Sequestration Demagogy

[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.

Talking points. Republicans in this congress HAVE PASSED NOTHING!!!! Mainly because they can not and have filibustered Democratic replacements in the Senate. Stop with the spin and lets talk about the facts. This republican congress has proposed nothing because they can not get it passed and have blocked Democratic attempts to replace it. Have fun with the fact checkers in 2014.

Bills passed 2 years ago dead when congress died Shady sorry you also don't know how the US house works. THEY MEAN NOTHING. Pass a bill if you don't want a sequester. BTW you can't you don't have the votes.

[punked]

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.

Want to back that up with some facts considering Obama provided a plan to avoid the sequester with a balance mix of revenue increases and spending cuts? You know that thing he won and election running on?

[RNG]

Want to back that up with some facts considering Obama provided a plan to avoid the sequester with a balance mix of revenue increases and spending cuts? You know that thing he won and election running on?

He won the election on not being Romney and not being anti-evolution and such.

It is your consistent view that any cuts are bad that is what I am arguing against. And the apparent view that Obama did all things right. The US needs to cut their spending significantly. If Obama didn't like the manner in which to cut spending presented by the Republicans, actually cut and not just slightly decrease the rate of increse, then why didn't he present something with actual cuts in it.?

[punked]

He won the election on not being Romney and not being anti-evolution and such.

It is your consistent view that any cuts are bad that is what I am arguing against. And the apparent view that Obama did all things right. The US needs to cut their spending significantly. If Obama didn't like the manner in which to cut spending presented by the Republicans, actually cut and not just slightly decrease the rate of increse, then why didn't he present something with actual cuts in it.?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are caught in the right wing bubble because you clearly understand nothing which is why I keep asking for details from you. I am trying to force you to do some research to back your opinion because it is supported by nothing. Obama put chained CPI on the table that is a huge cut and not something I support but that wont stop you from repeating half truths all over the place. Again please support your opinions with some facts. Obama's alternative to the sequester had 930 BILLION IN CUTS IN IT! GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE!!!

As for your significant cuts argument. Making significant cuts during a recession leads to the same sized deficits with higher unemployment. What you are arguing for is the same over spending with less people employed. Look at the UK how did their large cuts work out for them? See look at me providing real world examples we can talk about instead of BS.

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

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

A terminal or tower? If it's the latter, that's not a sure thing - just a "may be shutting down" scenario.

[RNG]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are caught in the right wing bubble because you clearly understand nothing which is why I keep asking for details from you. I am trying to force you to do some research to back your opinion because it is supported by nothing. Obama put chained CPI on the table that is a huge cut and not something I support but that wont stop you from repeating half truths all over the place. Again please support your opinions with some facts. Obama's alternative to the sequester had 930 BILLION IN CUTS IN IT! GET OUT OF THE BUBBLE!!!

As for your significant cuts argument. Making significant cuts during a recession leads to the same sized deficits with higher unemployment. What you are arguing for is the same over spending with less people employed. Look at the UK how did their large cuts work out for them? See look at me providing real world examples we can talk about instead of BS.

Except your real world example is purely out of your imagination or some left wing blog. I posted real links and references which you obviously don't read. You spout platitudes, rhetoric and insults.

[RNG]

More from my right wing bubble, the Obama dominated Congressional Budget Office.

Here is the CBO's read on stimulus spending. You are OK but quit hurting my grandchildren.

Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee today, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his initial
assessment of President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package — that
while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the
long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283250/cbo-director-stimulus-spending-bad-long-term-growth-andrew-stiles

[The_Squid]

I like the defence cuts. They should cut defence in half and there would be plenty of funds available for whatever "entitlements" are needed.

[Shady]

I like the defence cuts. They should cut defence in half and there would be plenty of funds available for whatever "entitlements" are needed.

Actually that's not true. Cutting defense spending in half wouldn't even balance the budget this year, let alone save entitlements as baby boomers continue to reach 65.

[punked]

Except your real world example is purely out of your imagination or some left wing blog. I posted real links and references which you obviously don't read. You spout platitudes, rhetoric and insults.

No you really didn't. I'll wait for a news article. You call politifact a left win blog?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/04/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-obama-democrats-ha/

I will wait for a real post from a real source now.

[punked]

More from my right wing bubble, the Obama dominated Congressional Budget Office.

Here is the CBO's read on stimulus spending. You are OK but quit hurting my grandchildren.

Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee today, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf reiterated his initial

assessment of President Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package — that

while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the

long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283250/cbo-director-stimulus-spending-bad-long-term-growth-andrew-stiles

Yah but that is not what the CBO or its Elmendorf actually said or believes.

Here you go on what the CBO actually said about the stimulus.

Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-06/business/35462388_1_stimulus-work-package-of-temporary-tax-tea-party-caucus

[TimG]

Yah but that is not what the CBO or its Elmendorf actually said or believes.

What Elmendorf said was:

"while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the

long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth."

Which does not contradict your quote but puts the stimulus in the right context: it was an exercise in burning the furniture to heat the home.

[Shady]

What Elmendorf said was:

"while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the

long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth."

Which does not contradict your quote but puts the stimulus in the right context: it was an exercise in burning the furniture to heat the home.

Well said. It's not even a partisan issue either. You have many left of centre economists that have said the same thing. The stimulus was very poorly designed.

[punked]

What Elmendorf said was:

"while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the

long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth."

Which does not contradict your quote but puts the stimulus in the right context: it was an exercise in burning the furniture to heat the home.

But that wasn't his point. His point was spend now when people are out of work and as the private sector takes off you can cut that government spending in the future. This is what he said in the next breath everyone seems to ignore.

“There is no intrinsic contradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today, when unemployment is high and many factories and offices are underused, and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now when output and employment will probably be closer to their potential,” He cautioned that he wasn’t advising Congress on what approach to take, but said it was “important to understand the difference between the effects of government borrowing for a limited period when the economy is weak and [borrowing] for indefinite periods when the economy has recovered.”

You can try and twist those words to say what you want them to say but fact is the stimulus created 3.3 Million jobs and stopped a slide into depression.

[TimG]

He cautioned that he wasn’t advising Congress on what approach to take, but said it was “important to understand the difference between the effects of government borrowing for a limited period when the economy is weak and [borrowing] for indefinite periods when the economy has recovered.”

The issue is government is not 'borrowing for a limited time'. It has a huge structural deficit that is a drag on the economy.

BTW: Obamacare has likely killed more jobs than the stimulus created by making companies afraid to hire workers.

[punked]

The issue is government is not 'borrowing for a limited time'. It has a huge structural deficit that is a drag on the economy.

BTW: Obamacare has likely killed more jobs than the stimulus created by making companies afraid to hire workers.

It is Borrowing for a limited time, as the economy comes back the true measure of debt, debt to GDP will go way down and the gap will close.

BTW you have nothing that supports that besides your own opinions. So I will say your BTW is a lie until you provide a citation.

[Shady]

It is Borrowing for a limited time, as the economy comes back the true measure of debt, debt to GDP will go way down and the gap will close.

BTW you have nothing that supports that besides your own opinions. So I will say your BTW is a lie until you provide a citation.

Questions Abound in Learning to Adjust to Health Care Overhaul
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/business/smallbusiness/a-bakery-with-95-employees-confronts-the-new-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Bakery Owners: Obamacare Will Cut Our Profits In Half

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/bakery-obamacare_n_2926322.html

Study: Obamacare threatens 3.2 million small business jobs
http://washingtonexaminer.com/study-obamacare-threatens-3.2-million-small-business-jobs/article/2525125

Heckuva job Barry! #EconomicIlliterate

Edited March 24, 2013 by Shady

[punked]

It is Borrowing for a limited time, as the economy comes back the true measure of debt, debt to GDP will go way down and the gap will close.

BTW you have nothing that supports that besides your own opinions. So I will say your BTW is a lie until you provide a citation.

No I cited and quoted the head of the CBO you might want to go back and reread the thread Shady. If debt to GDP is going down then what are you crying about that is your whole argument that RR budgets that NEVER balanced were just fine. I guess your flipping and flopping all over the place again Shady.

[RNG]

No I cited and quoted the head of the CBO you might want to go back and reread the thread Shady. If debt to GDP is going down then what are you crying about that is your whole argument that RR budgets that NEVER balanced were just fine. I guess your flipping and flopping all over the place again Shady.

Here again is exactly what the head of the CBO said as you have been told several times.

"while it may boost the country’s GDP in the short-term, in the

long-term, the effect of such spending is a net negative on GDP growth."

What is there about that statement you don't understand?

And for your interest, Wikipedia tells me that the US spent $3.5T and change in 2012. Several sources say the sequester causes a $85B reduction. One of many hits for "sequester cuts" is http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

That is 2.4%. And Obama is crying like a baby and making sure the cuts happen at the worst places in terms of making his citizens suffer for political gain.

[Pliny]

There is no doubt that some on the left will attempt to optimize the sequestration "crisis". It was one of Obama's

greatest ideas that he probably got from Ronald Reagan.

Harry Reid being no laggard was quick to connect it to the tragic death of seven marines in his native Nevada. He was

refuted and chastised just as quickly.