Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Sequestration. Sequestration everywhere   (politico.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, National Nuclear Security Administration, carbon sequestration, governmental affairs committee, structural deficit, United States budget process, austerities, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Marshals Service  
•       •       •

2838 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 9:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-19 09:11:21 AM  
Another artificial crisis brought to you by your politicians, folks.

/Mah gawd, it will be the end of all of us to return to Clinton-era tax rates, OMIGAWD.
 
2012-11-19 09:12:18 AM  
Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?
 
2012-11-19 09:16:17 AM  

We're going to escape the disaster of tax increases and spending cuts thanks to an awesome grand bargain of tax increases and spending cuts.

- PEG (@pegobry) November 19, 2012
 
2012-11-19 09:17:11 AM  

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


Because socialism, I think.
 
2012-11-19 09:17:40 AM  

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


Some believe reducing the deficit should not be our priority right now.

Why We Should Stop Obsessing About The Federal Budget Deficit
 
2012-11-19 09:20:11 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Another artificial crisis brought to you by your politicians, folks.

/Mah gawd, it will be the end of all of us to return to Clinton-era tax rates, OMIGAWD.


MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


You're forgetting that the "and spending cuts" part of the equation. I know there's a lot of waste in the military, and there's some in social programs (though that's like saying "there's some dust on the Burning Man playa, and there is also some on my bookshelves"), but the whole point of last year's BCA was to avoid hatcheting the budgets of these programs and instead look for savings on things like a second engine for the third platform of a fighter we're not using anymore.

Instead, these cuts are the definition of throwing the infant out along with his sullied ablutives.

I'd be happy with the tax rates rising and some accounting jujitsu (some incentives for cutting year-to-year budgets would be nice, rather than each department spending all it can by year's end), but let's not pretend that "just let your budget drop 8.2%. How bad could it be?" is a smart plan.
 
2012-11-19 09:21:26 AM  
The doomsayers argue that:

1.) Raising taxes on the middle class during bad economic times is bad.
2.) These spending cuts will gut the defense industry and create a ripple effect. D.C.'s economy will be hit the hardest.

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

 
2012-11-19 09:24:48 AM  
What, you mean that our mortal enemy Big Government actually creates jobs and provides needed services? I for one am shocked!

Reducing the deficit is a great idea. Doing it in a way that pounds the middle class is what needs to be avoided.
 
2012-11-19 09:27:40 AM  

guilt by association: The doomsayers argue that:

1.) Raising taxes on the middle class during bad economic times is bad.
2.) These spending cuts will gut the defense industry and create a ripple effect. D.C.'s economy will be hit the hardest.

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


Dhimmycraps have been assuring me since primary season that economic times are just fine. Republitards have been assuring me that the deficit is the underlying cause of the bad economic times.

So I'm back to: How is this the worst thing ever?
 
2012-11-19 09:28:32 AM  

Dr Dreidel: HotIgneous Intruder: Another artificial crisis brought to you by your politicians, folks.

/Mah gawd, it will be the end of all of us to return to Clinton-era tax rates, OMIGAWD.

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

You're forgetting that the "and spending cuts" part of the equation. I know there's a lot of waste in the military, and there's some in social programs (though that's like saying "there's some dust on the Burning Man playa, and there is also some on my bookshelves"), but the whole point of last year's BCA was to avoid hatcheting the budgets of these programs and instead look for savings on things like a second engine for the third platform of a fighter we're not using anymore.

Instead, these cuts are the definition of throwing the infant out along with his sullied ablutives.

I'd be happy with the tax rates rising and some accounting jujitsu (some incentives for cutting year-to-year budgets would be nice, rather than each department spending all it can by year's end), but let's not pretend that "just let your budget drop 8.2%. How bad could it be?" is a smart plan.


Burner?!

Are there enough of us for a Fark meetup on playa?
 
2012-11-19 09:32:00 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

Some believe reducing the deficit should not be our priority right now.

Why We Should Stop Obsessing About The Federal Budget Deficit


Solid link, thanks. Though, anyone in my office reading it would call it leftist liberal tripe and try to explain trickle down economics to me, but I enjoyed it.
 
2012-11-19 09:35:42 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

Some believe reducing the deficit should not be our priority right now.



Then why is 0bama focusing on taxing the rich instead of creating jobs?

How will raising taxes create jobs? How many will get created when part of the 0bama tax cuts don't get renewed?
 
2012-11-19 09:39:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

Some believe reducing the deficit should not be our priority right now.



Then why is 0bama focusing on taxing the rich instead of creating jobs?

How will raising taxes create jobs? How many will get created when part of the 0bama tax cuts don't get renewed?




The deficit is the greatest drag on the economy since ever, remember?
 
2012-11-19 09:41:16 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Then why is 0bama focusing on taxing the rich instead of creating jobs?


Not mutually exclusive.

tenpoundsofcheese: How will raising taxes create jobs?


That revenue can be used by the government to stimulate the economy. It's laid out in the link.
 
2012-11-19 09:42:23 AM  
tenpoundsofcheese: Then why is 0bama focusing on taxing the rich instead of creating jobs?

How will raising taxes create jobs? How many will get created when part of the 0bama tax cuts don't get renewed?

I agree. The taxes on the wealthy should be raised and government spending should be shifted from defense spending to other domestic areas like renewable energy.
 
2012-11-19 09:45:08 AM  

ArgusRun: Burner?!

Are there enough of us for a Fark meetup on playa?


Heh, not actually. Some of my best friends are Burners, though. I just needed a good metaphor, and that was what came to mind. (Well, that and babies taking baths...)
 
2012-11-19 09:47:17 AM  
oooh, so many bites for TenPounds.

Everyone, go ahead and farkie him. He's not here for reasonable discussion.
 
2012-11-19 09:50:28 AM  

Where wolf: oooh, so many bites for TenPounds.

Everyone, go ahead and farkie him. He's not here for reasonable discussion.


you have so much fear and envy.

I forgive you.
 
2012-11-19 09:50:44 AM  
I thought the fiscal cliff embodied the the great austerity measures that the Republicans sing praises of, no?
 
2012-11-19 09:52:22 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Then why is 0bama focusing on taxing the rich instead of creating jobs?

Not mutually exclusive.

True. But why is the vast majority of 0bama's efforts on tax cuts instead of creating jobs?

tenpoundsofcheese: How will raising taxes create jobs?

That revenue can be used by the government to stimulate the economy. It's laid out in the link.


You mean like spending on the military and the other programs that are going to be cut?
 
2012-11-19 09:59:43 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: True. But why is the vast majority of 0bama's efforts on tax cuts instead of creating jobs?


So we've gone from they aren't mutually exclusive to vast majority of his time, as ambiguously defined by you. No thanks.

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean like spending on the military and the other programs that are going to be cut?


Military spending, relative to several other ways the government can spend money, is the least efficient method of creating jobs. I would spend elsewhere, but I'm not the President.
 
2012-11-19 10:02:36 AM  
Sequestration would also mean fewer FBI agents

I'm ok with that. Start with the ones who do drug enforcement.

border patrols

Don't we have that mostly automated by now? Cameras are cheaper than agents.

meat inspectors

Ok now that one I don't like

disease trackers

Seems like another thing that could be done with technology and fewer personnel

Secret Service agents

Oh noes! You mean we won't be able to check up on every retard with no conceivable way of ever getting near the President who anonymously vents that he wants to kill Obama in the comments section of some website?

prison guards

Good. When we let all the weed smokers out, we won't need them.

and National Guardsmen for storms like Hurricane Sandy

That one could be problematic.

I'm actively unapologetically rooting for sequestration, not because I think it's perfect, but because it's the only way any budget cuts will ever get done. People will say things like "We are doing surgery with an axe. Let's cancel this and then come back to the table and make cuts more sensibly," but that won't happen. This is the only time Congress is actually on the hook for budget cuts. If we miss this opportunity and cancel the sequestration, we will just get bickering and a spending status quo.
 
2012-11-19 10:05:21 AM  
Sequestration = best of both worlds.

The democrats get their tax increases and the republicans get their budget cuts.

How can that be such a bad thing?
 
2012-11-19 10:10:11 AM  

guilt by association: The doomsayers argue that:

1.) Raising taxes on the middle class during bad economic times is bad.
2.) These spending cuts will gut the defense industry and create a ripple effect. D.C.'s economy will be hit the hardest.

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


It's not the amount of the cut that is the problem, it's the disorganized nature of the cuts. When $800B is going to be cut from a budget, you take the time to structure it to not cause system-wide breakdowns. There's lots of compromise, evaluations, service moves, stress testing, etc. That's a lot of concrete planning. And most importantly, there is a strict timeline.

In this case, the cut is haphazard, with no attention paid to details. It's a slash and burn across the top of nearly everyone's budget, with no plan on how to structure the cuts. And since it was intended as a threat and not a real budget reduction, you add an unworkable layer. You cannot just plan on a mass restructuring of nearly a trillion dollars in services and products, and then be ready to pull the trigger if it happens. The systems are too large for that, and you're dealing with tens of millions of people shuffling services, jobs, and money. Things don't mothball in days. They mothball in months, and reversing course is exceptionally costly. A mass restructuring of this can't occur on a contingent "maybe".

That's why it's so disruptive, and likely to cause a recession. There's no sense to the cuts. They were put on the table as a suicide pact to force compromise. Saying we should pull the trigger and let it happen is the height of ignorance. These were created intentionally to be the most disruptive and destructive cuts possible to force a consensus on action. Pulling the trigger isn't a viable option, and there's no scenario where it's the smart move. Sawing off your left leg isn't a smart way to lose 20 lbs.
 
2012-11-19 10:12:19 AM  
"Can we respond to the next Sandy if we see sequestration unfold the way we fear it might unfold?

So this is all speculation. Chicken Little stuff.

Got it.
 
2012-11-19 10:16:15 AM  

MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?


the tax increase will hit the middle class. Approx $3000 per person
 
2012-11-19 10:19:51 AM  

ltdanman44: MFAWG: Just to make sure I have a basic grasp of this: if nothing happens, taxes will go up and spending cuts will take effect, reducing the deficit.

How is this the worst thing ever?

the tax increase will hit the middle class. Approx $3000 per person


Where are you getting the $3,000 figure from?
 
2012-11-19 10:35:14 AM  
Better these people soaking up benefits than actually working for them.

Austerity measures always works in a Recession.

ALWAYS.
 
2012-11-19 11:08:45 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Where wolf: oooh, so many bites for TenPounds.

Everyone, go ahead and farkie him. He's not here for reasonable discussion.

you have so much fear and envy.


Why do liberals fear a strong, conservative yeast infection?

I forgive you.

You are truly a Christ-like figure.

/mostly fictional
//ridiculously self-important
///been brain dead since forever
 
2012-11-19 11:55:14 AM  

dwrash: Sequestration = best of both worlds.

The democrats get their tax increases and the republicans get their budget cuts.

How can that be such a bad thing?


Cutting spending when the economy is just sputtering along will send us into another recession.
 
2012-11-19 01:05:19 PM  

ShawnDoc: dwrash: Sequestration = best of both worlds.

The democrats get their tax increases and the republicans get their budget cuts.

How can that be such a bad thing?

Cutting spending when the economy is just sputtering along will send us into another recession.


I think that inevitable no matter which road we go. I'd rather just accept the fact and get it over with quicker.

How do you think the Health Care law is going to affect the economy next year?... its one of the largest tax increases in history and it will hit everyone.
 
2012-11-19 01:08:26 PM  
I have no problem with returning to the Clinton era taxes. But I also have a way to save an estimated $200* billion over the next ten years. Let's stop the War on Drugs - how many billions would we save in (ineffective) anti-narcotics policing efforts? How much would we save in jail and prison costs? How much revenue could we gain if we taxed some drugs (like pot) and made others available through prescriptions (and taxed them, too)?

*$200 billion is a conservative estimate that only takes into account federal dollars for law enforcement. The actual number is probably closer to $300 billion when things like prison are taken into account.
 
2012-11-19 01:30:04 PM  

DeaH: I have no problem with returning to the Clinton era taxes. But I also have a way to save an estimated $200* billion over the next ten years. Let's stop the War on Drugs - how many billions would we save in (ineffective) anti-narcotics policing efforts? How much would we save in jail and prison costs? How much revenue could we gain if we taxed some drugs (like pot) and made others available through prescriptions (and taxed them, too)?

*$200 billion is a conservative estimate that only takes into account federal dollars for law enforcement. The actual number is probably closer to $300 billion when things like prison are taken into account.


I agree... We seem powerless to learn from our past.. (prohibition).

Make it legal and tax it, just like cigarettes, etc.
 
2012-11-19 02:15:11 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

RIP Isolation
 
2012-11-19 03:52:31 PM  

dwrash: Sequestration = best of both worlds.

The democrats get their tax increases and the republicans get their budget cuts.

How can that be such a bad thing?


Because sequestration requires half those cuts to come from the defense budget and defense spending is the sacred lamb of republican budget priorities. Republicans are happy to cut spending on filthy poors, but don't you dare cut a single fighter jet or bomber or they get the vapors. The question now becomes, are they willing to slaughter their sacred lamb to make Obama/democrats "look bad" or whatever bullshiat they convince themselves these things accomplish.
 
2012-11-19 05:54:49 PM  
$1.2 trillion spread out over 10 years is pocket change.
 
2012-11-19 06:32:21 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:

tenpoundsofcheese How will raising taxes create jobs?

That revenue can be used by the government to stimulate the economy. It's laid out in the link.

Actually, it would create jobs even if they just threw it into the money pit and lit it on fire.

The simple act of raising taxes on the super-rich would create jobs. There would be less incentive for executives to get obscene salaries and bonuses, keeping more money in the business. Earning less, they would also be more vested in the success of the company.
 
2012-11-19 06:33:15 PM  
Sorry, Fark saw fit to remove some of my italics tags (it even showed me a message). This part is mine:

Actually, it would create jobs even if they just threw it into the money pit and lit it on fire.

The simple act of raising taxes on the super-rich would create jobs. There would be less incentive for executives to get obscene salaries and bonuses, keeping more money in the business. Earning less, they would also be more vested in the success of the company.
 
2012-11-19 09:16:54 PM  

dwrash: Sequestration = best of both worlds.

The democrats get their tax increases and the republicans get their budget cuts.

How can that be such a bad thing?


Democrats get bigger salads, Republicans get their food inspection budget cuts.

How can this be such a bad thing?

z6mag.com

Ohh.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report