Sequester: How bad with the pain be??

[Beco]

Sequester’s big gamble: How bad will the pain be?

With the ax set to fall on federal spending in five days, the question in Washington is not whether the sequester will hit, but how much it will hurt.

Over the past week, President Obama has painted a picture of impending disaster, warning of travel delays, laid-off firefighters and pre-schoolers tossed out of Head Start. Conservatives accuse Obama of exaggerating the impact, and some White House allies worry the slow-moving sequester may fail to live up to the hype.

In the long partisan conflict over government spending, the sequester is where the rubber meets the road. Obama is betting Americans will be outraged by the abrupt and substantial cuts to a wide range of government services, from law enforcement to food safety to public schools. And he is hoping they will rise up to demand what he calls a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction that replaces some cuts with higher taxes.

But if voters react with a shrug, congressional Republicans will have won a major victory in their campaign to shrink the size of government. Instead of cancelling the sequester, the GOP will likely push for more.

“It would be a big problem for the White House if the sequester came and went and nobody really noticed anything. Then people will start saying, ‘Well, maybe we can cut spending,” said John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who penned a recent Wall Street Journal piece titled “Learning to Love the Sequester.”

Adding to the liberal angst is concern that the scale of the cuts may be overstated, at least in the short term. While the sequester orders the White House to withdraw $85 billion in spending authority from affected agencies in the fiscal year that ends in September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that agencies will reduce actual spending by only about $44 billion, with the remaining cuts carried over into future years.

Compared with total 2013 discretionary spending, that’s a cut of less than 4 percent.

 

[jeninflorida]

this whole things shows how corrupt, evil, and bile the obama is

 

[mercury14]

Sequester’s big gamble: How bad will the pain be?

With the ax set to fall on federal spending in five days, the question in Washington is not whether the sequester will hit, but how much it will hurt.

Over the past week, President Obama has painted a picture of impending disaster, warning of travel delays, laid-off firefighters and pre-schoolers tossed out of Head Start. Conservatives accuse Obama of exaggerating the impact, and some White House allies worry the slow-moving sequester may fail to live up to the hype.

In the long partisan conflict over government spending, the sequester is where the rubber meets the road. Obama is betting Americans will be outraged by the abrupt and substantial cuts to a wide range of government services, from law enforcement to food safety to public schools. And he is hoping they will rise up to demand what he calls a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction that replaces some cuts with higher taxes.

But if voters react with a shrug, congressional Republicans will have won a major victory in their campaign to shrink the size of government. Instead of cancelling the sequester, the GOP will likely push for more.

“It would be a big problem for the White House if the sequester came and went and nobody really noticed anything. Then people will start saying, ‘Well, maybe we can cut spending,” said John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who penned a recent Wall Street Journal piece titled “Learning to Love the Sequester.”

Adding to the liberal angst is concern that the scale of the cuts may be overstated, at least in the short term. While the sequester orders the White House to withdraw $85 billion in spending authority from affected agencies in the fiscal year that ends in September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that agencies will reduce actual spending by only about $44 billion, with the remaining cuts carried over into future years.

Compared with total 2013 discretionary spending, that’s a cut of less than 4 percent.

Republicans will take credit for the sequester if the public doesn't perceive too much pain. They'll say they held their ground and beat an Obama policy. But if there's a decline in GDP or job growth Republicans will immediately blame Obama, saying it was all his idea from the start

Basically Republicans stand for nothing and will try to have it both ways no matter what. They're keeping their position on the sequester *just* vague enough that they can go back and say they were either for or against it depending on how things shake out. In fact they're already by saying that defense cuts will be catastrophic and also saying the whole thing wont be that bad.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Credit your CP sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0c44e2-7c4e-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

 

[someoneyouknow]

this whole things shows how corrupt, evil, and bile the obama is

Right, because W was such a fine, upstanding individual who never lied.

 

[jeninflorida]

Right, because W was such a fine, upstanding individual who never lied.

this is what's wrong with your kind of people.

what does that have to do with where we are today? bad behavor in the past doesn't enable the current jackass obama from his bad behavor.

No wonder America is so fucked, with your kind of thinking

 

[someoneyouknow]

I'm not sure why people keep saying there will be pain if the sequester happens. We're constantly told the government doesn't create jobs so there won't be an issue.

Besides, this is what people want, to cut the amount of government spending. Hopefully they'll get their wish.

 

[jeninflorida]

Republicans will take credit for the sequester if the public doesn't perceive too much pain. They'll say they held their ground and beat an Obama policy. But if there's a decline in GDP or job growth Republicans will immediately blame Obama, saying it was all his idea from the start

Basically Republicans stand for nothing and will try to have it both ways no matter what. They're keeping their position on the sequester *just* vague enough that they can go back and say they were either for or against it depending on how things shake out. In fact they're already by saying that defense cuts will be catastrophic and also saying the whole thing wont be that bad.

so you just want limitlessness wasteful spending and a Marxist obama government

 

[Busybody]

Credit your CP sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0c44e2-7c4e-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

hey asshole, who the fuck cares?

 

[oxphocker]

It reminds me of what happened in Colorado Springs a few years ago where the town couldn't pay for everything, asked for a tax increase, residents said no and so the town had to turn off most of the street lights in town. People started bitching that all the lights were off and the town just pointed to the choices of the voters. This is similar in that of course people want to see government spending less but they don't realize how many things government actually covers and how it's going to impact people's lives if these across the board cuts start happening.

 

[Busybody]

It reminds me of what happened in Colorado Springs a few years ago where the town couldn't pay for everything, asked for a tax increase, residents said no and so the town had to turn off most of the street lights in town. People started bitching that all the lights were off and the town just pointed to the choices of the voters. This is similar in that of course people want to see government spending less but they don't realize how many things government actually covers and how it's going to impact people's lives if these across the board cuts start happening.

STFU,


airline traffic is down 27% since 9/11....spending is up 40%

so STFU about the BS you are SCREAMING ABOUT

OX FUCKER

 

[Busybody]

It reminds me of what happened in Colorado Springs a few years ago where the town couldn't pay for everything, asked for a tax increase, residents said no and so the town had to turn off most of the street lights in town. People started bitching that all the lights were off and the town just pointed to the choices of the voters. This is similar in that of course people want to see government spending less but they don't realize how many things government actually covers and how it's going to impact people's lives if these across the board cuts start happening.

the fucking "town" shoulda cut salaries of the BOO ROW CRAPS, but they didn't, rather SCREW THE PEEPS


STFU, OX FUCKER

 

[JohnnySavage]

STFU,


airline traffic is down 27% since 9/11....spending is up 40%

so STFU about the BS you are SCREAMING ABOUT

OX FUCKER

Watching CNN huh?

 

[Busybody]

Watching CNN huh?

no

I read the transcript of an UPSTANDING AMERICAN making that point on the CLITMAN "NEWS" NETWORK

 

[Busybody]

Watching CNN huh?

I don't watch NEWS or TALK SHOWS, only PAWN STARS and STORAGE WARS and SPORTS and ONLINE PORN

 

[richard_daily]

The sequester is desired by all parties involved, because it's a way of passing austerity measures.

If you don't think the government won't rush quickly to re-instate the military industrial complex of their regular budget, you don't know understand history, and you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.

This is just another power grab by the rich.

 

[jeninflorida]

The sequester is desired by all parties involved, because it's a way of passing austerity measures.

If you don't think the government won't rush quickly to re-instate the military industrial complex of their regular budget, you don't know understand history, and you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.

This is just another power grab by the welfare loving obama.

I helped correct this. this is pure welfare driven. nothing to do with the rich, except that your kind wants to steal money from hard working American's so that people like you can sit on your ass drinking budwiser

 

[run_silent]

There is no actual cutting of budgets just reducing the automatic increases to the budget. The problem is that they hit it with a hatchet rather than considered reductions.

 

[mercury14]

There is no actual cutting of budgets just reducing the automatic increases to the budget. The problem is that they hit it with a hatchet rather than considered reductions.

From what I've seen there are actual cuts. They're not huge but they are substantial.

I agree with your second sentance completely. Any business or financial entity that chooses to cut spending does it by going through their budget and cutting things that will have a smaller impact on productivity and policy priorities. Nobody does it with across-the-board cuts. As Bowles says, the sequester is "stupid, idiotic, and inane".

 

[islandman]

From what I've seen there are actual cuts. They're not huge but they are substantial.

I agree with your second sentance completely. Any business or financial entity that chooses to cut spending does it by going through their budget and cutting things that will have a smaller impact on productivity and policy priorities. Nobody does it with across-the-board cuts. As Bowles says, the sequester is "stupid, idiotic, and inane".

Substantial? It's only $25B more than what just went out the door in Superstorm Sandy relief.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It reminds me of what happened in Colorado Springs a few years ago where the town couldn't pay for everything, asked for a tax increase, residents said no and so the town had to turn off most of the street lights in town. People started bitching that all the lights were off and the town just pointed to the choices of the voters. This is similar in that of course people want to see government spending less but they don't realize how many things government actually covers and how it's going to impact people's lives if these across the board cuts start happening.

Here is the thing, instead of cutting hudreds of billions worth of shit we don't need....like JSF, fields of tanks we will never use, subs we don't need, pay 2-5x MSRP for pharmaceutics and medical care.....

NOPE....we keep that...those things don't lose so much as a fucking penny.

Body armor for our troops, SS, Food Stamps, Schools, Cops, Lights......These are the things we take when a budget cut of less than 4% shows up. This is what the gov does in order to scare us back into more funding. Not the $50/roll of shit tickets...oh noooo No no NO NO NO!! Senator fuckhead's brother in law at the butt wipe factory got the contract....we can't break that.

Oh and god forbid we save a billion a day by ENDING THE POINTLESS WAR LIKE OBAMA PROMISED 5 FUCKING YEARS AGO.

 

[BotanyBoy]

From what I've seen there are actual cuts. They're not huge but they are substantial.

Less than 4% = substantial?



Ohhhhh it's merc...I forgot anything that does not advocate spending at least 15x as much as we borrow/generate = baaaaad staggering cuts to our tiny little budget.

 

[coastal-boy]

If your State is still struggling with unemployment...it will be twice as bad next year at this time. Just remember...this sequester was demanded by the Tea Party as part of the compromise when raising the debt limit last year (which does not mean Congress spent more...it means we paid those that were billing us for services already rendered). It doesn't have to hurt so bad, but Republicans can't figure out how to win any other way. Sad thing, poll after poll says if the sequester goes into effect and it hurts, the Republicans will get the blame. The same polls are saying if the sequester goes into effect, and the pain isn't as bad as what is projected, it is because Obama told everyone last year to start planning for the worst case scenario. Either way, the Republicans lose. They have their head up their asses just like when they were saying "We are going to win the election in a landslide".

 

[eyer]

Just remember...this sequester was demanded by the Tea Party as part of the compromise when raising the debt limit last year...

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Bob Woodward called...

...he said you're pulling a wanker queen again by not mentioning that, in fact, the sequester actually originated with President Obama's boys.

He also said...

...don't trouble yourself with any mention of "pictures".

 

[eyer]

Sequester: How bad with the pain be??

Just like gravity...

...pain is relative.