Skip to main content

View Diary: Sequester, schmequester, Republicans have bigger fish to fry! (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Draconian?? (0+ / 0-)

    Ha ha ha ha..that's funny. These "cuts" are an absolute joke. The politicians on all sides think we  must be stupid. I can roll back my yearly spending by a few percentage points, in fact I have. To think the federal government cannot do something similar is absurd.  The hyperbole that teachers, police and firefighters will be laid off due to sequester is nothing short of fear-mongering (SP?). Both sides do it and it's despicable.

    •  Right. And if a hundred million jtabts cut... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      their spending as much as you have, people lose their job, because that's a hundred million times as much revenue lost at the grocery store or hardware store or wherever else you choose to trim your spending.

      Hard to fathom, but just like workers in your area have jobs because lotsa people like you provide funding (known as buying services and things), workers all over the country have jobs because the big huge government provides funding. Cut funding from either on a big enough scale and ya get less jobs.

      "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

      by 2020adam on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:55:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  half agree (0+ / 0-)

        The focus should be on creating jobs. Limit budget increases somehow and get more people back to work somehow. That is the only real way to get the deficit under control. Increased taxes and decreased spending alone will not make a dent.

        Yes, social programs and defense spending allow people to spend money or have a job but it distorts the market. Not sure what the answer is to balance safety net programs and defense programs.

        •  demand creates jobs not fairy dust or benevolent (0+ / 0-)

          rich gods.

          guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

          by 88kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:37:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, I'm sure--cut defense spending, lol! (0+ / 0-)

          Seriously, as a former federal civilian service (GS) employee for over twenty years, I assure you that there's plenty of fat that can be cut.  And if done correctly, with minimal repercussions to the federal workforce.

          I've been through more RIFS and furloughs than I've got fingers.  Heck, the bulk of them were during a "pro-military" regime, so to speak.  I'm referring to both of Reagan's terms.

          For decades, the furlough, and to a much less degree, the RIF procedure has been used as a budgetary tool.

          What really amazes me the most in many of the discussions regarding "the sequester," is that the misunderstanding of the definition of "austerity."

          Again, folks, cutting jobs for budgetary reasons is not austerity.

          Seriously, when economists refer to "austerity measures,"as I understand it, they are referring to "government entities raising taxes, or revenue, at the same time that the very basic, structural social service programs (i.e., in the US--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are slashed."

          So, while any budget cuts, to any social services are unfortunate, and undoubtedly painful for those folks that they affect, cutting the WIC program (as an example--and in no way implying that this isn't a very worthy and much needed program) is really not an austerity measure.  It's a 'budget cut.'  

          If the Dems and Repubs succeed in "overhauling" our federal tax code to raise revenue (by closing loopholes, or whatever), and then pass and enact draconian cuts to Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid--THAT WILL BE "AUSTERITY."

          Mollie

          "If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:28:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately it's significantly simpler than... (0+ / 0-)

          it all appears. Jobs are an expense. Private sector business owners only take on expenses they can afford. They can only afford additional expenses when there is increased demand for their product. Demand can't significantly increase when you're in an employment crisis, because there's nobody to spur that growth. Owners are looking for consumers, consumers looking for jobs, going to owners, who aren't finding consumers...

          The only entity that can step in and stop such a cycle is a government with a sovereign currency like ours. The Federal government is paying rock-bottom interest rates on its borrowing because everyone knows our debt is Constitutionally inviolable and we have the central banking system needed to back that promise up.

          All of which is to say, while consumers are having trouble getting the kinds of loans or employment they'd need to start spending and business owners are either having similar trouble with loans or are having a hard time justifying spending anything, we should probably turn to the organization that can hit up the ATM for a trillion or three and literally pay zero interest after inflation because there's nowhere safer than Treasury bonds to stash your savings these days.

          In the end, it will be as if your wish was granted, because folks with jobs (even government jobs) pay taxes, and people with jobs buy stuff from people who pay taxes on the profits or pay employment taxes when they hire people, who will buy stuff with their newfound earnings... All of which lowers the deficit by decreasing demand for safety net services and increasing tax revenue.

          "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

          by 2020adam on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:16:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You wouldn't believe it if the government (0+ / 0-)

      essential workers were gone.  You would say it was just a trick.  There is nothing more cynical than both sides do it.

      So whoopie, we are on our way to small government, this house of cards is headed to the bathtub.

      guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

      by 88kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:35:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (66)
  • Baltimore (48)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (30)
  • Elections (24)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Law (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Texas (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site