than last year's spending... in other words, THEY ARE REDUCED RAISES AND NOT "CUTS"

 

[edthecynic]

All the politicians are screaming about how terrible the cuts will be in sequestration.

Just one problem: There aren't any.

For the last four years (2008-2011), we have increased govt spending an average of 9% per year.

The $85 billion in so-called "cuts" that sequestration will cause, are simply reductions in the rate of increase. And the amount to about 2% of the Federal budget - a relatively tiny amount.

As I have shown, the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood have think tanks who dream up the most deliberately deceptive way to present stats.

In this case, the sequester does not apply to the entire federal budget, so using the % of the entire fed budget dilutes the effect of the sequester on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget. When you use the more honest effect on the non-exempt parts of the fed budget the % is much higher.

From the OMB:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...tive_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

As a result of the Congress's failure to act, the law requires the President to issue a
sequestration order today canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal
Government for FY 2013. Specifically, OMB calculates that, over the course ofthe fiscal year,
the sequestration requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding
and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration
also requires reductions of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 5.1 percent to other non-exempt nondefense
mandatory programs, and 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Because these cuts must be achieved over only seven months instead of 12, the effective
percentage reductions will be approximately 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9
percent for non-exempt nondefense programs.

The whitehouse has not been HONEST on this all along.. NOTORIOUS for lying...

Most every legit source (and no, I am not including Fox, or Huffo Puffo, or Stink Progress, or Savage, or whatever)..

There are no actual cuts... these 'reductions' are still a reduction in increase, and are still higher than last year's spending... in other words, THEY ARE REDUCED RAISES AND NOT "CUTS"

When the "increases" do not keep up with inflation and population growth, they ARE cuts!