1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Sequester ‘Crisis’ And What Should Be Done

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Mar 4, 2013.

Top Posters
  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Despite what the media and politicians would have us believe, the United States did not collapse last Friday when the package of spending reductions known as “sequestration” went into effect. The financial markets hardly blinked, as they have come to be more skeptical about these periodic government-hyped “crises.”

    What had been portrayed as a drastic reduction in government spending was merely a decrease in the projected rate of increase in government spending over the next decade. Under sequestration, government spending increases by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion without it.

    So we are speeding toward collapse at only 100 miles per hour instead of 110 miles per hour.

    Some in Congress are using the panic over sequestration to justify another surrender of legislative authority to the executive branch. These members want to “pass the buck” on prioritizing federal programs by giving the president, cabinet officials, and high-level bureaucrats authority to set spending priorities. However, it is Congress’s job to set priorities in federal spending.

    The drafters of the Constitution give the legislature the authority over spending because they recognized it was a threat to liberty to allow this power to be concentrated in the executive branch. Congress’s willingness to cede more authority to the executive should be opposed by everyone who values liberty and limited government.

    CONTINUE . . .
     
    #1 poncho, Mar 4, 2013
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    I cannot believe I am saying 85 billion is a pittance, but it is compared to a trillion dollar debt. You are correct, all they did was slow down the increase by a fraction. The doomsday senario was all smoke and mirrors.
     
    #2 saturneptune, Mar 4, 2013
  3. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    29
    Well we won't see any immediate impact from these cuts. Most if not all cuts haven't even gone into effect. I'm a federal worker and they must give us 30 days notice prior to the furlough and I haven't received anything yet.

    If this does go through I will have to have a sit down with my family for it is a 20% cut in my salary. We will have to tighten our budget as many others will also. We can do this even though it will hurt. I feel sorry for the lower scaled workers who live payday to payday, this will hurt a lot for them. It's a shame the media is making a 2% cut sound so disaterous when we are facing a 20% cut.

    I still feel someone will come riding in on a white horse and save the day in the next couple of weeks, probably Obama and the Dems...this will get them a lot of mileage.
     
    #3 SolaSaint, Mar 4, 2013
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are no "cuts" in the sequestration. At all, the use of the word "cuts" is a misnomer.
     
    #4 Revmitchell, Mar 4, 2013
  5. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    29
    It is a reduced amount of the projected budget. Even though our Gov will spend more in 2013 with the 2.4% cut, it still is a cut.
     
    #5 SolaSaint, Mar 4, 2013
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Decreasing projected increases not having been spent before is not a cut. An actual cut would be to start from what was spent last year and then spend less than that. When you are still increasing spending it is not a cut.
     
    #6 Revmitchell, Mar 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2013
  7. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    29
    I agree, it isn't a cut in what was spent last year, it is a cut in what was projected. Obama and many in politics misuse the word "cut" here when they don't explain.
     
    #7 SolaSaint, Mar 4, 2013
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...