The Sequester

[bripat9643]

Beside the fact that Sequestor is going to take us into another meltdown?

The Sequestor STILL does not remotely balance the budget.

Total FAIL no matter what side of the fence you sit on, folks.

I hardly think cutting 2.5% of a future larger budget is going to cause any kind of "meltdown."

So, you're against the sequester because it doesn't balance the budget? Are you going to support cutting $1.5 trillion every year?

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

This just in: if the sequester goes thru, all of our pet hampsters and gerbils will die a slow agonizing death being we will have to fire all of the rodent pet food inspectors.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This just in: if the sequester goes thru, all of our pet hampsters and gerbils will die a slow agonizing death being we will have to fire all of the rodent pet food inspectors.

Yep! I'm 68 years young and my Wife is 65 and, according to the news, we will be forced to eat out of dumpsters. Our Social Security checks are going to disappear and my pension check from the Teamsters will be gone......

As God is my witness, The media needs to be put in jail. They are nothing more than Democrat Propaganda machines. It is disgusting as hell.

 

[Trajan]

the top tax bracket did fine and our economy did great.

your lies do not stand up to the FACTS

no, you just think running out to google and eating the media slop will give you a pat answer or remark, tell me, how many people were in that 70, 90% tax bracket and paid that effective tax rate?


take your time.

 

[Mustang]

Its 1% folks---------its like a guy making 100K having his pay cut to 99K. He would not know the difference, and neither will we.


The great kenyan messiah is LYING to you.

So, let me see if I have the conservative talking points right.

NOTHING will happen. It's ALL fear mongering based on inaccurate information.

BUT, if the cuts DO become draconian, and unemployment spikes WAY up, it's Obama's fault. It's ALL Obama's fault!!!

That about sum it up?

 

[Rozman]

The agreement was that at this time they would deal with cuts...
Now the Democrats are lying saying if this happens it's all the Republicans fault.
Chris Mathews is on now peddling this BS...

 

[Trajan]

Its 1% folks---------its like a guy making 100K having his pay cut to 99K. He would not know the difference, and neither will we.


The great kenyan messiah is LYING to you.

So, let me see if I have the conservative talking points right.

NOTHING will happen. It's ALL fear mongering based on inaccurate information.

BUT, if the cuts DO become draconian, and unemployment spikes WAY up, it's Obama's fault. It's ALL Obama's fault!!!

That about sum it up?

considering the dod is one agency and they are taking over half the cuts while you have tons of different agencies, depts. and spending etc. in discretionary entities , I'd say thats unfair but, I am on board never the less, let it happen, dod will have to deal with it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Its 1% folks---------its like a guy making 100K having his pay cut to 99K. He would not know the difference, and neither will we.


The great kenyan messiah is LYING to you.

So, let me see if I have the conservative talking points right.

NOTHING will happen. It's ALL fear mongering based on inaccurate information.

BUT, if the cuts DO become draconian, and unemployment spikes WAY up, it's Obama's fault. It's ALL Obama's fault!!!

That about sum it up?

Are you kidding me? According to Barry "hundreds of thousands of teachers" will lose their jobs (I would LOVE to see 100,000 of these worthless humans go away - unfortunately, it won't happen - myth debunked). According to Barry "Tens of thousands of "first responders" will lose their jobs (so much for the donut industry) and "elder" citizens (Obama code for irrelevant Americans) will not get their Social Security checks (again - democrat code for the sky is falling - myth debunked)

Unemployment "spike way up"?? Hell, I thought that Barry and erased the unemployment roles?? I thought that we have full-employment?? The actual unemployment rate is 12-14% . I don't buy that crap for a second.

Again - Barry was instrumental in the passing of Sequester. NOW, he is against this small, nearly negligible cuts in the 3.6 TRILLION spending spree that this clown is on.

Use your head for something other than a hat rack. Go back to reading your communist manifesto.

 

[mudwhistle]

I agree with you totally, great response! The budget cuts are a serious matter. FBI Agents will be furloughed, TSA will face layoffs, the Military will receive 20% paycuts, not to mention our fighter jets will be taken off line. For the one's that think it's just Obama playing scare tactics are not listening with their ears. Regardless of what side of the fence we are on this sequestor cannot happen.

I've spoken to friends of mine, civilian contractors, who have had planned projects with the military, put on hold already due to this.

Isn't it great that Obama is able to get so much done?

That was why he was re-elected. To get things done. Right?


If he is getting things done then why does this keep happening?

Could it be that this to Obama is progress?

 

[edthecynic]

From this source:
Obama?s fanciful claim that Congress ?proposed? the sequester - The Washington Post

and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Now tell me which is first 7/12/11 for WH... or 7/25/11 ??

Again you are using Woodward's already discredited book as the sole source of your claim.

There was no discussion of "triggers" until Wednesday July 20, 2011 and the triggers discussed were completely different from Woodward's. The mention of the sequester first appeared when Boner posted his framework on his website July 25, 2011 after all negotiations had broken down by July 22, 2011. Woodward has both the date and triggers completely wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...all&adxnnlx=1361426630-JudYfmwSRFzWshPBZBhdwA

The other remaining area of contention had to do with the problem of enforcement provisions, or “triggers,” in the deal. Because tax reform would take some time for Congress to puzzle out, while the spending cuts were relatively straightforward, the White House had been concerned from the start about being double-crossed. How could Democrats be assured that the Republican-controlled House wouldn’t simply announce a deal, enact only the spending cuts they wanted and then sabotage the revenue piece? The answer, Obama’s team decided, were a couple of “triggers” — something both sides really hated — that would automatically kick in if they didn’t come up with a version of tax reform that each party could stomach.

Specifically, Obama had two triggers in mind. The first, for Democrats, would have rescinded the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners. Boehner rejected this idea. He pointed out that Democrats themselves would have little incentive to pass tax reform if, by not passing it, they could achieve one of their most cherished policy objectives — the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

The second trigger, to appease Republicans, would include an automatic $425 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. But Boehner repeatedly said that he wanted his own “political trophy” as a trigger, something that had the same resonance for the right as the Bush tax cuts had for the left — namely the elimination of the “individual mandate,” the central plank in Obama’s health-care law that required every American to be insured. Striking down the provision was a top priority for the Tea Partiers in Congress, who saw it as evidence of Obama’s tyrannical tendencies. Obama wouldn’t entertain the possibility. The argument had been going on since the first round of negotiations between the two men and their staffs, but now that a deal seemed imminent, the question of how to enforce it had taken on a new urgency. At its core, the trigger debate was a matter of trust; each man had to be assured that the other wasn’t going to let his party renege on the tax-reform agreement when the inevitable arguments arose. And because they hadn’t worked together much and barely knew each other on a personal level, the only way for Obama and Boehner to feel reassured was if the political cost of pulling out was intolerably high to both of them.

Obama and Boehner argued heatedly but respectfully over both sticking points — the revenue number and the triggers — during a two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Wednesday, July 20. By the next morning, both men were facing rebellions on the Hill. The Times’s Carl Hulse and Jackie Calmes had written a front-page article disclosing the existence of the new round of talks and asserting that a deal was very near. Arriving for the weekly lunch of the Democratic Senate caucus, Jack Lew found himself berated by senators who were angered by the talk of entitlement cuts in exchange for the relatively paltry $800 billion in tax money, and livid at having heard about it from The Times. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, had been fully briefed (along with the House leader, Nancy Pelosi) only the night before. He remained stonily and pointedly silent in the meeting, while Lew absorbed one verbal blow after another.

At that very moment, Boehner was dialing Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, unbidden, in an effort to quell the eruption on the right. It wasn’t only the additional revenue that conservatives hated. Having campaigned in 2010 against Obama’s health-care plan, which included future Medicare cuts, conservatives in Congress were no more eager than Democrats to give the issue away in advance of 2012. (Their resistance to this part of the grand bargain highlighted what is perhaps the central paradox of budget politics on the right: Republicans have defined themselves almost entirely by their determination to reduce debt, but virtually every means of actually getting there — taxes, defense cuts, restructuring entitlements — strikes them as politically unpalatable.) “There is absolutely no deal,” Boehner assured Limbaugh on air.

And yet, even then, as powerful contingents in both parties rose up to oppose a deal that was already tenuous, negotiations were proceeding amiably and apace. At the White House that Thursday morning, July 21, Jackson, Loper, Nabors, Sperling and Lew, among other aides, agreed to set aside the revenue question and focus on hammering out some of the smaller discrepancies in the two offers. By now, a level of trust had grown among them; the mere fact that they had exchanged so much paper, and that none of it had been leaked to reporters or bloggers, seemed to cement their working relationship. To hear aides on both sides tell it, anyone who wandered into Nabors’s West Wing office would have thought they were moving, inexorably and constructively, toward a final agreement.

I'm not quoting Woodward BUT Gene Sperling WHITE HOUSE economic council Director..
HIS EXACT WORDS... "Automatic sequester" July 12,2011 FIRST TIME!!!

Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

You just cannot tell the truth ever! You are quoting Woodward's book, not Sperling, Woodward's book was written by Woodward, not Sperling. Woodward is probably not even talking to Sperling, Boner or Obama for each of the quotes he attributes to them so at best they are hearsay and most likely hearsay of hearsay.

The fact remains that Woodward got everything wrong. He got the day wrong, no triggers were discussed on July 12 and when triggers were finally discussed on July 20 they were completely different from what Woodward claims, in fact Boner and Obama last spoke to each other on July 9, and didn't speak again until July 14. Boner and Obama were meeting in secret, so the conversations Woodward claims happened with Sperling and others present could not have happened.

From the link already posted:

Vice President Joe Biden and Eric Cantor, the House majority leader and Boehner’s No. 2 in the Republican caucus, had been holding talks in hopes of finding some preliminary agreement that might avert disaster, but those talks broke down in late June, primarily over the issue of taxes; the two men and their staffs had identified something like $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade, but the White House wasn’t going to make a deal that didn’t include some new tax revenue, and Cantor was adamant that raising taxes — any taxes — was a deal-breaker.

By then, however, Obama and Boehner had themselves started meeting furtively in the White House, in secret negotiating sessions that grew out of a much-discussed golf outing in June. Over a few drinks at the clubhouse at Andrews Air Force Base, Boehner suggested they might be able to use the impending debt crisis to achieve something ambitious and significant — not just the kind of cuts that Cantor and Biden were discussing, but fundamental reforms to entitlement programs and the tax code too, a sweeping modernization of the federal budget. The president agreed that they should try to get something started, but the breakthrough that seemed to make a transformational deal possible didn’t come until mid-July, in the form of a cryptic e-mail.

snip/

Excited White House aides suddenly felt that a deal might really be possible. But even with more revenue now on the table, Boehner and Obama continued to go back and forth over the Rubik’s Cube-like structure of a comprehensive deal — whether entitlement cuts would have to come before tax reform, whether most of the cuts would accrue in the first decade or the second and so on. Meanwhile, political pressure was building from inside Boehner’s leadership circle. Cantor, who had heard about the Obama-Boehner talks only when Biden happened to mention it, was nonplused at having been excluded and appalled that Boehner was offering more revenue. He and others pressed the speaker to drop the idea of a comprehensive deal, and on July 9, Boehner did just that, calling Obama at Camp David to tell him that the grand bargain was dead. He issued a statement immediately after, saying it was time for both parties to set their sights on a less ambitious solution to the debt-ceiling crisis, which now loomed less than a month away.

Except the speaker couldn’t bring himself to settle for something less ambitious. Five days later, on July 14, he called the president yet again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the health insurance mandate was first proposed by Republicans.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DUPE THREAD
dupe thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/279691-sequestration-blame-goes-to-gop.html

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is a stupid statement.

Guess where the lion's share of the deficit is "borrowed" from? American citizens. Guess who pays it back? American citizens. Guess who gets the money when it is repaid? American citizens.

As long as you consider governance and monetary policy as being equivalent to business operations, you will remain clueless and ignorant.

The debt MUST be increased to reflect increased asset value of the goods produced in the economy. Debt creation is the way our system uses to create new money. I can't believe you people still don't get that concept.

What will happen if we reduce the money supply when the economy continues to expand? Any ideas?

You're an economic nincompoop. Gov't sucks money out of the private sector (both US and CHina), making it unavailable for constructive purposes.
But in any case that misses my point: How is a tax increase positive but a spending decrease negative? They are roughly the same thing.

I'd like to hear how this works as well.

There appears to be just enough people in this country who believe that wealth and prosperity comes through taxation and government spending. Yet, none of them can or even will name one country that has been able to tax its citizens into prosperity.
The "just enough" are those who put Obama back into the White House.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the top tax bracket did fine and our economy did great.

your lies do not stand up to the FACTS

Which facts are those?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ambassador Tony Hall: Cutting Lives from the Budget? What Sequestration Could Mean for the World's Hungry

For far less than one percent of the federal budget, these programs provide essential life-saving emergency assistance to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education program ensures that millions of children can receive nutritious meals to attend school. Agricultural development programs, such as the Feed the Future initiative, provide funding for farmers in impoverished rural areas, which helps to strengthen the nutrition and incomes of millions of rural families. This helps households become more resilient to natural disasters, disease and other shocks.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the planned sequestration cuts would mean that U.S. poverty programs would suffer a $1 billion blow. Potential fallout from these cuts would put millions more people at risk and countless lives in danger. Bread for the World estimates that more than 600,000 children would lose nutritional assistance. Additionally, two million people in need of emergency food aid would see supplies drastically cut, if not eliminated, and over five million people will be left without prevention and treatment programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Beyond their positive humanitarian impact in the world, American anti-poverty efforts also serve to boost our own economy and security. A significant portion of our development support goes to fledgling democracies worldwide, supporting economic and political stability, and opening markets for American trade, research and entrepreneurial ingenuity. I was a firm believer in the importance of U.S. leadership in foreign assistance before I became the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation's food programs, and my diplomatic experience has reinforced that these programs are essential both for our country's political and economic health, as well as for millions of vulnerable people worldwide.

Hey, I got a great idea. Let's cut our food aid to fledgling democracies and, let's see. Oh, I know, let's cut our defense budget.

After the sequestration hits (God forbid) and it gets reverted for the most part. Some of these programs just aren't going to find a way back.

"Some of these programs just aren't going to find a way back."....
GOOD!...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Newsflash people....With the $85 billion gone, there WILL BE NO CUTS. Federal spending will still increase. All departments will receive the annual baseline increases.
The sequester makes up a minuscule portion of annual federal spending.
Notice the word that is missing. "Budget". We all know why there is no mention of a budget.

 

[emptystep]

Newsflash people....With the $85 billion gone, there WILL BE NO CUTS. Federal spending will still increase. All departments will receive the annual baseline increases.
The sequester makes up a minuscule portion of annual federal spending.
Notice the word that is missing. "Budget". We all know why there is no mention of a budget.

So you will be upset if the Republicans do anything to stop the sequester? I just want to get everyone on the record here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Newsflash people....With the $85 billion gone, there WILL BE NO CUTS. Federal spending will still increase. All departments will receive the annual baseline increases.
The sequester makes up a minuscule portion of annual federal spending.
Notice the word that is missing. "Budget". We all know why there is no mention of a budget.

So you will be upset if the Republicans do anything to stop the sequester? I just want to get everyone on the record here.

I'll be upset if they settle for less than the sequester. I'll cheer if they manage to wangle more spending cuts.

 

[editec]

Does anyone buy into Obama's BS on this? He is claiming that the entire economy will collapse if 80 billion is cut from the federal spending.

The congress just spent almost that much on Sandy relief.

This is just more scare tactic rhetoric by the marxist kenyan.

If the sequester kicks in, no one will feel it--no one. If anyone thinks there is not 10% fat in the DOD budget then I have some underwater investment property to sell you in the swamp.

No one will feel it?

How about the civilian employees of the Federal government who will be making do with a four day workweek and four day paychecks?

I suspect they're going to feel it big time.

 

[editec]

I hear the sequester is only 40 billion and majority of that is military.

The 2013 sequester includes:

$42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut).
$28.7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut).
$9.9 billion in Medicare cuts (a 2 percent cut).
$4 billion in other mandatory cuts (a 5.8 percent cut to nondefense programs, and a 7.8 percent cut to mandatory defense programs).
That makes for a total of $85.4 billion in cuts. Note: numbers here updated to latest CBO figures; thanks to Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for noting the difference from initial OMB numbers.
More will be cut in 2014 and later; from 2014 to 2021, the sequester will cut $87 to $92 billion from the discretionary budget every year, and $109 billion total.

The Sequester: Absolutely everything you could possibly need to know, in one FAQ