Sequester Apocalypse, everything shuts down friday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Engineer]

Is that why airlines have a long history of going bankrupt?

Yep....making a whopping $0.21 per passenger.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed...-they-want-to-be-make-21-cents-per-passenger/

Of course, they could simply raise the fees.

 

[Jaskalas]

Every poll I have seen will blame the fallout on Congressional Republicans, In my book this is a win for America.

Let's ramp up taxes and spending, then deny everything when called out for being a tax and spender. Let's get the sheep hooked on the idea that we aren't responsible for higher prices, as if taxes and printing debt won't hurt them.

There are some very serious consequences that we'll laugh away until the day our "chickens come home to roost". Then when all hell breaks loose we'll still live in delusion that those who tried to stop us were causing the very problem we created.

Your "win" for America is the financial destruction of it.

 

[glenn1]

Every poll I have seen will blame the fallout on Congressional Republicans, In my book this is a win for America.

Evidently it's a win for Obama also, since he himself said the sequester should and would happen - evidently that "easy off ramp" is looking just too appealing for the President.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/21/statement-president-supercommittee


One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit by a total of at least $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. That's going to happen, one way or another. We've got $1 trillion locked in, and either Congress comes up with $1.2 trillion, which so far they've failed to do, or the sequester kicks in and these automatic spending cuts will occur that bring in an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Now, the question right now is whether we can reduce the deficit in a way that helps the economy grow, that operates with a scalpel, not with a hatchet, and if not, whether Congress is willing to stick to the painful deal that we made in August for the automatic cuts. Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts.

My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.

 

[sunzt]

many of the furloughs wont hit until april since they require 30 day notices

 

[Fern]

$85 Billion?

Lately I've been hearing economists (e.g., senior economist for UBS) saying it's only going to be about half of that: $45 Billion. (That's because this fiscal year is about half over.)

They're also saying that everyone is overlooking something far more important to the economy; Bernanke has been quietly pumping $85 Billion into the economy EVERY month. That's over $1 trillion a year. What he does this year could have a far larger impact than the sequestration.

I thought Congress just passed a $51 billion aid package for hurricane Sandy victims. If so, that offsets the sequestration anyway.

Fern

 

[nextJin]

They're also saying that everyone is overlooking something far more important to the economy; Bernanke has been quietly pumping $85 Billion into the economy EVERY month. That's over $1 trillion a year. What he does this year could have a far larger impact than the sequestration.

Lets not bring up Bernanke and Keynesian economics in this thread please. God knows how many ignorant fools would start foaming at the mouth over such comments. Let him just doing his thing, 85 billion a month for the next 30 years should prove once and for all why Keynesian economics is the golden standard for retardation. He has already stated he will not stop until the economy has fully recovered; given this is one of the longest recessions in recorded history the Fed has been doing a damn fine job of managing the economy.

@ OP

Oh my god, if anyone just watched his Newport News speech the man basically said babies are going to be thrown from cliffs by Republicans. It was the most blatant fear mongering I have seen since GWB.

 

[Darwin333]

In federal government spending terms it is measly. If you disagree, try counting to $3.803 trillion (the amount of money budgeted for FY2013) by $85 billion increments at a time starting without skipping any (e.g. $85 billion, $170 billion, $255 billion, etc).

44 seconds.

Let me know when you're finished. Next, count to the projected FY2023 national debt of $26 trillion, again by $85 billion dollar increments.

Should take a few hours at the most off the top of my head.

After you're done with the second, remind us again about how "massive" $85 billion really is once you've properly calibrated the scales involved.

Ok, your turn. Start from one and count to 85 billion one at a time.

 

[Texashiker]

They're also saying that everyone is overlooking something far more important to the economy; Bernanke has been quietly pumping $85 Billion into the economy EVERY month. That's over $1 trillion a year. What he does this year could have a far larger impact than the sequestration.

More like Bernanke is giving the banks $85 billion every month.

After all, as long as the banks have money, everything is going to be fine.

 

[hal2kilo]

Fed pay has already been frozen since what, 2010?

Believe me, I work with these people, and they are not a happy crowd.

How would you like a 20% pay cut from about mid April to the end of the FY (Sept 30).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe just me but I'm having a hard time getting worked up.

This is my power animal and it doesn't care

 

[OverVolt]

Call up Ben Bernanke and get a -1.00% interest loan.

Our credit rating is THAT good.

 

[Fern]

Believe me, I work with these people, and they are not a happy crowd.

How would you like a 20% pay cut from about mid April to the end of the FY (Sept 30).

Ask small business owners, many would be happy with a cut of only 20%.

Fern

 

[airdata]

85 Billion? That's it>?

That sounds about close to the amount that Halliburten can't account for from Iraq. Have them Dick Chaney foot the bill.

 

[blackangst1]

85 Billion? That's it>?

That sounds about close to the amount that Halliburten can't account for from Iraq. Have them Dick Chaney foot the bill.

2.6% of the budget. /yawn

 

[dmcowen674]

Every poll I have seen will blame the fallout on Congressional Republicans, In my book this is a win for America.

Speaker John Boehner is going down in history as the biggest asshole in American Politics history :thumbsup:


2-26-2013

http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want

The sequester: What do Republicans want?

As deep spending cuts loom, analysts say the GOP's objectives remain puzzingly unclear - See more at: http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want#sthash.YqDfY5p3.dpuf
As deep spending cuts loom, analysts say the GOP's objectives remain puzzingly unclear - See more at: http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want#sthash.YqDfY5p3.dpuf
The sequester: What do Republicans want?

The sequester: What do Republicans want?

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has just about had it with his colleagues in the Senate, saying it's high time the upper chamber "gets off their ass" and passes a bill to replace the sequester.

So what do Republicans want? Kevin Drum at Mother Jones says it all comes down to preventing new tax revenue:

I'm confused about the confusion. Republicans have been the anti-tax party for more than 30 years now. They've never been willing to trade tax increases for spending cuts, and they've been vocally, implacably dedicated to this during every budget showdown of the past three years. A deal that includes both spending cuts and tax increases is very much not a policy outcome they vastly prefer.


Jonathan Chait at New York agrees, and argues that the party is working against its own interests:

Deepening the bafflement is that the Republicans' apparent approach bears no relation either to political reality or to the party's stated goals. President Obama is offering up something — hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare — that Republicans say they want and which (because of their unpopularity) they have proven unable to obtain even when they have had full control of government. They are instead undertaking a public showdown against a figure who is vastly more popular and trusted, who possesses a better platform to communicate his message, and whose message itself — spread the pain among rich and middle class alike, don't cut retirement programs more deeply than needed in order to protect tax loopholes for the rich — commands overwhelmingly higher public support.
The sequester: What do Republicans want?
The sequester: What do Republicans want?

 

[glenn1]

44 seconds.



Should take a few hours at the most off the top of my head.



Ok, your turn. Start from one and count to 85 billion one at a time.

I'd actually make that a requirement for lawmakers before they spent our money. Propose spending $85B, count it out loud dollar by dollar first.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd actually make that a requirement for lawmakers before they spent our money. Propose spending $85B, count it out loud dollar by dollar first.

So you want to entirely get rid of the Federal government including the military?

 

[Slew Foot]

Got to cut the budget sometime, might as well start now.

 

[piasabird]

Cant wait. Fed pay is not frozen didnt the president and the justices and congress and everyone on SS just get voted a raise????

 

[Hugo Drax]

To cut the debt we should stop protecting Saudi and other middle eastern oil barons on our dime and charge the accordingly if they want us to stay and insure they can keep their fiefdoms.

We spend too much money policing other countries so instead of them spending money on defense, they get to spend it on their own people via health care programs, college programs,infrastructure building etc. while we pick up the defense tab for the world.

 

[rudder]

Airports need to pay for their own traffic controllers.

Why should the government subsidize an industry that can pay for itself.

The FAA is funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Basically taxes from fuel, tickets, etc. Airports are owned by municipalities and the FAA manages air traffic. It would be very hard for cities across the country to coordinate flights if they each had their own air traffic controllers. What this has to do with the thread... I don't know.

 

[disappoint]

Wish politicians would quit playing games with the economy.

 

[boomerang]

To cut the debt we should stop protecting Saudi and other middle eastern oil barons on our dime and charge the accordingly if they want us to stay and insure they can keep their fiefdoms.

We spend too much money policing other countries so instead of them spending money on defense, they get to spend it on their own people via health care programs, college programs,infrastructure building etc. while we pick up the defense tab for the world.

Oh, how silly. We'll get that investment back 100 fold. When the chips are down here, you just know those other nations are going to be climbing all over each other to lend us a hand. /sarcasm

 

[Doppel]

I think on the whole its occurrence will be a good thing.

 

[Ausm]

Speaker John Boehner is going down in history as the biggest asshole in American Politics history :thumbsup:


2-26-2013

http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want

The sequester: What do Republicans want?

As deep spending cuts loom, analysts say the GOP's objectives remain puzzingly unclear - See more at: http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want#sthash.YqDfY5p3.dpuf
As deep spending cuts loom, analysts say the GOP's objectives remain puzzingly unclear - See more at: http://theweek.com/article/index/240603/the-sequester-what-do-republicans-want#sthash.YqDfY5p3.dpuf
The sequester: What do Republicans want?

The sequester: What do Republicans want?

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has just about had it with his colleagues in the Senate, saying it's high time the upper chamber "gets off their ass" and passes a bill to replace the sequester.

So what do Republicans want? Kevin Drum at Mother Jones says it all comes down to preventing new tax revenue:

I'm confused about the confusion. Republicans have been the anti-tax party for more than 30 years now. They've never been willing to trade tax increases for spending cuts, and they've been vocally, implacably dedicated to this during every budget showdown of the past three years. A deal that includes both spending cuts and tax increases is very much not a policy outcome they vastly prefer.


Jonathan Chait at New York agrees, and argues that the party is working against its own interests:

Deepening the bafflement is that the Republicans' apparent approach bears no relation either to political reality or to the party's stated goals. President Obama is offering up something — hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare — that Republicans say they want and which (because of their unpopularity) they have proven unable to obtain even when they have had full control of government. They are instead undertaking a public showdown against a figure who is vastly more popular and trusted, who possesses a better platform to communicate his message, and whose message itself — spread the pain among rich and middle class alike, don't cut retirement programs more deeply than needed in order to protect tax loopholes for the rich — commands overwhelmingly higher public support.
The sequester: What do Republicans want?
The sequester: What do Republicans want?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Looking forward to the Republicans eating this one...BIG TIME.