krellin is right. This is merely a *decrease* in projected spending *increases* The sky is not falling and will continue to remain at its present location above us even if the sequester takes effect. This is carefully orchestrated political theater and chicanery, instigated by both sides and aided/abetted by the media. They will reach a last-minute deal to push it back another 6 months just like they have the last 4 times the budget issue has been forced. Politicians are corrupt, not stupid or deficient in mathematics. If the sequester actually meant significant spending cuts, they would have reached a deal weeks ago and stopped this smoke-and-mirrors nonsense.
______________________

As to SantaClausowitz's assertion that the GOP is a factioned, Balkanized clusterfuck, he is partially right. The real problem is a lack of leadership/unity. Since Obama was elected, the GOP has largely been (portrayed, somewhat accurately) as the party of rich old white guys who hate everything.

In order for the GOP to survive, they need to consolidate and double down on some of their more popular positions and abandon the less desirable stances. I would like to see the GOP shift further to the right while simultaneously drawing themselves closer to the libertarian movement. The GOP should support:

Gun rights
Tight border control and deportation policies
Ending the war in Afghanistan posthaste
Foreign policy of non-interventionism
Drug legalization, starting with pot (and expanding to other drugs if public opinion justifies it)
Drastic reduction in role/size of federal government
States' rights
Drastic spending cuts at federal level, with equal emphasis on social program cuts and defense cuts

The GOP should no longer *actively* oppose gay marriage or abortion and instead contend that those two things should be left to each individual state.

These positions would consolidate the social conservatives, libertarian-conservatives, and moderate conservatives. The only faction left out in the cold would be the neocons, but that's a dying breed anyway.

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

Also, what about all the government employees that will be laid off or forced to take unpaid vacation when the sequester goes through? Are they not "average Americans"?


AND......abge.....smart boy that he is....buys in to the Democrat talking points hook, line and sinker.

Abge...I won't even respond to you. I thought you were intelligent enough to take a measured approach....but it seems that you are simply a partisan hack, another Democratic mouthpiece who is more concerned with party than you are with reality.

OBAMA PROPOSED AND SINGED SEQUESTRATION. SEQUESTRATION IS HIS IDEA.....YOU CAN NOT BLAME IT ON THE REPUBLICANS.

Don't be a stupid typical Comedy Central douchebag and buy in to the rhetoric. I **beg** you to actually exercise your brain cells.

"it seems that you are simply a partisan hack, another Democratic mouthpiece who is more concerned with party than you are with reality."

The only word you need to change in that sentence is "Democratic" and you are describing yourself brilliantly.

As for "Government Employees Laid off"

Ok...WHO GIVES A F***. I have ALREADY given you the example of Michigan Secratary of State offices in which a 20% reduction in workforce caused 0% reduction in services. In other words, the *false* belief that *every* job in a 40 hour per week job was revealed when Michigan implemented furloughs in the Sec of State offices.

Here is reality: People the lose jobs they should not have when they are not needed.

here is the REALITY: Abge will NEVER complain about a non-union worker that gets fired/laid-off because the private company is failing. he might even cheer. But when the equivalent occurs in government ... i.e. a worker is fired/laid off due to reductions in the "need" of government, he cries foul, and says "once a government worker, ALWAYS and forever a government worker"

So....Abge...Since you believe that once you work you should always work....how many buggy whips do you own?

bo-sox -- as is typical....you are too fucking stupid to acutally contribute ANYTHING meaningful to the conversation. Go away, bitch. Until you have a real thought, you are just mommy's sputum.

"but it seems that you are simply a partisan hack, another Democratic mouthpiece who is more concerned with party than you are with reality."

Well, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so...

It's nice to see your standard method of "debate" hasn't changed any.

abge....every statement you have made is at best buetral, but mostly anti-Republican.

I dare you to read the entire thread. You are biased against Republicans - it is obvious to anyone reading the thread.

i'm trying to be real here. I will *admit* I am a *former* Republican supporter. Over the last year, I have lost my taste for them. You *claim* to be an open-minded kind fo guy...but please. Just once....ONCE....I dare you to openly criticize Obama. Prove to us that you actually grasp that BOTH parties are at fault. I dare you.

Otherwise, I might as well waste my time arguing with the mental midget bo_sox.

You may insult my "standard method of debate"....by which i will define: I have called a spade a spade: Abge is a biased democrat supporter, and not the open-minded intellectual he pretends to be.

Yes....my "method of debate" means calling you out, and insulting you when necessary.

You PRETEND that you do not do such things....and yet, as is typical, every good liberal that hates "labeling" is the first to insult and throw labels.

Come on, man...step up and have a little integrity.

Yes, I am biased against Republicans, and I think rightfully so.

I do not always support Obama. He didn't close Guantanamo, despite his promises. The Pentagon's policy of murdering US citizens is abhorrent. I do not support unions, especially teacher unions.

But, the sequester is not his fault. The Republicans were holding the US hostage with the debt ceiling and Obama and the Dems did what they needed to do, even if it wasn't great policy. Now the GOP is at it again, using threats of bad policy, which they are responsible, to force Dems to give up more than they should.

Furthermore, I've said several times (in this thread alone) that I agree we need massive spending cuts. How is that following the Democratic Party line?

"Yes, I am biased against Republicans"

Bravo...the first honest Democrat.

Abge...you are "following the Democrat Party line" because you *stupidly* blame everything on Republicans. Give me a break.

You have at least had one moment of clarity and admitted your bias. NOW....I beg of you...have a second moment of clarity and admit that the Democrats are equally to blame.

This isn't problem that spontaneously erupted when Sequester was PUSHED BY OBAMA, passed by Congress and then signed by Obama.

We are dealing with problems that have been developing through BOTH Republican AND Democrat Presidencies. Through BOTH Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses.

For you -- admittedly a very smart guy -- to be *so stupid* as to try to pin the blame on one party just proves the point: Book smarts ain't shit. You are a smart cookie, Abge....but you apparently don't know shit.

BOTH parties are to blame, and fools like you trying to credit one set of fools as being better than the other is part of the problem.

I do not blame everything on Republicans. I am blaming this particular problem on Republicans.

IF you are blaming REpublicans for *this* particular problem, then you are **delusional**.

Please tell me...WHICH Republican President in 2011 sing the bill that put Sequester in place.

Good god...come on, Abge...you are better than this!!

If you claim to be non-partisan, but blame THIS problem on Republicans....then tell me, Abge...WHAT DO you blame on Democrats?

(Testing Abge's non-partisan credentials...)

@krellin

I am not arguing that the President had nothing to do with the Sequester. The Sequester was not an unreasonable way to incentivize congress to act in a bipartisan manner. I am arguing that it is the Republican's fault that it has taken this long to come to a resolution to it.

Even you Democrat-sympathizers on here HAVE to admit that our spending problem will not be even close to resolved by taxing the fuck out of the rich/business and all-but-disbanding the military.

Your precious social programs are going to have to take a big hit. Let's start with the Department of Education.

Really? Education? That accounts for less that 2% of spending.

We should be looking at social security, agriculture, defense, an health.

How can you even suggest education?

Krellin, I agree with you that both parties are to blame (but I still think you sound like a heartless prick) because both are in bed with the Big Banks, billionares such as Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers, defense companies, pharmaceutical companies and other Big Money interests. Most politicians from both parties don't represent their constituents anymore, they represent their financial backers. There are so many things going on behind the scenes that we don't hear about, and it's all about screwing over the people of the United States so the people in power stay in power and the rich get richer.

This country has failed. The ideals set forth in our Constitution have been co-opted by Big Money special interests, and they really don't give a damn about you, they don't give a damn about the environment, and they don't give a damn about the nation. They want power and they want money. As terrifying blunt as that may sound, it is the simple truth. The "average" American, aka the "middle class" is only going to get more and more squeezed as time goes on. It's already happening, everyone can see it.

We need drastic change and we need it fast. The climate crisis puts us all within a real time constraint. The system we are working within is not working for us. Unless by some divine providence people start voting Libertarian or Green Party, nothing will change and the majority of us will continue getting screwed. Our only hope lies in ourselves, truly this is the time to get active, to become aware, to rise up as People. Because those politicians we keep putting into office just aren't doing the job for us.

There truly is a problem in how the United States in currently constituted as a nation. That's right, this is a constitutional problem, and in order to address the real issues facing this nation and the planet at large we need a to re-constitute ourselves with a new Constitution. This sounds radical, yes. But what we need is radical change, because the traditional ways of doing things is clearly not working.

@krellin

I blame Obama for the over-use of drones that killed that anti-terrorist activist.

I blame the Democrats for pissing themselves whenever the NRA is mentioned.

Hey guys I have a great idea. Let's return the federal government to a size that fits its constitutional role.

@Gun

What does that even mean? To the best of my knowledge, that Judicial Branch hasn't informed anyone that the Feds are breaking the Constitution.

The "judicial branch" is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Imperial Presidency. If they'll sign off on the death-droning of Americans without any hint of legal process, can we really trust them to declare any other unilateral seizure of power by the state to be beyond the constitution?

It doesn't matter. The Constitution says that the Judicial Branch decides what's constitutional and what's not. Not you or I. You can't complain about the Feds not following the Constitution despite having approval of the Constitutionally-sanctioned review system.

That's not true, abge, on a couple of levels.

First, while it's implicit (not explicit) in the Constitution that the courts should not enforce things that are not constitutional -- i.e., exercises judicial review -- it certainly doesn't say that "the judicial branch decides what's constitutional and what's not."

Second, yes, as noted, the courts do have judicial review, but there is no reason one cannot think that they make mistakes or disagree with their decisions. Certainly the dissenting justices do, and there is no reason anybody else can't either. The Constitution nowhere defines itself to be "whatever the Supreme Court says it is."

You might as well say that the Constitution decrees that we must think Congress's budgets wise.

Abge -- nice try....liberal democrats openly disdain the constitution, saying it is an old, out-dated document. The supreme court only decides on matters once they are actually challenged at the SC level...

The constitution has been irrelevant for decades.

Just for an example, find for me in the Constitution The Department of Transportation and Education. Not in there...and, in fact, by NOT being in there, they are *specifically* relegated to the States.

The Constitution is a *limiting* document, intended to say, this, and ONLY this...is what the Federal Government can do.

The Federal Government has gone so far beyond what the Constitution dictates it isn't even funny...and no longer worth the discussion. You will argue that we have 'found' rights hidden in the words of the constitution to justify the power-grabs by the Feds. And because you can see the invisible where I can not...it is impossible to argue with you, because you can see what can not be seen.

@semck

Yes, I understand that. Perhaps I was as guilty as Gun in oversimplifying things.

I think my point still stands though, that when one random person claims the Feds are breaking the constitution and the majority of judges disagree, it's not unreasonable to side with the judges.

Furthermore, if judges are a "rubber stamp" for the executive branch, as Tolstoy suggests, then we don't have a particularly good constitution anyway.

@krellin

If that is the case, then why hasn't the judicial branch been shooting down programs left and right? If it's so blatant, then why don't *you* sue the Federal Government.

Either the Judicial Branch is competent and you are wrong in your understanding of the Constitution, or it is incompetent or corrupt, and the Constitution exhibits a critical failure.

@semck

Other than amending the constitution and appealing to the Judicial Branch, is there any recourse if someone feels the constitution has been broken?

@abge....why hasn't the judicial branch....


Abge, I could just as easily ask:
Why does any man break the law?
Why does Congress ever pass an unconstitutional law?
Why does any President ever do anything immoral

Asking why the Court fails to do what is right is ignorant, and denies the reality of a government run by fallible humans.

It is the same reason "religion" is bullshit...because people (you) judge the idea of God (God, perfection) by looking as religion (humans, imperfect).

The Constituion, in principle, is "perfect" (grant me a little latitude here)...the Constitution is "god"....and the court...congress...the executive...are all parts of the religion...humans....imperfect.

Just becuase the imperfect have allowed imperfection does not mean that the perfect allows the imperfection.

You will be the first to agree with me that government is dirty rotten broken with politics, as opposed to perfection. what leads you to believe that the court is somehow immune to the humanity of personal politics? to suggest that the court is somehow perfect and immune to error is to be stupid.