Can we stop calling it a "sequester" and call it what it really is...

[madinmaryland]

Don't forget the tax cuts for the wealthiest and the unpaid for Prescription Drug giveaway to the Big Pharma.

[babylonsister]

1. Yep, time to pay the piper under Obama. dimson, not so much. nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. K/R (nt)

[BainsBane]

3. Sequester comes from the same root as

holding someone hostage in Spanish, sequestro. Seems appropriate to me.

[FarCenter]

4. It is less than 5% of Bush's two wars.

$85 billion versus about $1000 billion each for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Is this true? Do you have links to a credible source?

[Nye Bevan]

9. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

References Brown University study.

[DallasNE]

17. $85 Billion In 7 Months, Same As $145 Billion For Full Year

Plus, much of the budget is off-limits. That is why half had to be from defense because defense was half of the remaining budget where cuts were being made. Across the board means across the board.

Keep in mind that Bush's wars dragged on and on and on and you are comparing 7 months expense versus 10 years of expense. Wrong matrix for analysis.

[KoKo]

6. Don't forget...Bailing out Wall Street Banks that failed through

Criminality. That's as huge as the two wars and why we have almost 0 interest rates hurting Savers.

[CrispyQ]

20. "...0 interest rates hurting Savers."

They chastise us for not having any savings to fall back on, but they provide no incentive to save. Not to mention, no decent wages on which one could actually save!

[KoKo]

21. +1

[riderinthestorm]

7. Why is it called the sequester? There's nothing about that word that defines

financial shenanigans/deal making.



Does anyone understand the rationale behind this word usage?

[rabid_byter]

10. Sequester means to 'Isolate or hide away someone or something'..

we are be led to believe both sides are trying as hard as possible to prevent crashing the economy again irreparably and finish destroying the world's economy in the process.. what they are hiding is that, that is their plan to begin with.. more lies more fraud.. pure NeoCon Machiavellian dirty tricks.. and it looks like both sides are in on it.

[madinmaryland]

11. Here is a quick read for you...

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration

[rabid_byter]

8. about 83% of the national debt as of 2008 is from Reagan, Bu$h41 and Bu$h43

we can add all the TARP debt to Bu$h43 because he demanded it be passed before he left office.. also all the cost of Iraq and much of Afghanistan during Obamas administration and beyond adds into the Bush's debt increase because he started those on lies based on the False Flag COINTELPRO operation called 911. there is more than enough evidence to hang several of the Traitors involved in it.

[Brigid]

12. Call what it is:

A hostage situation.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Sequestration, it's the best the Democrats could do! (and still maintain the illusion of propriety)

Wait until this summer, and watch your Soc Security, Medi/Medi, and Unemployment go bye-bye.

Bipartisanship sucks

1 Party, 2 Faces

[Cha]

14. Excellent.. I was going to add that too, madinmaryland..

'Don't forget the tax cuts for the wealthiest and the unpaid for Prescription Drug giveaway to the Big Pharma."

thank you!

[Fire Walk With Me]

15. And bailing out the rich while forcing the poor to accept cuts is "austerity"!

[Zax2me]

16. No. It's a govt spending more than it is taking in.

Wars.
Auto-increases to budget every year despite economic conditions.
Whatever.
Two wars don't explain a deficit increased by 6 TRILLION in 4 years when it was promised to be cut in half.
That's about an 11 trillion dollar gap minus the missed prediction.
This isn't political 'gotchas' on who can spit on who more. My bush wars versus your Obama is a Muslim BS.
We have a spending problem. Then and now - wars, stimulus - whatever.
Cut it back or we will continue kicking the can down the road until we all fall over the cliff.

[DallasNE]

19. Actually Not

You are looking at the deficit and concluding it is a spending problem. Faulty analysis. While there is no perfect yardstick for measuring these things percent of GDP is about the best tool available. And here you have to look at the trend lines for both revenue (taxes) and spending. Using this methodology shows that spending under Obama has increased the least since Eisenhower was President and that kind of demolishes the spending is the problem claim. Ever since the Bush tax cuts revenue has been falling short and it is not just the Bush rates but also the Bush loopholes that Congress is now balking at fixing. Also, continuing resolutions only lock in wasted spending so some changes are sorely needed as we need to get back to following an actual, realistic budget.

[Skittles]

18. I guess it will never go away

the feeling of disgust and revulsion I still feel when I see that smarmy little bastard

[cbrer]

22. And another attempt to undermine the social safety net

How fucking convenient!

If we're going to suffer under the current 1% tax rate, then what's our incentive to accept this glaring inequality?

The middle class takes it in the ass either way.

EAT THE RICH