Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I love the sequester for the military cuts - but here is the rest of the story

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 21, 2013, 7:18 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By Matt Vasilogambros - National Journal
President Obama has been warning that deep cuts triggered by sequestration could be devastating for the military and other government programs. But many Republicans, determined to see a reduction in federal spending, show no sign of wanting to cut a deal with the president to avoid the sequester.

Here are some of the programs that would be pared as part of the sequester, according to a report by the
White House Office of Management and Budget:

Air Travel: An estimated $619 million would be cut from the operations and facilities and equipment accounts of the Federal Aviation Administration. This could mean major flight delays and an economic hit on the millions of people who depend on air travel every day.

$483 million cut from the FAA operations budget, forcing all FAA employees to be furloughed for 11 days. On any given day, that could mean that 10 percent of the FAA’s 40,000 employees could be on furlough, resulting in longer delays, reduced air-traffic control, and losses in tourism. There will also be a hiring freeze.
$136 million cut from the FAA’s facilities and equipment account, which helps maintain and modernize the air-traffic control infrastructure.
Transportation Security Administration screeners would receive a seven-day furlough.

National Parks: In order to cut 5 percent of its budget, the National Park Service would have to slash $110 million. The NPS has already begun to plan for sequestration by cutting park hours and visitor services in some of the nation’s leading national parks—from Yosemite to the Great Smokey Mountains.

The Pentagon: Most of the 800,000 civilian employees of the Defense Department would get unpaid leave, called a furlough,for up to 22 days, saving the Pentagon between $4 billion and $5 billion through the rest of the fiscal year.
TRICARE, which provides health care for active and retired military personnel and their dependents, would get cut by $3 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Health Services: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius outlined the significant impact to the nation’s health services if sequestration goes into effect: $350 million cut from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
109,000 fewer people in need of critical treatment might not get admitted to inpatient facilities.
91,000 fewer people would receive substance-abuse treatment.
30,000 children would go without child-care services.
373,000 seriously ill adults and emotionally disturbed children would not receive treatment.
4 million fewer meals would get delivered to seniors' homes.
424,000 fewer HIV tests would be administered.
540,000 fewer doses of vaccines would be available for the flu, hepatitis, and measles, among other diseases.
$1.6 billion cut for medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
$120 million cut in federal support for health centers, which could lead to 900,000 fewer patients served.
$168 million cut in embassy security.

Humanitarian Aid: In his first major speech as secretary of State, John Kerry said the budget battles in Washington could hurt the U. S. effort to provide economic and political aid across the world. Saying the State Department would have to cut $2.6 billion for this fiscal year. $200 million in global humanitarian assistance, citing American efforts in Syria, the Horn of Africa, and the Sahel.
$400 million in global health funding that fights AIDS and child hunger.
$500 million in security-assistance accounts, which goes toward conflict prevention.
$70 million in operations expenses for USAID.

Education: If sequestration goes into effect, $406 million would get cut in Head Start programs, resulting in 70,000 children losing access to the service. That would lead to the layoffs of 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and staff who work in the program.

Disaster Relief: The Federal Emergency Management Agency would receive a $1 billion cut.

Additional Cuts: The National Science Foundation ($375 million), the Library of Congress, NASA ($950 million), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Patent and Trademark office would also have their budgets cut.

76 Comments

76 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Added some big numbers below because not sure people really know what we are looking at in the above figures.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Defense Vendor Payments 1998 = $95.6 Billion
Defense Vendor Payments 2011 = $394 Billion

DOD Federal Outlays 1998 = $256 Billion
DOD Federal Outlays 2011 = $680 Billion

Department of Education outlays 1998 = $43.7 Billion
Department of Education outlays 2011 = $245.6 Billion (500% increase)

Federal Highway Administration 1998 = $19 Billion
Federal Highway Administration 2011 = $44.8 Billion

Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 1998 = $37.7 Billion
Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 2011 = $101.9 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 1998 = $ 13.7 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 2011 = $ 95.7 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 1998 = $20 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 2011 = $77.6 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 1998 = $33 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 2011 = $102 Billion

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 1998 = $13 Billion
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 2011 = $18.9 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 1998 = $32.5 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 2011 = $54 Billion

Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1998 = $23.4 Billion
Unemployment Insurance Benefits 2011 = $117 Billion

Medicare 1998 = $210 Billion
Medicare 2011 = $552 Billion (no price controls)
Medicaid 1998 = $ 100 Billion
Medicaid 2011 = $ 269 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 1998 = $380 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 2011 = $1.095 Trillion

Federal Salaries (EFT) 1998 = $87.5 Billion
Federal Salaries (EFT) 2011 = $178.4 Billion

https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=11093001.pdf

How is the US Education System doing with all this extra money? Where is all the money going? Could be some public or private Exectutive is getting your federal taxdollars since many schools have no heat or decent conditions.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

All this and the president is still going to get paid the same!?!?!?! OUTRAGE!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The president's salary is set by congress - did your senator & congressman reply to your letter that they should cut his salary
or does it make you feel better to rant here?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Never been responded to by an elected official..... :(

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I have, many times - including Biden & Obama & Gillibrand & Lowey

[-] -3 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

No doubt that is true. Considering you work for them.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████

[-] -3 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

And considering I've been on this site since the beginning and seen your lies.... You really think that screaming troll will cover your crimes?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

All political parties and all politicians are equally as bad.........

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Government by freakout. If only there were some leadership in DC who could have solved this thing a long time ago instead of passing the buck over to "super committees" and pushing deadlines back. Whatever happened to Democrats like Truman.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I understand your point, I am very angry that Reid did not chuck the filibuster. but ALL of the Ds in the Senate & House CANNOT overrule the House Rs
THAT is what we in OWS should be striving for
replace the 1% reps with 99% reps

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Reid was too busy accusing candidates of not paying their taxes, because, you know, Dems are very classy and never lie. No wonder you follow them blindly.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Who did not pay their taxes? And how do you know they did?

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

That Mormon guy everyone was so freaked out about. Remember that secret Mormon cabal that was going to take over America? Everyone was freaking out about Mormons? Anyway, Reid (a Mormon but nobody cares about them anymore) said he had lock solid sources that the guy didn't pay taxes. Nothing came of it, but a lot of party hacks (e.g., bensdad) ran with it.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

OVER 10 YEARS!!!! And the only medicare cuts would be to providers. Good God, I better dig my bunker and prepare for the march 27 apocolypse!!! If you guys ran the country (wait, you do!), then the USA would be fucked.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Remove DC 100% from the education process. They want dumb consumers. Perhaps at another time we could bring them back into the fold, but at this time I think we need to realize what we are dealing with.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

What do you mean remove DC
end pell grants?
fire every school teacher hired by the federal government?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

What would happen if DC didnt guarantee every student loan with the tax payers money?

These schools know that theres no way for these kids to ever pay back these loans. They are simply going to subsidize them, because thats what they were promised.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Anyone who can pass entrance tests should go to college free
A college educated citizen is much more productive, competitive in the world - and pays more taxes
I would guess that a free public university system would cut the Harvard / Yale costs in half

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A good portion of high school has become a joke, and the first two years of college are nothing more than repeating high school stuff.

Theres also a chance that with 100% of the population going to school, it will become even less of an advantage, and hence making Ivy league schools that much more valuable. We wouldnt know until we tried it.

What percentage of college degrees right now do you think could be taught mostly in high school?

[-] -2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

BS. Nothing is free. All you do is drive up the cost of education because the school administration figures out it can charge whatever it wants and the tax payer will pay for it without end. That's why costs are so high. Anything the gubment subsidizes increases the cost because demand is limitless.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

College is tuition free in:
* Argentina * Cuba * Brazil * Denmark * Finland * France * Germany * Greece * Italy * Malta * Mauritius * Morocco * Norway * Saudi Arabia * Scotland * Spain * Sri Lanka * Trinidad and Tobago * Barbados * Kenya * Peru

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Looks like Sweden is also free tuition. It changed in 2010 to charge for international students....

http://www.afterschoolafrica.com/2010/05/list-of-tuition-free-universities-in.html

I wonder if I could study some place for free. Peru and Sri Lanka seem afordable.

[-] -2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

Who cares? Have you seen Greece, Argentina and Spain lately? The rioting, the high unemployment, people going broke and people losing their life savings because of stupid economic policy like yours? Suggest you inform yourself.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=argentina+spain+greece+economic+collapse

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

They imposed austerity, We support stimulus. And I assure you WE are not any of those tiny countries. Quite the opposite.

Those who spew the fear mongering "we're gonna end up like greece!!!!" are just trying to get us to cut pgms that help the 99%.

[-] -1 points by shadows (-39) 1 year ago

'Stimlus",code for more taxes more spending, More pork.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Spending on job creation to grow the economy. Yes of course. we have an unemployment crises.

[-] -2 points by shadows (-39) 1 year ago

creating jobs is not the purpose of govt.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

It better become the purpose right quick or the economically disadvantaged are gonna rise up and threatened those fat lazy 1%'rs the govt caters to.

LOL

[-] -2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

They didn't have a choice. They were broke and no one would give them anymore money unless they imposed austerity.

We are a big country with similar circumstances.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Except we are the #1 economy and the whole planet is lending us money because we are still seen as the safest place/lowest risk for investment.

We are NOTHING like those tiny countries. Stop spread inaccurate fear!!

[-] -1 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

The planet is no longer lending us money like they used to. In fact, that's almost come to a halt. They're refinancing long term treasuries into short term treasuries and the federal reserve is now printing $85 Billion a month out of thin air (QE).

It's WHY you fools are complaining about needing more minimum wage raises. Because there's heavy inflation and YOU can't keep up. That's what democrat economic policies bring you. Inflation. Wake up! Learn what's going on instead of walking about like a zombie spouting talking points.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The American dollar is still the safest/low risk destination for all money. German bonds are 2nd. You are mistaken. If that ends we ARE in trouble.

But it ain't ended, and it ain't gonna.

Inflation has been historically low for years. Min wage must be raised because of 40 years of unaddressed high inflation. Not the low inflation of recent years.

[-] -1 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

If there's "unaddressed high inflation" why is there high inflation?

Explain to me what causes it in your own words.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Corp 1% Shill!

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Corp 1% oligarch greed, selfishness and corruption causes inflation.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

"unadressed high inflation" referes to the high inflation over the last 40 years when the minimum wage was allowed to fall behind.

But the last few years inflation has been between 1- 4%.

[-] -1 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

what CAUSES it in your own words

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You care - you claimed "nothing is free"
did you forget?

[-] -2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

It's not free. Look at their economic circumstances. THAT is the price. Do you remember what happened to the Soviet Union after they fell? Seen Cuba lately? How about North Korea?

Guess what. In North Korea, everyone has healthcare and education and it's free!

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Unrelated, false equivalency.

Next!!

[-] -2 points by whaddyathink (-89) from Millville, NJ 1 year ago

Mommy's calling you fer lunch. Go.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Pro Austerity CorpoRAT SHILL!!

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

If we can't cut 2.5% from government spending we have a hugh problem in this country.

Across the board cuts were voted on - Obama knew it and he signed for it. Now he is making it sound like its going to be "the end of the world" "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". A wolf is coming, a wolf is coming".

Get over it - what a lot of the younger generation don't understand is that this country will be handed over to them in the next 20 years or so.

It's up to you whiners to get you act together and start working towards getting this government under control

If you don't want to do that, then keep complaining about government cuts and in 20 or so years tell eveyone how well off you are.

My feeling is "let it happen" - it's a start - 80 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the government spending.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

SPECIFICALLY- which of the above cuts do you approve of & how would you raise the rest $80B.
We should tax the rich and corps like we did after WW2.
That would easily solve the problem.
Austerity worked so well i n Europe - right?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey it's not about which cuts I approve it's about being able to cut 2.5% from government spending and not having everyone make it sound like "the end of the world is coming".

Why don't you call Obama he had the final say and didn't say shit.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Obama did not have a "final" say - R & D negotiated a deal together
SPECIFICALLY - who said the "end of the world is coming"?
Do you have any children in Headstart?
Do you know anyone with AIDS?
Do you know anyone who needs FEMA aid?
This is not about theory - it is about REAL people who will be hurt - and they are mostly the 99%
OR - you don't care about them

[-] -2 points by Narley (-628) 1 year ago

One of the best posts I've read in a whie.Thanks!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Any cuts to your mercenary force?

Blackwater USA is a private military company and security firm founded in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark. It is based in the U.S. state of North Carolina, where it operates a tactical training facility that it claims is the world's largest. The company trains more than 40,000 people a year, from all the military services and a variety of other agencies. The company markets itself as being "The most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world". At least 90% of its revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.

http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=210

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Blackwater WAS owned by Eric Prince I believe he sold it and it is now called Xe - pronounced Zee.

There will be huge military cuts
Hopefully to those kinds of contractors - that are used because we have to find new ways to funnel money to the corps & the absurd weapons contracts


I posted this article when I found it to reply to someone who posted
"I dont care about the sequester - it will cut the military & I don't care about the country - I care about me" { not exactly his words }

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I think the public needs to demand answers from the President and Harry Reid and the little elves Rob Nabors and Jack Lew who put this piece of crap together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The answer is the Pres. proposal. Cuts and revenues at a 2:1 ratio. It's simple.

The Senate Dems have a bill to avoid the sequester.

There is no broad based support for the Repub position of 100% cuts, zero revenues. It's only the sequester that achieves their goal.

If the sequester happens, the Repubs own it. It's their goal. 100% spending cuts.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Read below-you're understanding of history is flawed.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

You're flawed. The plan that the WH wanted included revenue. See below.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What plan? Name the plan. Hint-it's not called "sequester", because the sequester:

"came from White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than the the debt ceiling increase by a future date. The intent was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed."

Woodward, Bob. The Price of Politics Simon and Schuster, 2012. Page 215

(Above book written with the full cooperation of the White House and US Congress)

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

So the sequester, proposed by the White House, helps the Republicans achieve their goals? Why would Democrats propose and vote for something that helps the Republicans? Seems rather odd.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

No. The original sequester proposal was not 100% cuts. The original sequester proposal was mix of revenue and cuts.

The Repubs would not agree to the revenues. The Repubs swapped out the revenue piece for additional cuts in defense.

Actually, they first wanted deep cuts to the social safety net naturally. But the Dems successfully countered, with, if you- Repubs- want more cuts, the cuts will need to be defense. It was actually a surprise to the Dems that the Repubs agreed to defense cuts. The Dems thought that if they pushed for more defense cuts that the Repubs would back off and agree to some revenue increase mix. But no. Not even the Defense Department is as important as protecting the wealthy from losing any of their extravagant tax advantages.

The Repubs turned it into 100% cuts. That is their goal for deficit reduction. It doesn't even come close to public opinion. Which supports both revenue and spending cuts.

Repubs own the 100% cuts. Repubs will own the economic repercussions.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It appears that a refresher course from Politifact is necessary.-

"But in the summer of 2011, House Republicans insisted that actual spending cuts go along with an increase to the debt limit. House Speaker John Boehner led negotiations with the Obama White House, and at first the two sides seemed to be moving toward a wide-ranging overhaul of the federal budget, referred to in the media as a "grand bargain."

The closed-door negotiations fell apart, though, and since then journalists have been sorting through a lot of finger-pointing. Some blame Boehner for being unable to deliver his own Republicans on a deal, thanks to tea party opposition to any new taxes. Others blame Obama for his inexperience, for not cultivating relationships with congressional Republicans and for tactical mistakes at negotiating. Some blame both sides.

At any rate, Republicans and Democrats came to a less ambitious agreement to raise the debt limit through the Budget Control Act of 2011. The law found approximately $1.2 trillion in budget cuts spread over 10 years. But it also directed Congress to find another $1.2 trillion through a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which came to be known as "the super-committee."

The super-committee was supposed to meet and agree on a deficit reduction package by Nov. 23, 2011. Their proposal -- which could include tax increases, spending reductions or both -- would then get a filibuster-proof, up-or-down vote in Congress.

As an incentive to the super-committee, the law included an unusual kind of budget threat: If the super-committee couldn’t agree on a package, or if Congress voted it down, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would go into effect, with half of those cuts hitting defense. These automatic cuts are referred to as "sequestration."

A story in USA Today referred to sequestration as "the trigger mechanism on a budget bomb."

Lo and behold, the super-committee didn’t agree on a deficit reduction package, so Congress never voted on it. Sequestration is now set to take effect with the 2013 budget."


Did you get that? The sequester was PART of the BCA of 2011-designed to force the Super Committee to take care of this problem. It's a trigger within that proposal-NOT an actual proposal itself.

The President and the Democrats ALSO signed the BCA 2011 into law themselves just like Republicans. AND then on November 21, 2011 the President said he would veto ANY effort to change the spending cuts both in defense AND domestic spending.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise – not turn off the pressure.”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-vowed-to-use-veto-to-keep-sequester#.USkpzfKe7BQ

That's a link to the video of him saying it in case you forgot. Seems like you ALSO forgot this: (from the above article)

"Republicans DID agree to a tax increase. (The first time they have done so in more than twenty years.) And Obama still refuses to budge.

In fact, Obama and the news media now pretend that the $600 billion dollar tax increase (which is half the sequester cuts) never happened."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-push-tax-revenue-article-1.1267642#ixzz2Ll3M9bSt

"GOP leaders say the president got the tax increases he wanted at the beginning of the year when Congress agreed to raise taxes on family income above $450,000 a year."

The President's team OWNS the sequester trigger. They designed it, they included it IN a bipartisan bill called the Budget Control Act. Every single person who signed that damn thing OWNS it.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Initially, the White House plan was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts' - as part of the sequester.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/who-is-responsible-for-the-looming-sequester-spending-cuts/2013/02/10/a4f39dfe-73b4-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_blog.html

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I see you went back and edited your previous post.

From the article/link you posted:

"In sum, during the debt-ceiling showdown, the White House originally proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with White House aide Gene Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester.” Initially, the White House plan was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.

But once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that had only spending cuts and sold Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on the idea. The White House put together the plan for sequester, using language from a congressional law approved 25 years ago. "

I repeat-the White House came up with the sequestration idea. You've only pointed out that they proposed it, then modified it and sold it to the Democrat Majority Leader, who then agreed to it. It didn't HAVE to be included in ANY negotiation. And now it's biting them in the ass. I've already said that "every single person who signed that damn thing OWNS it", including the Republicans who voted for it.

Now, you've admitted that the Republicans didn't force "more cuts" to the domestic budget-than the ones the DEMOCRATS agreed to. Even you can admit that is a GOOD thing right? Especially if you are against war and the military etc. This should be the greatest thing since sliced bread to you!

Except that you'd have to admit that the Republicans took one for the home team and allowed deeper cuts to the defense department-their pet project-rather than demanding more cuts to the social security net. And that the Democrats drove through a sequestration trigger even though future tax increases were off the table and it meant that deep domestic cuts were on it. And then the President threatened to veto ANY effort to get rid of them.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'I see you went back and edited your previous post' - don't know what you're talking about.

Why are you copying and pasting from the article that I gave to you? I read it. I'm the one that gave it to you.

'It didn't HAVE to be included in ANY negotiation' - sure. So the Repubs could let the country burn rather than raise the debt limit in 2011? You mean that kind of 'It didn't HAVE to be included in ANY negotiation' ? That certainly would have accomplished their goal of reducing the deficit through 100% cuts. Just let the country burn.

'the Republicans didn't force "more cuts"' - what part of, 'Initially, the White House plan was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts', do you not understand? This is exactly what I said to begin with. The WH initial proposal included a mix of revenues and cuts. Boehner could not get Repubs to agree to any plan that included revenues. So yes it was the Repubs that forced more cuts.

'You've only pointed out that they proposed it' - I pointed out that the WH initial proposal was the sequester include both revenues and cuts. Which is 100% accurate.

The Repubs own the 100% cuts. Because Boehner couldn't get his side to agree to revenues being included. But yeah, Reid had to sell the Dems on 100% cuts. Because the Repubs wouldn't agree to revenues. In what world would Dems ever want 100% cuts and no revenues? Are you kidding me? What world are you living in? The alternative was the Repubs were going to let the country burn over the debt ceiling.

'Even you can admit that is a GOOD thing right? ' - no I'm not for spending cuts at all. Interest rates are at record lows. TBill yields are freaking negative. People are paying us to buy our debt. So much for the sky is falling our interest rates will skyrocket and we're going to be Greece bullshit from the right wing fuckshitup economists eh? We should should take advantage of the low rates and borrow like crazy and provide stimulus to the economy that would have the short term benefit of providing jobs, reducing unemployment, and long term benefit of investments in our country. With interest rates as low as they are we should borrow all day long. When ROI exceeds the cost of capital you borrow all day long. Cost of capital is fucking negative! People are paying us to invest in our debt. The yeilds are fucking negative! Jeesuz.

The sequester should be the greatest thing for you. Knuckle dragging tea party libertarians who want to see government flushed down the drain. This is your little wet dream come true to see government spending bludgeoned by the sequester, not mine. Deficit reduction is your excuse to end government. Why on earth should Dems be happy about this? We don't hate on government. That would be the libertarians. Righ wing anarchists who believe in Ayn Rands excuses for greed and selfish self-centered self-interest because they've read some of her third rate hack fiction and now want to base public policy on it. An intellectually juvenile and morally bankrupt philosphy that the Koch Bros spoon feed you in order to push their right wing anarchist agenda so they can further enrich themselves. That's your tea party deal, not mine.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

We're clearly talking past each other, which is pointless.

I'm neither a tea party member nor a libertarian, nor do I wish to see the government flushed down the drain. I've never heard any normal person from either of those groups say they want to destroy or eliminate the US government, but apparently you have. I've also heard many Democrats voice concern over our deficit and national debt and agree that deficit reduction is a responsible thing to do. Even they know that reducing out debt wouldn't "end the government".

I also have never read Ayn Rand, nor do I have any interest in the "Koch Bros" so you can drop the dramatic paranoia.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'I'm neither a tea party member nor a libertarian' - The tea party is libertarian. The tea party was shit out of the Koch brothers ass. Libertarians. Then they spread their shit all over. The Republican economic platform is libertarian now. There is no such thing as Conservative economics/fiscal policy anymore. It's dead. Reagan beat the crap out of it, Bush 2 killed it, and the Koch Bros.Party replaced it with their libertarian right wing economic anarchy.

You're libertarian now. You need a fucking memo to tell you this? They're not going to send you a memo. Because guess what. If the Republican party actually told 'normal' people that their economic platform is libertarian now, it would repel people. So the Republican Party has decided to forgo the memo. Look at their policies. When people actually see libertarian economic policy/legislation - it repels them. ie: the vast majority of people do not support 100% cuts to address the deficit. So no. They are not going to send you a memo. It would repel people.

'nor do I wish to see the government flushed down the drain' - shut the front door! All Norquist lovers want to see government flushed down the drain.

'I've never heard any normal person from either of those groups say they want to destroy or eliminate the US government' - It's sad how people support things that they don't even understand. It's the foundation of libertarian principle. That government be elimininated. Except for the role of enforcing property rights. What the hell do you think libertarianism is if it's not to end government? That's the whole idea. Maybe you should have a better understanding of the things you are supporting.

The libertarians don't care about about deficit reduction for the sake of deficit reduction. Libertarians only care about defict reduction because it helps further their agenda of ending government. You know how you can tell. Because they lie like shit. Remember how they told people we would be in economic collapse because interest rates would skyrocket, and government spending needed to be drastically reduced. And House Republicans unanimously voted for the Paul Ryan budget which was so cartoonishly evil in spending cuts that focus groups didn't even believe it was a real budget. Their actual legislation/policies repels people.

If they actually told people the plan was to end government - it would repel people. Instead they come up with excuses - like interest rates skyrocketing - in order to defund government. Ending government is the foundation of their philosophy. They don't have to say it. They can't say it. It would repel people. You're not going to get a memo about it.

Dems care about deficit reduction for the sake of deficit reduction. Not for the sake of ending government. We believe in deficit reduction - but we don't believe in ending government as we know it to get there. Like the libertarians.

If you support Republican economic policies - you're a libertarian now. It's beyond silly to claim that you're not.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

no one wants the government paying taxes to private interest

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I see you chose not to drop the dramatic paranoia. And now you've added the arrogant assumption that all people of any label YOU decide to attach to them all think or believe or act the same way or want the same things. Nice. Very. Nice.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

If you support right wing economics - you're supporting libertarianism. Own it. If you're a traditional fiscal conservative. Too bad. It's dead. It's not my fault libertarians took over your party.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17793) 1 year ago

You walk like duck, talk like a duck, squawk like a duck and squat like a duck and claim you are not a duck.

Inquiring minds want to know just what you think you are then?

Personally? I'm still leaning towards you being a duck.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Tell me you dont remember when the Rs passed this, boner stated that he got 98% of what he wanted.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The White House proposed it, and yes the R's passed it along with the D's. It was a political maneuver that should never have been on the table-not by either party if they actually cared about the American people. And now both parties are trying to call the others bluff. Both parties are corrupt to the core.

[+] -5 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

sequester was obamas plan, now he's against it.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

why did Obama create it?

[+] -4 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

he got his debt ceiling increase and more money to spend because of sequestration and now he wants to back out of it. all the "bad" things that he says will happen , he owns.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

how much money did Obama's debt ceiling increase ADD to America's debt?

[+] -4 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Flip flopper.