Sequestration Demagogy

[Shady]

Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims that sequestration are bringing congressional staffers to the brink of starvation.

Automatic federal cuts are bringing staffers to the brink of starvation, suggested Debbie Wasserman Schultz, at a recent House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.

...

Restaurants on the House side of Congress are increasing in cost so much that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal, she said, as Fox News reported. The comments came by way of a discussion about the impacts of the sequester on lawmakers’ office budgets.

However, when one actually looks at the costs of meals on Capitol Hill...

An 8-ounce bowl of Ham and Bean soup at the Cannon Office Building’s carry-out café costs $2. A gourmet wrap or sliced bread sandwich sells for about $5. And in the Longworth Building’s sit-down cafeteria, a serving of stuffed chicken, asparagus and mashed potatoes sells for about $7, Fox News finds.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s staffers earn between $60,000 and $160,000 per year

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-schultz-sequester-nearly-starving/

Is it really too much to ask for someone earning between $60,000 dollars and &160,000 dollars to pay for their own lunches, regardless of the cost on Capitol Hill? Like the rest of us do? Or gasp, bring a lunch from home? Is this kind of ridiculous demagogy really necessary? And how do they expect the public to take them seriously when there's actually something important that needs to be brought to everybody's attention?

How is there any chance of tackling the real and serious budget issues, when Democrats won't even budge on literally a free lunch?

[kimmy]

Yeah, I think people earning $60,000 and up can afford to brown-bag it. If that's the best example of the effects of sequestration that she can come up with, maybe sequestration isn't so bad.

-k

[Smallc]

They're shutting down a terminal at O'Hare...that's not so good.

[TimG]

They're shutting down a terminal at O'Hare...that's not so good.

This is all part of a deliberate strategy by bureaucrats: choose cuts that maximize the inconvenience to the public and thereby create political support for restoring spending. So one would notice such small cuts if government was actually run like a business that cared about serving its customers.

[BubberMiley]

...

Is this kind of ridiculous demagogy really necessary?

You should look up demagoguery in the dictionary, not just to find out how to spell it but to also learn what it means.

[punked]

Yeah, I think people earning $60,000 and up can afford to brown-bag it. If that's the best example of the effects of sequestration that she can come up with, maybe sequestration isn't so bad.

-k

The majority of sequestration cuts don't roll out until may so maybe you want to pull back on that one the furlough are just going out now I believe on Thursday the DOD is going to tell 800,000 people how long they will have to take their Rea days for. Most the military sequestration which are the ones that are going to hurt the US are just rolling out now.

Remember this is a trickle and almost all of it hasn't happened yet.

PS Shady no one takes your posts from right wing blogs seriously after your whole "I wish Obama didn't kill Osama so he would be as popular as Bush was with one country" post from the right wing blogs. GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE!!!

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[RNG]

I would suggest you watch the Afterburner video on the sequester. Bill Whittle may only offer one side of the story, but I have never seen anyone successfully show his numbers to be wrong.

Whittle Link

[ReeferMadness]

This story seems a bit ridiculous but the reporting is very thin. It makes me wonder whether this has been taken out of context.

[punked]

I would suggest you watch the Afterburner video on the sequester. Bill Whittle may only offer one side of the story, but I have never seen anyone successfully show his numbers to be wrong.

Whittle Link

I am not going to watch a video blaming Obama for a problem he tried to fix and which Republicans blocked. I clicked the link and the description alone describes America as if Obama was king. The sequester is going to hurt and that hurt belongs to Republicans alone for their refusal to compromise. End of story.

[punked]

This story seems a bit ridiculous but the reporting is very thin. It makes me wonder whether this has been taken out of context.

Frist clue this is a right wing bubble story is there are no direct quotes. Don't tell me what you think anyone said right wing bubble actually give me a f*&(ing quote. Of course it is taken out of context because they don't give us the quotes to read for ourselves.

[RNG]

I am not going to watch a video blaming Obama for a problem he tried to fix and which Republicans blocked. I clicked the link and the description alone describes America as if Obama was king. The sequester is going to hurt and that hurt belongs to Republicans alone for their refusal to compromise. End of story.

Yup, don't let facts influence you.

[punked]

Yup, don't let facts influence you.

They aren't facts when they are dead wrong they are spin and you are getting spun. Obama tried many many many times to get rid of the sequestration while Republicans refused to compromise they get to own this one when the hurt starts in Q3 and Q4. Obama is not a king no matter what right wing blogs tell you.

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[TimG]

I am not going to watch a video blaming Obama for a problem he tried to fix and which Republicans blocked.

Complete BS. The only 'solution' that Obama offers is tax increases, tax increases and more tax increases. Obama cannot claim he has tried to deal with the problem until he comes forward with a real plan to cut spending instead of the cosmetic gestures that he has offered to date.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, the original sequestration strategy as leverage came directly out of the White House:

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester

Is the press corps getting some guts? Are they finally prepared to
challenge the President’s untruthful assertions on facts that are
crucial to understanding policy?

None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief
economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the
third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve
proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling
finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes,

in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/03/03/white-house-admits-third-time-president-obama-fibbed-on-sequester/

[RNG]

They aren't facts when they are dead wrong they are spin and you are getting spun. Obama tried many many many times to get rid of the sequestration while Republicans refused to compromise they get to own this one when the hurt starts in Q3 and Q4. Obama is not a king no matter what right wing blogs tell you.

As I said, Whittle only presents one side of the argument, but he offers some interesting numbers. Show me how his numbers, and therefore the conclusions he draws from those numbers are wrong.

The sequester was arrived at by a bipartisan committee. So how can you totally blame it on the Republicans? And the Republicans have compromised way more than the Democrats on a variety of related issues. Do you not believe the somewhat pink CBC story healined U.S. Senate approves budget giving Democrats a win?

Many observers, and not just right wing nuts are seeing that Obama et al are going out of their way to make the cuts as visible and painful as possible for political gain. Hopefully this strategy backfires.

[punked]

As I said, Whittle only presents one side of the argument, but he offers some interesting numbers. Show me how his numbers, and therefore the conclusions he draws from those numbers are wrong.

The sequester was arrived at by a bipartisan committee. So how can you totally blame it on the Republicans? And the Republicans have compromised way more than the Democrats on a variety of related issues. Do you not believe the somewhat pink CBC story healined U.S. Senate approves budget giving Democrats a win?

Many observers, and not just right wing nuts are seeing that Obama et al are going out of their way to make the cuts as visible and painful as possible for political gain. Hopefully this strategy backfires.

How is every Republican in the Senate voting against the Budget a compromise? Seriously how dumb do you think I am? Republicans wont give anything on the sequestration. Remember Democrats have made proposals to replace this sequestration while this republican congress can't even have a vote on a plan. Its not Obama's fault the republican congress wont do its job if it wants to replace the sequestration come up with a plan because Obama and the Senate both presented us plans.

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[RNG]

How is every Republican in the Senate voting against the Budget a compromise? Seriously how dumb do you think I am? Republicans wont give anything on the sequestration. Remember Democrats have made proposals to replace this sequestration while this republican congress can't even have a vote on a plan. Its not Obama's fault the republican congress wont do its job if it wants to replace the sequestration come up with a plan because Obama and the Senate both presented us plans.

So, whose job is it in the US congress to present a budget and when is the last time a budget has been presented? Oh, yes, it's the Democrat controlled Senate.

And you didn't comment on the CBC story or that the Republicans compromised and allowed $1T of new taxation. BTW, the "budget" referred to in the CBC story isn't a real budget, it is a funding bill, a different beast. What compromises have the Democrats made?

[punked]

So, whose job is it in the US congress to present a budget and when is the last time a budget has been presented? Oh, yes, it's the Democrat controlled Senate.

And you didn't comment on the CBC story or that the Republicans compromised and allowed $1T of new taxation. BTW, the "budget" referred to in the CBC story isn't a real budget, it is a funding bill, a different beast. What compromises have the Democrats made?

Ok you are lost. The way the budget process works is the House votes (Republicans) on their budget (which they did this budget has a 6 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT IN IT, privatizes Medicare and has Trillions in cuts to everything no compromise), then the Senate votes (Democrats) on their budget (this one is a mix of spending cuts and tax raises you know a COMPROMISE BUDGET tax hikes and spending cuts and NO REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR IT). Now the House and Senate meet with their budgets and will try to bring the two plans together Republicans have already said they will support no tax raises you know cause they voted for 6 TRILLION IN TAX CUTS. After that the House and Senate will vote again if it passes it goes to the president who can still veto the budget however if the President signs it then it becomes law.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Take a day learn the process then come back with your argument ok?

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[RNG]

Ok you are lost. The way the budget process works is the House votes (Republicans) on their budget (which they did this budget has a 6 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT IN IT, privatizes Medicare and has Trillions in cuts to everything no compromise), then the Senate votes (Democrats) on their budget (this one is a mix of spending cuts and tax raises you know a COMPROMISE BUDGET tax hikes and spending cuts and NO REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR IT). Now the House and Senate meet with their budgets and will try to bring the two plans together Republicans have already said they will support no tax raises you know cause they voted for 6 TRILLION IN TAX CUTS. After that the House and Senate will vote again if it passes it goes to the president who can still veto the budget however if the President signs it then it becomes law.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Take a day learn the process then come back with your argument ok?

Since either you don't know how to follow a link, or you refuse to in fear of having your worldview destroyed let me quote from the CBC story.

An exhausted U.S. Senate gave pre-dawn approval Saturday to a Democratic

$3.7 trillion US budget for next year that embraces nearly $1 trillion

US in tax increases over the coming decade but shelters domestic

programs targeted for cuts by Republicans in the House of

Representatives.

And from post #14 by bush_cheney2004 (I haven't explored how to multiple quote yet).

No, the original sequestration strategy as leverage came directly out of the White House:

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester

Is the press corps getting some guts? Are they finally prepared to

challenge the President’s untruthful assertions on facts that are

crucial to understanding policy?

None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief

economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the

third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve

proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling

finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes,

in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

http://www.forbes.co...d-on-sequester/

Seems pretty clear.

[punked]

Since either you don't know how to follow a link, or you refuse to in fear of having your worldview destroyed let me quote from the CBC story.

And from post #14 by bush_cheney2004 (I haven't explored how to multiple quote yet).

Seems pretty clear.

You are all over the place. Do you know how the budget works? You do know no Republicans voted on the Senates Budget which has a BALANCE of cuts and revenue increases. You haven't addressed the fact the Republican Budget is all Cuts plus 6 TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW TAX CUTS and you haven't explained how this Obama's fault at all. Again you don't know the budget works or how the Sequester works.

Fact Democrats had a plan to get rid of the Sequester they put it up for a vote and Republics and filibustered it.

Fact Republicans in this congress have voted on no plan to replace the Sequester and went on vacation the week before it was to go into effect

Fact if republicans wont replace the sequester they get to own it. Sorry you have no clue like Shady you need to get out of the right wing bubble and read a new paper.

[Shady]

As I said, Whittle only presents one side of the argument, but he offers some interesting numbers. Show me how his numbers, and therefore the conclusions he draws from those numbers are wrong.

The sequester was arrived at by a bipartisan committee. So how can you totally blame it on the Republicans? And the Republicans have compromised way more than the Democrats on a variety of related issues. Do you not believe the somewhat pink CBC story healined U.S. Senate approves budget giving Democrats a win?

Many observers, and not just right wing nuts are seeing that Obama et al are going out of their way to make the cuts as visible and painful as possible for political gain. Hopefully this strategy backfires.

It was actually the White House that came up with the sequestration idea. Furthermore there's nothing to blame on anyone. The federal government is still going to spend more money this fiscal year than last, so there isn't an actual cut in spending, just a cut in the growth of spending by like a half a percent.

[punked]

It was actually the White House that came up with the sequestration idea. Furthermore there's nothing to blame on anyone. The federal government is still going to spend more money this fiscal year than last, so there isn't an actual cut in spending, just a cut in the growth of spending by like a half a percent.

I believe if we want to talk about where he sequestration idea came from that whole story goes back to Ronald Reagan. Just so we all clear.

I also think the Republicans were the ones who decided on what cuts would happen and where just so we are clear this is their baby because they refuse to replace it.

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[Shady]

I believe if we want to talk about where he sequestration idea came from that whole story goes back to Ronald Reagan. Just so we all clear.

I also think the Republicans were the ones who decided on what cuts would happen and where just so we are clear this is their baby because they refuse to replace it.

Ronald Reagan? Do you know he died several years ago, and has been out of office for 25 years? Geez, I've heard of blaming Bush, but now Reagan? Lol!

It was the administrations idea, not Republicans. Republicans voted and passed replacements twice, but the bills were never taken up in the senate, nor did the senate pass their own replacement.

Anyways, it's funny to still see Democrats demagoguing it with ludicrous claims of starvation.

[RNG]

It was actually the White House that came up with the sequestration idea. Furthermore there's nothing to blame on anyone. The federal government is still going to spend more money this fiscal year than last, so there isn't an actual cut in spending, just a cut in the growth of spending by like a half a percent.

Exactly the point Whittle was making. And it does appear to me, and many commentators in the US that Obama is choosing to make these in the most painful and news making ways possible for political gain.

[punked]

Ronald Reagan? Do you know he died several years ago, and has been out of office for 25 years? Geez, I've heard of blaming Bush, but now Reagan? Lol!

It was the administrations idea, not Republicans. Republicans voted and passed replacements twice, but the bills were never taken up in the senate, nor did the senate pass their own replacement.

Anyways, it's funny to still see Democrats demagoguing it with ludicrous claims of starvation.

There year is 1985, Democrats and Ronald Reagan need to make a grad bargain they pass Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 giving us the first sequester or poison pill. RR and Dems do reach the grand bargain and sequester avoided.

Obama made the mistake of thinking Republicans are as reasonable as Democrats. Boy was he wrong. Must be why Democratic identification is way up and the Republicans are at the most unpopular levels in 20 years. You guys don't got a Tip to lead you through hard times.