quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
You can say that from British Columbia, however us mouses here are in the house., we are eating whats on the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

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.

It's 2% over all, 5% when you consider that SSI and Medicare can't be touched.

Would that really trigger a recession?

Yes.

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.

No...we can't. Cut that much out of the budget and it will affect jobs. Now the question is: "Can we all stomach that? and the answer is; Pick your poison....today....or tomorrow?

Where do we stand?

Between the abyss and reality.

Reality says....do it now, pay the price and...let's get on with things...with some pain.

Fantasy says "It's all good baby....they can print money till Hell freezes over....we own the world's currency....we can print as much as we choose (and we are)"

There's your answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Reality says....do it now, pay the price and...let's get on with things...with some pain.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The Sequester shows an ineffective Government operating in Washington.

Maybe cuts in GOV spending can only be initiated without deliberate thought and responsible fingerprints -- leaving the realities of the cuts to agency heads. Congress simply can't do it. Its a disgrace.

-----

Here's one remark from an OP in the NYT that makes the best point about the mess we are in:

If our government had used borrowed money to improve infrastructure or to improve the skills of workers, the resulting extra production would have made repayment easier. Instead, over the last decade, it used the money for wars and tax cuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have been saying this for the past 4½ years now. I think the longer we kick the correction down the road, the more painful it's going to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
You can say that from British Columbia, however us mouses here are in the house., we are eating whats on the table.

I disagree.

Do you honestly believe that Canada is somehow exempt from the GLOBAL banking scam? Do you believe that "business" in Canada is somehow better? I can abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you that none of that is true and these issues are my issues. To my knowledge there are few places in the world one could flee to escape the storm. This is a global problem. We face a global enemy. Our fight is one.

You didn't like citizen's united. Bully for you but the BC chamber of commerce is pressing for giving the vote to corporations... the actual fucking VOTE. Care to guess how long before some enterprising lawyer sets up a vote mill? No, I am not all safe & secure here in Canada. What we do have here in Canada (to the best of my knowledge) is a supreme court that has not entirely sold out. I'd put Canada at perhaps 10 years behind the US in terms of "slide towards total disaster".

In terms of physical security, as you yourself mentioned in the other thread I am quite a bit more vulnerable than you because I'm NOT on US soil. Even worse I'm within 200 miles of the US border rather than someplace like Iceland. If Obama (or anyone in the fucking government since we've never clarified who or how those determinations are made) decides I'm a terrorist because of my frequent, public, and open postings about Occupy and related topics I am toast and there isn't anything to save me at all. And lest you think that is melodramatic hand-wringing try to remember that I have openly questioned the legitimacy of the US government and I have openly stated that I believe Obama to be guilty of treason. I have done so with my own name & identity fully on display. Do you honestly believe they aren't watching everything I say?

You folks on American soil are only now waking up to the idea that this all applies to you also. Heck, you still believe there's some sort of constitution. So back to "sequestering". Yeah I care about that too since a lot of my money is still in US hands. No, I'm not somehow magically immune.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404
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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, I'm so done with pork projects. If it isn't of National importance, the Fed's shouldn't be involved in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

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.

Yeah. And it makes me worried about D & I's business - if people are losing 5% of their salary to furlough, what are they going to cut back on, necessities or fun stuff? Our business is fun stuff, and people will write it out of their budget. I'm worried that the trickle-down from sequester is really going to fuck the DC-area economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

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?