No proposals to roll back spending cuts in U.S.

World Mar. 04, 2013 - 07:08AM JST ( 23 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

23 Comments

-3

Elbuda MexicanoMar. 04, 2013 - 09:57AM JST

“That’s not going to work,” said Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. “If we’re going to increase revenue again, it’s got to go to the debt with real entitlement reform and real tax reform when you actually lower rates. ... I’m not going to agree to any more tax increases that are going to go to increase more government.” Boy, these rich, nasty, GREEDY Republicans really remind me of that nasty, rich greedy old fart on THE SIMPSONS!
0

MiketanMar. 04, 2013 - 10:24AM JST

Congress has been split between both parties for over a decade. Both parties' support is required to pass anything in Congress under these conditions. Both parties bear responsibility for the current fiscal woes. Trying to blame one group of criminals over the other is simply partisan bickering, and intellectually dishonest.
1

YuriOtaniMar. 04, 2013 - 12:27PM JST

SAFU (situation normal all fracked up! Typical Washington politics as it has been since the beginning.
2

WakarimasenMar. 04, 2013 - 01:13PM JST

Elbuda. You mean MR Burns? The besr Simpsons character by far. As for these cuts, they are long overdue. Just wouldhave been better if they were planned and targetted rather than tthis rather thoughtless way.
-2

Elbuda MexicanoMar. 04, 2013 - 01:22PM JST

@Wakarimasen?? Sounds like Wakarimashita to me! Thanks, yes good old Mr.BURNS! Maybe somebody should make a parody of the Tea Party leader, John Boener with honering or Burns in some new Simpson's episode. Sure, thrown Obama in there to make nice and real??
3

LagunaMar. 04, 2013 - 02:38PM JST

Yup, the sequestration is now a reality - but it is a symptom, not a cure, and that is the danger. Congress must agree on a funding measure by March 27 or the Federal government will run out of money and shut down.

Boehner knows that, for both political and financial reasons, he must not toy with this, and he pledged last week not to let a shutdown happen. But, remember that the sequester was put in place with the absolute certainty among both Republicans and Democrats that it would never happen.

Boehner said, “The House next week will act to extend the continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year, September 30th. The president this morning agreed that we should not have any talk of a government shutdown. So I’m hopeful that the House and Senate will be able to work through this.”

Hopeful. That is a term used regarding the weather. If you heard your pilot announce over the PA that he is "hopeful" of a safe landing, you'd have to launder your underwear. This situation is not much less serious. Let us hope that Boehner can get his caucus to raise the debt ceiling, extend the budget, and allow the Pentagon more flexibility in dealing with its sequestration cuts without any theatrics, grandstanding or threats.
-1

WilliBMar. 04, 2013 - 03:09PM JST

If you spend too much, you decrease spending. Every individual knows that, governments tend to forget that, and especially those, like the current US one, that have have actually re-labelled overspending as a good thing.

And while the White House is cutting national defense to score political points, Kerry is in Egypt, handing out hundreds of millions in support of the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Quite a bizarre situation.
0

Elbuda MexicanoMar. 04, 2013 - 03:09PM JST

Laguna, you have such a way with words! Hopeful. That is a term used regarding the weather. If you headard your pilot announce over the PA that he is "hopeful" of a safe landing, you'd have to launder your underwear!! Best comment I have read here on JT for a long time!
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorMar. 04, 2013 - 03:41PM JST

Again with the hyperbole. "Slashing" the budget.

Utter nonsense.

A trillion dollars 'over ten years' means that over that time, the government would spend 46 trillion dollars, instead of 47 trillion. Hardly onerous.. That is like a human on a 2500 calorie a day diet deciding to cut a grand total of 50 calories. It doesn't mean you have to skip dinner. It means you only put one spoon of sugar in your coffee, instead of two.

What is more important is that, over those same 10 years, the government would still have to borrow more than 10 trillion dollars to finance itself. THAT is a number to fear.
0

Surf O'HolicMar. 04, 2013 - 04:51PM JST

Vast, you're pretty much the only one here who actually sees the forest for the trees. A slight reduction in future increases is not a cut. Even the pea-brained Homer Simpson could probably understand that.
1

Tom DeMickeMar. 04, 2013 - 08:39PM JST

No comment here about my government, but I think you all get the idea. I'm no longer proud to be an American!
0

falseflagsteveMar. 04, 2013 - 08:51PM JST

Tom, you don't have a government for the people, unless those people are mega rich and filling the coffers. One thing never to be is proud of the country you are from, always looks at the bad bits and improve.
1

FadamorMar. 04, 2013 - 11:04PM JST

The Republicans are being devious. They're crowing about "no new taxes" knowing full well that the states will have to increase taxes to cover what the Federal government can no longer give them for their programs.

They're locked into a utopian view of no tax increases and massive budget cuts while ignoring the reality of inflation. Even if they DID get to a balanced budget through draconian expenditure cuts, every subsequent year would require even MORE cuts because the cost of the things they bought this year are going to be more expensive NEXT year. Idiots, every single one of them. Hopefully one day they'll stop kissing the Tea Party's anus and start acting like men and women again instead of puppets.
0

SuperLibMar. 04, 2013 - 11:26PM JST

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator: What is more important is that, over those same 10 years, the government would still have to borrow more than 10 trillion dollars to finance itself. THAT is a number to fear.

Does that number assume we will be in the condition we are now for the next 10 years in terms of weak growth?
1

globalwatcherMar. 04, 2013 - 11:59PM JST

LagunaMar. 04, 2013 - 02:38PM JST

Yup, the sequestration is now a reality - but it is a symptom, not a cure, and that is the danger. Congress must agree on a funding measure by March 27 or the Federal government will run out of money and shut down.

I have never seen anything like this. Just disgraceful. Well, Chinese military has been busy with cyber-attacking our systems and our government to shut us down, I guess we are stupid enough to satisfying their objectives. This is just beyond me.
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorMar. 05, 2013 - 02:57AM JST

Superlib; my numbers are based on Congressional Budget Office projections. I find the CBO to be a generally accurate source of information. Govt spending has increased by 40% in the last decade. Do you think we need 40% more government in our lives? Do you think all that cash is being spent wisely?

The reality is that Washington is awash with bloated programs, and a 2% reduction in revenue increase is trifling. If those in charge in Washington can't find a way to trim 2 cents on the dollar without having a drastic impact on essential services, that speaks to their incompetence. Or possibly to their cynicism.

Like I said before, any of us could easily do it in our own lives. Assuming a salary of 5 million yen per year, a cut of 2% would be just 100,000. Getting by on 4.9 million would be no great hardship.
0

FadamorMar. 05, 2013 - 03:26AM JST

The reality is that Washington is awash with bloated programs, and a 2% reduction in revenue increase is trifling.

The only program looking at a mere 2% reduction is Medicare. Discretionary spending (except for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare) is looking at a cut of 5.6% in the current fiscal year, and a cut of 3.6% in the next fiscal year for a total of 9.2%. Defense spending is looking at a cut of 6.4% this fiscal year and a cut of 5.5% in the next fiscal year for a total of 11.9%. Let's cut your paycheck by 10% and see how "trifling" you feel it is.

Source: The CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907
0

SuperLibMar. 05, 2013 - 06:00AM JST

VRWC: my numbers are based on Congressional Budget Office projections.

Fair enough.

Govt spending has increased by 40% in the last decade. Do you think we need 40% more government in our lives? Do you think all that cash is being spent wisely? The reality is that Washington is awash with bloated programs, and a 2% reduction in revenue increase is trifling.

It's better to deal in specifics. If you generalize things to such an extent then you can make anyone agree to anything.

How much has government spending increased in the last 4 years vs. the last 10 years? I'm guessing the bulk of the spending increases from 2003 are from the two wars and the stimulus packages, plus extra interest on the rising debt. The wars are winding down and it's not like there is going to be stimulus spending every year. So the factors that caused a big portion of the spending jump are not permanent spending items. It's not really relevant to ask if people need 40% more government in their lives.

You also have falling tax receipts which is driving the deficit, not really the spending measures by the government. Cutting spending won't make tax revenues rebound, it might actually have the opposite effect depending on how it's done.

At the end of the day, of course I'd like a more efficient government, but I'd like more organization in terms of how they go about doing it.
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorMar. 05, 2013 - 07:09AM JST

\superlib; In the first term of Obama, the budget went from 3.1 trillion to 3.8. IThe wars added about 200 billion per year at their peak, but that is dropping. The highest was under Bush in 2008. It will only grow every year into the forseeable future.
0

SuperLibMar. 05, 2013 - 01:58PM JST

Vast, can you factor in the stimulus spending, plus the increased interest payments on the debt?
0

noriyosan73Mar. 05, 2013 - 02:52PM JST

It's a farce, and the world stock markets prove it. Cut the foreign aid and protect the USA taxpayer. This is a laugh.
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorMar. 05, 2013 - 03:46PM JST

The stimulus spending was a waste of money. Another disaster to lay at the President's feet. He made his friends on Wall Street whole, and ignored the suffering of ordinary Americans.

All he needed to do to avert the sequester was to have a plan. Just show congress how HE would trim a mere 2% from the federal budget. If he had done so, and spent a bit of time identifying waste and unnecessary spending, this entire matter could have been avoided. Instead, he chose to let the sequester happen, and trot out the usual victims as props in his efforts to shame the GOP into halting it. He seems to have forgotten that the campaign is over, he won, and now he has to start acting like a president.
0

SuperLibMar. 06, 2013 - 07:49AM JST

The stimulus spending was a waste of money. Another disaster to lay at the President's feet. He made his friends on Wall Street whole, and ignored the suffering of ordinary Americans.

Well now we're switching gears. You talked about a spending increase and I was asking how much of that was because of some long-term policy under Obama and how much of that was temporary because of the financial crisis. Even most of the provisions of the second stimulus package were decided while Bush was still in office but it gets credited to Obama's spending since it didn't take effect until he was there. Same with the two wars and the interest on the debt. It speaks to you "who wants 40% more government" comments.

All he needed to do to avert the sequester was to have a plan. Just show congress how HE would trim a mere 2% from the federal budget. If he had done so, and spent a bit of time identifying waste and unnecessary spending, this entire matter could have been avoided. Instead, he chose to let the sequester happen, and trot out the usual victims as props in his efforts to shame the GOP into halting it. He seems to have forgotten that the campaign is over, he won, and now he has to start acting like a president.

I agree that both parties need to agree to cut spending in a smart way. But there was a time limit and everyone was under the gun and the next step in the plan was to create a grand bargain to avoid the sequester, avoid shutdown, increase the debt limit, increase revenue, and decrease spending. After looking back maybe it would have been smarter to take your path but hindsight is 20/20.

Also, just about every economist agrees that new revenues are needed but Republicans are ignoring that in order to placate their base, just as they are now trying to stop cuts to the military and other programs, which is choosing a political victory over their supposedly real intent of cutting spending. Both are needed, but they need to be done carefully. Too much taxation will hurt the recovery. Too much of a cut in spending will hurt the recovery as well. Look at the austerity programs in Europe and how drastic reductions in spending caused drastic reductions in GDP. What we've learned is that too much of either is a bad thing, but know one knows the perfect answer.