1. Are you ready for the Galaxy S20? Here is everything we know so far!

Sequestration is BOVINE CACA!!!!

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by trophynuts, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. trophynuts

    trophynuts Extreme Android User
    Thread Starter

    ...hey lets all get together and come up with a master plan of creating automatic spending cuts that would be so bad we would be forced to stop them....fast forward 2 years later.

    Congress....ahhhh screw it just let it happen. We're still getting paid.

    what a joke.

    end rant :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

    1. Download the Forums for Android™ app!


  2. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    Is it such a big deal? I hear a lot of dramatics but it isn't even a cut in spending. It is a cut in spending growth.

    The bigger problem is the flawed system that is Congress, definitely needs structural reform.
  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    I don't think there's any flaw in the underlying system. The flaw is in how it is implemented and definitely with the idiots in DC who are part of the system.
  4. rootbrain

    rootbrain Android Enthusiast

    Yep, and $85 Billion out of how many trillion? This is less than 3% of the current spending.

    My taxes after the fiscal cliff fiasco went up more than that. Chrissake, I think this is a good thing. Keep the government in check a little anyway.

    Now to address all the "entitlement" BS.
  5. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    If you are having to scapegoat individuals that means that there probably is a flaw in the system.
  6. Caleb L

    Caleb L Newbie

    They are all loonies on the hill......put them in straight jackets & call it good :)()
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    The flaw in the system is that we the people keep electing people we hate. Then we complain about them for 2-6 years, then we elect them again. That's the flaw in the system.
  8. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert

    The not-so-wonderful irony is that the GOP is happy to see the sequester go into affect because they claim it will cut the deficit when all it is actually likely to cut is the recovery.

    In the last 12 months, the recovery has actually produced - in increased taxes and decreased expenditures - a cut of almost exactly $85 billion in the deficit.
  9. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    Well the flaw is with the system that allows so many of them to get elected.

    PR, donation restrictions, we have discussed this before.
  10. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    At the end of the day, it's the voters pulling the levers. Not saying all the other stuff isn't part of the problem, but it still comes down to voters pulling levers.
  11. jerofld

    jerofld Fixing stuff is not easy

    So $85 billion against our current deficit of nearly $17 trillion is supposed to impress anyone?

    I have an alternative to the sequester. Let's repeal NAFTA. It's absolutely disgusting that products can be made in Canada and Mexico and imported here duty free. Hell, I'm surprised that there is anything made in the US anymore.

    That leads me to my next point: Heavily tax anything that gets imported. That should start re-encouraging the manufacture of goods here in the US. We can expedite it by taxing the living hell out of any company who is American based, but manufacturers outside of the country. Make it hurt to manufacture anything outside of the US and give tax breaks to companies that are fully housed in the US. Because that is one of the contributing factors to our high unemployment. There are no more manufacturing jobs in the US. Why are there no jobs? They're being outsourced to third world countries. Make it absolutely hurt to outsource. Reward the companies that build in the US, even foreign ones that build here.

    Oh, and we need to stop bailing out banks, financial institutions, and auto makers. Nothing should be 'too big to fail'. That was absolutely ridiculous. Big companies fall and get gobbled up by the smaller ones, which turn into bigger companies. But, due to our bailouts, a number of CEOs got huge bonuses those years?!? How backwards is that?

    And something needs to be done about these oil companies. The price of gas directly influences the economy. Why is nothing being done to stabilize that? I know, supply/demand. But oil companies keep posting record profits. If the price of oil is increasing, shouldn't that mean their profits would level off due to competition? Why are all of them posting exceedingly larger profits?
  12. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    If you want more goods manufactured in the US are you willing to pay more for just about everything? That's what will happen. Prices on manufactured goods across the board will go up. This will no doubt cause numerous people to complain (and rightfully so) about the fact the rapidly increasing cost of consumer goods.
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  13. jerofld

    jerofld Fixing stuff is not easy

    I realize that. It would be a delicate balance. And it would be a painful transition. But I wonder how much will the increase in local manufacture increase the cost and how much will it defray due to the increase in infrastructure needs. When a new factory gets built, it provides for more jobs than simply the number of people the factory employs. There are a number of support businesses that sprout up around it.

    As things are going now, though, we are not going in the right direction. Even with our small cuts here and there (even the sequester is small when looked at in comparison to the national debt), we cannot continue on this course. This country will fail if something well outside the normal isn't done to turn us around. I don't think any politician, from either side, is equipped to deal with it. Or they lack the care because they are paid off via election contributions.
  14. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert

    We need a "Space Program." That is to say, we need a president to decide to bring back manufacturing and make it a priority. Let me tell you, it is easy to say it should be a crime to make products out of the country, but that is a simple answer and it indicates a lack of critical thinking.

    I know we can make things cheaper and better in this country. We made better Palm Pilots here in SLC than those that came from China.

    We have silly lawsuits, huge insurance premiums in some cases, union issues, taxes, the public's need for cheap products and many more things that cost us lots of money. We can manufacture products in this country, but necessarily for less money, so the prices will likely increase.

    The president wants a minimum wage increase and that will drive more manufacturers off shore.

    Manufacturers are responsible to their stock holders. Therefore, if they can make it for ten bucks less in China, that is where they go.

    This is a very complex issue but one we can overcome with the right powers in Washington, DC.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    It wouldn't fix the underlying issue though. If you manufacture here in the States it cost more. Wages are higher. Material costs are often higher. There's a higher cost to complying with local rules/regulations. It's harder to recruit/retain people. A lot of people here don't want those jobs. Meanwhile, over seas, people will do anything to get that job, work ridiculous hours and take very low pay and are very, very, very happy to do so.
  16. ItnStln511

    ItnStln511 Android Enthusiast

    I agree with everything you've said.
  17. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    Did you miss out on the last three hundred years of economics?

    Free trade is essential. Countries like Mexico have an advantage over the US because they have free trade agreements with the US, Canada, EU, Korea etc while the US doesn't.

    EU-US trade deal is 'unique opportunity' | World | DW.DE | 26.02.2013

    The US-EU free trade agreement has been the only one started under Obama. However as it is between the world's two largest economies, it could be the most important.
  18. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert

    Err .. the debt is $16.6 trillion. The deficit was $1.1 trillion in 2012 so a cut of $85 billion is 7%. Which actually is impressive, yes.

    Oh - and that's not a cut in the growth of the deficit, that's the deficit actually being cut.

    Uh huh.

    So. The two things that caused the great depression of the 1930s were cutting expenditure and closing off markets. You think that cutting expenditure in the 2010s ain't good enough, we also need to close off those markets?


    Repeating the exact same actions but expecting a different outcome .. I know that's a definition of something, I just can't recall what ..

    You mean, we just had our a**** handed to us in two shooting wars, let's start a TRADE war!

    Uh huh

    Actually, we do need to stop too big to fail.

    Of course, to be able to stop it without destroying the economy, you need to get some things in place first: regulations. And lots of 'em.

    So .. the very stuff Obama was prevented from doing by the GOP.

    Stablise the price of gas? Easy. Reduce your dependence on oil. Use less = demand falls = prices fall.

    Easiest and cheapest way is to make the things that use energy more efficient: improve insulation in houses, mandate more efficient white goods, get rid of inefficient light bulbs, outlaw idiotically wasteful things like Standby on electrical devices and of course, get rid of insanely inefficient gas guzzlers.

    There's a vast list of cheap, easy ways to increase efficient energy use, but of course they're not enough: you also need expand alternative energy sources like solar, geothermal, wind, wave, nuclear etc

    Any of this sound familiar? Oh yes! Again, it's the exact stuff the GOP is fighting to prevent!
    Gmash likes this.
  19. Gmash

    Gmash Extreme Android User

    Some people need to brush up on their history lessons regarding trade wars. Wow.

    Anyway, randomly pulling $85B out of the economy during a slow recovery is stupid. Ask Greece what happens when you pull all of the public money out in order to reduce debt. Backfire! Learn some basic economics, please.
  20. jerofld

    jerofld Fixing stuff is not easy

    Fair enough. I also agree with the need to reduce the frivolous lawsuits. Labor unions and work force practices in general need to be put into place. Yes, there are a lot of contributing factors that need to be looked at. But they simply are not being looked into.

    I disagree about our workforce. While I'm sure there are a good number of people who are on government assistance and would rather stay there, I am sure there is a large number of people who are out of work and would be happy to be working again. If the lack of workers willing to do work is such a problem, it is because we let our government let them become lazy. Social assistance programs should be looked into to make it so these jobs get populated with people who want to do the work.

    I also disagree on the retention aspect. There are very often layoffs in companies. Not hiring shortages. Job fairs are packed. Recruiters have no shortage of people to recruit from. The numbers do not add up into meaning America is lazy. A percentage may be, but that is an issue that needs to be analyzed and corrected. If they are too lazy to work, then they should be cut off and the money be diverted to families who actually need it. Don't get me wrong, I think social assistance is a good idea and should be something that we keep. Just that we need to make it so it's far harder to abuse.

    I will continue to disagree with you. Mexico has an advantage because they have an expanding manufacturing base and have the free trade agreements. You need to be supplying as much or more to the free trade to be competitive or you fall behind.

    More and more is being manufactured in Mexico. We build very little in the US. Yes, we benefit from free trade because the costs of things we get made are cheaper due to cheap Mexican labor and no taxes on import. We lose overall because our workforce is getting outsourced to these foreign counties with very little coming back. Our middle class is dwindling. How do we plan on supporting our country in the next 20 years? Raise taxes? On whom? The rich? Look at France, they are fleeing that country like rats from a sinking ship. Besides, they just would put their money in off-shore accounts that are not subject to our laws. Like Mitt Romney. The non-existant middle class? If they still have jobs that haven't gone to a free trade partner, I'm sure they'll be taxed until they are below the poverty line, which is a catch 22 because then they get taxes refunded. And those below the poverty line already get all their taxes back.

    So what do we do? Do you really think that free trade with the EU is suddenly going to fix all our economic problems? The EU is also in trouble, so I'm not sure how a failing economy is going to fix itself by attaching to another failing economy. Please explain.

    Fair enough. I can concede to that point.

    Something needs to be done. So my solution may be reckless and would need to be refined. I can agree to that. But what we're doing now, which is damn near nothing, doesn't appear to be fixing anything.

    So the solution is to do nothing? While I agree we need to end the wars, some are going to be more important than others. Speaking of the shooting wars, I forgot to mention a full retract of troops. Not immediately, but far faster than the 2020 timeline that Obama imposed. Those wars costed us dearly and we should never have gone in without a firm withdraw plan from the start. The expenditure is no small part of why we are here in the first place.

    I'm of the mindset that they really should compromise. Lots of regulations can be equally as negative as no regulations. Extreme amounts of anything (or nothing) is extreme. There has to be a median where everyone gets at least some benefit. That should be the target. Unfortunately, divisive politics will never permit it. It's far too much of the 'all or nothing' approach from both parties. The Obama administration is no different than many of the ones that came before.

    The only problem with the first statement is that it leads to a cyclical situation. Yes, less use = demand falls = prices fall = people seeing gas prices as cheap = more use = demand rises = prices rise = repeat from the start

    I completely agree in alternative energy. I want the government to restrict the oil companies from buying up all the patents for alternative energy and keeping them in their vaults so that they can continue to drive up oil prices. Especially ones that can make renewable energy that can be used in current day machinery. We are disgustingly dependent on oil. Hopefully the law (or was it an executive order?) Obama signed 2 years ago (more or less) that requires auto makers to make vehicles that get 35 MPG on the highway gets alternative energy moving again. IIRC, that requirement goes into effect next year. I think it will hurt the markets for pickup trucks and such, which are utility-type vehicles. But it'll be interesting to see how auto makers react.

    Again, I agree that we need more efficient ways. And I doubt there are not very viable alternatives out there. I mentioned oil because oil needs a short term (meaning next few years) solution until more effective things can be implemented and the infrastructure be built. Things like charging stations or alternative fuel depots, whenever these alternative fuels are made available. But, unfortunately, even if the oil problem is patched...nothing will change if these new technologies are not permitted to flourish.

    I'm actually a big fan of wave generated energy. Many of our major metropolitan areas are close to the oceans, and a lot of ocean space isn't used for shipping, or could be easily routed around wave generator fields. It simply makes sense to supplement their energy needs with coastal generated energy. I'm not so much of a fan of wind and solar, due to the large amount of land it requires. But if the land isn't being used for anything else, I completely agree with adding it. But nuclear power is definitely superior to coal. Waste treatment is tough, though, and is the major drawback.

    I'm also not a fan of the GOP. I find most of them are as deplorable as the Democrats. Neither side is willing to concede important items that need to be compromised on and we all will lose in the end. Our political system is too infected with special interests, on both sides, and that is another huge problem that needs to be solved. Campaign contributions, as well, need to be reigned in.
  21. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert

    Good question.

    The theory of free trade is that you get to concentrate on the things you can do more efficiently and leave things you don't do well to others who do it better.

    I agree it's kinda tough to see what the US and europe does best, however there are things. For example, in the last 5 years the US has gone from being an out dated, irrelevent backwater in mobile technology to not just the market leader, but having the only two players left - at least, so far as operating systems are concerned.

    If the US put up trade barriers all that would stop. Overnight.

    When Bush launched an irrelevent and unneccessary little trade war with the EU over steel a few years back, not only did both sides lose, people who's businesses had nothing to do with steel lost.

    Except that things are improving in the US. Very slowly, admittedly, but you're doing a heck of a lot better than we are in europe. While the US starts it's third year of growth, the UK - which incidentally, implemented the slash and burn spending cuts advocated by the right - is entering it's third recession.

    What could the US do to improve things? The obvious answer would be an infrastructure-led stimulus: the US can borrow money ridiculously cheaply. It should do that and spend the money on improving infrastructure. Of course, the GOP would have a heart attack. So win/win.

    No argument there.

    Or there.

    Lots of regulation can definitely be bad but no regulation almost destroyed the global economy but a couple of years ago: I think it wins.

    That is true. The reduction in usage would have to be enforced, unfortunately. This could however, be done via the tax system with any revenues used to support alternative fuels.

    Interestingly, all of the US car makers - with the possible exception of Chrysler - already make ranges of vehicles that comfortably beat these fuel efficiency requirements for markets in the rest of the world.

    The idea that it's going to take billions to develop new vehicles is total BS. It wouldn't cost any more than bringing out any new model.

    No argument there - it's just as true over here.
    jerofld likes this.
  22. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert

    This is a map of the agreements the EU has regarding Free Trade. The scale is massive. One needs only look at all the ones in negotiation. Meanwhile the US only has a handful, and maybe 3 or 4 in negotiation (bar the EU, all were started under Bush iirc).

    Free trade is part of the reason Europe doesn't have a trade deficit despite having no natural resources.

    Outdated companies have to be left die off if they cannot modernise. They should perhaps be helped first, but companies are not people.

    Trade barriers promote inefficient companies. They promote shitty inefficient American cars that the rest of the world refuses to buy, for example. Free trade could kill US automaking but it could also make it more competitive and actually gain a lot of marketshare outside the US. Different things react differently.

    In general, Free Trade is seen as extremely beneficial. Two large economies like the US and EU may only get smaller benefits due to the size of their markets, but smaller countries gain a lot.

    The US already has far too much protectionism. Its the reason you don't export much these days, as I said with regards to cars. It just doesn't work, at least not for protracted periods of time.
    jerofld likes this.
  23. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert

    Actually, as I mentioned above, the irony is that US car makers produce some pretty good cars .. in the rest of the world. For example, european Fords are actually more reliable than VWs, BMWs and Mercedes.

    They're also more fuel efficient.

    As part of the US / EU trade deal, the regulations that prevent a lot of Euro-spec cars from being sold (unchanged) in the US could be amended. This would potentially mean that good, well built, more fuel efficient, American cars could be sold in the US.

    The problem would be convincing Americans to buy them.

    There's no such thing as a panacea :)
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  24. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User

    Americans don't really want the small fuel efficient cars you find in Europe. Don't get me wrong, quality wise, they're as good as any you'd find here IME but there's not much of a market here for a small, fuel efficient car. Ideally we want a ginormous SUV that gets 70 mpg. That's what we want.

Share This Page