Sequestration

[csteggo]

The agreement to this sequester deal which Boener got 98% of what he wanted and Paul Ryan worked so hard to achieve was if my understanding doesn't fail me a fall-back mechanism in case an agreement could be made. It is the stick that is used in case the carrot failed. No one thought that with the big cut in military spending that the Republicans would go through with it. Democrats have a huge failing in that they don't realize that the Republicans can and will do anything to get their way. A my way or the highway approach. Again if reducing the deficit was so important why not reduce spending and increase revenue by cutting out the loopholes that are so prevalent in our tax code.

 

[Wheezer]

everybody talks a good game when it comes to spending cuts but when it's time to put your money where your mouth is suddenly they want to cry foul.

I wish I could run my household the way the politicians run the government. Spend what I want, buy what I want and when the bill comes due pass it on to someone else.

fuckheads...all of 'em.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The agreement to this sequester deal which Boener got 98% of what he wanted and Paul Ryan worked so hard to achieve was if my understanding doesn't fail me a fall-back mechanism in case an agreement could be made. It is the stick that is used in case the carrot failed. No one thought that with the big cut in military spending that the Republicans would go through with it. Democrats have a huge failing in that they don't realize that the Republicans can and will do anything to get their way. A my way or the highway approach. Again if reducing the deficit was so important why not reduce spending and increase revenue by cutting out the loopholes that are so prevalent in our tax code.

Closing tax loopholes should be a separate discussion as part of comprehensive tax reform negotiations.

It's become quite clear that Dems want to increase government revenues any way possible...primarily through taxation. However, they've already agreed to a sequester deal based on spending cuts...the deal they agreed to did not address tax increases. This is not the appropriate time to demand additional tax increases as a condition of negotiation in my opinion.

For the good of our country, Dems need to come to the table now and negotiate with Republicans for more responsible spending cuts...and Obama should be leading this effort instead of making stupid accusations of who's at fault. He signed the the bill into law ffs. If Obama's so intent on placing blame here...he should take a good look in the mirror before throwing stones inside his glass house. He's starting to look like a fool and I think many liberals are beginning to wake up.

 

[ivwshane]

I think it's time for the Democrats to lead by example. They recently got substantial tax increases and, in turn, they hardly had to concede much in the way of spending cuts which were well below what they've placed on the negotiation table in the past. It's pretty clear that the Republicans are through with the Dems idea of "compromise" and are going to dig their heals on this one.

Dems and Reps both agree that the current sequester spending cuts are not structured in a rational manner. I don't see why Dems are demanding tax increases as a condition to agreeing to talk about restructuring the previously agreed to spending cuts in a way that makes more sense for this country.

Democrats, Republicans and Obama all agreed in 2011 to this sequester deal. Tax increases were not part of that deal. It seems that Dems now want to move the goal posts beyond the scope of what was originally agreed to and seem to be quite happy to blame Reps for their lack of "compromise" for refusing to play that game.

By taking this position, they've effectively placed their tax increase agenda ahead of what's best for our country.

Sure seems like everything is on the table to me:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

But I guess a balanced approach is stupid.

For comparison here is what the progressive caucus has proposed:
1:1 spending cuts with revenue increases
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/balancing-act/

Now please show me the republican alternative.

 

[Itchrelief]

Reducing federal spending is a good thing. So what is your point?

My point is he's solely blaming Obama for sequestration when Republicans aren't trying all that hard to stop it, either and in fact welcome the sequester for the fact that it means cutting government spending, just not necessarily in exactly the way they would have done it if they had it entirely their way.

Obama's trying to use sequestration to get more of what he wants (taxes), yet the Republicans basically want to do the same thing (cuts to government except defense and other Republican core constituencies).

For all of the Republican noise about deficits, sequestration may be the best deal they can get on the subject if they don't want to give on anything else, since the idea of compromise is lost to both sides in the current political climate.

 

[ivwshane]

Closing tax loopholes should be a separate discussion as part of comprehensive tax reform negotiations.

It's become quite clear that Dems want to increase government revenues any way possible...primarily through taxation. However, they've already agreed to a sequester deal based on spending cuts...the deal they agreed to did not address tax increases. This is not the appropriate time to demand additional tax increases as a condition of negotiation in my opinion.

For the good of our country, Dems need to come to the table now and negotiate with Republicans for more responsible spending cuts...and Obama should be leading this effort instead of making stupid accusations of who's at fault. He signed the the bill into law ffs. If Obama's so intent on placing blame here...he should take a good look in the mirror before throwing stones inside his glass house. He's starting to look like a fool and I think many liberals are beginning to wake up.

Would discussing raising revenue during the debt ceiling debate be reasonable?

 

[csteggo]

No its never a good idea to discuss raising revenue. There are certain tax pledges that some politicians have to follow. Or gun control apparently. But to talk about entitlements like Social Security.... We can talk about that every day.. Speaking of which can someone point out how much Social Security is adding to the debt? Honestly Obama needs to quit negotiating with himself. If the republicans want a compromise have them actually put something on the table. I don't recall them passing anything this year to that effect. If they cant pass their own ideas why dont the just bring up Obama's proposals. Then at least they can vote it down in good conscious.

 

[csteggo]

I am not a huge fan of polls since they can always be manipulated by how you ask the question but this one had interesting results. Take away the partisan titles and names and then see what people like based on the plans merits to replace the sequestration. http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester-poll-replacement-bill-plans-obama-republicans-2013-2 Interesting results.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sure seems like everything is on the table to me:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

But I guess a balanced approach is stupid.

For comparison here is what the progressive caucus has proposed:
1:1 spending cuts with revenue increases
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/balancing-act/

Now please show me the republican alternative.

I'm was talking about what happened last month when Dems got $600B in tax increases with no off-setting spending cuts. The sequester is only $85B in spending cuts with no tax increases. Dems now want more tax increases on top of what they got last month and have been refusing to negotiate if they don't get their way.

But I guess you're right...a balanced approach is stupid.

 

[Attic]

everybody talks a good game when it comes to spending cuts but when it's time to put your money where your mouth is suddenly they want to cry foul.

I wish I could run my household the way the politicians run the government. Spend what I want, buy what I want and when the bill comes due pass it on to someone else.

fuckheads...all of 'em.

Agree, but I find the behavior regarding spending cuts from politicians more deplorable.

If your household spent to much you'd hopefully suggest other means of spending cuts rather than demanding your family members give you more money or you will cut the water/power. Particularly if everyone is aware you are spending frivolously in a number of areas that could be cut judiciously without starving/freezing everybody.

In California the teachers union routinely uses kids as hostages to gain leverage to maintain automatic pay raises and incredible benefit packages. The left excels at using these tactics whenever spending cuts are asked for. Kids are on the table with knife to their throats, it's either give the teachers union what they demand or the kids get it. Somehow this madness is reported as the teachers fighting FOR the kids rather than in their own transparent self interest. Rework the benefit packages in a reasonable manner gets suggested, but then it's knives to throats of kids as a response. Parks are held hostage as well. It's unconscionable behavior, but in a government that is for sale it is a reasonable method.

The Great and Powerful O is out there using the same tactics now. It's deplorable. Leaders do not lead through fear, they bring out and see the best in people and circumstances, they do not use and manipulate people.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Would discussing raising revenue during the debt ceiling debate be reasonable?

Spending reduction or tax increases should not part of the debt ceiling debate if the system is working properly. However, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years.

 

[piasabird]

If you think we cant afford sequestration, How can we afford to buy back billions in bonds?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...130228?feedType=RSS&feedName=bondsNews&rpc=43

Feb 28 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve plans to buy about $45 billion of longer-dated Treasuries in 18 operations through March as part of its latest economic stimulus efforts, the New York Fed said on its website on Thursday.

Are they just printing this money on a copy machine or what?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm was talking about what happened last month when Dems got $600B in tax increases with no off-setting spending cuts. The sequester is only $85B in spending cuts with no tax increases. Dems now want more tax increases on top of what they got last month and have been refusing to negotiate if they don't get their way.

But I guess you're right...a balanced approach is stupid.

Dems got $600 billion in taxes increases or a temporary reduction in taxes was left to expire? What good are tax increases if the increases can be avoided? What harm is there in asking for closing loopholes when republicans said they would be for closing loopholes?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...6960_1_loopholes-tax-cuts-payroll-tax-holiday


I'm still waiting for the "balanced" republican offer to be presented, do you have a link for that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Dems got $600 billion in taxes increases or a temporary reduction in taxes was left to expire? What good are tax increases if the increases can be avoided? What harm is there in asking for closing loopholes when republicans said they would be for closing loopholes?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...6960_1_loopholes-tax-cuts-payroll-tax-holiday


I'm still waiting for the "balanced" republican offer to be presented, do you have a link for that?

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

 

[piasabird]

When this was Romney's Idea it was not very smart.

 

[ivwshane]

Spending reduction or tax increases should not part of the debt ceiling debate if the system is working properly. However, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years.

Considering the budget must originate from the house, I wonder why a budget hasn't been passed?

http://budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/

Surely it's not because the budget proposed by the house isn't garbage or because it was thoroughly rejected by the American people?

That can't be. It's gotta be the fault of the uncompromising democrats.

 

[piasabird]

Just quit letting businesses and corporations claim business expenses. That should increase their taxes a bit. Why do I have to pay for Business expenses?

 

[ivwshane]

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/deficit_reduction_table_bucketed_r8.pdf

Please tell me you didn't post an offer from the whitehouse.gov website and try to call it the republicans.

Wow


Oh and the title of that document just invade you missed it was;

The President’s Plan: $4 Trillion of Deficit Reduction Including the Last Offer to
Speaker Boehner

So yeah please post the republican proposal.

 

[csteggo]

I'm was talking about what happened last month when Dems got $600B in tax increases with no off-setting spending cuts. The sequester is only $85B in spending cuts with no tax increases. Dems now want more tax increases on top of what they got last month and have been refusing to negotiate if they don't get their way.

But I guess you're right...a balanced approach is stupid.

Are you referring to not extending the bush tax cuts that were set to expire and extended multiple times on the top income earners. Crazy about those gimmicky sunset provisions. I thought you would be happy though.. So depending on how you look at it the Republicans got tax cuts passed for middle class.

 

[piasabird]

So it is a tax cut if you pay more in taxes?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Considering the budget must originate from the house, I wonder why a budget hasn't been passed?

http://budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/

Surely it's not because the budget proposed by the house isn't garbage or because it was thoroughly rejected by the American people?

That can't be. It's gotta be the fault of the uncompromising democrats.

I think that you have your facts wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Both the House and Senate are supposed to come up with a budget. By law Obama was supposed to present his budget by 2/1....almost March and we're still waiting. Didn't the Senate refuse to vote on Obama's budget last year? Isn't that odd? Do you think it because it was garbage or because it was thoroughly rejected by the American people?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Please tell me you didn't post an offer from the whitehouse.gov website and try to call it the republicans.

Wow


Oh and the title of that document just invade you missed it was;




So yeah please post the republican proposal.

Ooops...wrong link...that was the link you provided. I try the find the one I meant to post.

 

[csteggo]

No paying more in taxes isn't a tax cut.. But all the bush tax cuts were to sunset. And the push instead was to extend only the tax cuts on the middle class and poor and just let the upper levels expire. Essentially they passed tax cuts for the middle class and poor. And allowing the other tax cuts to sunset as they were designed to. Keep in mind I am being sarcastic when I say they were designed to.. Having them sunset in the first place was just a political gimmick..

 

[ivwshane]

I think that you have your facts wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Both the House and Senate are supposed to come up with a budget. By law Obama was supposed to present his budget by 2/1....almost March and we're still waiting. Didn't the Senate refuse to vote on Obama's budget last year? Isn't that odd? Do you think it because it was garbage or because it was thoroughly rejected by the American people?

You mean this budget?

http://m.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Sorry, I'd have to assume you mean the 2014 budget which looks to be delayed. But again, the presidents budget is just a guideline and republicans have been pretty keen on not follow it at all so why would having a White House budget matter?

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ding-plan-said-to-be-delayed-until-march.html


Oh and I'm still waiting for that sequestration counter proposal the republicans have, do you have a link?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you referring to not extending the bush tax cuts that were set to expire and extended multiple times on the top income earners. Crazy about those gimmicky sunset provisions. I thought you would be happy though.. So depending on how you look at it the Republicans got tax cuts passed for middle class.

Gimmicky? Dems just got $600B in additional tax revenue last month and now are painting doomsday scenarios and blaming Republicans for sequester...all because of $85B in spending cuts that they already agreed to! Dems are masters of spin.