Just a few days away. I think sequester will take place but a deal will be reached around the late March deadline for the FY20113 budget. Anyway, here's an interesting map...
Would be more meaningful as a % of the workforce in that state; Also, need the data source, otherwise it's just a coloring book.
Just use a little elbow grease. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/02/sequester_map.png
At this point I am pretty sure the sequester is going to happen. I don't see a bill being able to be passed in a few days.
troo. <iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wcXBkawkHJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"The sequester, not many people know what it is, but it sounds stupid and cruel. Therefore people think it's a Republican thing." --James Carville I suspect that has some truth in it.
Funny, most Americans would blame the republicans for the negative effects of the sequester. Obamas approval rating is also at a 3 year high.
So republicans supporting Boehner, who says it will do devastating things is a good policy? He has said it threatens security, jobs, and all that jazz but ends saying they are prepared to let the sequester kick in...what?
Source? If that is true, all we have to do is wait a few days and he'll be higher than W who at this time in his presidency was tumbling towards the 30's where he would stay for the remainder of his term.
placing blame on the Republicans is no way to lead... better to actually roll up your sleeves and work. Not go golf with Tiger Woods
Stop blaming Obama for everything. The Republicans got this sequester as a result of the debt ceiling fight they had. They voted for it and Boehner said it was "98%" of what he wanted. Republicans should own up to it and admit it does what they want: cut spending....
I think current estimates are closer to 700k jobs lost, however, most of the 700k jobs are jobs that haven't yet been created.
Did I say Obama would blame them or that the American people would? Man it gets harder and harder to twist things nowadays huh?
It cuts spending arbitrarily because the Dems never propose a budget. The sequester was designed to force spending prioritization, which the Dems won't do. What's interesting is Obama will have quite a bit of discretion on where to spend less. He'll go after the most vulnerable because he needs people to feel the pain. PBS won't be getting their funding cut, but children and old people and vets will. Obama needs a villain for his morality play. Nothing is ever his fault, he's not really in charge of anything. We know how this story goes.
he doesn't really need to even create a villain, he just has to spread what the Congressional Republicans are actually up to.
When you make up stuff like this, do you convince yourself it is fact or do you just think no one will know any better? Obama has very little discretion on where to spend less. In fact, that's why the GOP is now proposing a change to the sequester specifically to give him that discretion: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-sequester-karl-rove.php?ref=fpnewsfeed One of the problems with the sequester — which this proposal would attempt to address — is that its spending cuts come uniformly, from almost every government account. That’s why they’re often called indiscriminate and across-the-board. Under the sequester it doesn’t matter if one part of an agency is bloated and another part is lean: both must be cut. The GOP proposal would give the executive branch more discretion over where to make those cuts for the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends in September. After that date, congressional appropriators would make decisions about where the specific cuts would come from, while still adhering to the sequester’s new lower spending baseline.
