Sequester?

[Pudfark]

No, I'm not.
What I'm waiting for is the truth about Benghazi.
What are you waiting for?

[Buzz]

Didn't mean to hurt yer feelin's precious...
Ask a better question next time.

Showing yourself as an asshole hurts my feelings?

The question was fine.

[Pudfark]

Buzz, you asked two questions, defined the answers and then "bugged out".
With the dismissive attitude that yer second question was nullified by the first
answer. Next time, don't ask of me a second question, when you know the answer to the first, negates it. That's all I'm sayin'

[Pudfark]

Back in a few hours....

[Buzz]

we'll see how it plays out. I think the sequester is a blunt tool to achieve what should have been done through a combination of cuts and tightened tax loopholes. This way, you sort of end up with a clumsy, broad approach that will likely hurt the economy. Time will tell. The politics and fallout seem to be obvious at this stage, and that ALL works in Obama's favor, down the road.

Of course the repubs want the sequester to go through. They get the cuts without giving up any revenue.

Even the repubs agree the sequester is a bad thing for the country. Anybody with half a brain can see that. Which of course leaves out Pud.

[callmeslick]

Buzz, see the other threads on here, Pud doesn't believe education is a good thing. Stupid is as Stupid does, as Forrest Gump put it.....

[Buzz]

Buzz, you asked two questions, defined the answers and then "bugged out".
With the dismissive attitude that yer second question was nullified by the first
answer. Next time, don't ask of me a second question, when you know the answer to the first, negates it. That's all I'm sayin'

No, I didn't know your answer. You're the only person I know that thinks the sequester is a good thing for the country. Do you even know what it is, and why it was made up? I doubt it.

I didn't bug out. I don't live on this forum like you do. I came back for your answer. Too bad you couldn't wait for it. When you were a kid. You must have been the one in the back seat screaming...ARE WE THERE YET!!

Grow up! You're still acting like a child.

[CUDA]

Buzz, you asked two questions, defined the answers and then "bugged out".
With the dismissive attitude that yer second question was nullified by the first
answer. Next time, don't ask of me a second question, when you know the answer to the first, negates it. That's all I'm sayin'

No, I didn't know your answer. You're the only person I know that thinks the sequester is a good thing for the country. Do you even know what it is, and why it was made up? I doubt it.

I've got to call you on that Buzz. the whole sequester is 2.3% of the budget. to put that into perspective. you have a budget of $100 a month and it just got lowered by $2.30 do you REALLY believe that that is going to make a difference. not to mention that this is not an actually cut is just a decrease in a spending increase. so the President is lying. AGAIN
This is a problem because the President is intentionally making this as painful as possible. congress has allowed him to cut where it's the least painful, but he intentionally is trying to stir the pot to make the GOP look bad. that is poor leadership. his intent is solely and purely political. his is doing what he always does and trying to scare the people. it's all he knows. and he has no intention of doing anything to prevent it and wants it to happen himself. if it was not the case then why is he waiting until AFTER the sequester goes into affect to meet with the members of Both parties. there is only one reason he wants to make the cuts happen so he can use it as a weapon.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Rahm Emanuel

this comes from the man that was the Presidents chief of staff and top adviser during his first term. and this is exactly the tactic the President is using in regards to the sequester

[callmeslick]

Was chief of staff until let go, after pressure from a lot of supporters(amongst them, your humble correspondent).

As for the sequester, 2.3% might not seem like a big thing, but once the President protects Social Security, Medicare, Defense Dept Pay and other big-ticket expenditures, it is much larger chunk of what is left. Thus, there will be some pain. This whole sequester thing was designed to pressure the Congress into working together to develop a sensible combination of both cuts and REVENUE increases. For instance, CLOSING LOOPHOLES FOR THE WEALTHY, which are a glaring drain on revenue, and most wealthy people I know don't cry out for them. So, the bottom line is this: cutting what is left WILL HURT, and it will likely hurt folks at all levels, across the nation. It will hurt certain international readiness and long-term options. It will hurt, especially, any chance to go out and rebuild the national infrastructure, which is key to continued growth in the economy. It's a dumb thing to tacitly support, as the GOP seems to be doing, and the public opinion growing reflects that opinion. Good politics for the President? Maybe, but I'm sure he would rather Congress get it's act together and put a realistic, balanced budget forth that provides for the long-term good of the nation. Do I see this group of ass-clowns making that a reality? Sadly, no.

[Buzz]

Cuda....It's an 85 billion dollar cut. If you think that's peanuts. You're ricer than I think.

Let me give you examples of how it will affect lives that can't handle it. 2 billion cut from the HUD program. That's putting the poor, elderly, and disabled on the street.

It's estimated it will cost 750,000 jobs if it's in effect long enough.

The list is much longer if you care to research it.

As for the GOP looking bad? They don't need any help for that.