# 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:** 4
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/61 "2013-03-01T18:14:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Eh? Let’s look at that, using [numbers from the Obama Administration itself](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/). (Table 1.3) The deficit for this year is projected to be $748 billion. Revenue is projected to be about what it was in 2007, before the economic crisis started. Spending, on the other hand, is projected to be $650 billion higher in 2013 than 2007. So increased spending since the start of the economic crisis accounts for most of the deficit, while decreased revenue counts for none. It’s true that in the years 2008-12, revenue did drop from pre-recession levels, but those revenue drops were much smaller than the spending increases above pre-recession levels in the same years. As for spending cuts being the “worst possible response” to the recession, there have been no serious proposals for spending cuts. As I mentioned at the start of the thread, federal spending is going up regardless of whether or not the sequester happens. According to the chart I just referenced, it’s projected to be above 22% of GDP for the next five years, as compared to below 20% prior to the recession. We’ve had federal spending galore, far more than at any time is history except during major wars. If federal spending was actually the key to getting out of a recession, we’d be having good times right now. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/62 "2013-03-01T18:19:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s hardly semantic quibbling. Your argument was that there was a tax-related deal that was already struck, so just doing away with the sequester now would somehow not be kosher. You even made a prediction that I would have not been for just doing away with the sequester if the tax deal hadn’t been made. > > But the very obvious net effect of the deal was to extend the Bush tax cuts for all but those making over $400,000. > > Without the deal, tax rates would have reverted to pre-Bush levels. > > This is not a matter of semantics. It’s a matter of knowing what happened and discussing the relevant issues based on that knowledge. Sure, the fact that the debt ceiling would not have gotten raised without the sequester (where you claim 0 culpability) has nothing to do with the fact that the deal that was agreed to (by The Democrats) was to make budget cuts. We have Rebublicans agreeing to an increase in tax revenue, The Democrats agreeing to cutting spending, the increase in tax revenue has been accepted, the cuts haven’t been How you start blaming the failure to garner said cuts on the Republicans is just pure politics, it makes no reasonable sense. There were no serious talks about cuts, at all. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/63 "2013-03-01T18:28:35Z")
What makes no reasonable sense is the Republican refusal to pay the bills they had already rung up, by refusing to approve the debt ceiling bill. All the rest of this train wreck stems from that. What also makes no reasonable sense is the Republican demand for budget cuts _without specifying what they would be._ Well, OK, there’s the demand to end Medicare as we know it, for one thing, but that also makes no reasonable sense. The tu quoque game is just as tiresome as the false equivalence game. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/64 "2013-03-01T18:50:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The tu quoque game is just as tiresome as the false equivalence game. It’s what they’ve got. The GOP went into the negotiation declaring the only things of value that they could compromise on “off the table.” Then they acted like spoiled children who if they didn’t get their way would pick up the ball and go home. This is essentially how the GOP have behaved for 20 years, but for once the Dems said no and now the GOP is shocked, shocked do you hear! Even if anybody from the right had wanted to negotiate in good faith, their base won’t let them, so their motivation is really a moot point. They had nothing to offer, so all they could do was obstruct. There is no way around this until they are simply overwhelmed by numbers somewhere down the line. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/65 "2013-03-01T18:59:48Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Let me be sure I get this strraight - 1.5 years ago, we passed a bill that said spending cuts would take place - and no one was prepared for them to actually take place? > > Why do we even bother with passing bills/laws anymore? :o I would ask more pointed question - if not now, when do opponets of cuts think cuts should be made? 2020? 2050? ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/66 "2013-03-01T19:06:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What makes no reasonable sense is the Republican refusal to pay the bills they had already rung up, by refusing to approve the debt ceiling bill. All the rest of this train wreck stems from that. This is what I’ve been trying to say, put far more succinctly. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/67 "2013-03-01T19:22:25Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > :o > > I would ask more pointed question - if not now, when do opponets of cuts think cuts should be made? 2020? 2050? I think cuts should be made when the economy is back on sure footing, growing at our usual long-term GDP growth rate. They shouldn’t be made when the cuts themselves could cause the economy back into recession. If making cuts now causes unemployment to rise (which will cause the gov’t to pay out unemployment benefits) and reduces demand, causing a recession, then the cuts will actually do harm to the ratio of debt/GDP. It’s completely senseless. Our debt will be higher because of the cuts if they cause us to slip back into recession, not lower. If no one thinks the cuts are a good idea, then congress should get rid of them. When Boehner said that he wasn’t going to stop the cuts, he got applause from the GOP house members – so, at least they think it’s a good idea to let the cuts go through. So, either the cuts are a good idea and they should applaud Obama for proposing it, or they think they are a bad idea and should blame Obama, while working with the senate to get rid of them. Will we be growing again in two years? Five years? I don’t know, it partly depends on when the government starts being functional again. Having doomsday devices set to go off every month or two is not helping. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/68 "2013-03-01T19:26:28Z")
It’s both - they’re applauding themselves for enacting these cuts, since that’s what Teabagger ideology requires, but they’re blaming Obama for their effects, since he somehow made them do it. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/69 "2013-03-01T19:45:14Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I think cuts should be made when the economy is back on sure footing, growing at our usual long-term GDP growth rate. They shouldn’t be made when the cuts themselves could cause the economy back into recession. > > If making cuts now causes unemployment to rise (which will cause the gov’t to pay out unemployment benefits) and reduces demand, causing a recession, then the cuts will actually do harm to the ratio of debt/GDP. It’s completely senseless. Our debt will be higher because of the cuts if they cause us to slip back into recession, not lower. > > If no one thinks the cuts are a good idea, then congress should get rid of them. When Boehner said that he wasn’t going to stop the cuts, he got applause from the GOP house members – so, at least they think it’s a good idea to let the cuts go through. > > So, either the cuts are a good idea and they should applaud Obama for proposing it, or they think they are a bad idea and should blame Obama, while working with the senate to get rid of them. > > Will we be growing again in two years? Five years? I don’t know, it partly depends on when the government starts being functional again. Having doomsday devices set to go off every month or two is not helping. Some would argue that economy cannot get back to sure footing BECAUSE cuts are not being made. I hope we can agree that the idea to spend your way out recession is just a theory and not an exact science. Economy is about practical balance and not about infinite repetition of ideologically prescribed interventions. Maybe – just maybe – it could be that it’s time to try something else? Besides, $80B is what Feds infuse in economy of new money every month so all this talk about end of days sounds more like Mayan calendar superstition than serious calculation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/70 "2013-03-01T19:47:51Z")
Those who would argue that are arguing in favor of their ideology, but against all the empirical evidence. Go look into Keynes sometime. Or the Depression. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/71 "2013-03-01T20:01:05Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Some would argue that economy cannot get back to sure footing BECAUSE cuts are not being made. I hope we can agree that the idea to spend your way out recession is just a theory and not an exact science. > > Economy is about practical balance and not about infinite repetition of ideologically prescribed interventions. > > Maybe – just maybe – it could be that it’s time to try something else? > > Besides, $80B is what Feds infuse in economy of new money every month so all this talk about end of days sounds more like Mayan calendar superstition than serious calculation. Those people are wrong. We see it happening in the UK right now – austerity and right back into recession. I agree it’s about a practical balance, but right now, we’re doing an infinite repetition of ideologically prescribed interventions – that is, austerity when you’re in a liquidity trap. It didn’t work during the Great Depression, it’s not working in the UK or Europe, and it’s not working here. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/72 "2013-03-01T20:02:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Those who would argue that are arguing in favor of their ideology, but against all the empirical evidence. > > Go look into Keynes sometime. Or the Depression. We don’t have to go that far back and the times are not that simple. Why dont you look into Clinton’s economic team plan from 1992/93 > **[Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonomics)** > > The economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of president of the United States Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001. > President Clinton oversaw a healthy economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term ... > **[THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Economic Policy; Clinton Proposals Seek Political Middle...](https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/18/us/the-1992-campaign-economic-policy-clinton-proposals-seek-political-middle-ground.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)** Who knows maybe Obama’s plan does measure up to Clinton’s but I don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/73 "2013-03-01T20:32:18Z")
The Clinton surpluses did not cause the Clinton economic boom. They came \*after \*it. Then Bush turned them into deficits. The crash came after _that_. The times may not be that simple, no, but your prescription is even simpler. And intensifying, and further simplifying, it after a decade of failure is hardly something that can be called reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/74 "2013-03-01T20:42:20Z")
Clinton wasn’t dealing with a liquidity trap. He could cut spending and the Fed could lower rates to help counter that. As we continue to cut government spending, the Fed is running out of things to help counter that. Short and long term rates are already super low. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/75 "2013-03-01T20:52:46Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Clinton wasn’t dealing with a liquidity trap. He could cut spending and the Fed could lower rates to help counter that. As we continue to cut government spending, the Fed is running out of things to help counter that. Short and long term rates are already super low. You didnt even read that NY Times article 😃 > [@](#): > > For a Democratic candidate, the handling of the Federal budget deficit is viewed as an important test of economic competence, and Mr. Clinton is adamant in portraying himself as a break with the party’s big-spending reputation. Last month, when a group of economists advocated spending $50 billion of Government money quickly to pull the economy out of recession, Mr. Clinton declined to endorse the proposal. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/76 "2013-03-01T21:10:04Z")
Busted, I guess. It still doesn’t change my point, though – the Fed is running out of ammunition, so even the Fed, radical hippies that they have there, have asked for more, uh, fiscal stimulus (? is that the stuff that congress and the executive branch does? As opposed to, I guess, monetary stimulus, which the Fed does?). So, Clinton declined to spend, but Greenspan had lots to work with. ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/77 "2013-03-01T21:55:43Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > You didnt even read that NY Times article 😃 Why are you citing stuff from.when he was a candidate? There’s a whole record of what he actually did as president, and what actually subsequently happened. Make your case on that if you have one. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/78 "2013-03-02T02:10:21Z")
I live in DC, and most everyone I know has a federal job. They have real jobs, doing the same stuff you’d do in the private sector. They manage budgets, train personnel, implement projects and provide services. None of them, as far as I know, suck any teats. I want you to picture what is about to happen to this city. Now, my husband was just laid off and we’ve lost 40% of our household income. It’s a little more than 20%, but 20% is still a big chunk. Since the layoff, we no longer eat at the delicious Italian restaurant we used to go to once a week. I’m pregnant, and I will be getting maternity clothes from thrift stores rather than newly manufactured clothes from local stores. I will get books from the library rather than buying them. I will no longer be contributing to the local arts community by attending plays and concerts, but will instead spend more time at home cooking and maintaining the house. We will no longer be employing the housekeeper, a new citizen with a young family, to do our monthly deep cleaning. In short, much of my money will leave the economy. Now multiply this by the number of federal workers in this region, and what you have is an economic disaster. Our restaurants will close. Our entrepreneurs will fail. Our service workers will lose their jobs. The things that keep this city moving will stop working. We are smack in the middle of providing necessarily service to our aging Metro system, which carries millions of workers to their jobs every day, and these repairs will probably not be completed. This is a bad thing for our economy. This is a bad, bad thing. This will retard our growth, retard the number of jobs that are being created, and while it will not ruin our economy, it will damn our workers for another half decade or so. ---
**Author:** ![mage-girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@mage-girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mage-girl)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/79 "2013-03-02T15:28:12Z")
A friend of mine who is a government worker says each of her paychecks will go down by about $300 due to the sequester. Now, I don’t know about you, but $300 for me would be my part of the rent in the apt I share with my mom. $300 is not chump change. Unless you are actively rolling in money, $300 is a big deal. She’s not entirely sure what she’s going to do, BTW, though she says that her first step will be to stop whining about it. 😉 She is partially disabled so she can’t “just go get” another job. She needs her benefits. I think a lot more people are going to suffer over this than politicians (on BOTH sides) believe. ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632/80 "2013-03-02T16:10:14Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I live in DC, and most everyone I know has a federal job. They have real jobs, doing the same stuff you’d do in the private sector. They manage budgets, train personnel, implement projects and provide services. None of them, as far as I know, suck any teats. > > I want you to picture what is about to happen to this city. Now, my husband was just laid off and we’ve lost 40% of our household income. It’s a little more than 20%, but 20% is still a big chunk. Since the layoff, we no longer eat at the delicious Italian restaurant we used to go to once a week. I’m pregnant, and I will be getting maternity clothes from thrift stores rather than newly manufactured clothes from local stores. I will get books from the library rather than buying them. I will no longer be contributing to the local arts community by attending plays and concerts, but will instead spend more time at home cooking and maintaining the house. We will no longer be employing the housekeeper, a new citizen with a young family, to do our monthly deep cleaning. > > In short, much of my money will leave the economy. > > Now multiply this by the number of federal workers in this region, and what you have is an economic disaster. Our restaurants will close. Our entrepreneurs will fail. Our service workers will lose their jobs. The things that keep this city moving will stop working. We are smack in the middle of providing necessarily service to our aging Metro system, which carries millions of workers to their jobs every day, and these repairs will probably not be completed. > > This is a bad thing for our economy. This is a bad, bad thing. This will retard our growth, retard the number of jobs that are being created, and while it will not ruin our economy, it will damn our workers for another half decade or so. I get tired too of hearing people imply that all government employees are just useless fat cats raking in huge paychecks for little to no work. It gets old. I can already see the effects of the sequester because a government job I had applied for was cancelled; they will not be filling the position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-sequester-cuts-take-place-and-if-i-perish-i-perish/651632.md?page=5)