Sequester

[B1G Red]

The dems are spinning this as though the world will stop revolving on March 1. Not true. The vast majority (all) Americans not employed by the Fed Gov will not even know it happened. Fed employees in critical areas are currently being advised they will be furloughed 2 days per month until Sept 30 or the issue is resolved. Will it hurt for those effected? Absolutely. Will all BP Agents be furloughed the same day? Ridiculous. Sadly the dems and media are pumping this crap out like gospel and Americans believe it. Pure BS. The border is going to be wide open? really? Military combat ineffective? Really? The issue I have is that this admn wants to continue to play the blame game instead of owning the 16 trillion dollar debt. We still have yet to have a Senate presented budget since 2009. They continue to holler for taxing the rich while refusing to concede on their sacred cows of social programs. IMO, repubs have conceded enough. Make the dems wear this dress they have sewn. For those on this board being effected, best of luck. Sad that budget BS again comes on the back of workers as opposed to cutting the giveaway programs.

 

I don't know why this Administration needs to take the brunt of this since the fiscal debacle started when President Bush passed programs to cut taxes by 1.2 billion in 2001. In my opinion the Repubs need to get off thier high horse and fix this. Also, on AFN this morning 100 detained immigrants had to be let loose due to no Federal Funding to send them back. So yes the borders are open. USS HARRY S TRUMAN did not deploy due to no funding. The Joint Chief signed off a 1.0 Carrier presence in fifth fleet(Iraq and Afghanistan) Less aerial support for troops on ground. So to try and question combat readiness won't be affected is ridiculous. Combat effectiveness and readiness will be affected. Troops are not going to to get proper training before deployments. The Army has to cut back on troops. If the Federal Government does this all the National Parks may not open on time(that's your recreation). State funding gets cut out of the Federal budget. I see this affecting a wider range than most people even realize. The GOP coming out and saying this won't be as bad as it is being spun seems to be a big smoke blanket to me to make people feel better and not worry as much. So we will see what happens.

Because they are driving the proverbial bus from which we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars already, always with some bogus plan to capture savings sometime in the future. This "sequester" was built into the spending deals, and was supposed to force budget control and spending cuts, because neither side would let the automatic cuts take place. Now, I'm pretty cynical that politicians on either side know what they are doing, and trust none of them, But, as far as I can tell, congressmen are still in DC, but the President is out hitting the "campaign trail" (I thought the election was over) politicing on the subject. So long as sound bites and speeches are more important to the president, and he continues to be inflexible on spending, he is the current stumbling block. He needs to stop dumping gas on the fire.

 

Letting the automatic cuts happen is a baby step dollar-wise, but it could be an important step if future congresses recognize that their deals with "projected" cuts, savings, or revenue will eventually come home to roost.

[B1G Red]

fwiw, I was watching one of those talking-heads program that is usually reasonably friendly towards the presidents initiatives, and the talking heads were saying some of the same, the president needs to stop being polarizing, and talked about how the real problem in the economy isn't about taxes or spending, but the inability to deal with the national budget. The CEO of any organization is the one responsible for making sure a budget gets done, shouldn't be any different for the fed govt than for anyone else.

[knapplc]

fwiw, I was watching one of those talking-heads program that is usually reasonably friendly towards the presidents initiatives, and the talking heads were saying some of the same, the president needs to stop being polarizing, and talked about how the real problem in the economy isn't about taxes or spending, but the inability to deal with the national budget. The CEO of any organization is the one responsible for making sure a budget gets done, shouldn't be any different for the fed govt than for anyone else.

 

What channel/show was this? Because nothing I've seen says this is the general thought out there. In fact, the Republicans - again - are being blamed for this.

 

A Pew poll released on 21 February found 49% of respondents would blame "Republicans in Congress" if the two sides can't strike a deal, while 31% would blame the president and 11% would blame both.

 

There's no sign that any argument Republicans can make will succeed in laying blame at the president's door. It's a complicated issue. The explanations of who started it are even more complicated. Few and masochistic may they be who will dig in for themselves to decide who to blame. People may unfortunately be liable in this case to snap judgments hewing to intrinsic bias.

 

And that doesn't work out so well for the GOP. As Dave Weigel put it last week in Slate, "The public is pretty well acclimated to blaming Republicans for a government shutdown, in part because there are lots of Republican members on record not worrying about a shutdown":

 

The White House knows that. Democrats know that the "Buffett rule" is incredibly popular. And they know it's the Republicans, not them, who are grasping for leverage. It was one short month ago that House Republicans met in Williamsburg and agreed to punt the debt limit a few months, because they'd rather fight on the sequester, and look more responsible.

 

LINK

 

The mainstream media like Hannity and his Fox cohorts want to pin this entirely on Obama. Unfortunately for them, the public isn't buying it.

 

Obama wants to blame the Republicans. The Republicans want to blame Obama. Both sides are so worried about where to lay blame that they're willing to let the country burn as long as the other guy gets most of the blame.

[navysker]

The dems are spinning this as though the world will stop revolving on March 1. Not true. The vast majority (all) Americans not employed by the Fed Gov will not even know it happened. Fed employees in critical areas are currently being advised they will be furloughed 2 days per month until Sept 30 or the issue is resolved. Will it hurt for those effected? Absolutely. Will all BP Agents be furloughed the same day? Ridiculous. Sadly the dems and media are pumping this crap out like gospel and Americans believe it. Pure BS. The border is going to be wide open? really? Military combat ineffective? Really? The issue I have is that this admn wants to continue to play the blame game instead of owning the 16 trillion dollar debt. We still have yet to have a Senate presented budget since 2009. They continue to holler for taxing the rich while refusing to concede on their sacred cows of social programs. IMO, repubs have conceded enough. Make the dems wear this dress they have sewn. For those on this board being effected, best of luck. Sad that budget BS again comes on the back of workers as opposed to cutting the giveaway programs.

 

I don't know why this Administration needs to take the brunt of this since the fiscal debacle started when President Bush passed programs to cut taxes by 1.2 billion in 2001. In my opinion the Repubs need to get off thier high horse and fix this. Also, on AFN this morning 100 detained immigrants had to be let loose due to no Federal Funding to send them back. So yes the borders are open. USS HARRY S TRUMAN did not deploy due to no funding. The Joint Chief signed off a 1.0 Carrier presence in fifth fleet(Iraq and Afghanistan) Less aerial support for troops on ground. So to try and question combat readiness won't be affected is ridiculous. Combat effectiveness and readiness will be affected. Troops are not going to to get proper training before deployments. The Army has to cut back on troops. If the Federal Government does this all the National Parks may not open on time(that's your recreation). State funding gets cut out of the Federal budget. I see this affecting a wider range than most people even realize. The GOP coming out and saying this won't be as bad as it is being spun seems to be a big smoke blanket to me to make people feel better and not worry as much. So we will see what happens.

Because they are driving the proverbial bus from which we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars already, always with some bogus plan to capture savings sometime in the future. This "sequester" was built into the spending deals, and was supposed to force budget control and spending cuts, because neither side would let the automatic cuts take place. Now, I'm pretty cynical that politicians on either side know what they are doing, and trust none of them, But, as far as I can tell, congressmen are still in DC, but the President is out hitting the "campaign trail" (I thought the election was over) politicing on the subject. So long as sound bites and speeches are more important to the president, and he continues to be inflexible on spending, he is the current stumbling block. He needs to stop dumping gas on the fire.

 

Letting the automatic cuts happen is a baby step dollar-wise, but it could be an important step if future congresses recognize that their deals with "projected" cuts, savings, or revenue will eventually come home to roost.

In all honesty, and I hate to say this because a sequestor hurts me big time, I agree with letting it happen and it going home to roost. I would think a lot of Congressmen/women would get voted out and it may be, which I doubt, the beginning to a fresh start for the country. On a sarcastic note I think we should start a "Hunger Games" where the Congressmen/women are the participants to make them remember this.

[Junior]

The sequester will hurt every single one of us. It will hurt education and whether or not you get your tax rebate. It will cost some federal employees jobs. It will hurt government funded research on things like biofuels and cancer treatment. You may not see it, but it will impact you.

[carlfense]

But, as far as I can tell, congressmen are still in DC, but the President is out hitting the "campaign trail" (I thought the election was over) politicing on the subject.

Some would call that "leading." Unfortunately since he is leading in a direction that doesn't give the GOP 100% of what they want . . . they complain about it.

 

I'll admit that I'm confused as to what Obama could do to placate the extremists. If he produces his own plan (immigration) he's attacked by Republicans. If he doesn't produce his own plan he's blamed for failing to lead. If he goes to the people to build grass roots support for an idea they say he's campaigning . . .

 

Could we agree that there is literally nothing that Obama could do to make the crazies like him?

[B1G Red]

knapp, I was channel surfing and ran across it for about 30 seconds, might have been CNN, but not sure, I just kept flipping to something else.

 

The jist of what the pundit (who I wouldn't know if I walked by on the street) had just finished saying that if the president wanted a deal he would have to try to work with the House, and if he just kept backing the Republicans into a corner, then there was no chance of a deal. The next puindit started spinning that into the presidents "opportunity" to show leadership, then they all started sounding like the voices on a Charlie Brown cartoon, and I flipped the remote to something else.

 

As I watched it for only a very short time, there was probably a lot more discussion about who we should blame. Just struck me that some talking head actually muttered something about the presidents responsibility to move this forward.

[B1G Red]

Quote

 

A Pew poll released on 21 February found 49% of respondents would blame "Republicans in Congress" if the two sides can't strike a deal, while 31% would blame the president and 11% would blame both.

 

 

Put me in the 11% who blame both.

[knapplc]

That's really weird. I was flipping channels the other day and, although I don't remember what show or channel I was watching, I came across a show where pundits were talking about this and even though they were typically supportive of the Republicans, they were laying blame for this situation squarely at the feet of congressional Republicans. It just struck me as odd that someone typically so pro-Republican actually came out and said the Republicans were at fault.

 

Just wish I could remember who said that, or what channel it was on.

[Junior]

Just received this today from the National Science Foundation:

 

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/in133/in133.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_80

[Whistlebritches]

The President gets too much blame for bad things and too much credit for the good things. Congress is worthless and this whole sequester thing is just another example of why.

[knapplc]

The President gets too much blame for bad things and too much credit for the good things. Congress is worthless and this whole sequester thing is just another example of why.

Just like the quarterback.

[rawhide]

When was the last Federal budget passed?

[B1G Red]

Quote from a 2011 article in the Washington Post. "Over the past 30 years, it’s happened only four times — in 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. Every other year, Congress has depended on short-term stopgaps and omnibus bills to keep the government running"

 

The last Omnibus spending bill passed was April 2009. So really nothing in last 4 years.

[carlfense]

When was the last Federal budget passed?

November 18, 2011