Sequester is a load of crap.
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
February 23, 2013 9:33pm CST
Anyone watching the news has probably heard Obama talk about sequester. I'm sure you've all learned that the world will end if sequester goes through. Teachers, police, firefighters and everyone else you care about will lose their jobs. The military will be disbanded, Social Security and Medicare will fail to make payments, and your husbands, wives, girlfriends and boyfriends will leave you.
If you're one of those morons who still believes the president is an honest man, you're probably scared to death right now.
Don't be.
Do you know what will happen if sequester, which Obama proposed, campaigned for, and signed in to law, goes through?
Federal spending will increase by $15 billion.
I know, you're heard about all these cuts that are going to happen. Well those aren't really cuts. See, the president projected a $100 billion increase in spending. Sequester would reduce the INCREASE in spending by $85 billion which, to a moron like him, means that spending would be CUT by $85 billion.
Now I know, you're afraid of losing police and firefighters and teachers. Do you know where their paychecks come from? Local taxpayer dollars. They're not federal employees. Sequester doesn't affect them AT ALL. Now if your local state. city, or county cuts spending, THAT could affect them, but not the federal government. That's just more lies from our scumbag of a president.
Just to sum up, sequestration means $15 billion in new spending will happen in 2013, and Obama will fire people, pretending there's not enough money to keep them, just to blame republicans.
2 people like this
10 responses
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
25 Feb 13
Teachers, police, and firemen may be paid locally but how much of their salary is coming from federal grants? Also local communities collect taxes from federal employees to pay for teachers, firemen, and police. I live in an area where one of the largest employers is a military base where they repair damage high tech equipment. What happens when those workers get furloughed? What happens to local businesses that rely the buying power of those employees?
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
26 Feb 13
"Teachers, police, and firemen may be paid locally but how much of their salary is coming from federal grants?"
A very small amount and that money would barely be impacted by sequester at all. As I said, sequester is NOT a spending cut, it's a $15 billion INCREASE in spending instead of a $100 billion increase so, in Democrat math, it's an $85 billion spending cut. Nobody needs to get less money this year than they got last year. Obama's just pulling all this crap to scare people and make republicans look evil when it was him who proposed and campaigned for sequester in the first place.
Now it's likely some parts of government will have to tighten their belts, but do you really believe Obama when he claims that the only way to tighten their belts is to fire people or do furloughs? Obama may be a moron, but I'm betting that you're smarter than him. You probably work for, or have worked for an organization that had to cut costs at some point. Did they start by firing people, or did they look at other, non-morale affecting ways to save money first? Rand Paul cut 20% of his senatorial operating budget without firing a single person. If he can do that with a 20% cut, shouldn't the federal government be able to do it with a $15 billion spending increase?
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
26 Feb 13
It sounds like you were at companies that had massive cuts to deal with, not an extra $15 billion over what they had the prior year. I'm betting they didn't have the kind of waste that the federal government does, like spending $5.2 million to study democracy amongst goldfish. That's in the military budget.
I'm not saying layoffs don't happen, I'm saying they aren't the first thing you do when you have extra money, but not as much extra money as you want.
Seriously, anyone fired as a result of sequester, isn't being fired because there isn't money, they're being fired as a political tool so Obama can blame republicans for the sequester he proposed, campaigned for, and signed into law.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
26 Feb 13
The whole sequester is only about 2% of the entire Federal Budget. Most of what you are hearing is fear-mongering. The media is making it out to be "the end of the world." In reality, the Government still has plenty of money, it still has borrowing power, it still has the ability to print money, etc.
There is at least 2% of waste in many of Government programs. My biggest concern is the military. The rest of it, they can tighten their belts. They should tighten them.
The Government isn't a corporation. They aren't downsizing to make their bottom line look good. Their bottom line is terrible already. A look at the debt clock will tell you that.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
24 Feb 13
Well said Taskr. The sequester is kind of like handing congress a credit card with a spending limit. That is not cool. How are they supposed to budget with out a budget? Why hasn't Reid been brought up on charges? what is the point of having laws if they are not enforced? How can they face America knowing that they are willfully breaking the law? How does our President get away with flat out lying to the public? OMG now my head hurts. There are a million more questions but I realized that I answered a question with a question and I hate that! 
You are right, Obama will fire people and I believe that he is going to target the military. recall, he wants his own Army. It turns out our military will not take arms against citizens.
You are right, Obama will fire people and I believe that he is going to target the military. recall, he wants his own Army. It turns out our military will not take arms against citizens.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
26 Feb 13
Republicans in the House have passed several budget bills and several jobs bills but Senator Reid will not bring them up for a vote. The Democrats love the continuing Resolutions because they can put all sorts of pork in those bills and nobody can vote against it because it is in the public interest.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
26 Feb 13
I was in Education for 26 years and many times we threatened to cut sports, Art and Music to get the tax payers to approve a referendum or tax cut. it worked for many years but when the called our bluff we found the money to keep those programs. We have been told for years that there is waste and fraud in the government now would be a good time for the departments to cut that.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
24 Feb 13
In a perfect world our media would be educating the public on what sequester really means. Instead, they add fuel to the fire of lies and omissions so their guy will get his way.
This just makes me so mad! People are willfully ignorant because not to be so would take a little bit of work, reading news articles 5-10 minutes a day when they'd rather be texting or watching a movie. Those that do pay attention watch the network news shows and see the world is coming to an end and believe it unconditionally because news people are supposed to be trustworthy. Bah! 
@hotsummer (13837)
• Philippines
24 Feb 13
People voted for him. People still might have faith on his decisions and plans. But i have not heard of it yet of this one on the news.
@blackrusty (3519)
• Mexico
24 Feb 13
all we can do is pray that things will work out now I am not for or agaist what will happen but i am on socail securty and I dont want to loose my check becuse the government cant get off the stick and do the job at hand
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
24 Feb 13
I just love political math.
"Hey, Jimmy. I heard you just got a pay raise! An extra $200 a week! Way to go!"
"GFY, Joe! I didn't get a 'raise'; I got a pay CUT! I'm not getting an extra $300 a week!"
"Huh? Well, I heard--"
"I know what you heard! But that's not how it works! I wanted an extra $500 per week! So I'm taking a pay CUT! Get it!?"
"No."
"That's because you suck at life and can't maths like I can."
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
24 Feb 13
Taskr, You hit the nail on the head. I was going to write a post, but you did well.
The sequester is only, susposed to slow future spending level. My question is how. It won't work.
There is no budget passed to limit the spending. The democrats will not pass a budget, or even consider one. The should go to jail because by law they have to.
So without a budget, all of the governmental departments have greatly increased their budgets. Some have increased 50-to 500%. The are not being limited by a budget. This is why we need a budget to control these departments.
Come on lefties, you have to tell you congressmen to pass a budget. Reid will not even consider a budget. This is totally wrong and you do not have a reason to say different.
