Sequestration Facts (1 Viewer)

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,293
Reaction score
28,315
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
I thought we could share here things we know or think we know about Sequestration.

One thing I've seen tossed around is the misguided statement that "sequestration isn't really a cut." It seems to be accepted fact among our right leaning members that it's really a "decrease in the rate of increase."

Well, to start the thread, I'm going to explain that this is an inaccurate statement and probably originated in some talking points boiler plate from the right.



Sequestration is a set of mandatory cuts intended to prevent congress from kicking the can by making cuts so stupid, hurtful and ill advised that now way and no how could they be allowed to happen.

Sequestration only applies to certain parts of governemt and specifically excludes some from which cuts should and could most easily and rightfully come.

Sequestration reduces spending from affected areas by reducing from the amounts budgeted for this years spending starting March 1.



Given inflation and the recent tax increases and the growth of the economy, it is possible or even likely that government spending will be greater this year than last, but these sequestration cuts are NOT a reduction in the rate of increase of spending.

Department X may have 100bn in spending last year. This year it may have been budgeted to grow to 105bn this year and 110 next and even 115 the following. For a cut to be a reduction in the rate of growth, we would see the 100 go to 104, 108, 112, but that is not what's happening.

What's happening is department x got 100bn last year. This year they were budgeted to have 105 or 120 or 80 or whatever. Instead of getting their budgeted amounts they're getting less.

Further, the fiscal year is about half over. So, if Department X were to have been budgeted to receive 100bn this year and they're already spent 50bn, what sequestration is doing is reducing from the budgeted 50bn with which Department X was supposed to finish the year.

Let's say they're going to lose 5 billion over the final 6 months of the year.

Those are cuts. They are immediate, short term cuts. They are not reducing next year's allotment. In fact, the way government works, it will probably cost more.

But, sequestration is a reduction in the last half of this years funding from previously budgeted programs. It is not a reduction in the rate of growth of government spending.

If sequestration were, in fact, a reduction in the rate of growth of spending, it would be exactly the solution to our problems.

It is not. It is making them worse by shrinking the economy, increasing unemployment, further burdening assistance programs and making us all look like a bunch of jackholes.
 

MrEMann83

Very Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
2,978
Reaction score
3,359
Age
37
Offline
Why are Right-Wingers saying it is only a cut in the increased spending, if the opposite, what it TRULY is, is more damning?
 

Cajun Mike

Clan of dren
Staff member
Tech-Admin
Joined
Sep 1, 2000
Messages
22,994
Reaction score
1,953
Age
62
Location
Breaux Bridge.LA
Offline
It's another way for the politicians to screw us while still filling their own bank accounts and their rich buddies!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

thefredman63

Very Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
385
Reaction score
58
Offline
Because it is a cut in the increased spending...2% actually say your budget is increased by 10% but you only get 8%...thats what sequestration is all about those on the left will do anything to protect their muslim god-like figure up and including skewing the facts, including that barrack hussein obama agreed to sequestration..hahahaha hows that for right wing boiler plating facts :ezbill:
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
My head may explode. I can't believe I've now seen a CATO institute infographic that doesn't seem insane.
 

JLaneSaints

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,743
Reaction score
3,036
Offline
I thought we could share here things we know or think we know about Sequestration.

One thing I've seen tossed around is the misguided statement that "sequestration isn't really a cut." It seems to be accepted fact among our right leaning members that it's really a "decrease in the rate of increase."

Well, to start the thread, I'm going to explain that this is an inaccurate statement and probably originated in some talking points boiler plate from the right.



Sequestration is a set of mandatory cuts intended to prevent congress from kicking the can by making cuts so stupid, hurtful and ill advised that now way and no how could they be allowed to happen.

Sequestration only applies to certain parts of governemt and specifically excludes some from which cuts should and could most easily and rightfully come.

Sequestration reduces spending from affected areas by reducing from the amounts budgeted for this years spending starting March 1.



Given inflation and the recent tax increases and the growth of the economy, it is possible or even likely that government spending will be greater this year than last, but these sequestration cuts are NOT a reduction in the rate of increase of spending.

Department X may have 100bn in spending last year. This year it may have been budgeted to grow to 105bn this year and 110 next and even 115 the following. For a cut to be a reduction in the rate of growth, we would see the 100 go to 104, 108, 112, but that is not what's happening.

What's happening is department x got 100bn last year. This year they were budgeted to have 105 or 120 or 80 or whatever. Instead of getting their budgeted amounts they're getting less.

Further, the fiscal year is about half over. So, if Department X were to have been budgeted to receive 100bn this year and they're already spent 50bn, what sequestration is doing is reducing from the budgeted 50bn with which Department X was supposed to finish the year.

Let's say they're going to lose 5 billion over the final 6 months of the year.

Those are cuts. They are immediate, short term cuts. They are not reducing next year's allotment. In fact, the way government works, it will probably cost more.

But, sequestration is a reduction in the last half of this years funding from previously budgeted programs. It is not a reduction in the rate of growth of government spending.

If sequestration were, in fact, a reduction in the rate of growth of spending, it would be exactly the solution to our problems.

It is not. It is making them worse by shrinking the economy, increasing unemployment, further burdening assistance programs and making us all look like a bunch of jackholes.

Forgot a fact. Sequestration was recommended by this current White House administration.
 

HaZeGrEy

Rookie
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
36
Offline
The Sequestration, or forced cuts are exactly what this country needs. It's the only way either one of these idiot political partied will ever cut spending and reduce government waste. My only fear is that they will chicken out at the last minute and kick the can down the road a few more months. (actually the likely scenario since none of these aholes in either party have neither a backbone or the fundamental ability to tell the honest truth to the American people). <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As far as jackholes, the conservatives have really been pushing hard for that title, but they have a long way to go to even be on the same playing field as the liberals who created the term. The liberals half-truths and twisted lies are like the Jedi mind trick, they only work on the weak minded in the first place. If these cuts go through, and that a big if, in a few weeks Obama and his apostles will be looking like the boy who cried wolf. Which is why they thought it was a great idea 6 months ago and now with the conservatives calling their bluff, they're scare to death and preaching fire and brimstone come tomorrow morning. Yep, sounds like a jackhole to me..<o:p></o:p>

There you go. Have at it left-wingers. Do what you do best. Get yourself a big-ole handfull of mud and start slinging. lol
 

JLaneSaints

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,743
Reaction score
3,036
Offline
Last week the conservative media was blaming the sequestration. This week it's the best idea ever, but not his idea. I'm lost here...
I didn't say it was his idea. I just said he recommended it. Valiant effort though.
 
OP
dtc

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,293
Reaction score
28,315
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
Forgot a fact. Sequestration was recommended by this current White House administration.
Do you understand what sequestration is or was intended to be?

It was a mixture of cuts so unpalatable and hurtful spread across such a silly set of programs that the point was to make its implementation impossible.

If the president had proposed a set of working cuts that both sides could agree on, monkeys with lasers would have swung from trees riding unicorns and killed us all.

There was no agreement on anything so they put in place a big freaking hammer to smack them all on the heads if they were too lazy and incompetent to do their jobs.


It's as if you're mad at the coach for telling players who drop the ball in passing drills that they're going to have to run laps for proposing they learn to catch.

And, for what it's worth, your whole argument that "Obama did it" is silly. It was a good idea at the time and, if implemented, will be the result of those of your party being so stupid that they couldn't get out of the way of a giant, slow moving slug.
 

JLaneSaints

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,743
Reaction score
3,036
Offline
Do you understand what sequestration is or was intended to be?

It was a mixture of cuts so unpalatable and hurtful spread across such a silly set of programs that the point was to make its implementation impossible.

If the president had proposed a set of working cuts that both sides could agree on, monkeys with lasers would have swung from trees riding unicorns and killed us all.

There was no agreement on anything so they put in place a big freaking hammer to smack them all on the heads if they were too lazy and incompetent to do their jobs.


It's as if you're mad at the coach for telling players who drop the ball in passing drills that they're going to have to run laps for proposing they learn to catch.

And, for what it's worth, your whole argument that "Obama did it" is silly. It was a good idea at the time and, if implemented, will be the result of those of your party being so stupid that they couldn't get out of the way of a giant, slow moving slug.
Yeah, you're right, if only the Repubs would just sit there and say yes to everything the Democrats wanted, we wouldn't have any of these problems!

Do the Republicans deserve some blame? Of course. But no more or less than the Democrats. Both sides are being obstinate, although, Repubs have offered far more in this matter, but that is beside the point. Democrats are being just as obstinate.
 

Heard Dat

Guest
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
55
Reaction score
51
Offline
To put this in football terms... It's like the captains saying "If we lose this game the whole team runs laps until they vomit!" Then whispering "Except us." This sounds like great motivation. Except our captains threw the game just so the offense and defense could blame each other for making everyone else suffer and at the same time take credit for any good that comes of it. We'll be in better shape! We'll have some attitude next time! It's the fault of both sides. It doesn't matter who came up with the idea. These jackholes are using it to bludgeon each other, no matter what it costs us.
 

Heard Dat

Guest
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
55
Reaction score
51
Offline
Many teachers and air craft controllers will be out of work. Ship yard workers will have their hours and pay cut by 20%. People who are able to work because their kids are in head start and not daycare will have to quit their jobs. It's a good thing food stamps will still be there, I guess, because I see a lot more people needing that to feed themselves soon. Of course, congressional pay won't be cut at all.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom