What do you think would be a resultant if the sequester continues it's increment?

Sequester - A general cut in government spending.

So USA has welcomed the sequester. They are going to cut $85 billion dollars from various industries including research, education, small-business, etc. How do you think will it affect the economic situation of USA compared to its dept? Considering the dept is $16,692,510,167,187.95 and out of which only $85 billion is being cut. This cut would not contribute that much to the dept to take the risk of "welcoming" the next "depression."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/01/white-house-to-enact-sequester-cuts-friday-amid-questions-over-impact/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/01/obama-signs-spending-cuts/1958177/

Many countries around the world do suffer economical problems caused by the peoples and politicians greed, as such a continuation of cuts, such as in ireland, one of the countries that went down in the crash, is no longer needed as if they continue upon the path today they will stabilize. However, countries in the euro zone that are going bankrupt as we speak; Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal etc will first have to start cutting at their spendings before the discussion topic becomes valid or relevant.


But, if you only wish to discuss the situation in US and A, I would say that it is needed in order to fix the economy, even as I generally say that you have gone to far with your governmental debt in order to be able to save yourselves, as the interest on the debt is so large in comparison to your GDP. However, if you would finally withdraw your forces from innocent countries all around the world where you cause bloodshed and cut down on your military spendings, there could be a possibility that you make it out of the spiral of debt and spending. But, that is unlikely to happen.

I love how, on top of all that money 'murica is in debt by, they have an extra 95cents to pay.

But anyway, I doubt it will work, considering, they are taking money from one (lots) thing/s, to put into another. Won't be good on the long run.

I'm Australian, so, until I decided to look it up a few days ago, I didn't really know what the sequester even was.

I can still correct some of your shit though. First, it's 'debt'. Second, it's actually, over the term of it's effect, going to cut 1.1 trillion off the debt (which is a significant amount), not 85 billion. Source: 2013 Sequester wiki article.

The problem that a lot of people are having with the sequester is the loss of jobs. I think the number that's going around the media now is 900,000 job losses.

The sequester wasn't anyone's plan A, it's just an automatic countermeasure to plan A fucking up. I think we're going to have to wait until the discussion and analysis amongst experts is fully flushed before we can really make an accurate assessment of it's impacts.

thread needs moar posts pls. good question is totes cool.

I would think (pardon me if incorrect) that the U.S is making a trade off in order to dampen it's more publicly announced issues. However, that huge 85 billion/1.1 trillion, or whatever the amount it is, is getting removed JUST from spending, barely affecting national debt.
It's pretty much like a faucet. It doesn't matter if we slightly turn the water off, because our sink is still pretty damn full.
If anything, removing funding from things such as education and research would be the greater of two evils.. Of course, I'm not implying that those two were the government's only options either, that is.

> reducing spending instead of trying to strengthen economy
> US gov't has no faith that US is able to come back by growing economy


If they invested that $85b in to NASA they would make back their $11t in a few years.

But no... "USA cannot in to making money, so we must spend less"
It would take 3 years of USA spending _nothing_ to make up that $11t
But then they would have to deal with 3 years of spending nothing...

I'm with Colbert on this.

"The Republicans and the Democrats are somehow trying to accomplish something by cutting spending on things that they both like."