Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT: Senate Dems seek one-year 'pause' in sequestration cuts as part of deal (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is that a concession? (5+ / 0-)

    I guess I haven't been following this very closely, but why are Dems seeking a pause in sequestration at all?  Spending cuts to the military and to medical providers (not beneficiaries) seems good to me.  I know it'll have an economic impact, but we need to do it sometime.

    In the meantime, the most leverage to be had is to go over the cliff, then hold repeated votes on reinstating the tax rates for those under $250k.  They might even be able to pass that standalone.

    contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

    by barath on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:55:02 AM PST

    •  They'll Cut Everything But (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask

      Unfortunately, the Dems are identical to the Repubs on this issue.  There is no way D's will allow cuts to the military.  Sad as that is.

    •  Education for example ... (0+ / 0-)

      From what I understand, it will possibly trigger a recession, which means more job losses and revenue losses.

      It would also force a lot of hard choices and cuts to regular programs.For instance, education  ....

      Under sequestration, education funding will be subject to cuts ranging from 9.1% (in 2013) to 5.5% (in 2021) according to the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities. The reduction in FY 2013 would by $4.1 billion. These cuts would be distributed across the various education programs based on current funding levels.
      Trying to avoid these cuts is a sign of maturity.

       "Bring it on ..." is a nice pose for armchair cowboys with no real world expertise.

      •  Don't worry, it's just a "fiscal curb" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vote4Obamain2012

        There's no real harm is stepping off.

        /snark

      •  Real world expertise (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl, NonnyO

        Washington is the real world?

        That's not a good argument.

        •  I work for a tech company ... (0+ / 0-)

          We went through layoffs inspite of profits in 2012. If we cant meet revenue/profit targets then we'll layoff again.  And this is not greedy CEOs vs the Peons either.

          If the cuts happen in force (i.e., no agreement by March/April) then we'll definitely lose billions in defense contracts -- and no, we're not selling guns or battleships, just the millions of IT components that go along with it. Next, we'll also lose revenue in the Enterprise sector as other companies, e.g. Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes, Caterpillar and others cut back. We'll also lose revenue in the State and Local Govt sector as people lose jobs and states cancel contracts. We'll lose some more in the Education sector as there will be cuts there. And companies that sell stuff to us will lay off ... and so on.

          This is true whether I talk about Cisco, IBM, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Juniper, Hughes, Siemens, GE or a host of other tech companies -- if we're selling less stuff, then we need fewer people to make, market and sell stuff.

          I don't know whether Washington DC is in the "real world" or not ... But the CEO of every company that makes "stuff" is praying not to have a recession.

          And anyone whose salary comes in because other people spend money would also be wise to do the same.

          •  Stating obvious (0+ / 0-)

            things is not to the point of whether this was a good deal.

            It really comes down to whether you think the President could have done better in January.

            I think he could have,

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site