Quantcast

5 Sequester Facts to Know Before Committing Suicide

keymanjim 2013/02/27 13:50:50

1. The Cuts Are Tiny!
2. Spending is Still Going Up!
3. The Pentagon Won't Starve!
4. You Can't Cut Nonexistent Programs!
5. It Was All Obama's Idea!

From 5 Sequester Facts to Know Before Committing Suicide.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Simpattyco 2013/12/23 16:55:30 (edited)
    Simpattyco
    I'm holding my razor close to the wrist ...until this guy leaves office
  • Matt 2013/12/23 12:45:50
  • Simpattyco Matt 2013/12/23 16:57:08 (edited)
    Simpattyco
    +2
    THEY JUST DON'T GET IT DO THEY?
    drooling ugly looking people drooling ugly looking people drooling ugly looking people
  • jtmekjian 2013/03/05 04:44:56
    jtmekjian
    +2
    Too many people paying too much attention to main stream media to understand what's going on.
  • StEwPiD MoNkEy 2013/03/04 23:17:36
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    I ask this as well. It's easy to knock someone doing a job. But for all the negative do you actually know the positive are you just about repeating the same old things?

    http://pleasecutthecrap.typep...

    The great thing is that this website has the reference links to direct factual information.
  • StEwPiD MoNkEy 2013/03/04 22:47:33
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    It seems as if both sides are making this worse. Yes obama did implement it initially. NO DENYING THAT! BUT...GOP members are not doing what needs to be done for the country.

    All this Obama bashing, yet everyone forgets just 2 terms ago when the same things were being said about Bush (who I as a liberal voted for, twice!)

    The point is that both parties are corrupt. So instead of bitching left and right, let's fix it.
  • Simpattyco StEwPiD... 2013/12/23 16:59:11
    Simpattyco
    OK HOW
  • StEwPiD... Simpattyco 2013/12/27 17:01:47
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    +1
    Lol, the question of the millenia!! lol. I actually have an idea for a society. Lol, but who the heck am I? lol. I will say this. Adherence to a particular party is nonsense. That is our first mistake. When do party interests override what is right for the country as a whole?
  • StEwPiD MoNkEy 2013/03/01 21:00:11
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    Interesting. Here is my question. Is Obama not fallible? Not only that, but I see vested interests here across both sides. Left and right. Look the man may have taken the gamble and he lost. And he should be penalized for taking a gamble with the American people. BUT....he is not the first or the last. The man has done some very good things. But to always vilify him is not the answer to rebuilding America.
  • keymanjim StEwPiD... 2013/03/02 12:36:12
    keymanjim
    +1
    The little good he's done is far outweighed by the vast bad. Using doom and gloom scenarios to get his way is less like a leader and more like a petulant child.
  • StEwPiD... keymanjim 2013/03/04 16:16:24
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    Before we start this, I will need you to list and back up exactly the "little" that you are talking about. I'd say he's done more than a little. Let's start with backing up our assertions please.
  • keymanjim StEwPiD... 2013/03/04 22:23:08
    keymanjim
    Start what? It's already done.
  • StEwPiD... keymanjim 2013/03/04 22:37:02
    StEwPiD MoNkEy
    meaning our back and forth banter. lol
  • Simpattyco keymanjim 2013/12/23 17:00:48
  • goatman112003 2013/03/01 08:07:40
    goatman112003
    +1
    The problem is simple. Patronage is going to be cut.
  • SanctumHolder 2013/03/01 02:40:27
    SanctumHolder
    +2
    I really chuckled at this title!
  • James Moore 2013/03/01 01:27:59
    James Moore
    +2
    As the Mary-Go-Round continues in the daily saga of the Obama administration. Sequester, Budget and Fiscal Cliff America is on the ride for their life.
  • Hawkeye 2013/02/28 21:36:07
    Hawkeye
    +3
    The thing here is that some of those on the left have come out and warned Obama to cut back on all this Doom and Gloom because the worst thing that can happen is for the sequester to go through and NONE of it happens..

    And NOW,, the DAY before it goes into effect,, HERE'S Obama backstepping on everything he's been saying throughout this ordeal..

    They needn't worry though.. Obama ALWAYS gets away with this.. Every time Obama opens his mouth and says something STUPID and OFFENSIVE and the American people react to it,, the MEDIA and his Supporters,, like the ones here on this site,, circle the wagons and say that Obama NEVER said what he said and America NEVER heard what America heard..

    And of COURSE,, it ALWAYS ends up with their TRADEMARK grand finale..

    Obama ends up being that Po' Black Man in the Whte House getting picked on more then any other person in the history of mankind by people who are nothing but a bunch of RACISTS because they hold him responsible for his words or actions..
  • Tee Quake Hawkeye 2013/02/28 23:04:11
    Tee Quake
    +2
    Right on, Hawkeye. I wonder how long it will take for someone to call you a racist and a hater now for simply stating your honest and fair opinion?
  • Hawkeye Tee Quake 2013/02/28 23:20:00
    Hawkeye
    +1
    ROFLMAO..

    You mean call me a racist for doing that AGAIN...
  • santa6642 2013/02/28 21:05:56
    santa6642
    +3
    In plain english it's a farce put up by the obamanation.
  • gunner 2013/02/28 19:37:13
    gunner
    +1
    Whew. Golly, I was so worried we might be in real trouble. The Mr. Alex Jones has some researched articles on this and other topics. Sometimes the shallowness of our benevolent leaders is just silly.
  • drdos1943 2013/02/28 18:50:20
    drdos1943
    +5
    Sequestration will do nothing except decrease the increase in the out-of-control spending of Congress and the Obama administration. Hopefully, it will be a first start of many to come in order to save this country from bankruptcy.
  • gimini210 2013/02/28 17:14:05
    gimini210
    +6
    I really am tired of Obama creating a mess, then crying about it as he makes a list of all the dire things that will happen if he doesn't get his way to spend as much as he desires without any guide lines. If any household or business did that it would be the end of both. Both would lose everything and sink. But we have a bunch of idiots in our country who think the government can just keep spending and nothing will happen. What we do hear is if they can't keep spending then the feds have to release illegals back into our population, we will have meat shortages, children wont get their shots, or we all might just up and die. God forbid that it is the very opposite of what they claim if we do not put a halt to the spending. The truth is if the feds do not stop spending we will have shortages, we will see people die, and we will face a disaster. The dollar will be nothing but toilet paper and our nation will be in ruins. Name any company or person who can spend way above their means and not lose it all? Name any company that can rob millions and not pay the price in the end?
  • Scout 2013/02/28 16:43:42
    Scout
    +3
    So true...we should be cutting 10 times that much.
  • HOMBRE 2013/02/28 16:11:52
    HOMBRE
    +4
    President Obama's massive and voluble campaign against the sequester has a deep political motivation that is not apparent on the surface. He is engaging in a battle he knows he'll lose. Republicans are not going to budge on agreeing to tax hikes to avoid the sequester's spending cuts, and Democrats won't opt for entitlement cuts to avoid it, either. So why is he fighting so hard when he has no leverage and battling a measure that will take effect on March 1 if Congress does nothing -- something it does rather well?
    Here's the answer: He knows the economy is tanking. He realizes that we are headed for a double-dip recession. He expects unemployment to soar. He understands that his almost $300 billion in tax increases this year will drive us into recession. So he needs an out.
  • Tee Quake HOMBRE 2013/02/28 23:12:48 (edited)
    Tee Quake
    +3
    One thing is clear about Obama, he LIES. He has yet to tell this country what his real intention is/was and he never will (except maybe in an autobiography after he's long gone from office). WHY? Because he is a communist and believes rich white people got control of the United States and became rich unfairly, on the backs of minorities. He thinks he is going to fix this perceived inequity. He is finding he cannot maintain the lie and rule like a president who actually loves the United States; so now he is in real trouble and so is everyone supporting him. One thing is certain, politicians are notoriously fickle, when they finally realize Obama's run is over, they will turn on him faster than you can say Jack Robinson. Hopefully, the good American people will remember who supported Obama and the job the LSM did on you and me in Obama's support. Hopefully they will ALL lose their jobs, too, when Obama finally crashes and burns. crash and burn gifs
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2013/02/28 12:40:21 (edited)
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +4
    TRUE ----



    1. The Cuts Are Tiny!

    2. Spending is Still Going Up!

    3. The Pentagon Won't Starve!

    4. You Can't Cut Nonexistent Programs!

    5. It Was All Obama's Idea!


    .
  • Turn the Tide 2013/02/28 11:55:55
    Turn the Tide
    +4
    Who cares? It's not enough money to worry about unless President Pied Piper B.O. targets the cuts to what is most critical to the Private Sector.

    Tue American Freedom is NOT Free.

    True American Freedom is earned.

    PRESIDENT PIED PIPER B.O. IS PISSED SINCE HIS POWER COMES FROM CREATING AND SPREADING RACISM FROM CAPITALISM FOR HIS MASSIVE SO CALLED FREE SERVICES AND FROM HANDING OUT THE COLLECTION PLATE TO TAXPAYERS WHO DO NOT WISH TO DONATE TO B.O.'s RELIGIOUS POLITICAL SECT. SO THE NATIONAL DEBT KEEPS INFLATING LIKE A BALLOON AND REAL TAXPAYERS DON'T WANT TO DONATE TO B.O.'s CAUSE

    ALSO, PRESIDENT PIED PIPER B.O. IS PISSED BECAUSE CONGRESS WAS ELECTED TO MAKE SURE THE NATIONAL DEBT BALLOON DOESN'T POP AND CAUSE ECONOMIC HELL.
  • redhorse29 2013/02/28 08:24:37
    redhorse29
    +4
    You may be correct but how can the smartest man in the world be wrong? Our president won the Nobel Prize for doing nothing and is absolutely dedicated to bankrupting the nation and converting it into a liberal progressive elitist socialist nanny state.
  • Cliff 2013/02/28 06:31:42
    Cliff
    +4
    Obama proposed the idea because he made the calculation that the Republicans could not tolerate reduction in military spending. He was wrong. Now he is trying to escape the consequences by ginning up fear and shift the blame for all the horrible things about to happen to Republicans. There will be starving children, old people dying, people losing their jobs, cutting down the police force, cutbacks in firefighters, teachers losing their jobs, planes not flying, garbage not being picked up, soldiers with no ammo, not enough doctors. Let the witch hunts begin! Let the crocodile tears flow!
  • nonnonsenseguy 2013/02/28 06:26:05
    nonnonsenseguy
    +6
    Let it happen. The gov is too damn big and wasteful to begin with.
  • sbtbill nonnons... 2013/02/28 07:25:23
    sbtbill
    +1
    Don't cry if your job is one that goes.
  • Bouncer sbtbill 2013/02/28 16:03:00 (edited)
    Bouncer
    +4
    The White House has argued that the March 1 sequester of federal spending — a cut of approximately 5 percent from the domestic-spending programs covered by the sequester requirement, along with 8 percent cuts to defense programs — will bring about the most dire of consequences. According to the president, “this meat-cleaver approach . . . will jeopardize our military readiness [and] eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.”

    Maybe more alarmingly, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget issued a press release earlier this month claiming that the cuts in federal spending “could” force reductions in food inspections, which “could” lead to outbreaks of more food-borne bacteria, such as E. coli. Administration officials and their allies are making similarly alarming claims regarding what “could” happen to workplace safety, law enforcement, and education.


    It seems clear that the administration has the capacity to make sequestration’s impact excessively unpleasant, and these statements could make one wonder whether the administration is determined to do so. But does a sequester have to be disastrous? Could the White House wield the scheduled cuts in such a way as to minimize the impact felt by the American people? Our experience inside...

















    The White House has argued that the March 1 sequester of federal spending — a cut of approximately 5 percent from the domestic-spending programs covered by the sequester requirement, along with 8 percent cuts to defense programs — will bring about the most dire of consequences. According to the president, “this meat-cleaver approach . . . will jeopardize our military readiness [and] eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.”

    Maybe more alarmingly, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget issued a press release earlier this month claiming that the cuts in federal spending “could” force reductions in food inspections, which “could” lead to outbreaks of more food-borne bacteria, such as E. coli. Administration officials and their allies are making similarly alarming claims regarding what “could” happen to workplace safety, law enforcement, and education.


    It seems clear that the administration has the capacity to make sequestration’s impact excessively unpleasant, and these statements could make one wonder whether the administration is determined to do so. But does a sequester have to be disastrous? Could the White House wield the scheduled cuts in such a way as to minimize the impact felt by the American people? Our experience inside the executive branch suggests that this is indeed the case: The administration could have prepared for the sequester in ways that would steer cuts toward less sensitive programs and activities. In fact, it still has the capacity to adjust some, although certainly not all, of the ways in which the sequester is applied.

    Let’s start with the big picture. The total amount of the sequester’s cuts — $85 billion in 2013 — is just 2.4 percent of a $3.6 trillion budget. Even with the cuts, total spending in 2013 will exceed what was spent in 2012. Indeed, federal spending has been roughly $600 billion higher during the last four years than it was in 2008, and the sequester will hardly offset that overall increase. The size of the sequester barely exceeds the $80 billion or so of new spending that was recently appropriated for Hurricane Sandy relief.

    The administration argues that the impact of the cuts will be magnified because we are already five months into the fiscal year, so instead of a 5 percent cut in domestic accounts over a full year, agencies and departments will have to cut 9 percent over the final seven months of the year.

    This is indeed a problem, but it is a problem of the White House’s making. All of Washington has known for a year and a half that there was a good chance the sequester would be implemented in early 2013. The president even publicly threatened to veto attempts to undo it. And yet the administration apparently prevented federal agencies from preparing for it. Last July, the OMB sent a memorandum to the agencies instructing them to proceed with “normal spending and operations” in 2013 because there was plenty of time to avoid the sequester. The budget office could have told senior managers to begin contingency planning for reduced budgets. Instead, they insisted there would be no cuts, and, while some federal officials appear to have prepared prudently anyway, other federal officials overspent early in the year, making the sequester’s effects more severe.

    In explaining those effects, the administration points out, correctly, that the law requires across-the-board cuts of all non-exempt budget accounts. As stated in the law, the cuts are to be applied uniformly to all “programs, projects and activities within a budget account,” and what constitutes a “budget account” as well as “programs, projects, and activities” is supposed to be found in the appropriations acts passed by Congress and their accompanying reports. But these acts and reports leave far more to administrative interpretation and discretion than the president’s remarks and OMB press releases would suggest.

    In nearly all agencies, within various budget accounts, it is possible to impose deeper cuts on administrative functions and non-essential grant-making while leaving front-line service provision intact. For instance, in the Food and Drug Administration, the budget account for food safety includes both direct public-health-protection efforts and administrative functions. A responsible step would be to order agencies to tilt the cuts toward non-essential spending within budget accounts as much as possible.

    Moreover, Congress generally provides agencies with the ability to transfer some amount of funds between appropriated accounts. Those authorities are not rescinded by the sequester, so the administration also has the ability to move funding from less sensitive to more sensitive accounts if it chooses to do so. For instance, in HHS, the law allows the secretary to transfer up to 1 percent of total appropriated funds, or about $750 million, among accounts. Those funds could be used to eliminate many short-term service problems. Congress might also consider expanding such transfer authority during this fiscal year to allow the administration to move even larger sums to sensitive accounts.

    The sequester is most worrisome for its effects on national security. House Republicans were right to propose and pass alternative cuts last year for this reason, although the Senate has failed to take them up. But even here, there are administrative options for mitigating the sequester’s impact. Specifically, Republicans should push for maximum flexibility for moving the cuts within the Department of Defense to subaccounts that can be replenished later, such as long-term equipment upgrades, and wherever possible away from operations subaccounts that are directly related to short-term readiness.

    In dealing with the sequester, the administration appears to favor the “Washington Monument” strategy — making all cuts as painful and prominent as possible for maximum political leverage. This is a reprise of the playbook used to great effect by President Bill Clinton against Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. But the 1990s showdown was a confrontation over a full government shutdown. When the sequester hits next month, the federal government will continue full operations and, with some creativity, could do so with little discernible drop in public services.

    In the hands of a president committed to responsible deficit reduction, sequestration could be a powerful tool for good. The sequester that the president and his team proposed is a blunt instrument that is far less desirable than sensibly targeted cuts, but that is no reason to administer it irresponsibly.
    (more)
  • sbtbill Bouncer 2013/02/28 18:17:34
    sbtbill
    +1
    "Deficit reduction" in Greece, Spain, Italy, and England has resulted in serious recessions. There is no reason to expect a different result in the US. "Deficit reduction" in Greece, Spain, Italy, and England has not solved the deficit problem. In fact the harder it has been pushed the worse that problem seems to get. I'd like to have good figures on this but I just haven't seen much. What I have seen is that everybody says nothing is getting better, until the deficit cutters are kicked out.

    I not you use the entire federal budget as a divisor. This is wrong because there are large sections of the federal budget that are exempt.

    I experienced the shut down in the 90's it was not good. I expect we will see something worse this time. Most responsible business journals I follow expect that. I hope they and I are wrong and you are right but I would be fool not to expect a recession caused by the sequester.
  • drdos1943 sbtbill 2013/02/28 18:42:27 (edited)
    drdos1943
    +3
    There is only one word to describe your reply: "HOGWASH." ... and you are intelligent and should know.... otherwise you have been brainwashed beyond the realm of credulity.

    Sequestration will do nothing except decrease the increase in the out-of-control spending of Congress and the Obama administration. Hopefully, it will be a first start of many to come in order to save this country from bankruptcy.
  • sbtbill drdos1943 2013/02/28 19:48:39
    sbtbill
    +1
    Then your also saying a large number of business economists are spouting "hogwash". Your also probably saying that the memo from Walwart about declining sales because of the end of the FICA tax holiday and high gas prices is "Hogwash". Money is money and a job is a job. The economy is going to loose both of these because of the sequester. It is only reasonable to expect that higher unemployment and less money will mean lower profits. Those things add up to a renewed recession at a time when we never really got out of the 2007-2009 one. The sequester was a bad idea at the start and supporting it now is not only a bad idea it is a dangerous one.
  • drdos1943 sbtbill 2013/02/28 20:36:09 (edited)
    drdos1943
    +1
    Yes, I am saying so.... and if I am wrong and you are right , the results may be even better when the American voter ( as Old Salt says ) kicks out all the idiots in Washington. This might be just the thing to "wake the sleeping tiger."
  • Hawkeye drdos1943 2013/02/28 21:41:37
    Hawkeye
    +2
    You have 30 years of HIGH spending in Europe and the left blames the attempts to STEM this as the reasons for the problems..

    THIS is the "Chicken or the Egg" scenario.. They wouldn't have felt it necessary to HAVE austerity IF the recession problem hadn't come FIRST..
  • drdos1943 Hawkeye 2013/03/01 13:13:57 (edited)
    drdos1943
    +1
    There are always recessions that occur. The only countries in Europe that are not in trouble are some of the Scandinavian countries. Why? Relatively wealthy, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY (never any deficit spending), small populations, and a skilled working capital with a good work ethic.

    Taxes are high, but every penny (or whatever) of their taxes is accountable... in other words... no $500 hammers... and if anyone in government ever bought $500 hammers (etc.), it would be known by all, and there would be prison sentences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/27 14:56:52

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals