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

[QUOTE=Evilan;39768024]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] Congress is the problem, but MY congressman isn't! He gets things done for me- how could he be the problem? It's all the other ones! [img]http://www.fiveeightforums.com/images/smilies/sarcasm2.jpg[/img] [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39768031]If that is the case couldn't they just borrow more money to fill the cuts?[/QUOTE] Yes, and therefore increase the debt. Which would defeat the purpose of the cuts.

[QUOTE=Evilan;39767960]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.[/QUOTE] even with the lobby, there is waaaaaaaay too much support from the poor/middle-class to keep the taxes low even on the rich, otherwise the republicans wouldn't get so many votes, i think the US is probably the only place in the planet, where you find a poor person who depends on goverment aid which is crazy enough to say that, "i'm ok with low taxes on the rich and less aid" lol. when you get down to it, it all due to the southern strategy. [QUOTE=jordguitar;39767946]republicans[/QUOTE] indeed

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39768032]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.[/QUOTE] We passed budgets every year until the past decade. There's no excuse why we can't do it now except that no one is willing to be bipartisan enough to agree on some basic shit. It doesn't help that a faction in one of the parties would like to see the automatic cuts as the expense of the people.

Guys this cuts a lot of good things too, it cuts deeper into things like education and medicare, than dumb things like military. (Which should be cut even more)

What's the Congress approval rate? Isn't it below %10 or something ridiculous like that?

[QUOTE=General J;39768083]What's the Congress approval rate? Isn't it below %10 or something ridiculous like that?[/QUOTE] Between 14 and 16 per cent.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39768068']We passed budgets every year until the past decade. There's no excuse why we can't do it now except that no one is willing to be bipartisan enough to agree on some basic shit. It doesn't help that a faction in one of the parties would like to see the automatic cuts as the expense of the people.[/QUOTE] "We have to... talk to the other Party? Fuck that, lets just screw over the poor some more. Lets also up the ante and blame the other party for doing it" -Dems and Reps in Congress

[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;39767167]Well, it's better than going into even more extreme debt.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but it fucks a lot of people over. I know many people who work civilian jobs for the DoD and they're going to cut their hours so they only work 4 days a week. They're going to lose a few hundred bucks every payday. So a lot of them are really worrying about their futures. This isn't how we solve the debt problem, we don't just "ignore it" so it goes away. Its so sad they couldn't even come up with something after all this time. That doesn't even get in to the programs they're cutting.

[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.[/quote] But $85 billion isn't being cut suddenly with this either... And if there wasn't going to be $85 billion cut in a deal then what is the point of making any sort of deal anyway? [quote]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.[/quote] Yes this is how the government works it's how it has worked for a very long time. Also the executive branch doesn't spend anything. [quote]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] Out of interest, what state are you from? And I don't agree with medicare cuts. But there would be no deal because the Republicans do not want to cut solely from defense. This is because the Republicans are conservatives and the Democrats are progressives and their ideologies do not agree. Some would say they conflict. So they "congress" can;t just pass some magic bill that pleases everyone and makes everything work. "Work out a deal!" you cry but how do you work out a deal when you and your friends want one thing and half of congress wants the exact opposite thing? And in this case it's more than half because the Republicans have a majority in the House where all the budget bills come from. Also social security is exempt from the sequester.

Those $85bn should've been all military

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39768068']We passed budgets every year until the past decade. There's no excuse why we can't do it now except that no one is willing to be bipartisan enough to agree on some basic shit. It doesn't help that a faction in one of the parties would like to see the automatic cuts as the expense of the people.[/QUOTE] What is "basic shit" please explain specifically what you mean by that. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=latin_geek;39768115]Those $85bn should've been all military[/QUOTE] Too bad conservatives exist. I wish people would stop saying "congress" (not you, others in this thread) when the real enemy is the Republican Party.

[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] Obama had extended those tax cuts. He is just as responsible for them now.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;39768115]Those $85bn should've been all military[/QUOTE] But then the US could not keep its carriers in the gulf to fuck with other countries like Iran.

[QUOTE=patq911;39768079]Guys this cuts a lot of good things too, it cuts deeper into things like education and medicare, than dumb things like military. (Which should be cut even more)[/QUOTE] How does this cut education please show me how this cuts education. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39768133]But then the US could not keep its carriers in the gulf to fuck with other countries like Iran.[/QUOTE] What a shame that would be. Maybe the military would actually have to become a defending force. The horror!

[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] The way our system is designed forces a de facto two party system. Because of this when people vote, they vote based on whichever [I]single[/I] issue is most important to them. In an ideal system, people would choose parties that actually matched the majority of their preexisting stances, rather than changing the rest of their stances afterwards in order to tow the party line. Because of this, our elected officials only need to worry about the decisions that affect the "important" issues, and the rest can be decided by corruption, laziness, ignorance, and philosophically unsound ideology.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39768132]Obama had extended those tax cuts. He is just as responsible for them now.[/QUOTE] well yes, when you get down to it, obama is basically bush with a brain, he isn't progressive, he is center-right at best, but i wonder if would even be capable of removing the cuts. i get the feeling you americans are gonna need another great depression to get things right again.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;39768115]Those $85bn should've been all military[/QUOTE] You do realize that the military budget has been dropping (compared to the federal spending and GDP) since Obama took office right? A flat cut right to the military (and every subsequent year as per the sequester) would likely result in the US shoving thousands of hardworking individuals onto the streets. I have a friend who is in college right now, just got out of the marines after serving for 4 years and they are paying him $5,000 every 6 months for tuition. The military is not just "FORCE PROJECTION," it's also a stimulus program for a great deal of people who cannot afford college out of high school.

For those of you in America, remember to vote in the midterm elections in 2014. You know, that thing where congresspeople are chosen? They also get chosen around the presidential elections. Maybe if you choose good congresspeople, there wouldn't be bad congresspeople. just a thought.

And even that is an idealized model that ignores the effects of spin and widespread political anomie.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39768180]well yes, when you get down to it, obama is basically bush with a brain, he isn't progressive, he is center-right at best, but i wonder if would even be capable of removing the cuts. i get the feeling you americans are gonna need another great depression to get things right again.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is wrong with you? What do you mean "get things right again"? What does that even mean? And why do you want millions of people to lose their jobs and become impoverished for no discernible reason?

Wow, 6% of the defense budget is huge. Hopefully none of it was from NASA.

[QUOTE=Evilan;39767960]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.[/QUOTE] Yep, the rich get richer and want to stay richer; bloated leeches that they are. Unless I know all of their stories, like what they're spending their money on, my attitude is "guilty until proven innocent", since if there's a Congressman who is living simply and using his monies to fund important research projects, he's doing something for the good of humanity, whilst a goyte who blows all his cash on starting up some sort of hillbilly harem on a personal cruise-liner, focusing mostly on personal pleasures when the money could be put to better use elsewhere, is a heretic who deserves punishment for wasting the resources of humanity.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39768114]But $85 billion isn't being cut suddenly with this either... And if there wasn't going to be $85 billion cut in a deal then what is the point of making any sort of deal anyway? Yes this is how the government works it's how it has worked for a very long time. Also the executive branch doesn't spend anything. Out of interest, what state are you from? And I don't agree with medicare cuts. But there would be no deal because the Republicans do not want to cut solely from defense. This is because the Republicans are conservatives and the Democrats are progressives and their ideologies do not agree. Some would say they conflict. So they "congress" can;t just pass some magic bill that pleases everyone and makes everything work. "Work out a deal!" you cry but how do you work out a deal when you and your friends want one thing and half of congress wants the exact opposite thing? And in this case it's more than half because the Republicans have a majority in the House where all the budget bills come from. Also social security is exempt from the sequester.[/QUOTE] Michigan. Congress has agreed on spending for the past 200 years, there's no reason why they can't now. Come to some common ground, lose some, meet in the middle, like always. God forbid we hold Congress up to the standard they set for themselves for [I]the past 200 years[/I]. And the executive branch does spend... how is this not known? The CIA and FBI and etc doesn't just pull all that technology, national and international offices, funds for those social programs and operations, etc, out of nowhere. The executive spends it all- Congress only authorizes it. The Executive branch is in charge of actually handling and acting out the will of Congress and the president- it's ALL spent by the executive. It's sole purpose is to spend to enact legislation. And yes, it is cut automatically: hence the "automatic"- the money is NOT SPENT NOW. Usually Congress will make a deal that would cut in yearly percentiles or set a goal over a decade- this is traditionally how the government cuts spending- an automatic cut is a cut that is sudden and not guided.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39767856]No, please tell me more about these things. I want to get some examples of all of those please.[/QUOTE] How about the time when it was released that no bill aiding the healthcare of the 9/11 first responders was put into law because the republicans constantly filibustered it? Then, when they realized how much they just angered all of the country, they quickly passed a bill. But the bill didn't help the first responders' needs, it didn't cover the respiratory damage that came from sifting through the ash and dust. It pretty much showed that they passed a bill with absolutely no value, just to shut the critics up. Then there was that one time where not a single thing could get passed because everything got filibustered. That time that's [U][I]still going on now[/U][/I]. Oh, and that other time when the banks absolutely raped our economy and destroyed millions of peoples lives, houses, savings, and general peace of mind. Then the government decided that the banks were too powerful to let die, so they gave all of the money to the bankers with conditions that largely stated "Just take it and never pay us back, we will not oversee how you use the money". And meanwhile there are still congress and senate-men who will argue all day about how the government shouldn't be giving money to the people who literally lost every single legal or sane option for surviving or helping their family stay together and healthy. This shit isn't hard to find.

[QUOTE=Appellation;39768168]The way our system is designed forces a de facto two party system. Because of this when people vote, they vote based on whichever [I]single[/I] issue is most important to them. In an ideal system, people would choose parties that actually matched the majority of their preexisting stances, rather than changing the rest of their stances afterwards in order to tow the party line. Because of this, our elected officials only need to worry about the decisions that affect the "important" issues, and the rest can be decided by corruption, laziness, ignorance, and philosophically unsound ideology.[/QUOTE] ...and with that it's time to play the U.S. government drinking game. The rules are simple: If your government depresses you, drink. Does it still depress you? Drink again. If it doesn't, do you still know what a government is? Drink. Repeat as necessary. .

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39768266']Michigan. Congress has agreed on spending for the past 200 years, there's no reason why they can't now. Come to some common ground, lose some, meet in the middle, like always. God forbid we hold Congress up to the standard they set for themselves for [I]the past 200 years[/I].[/quote] Why did you just make this up? [quote]And the executive branch does spend... how is this not known? The CIA and FBI and etc doesn't just pull all that technology, national and international offices, funds for those social programs and operations, etc, out of nowhere. The executive spends it all- Congress only authorizes it. The Executive branch is in charge of actually handling and acting out the will of Congress and the president- it's ALL spent by the executive. It's sole purpose is to spend to enact legislation.[/quote] The executive has no choice in how the money is spent so it;s really dumb to say that it spends money when it is forced to by congress. [quote]And yes, it is cut automatically: hence the "automatic"- the money is NOT SPENT NOW. Usually Congress will make a deal that would cut in yearly percentiles or set a goal over a decade- this is traditionally how the government cuts spending- an automatic cut is a cut that is sudden and not guided.[/QUOTE] But that's exactly what this sequester is doing.

[QUOTE=Appellation;39768308]...and with that it's time to play the U.S. government drinking game. The rules are simple: If your government depresses you, drink. Does it still depress you? Drink again. If it doesn't, do you still know what a government is? Drink. Repeat as necessary. .[/QUOTE] I feel like this drinking game is a tactic to kill all Americans via alcohol poisoning.

[QUOTE=willer;39768275]How about the time when it was released that no bill aiding the healthcare of the 9/11 first responders was put into law because the republicans constantly filibustered it? Then, when they realized how much they just angered all of the country, they quickly passed a bill. But the bill didn't help the first responders' needs, it didn't cover the respiratory damage that came from sifting through the ash and dust. It pretty much showed that they passed a bill with absolutely no value, just to shut the critics up. Then there was that one time where not a single thing could get passed because everything got filibustered. That time that's [U][I]still going on now[/U][/I]. Oh, and that other time when the banks absolutely raped our economy and destroyed millions of peoples lives, houses, savings, and general peace of mind. Then the government decided that the banks were too powerful to let die, so they gave all of the money to the bankers with conditions that largely stated "Just take it and never pay us back, we will not oversee how you use the money". And meanwhile there are still congress and senate-men who will argue all day about how the government shouldn't be giving money to the people who literally lost every single legal or sane option for surviving or helping their family stay together and healthy. This shit isn't hard to find.[/QUOTE] Everything you just stated is traced back to the Republicans.

Watching America these days is like [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY"]watching that blimp strapped together with alot of helicopters.[/URL] Youre going, "Oh boy thats a horrible idea, man, lmao, what are they thinking" and then, "Oh.. ooh its crashing, its crashing, man do they see this? HEY ITS CRASHING!! oh.. too late."

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39768217]What the fuck is wrong with you? What do you mean "get things right again"? What does that even mean? And why do you want millions of people to lose their jobs and become impoverished for no discernible reason?[/QUOTE] What he's saying is that in the great depression all of the banks (the people who caused the problem) broke down and went out of power. We might need to do that again in order to fix the problem of big bankers that are rigging the system and then bribing the government to give them even more money. This really has nothing to do with government spending, however, but is more of a domestic issue. [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;39768330]Everything you just stated is traced back to the Republicans.[/QUOTE] That's because I'm lazy and only watch the Daily Show; I'm sure there are a ton more controversies from fox news or something. And what does that statement have to do with anything? I gave you examples of general tom-foolery in the government.