Sequester deadline looms as US faces $85bn cuts

Gerald · 03-01-13, 06:30 AM

Quote:

The US Congress passed the cuts into law fervently hoping they would never come into force

Quote:

US political leaders are to meet for last-ditch talks at the White House, amid the prospect of steep budget cuts.

Cuts worth $85bn (£56bn), originally tabled in an effort to force Congress to strike a budget deal, are due become law by the end of Friday.

President Barack Obama will host Democratic and Republican leaders, amid a raging blame-game in Washington. Congress has adjourned for the weekend.

The IMF has said the cuts could have an impact on global growth.

Analysis in the US suggests the nation's GDP (economic output) could grow by just 1.4% in 2013 if the cuts are not delayed or replaced. US GDP grew by 2.2% in 2012.

The White House meeting comes as prospects for a deal to avert the cuts, known as the sequesters, appear extremely slim.

Budget bills from both parties were defeated in the Senate on Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21610813

Cutting times,

Note: 1 March 2013 Last updated at 11:03 GMT

Gerald · 03-01-13, 01:55 PM

Quote:

US President Barack Obama: "Washington didn't make it easy at a time when businesses have began to get some traction"

Quote:

US political leaders have left last-ditch talks at the White House without a deal to avoid steep budget cuts.

President Barack Obama blamed Republicans' refusal to allow any tax rises for the negotiations' failure, calling the sweeping $85bn (£56bn) in cuts "unnecessary" and "inexcusable".

Congress has left for the weekend, with the spending cuts due to be written into the budget by Friday's end.

The IMF has warned the cuts could slow global economic growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21636049

Note: Update record, 1 March 2013 Last updated at 18:47 GMT

Skybird · 03-01-13, 05:43 PM

cuts: 85 bn
explicit debts only: 16700 bn (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)
GDP 2012: 15200 bn (mean value from IMF, WB, CIA)

US debts since 2007 grow by 3.7 bn per day.

The cut now represent a meager 0.50% of the total implict debt, and a meager 0.56% of the 2012 GDP. That puts the hype about the sequester a bit into relation, I think. - The pentagon recently has placed last-minute contracts worth 500 bn for the F35. That represents 3.3% of the 2012 GDP.

Debts cannot be driven back by spending more than before and making new debts.

The implicit debt btw is calculated to be 800-1250% of the explicit debt. The according numbers would be this:

16700 bn explicit debts
133600 bn if counting 800% implicit debts.
208750 bn if counting 1250% implicit debts

The latter 208 trillion in full writing, since it looks so impressive:

208,750,000,000,000

One can start using scientific notation with these dimensions. 2.0875*10^14

To me that number is a very clear and convincing definition of total bankruptcy. Claiming differently compares to claiming that a 100 kiloton nuke is no bomb, or that the sun sheds no light.

The estimated number of suns in the milky way btw is said to be in the low hundred billions. Throw one dollar into each sun, and when you are done with the galaxy, you still will have plenty left.

85,000,000,000 in cuts now - wowh, that is four decimal places less!

yubba · 03-01-13, 06:08 PM

what about pork products, being cut,, this should be cut the cheese thread,, but how can we have big over bearing government with all these cuts in spending ?????

GoldenRivet · 03-01-13, 07:57 PM

i tightened up my belt... uncle Sam can to.

August · 03-01-13, 08:34 PM

Both sides are now saying the cuts are a good thing. Go figure.

Armistead · 03-01-13, 09:32 PM

It needed to be about 200 billion, maybe about a 2% cut overall. Obama is like a woman that goes out and buys 5 new dresses, sells one a week later and considers that cutting back.

yubba · 03-02-13, 12:02 AM

still here, feel fine, no affect, our poor poor leader is having withdrawls and it's the republicans fault, I kind of feel bad for the cowboy poets.

swamprat69er · 03-02-13, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

It needed to be about 200 billion, maybe about a 2% cut overall. Obama is like a woman that goes out and buys 5 new dresses, sells one a week later and considers that cutting back.

She 'saved money' she bought them on sale.

yubba · 03-02-13, 12:14 AM

nope still nothing,,,

em2nought · 03-02-13, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swamprat69er

She 'saved money' she bought them on sale.

Our gov't doesn't shop the sales, except maybe those ex-British Harriers.

Skybird · 03-02-13, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

It needed to be about 200 billion, maybe about a 2% cut overall. Obama is like a woman that goes out and buys 5 new dresses, sells one a week later and considers that cutting back.

200 bn?

In January and February 2013, US explicit debts rose by 122 bn per month. If you want to have just one year with at least no further climbs in existing debts, you would need a cut of not 200 bn, but 1464 bn. That's almost one tenth of the 2012 GDP. That would not reduce the debt. It would just not add new ones on top of the heap.

If however already a cut by 85 bn would make the US collapse and the sky falling, you can imagine what it would mean if the US would do what really is needed to be done when meaning serious to tackle debts. Or in other words, you can imagine how deep the disaster is in which it is fully embedded. In plain English: no escape than total collapse.

I am convinced that there is not a single politician in Washington - or any Wetsrn capital for that matter - who indeed wants to tackle national debts. Nobody wants to do that, because everybody kinows what that means. Everybody is hoping to successfully delay the big revelation day to the time after he has ended his gold robbing and power picking career.

Ducimus · 03-02-13, 09:17 AM

Armistead · 03-02-13, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

200 bn?

In January and February 2013, US explicit debts rose by 122 bn per month. If you want to have just one year with at least no further climbs in existing debts, you would need a cut of not 200 bn, but 1464 bn. That's almost one tenth of the 2012 GDP. That would not reduce the debt. It would just not add new ones on top of the heap.

If however already a cut by 85 bn would make the US collapse and the sky falling, you can imagine what it would mean if the US would do what really is needed to be done when meaning serious to tackle debts. Or in other words, you can imagine how deep the disaster is in which it is fully embedded. In plain English: no escape than total collapse.

I am convinced that there is not a single politician in Washington - or any Wetsrn capital for that matter - who indeed wants to tackle national debts. Nobody wants to do that, because everybody kinows what that means. Everybody is hoping to successfully delay the big revelation day to the time after he has ended his gold robbing and power picking career.

I agree. I think it would take about 200 billion in cuts to get us back to last years spending levels, but the way numbers are spinned...

I totally agree, each year the Washington mob robs and plunder each year, like an out of control corporation with no regulation.

GT182 · 03-02-13, 09:51 AM

They should be doing more cuts... like quit giving money to countries that shoot us in the back. We've got people right here in the US that need help and never get it. Take care of our own first and foremost.

03-01-13, 05:43 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,603 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	cuts: 85 bn explicit debts only: 16700 bn (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) GDP 2012: 15200 bn (mean value from IMF, WB, CIA) US debts since 2007 grow by 3.7 bn per day. The cut now represent a meager 0.50% of the total implict debt, and a meager 0.56% of the 2012 GDP. That puts the hype about the sequester a bit into relation, I think. - The pentagon recently has placed last-minute contracts worth 500 bn for the F35. That represents 3.3% of the 2012 GDP. Debts cannot be driven back by spending more than before and making new debts. The implicit debt btw is calculated to be 800-1250% of the explicit debt. The according numbers would be this: 16700 bn explicit debts 133600 bn if counting 800% implicit debts. 208750 bn if counting 1250% implicit debts The latter 208 trillion in full writing, since it looks so impressive: 208,750,000,000,000 One can start using scientific notation with these dimensions. 2.087510^14 To me that number is a very clear and convincing definition of total bankruptcy. Claiming differently compares to claiming that a 100 kiloton nuke is no bomb, or that the sun sheds no light. The estimated number of suns in the milky way btw is said to be in the low hundred billions. Throw one dollar into each sun, and when you are done with the galaxy, you still will have plenty left. 85,000,000,000 in cuts now - wowh, that is four decimal places less! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.* Last edited by Skybird; 03-01-13 at 05:59 PM.

03-01-13, 07:57 PM	#5
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	i tightened up my belt... uncle Sam can to. __________________

03-01-13, 08:34 PM	#6
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Both sides are now saying the cuts are a good thing. Go figure. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

03-01-13, 09:32 PM	#7
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	It needed to be about 200 billion, maybe about a 2% cut overall. Obama is like a woman that goes out and buys 5 new dresses, sells one a week later and considers that cutting back. __________________ You see my dog don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

03-02-13, 09:51 AM	#15
GT182 Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: New Castle of Delaware Posts: 3,231 Downloads: 658 Uploads: 0	They should be doing more cuts... like quit giving money to countries that shoot us in the back. We've got people right here in the US that need help and never get it. Take care of our own first and foremost. __________________ Gary No Borders, No Language, No Culture =s No Country I'm a Deplorable, and proud of it.

03-01-13, 06:08 PM	#4
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	what about pork products, being cut,, this should be cut the cheese thread,, but how can we have big over bearing government with all these cuts in spending ?????

03-02-13, 12:02 AM	#8
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	still here, feel fine, no affect, our poor poor leader is having withdrawls and it's the republicans fault, I kind of feel bad for the cowboy poets.

03-02-13, 12:14 AM	#10
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	nope still nothing,,,

03-02-13, 09:17 AM	#13
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2