Difference between revisions of "Obama sequester"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (wording)
m (expand)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Critics warned Obama's [[economic planning|economic plan]] would create massive [[unemployment]] and a [[recession]]. Obama repeatedly claimed tax increases on the rich would pay for his plan, and [[Republican]]s compromised by voting for tax increases for the first time in two decades. As part of the deal, Obama's sequester cuts were delayed 60 days to avoid the inevitable [[fiscal cliff]] of his plan.
 
Critics warned Obama's [[economic planning|economic plan]] would create massive [[unemployment]] and a [[recession]]. Obama repeatedly claimed tax increases on the rich would pay for his plan, and [[Republican]]s compromised by voting for tax increases for the first time in two decades. As part of the deal, Obama's sequester cuts were delayed 60 days to avoid the inevitable [[fiscal cliff]] of his plan.
 +
 +
The Obama plan called for immediate cuts totally $85 billion to be divided equally between defence spending and programs such as [[Medicare]] and [[Social security]] for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. On the employment side, defence cuts are reflected in lost [[payroll]]s totalling half of the [[sequester]], or $42.5 billion; this is essentially $10,000,000 ''per hour'' in reduced payroll spending by the federal government for individuals employed mostly as civilian contractors. Many will see permanent jobloss. A ripple effect, or "trickle down" effect will been seen soon thereafter in lesser paying retail positions.
 +
 +
The Democrats are said to be planning calls for extended unemployment benefits and [[infrastructure]] projects, which is of course, what the massive [[Obama deficits]] were created to alleviate in his first term and the cause of the sequester. Infrastructure projects do nothing to solve the underlying problem of unemployment, leaving workers unemployed again once government funding runs out or the project is completed. Likewise, extended unemployment benefits do nothing to address the problem of job creation.
 +
  
 
[[Category:Obama administration]]
 
[[Category:Obama administration]]
 
[[Category:Man made disasters]]
 
[[Category:Man made disasters]]

Revision as of 00:58, 28 February 2013

The Obama sequester was a proposal by President Barack Hussein Obama to Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid relayed by then White House budget director Jack Lew to cut entitlement and defence spending effective January 1, 2013. The idea was to break the deadlock over a federal debt ceiling debate in the summer of 2011 and "kick the can down the road" past the 2012 Presidential election over ways to pay for Obama's stimulus spending and "healthcare reform" during his first term.

Critics warned Obama's economic plan would create massive unemployment and a recession. Obama repeatedly claimed tax increases on the rich would pay for his plan, and Republicans compromised by voting for tax increases for the first time in two decades. As part of the deal, Obama's sequester cuts were delayed 60 days to avoid the inevitable fiscal cliff of his plan.

The Obama plan called for immediate cuts totally $85 billion to be divided equally between defence spending and programs such as Medicare and Social security for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. On the employment side, defence cuts are reflected in lost payrolls totalling half of the sequester, or $42.5 billion; this is essentially $10,000,000 per hour in reduced payroll spending by the federal government for individuals employed mostly as civilian contractors. Many will see permanent jobloss. A ripple effect, or "trickle down" effect will been seen soon thereafter in lesser paying retail positions.

The Democrats are said to be planning calls for extended unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects, which is of course, what the massive Obama deficits were created to alleviate in his first term and the cause of the sequester. Infrastructure projects do nothing to solve the underlying problem of unemployment, leaving workers unemployed again once government funding runs out or the project is completed. Likewise, extended unemployment benefits do nothing to address the problem of job creation.