Sequester

Sequester (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> Sequester (2/26/2013 8:42:34 PM)
There is a lot of press about it. The NYT on SUN had a graph to showing the amounts that would be cut from the Federal Budget. Maybe I don't get it, but the cuts seemed rather reasonable to me. If I remember correctly it results in about a 8.5% budget cut. Would that really trigger a recession? Ideally we could cut federal spending and grow the economy at the same time to fix the budget, but the argument goes that a cut in spending would shrink the economy and actually increase the deficit. Where do we stand?

dcnovice -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 9:01:52 PM)
FR from a Washingtonian whose friends are wondering about their economic survival. [image]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541002_567434936600822_636396039_n.jpg[/image]

DarkSteven -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 9:06:23 PM)
I'm having a hard time seeing what will happen. When the cuts DO occur, department heads will be given the order to cut. The last thing they will want to do is to make the proper, innocuous cuts that will permit life to go on. They will make the cuts hurt as much as possible because they don't want anyone getting the idea that their budget can be slashed without severe pain. So the delivered benefits will be the first things to go.

JeffBC -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 9:22:24 PM)
Is see the entire thing as a made-up circus and I'm not particularly interested in it. "Give 'em the old razzle dazzle"

littlewonder -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 9:32:07 PM)
Those who are close to me work government jobs and are worried about their paychecks being cut by having to take a day or more of unpaid leave or being laid off. Their work places apparently have already been talking about it and probably also making arrangements as we speak for where they will be cutting budgets. So this will not just cut budgets such as cutting back on buying things or cutting a little spending on programs but will affect employees' paychecks and jobs in general.

blacksword404 -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 9:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Those who are close to me work government jobs and are worried about their paychecks being cut by having to take a day or more of unpaid leave or being laid off. Their work places apparently have already been talking about it and probably also making arrangements as we speak for where they will be cutting budgets. So this will not just cut budgets such as cutting back on buying things or cutting a little spending on programs but will affect employees' paychecks and jobs in general. Only because they are being held hostage. Police, firefighters, and kids. Always the first ones trotted out. Give us what we want or they will be hurt. I say fuck it. Cut even more. If the government would rather fund some research into how knots fuck instead of necessary government workers then so be it. Shows where their head is really at. Terrorizing the people into giving them what they want. Cut, cut and keep cutting. Grab a tiger by the toe. If he hollers cut his ass some more.

littlewonder -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 11:15:01 PM)
I understand where you are coming from and agree to a point but being that it is my loved ones paychecks on the line, yeah, it's something I'm definitely concerned about. I'm already watching government offices making cuts before the March 1st deadline. If there are cuts to employees it will also slow down things like people getting their VA benefits and social security checks. It's not just going to affect a couple of minor things.

fmfclwu -> RE: Sequester (2/26/2013 11:18:09 PM)
Some highlights from a recent Business Insiders poll which simply described the plans without telling the people which party or group sponsored them: (The poll tested the Senate Democratic plan against the sequester, the Republican House plan against the sequester, the House Progressive Caucus against the sequester, and finally all three (plus the sequester) against one another. - The most popular plan by a wide margin is the House Progressive Caucus plan. It beats sequester straight up 56-20. - The House Republican plan was the only one to lose straight up to the sequester, and it got smoked - people prefer just letting the sequester happen over the Republican plan 57-23. - The House Republican plan is actually less popular with Republicans than the House Progressive Caucus plan. 47% of Republicans approve of the Progressive plan, compared to only 46% who approve of the Republican plan. - Democrats also prefer the Progressive plan to their own plan, 62% vs. 60%. Given the four options all against each other, people wanted: - Progressive plan 34% - Democratic plan 19% - Republican plan 15% - let the sequester hit 10% All questions had a "don't know" choice, which is why none of the percentages add up to 100.

blacksword404 -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 12:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I understand where you are coming from and agree to a point but being that it is my loved ones paychecks on the line, yeah, it's something I'm definitely concerned about. I'm already watching government offices making cuts before the March 1st deadline. If there are cuts to employees it will also slow down things like people getting their VA benefits and social security checks. It's not just going to affect a couple of minor things. I can understand that. But they will not stop spending on their own. They aren't even talking about cutting spending. They are talking about cutting the increase in spending.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 5:12:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I understand where you are coming from and agree to a point but being that it is my loved ones paychecks on the line, yeah, it's something I'm definitely concerned about. I'm already watching government offices making cuts before the March 1st deadline. If there are cuts to employees it will also slow down things like people getting their VA benefits and social security checks. It's not just going to affect a couple of minor things. I can understand that. But they will not stop spending on their own. They aren't even talking about cutting spending. They are talking about cutting the increase in spending. That's what kills me, too. While there is something to be said about costs rising due to inflation, how is cutting $110B out of an estimated $3.8T (2.9%) really going to hurt that damn much? One of the things I really liked about the House GOP budget (aka Ryan Plan) from 2012 (I believe) was that it capped spending at the level of previous year's revenues. As revenues rise, so rises the spending cap. Obviously, there are exceptions for "emergency" items that can't be budgeted for right off the bat. But, there is a sense of sanity about that process. As the economy grows, so, too, will our tax revenues, and, barring emergencies, our debt will drop. And, I'm so done with pork projects. If it isn't of National importance, the Fed's shouldn't be involved in it.

mnottertail -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 7:33:12 AM)
One of the things about a budget cap plan was that it was once law of the land, and they got rid of it in short order. Secondly, the Ryan plan was horseshit, really. But in any case, all these plans and whatnot, what is killing us are the appropriations bills, cuz nobody is being honest in the budget, and nobody is looking for real reform down there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 8:17:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One of the things about a budget cap plan was that it was once law of the land, and they got rid of it in short order. Secondly, the Ryan plan was horseshit, really. But in any case, all these plans and whatnot, what is killing us are the appropriations bills, cuz nobody is being honest in the budget, and nobody is looking for real reform down there. Nobody in Congress anyway...

JeffBC -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 8:26:11 AM)
I can understand you being concerned at the individual level. But as the guy footing the bill I'm not concerned. To bow to this sort of extortion is to pay the paychecks of your loved ones with the suffering of millions. I'm just not up for it. We just can't afford to be held hostage anymore. The house of cards is tumbling down around us.

cloudboy -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 8:57:19 AM)
No one has given an indication whether the sequester would reduce or increase the deficit; i.e. under the sequester would economic growth increase, remain static, or decrease? Consumer demand is still weak from stagnant wages, unemployment, and the housing mess. It's not like the private sector is hot and ready to go.

mnottertail -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 8:58:03 AM)
The consensus of opinions is the sequester would retard growth.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 9:18:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy No one has given an indication whether the sequester would reduce or increase the deficit; i.e. under the sequester would economic growth increase, remain static, or decrease? Consumer demand is still weak from stagnant wages, unemployment, and the housing mess. It's not like the private sector is hot and ready to go. I'm not sure that the basis of cutting or not cutting should be what it will do to the economy, though. As MN replied, the consensus is that it will slow the growth. While that isn't necessarily a good thing, when will it be a good thing? I have no numbers, but I have yet to see/hear any claim as to the growth reduction causing a revenue reduction greater than the amount of the cuts. Thus, I think, on net, the sequester will still create a deficit reduction. We have a $16T GDP. $109B is 0.68% of $16T.

JeffBC -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 9:21:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The consensus of opinions is the sequester would retard growth. Who's opinions? Would that be bankers opinions? Or are we talking CEO opinions? Or maybe politician's opinions? I see it as a whole lot of brinksmanship in order to detract us from the much more massive problems that are actually retarding growth. If I wanted to deal with economic growth I'd be looking at the financial sector and it's massive drag on the economy. There is only one thing which can help here. We have an unprecedented and unheard of concentration of wealth and it must end or there is no economy. Rich people cannot buy stuff from each other and make an economy happen.

blacksword404 -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 9:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I understand where you are coming from and agree to a point but being that it is my loved ones paychecks on the line, yeah, it's something I'm definitely concerned about. I'm already watching government offices making cuts before the March 1st deadline. If there are cuts to employees it will also slow down things like people getting their VA benefits and social security checks. It's not just going to affect a couple of minor things. I can understand that. But they will not stop spending on their own. They aren't even talking about cutting spending. They are talking about cutting the increase in spending. That's what kills me, too. While there is something to be said about costs rising due to inflation, how is cutting $110B out of an estimated $3.8T (2.9%) really going to hurt that damn much? One of the things I really liked about the House GOP budget (aka Ryan Plan) from 2012 (I believe) was that it capped spending at the level of previous year's revenues. As revenues rise, so rises the spending cap. Obviously, there are exceptions for "emergency" items that can't be budgeted for right off the bat. But, there is a sense of sanity about that process. As the economy grows, so, too, will our tax revenues, and, barring emergencies, our debt will drop. And, I'm so done with pork projects. If it isn't of National importance, the Fed's shouldn't be involved in it. They're a bunch of addicts. They don't know any other way. There are plenty of plans that would work. But few that will work and still make sure the right political people make money.

mnottertail -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 9:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The consensus of opinions is the sequester would retard growth. Who's opinions? Would that be bankers opinions? Or are we talking CEO opinions? Or maybe politician's opinions? I see it as a whole lot of brinksmanship in order to detract us from the much more massive problems that are actually retarding growth. If I wanted to deal with economic growth I'd be looking at the financial sector and it's massive drag on the economy. There is only one thing which can help here. We have an unprecedented and unheard of concentration of wealth and it must end or there is no economy. Rich people cannot buy stuff from each other and make an economy happen. Jeff, you are preaching to the choir here. The issue is dead at this point however, cuz them is the folks that lobby and buy politicians, who will not bite the hand that feeds them, unless we are ready to rape and kill this end. How many times has campaign finance reform been defeated? How many times have we gerrymandered districts? And so on and so forth. Hey, there are people that go down there with high ideals, but everyone of them has succumbed to the cash and carry lobbys.

JeffBC -> RE: Sequester (2/27/2013 9:52:33 AM)
Aaaaahhhh... OK. Well then my position remains. It really doesn't matter what they do since the economy is already retarded and will inevitably be retarded further and further. So I choose not to submit to their melodrama.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625