# Let the sequester cuts take place, and if I perish, I perish. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632 "2013-02-28T15:19:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/21 "2013-02-28T22:37:36Z")
I think you just proved **Marley** ’s point. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/22 "2013-02-28T22:44:34Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Still, if the jobs to be cut are things we could reasonably do without–and I’m inclined to think that most of the military contracting jobs are that–then it would make sense to go ahead with the cuts… and spend the money employing other people to do things we actually need (transportation and energy infrastructure, say). Again, that’s the problem with the sequester. You don’t get to pick and choose which jobs are beneficial and which jobs aren’t. It’s an across-the-board cut with no preference given to any program or job. Your air traffic controller will be furloughed right along with your junior budget analyst. That is what makes the sequester bad… the draconian cuts that were originally meant to be a severe deterrent for not coming up with a deficit-reduction deal. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/23 "2013-02-28T22:53:03Z")
The problem with the sequester is that it cuts wasteful and vital programs at the same time. Only a thoughtless ideologue who thinks nothing is vital and everything is wasteful should support it. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/24 "2013-03-01T02:53:01Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > You do start to wonder after a while whether the GOP is deliberately driving the country into a second recession for political gain. _The GOP?!_ Not only did the Republicans raise taxes, but they’re willing to [let Obama figure out how to make the cuts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/republicans-want-to-make-the-sequester-better-why-wont-obama-let-them/)! So far, everyone in this thread has been saying the problem with the cuts is that they’re cutting in the wrong places. The GOP bill fixes precisely that problem. Why won’t Obama support Toomey-Inhofe? Because then he has to actually make the cuts, and that hurts him politically. Yes, that’s right, he’s willing to wreck the economy for political gain. QED. Someone want to explain to me why “it’s not what, it’s where” can be the problem with the sequester, yet Toomey-Inhofe is a bad idea? > [@Marley23](#): > > They decided the debt was their big issue, and they’ve decided spending is the only way they want to address it. I don’t think they’re tanking the economy on purpose, but everything else is secondary to spending. Yes, spending is the only way to address it. :rolleyes: That’s why the GOP voted to raise taxes as part of the “bargain.” It’s not really a bargain, of course, because Obama apparently never intended to hold up his end and deal on spending cuts. After the Bush tax cut deal, Obama decided his strategy would be to try to raise even more revenue, the exact opposite of what he said he’d do. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/25 "2013-03-01T03:52:13Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > _The GOP?!_ Not only did the Republicans raise taxes, but they’re willing to [let Obama figure out how to make the cuts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/republicans-want-to-make-the-sequester-better-why-wont-obama-let-them/)! So far, everyone in this thread has been saying the problem with the cuts is that they’re cutting in the wrong places. The GOP bill fixes precisely that problem. The bill was voted down in the Senate. Not even all of the Republicans supported it. > [@](#): > > Why won’t Obama support Toomey-Inhofe? Because on top of the fact that it’s a stupid idea and yet another delegation of Congressional responsibility, it’s a trick the Republicans have already used several times. The spending-cutters spent all of 2012 attacking him for purported Medicare cuts that were part of the health care law, and they’ve spent the last two months blaming him for the sequestration bill they passed. Now they’re asking him to make these cuts for them so they can blame their effects on him and then do this all over again the next in a few months when we have yet another fight about the debt ceiling. And all of that is over an insignificant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. They’re asking him to drink poison for them and you’re asking why he said no. > [@](#): > > Yes, spending is the only way to address it. :rolleyes: That’s why the GOP voted to raise taxes as part of the “bargain.” As part of the cliff deal they agreed to let income taxes on households making $400K a year go back to their Clinton-era rates. That was it. No Buffet rule, no addressing loopholes, nothing on capital gains. Then it was “we’re done on revenue.” The Republican concept here is ‘Be reasonable and meet us 9/10ths of the way!’ > [@](#): > > It’s not really a bargain, of course, because Obama apparently never intended to hold up his end and deal on spending cuts. The Democrats have offered plenty of spending cuts to programs they and their constituents support. The Republican position seems to be that they made a small compromise on tax rates, so Democrats have to cut their programs by a few hundred billion or trillion dollars by themselves. I’d say they are overestimating how much they gave up in that deal. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/26 "2013-03-01T11:20:41Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > _The GOP?!_ Not only did the Republicans raise taxes, but they’re willing to [let Obama figure out how to make the cuts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/republicans-want-to-make-the-sequester-better-why-wont-obama-let-them/)! So far, everyone in this thread has been saying the problem with the cuts is that they’re cutting in the wrong places. The GOP bill fixes precisely that problem. > > Why won’t Obama support Toomey-Inhofe? Because then he has to actually make the cuts, and that hurts him politically. “In order to encourage ourselves to compromise, we have decided that if we fail to reach agreement, we should execute 10,000 people. You object? Well, we will allow you the responsibility of choosing who to kill!” The Republicans always claimed to be the party of big ideas and the party of responsibility. Personally, I never saw where any basis in fact for such claims came from. Their actions over the past several years have made it clear to everyone what shallow sloganeering that all was. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/27 "2013-03-01T13:54:10Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > “In order to encourage ourselves to compromise, we have decided that if we fail to reach agreement, we should execute 10,000 people. You object? Well, we will allow you the responsibility of choosing who to kill!” It’s no secret (except to their rank and file, apparently) that their idée fixe has been keeping the top marginal rate low. Either it’s a sincere (however often rebutted) intellectual principle or just a quid pro quo for their top tier donors. The question with the current GOP strategy is: stupid, crazy, or cynical? There is no reason why it can’t be all three. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/28 "2013-03-01T14:03:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The problem with the sequester is that it cuts wasteful and vital programs at the same time. > > Only a thoughtless ideologue who thinks nothing is vital and everything is wasteful should support it. This is true, but you can see them being somewhat clever in trying to set up the framing, particularly to their audience inside the Echo Chamber. Where the Republicans totally overplayed their hand was by actually letting the cuts occur. Now, every time there’s some delay or deficiency in a social program payout, they can and will be blamed. This is sort of the converse of the Dems’ vulnerability with Health Care. If the same stupid problem occurs the day before a magic deadline, it’s nobody’s fault and just a systemic issue. But if it occurs the day after, it’s now the fault of the party that forced the change. Note this isn’t in the least fair, but that won’t stop the other party from using it as a hatchet. Their bigger problem is when the world doesn’t end in 2 or 4 or 6 months despite the defense cuts, the only thing fueling military bloat (public fear) will be defused, and more cuts will be politically possible. I’m shocked the GOP’s corporate puppeteers allowed it to come to this – even if the IQ of the GOP House is Palinozoic, the CEO of Northrop-Grumman aint stupid. As long as the battle was about rhetoric they had the advantage (oh noes! think of the children!), but the moment it became a test of facts they were dead. The Dems do not have the same problem with social programs because those actually benefit people and are popular. The debt ceiling chicken game taught the GOP the wrong lesson: they thought they could get away with shuttering the government as long as they bleated about “Greece.” That only worked because it was an abstruse issue that had the right optics. This is a totally different creature, and unless the Dems utterly botch it (always about a 30% possibility) it will hurt the GOP severely. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/29 "2013-03-01T14:21:06Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > _The GOP?!_ Not only did the Republicans raise taxes, but they’re willing to [let Obama figure out how to make the cuts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/28/republicans-want-to-make-the-sequester-better-why-wont-obama-let-them/)! So far, everyone in this thread has been saying the problem with the cuts is that they’re cutting in the wrong places. The GOP bill fixes precisely that problem. Why won’t Obama support Toomey-Inhofe? Because then he has to actually make the cuts, and that hurts him politically. Yes, that’s right, he’s willing to wreck the economy for political gain. QED. > > Someone want to explain to me why “it’s not what, it’s where” can be the problem with the sequester, yet Toomey-Inhofe is a bad idea? Toomey-Inhofe got 38 votes. The 2008 Republican nominee for President even voted against it. The Democratic alternative got a majority vote – Boehner asked the Senate to pass something before the House acts again, but Republicans are filibustering that bill. Harry Reid offered to have votes on Toomey, the Democratic plan, and the Ayotte plan, as long as they could pass by majority vote. McConnell said no. How is it that Obama is responsible for letting sequestration happen when Senate Republicans are filibustering a plan that has majority support in the Senate and not letting it pass? Did Obama secretly call McConnell and say, “Psst, Mitch – you gotta filibuster everything. We need sequestration!” > [@](#): > > It’s not really a bargain, of course, because Obama apparently never intended to hold up his end and deal on spending cuts. We’ve had a hell of a lot more cuts than we’ve had tax increases. $1.5 trillion in savings due to spending cuts, even if we don’t count the interest savings that go along with those cuts. Conservatives keep talking about a deal where Obama agreed to no more revenues. Show me where Obama signed up to “his end of the deal.” Especially considering that Obama has proposed an additional trillion dollars of spending cuts, which Boehner refuses to acknowledge. ---
**Author:** ![kjckjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kjckjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kjckjc)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/30 "2013-03-01T14:23:53Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Is there any actual reason to fear the sequester? Are you nuts??? Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee has strong evidence that the sequester will cause the loss of 170 million jobs! As the total number of jobs in the US only numbers about 130 million, that means the sequester will cause every single American to lose their jobs and an additional 40 million unemployed Americans to become more…errr…Super-Unemployed. You think having 113 out of every 100 Americans unemployed is nothing? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/31 "2013-03-01T14:30:16Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > Their bigger problem is when the world doesn’t end in 2 or 4 or 6 months despite the defense cuts, the only thing fueling military bloat (public fear) will be defused, and more cuts will be politically possible. I’m shocked the GOP’s corporate puppeteers allowed it to come to this – even if the IQ of the GOP House is Palinozoic, the CEO of Northrop-Grumman aint stupid. As long as the battle was about rhetoric they had the advantage (oh noes! think of the children!), but the moment it became a test of facts they were dead. The Dems do not have the same problem with social programs because those actually benefit people and are popular. I think you’re right about how it effects the Republicans and military spending but wrong about how it will effect the Democrats and social spending. It’s true that after a few months, we’ll see that we’re not getting invaded by Iranian and North Korean troops, and thus the Republican rhetoric about crippling the military will not scare many people. At the same time, we’ll see that planes aren’t falling from the sky and there are still teachers in the schools, and thus the Democratic rhetoric will be similarly defused. It’s true, as **Lobohan** said, that the sequester cuts both vital and useless federal programs. Just because a federal program is vital doesn’t mean that every penny we spend on it is vital. The truth is that virtually every federal program is bloated, with a bigger budget than necessary. Thus we can cut every federal program without fear of catastrophe. Perhaps the real reason our politicians have been in Armageddon mode for the past month is that they realize that if the sequester takes place, the American people may realize that we can live with the cuts, and might even start wondering if it was possible to cut more. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/32 "2013-03-01T15:19:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It hurts at some times more than at others. This would be one of those times where it’s a particularly bad idea. I think you didn’t get my point. Your specific statement was that this isn’t a good time to cut federal jobs, but I look at the general attitude of the federal government and the various contractors, unions, and think tanks that feed off its teats. I’ve lived through bad economic times and extremely good economic times, and I can’t ever recall hearing these people voluntarily say that it’s a good time to cut federal spending or trim the federal workforce. Nor do I ever recall hearing them say that it’s a good time for the federal government to stay at a fixed size. Instead they appear to believe that the federal government should always grow quickly, through good times and bad. So if we approach spending cuts by saying that we’re going to wait until good economic times when there’s agreement that it’s time for cuts, we’ll never cut spending. Instead we’ll have a deficit spiraling upwards forever. > [@](#): > > This is exceedingly simple and it’s not a secret. If your concern is the deficit, you should know the remedy is a better economy, not spending cuts for the sake of spending cuts. I entirely agree. I want to see the economy grow. I believe that economies generally grow better when federal debt and deficits are a smaller share of GDP rather than a larger one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/33 "2013-03-01T15:19:35Z")
This is the slowest-motion train wreck I’ve ever had to watch. When I look back at the fiscal cliff and sequestration proposals all I can think of is Blackadder’s “there was only one tiny flaw in the plan… it was bollocks” speech. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I think you didn’t get my point. Your specific statement was that this isn’t a good time to cut federal jobs, but I look at the general attitude of the federal government and the various contractors, unions, and think tanks that feed off its teats. I’ve lived through bad economic times and extremely good economic times, and I can’t ever recall hearing these people voluntarily say that it’s a good time to cut federal spending or trim the federal workforce. If I didn’t get your point, it’s because you were talking about something different from what I was talking about. No, people are not likely to volunteer to have their jobs eliminated at any time. But if the job market is thriving, it’s not going to hurt as much. > [@](#): > > So if we approach spending cuts by saying that we’re going to wait until good economic times when there’s agreement that it’s time for cuts, we’ll never cut spending. Or someone will have to make an honest argument for spending cuts instead of saying that’s the correct response to a recession (it’s the worst possible response) or pretending the deficit is out of control because of high spending instead of a drop in revenue caused by a recession. > [@](#): > > I believe that economies generally grow better when federal debt and deficits are a smaller share of GDP rather than a larger one. I don’t see any connection between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/34 "2013-03-01T15:30:41Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I think you just proved **Marley** ’s point. You mean where he says that the cuts are not Obama’s? When Politifact says they are? I can even understand why he did what he did, he figured that the cuts looming would cause Congress to work on it, together. That didn’t happen. Congress sucks but this was his baby. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/35 "2013-03-01T15:46:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’ve lived through bad economic times and extremely good economic times, and I can’t ever recall hearing these people voluntarily say that it’s a good time to cut federal spending or trim the federal workforce. “The era of big government is over.” Does that ring any bells? It was a pretty catchy phrase when it was repeated thousands of times in the news in the mid-'90s. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/36 "2013-03-01T15:47:07Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You mean where he says that the cuts are not Obama’s? Ahem: > [@Marley23](#): > > Congressional Republicans are saying it’s Obama’s fault because his administration proposed the sequestration that they agreed to. Yes, I’m serious, and no, nobody outside of Republican circles is buying this. The thing nobody is buying is the idea that this is Obama’s fault because the proposal originated in the White House. Congress agreed to the sequestration idea to force themselves to come up with a deal. Of course it’s failed miserably just like the supercommittee and the fiscal cliff did. Nobody cares who came up with it. And of course there’s the incoherence of saying these cuts are all Obama’s fault and then saying they aren’t so bad and might have been necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/37 "2013-03-01T15:50:13Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You mean where he says that the cuts are not Obama’s? When Politifact says they are? > > I can even understand why he did what he did, he figured that the cuts looming would cause Congress to work on it, together. That didn’t happen. > > Congress sucks but this was his baby. Pssst. Obama isn’t in Congress. He can’t pass sequester into law and he can’t pass a law to get rid of it. His role is basically limited to veto or not veto. Plus, he can make suggestions. If congress doesn’t like sequester it could be gone in five minutes. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/38 "2013-03-01T16:04:40Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You mean where he says that the cuts are not Obama’s? When Politifact says they are? > > I can even understand why he did what he did, he figured that the cuts looming would cause Congress to work on it, together. That didn’t happen. > > Congress sucks but this was his baby. The whole reason sequestration happened was that it was the only way to get the Republicans in Congress to agree to raise the debt ceiling, which _had_ to happen to keep the U.S. from defaulting on our debts. Obama and the Democrats would have been perfectly willing to just raise the debt ceiling without any sequester. The sequestration was basically a bone the Obama admin was throwing to the anti-spending Tea Partiers in Congress to keep them from forcing the United States into default. To repeat my metaphor from another thread, if a drug cartel kidnaps my family, and I offer them money in exchange for my family’s safe release, do you blame me for funding the drug trade? Or do you blame the hostage takers? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/39 "2013-03-01T16:15:13Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You mean where he says that the cuts are not Obama’s? When Politifact says they are? I mean his point that the only people that buy that Obama is primarily responsible for the sequester are Republican partisans. As more evidence: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/26/poll-more-would-blame-congress-for-cuts/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/26/poll-more-would-blame-congress-for-cuts/) That 32% that primarily blame Obama is your GOP base. The rest is your Democratic base and those that are either independent or don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/40 "2013-03-01T16:16:29Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > The whole reason sequestration happened was that it was the only way to get the Republicans in Congress to agree to raise the debt ceiling, which _had_ to happen to keep the U.S. from defaulting on our debts. Obama and the Democrats would have been perfectly willing to just raise the debt ceiling without any sequester. The sequestration was basically a bone the Obama admin was throwing to the anti-spending Tea Partiers in Congress to keep them from forcing the United States into default. > > To repeat my metaphor from another thread, if a drug cartel kidnaps my family, and I offer them money in exchange for my family’s safe release, do you blame me for funding the drug trade? Or do you blame the hostage takers? He should have minted the damn coin and been done with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632.md?page=3)