They actually did it: US automatic spending cuts officially become law after lawmakers fail to avert - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39767420]So let me get this straight. You have 16 TRILLION in debt and you only cut 87 billion? That's like spending being $16,000 in debt and saying you'll cut back by $87.[/QUOTE] Gotta start somewhere. Besides, this is a cut in the deficit, not just the debt, so ideally this will apply yearly on into the future. Hopefully we can get the deficit well below $1 trillion this year. We'd have to really cut or eradicate some of our social security programs (medicare, medicaid) to make much progress. I'd love to be able to do that if I was in charge, because IMO the commonfolk shouldn't be paying for old people to retire; that's what savings are for. But that's way too radical for most people, so it's going to be a while before we can even fix the deficit, much less the entire debt. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;39767493]Lets tie the pay to all of congress to that of the median income in the US too. Make it a constitutional amendment, of the people, by the people and for the people motherfuckers. Let em see how they like finding ways to live off less than $50,000 a year thanks to their shenanigans. Want to pad your bed with cash again? Better start doing your job.[/QUOTE] I like this plan [QUOTE=Antdawg;39767536]The problem with this is #1 I can imagine it can be harder for poorer people who get elected to office as most current politicians were already rich prior to being elected and won't be that badly affected by a reduced salary, and #2 the high salaries act as a form of anti-corruption. Who do you think is going to be more easily corrupted, the man who earns less than $50,000 a year or the man who has a comfortable salary above $100,000?[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about running the country and running it well. Perhaps something above the median income, but it should be a factor.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;39767536]The problem with this is #1 I can imagine it can be harder for poorer people who get elected to office as most current politicians were already rich prior to being elected and won't be that badly affected by a reduced salary, and #2 the high salaries act as a form of anti-corruption. Who do you think is going to be more easily corrupted, the man who earns less than $50,000 a year or the man who has a comfortable salary above $100,000?[/QUOTE] High salaries as a form of anti-corruption? Yeah that's working really well. They just won't quit playing this game, it holds next to no risk for them. Put the country into an economic shithole? OOOOPPPS, sorry about that, gotta run now need to get my jet waxed so I can take the next three weeks off and go play. Doesn't matter if they're already rich, if your income can't meet your expenses then you're fucked and you're gonna loose everything eventually, and that's bound to scare the living shit out of all the fatcats who have gotten used to living like kings. [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39767553]Why would they act to change something that negatively affects them?[/QUOTE] Course they won't. Not without a great deal of leverage. Could always stick it in as a rider on a bill like they always do. Not like it'll be read by any of em anyway. Also have it say something like "All members of congress are to be followed around by a large musclebound man and beaten with a wooden paddle when not in session."

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39767483]This is how fucking stupid the US Congress is. They dream up a nightmare scenario that's bad for everybody and guaranteed to throw us back into a recession so they will be forced to come up with a better solution. Then, THEY GO WITH THAT PLAN. At this point I would fully support lining them all up and shooting them. Congress is incompetent and incapable of properly running this country.[/QUOTE] How will this "throw us back into a recession"?

11 billion dollars cut from medicare- from peoples lifeline- because those fucking babies couldn't abide by their stupid arbitrary self-imposed restrictions. Worst part is that nothing is going to change because this is all bullshit and arbitrary crap for them. Congress didn't get a single cent taken from them with this. Doesn't affect them personally, and not a one of them is going to get voted out over it. America, stop electing these people. Doom Paul images would be fitting here. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;39767702]How will this "throw us back into a recession"?[/QUOTE] There's some economists saying how these massive cuts may contribute to some notable public sector job losses, and the fact that 85 billion has more or less just been snatched from the wider economy for this year could likely contribute to less monetary flow overall, and cause stagnation. Again. Additionally, the additional burden now placed on states to cover for the sudden 11 billion missing from medicare and social security will slow state economic recoveries. Especially in the worst off states- like my own- where we're barely recovering at all, the fact that they just pulled the rug out from under us is going to undo alot of what our governor has did.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;39767650]High salaries as a form of anti-corruption? Yeah that's working really well. They just won't quit playing this game, it holds next to no risk for them. Put the country into an economic shithole? OOOOPPPS, sorry about that, gotta run now need to get my jet waxed so I can take the next three weeks off and go play. Doesn't matter if they're already rich, if your income can't meet your expenses then you're fucked and you're gonna loose everything eventually, and that's bound to scare the living shit out of all the fatcats who have gotten used to living like kings.[/QUOTE] "Put the country into an economic shithole" What? [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39767717']There's some economists saying how these massive cuts may contribute to some notable public sector job losses, and the fact that 85 billion has more or less just been snatched from the wider economy for this year could likely contribute to less monetary flow overall, and cause stagnation. Again.[/QUOTE] Please explain.

Been living under a big gold nugget there Tiger?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767702]How will this "throw us back into a recession"?[/QUOTE] Because wayy too many people think that government spending is the only way to stimulate the economy.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;39767752]Been living under a big gold nugget there Tiger?[/QUOTE] What? I'm seriously ignorant here, can someone please explain how this will ruin the economy? I don't know. I'm not doubting you.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39767754]Because wayy too many people think that government spending is the only way to stimulate the economy.[/QUOTE] It's not, but it's a big reason. 85 billions dollars isn't loose change. We just removed that from the economy and more than several jobs with it. And states that were relying on federal social aid? Well, they're now paying that themselves.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767770]What? I'm seriously ignorant here, can someone please explain how this will ruin the economy? I don't know. I'm not doubting you.[/QUOTE] No no, I was referring to everything they've done before this to contribute to the current economic mess we're in. Whether or not it's just Fred crying about having their budget cut so they can't run guns down to Mexico or if it's really harmful to everyone as is said remains to be seen. Personally I don't trust these sort of predictions at all anymore.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;39767797]No no, I was referring to everything they've done before this to contribute to the current economic mess we're in. Whether or not it's just Fred crying about having their budget cut so they can't run guns down to Mexico or if it's really harmful to everyone as is said remains to be seen. Personally I don't trust these sort of predictions at all anymore.[/QUOTE] I didn't really understand this post at all. I still have only one question: how will this sequester affect the economy?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767770]What? I'm seriously ignorant here, can someone please explain how this will ruin the economy? I don't know. I'm not doubting you.[/QUOTE] Well it won't ruin the economy, it just won't make it any better. It's more than likely that lots of jobs in the public sector will be lost, and it can also negatively affect those who rely on public services for whatever reason (and now may have to use services that aren't government subsidised or owned). It slows down money circulation. Also I believe tax cuts have expired as well. It's pretty obvious how higher taxes can decrease the performance of the economy.

Again, I wasn't talking about this cut, was talking about everything else they've done. You know, the bullshitting around on the job, piss poor policies, moronic spending, ect.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;39767815]Well it won't ruin the economy, it just won't make it any better. It's more than likely that lots of jobs in the public sector will be lost, and it can also negatively affect those who rely on public services for whatever reason (and now may have to use services that aren't subsidised). It slows down money circulation.[/QUOTE] OK... but nobody ever said the sequester would "make it any better". And then why people in this thread saying thing like [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39767483]This is how fucking stupid the US Congress is. They dream up a nightmare scenario that's bad for everybody and guaranteed to throw us back into a recession so they will be forced to come up with a better solution. Then, THEY GO WITH THAT PLAN.[/QUOTE] When the only threat is the layoffs of federal employees?

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;39767381]And the world's most incompetent Congress award goes to...[/QUOTE] Greece. I'm counting congress as government.

the only reason the US is in such debt, is due to the bush tax cuts + invasion of iraq, thats it. raise the tax on the rich, and that would solve the problem, why is this so hard again?

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;39767831]Again, I wasn't talking about this cut, was talking about everything else they've done. You know, the bullshitting around on the job, piss poor policies, moronic spending, ect.[/QUOTE] No, please tell me more about these things. I want to get some examples of all of those please.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767847] When the only threat is the layoffs of federal employees?[/QUOTE] Lowered spending, less money in circulation, less growth [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] Keynesian economics yo

[QUOTE=scout1;39767859]Lowered spending, less money in circulation, less growth[/QUOTE] Agreed. But that is not "ruin economy" or "throw us back into recession" material.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767808]I didn't really understand this post at all. I still have only one question: how will this sequester affect the economy?[/QUOTE] I've said it like two times now: -85 billion take out economic circulation, causing a notable gap and potential stagnation -Notable job losses because of cuts in public sector -States are now forced to pick what the federal government was doing, placing greater pressure on states and either: 1. Forcing states to slow their recovery, and possibly undo any recovery, directly by spending in replacement of federal social programs or 2. Not replacing federal social programs, and cutting off social support programs from the most affected portion of their citizenry- the working poor- which could force down spending even further and increase poverty Technically speaking, since there would be: job loss and less economic spending, then there would be a contraction in the economy, and therefore a recession. You have to remember that a good portion of states are just barely out of their recessions, and if they drop back in, then the nation could go with it.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39767867']I've said it like two times now: -85 billion take out economic circulation, causing a notable gap and potential stagnation -Notable job losses because of cuts in public sector -States are now forced to pick what the federal government was doing, placing greater pressure on states and either: 1. Forcing states to slow their recovery, and possibly undo any recovery, directly by spending in replacement of federal social programs or 2. Not replacing federal social programs, and cutting off social support programs from the most affected portion of their citizenry- the working poor- which could force down spending even further and increase poverty Technically speaking, since there would be: job loss and less economic spending, then there would be a contraction in the economy, and therefore a recession. You have to remember that a good portion of states are just barely out of their recessions, and if they drop back in, then the nation could go with it.[/QUOTE] -$85 billion would be cut anyway even if there was some type of deal. -Noted -This sentence doesn't make any sense 1. and 2. What "federal social programs" need to be replaced? Regardless of all of that, I do not know what you would have rather done had you been dictator for a day. I would love to see your plan.

Just some numbers about the US military Military Spending = Less than 4% of combined GDP / ~19% of US budget each year Total Amount of Military Spending = $650-$690 billion However, much of the high cost comes from the United State's willingness to 1. Be the only power projection that Japan has (albeit Japan pays for bases and compensates salaries) 2. Is responsible for protecting most of the world's sea lanes from piracy 3. Fighting a war in Afghanistan (if this conflict ended, you'd see a dramatic drop in military spending, probably to ~3% of combined GDP) 4. Much of the military spending is on transportation; things like transport ships, planes, Coast Guard, etc 5. Actually providing a decent pay to the troops while they are in service, and for a little while after they have left the military 6. Is responsible for a huge portion of the Research and Development budget; many technological advancements came from military spending Not saying I believe the military budget shouldn't drop, but you have to look at what the world will lose if the USA decides to continue cutting the military budget. I would rather see the other areas of the budget become more efficient (Medicare/Medicaid and Discretionary) before we start firing servicemen because of political bantering. I would also like to see politicians get salary cuts before the military. Damned 27th Amendment (i think its that one).

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39767852]the only reason the US is in such debt, is due to the bush tax cuts + invasion of iraq, thats it. raise the tax on the rich, and that would solve the problem, why is this so hard again?[/QUOTE] republicans

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39767852]the only reason the US is in such debt, is due to the bush tax cuts + invasion of iraq, thats it. raise the tax on the rich, and that would solve the problem, why is this so hard again?[/QUOTE] Corporate lobbyists (on both sides, but mainly Republicans). But you're right, declaring War and then subsequently lowering taxes is a fundamental "NO NO." The US has always paid for wars through increased taxes or bonds, Bush fucked up when he decided to do neither.

Why can't we get rid of the assholes in congress we have right now? Somebody should have put that in the constitution.

I'm really worried about how this is going to hurt in the long run, but it's the only way America is going to start paying of the debt. All of the United States would be better if political parties didn't run the government like it's some kind of sport, and their team just has to win no matter what.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767915]-$85 billion would be cut anyway even if there was some type of deal. -Noted -This sentence doesn't make any sense 1. and 2. What "federal social programs" need to be replaced? Regardless of all of that, I do not know what you would have rather done had you been dictator for a day. I would love to see your plan.[/QUOTE] 85 billion would not be cut [I]suddenly[/I] and there's no guarantee that there would be 85 billion in cuts in a deal, nor would there be any guarantee it wouldn't get spent. The reason why there's this debt in the first place is because the executive branch or congress continues to spend or borrow regardless of the budget allocating the resources to spend in the first place. Federal social programs- medicare and social security. In states like mine, we were relying on the fact that the federal programs were at least lessening the burden on the state's social programs long enough to give it cuts and put that money into saving/recovery. Now the state has two choices: Reinstate spending to fill the gap of the federal social program cuts -or- don't, and see less spending from the working class/poor who were on or using the cut programs.

[QUOTE=Hobo Jesus;39768000]I'm really worried about how this is going to hurt in the long run, but it's the only way America is going to start paying of the debt. All of the United States would be better if political parties didn't run the government like it's some kind of sport, and their team just has to win no matter what.[/QUOTE] It's not the political party's fault exactly... You see, we re-elect some of these wingdings every year and expect a different outcome each time. Yeah... I think there's a phrase for something like that. Insanity?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39768019']85 billion would not be cut [I]suddenly[/I] and there's no guarantee that there would be 85 billion in cuts in a deal, nor would there be any guarantee it wouldn't get spent. The reason why there's this debt in the first place is because the executive branch or congress continues to spend or borrow regardless of the budget allocating the resources to spend in the first place. Federal social programs- medicare and social security. In states like mine, we were relying on the fact that the federal programs were at least lessening the burden on the state's social programs long enough to give it cuts and put that money into saving/recovery. Now the state has two choices: Reinstate spending to fill the gap of the federal social program cuts -or- don't, and see less spending from the working class/poor who were on or using the cut programs.[/QUOTE] If that is the case couldn't they just borrow more money to fill the cuts?

[QUOTE=Hobo Jesus;39768000]I'm really worried about how this is going to hurt in the long run, but it's the only way America is going to start paying of the debt. All of the United States would be better if political parties didn't run the government like it's some kind of sport, and their team just has to win no matter what.[/QUOTE] You don't pay off the debt that; not how the economy works. You reduce the deficit that's the point of this. Also I guess you just want the entire conservative and liberal ideologies to disappear so "congress" can switch to "go get 'em!" mode and just pass shit that they all disagree on somehow. It's almost as if you forgot that people don't agree on how the country should be run.