Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    An interesting question...and my opinion may surprise people on both sides of the aisle. ( depending on how you view my political leanings).

    I am becoming of the opinion that we should just let the cuts happen. To my friends on the left..yes..I understand the impact this may have on the economy and to social programs and safety net programs. Heck..it will essentially grind my agency's growth over the past couple of years to a screeching halt. No more jobs will be created and in fact maybe there will be cuts. After all...people don't like uncertainty and neither do businesses.

    To my friends on the right..don't get too excited. You see..I am of the opinion that perhaps we should let these cuts happen because then people will see the real world effect of said cuts. Right now..they are such an abstract thing..a burden to be born by the "other guy"..or worse..the "lazy, do nothings mooching off our hard earned money". If the cuts do take place however...everyone..and I mean everyone..will see with clear eyes just what impact government has in their daily lives. Waits will be longer for everything..cities and towns will have less money. Less money equals less services. A million people laid off, fired or furloughed means less money getting pumped back into our consumer based economy. Less food inspectors means food gets more expensive.  No child care subsidies means single parents will have to quit their jobs because they can't afford child care...or that they will have even less disposable income to put back into the economy. Less demand equals less money equals less workers..so more than just government employees will lose their jobs. Many in the private sector will too.
     

    Still..I think perhaps we should let the cuts happen. What else is left to do in order to make it real enough for everyone?

    Besides..I am growing weary of this every three months panic created by the inaction of Congress...and yes..I place the blame for this solely on our do nothing Congress. They are the ones who hold the nation's purse strings..so to speak.

    So..what say you? Should the sequester cuts happen?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    No

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    The only thing a sequester will do is give Obama and the democrats, and the democratic voters another blame card to play.

    If a sequester does occur, all we will read about here and see on tv will be the b*tching and moaning and complaining about the GOP.

    I would rather see Obama step in and take charge, see him shake things up with the democrats and republicans.

     




    Funny how that works out, eh? Are you familiar with the phrase "painting oneself into a corner"?

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    "I would rather see Obama step in and take charge, see him shake things up with the democrats and republicans."

    "Obama" and "take charge" dont belong in the same sentence...nor the same zip code.

    "Obama" and "demagogue" do belong in the same sentence.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    To the OP:  Yes.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    Yes let it happen.  This will give rise to needing to do something as oppsed to kicking the can down the road again.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    An interesting question...and my opinion may surprise people on both sides of the aisle. ( depending on how you view my political leanings).

    I am becoming of the opinion that we should just let the cuts happen. To my friends on the left..yes..I understand the impact this may have on the economy and to social programs and safety net programs. Heck..it will essentially grind my agency's growth over the past couple of years to a screeching halt. No more jobs will be created and in fact maybe there will be cuts. After all...people don't like uncertainty and neither do businesses.

    To my friends on the right..don't get too excited. You see..I am of the opinion that perhaps we should let these cuts happen because then people will see the real world effect of said cuts. Right now..they are such an abstract thing..a burden to be born by the "other guy"..or worse..the "lazy, do nothings mooching off our hard earned money". If the cuts do take place however...everyone..and I mean everyone..will see with clear eyes just what impact government has in their daily lives. Waits will be longer for everything..cities and towns will have less money. Less money equals less services. A million people laid off, fired or furloughed means less money getting pumped back into our consumer based economy. Less food inspectors means food gets more expensive.  No child care subsidies means single parents will have to quit their jobs because they can't afford child care...or that they will have even less disposable income to put back into the economy. Less demand equals less money equals less workers..so more than just government employees will lose their jobs. Many in the private sector will too.
     

    Still..I think perhaps we should let the cuts happen. What else is left to do in order to make it real enough for everyone?

    Besides..I am growing weary of this every three months panic created by the inaction of Congress...and yes..I place the blame for this solely on our do nothing Congress. They are the ones who hold the nation's purse strings..so to speak.

    So..what say you? Should the sequester cuts happen?



    Yes.  

    We are out of money, period.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    The only thing a sequester will do is give Obama and the democrats, and the democratic voters another blame card to play.

    If a sequester does occur, all we will read about here and see on tv will be the b*tching and moaning and complaining about the GOP.

    I would rather see Obama step in and take charge, see him shake things up with the democrats and republicans.

     




    Do you seriously think Obama is going to step up in any way?

    He'll play his blame card, what does he have to lose?  The next election?

    Congress is to blame, but so is the media and Obama, thay are just playing thier round-and-round games.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     




    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    Instead of using a scalpel, the cuts will be done with a rusty hacksaw and cauterized with a zippo lighter.

     

    How ironic that people who supposedly want (demand!) the govt to create jobs are endorsing a slash-and-burn policy that will only put more people - public AND private sector - out of work....

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     

     




     

    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.



    Wait a minute, we have an unemployment problem?  How do you know that?

    There aren't any threads about unemployment?

    The top (25) threads in this section are about a lot of topics, none about unemployment, amazing, so there isn't an unemployment problem, silly you!

    All I read about on these threads is sequestration, gun control, gay marrriage, etc.  all good points except for a few idiots, but nothing about unemployment.

    You must be mistaken, Obama fixed this in his first term, right?  That's one of the reasons he was re-elected, right?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     

     




     

    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.

     



    So, now unemployment is out of control? Seems that we just went through an election that stated the opposite.

    I love it how these "incovenient facts" dribble out from the left from time to time, while the rest of the time they are in complete denial.

    Unemployment will never be "in control" as long as spending is out of control.  You can't "spend" your way to control.  The type of spending we are engaged in is long term spending, not short term spending.    

    Long term spending requires long term borrowing, which is a near permanent drag on the economy, for the rest of my lifetime, and likely yours.

    the type of spending which might make sense to address unemplyment is short term spending, ie.e to address cash flow within in same budget cycle.  that's what Keynes was talking about.  Keynes was not, and never was, talking about long term borrowing in orderto fix things like unemplyment. In fact, his thoughts on long term borrowing as that it is an economy killer.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     

     




     

    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.

     



    So, now unemployment is out of control? Seems that we just went through an election that stated the opposite.

     

    Unemployment will never be "in control" as long as spending is out of control.  You can't "spend" your way to control.



    Put 3% of the American people back to work, and the economy automatically picks up.  Revenues increase, spending increases, sales tax revenues increase, corporations pay more taxes, etc.

    4-5% unemployment is the sign of a healthy economy, we have data, it works.

    Right now, Obama is paying people not to work.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    politician MAD

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    politician  SMASH

     

     

     

     

     

     

    And there was much rejoicing.




    you're dumb.....

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     

     




     

    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.

     



    So, now unemployment is out of control? Seems that we just went through an election that stated the opposite.

     

    Unemployment will never be "in control" as long as spending is out of control.  You can't "spend" your way to control.

     



    Put 3% of the American people back to work, and the economy automatically picks up.  Revenues increase, spending increases, sales tax revenues increase, corporations pay more taxes, etc.

     

    4-5% unemployment is the sign of a healthy economy, we have data, it works.

    Right now, Obama is paying people not to work.



    You were correct right up until your rediculous last sentence.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should we just let the Sequestration cuts take place?

    In response to doozy-day's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    There's no question we have a spending problem, but we also have a significant declining revenue problem as federal tax revenues are stuck in the 15% of GDP range, an all-time modern low.

    Federal tax revenues had averaged closer to 20% since the 1940's, but right-wing ideology has shrunken that number and drowned government revenues in the bathtub.

    No sequester.   Put an end to corporate tax welfare and 1% tax welfare first.

     

     

     



    Nothing about the run away SPENDING ??

     

     




     

    Spending should be dealt with when unemployment is under control.

     



    So, now unemployment is out of control? Seems that we just went through an election that stated the opposite.

     

    Unemployment will never be "in control" as long as spending is out of control.  You can't "spend" your way to control.

     



    Put 3% of the American people back to work, and the economy automatically picks up.  Revenues increase, spending increases, sales tax revenues increase, corporations pay more taxes, etc.

     

    4-5% unemployment is the sign of a healthy economy, we have data, it works.

    Right now, Obama is paying people not to work.



    And, how do you put 3% of the people back to work?

     

Share