How Will Sequestration Affect the Economy?

It may have a small negative effect on the economy but that is something I feel we just need to endure. Sooner or later we are going to have to feel some pain to reign in government spending and small increments are better. Being afraid to make small government cuts because of a little economic pain is one of the reason we are in this situation to begin with and until the people except that we will simply continue down this road. I cant believe the people that are against any government cuts, it baffles me.

Poverty sucks!

Cutting spend means one thing and one thing only. It means people will lose their jobs. Paying people's salaries is what most, if not all, of what the national budget goes to. What this will do is put people out of work, and very little else. During an unemployment crisis, this only makes the existing problem worse.

Also, given the state of our education, cutting from it is intolerable.

Paschendale said:

Cutting spend means one thing and one thing only. It means people will lose their jobs. Paying people's salaries is what most, if not all, of what the national budget goes to. What this will do is put people out of work, and very little else. During an unemployment crisis, this only makes the existing problem worse.

Also, given the state of our education, cutting from it is intolerable.

Click to expand...

Oh, hell yes.

jamesrage said:

Will cutting 2.3% of the 3.6 trillion dollars that the government spends hurt the economy? Not only no but hell no.

Click to expand...

You seem to think that all spending is equal, that no government dollar spent stimulates the economy and all government dollars spent weaken it.

So the 2% the dems took out of the economy in the way of increased SS tax witholdings was good even though is disproportionally impacted the working class, but the 2% coming out of spending because the WH cannot force the GOP to raise more taxes to take even more out of the economy is evil?

Fisher said:

So the 2% the dems took out of the economy in the way of increased SS tax witholdings was good even though is disproportionally impacted the working class, but the 2% coming out of spending because the WH cannot force the GOP to raise more taxes to take even more out of the economy is evil?

Click to expand...

I vow to veto any bill that will replace or do away with the sequester. Who's vow was this?

Perotista said:

I vow to veto any bill that will replace or do away with the sequester. Who's vow was this?

Click to expand...

Don't know but I am guessing the guy who has run around yelling "Suck it I won" so much that he had to announce that "I am not a dictator".

In early humoral medicine practices, as cures, they used to starve a cold, bleed, purge, enemas, etc.

This is exactly what the proponets of the sequester are trying to do to "cure" the economy.

Fisher said:

Don't know but I am guessing the guy who has run around yelling "Suck it I won" so much that he had to announce that "I am not a dictator".

Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't put it your way. But if I had one question to ask the president at one of his news conferences, it would be, "Mr. President, after the sequester was passed, you vowed to veto any bill that did away with it or replaced. Why are you now trying to stop it now and for what reason?"

right now for me, in my opinion it looks like the president is playing political games with sequester, but if he answered the question with an answer that makes sense to me why he changed his mind, then I might change mine also. It is my understanding that sequester was his idea or at least an idea that came from the White House and he signed the bill. So he must have thought sequester was a good idea at the time. I want to know what made him change his mind and why it remained a good idea for over a year until recently.

Paschendale said:

Cutting spend means one thing and one thing only. It means people will lose their jobs. Paying people's salaries is what most, if not all, of what the national budget goes to. What this will do is put people out of work, and very little else. During an unemployment crisis, this only makes the existing problem worse.

Also, given the state of our education, cutting from it is intolerable.

Click to expand...

So why do we not stop giving foreign aid to numerous other countries, something I do not feel we should be doing to begin with, and reallocate it to maintain our own economy? We spend more in foreign aid each year then the sequester will cut.

cpwill said:

Yup. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're finally cutting. But the stupidity of where and how we are doing it is astonishing. Literally we decided that we weren't going to cut unless we did so in the dumbest method possible. :roll:

Click to expand...

The blame rests on Panetta for the arbitrary way in which we cut in the DOD bro. Think about it. Did you receive any guidance or any sort of order on what to expect if/when this cut went into effect? Neither did I. All I was told was "expect to tighten the belts". No word of where the cuts would hit, who it would effect, nothing. He acted as though this thing wasn't going to happen. Just like Pres Obama did during his campaign. Remember? "Those cuts will never happen." lol

Juiposa said:

Cutting anyspending is removing money from the economy, so yes, it will damage the economy.

Click to expand...

how would cutting foreign aid remove money from our economy?