Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

What do you think the pros and cons are of the sequester?

The Federal spending cuts

Report as
ClaraListensprechen

I think that there are no pros. Both parties signed off on it, a president signed it, and nobody is in a position to blame anybody but themselves.

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (19)
Report as
Aahhh, the voice of reason:)
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Thank you. :)

It is what it is, and what it is ain't good.
Report as
No doubt, Clara, no doubt. .
Report as
What do you think some of the major cons are, if you don't mind me asking?
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
The fact that it exists at all.
Report as
Wow, that is very explanatory.
Report as
You could blame Obama bob Woodward leaked that it was his idea and then congress signed off on it
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Bob Woodwards' head is up his tailbone. His 15 minutes was over with Watergate.
Report as
That's the thing with you libs a life long liberal like Woodward does one bad report on Obama and you just betray him like that
Report as
Please don't degrade others with your comments. Simply state your opinion in a civil manner and don't down others thoughts and opinions budthebeared.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
No complaints from me, Miss Ria. The other nasty things he said were removed. :)
Report as
I know you didn't complain, I did.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Well then. Thank you very much!
Report as
I didnt see what was said, but arguably if someone makes a rude statement you should leave it there to shame them.
Report as
Well, I just have a problem with really attacking statements and comments that are nothing but jabs at the other person, they turn the whole conversation sour and then no one can learn anything or converse after that. I'm sure I am guilty of this also sometimes.
Report as
Oh that was soooooo vulgar and attacking
Report as
Oh and sorry about that I'm just defending Woodward
Report as
Sorry :( it won't happen again
Report as
It's okay budthebearded :)
Report as
Add a comment...

Con: It's a sequester.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Haha :)
Report as
Add a comment...

Cons; many government employees are going to lose 20% of their pay (1 day's pay per week and it doesn't effect the law makers pay), services will be cut, longer lines at government offices, funding to schools and law enforcement and some medical facilities will be cut.

Pros; the American public can't blame either side because they are both at fault.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Cons: It makes automatic cuts for programs that shouldn't be cut. It's a meat cleaver approach that doesn't discriminate between good and bad.

Pros: Even at $85 billion, it represents only 2.2% of our budget and LORD knows, we have more fat in the budget than that. If anything, it's only a start to the cuts we need to make. It just need to be done in a more sensible, reasonable fashion and go after budgets that truly need cutting. BTW...did you know that the Pentagon has programs that they want to cut and Congress won't let them? Go figure.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Yeah, I am hearing a lot of cons about it. I was thinking that there were a lot of things the government spent money on that could be cut. Less important things maybe.
Report as
It's easy to figure. Each Congressperson wants to bring the military pork home to his district. That's one of the problems with district-based (as opposed to proportional) representation.
Report as
Stars IMHO!
Report as
Add a comment...

The whole premise of the sequester, that overall govt spending should be cut, is wrong. Spending should be increased, since the private sector still is not investing enough to bring down unemployment (and the US can borrow at an inflation adjusted interest rate of zero). So another con of the sequester is that it takes money out of the economy when it needs it most.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (23)
Report as
What the heck are you talking about? Taxes take money out of the economy. Cutting the Federal budget is less money for the government and a tiny bit more that can stay in the people's pockets.
The government doesn't create wealth. We the people do that. And we could start doing it again if the govt gets out of our way. Stop feeding the government!
Report as
Yes, taxes take money out of the US economy -- but not that much in the case of taxes on corporations and rich people, since they have less reason to spend at all, and their spending is more likely to occur outside of the US.
Report as
The govt, meanwhile, is at least theoretically more likely to target its spending to create jobs and other socially beneficial outcomes.
Report as
They are taking in more taxes then ever in the history of the us and they are still one trillion short
Report as
There's more income, wealth, and people in the US than ever before so it's no cause for alarm that more taxes than ever before are being collected. Nor that there's a trillion dollar deficit, since the US can still borrow at zero percent interest (inflation adjusted).
Report as
We fought the British for less.....
Report as
And we kicked there a$$ I might add
Report as
We fought the Brits over taxation without representation. Come to think of it, representation is kind of spotty now, with gerrymandering in the House, the filibuster and underrepresentation of populous states in the Senate, judges with policy agendas and lifetime appointments, and the electoral college. Most of that is thanks to the constitution, which was established after we beat the Brits, and has become a sacred cow.
Report as
so you are saying if they represent it they can tax all they want?
Report as
Yes! And if one govt overtaxes, the people can choose another govt to replace it. That's how democracy should work.
Report as
Could we just choose to get rid of king George and his goverment? No we had to fight for it
Report as
And the way it's going in 20-30 years who knows what's gonna happen
Report as
And one more thing the welfare people should not be able to vote because they just vote for the one that's gonna give them more stuff
Report as
I'm starting to think you're just eager to fight. It seems more efficient to try to get what you want peacefully.
Report as
So if welfare people cant vote, who gets to define "welfare people"? Would include farmers getting subsidies? Anyone taking a deduction for mortgage interest?
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
He can't, and you're right about his trolling.
Report as
Welfare people would be the the people sitting there doing nothing but sucking the welfare money
Report as
And why do you hate farmers so mutch?
Report as
I don't hate farmers. I just don't think they, or at least the rich ones, should be subsidized, as they are. At least the people on traditional welfare need the money.
But I shouldn't pick on farmers alone. Banks got bailed out bc they were too big to fail. That probably was necessary to prevent an economic disaster, but where are the laws to break them up so we don't have to bail them out again?
Report as
I live in texas and trust me there aren't very many rich farmers
Report as
And why don't you pick on the people that sit on the couch doing nothing
Report as
I'm guessing that if someone sits on the couch doing nothing all the time, s/he lost their job and can't find another, or has mental health issues. I wouldn't want to sit on the couch doing nothing all the time, would you?
Report as
No I just did like 6 hours of yard work
Report as
Add a comment...

The only con about it is it doesn't cut the budget far enough.

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

It actually doesn't cut anything it just shifts some funds around

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
It does cut. I was just reading this AM about cuts to school bus routes, and soon to school days, on reservations.
Report as
Add a comment...

Its a joke cutting 2% of spending with a 20% increase

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (17)
Report as
What 20 percent increase?
Report as
Their spending 20% more this year than last year but now their cutting 2% of the increase .
Report as
Lol
Report as
Where did you see there's a twenty per cent increase?
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Some folks just pull stuff out of hats and other locations. The deal is paying the bills for what's already been spent. It can't be unspent.
Report as
Just look at last years budget and then this years. There is a 20% increase . So now their losing 2% of that increase .Its not a hat trick.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
It sure looks like a hat trick to *me*.
Report as
I know its hard for you to figure out.
Report as
ClaraListensprechen
Nah. It's more the case that I'm not so easily snookered. ;)
Report as
It's hard for me to believe that with all the debt hysteria, there's a 20 percent increase in the budget that I just hadn't heard of yet.
Report as
The goverment grows every year...
Report as
Maybe, but not by twenty per cent per year. Then it would double in less than four years. Thats a lot of extra trillions. Someone would notice.
Report as
Since Clinton was POTUS the goverment has grown almost a third larger
Report as
Two wars will do that.
Report as
It seems like those wars are the base for all our problems
Report as
And I thought that the libs like bigger goverment?
Report as
Right now there are a lot of people who think the government does almost nothing better than the private sector. Almost no one thinks the government does even most things better than the private sector. I'm in favor whatever is most fair and efficient.
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches