NT-Sequestration

[JohnH]

Something is really puzzzling me about sequestration.

1) As of Jan 1, 2013, every person in the US who earns a paycheck was forced by our government to make do with 2% less in disposable income. They have adapted and continued their lives with little negative impact.

2) As of March 1, 2013 our government must take some of its own medicine by reducing spending by roughly the same amount - 2%. Suddenly we're hearing the system will implode - air traffic control shutdowns, 3-hour TSA lines, and illegal aliens being feed from jail.

We can find a way to do it fairly painlesslly.

But Washington?

Nope, can't be done.

This bureaucratic circus speaks volumes about the economic efficiencies inherent in the private economy vs. the incompetence and inefficiencies of the way government mis-handles money in general. I think this is the lesson that Washington fears we may learn, so there's a desperate need to make it as painful as possible.

Anybody else get the feeling we're being played for suckers?

[kcjenkins]

It's not a feeling, it's a fact. Only hope is that the majority of the public is smart enough to see the contradiction.

At least this time their dishonesty is quite clear, just as the comparison you make is so clear . And listening to things like Nancy Pelosi saying that our country doesn't have a spending problem…TWICE!

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/28791-us-debt-visualized-in-100-bills/

[kcjenkins]

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/38987-reason-tv-5-sequester-facts-to-know-before-committing-suicide/

[JohnH]

If I follow the logic of these bureaucrats, I'd cover the 2% drop by suspending my burglar alarm service. No way I'd consider cutting out a couple of Starbucks visits each week - that just isn't possible.

[Lion EA]

Amen!

[OldJack]

>>Anybody else get the feeling we're being played for suckers? <<

Only the suckers that voted for him are being played. Ask most on the street and they don't even know about sequestration. They don't care what is going on.

[michaelmars]

Sequestration - is that a sort of horse back riding? where is my lexicologist when i need him?

[Randall]

I'm loving it. You wanted spending cuts. You got em. I couldn't believe they passed that when they did. It's probably the only thing they did worthwhile.

[Gail in Virginia]

I would rather our elected officials actually worked together and passed a real budget that cut spending appropriately. Since that obviously is not going to happen, at least spending has been cut a little bit.

[jainen]

>>a real budget that cut spending appropriately. Since that obviously is not going to happen... <<

Hey, it happened here in California, the 5th largest economy in the world,. Of course, the cuts were painful--we had to cut out an entire political party!

[JohnH]

Sounds like a potentially desirable outcome on a national level to me.

Provided we cut out BOTH major parties, send everybody home, and start over again.

But right now I'll settle for a 2% cut for starters.

Oh, and now more good news.

Looks like the Sequester Jesters are just kidding - we have plenty in reserve after all.

Our newly-appointed joke of a Sec of State just announced they found $250 million for aid to Egypt. Plus, there's plenty more where that came from - he promised we "can and will provide more".

I'm sure those furloughed government workers and air traffic controllers will be thrilled by this development.

[BulldogTom]

I think the deficit for this year is projected to be 800-900 Billion dollars. That is the amount those dirty SOB's are spending over the amount that they are taxing us. So the Sequester is cutting that by 85 Billion.

As Maribeth and Rita would say -- WTH? That is not even going to get you close to balanced.

But if you listen to those dirty SOB's in Washington, the planes are going to fall out of the sky, children will not eat and will starve in the streets, our military will no longer protect our shores, and police and firefighters will let your wife be raped and your home burn down. Lying SOB's.

They are going to spend 3.8 trillion dollars. That is Three thousand and eight hundred billions. And they can't cut 85 billion without the hysterical lies they are spreading? I saw Leon Panetta give an interview talking about how much this is going to hurt. My ass....it would not hurt for them to take the pay cuts in salary and benefits. Let those SOB's find out what it is like to pay 50% of your own insurance and 100% of your family health insurance, and let them see what it is like to try and figure out how to get some money into a 401K that does not have a match. Let them pay $4.09 for a frikin gallon of gas. And tell them there is no housing allowance when they live in Washington, they can take the deduction on their taxes subject to 2% of their AGI.

I don't know if I hate CCH or Politicians more right now.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[Eric]

http://thepessimist.com/2013/03/01/the-pessimists-guide-to-the-sequester/

This is unacceptable. I believe I’ll write my member of Congress and tell him or her what I think about the government’s failure to act responsibly.

Yeah, you go do that. Here’s the response you’ll get:

“Dear constituent: Thank you very much for your letter. I have taken your concerns into consideration, and I’d like you to know that despite your good points, we fully intend to keep screwing everything up, because doing so delights us. You are, of course, welcome to run against me next year. You have a few million dollars to waste on a drawn-out, increasingly ugly campaign, right? What’s that? You don’t? Oh, well! Have fun writing more angry letters. Meanwhile, my colleagues and I will continue to keep singing and dancing in the manner indicated in the below video. Sincerely,”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

[SCL]

It's not a feeling, it's a fact. Only hope is that the majority of the public is smart enough to see the contradiction.

At least this time their dishonesty is quite clear, just as the comparison you make is so clear . And listening to things like Nancy Pelosi saying that our country doesn't have a spending problem…TWICE!

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/28791-us-debt-visualized-in-100-bills/

john h offers an ubiquitous question.

my nt response...

you turn it into a partisan rhetorical harangue...you offend me.

[JohnH]

I can understand - sometimes people are offended by the truth.

Doesn't change the fact that it's truth.

[Jack from Ohio]

It's not a feeling, it's a fact. Only hope is that the majority of the public is smart enough to see the contradiction.

At least this time their dishonesty is quite clear, just as the comparison you make is so clear . And listening to things like Nancy Pelosi saying that our country doesn't have a spending problem…TWICE!

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/28791-us-debt-visualized-in-100-bills/

AGREE 100%

[Catherine]

Here are nine minutes well worth your time. Bill Whittle's "Eat The Rich"

http://youtu.be/661pi6K-8WQ

Plus two must-read essays: "The Big Pulchra Vera Essay" parts 1 & 2. Ann sees things very either/or and I disagree with many of her conclusions, but her points are well worth contemplating. If only for her further exposition on this theme, you should read it. "When the truth is ugly, it must STILL be declared. Boldly. Loudly. Persistently. Failure to declare ugly truths is itself an act of dishonesty, a bearing of false witness, and it makes impossible any attempt to push through the superficial ugliness and get to the pure, holy beauty beyond."

http://barnhardt.biz/

[JohnH]

Or, in those words attributed to Harry Truman when someone in the crowd yelled out "Give 'em Hell, Harry!",

he is reported to have replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

[kcjenkins]

john h offers an ubiquitous question.

my nt response...

you turn it into a partisan rhetorical harangue...you offend me.

I am sorry you see it that way, SCL, I did not intend it as partisan. Frankly, I am almost as fed up with the GOP as I am with the Dems. We do not elect them to spend all their time playing political games. Once the election is over, they SHOULD BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER TO TRY TO WORK OUT SOLUTIONS TO OUR PROBLEMS, But that is simply not happening with this President. And I do stand by the position that, at this time, the entire leadership of the Dems, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are being totally obstructive. Reid refused to allow a single bill out of Congress to even be voted on, PLUS he did not present any alternative bills. How can any compromise ever be reached under that kind of leadership?

[kcjenkins]

Here's an example of what I mean"

"Actually, the GOP bill wasn't designed to avert cuts, it was designed to avert these cuts by giving Obama the power to replace them with equivalent cuts of his choosing. He's been screaming for weeks that the sequester will chop crucial services by hitting agencies indiscriminately across the board, right? Well, there's the solution -- let O protect the important stuff, like naval deployments, by reinstating the Pentagon's money and cutting stuff like cowboy poetry festivals instead. Result: The bill fails, 38-60. So terrified was the White House of the political responsibility of deciding which arms of government should bear the burden of an $85 billion haircut that they actually threatened to veto the bill if it passed. No need to worry about that; Senate Democrats, who've been shirking political responsibility for years by not passing a budget, were happy to kill this thing for him. Imagine how awkward it would have been if they hadn't and O had to explain to the public that he had the power to save money in ways besides, say, releasing illegal immigrants from detention centers but chose not to exercise it. His whole strategy in this process is to impose maximum pain on Americans while blaming Republicans for supposedly tying his hands in trying to avert it. They offered to untie his hands. He refused. Leadership." --HotAir'sAllahpundit

I'm sorry, SCL, but If you're among the shrinking ranks of those who still insist such assertions are too strident and partisan, then you have officially taken leave of your senses.

[TaxesNE1]

The deficit has been cut in half. You folks need to turn off Fox and watch some real journalists for a change.

[TaxesNE1]

It's time for a lesson in how mandatory sequestration actually works.

"In the United States federal budget, the sequester or sequestration refers to budget cuts to particular categories of federal spending that began on March 1, 2013. The area most affected is called discretionary spending, which includes defense and non-defense elements. Discretionary spending represented approximately 36% of federal outlays in 2012. The sequester also affects certain mandatory programs, including Medicare. The sequester will reduce 2013 discretionary spending below 2012 levels, while cuts to Medicare will reduce future cost increases. Total federal spending including all categories will continue to increase, but less than previously planned.^[1]The cuts were enacted by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and initially set to begin on January 1 but that date was postponed by two months by theAmerican Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The spending reductions are approximately $85.4 billion during fiscal year 2013,^[2] with similar cuts for years 2014 through 2021."

[TaxesNE1]

I haven't seen anyone here celebrating the fact that the administration is doing such good work that we actually ran a surplus for the month of January, 2013.

[JohnH]

So what's your point?

Are you suggesting that sequestration is something OTHER THAN a 2% reduction in spending?

Anybody who credits this administration with doing a good job of anything meaningful is living in a dream world.

(Their skill lies in deceiving and dividing - that's where they are excelling)

For example:

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him."

Here's the link to the entire article (for those administration apologists who aren't afraid to face the truth):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/