The Sequester Debacle in the US

[FBM]

Merged with my thread on the same topic.

I was confoozled!

Therefore, God!

[pErvinalia]

Well someone must have dunnit!

[JimC]

It's a load of unmitigated bollocks. So a few Federal workers are going to take a couple of unpaid holidays? Boo-de-fucking-hoo. Time they found out what the rest of us have been dealing with for the last five fucking years. Fuck it, drive the goddamned thing off the cliff. I want total societal collapse, I want people eating dead bodies in the streets and Arab slavers trolling the malls for underage Goth chicks. I want insane Mexican drug lords boiling across the unprotected borders, massacring innocent grannies as the pillage. Flames licking out the Capital rotunda windows while laid-off fireman cheer. Public hangings. Looters. Werewolves with frickin nose lazers. I got my goddamn fucking guns, I ain't askeert. Bring it, mofo.

Kind Aussies will send care packages to friends in need.

Mostly processed wombat meat, but beggars can't be choosers...

[pErvinalia]

I'm moving in with Lak when the apocalypse happens!

[Gerald McGrew]

The interesting thing right now is how Republicans are trying to pin the blame for the sequester on Obama. Why are they so desperate to do that? I thought federal spending cuts was one of their core agenda items?

[pErvinalia]

Republicans are idiots, that's why.

[Ian]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ocrats-ha/

[pErvinalia]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... ?mobile=nc

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ocrats-ha/

Typical Politifact. It's not 'pants on fire' worthy -- the democrats don't have a feasible plan, because there is nothing in the House or Senate, or from the White House, that has any chance of getting a majority of DEMOCRATS. So, they are window dressing. It's not a 'Democrat' plan -- it's a 'small minority of Democrats" plan. It is not a plan that would pass, but for Republican obstructionism.

It should be ranked a "half true" -- because they are 'plans' and they are published. But, should be ranked half-true because they are serious and don't have support of "Democrats" in the sense of a majority of democrat legislators.

[Coito ergo sum]

The interesting thing right now is how Republicans are trying to pin the blame for the sequester on Obama. Why are they so desperate to do that? I thought federal spending cuts was one of their core agenda items?

Because the GOP caved in at the end of 2012 and agreed to tax hikes in exchange for the promise of spending cuts in the future. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Now, we have the sequester, and the GOP is asking for the spending cuts without tax increases, and the White House is saying, 'wait, we need more tax hikes first.'

that's the long and the short of it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/26/cha ... estration/

[Gerald McGrew]

Typical Politifact. It's not 'pants on fire' worthy -- the democrats don't have a feasible plan, because there is nothing in the House or Senate, or from the White House, that has any chance of getting a majority of DEMOCRATS. So, they are window dressing. It's not a 'Democrat' plan -- it's a 'small minority of Democrats" plan. It is not a plan that would pass, but for Republican obstructionism.

So a Democrat plan that passes the Senate with 51 votes, but is filibustered by Republicans is not a plan? WTF?

Because the GOP caved in at the end of 2012 and agreed to tax hikes in exchange for the promise of spending cuts in the future.

Which Obama is proposing.

Now, we have the sequester, and the GOP is asking for the spending cuts without tax increases, and the White House is saying, 'wait, we need more tax hikes first.'

No, the WH has proposed both spending cuts and revenue increases. Republicans are gambling that the sequester won't be a big deal.