Comments on: The sequester is just as destructive as we thought Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: RedScourge Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:31:31 +0000 I never imagined when I was in high school that I’d live to see the day that one can showcase this level of economic ignorance and that it would still pass for quality journalism on an economic issue. The punchline is that I’m only 27.

How can a decrease in the rate of increase be called a spending cut? I didn’t miss a memo indicating that we were all supposed to go retarded one day did I?

I’m not even going to bother to blame one political party or the other, instead I blame everyone who sees this article as journalism.

By: An_Independent Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:35:40 +0000 If truth be told what the author, and the Dems, would title this not very good piece of propaganda “The sequester is just as destructive as we hoped”.

The Obama administration has done everything it can to make sure the public feels the pain … just to make a point.

The Republicans offered to put forward a bill to allow the administration to be more selective about applying the cuts (scalpel vs axe) but Obama and Reid told them it would never be passed.

The Republicans mistake was not passing it in the House and making the Dems formally reject it. Until the Republicans begin playing the same PR game the Dems have been playing for5 years, they will continue to be the Dems whipping posts.

By: amateurediteur Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:03:08 +0000 The sequester would go unnoticed if the Obama administration didn’t do its best to maximize the pain despite the many legal avenues it has to do the opposite. Without these cynical efforts to grab headlines, Americans would understand what makes intuitive sense to anyone who’s ever had to manage a business or a household budget: a 2.3% spending cut after a multi-year spending binge is imminently doable.

By: Yashmak Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:48:08 +0000 Just as destructive as predicted?

Man, I don’t know why such a lot of noise was indicated over it then. What’s described in this article is a nuisance, with the author having to go to great lengths to describe exactly why the sequester cuts are so darned bad.

If it was causing REAL hardship, no extensive description would be required. Everyone would be immediately aware how bad it was, because they’d be facing serious hardship, rather than delays at airports.

How very spoiled we all are.

By: crod526 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:16:39 +0000 Same crap different day. Country goes to hell while both sides do nothing but blame the other.

By: gitmojo Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:13:08 +0000 If Obama’s regime spent one hundredth the time they spent on reelection on BUDGET MANAGEMENT there would be no pain.

By: SteveTX Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:11:14 +0000 The federal government had over a year to come up with a plan that met the requirements of the sequester legislation. They did nothing. The Obama administration made a bet the Republicans would cave in to save the militarism budget from any cuts. He lost his bluff.

To say the cuts are hasty is a lie. What they are is a lack of planning on the part of the Obama administration.

And why is it that government spending is included in GDP? The money the government spends is taken from the productive economy, borrowed or printed. At best it’s money that is counted twice. At worst it is pure inflation.

By: Crash866 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:33:08 +0000 JL4
Like you said pot kettle black…are you willing to own up to that…if not YOU are part of the problem…

By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:33:12 +0000 @JL4,

“The Republicans could write a bill that says all house pets should be immediately slaughtered. The Democrats would vote a majority to kill the bill (54%), but it would pass by a Republican minority vote (46%)…”.

Amazing how hard math can be to figure out when someone gives examples without those pesky details. I presume you refer first to the Republican-controlled Legislature where all “bills” must originate.

From there it gets very murky. The Democrats are a minority in the House, so perhaps it is in this context that “a majority of them” could vote “to kill the bill” and, yes, these Democrats would be unsuccessful.

It is by no means clear how such a bill could then somehow “pass” (in the Senate?) with only Republican minority support (46%)…” unless some Democrats jumped on board. Help, please?

By: ptiffany Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:52:59 +0000 Those that keep waving the flag of “big, bad government” are finding that there are a lot of good things that our government does for the general welfare, a Constitutional goal fulfilled. Of course, the Plutocracy doesn’t want to assist the Pee-Ons and keeps corrupting our Congress in their successful effort to support the capital preservation and wealth-building of the One Percenters. Then, there is the Idiocracy promoted by the One Percenters that has millions of fools voting against their own best interests!