When history views the sequester, f there is a finger of blame its going to be pointed squarely at the republican party. This is not because of ideological reasons but rather the fact that the party is simply splintered and unable to make a compromise. The last few weeks would be unbelievably comical if it weren't so depressing.

You have a fraction of the Republicans in Congress attempting to blame the sequester on the President, you have another fraction applauding the looming sequester, and still another fraction saying that the sequester is all fine and good but lets protect the military through the cuts. You have party leadership that cannot possibly make a deal because they are scared shitless that if they give too much up the conservative factions will bolt and the party will be ruined. Its a complete mess and its why the sequester and its effects may not be averted.

fraction should be faction, but i guess they both work

Having just finished House of Cards, I have a newfound appreciation for the way that Congressional dealings and partisanship works. Of the 232 GOP Congressmen and 45 Senators, we have 277 members who all think they're Frank Underwood and nobody who has the ability to unify or create a cohesive message other than simply saying "no" to any Presidential proposal.

The GOP are having trouble because they've won every important argument. You can't win people over with, say, arguments for low taxes when taxes are already low. The Democrats have the Presidency but the country is being run along Republican lines. There is simply no need for the GOP at the moment.

2WL...yeah, and Obama / Harry Reid are such a great compromisers. Give me a break man, to blame everything on the Republicans is simply willful, ridiculous ignorance. You are smarter than that - so man up and place the blame across the board where it belongs.

Need I remind you, *Obama* introduced, supported and signed Sequestration...so blaming the Republicans because they will "allow" Sequestration to occur - which is 100% cuts - when the Democrats are now demanding tax increases to replace what is currently 100% cuts - is bullshit.

If the Democrats had a shred of integrity, they would work with Republicans to revise the 100% cuts bill with a replacement that is still 100% cuts, and deal with revenue another day.

Integrity Check #2: Sequestration is NOT a cut. It is a decrease in the rate of growth of the Federal Budget. With sequestration, the Federal Budget *still* is larger than the previous year.

So all this "the sky is falling" bullshit is a pathetic political lie targeted squarely as a ill-informed public that is too lazy to discover the truth.

Impact to daily life of sequestration to the average American: *Nothing*.

<silence...> Truth hurts, huh guys?

While technically true, your assertion that it won't affect the average American is simply wrong. There is a reason budgets need to grow. Inflation, increase in population (esp. in older population), etc cause services to become more expensive over time. It is essentially a cut in funding, in the sense that they'll be able to do less than they could before.

Abge, I've spent 40 years listening to politicians cast doom and gloom stories. If we cut such and such, people will be dying on the streets, etc...

Not gonna happen.

The *regular* economy (non-governmental) took *massive* *real* cuts in recent years as compared to the measly 3% government "cuts" (which are not cuts at all) that are being asked for. Nobody died. Was there a little pain? Yup...but good people help each other. These "cuts" are nothing.

In Michigan we have had massive budget issues under (D)Governor Granholm...the Secretary of State's office in order to deal with this ended up doing the furlough thing - closed the office one day a week for a while. Guess what: Everybody got their licenses, plates, registrations, etc. IN other words, they didn't need to be open 5-6 days a week (depending on the office).

What will happen here is that this will be a huge snoozer. Yes, a few people will be impacted here and there...and good people will rise up and help them. But for the most part, it will pass without incident, *despite* the hype and effort the media will make to try to portray it as a disaster. TV will show chaos...but when you talk to you neighbors honestly, you will find no impact on the *average* American.

It's funny how businesses can absorb cuts and survive, but government goes belly up and falls in to chaos with a cut in the rate of growth? Please...give me a break.

If I understand this right, the current deficit is running around 1.3 trillion a year, and these cuts in the rate of increase amount to about 85 billion - is that right? So we're cutting the deficit by about 7%, and that's supposed to mean something either way?

(OK - not 40 years...I didn't pay attention to politics when I was 3...just to keep it real! lol)

@krellin

I didn't say it will cause doomsday, I said your claim that no average American will be affected is wrong.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with massive budget cuts, but they should be done in a thoughtful way. Across-the-board cuts are stupid. Budge cuts without also cleaning up the tax code is stupid.

The problem is....once somebody sticks their hand out and gets it greased by the government, they can't possibly imagine providing for themselves in the future. It's pathetic! How is it that spending has done this:
2000: $1.79 Trillion
2012 $3.8 Trillion

The population and inflation combined do not account for this *massive* increase...this is just government handouts. Are you telling me that in 12 years time, these additional programs are *so* engrained and important that we can not do without 3% of them?

Abge -- "Average" American will not be impacted at all. i.e. I will get up on Monday, go to work, come home, feed my family, argue on WebDip...nothing will change. Some Americans on the fringes -- i.e. NOT Average Americans - may feel a pinch. MOST will not. It's all in the terminology.

NO, WE WILL NEVER RAISE TAXES. EVER EVER EVER. NOW WHY WON'T THE PRESIDENT THAT APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN DEFENSE SECRETARY THAT WAS ALMOST NOT APPROVED COMPROMISE!??!?!?!?!??!?

Call me heartless, but I'm **totally** willing to let a few on the fringes suffer for the good of the nation as a whole. It's the Vulcan in me...

@Krellin,
".this is just government handouts"
Actually, while social spending is up, the more alarming trend is defense spending. Check out this chart: http://goo.gl/HqrzZ

I would have to look into it further but I suspect "handouts" were not fully responsible. Defense, interest, etc I'm sure contributed.

Oh wait, I charted "protection" instead of "health care". Okay, that one's alarming, too. http://goo.gl/q8RBW

But one thing's clear: welfare's not the growth area.

I never identified the specifics...does it matter? It's new entitlements, it increases in spending on old entitlements, its wars...it's everything.

" welfare's not the growth area. "

Flat out lie. It is a growth area, and Obama has even touted publicly the increase in food stamps.

"handouts" - I guess it also depends on the definition of handouts.

To me, handouts include, for example, spending on unnecessary and unwanted military hardware (so secure votes in a local district) as much as it includes a new prescription drug program, or food stamps, or free cell phones,

I didn't say welfare wasn't growing, just that it's not *the* growth area. Defense and, admittedly, health care, are both drastically ourpacing welfare spending.

@Heck welfare is not a growth area? Does welfare not give individuals the basic opportunities they need - like education and health care, you can't become an innovator in the economy without a basic standard of living...

pork spending = handouts. Pretty good definition, krellin. Glad to see you aren't against cutting unnecessary defense spending and trimming the fat from a bloated defense budget. Time to send all of the reservists back home and only have active duty personnel serving and also cut recruiting down so we don't recruit mroe than we need. NEw technologies in the weapons sector could also be curbed. The tech we have now is way beyond what even our allies generally have and our threats are from countries with tech far behind us but that are still proving there is no school like the old school when it comes to killing people and blowing stuff up.

@Orathic,
Please read what I actually said before you argue with me. When I said welfare wasn't the (THE, not A) growth area, I was not deriding its potential as an investment, but trying to counter claims that the growth in welfare spending is the major culprit in the growth of the debt.

I don't think anyone could have guessed that "handouts" included defense spending. As I said, I agree that major cuts should happen, but this seems like a really bad way to do it. Plus, how much will it really help ? We'll still needs to make more cuts or increase revenue, so why can't we do it now?

Of course it is a terrible way to do it...but it is heardly going to be the end of the world. But this is *OBAMA'S* plan from 2011. So all his hyperbole and scare tactics directed at the Republican is 100% disingenuous at bet, dangerous at worst..

We don't need revenue....we need less spending. But even at that, sure, there are rational revenues that can be captured, but I've made my suggestions on that elsewhere and will not repeat them here.

We can't do it now because....the Democrats are filling the media with doom-and-gloom rhetoric, and essentially they are forcing the Republican's politically to let sequestration go through as is to demonstrate the lie of the Democrat war machine.

This has a very strong possibility of totally biting Obama on the ass because he's gone off the deep end with his rhetoric on this one, and most people will yawn and go on about their business and realize what a liar he is.

Why are you blaming Obama for this? It was passed as a way to get Republicans to stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling.