Despite the scare tactics of the Obama administration leading up to the sequester, the world did not end Friday when the cuts began. The sequester is not a bad thing, as it is a small and necessary start to reducing the runaway spending by our federal government. The federal budget now is 14% larger than President Bush's last budget. Surely, sequester cuts amounting to roughly 2.3% of our federal budget will not cause a calamity for our country. Even after the sequester cuts, the federal budget will still be larger than last year's budget. The federal budget last year was $3.538 trillion and after the cuts it will be $3.553 trillion. Even at last year's smaller budget, the border was patrolled, emergency responders arrived, and other functions of government were performed satisfactorily. According to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, there are many ways that the sequester cuts could be easily satisfied without cutting essential services. For example, the budget for the Department of Transportation last year was $75 billion and this year was $89 billion. He suggested that instead of the Dept. of Transportation furloughing air traffic controllers, spending should be cut for Alaska sightseeing trains (amounting to $72 million) and trolleys in Missouri (amounting to $22 million). The same sensible approach to cutting spending can be done in every other federal department.
As Margaret mentioned, I do not believe that having the sequester cute is a bad idea. It may actually challenge the economy and help it. It would reduce government spending which is necessary in order to get out of the great economic downfall we are in. I agree with Margaret that "sequester cuts amounting to roughly 2.3% of our federal budget will not cause a calamity for our country". The different organizations that may be "disrupted" will not be disrupted for long, I believe that they will be challenged from the cuts and continue their inspections. The economic pain that both parties do not like, does not make sense, because our country in itself is in "economic pain" with debt. So, the sequester cuts may actually be a good thing, decreasing government spending. Obama's approach of taxing to balance with the sequester cuts would cause more "economic pain", then the cuts alone. With sequester cuts, everything will not stop the way it is going. Precautions will be taken and organizations will still follow through, even if they are annoyed with the cuts, and government functions will not be halted.I believe that the sequester cuts will not effect our economy negatively, more-it would help, and that a small decrase (2.3%) is inevitable.
Sequester cite are much less relevant to the economy than many claim. The effect of government spending in spurring the economy is said to be based on the Keynesian model, which is known to over exaggerate the government's role in stimulating the economy. There are several reasons this is true, but basically it is because the effect of the multiplier effect does not work as well in real life. There too many "leaks" in the economy for this to fully work in real life.
That being said, the sequester cuts will undoubtedly affect the role of the military. Some aspects of recruitment need to be paired down. For example, the Air Force should not be sponsoring football games. That being said, a strong military is vital to national security. I think that cuts would have better made elsewhere. These cuts are going to effect ROTC scholarships and defense programs when reform on social programs could solve social problems and help this country more.
Similar to what everyone else has said, I don't believe the sequester cuts are going to have the big devasting results many people thought they would have. It seems to me that with the proper managment and control our country will be just fine with these minimal budget cuts. I don't think anything horrible is going to happen because of these cuts. I think these cuts may even be helpful for our economy. I think this because right now our budget seems to me to be too big, we need to minimize government spending not maximize it, in order to control our debt. Which is why i think cuts on government spending are for the best.
One thing I find interesting about the sequester is that it seems that neither party really wants to take credit for the cuts. John Boehner has spoken about the sequester cuts, saying in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, that he believes the cuts could effect the U.S. national security and threatens thousands of jobs.
The cuts actually could effect national security. The Navy has had to cancel scheduled maintence for some of its warships, and one ship that was headed out to sea was stopped. The Navy has also had to stand down four of its air wings, one of them set to go idle next month. Also, the Army is starting to 'curtail' training for all of its units except for those headed for Afghanistan. This will weaken about 80% of the active force's ability to respond if needed. We are still in a war, and we NEED an able, ready military. The effect of the sequester cuts to the US military are publicized, something that al Qaeda can see, which could mean trouble for our troops overseas.
Another factor of the sequester cuts is the amount of people losing income. Already, the Pentagon has cut the hours of a lot of its civilian workers, along with many other departments. This will cause these people to lose some of their income, giving less money to put back into the economy. I don't know the total effect this will have on the econonmy, but it will definitely have one, whether you believe it will be good or bad.
I do not think the Sequester cuts are a bad thing. As Margaret said our federal budget is alarmingly large. The cuts are evenly split between the domestic and defense programs, with half affecting defense discretionary spending. The effect of these cuts is to reduce the scale of existing programs rather than to zero out any of them. Stephen Fuller, an economist at the libertarian-minded George Mason University, puts the number at 2.14 million jobs lost. That includes the direct loss of 325,693 jobs from defense cuts and 420,529 jobs from non-defense cuts. The rest of the jobs losses are indirect, resulting in a 1.5 point increase in the unemployment rate Macroeconomic Advisers estimates the sequester will add only 0.25 points to the unemployment rate, a sixth of the impact Fuller predicts.
President Obama has said how these sequester cuts are going to be terrible to our economy and that the Republicans are not compromising on closing tax loop holes for the wealthy. These sequester cuts have just become another blame game for both parties. Neither party is taking responsibility for having to put the sequestration cuts into effect.
Now though, people are seeing that these cuts are not as devastating as they thought they were going to be. This is why even Obama's approval rating has hardly shifted since the cuts.
The interesting thing is that in the final hours before the sequestration was about to go into effect, the president and Congress were no where to be found in Washington. If it was supposed to be so terrible for our economy, why were they not there to try to make a deal? Both parties are acting childish and are both to blame for not having a deal done to prevent the cuts.
I agree with the other comments that it does not seem like the sequester cuts will have a huge effect. I think there was a lot of hype about it but for not a huge reason. If anything, I think they are a good thing rather than a bad one. I don't think that budget cuts for defense were a bad idea, but I think they could have been a little excessive in that specific area. All in all, I doubt the effect will be anything major.
Congressmen have become so polarized at this point, it is sad to say that sequester cuts were the only way to ensure some type of stopper on government spending. It is not necessarily one party’s fault, but rather the collective, stubborn actions of both parties. Due to the fact that many politicians put their personal agenda before compromise, the country is forced into these types of situations. I definitely agree with Isabelle that defense cuts are the last thing that the United States needs right now because the country is in the middle of a war. Not only does it directly affect the military, but it also affects the world’s perception of the United States as vulnerable. With radical terrorist groups waiting to pounce, it is a national security risk to cut military spending. There is, however, no right place to cut government spending. When Mitt Romney suggested cutting spending for FEMA, Hurricane Sandy hit. It seems that the least necessary programs become relevant at one time or another, making it difficult to weed out the inefficiencies from necessities. It is interesting to note that politicians predicted panic because of the sequester cuts, but it never came to fruition. According to a USA Today article, this is because of Washington’s disconnect with United States’ citizens. The daily needs of citizens really come from the state and local governments. Although citizens will still feel the effect of these spending cuts, law and order will not truly be affected. Local governments handle day-to-day laws and regulations, although the country attempts to make everything into a federal case. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/03/sequester-cuts-and-washingtons-disconnect-column/1960559/
Although I would agree that the sequester cuts will not be as terrible as many in the media have pegged, I still think that the fact that Congress and the President were unable to come to a compromise perpetuates the unappealing image that our government is inefficient, or worse, dysfunctional. Obviously, neither party has, nor will they, take credit for these cuts. This will only lead to the increased polarization of parties.
Another dimension that I find about the sequestration cuts particularly unsatisfactory on a personal note is the dimension regarding 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. As the United States ranks only 17th in an assessment of global education systems (namely the EIU test), one would assume that education would be the last place from which federal budgetary cuts should come from. Further, since higher education and university funding has been cut, research that takes place at universities for disease prevention and control will be hindered.
I think that the main thing the sequester cuts show is that our government is determined to not get anything done. This is very similar to the situation with the "Fiscal Cliff" where Congress and Obama set a deadline to figure things out and tried to scare "future" Congress and Obama into actually getting their jobs done by the deadline. Nevertheless, nothing has gotten done. I think that allowing these cuts to go through, though it may be temporarily detrimental to the economy, would be better for the country in the long run, because it would finally hold the government accountable for the fact that they have literally lost the ability to compromise on anything, and the nation is suffering as a result.
Like Stephanie said, it's pretty sad that nothing seems to be getting done in the government now a days because parties simply can't agree. Their opinions are getting further and further apart and seem more and more wrong to each opposing party. Democrats basically wanted to avoid sequester cuts through taking money from the richy-rich and republicans waned to take money from the programs that help the poor. Complete opposites. Like Steph said the nation really is hurting because of this constant fail to compromise. After reading the other comments it seems like everyone is stating that the cuts don't seem to have had a detrimental effect or whatever but I'd just like to point out that they haven't been in operation for very long either - like at all. I'm not sure if they never will be that big of a deal or if it's because they haven't had time to do something yet but I figured I'd just point that out. I mean Isabelle already pointed some things out that the cuts could negatively effect. But again, like Margaret basically said, there's not really much we can do when no one is willing to compromise and we have this HUGE national debt to "solve". Something had to be done and I guess the cuts were that something - if they were detrimental to our economy I don't think they would've taken place - I think our government is definitely still functional in the sense that they wouldn't let everything go under.
I agree with what Stephanie and Erin were saying that it is pretty terrible that Congress and the President couldn't come to a compromise over the sequester cuts. Parties are becoming more polarized over situations and nobody is willing to bend a little for the other party. This is becoming a serious problem and is hurting ourselves in the process. One of the main points in the debate between the two parties over the sequester cuts is whether to include more tax revenue in a broad deficit reduction plan. Obviously both sides were unable to compromise over this. Hopefully this situation was a wake up call, that both parties will need to start coming to an agreement.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still believe that the sequester cuts is something that will challenge the economy forward, which is what we need with the never-ending debt America is in. But I also agree with Gretchen that nowadays, it seems like nothing is getting done in the government because the parties cannot reach a compromise. All the parties are doing is arguing and debating but not coming to a single point. As Gretchen mentioned, Democrats want to avoid sequester cuts through taking money from the rich and Republicans waned to take money from the programs that help the poor which is opposites. Instead of wanting what they do want, a compromise should be made between them so that the country can keep moving forward. It is making the country lager behind. I agree with Kristen that both parties are acting childish. And, she makes a good point that hours before the sequester cuts were going to go into effect, why wasn't Congress and the president no where to be found?
Erin brings up a good point about the negative effects on research from universities if the cuts are directed towards education. With cutting edge research from many universities, this could affect more than Congress might have planned, delving into areas of medicine and health care. President Obama seems to be exaggerating the supposed effects of the sequester cuts, in order to safeguard his decisions towards the economy. People will pessimistically fear the worst and credit Obama when the economy does not completely plummet. This is an old political tactic to lower the country’s standards, in order to glorify any decisions that the president makes. This seems to be Obama’s strategy for all decisions he has made about the economy. Since his presidency, the economy has stabilized and gotten slightly better, but after the detrimental 2008 economic crisis, the country has not had the highest expectations. The sequester cuts came about because the Democrats and Republicans in Congress could not agree, not involving Obama. Although President Obama did not really have anything to do with the sequester cuts, due to the way the country works, he must take the responsibility for the status of the economy. As a result, he is taking a defensive stance on the sequester cuts, in order to protect his standing with the American people.
In my opinion, the sequester cuts don't really seem like that huge of a deal. I agree with Gabriella that President Obama may be exaggerating them to get the nation to expect the worst and be happier with the actual outcome. But in actuality, the sequester cuts aren't really the work of Obama. They are just because of the extremely polarized political climate and the fact that no one could come to an agreement. So crediting or blaming Obama for their effect doesn't really make sense. I hope that this incident will help the two parties to compromise more and come to agreement more easily in the future, but that seems unlikely right now. They will need to start working a lot harder to compromise.
After reading the posts made by my classmates, my original thoughts on the matter remain the same. In addition I wouldnjustnlike to agree about it being very sad and disappointing that our government could not reach across party lines and compromise over the sequester cuts. It seems like one of the very first moral lessons ever taught is to compromise, perhaps preceded by 'sharing is caring'. I find it hard to believe that there was no possible way for the two parties to come to some sort of compromise after the issue. It strikes me as something the government should be embarrassed about, I certainly would be.
Again, I agree with many of the points raised pertaining to how upsetting it is that the two parties could not come to a compromise on this issue. I thought it was interesting and how Stephanie made the comparison between this presumptive fiscal “Armageddon” and the fiscal cliff deals, and how unsatisfactory it is that there must be some sort of presumptive economic death threat to accomplish substantial economic changes.
However, the fact of the matter remains to subsequent to the failure of the sequester deals, the stock market had quite the opposite effect of that which was expected. The stock market reached record highs, indicating that there was certainty within the markets. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
Interestingly, the sequester already seems like "yesterday's news" as the talk has already turned to the debt ceiling debate. Further, it appears that the investing public seems to like the idea of the sequester, as the stock market has reached new highs in the last two days. So it appears that the sequester was much ado about nothing and further highlighted the dysfunction of our government. This factor has already been discussed by many but I have not touched on it yet. We have discussed the increasingly polarized political climate frequently in class and its negative effect on the ability of government to function properly and efficiently. To reiterate what everyone else has already stated, the sequester cuts were a direct result of the refusal of the Democrats and Republicans to compromise on any issues. It seems as though Congress has done nothing in recent times due to the unwillingness of either side to budge. Hopefully more politicians will warm up to the idea of working across the aisle and the government will be able to perform its duties effectively.
The sequester has a symbolic meaning but very real consequences. It's early on to dub the consequences as "much ado about nothing" as Margaret stated because the stock market also received fantastic data that may have overshadowed most of its impact. Exaggeration by the Obama Administration is undeniable. As Gabriella correctly stated, "President Obama seems to be exaggerating the supposed effects of the sequester cuts, in order to safeguard his decisions towards the economy. People will pessimistically fear the worst and credit Obama when the economy does not completely plummet." In his defense, at least President Obama didn't flat out lie to the public about this like a certain President (The "War on Terror," anyone?).
A report showing that US manufacturing activity had expanded in February at the fastest pace in 20 months undoubtedly helped offset some negative results, including the sequester and discouraging news in Europe and China. Consumer also rose in February, helping to add cushion to the blow. Despite the American public being willing to "shrug off" the federal cuts, they are still expected to shave about a half-percentage point from economic growth this year. We forget these cuts will probably slow a still-weak economy, and decrease the amount of "bigger purchases" (ie cars, appliances) by consumers.
Lesson learned: We will survive, but we should be fearful of decisions to come.
I would disagree with Katie. Obama's remarks and general publicity campaign regarding the sequester and the budget in general has been EXACTLY THE SAME as Bush's handling of the "War on Terror." Both Presidents aimed to scare the public into support a useless policy. Let's be honest, the sequester cuts are basically irrelevant. Obama painted the picture as though "the Sky was falling," to quote Chicken Little (and Rush Limbaugh). He wanted to make it look like he and the Congressional Democrats were making the tough decision to implement these cuts to save US from plummeting over the fiscal cliff, all while saving the poor and trampled on middle class from losing their benefits to the 1% and the Republicans who try to kill (literally if reference Obama's campaign ads; figuratively if you're not insane) the poor, the elderly, and all minorities. Similarly, Bush's Publicity strategy involved scaring Americans into thinking that Al Qaeda had WoMD (which was NOT a lie, the CIA told him they were suspicious but couldn't prove that the weapons existed...it was LATER determined that they actually didn't). The goal in general was to make every voting citizen believe they were vulnerable in their suburban homes. Both publicity campaigns twisted, and manipulated the truth, and probably fudged some details in the process. In my opinion they basically painted pictures of lies to drum up support for their inadequate policy programs. At the time, both things may have seemed like the right thing to do.
Despite the scare tactics of the Obama administration leading up to the sequester, the world did not end Friday when the cuts began. The sequester is not a bad thing, as it is a small and necessary start to reducing the runaway spending by our federal government. The federal budget now is 14% larger than President Bush's last budget. Surely, sequester cuts amounting to roughly 2.3% of our federal budget will not cause a calamity for our country. Even after the sequester cuts, the federal budget will still be larger than last year's budget. The federal budget last year was $3.538 trillion and after the cuts it will be $3.553 trillion. Even at last year's smaller budget, the border was patrolled, emergency responders arrived, and other functions of government were performed satisfactorily. According to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, there are many ways that the sequester cuts could be easily satisfied without cutting essential services. For example, the budget for the Department of Transportation last year was $75 billion and this year was $89 billion. He suggested that instead of the Dept. of Transportation furloughing air traffic controllers, spending should be cut for Alaska sightseeing trains (amounting to $72 million) and trolleys in Missouri (amounting to $22 million). The same sensible approach to cutting spending can be done in every other federal department.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324662404578329862541820272.html
As Margaret mentioned, I do not believe that having the sequester cute is a bad idea. It may actually challenge the economy and help it. It would reduce government spending which is necessary in order to get out of the great economic downfall we are in. I agree with Margaret that "sequester cuts amounting to roughly 2.3% of our federal budget will not cause a calamity for our country". The different organizations that may be "disrupted" will not be disrupted for long, I believe that they will be challenged from the cuts and continue their inspections. The economic pain that both parties do not like, does not make sense, because our country in itself is in "economic pain" with debt. So, the sequester cuts may actually be a good thing, decreasing government spending. Obama's approach of taxing to balance with the sequester cuts would cause more "economic pain", then the cuts alone. With sequester cuts, everything will not stop the way it is going. Precautions will be taken and organizations will still follow through, even if they are annoyed with the cuts, and government functions will not be halted.I believe that the sequester cuts will not effect our economy negatively, more-it would help, and that a small decrase (2.3%) is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteSequester cite are much less relevant to the economy than many claim. The effect of government spending in spurring the economy is said to be based on the Keynesian model, which is known to over exaggerate the government's role in stimulating the economy. There are several reasons this is true, but basically it is because the effect of the multiplier effect does not work as well in real life. There too many "leaks" in the economy for this to fully work in real life.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the sequester cuts will undoubtedly affect the role of the military. Some aspects of recruitment need to be paired down. For example, the Air Force should not be sponsoring football games. That being said, a strong military is vital to national security. I think that cuts would have better made elsewhere. These cuts are going to effect ROTC scholarships and defense programs when reform on social programs could solve social problems and help this country more.
Similar to what everyone else has said, I don't believe the sequester cuts are going to have the big devasting results many people thought they would have. It seems to me that with the proper managment and control our country will be just fine with these minimal budget cuts. I don't think anything horrible is going to happen because of these cuts. I think these cuts may even be helpful for our economy. I think this because right now our budget seems to me to be too big, we need to minimize government spending not maximize it, in order to control our debt. Which is why i think cuts on government spending are for the best.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I find interesting about the sequester is that it seems that neither party really wants to take credit for the cuts. John Boehner has spoken about the sequester cuts, saying in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, that he believes the cuts could effect the U.S. national security and threatens thousands of jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe cuts actually could effect national security. The Navy has had to cancel scheduled maintence for some of its warships, and one ship that was headed out to sea was stopped. The Navy has also had to stand down four of its air wings, one of them set to go idle next month. Also, the Army is starting to 'curtail' training for all of its units except for those headed for Afghanistan. This will weaken about 80% of the active force's ability to respond if needed. We are still in a war, and we NEED an able, ready military. The effect of the sequester cuts to the US military are publicized, something that al Qaeda can see, which could mean trouble for our troops overseas.
Another factor of the sequester cuts is the amount of people losing income. Already, the Pentagon has cut the hours of a lot of its civilian workers, along with many other departments. This will cause these people to lose some of their income, giving less money to put back into the economy. I don't know the total effect this will have on the econonmy, but it will definitely have one, whether you believe it will be good or bad.
I do not think the Sequester cuts are a bad thing. As Margaret said our federal budget is alarmingly large. The cuts are evenly split between the domestic and defense programs, with half affecting defense discretionary spending. The effect of these cuts is to reduce the scale of existing programs rather than to zero out any of them. Stephen Fuller, an economist at the libertarian-minded George Mason University, puts the number at 2.14 million jobs lost. That includes the direct loss of 325,693 jobs from defense cuts and 420,529 jobs from non-defense cuts. The rest of the jobs losses are indirect, resulting in a 1.5 point increase in the unemployment rate Macroeconomic Advisers estimates the sequester will add only 0.25 points to the unemployment rate, a sixth of the impact Fuller predicts.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama has said how these sequester cuts are going to be terrible to our economy and that the Republicans are not compromising on closing tax loop holes for the wealthy. These sequester cuts have just become another blame game for both parties. Neither party is taking responsibility for having to put the sequestration cuts into effect.
ReplyDeleteNow though, people are seeing that these cuts are not as devastating as they thought they were going to be. This is why even Obama's approval rating has hardly shifted since the cuts.
The interesting thing is that in the final hours before the sequestration was about to go into effect, the president and Congress were no where to be found in Washington. If it was supposed to be so terrible for our economy, why were they not there to try to make a deal? Both parties are acting childish and are both to blame for not having a deal done to prevent the cuts.
I agree with the other comments that it does not seem like the sequester cuts will have a huge effect. I think there was a lot of hype about it but for not a huge reason. If anything, I think they are a good thing rather than a bad one. I don't think that budget cuts for defense were a bad idea, but I think they could have been a little excessive in that specific area. All in all, I doubt the effect will be anything major.
ReplyDeleteCongressmen have become so polarized at this point, it is sad to say that sequester cuts were the only way to ensure some type of stopper on government spending. It is not necessarily one party’s fault, but rather the collective, stubborn actions of both parties. Due to the fact that many politicians put their personal agenda before compromise, the country is forced into these types of situations.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Isabelle that defense cuts are the last thing that the United States needs right now because the country is in the middle of a war. Not only does it directly affect the military, but it also affects the world’s perception of the United States as vulnerable. With radical terrorist groups waiting to pounce, it is a national security risk to cut military spending. There is, however, no right place to cut government spending. When Mitt Romney suggested cutting spending for FEMA, Hurricane Sandy hit. It seems that the least necessary programs become relevant at one time or another, making it difficult to weed out the inefficiencies from necessities.
It is interesting to note that politicians predicted panic because of the sequester cuts, but it never came to fruition. According to a USA Today article, this is because of Washington’s disconnect with United States’ citizens. The daily needs of citizens really come from the state and local governments. Although citizens will still feel the effect of these spending cuts, law and order will not truly be affected. Local governments handle day-to-day laws and regulations, although the country attempts to make everything into a federal case.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/03/sequester-cuts-and-washingtons-disconnect-column/1960559/
Although I would agree that the sequester cuts will not be as terrible as many in the media have pegged, I still think that the fact that Congress and the President were unable to come to a compromise perpetuates the unappealing image that our government is inefficient, or worse, dysfunctional. Obviously, neither party has, nor will they, take credit for these cuts. This will only lead to the increased polarization of parties.
ReplyDeleteAnother dimension that I find about the sequestration cuts particularly unsatisfactory on a personal note is the dimension regarding 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. As the United States ranks only 17th in an assessment of global education systems (namely the EIU test), one would assume that education would be the last place from which federal budgetary cuts should come from. Further, since higher education and university funding has been cut, research that takes place at universities for disease prevention and control will be hindered.
I think that the main thing the sequester cuts show is that our government is determined to not get anything done. This is very similar to the situation with the "Fiscal Cliff" where Congress and Obama set a deadline to figure things out and tried to scare "future" Congress and Obama into actually getting their jobs done by the deadline. Nevertheless, nothing has gotten done. I think that allowing these cuts to go through, though it may be temporarily detrimental to the economy, would be better for the country in the long run, because it would finally hold the government accountable for the fact that they have literally lost the ability to compromise on anything, and the nation is suffering as a result.
ReplyDeleteLike Stephanie said, it's pretty sad that nothing seems to be getting done in the government now a days because parties simply can't agree. Their opinions are getting further and further apart and seem more and more wrong to each opposing party. Democrats basically wanted to avoid sequester cuts through taking money from the richy-rich and republicans waned to take money from the programs that help the poor. Complete opposites. Like Steph said the nation really is hurting because of this constant fail to compromise. After reading the other comments it seems like everyone is stating that the cuts don't seem to have had a detrimental effect or whatever but I'd just like to point out that they haven't been in operation for very long either - like at all. I'm not sure if they never will be that big of a deal or if it's because they haven't had time to do something yet but I figured I'd just point that out. I mean Isabelle already pointed some things out that the cuts could negatively effect. But again, like Margaret basically said, there's not really much we can do when no one is willing to compromise and we have this HUGE national debt to "solve". Something had to be done and I guess the cuts were that something - if they were detrimental to our economy I don't think they would've taken place - I think our government is definitely still functional in the sense that they wouldn't let everything go under.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Stephanie and Erin were saying that it is pretty terrible that Congress and the President couldn't come to a compromise over the sequester cuts. Parties are becoming more polarized over situations and nobody is willing to bend a little for the other party. This is becoming a serious problem and is hurting ourselves in the process. One of the main points in the debate between the two parties over the sequester cuts is whether to include more tax revenue in a broad deficit reduction plan. Obviously both sides were unable to compromise over this. Hopefully this situation was a wake up call, that both parties will need to start coming to an agreement.
ReplyDeleteAfter re-reading everyone's comments, I still believe that the sequester cuts is something that will challenge the economy forward, which is what we need with the never-ending debt America is in. But I also agree with Gretchen that nowadays, it seems like nothing is getting done in the government because the parties cannot reach a compromise. All the parties are doing is arguing and debating but not coming to a single point. As Gretchen mentioned, Democrats want to avoid sequester cuts through taking money from the rich and Republicans waned to take money from the programs that help the poor which is opposites. Instead of wanting what they do want, a compromise should be made between them so that the country can keep moving forward. It is making the country lager behind. I agree with Kristen that both parties are acting childish. And, she makes a good point that hours before the sequester cuts were going to go into effect, why wasn't Congress and the president no where to be found?
ReplyDeleteErin brings up a good point about the negative effects on research from universities if the cuts are directed towards education. With cutting edge research from many universities, this could affect more than Congress might have planned, delving into areas of medicine and health care.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama seems to be exaggerating the supposed effects of the sequester cuts, in order to safeguard his decisions towards the economy. People will pessimistically fear the worst and credit Obama when the economy does not completely plummet. This is an old political tactic to lower the country’s standards, in order to glorify any decisions that the president makes. This seems to be Obama’s strategy for all decisions he has made about the economy. Since his presidency, the economy has stabilized and gotten slightly better, but after the detrimental 2008 economic crisis, the country has not had the highest expectations. The sequester cuts came about because the Democrats and Republicans in Congress could not agree, not involving Obama. Although President Obama did not really have anything to do with the sequester cuts, due to the way the country works, he must take the responsibility for the status of the economy. As a result, he is taking a defensive stance on the sequester cuts, in order to protect his standing with the American people.
In my opinion, the sequester cuts don't really seem like that huge of a deal. I agree with Gabriella that President Obama may be exaggerating them to get the nation to expect the worst and be happier with the actual outcome. But in actuality, the sequester cuts aren't really the work of Obama. They are just because of the extremely polarized political climate and the fact that no one could come to an agreement. So crediting or blaming Obama for their effect doesn't really make sense. I hope that this incident will help the two parties to compromise more and come to agreement more easily in the future, but that seems unlikely right now. They will need to start working a lot harder to compromise.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the posts made by my classmates, my original thoughts on the matter remain the same. In addition I wouldnjustnlike to agree about it being very sad and disappointing that our government could not reach across party lines and compromise over the sequester cuts. It seems like one of the very first moral lessons ever taught is to compromise, perhaps preceded by 'sharing is caring'. I find it hard to believe that there was no possible way for the two parties to come to some sort of compromise after the issue. It strikes me as something the government should be embarrassed about, I certainly would be.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree with many of the points raised pertaining to how upsetting it is that the two parties could not come to a compromise on this issue. I thought it was interesting and how Stephanie made the comparison between this presumptive fiscal “Armageddon” and the fiscal cliff deals, and how unsatisfactory it is that there must be some sort of presumptive economic death threat to accomplish substantial economic changes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact of the matter remains to subsequent to the failure of the sequester deals, the stock market had quite the opposite effect of that which was expected. The stock market reached record highs, indicating that there was certainty within the markets. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
Interestingly, the sequester already seems like "yesterday's news" as the talk has already turned to the debt ceiling debate. Further, it appears that the investing public seems to like the idea of the sequester, as the stock market has reached new highs in the last two days. So it appears that the sequester was much ado about nothing and further highlighted the dysfunction of our government. This factor has already been discussed by many but I have not touched on it yet. We have discussed the increasingly polarized political climate frequently in class and its negative effect on the ability of government to function properly and efficiently. To reiterate what everyone else has already stated, the sequester cuts were a direct result of the refusal of the Democrats and Republicans to compromise on any issues. It seems as though Congress has done nothing in recent times due to the unwillingness of either side to budge. Hopefully more politicians will warm up to the idea of working across the aisle and the government will be able to perform its duties effectively.
ReplyDeleteThe sequester has a symbolic meaning but very real consequences. It's early on to dub the consequences as "much ado about nothing" as Margaret stated because the stock market also received fantastic data that may have overshadowed most of its impact. Exaggeration by the Obama Administration is undeniable. As Gabriella correctly stated, "President Obama seems to be exaggerating the supposed effects of the sequester cuts, in order to safeguard his decisions towards the economy. People will pessimistically fear the worst and credit Obama when the economy does not completely plummet." In his defense, at least President Obama didn't flat out lie to the public about this like a certain President (The "War on Terror," anyone?).
ReplyDeleteA report showing that US manufacturing activity had expanded in February at the fastest pace in 20 months undoubtedly helped offset some negative results, including the sequester and discouraging news in Europe and China. Consumer also rose in February, helping to add cushion to the blow. Despite the American public being willing to "shrug off" the federal cuts, they are still expected to shave about a half-percentage point from economic growth this year. We forget these cuts will probably slow a still-weak economy, and decrease the amount of "bigger purchases" (ie cars, appliances) by consumers.
Lesson learned: We will survive, but we should be fearful of decisions to come.
I would disagree with Katie. Obama's remarks and general publicity campaign regarding the sequester and the budget in general has been EXACTLY THE SAME as Bush's handling of the "War on Terror." Both Presidents aimed to scare the public into support a useless policy. Let's be honest, the sequester cuts are basically irrelevant. Obama painted the picture as though "the Sky was falling," to quote Chicken Little (and Rush Limbaugh). He wanted to make it look like he and the Congressional Democrats were making the tough decision to implement these cuts to save US from plummeting over the fiscal cliff, all while saving the poor and trampled on middle class from losing their benefits to the 1% and the Republicans who try to kill (literally if reference Obama's campaign ads; figuratively if you're not insane) the poor, the elderly, and all minorities. Similarly, Bush's Publicity strategy involved scaring Americans into thinking that Al Qaeda had WoMD (which was NOT a lie, the CIA told him they were suspicious but couldn't prove that the weapons existed...it was LATER determined that they actually didn't). The goal in general was to make every voting citizen believe they were vulnerable in their suburban homes. Both publicity campaigns twisted, and manipulated the truth, and probably fudged some details in the process. In my opinion they basically painted pictures of lies to drum up support for their inadequate policy programs. At the time, both things may have seemed like the right thing to do.
ReplyDelete