Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:41 PM Mar 2013

Should the sequester be repealed or replaced?

Some information on the Democratic replacement:

<...>

If the bill would have become law, it would have replaced tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts set to take place this year with 10 years’ worth of deficit reducing tax increases and targeted spending cuts. The revenue would have come largely from individuals making over $5 million a year, by imposing a minimum “Buffett Rule” tax on their earnings. The cuts would have been divided evenly between agriculture subsidies and defense spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-block-sequestration-alternative.php

Republicans filibustered the bill, but Senator Reid voted against the bill so it's likely to come up again.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00027

2 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Replace
	1 (50%)
	Repeal
	1 (50%)
	Not sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the sequester be repealed or replaced? (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2013 OP

The area to cut is painfully obvious and completely solves the "problem" : Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #1

makes sense to me. . . . n/t annabanana Mar 2013 #2

Does it have to be either or? ProSense Mar 2013 #3

It should be utterly ignored and the real problems solved. Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #4

Do you understand what that number represents? dkf Mar 2013 #5

Let it ride. I'm curious to see what happens. Throd Mar 2013 #6

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)

1. The area to cut is painfully obvious and completely solves the "problem" :

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:45 PM

Mar 2013

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022444997

annabanana

(52,791 posts)

2. makes sense to me. . . . n/t

Reply to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:45 PM

Mar 2013

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

3. Does it have to be either or?

Reply to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:49 PM

Mar 2013

The bill cuts agricultural subsidies and defense. Wall Street, Big Oil and other subsidies are OK too.

Should the sequester be repealed or replaced?

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)

4. It should be utterly ignored and the real problems solved.

Reply to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:55 PM

Mar 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022452595

Jail the banksters, let the banks fail, jail wall street, jail the neocons and the Koch brothers, slash the spy tech industry, TSA, DHS, slash the permanent war budget, and suddenly there are trillions of dollars to pay for everything cut in "austerity".

dkf

(37,305 posts)

5. Do you understand what that number represents?

Reply to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:59 PM

Mar 2013

That is the lower interest rate the banks are paying because people who loan to banks assume the government will step in if the banks are in trouble.

So the government says they have put together a plan that lets the banks fail but the market is calling BS.

That BS call is worth $85 billion to the banks.

Throd

(7,208 posts)

6. Let it ride. I'm curious to see what happens.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 04:16 PM

Mar 2013

Reply to this discussion