[SkyPilot]

Politicians do make it sound like stalemate is inevitable, acknowledges Jaimani Desai at Seeking Alpha. "Both Democrats and Republicans seem locked into their stances and unwilling to compromise." But "these are just negotiating tactics." The reality is that both sides have very strong reasons to strike a deal. Nobody wants to hamper the military or force the government to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees, and that includes most of the Republicans screaming loudest about the need to impose fiscal discipline in Washington.

The conventional wisdom states that the Republicans are in an advantageous position since an inability to reach agreement would automatically force spending cuts. My theory is that the Republicans are much more fond of "spending cuts" as a political issue to win votes as opposed to "spending cuts" as policy. I think recent history confirms this view. No doubt, in terms of rhetoric the Republicans excel in discussing the need for spending cuts, however in reality they have done little more than kick the can down the road and are equal perpetrators in the nation's fiscal issues.

[basil]

Well, I say leave the military alone, and fire millions of other “government employees”.

We can get over that—there are millions that are either unnecessary or redundant. Line ‘em all up, and count every 5th one and fire him.

[Paladin2]

Is this to be a cut in increases or an actual cut?

[P.O.E.]

Deep spending cuts?

Cutting it to zero would be “deep”. Merely slowing its growth is not even a cut.

[broken_arrow1]

The US should pull it’s forces out of Europe, Japan, Asia and stop giving free stuff to places like Egypt. They took advantage of the US Defense umbrella to build their socialism. Let them defend themselves and bear the burden of cost. The US shouldn’t be funding or fighting endless wars anyway. Big deal, so we reduce the rate of increase in spending, not a true cut. They act as if this is the end of the world or something.

[SkyPilot]

This is interesting:

Defense contractors are joining forces with public health experts — both groups that rely heavily on federal funds — in a "combined call to stop the upcoming sequester cuts," says Kate Ackley at Roll Call. "The rare display of unity among groups that are often pitted against one another underscored" how much opposition there is to the across-the-board budget cuts, and how much support there is for a compromise. These strange bedfellows are urging Congress and the Obama administration "to arrive at a bipartisan grand bargain that should include new tax revenues, an overhaul of entitlement programs, and cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the ledger." If they can work together, maybe Republicans and Democrats can, too.

The Sequester is a meat ax, across the board chainsaw that does not even allow departments to initiate the cuts in the best way. It is also trying to balance 3/3rds of the budget on the backs of 1/3rd of the budget while it exempts mandatory spending, which is exploding.

Many of the indiscriminate discretionary cuts will end up costing the government more money as soon as next year if they are implemented this way. People may cry and moan about that, but that is the way it is.

A target approach is much more fiscally sound.

Defense is already reeling from the 2011 $487 Billion in cuts over ten years (we are already two years into that cycle). With the Continuing Resolution freezing their budget and now 50% of the Sequestration cuts being levied on one department (the DoD), it is a triple disaster.

For the first time, I am beginning to see media and liberals on TV talk about entitlement reform.

Even Democrats and liberal realize that we could totally zero out Defense spending, and the out of control spending on entitlements looks like this:

For the sake of our nation, we have to tackle this problem.

My prayer is that God will act His will, even upon the reprobate and pagan members of our government (as he did with Nebakanezer). Perhaps there is still hope our nation will turn around. Otherwise, our nation will not endure. Our real fiscal cliff is not behind us, we are speeding towards and entitlement disaster at 90 mph.

[txrefugee]

Out of a greedy government budget of 1.6 trillion, they will cut 85 billion. This is practically nothing and shouldn’t even be noticed among all the waste and corruption when Obama’s cronies are feeding at the trough.

The only reason it is noticed is that cuts will be made in egregious ways...cutting budgets so voters are actually affected, hoping to inflame them against House Republican candidates in ‘14. As always, it’s a political move to discredit opposition to the Marxists’ agenda.

[bert]

On March 1, the House should pass a bill restoring the most agregious cuts to the Military. The bill should be hand carried to the Senate. It is then on the Senate if bad things happen.

The House can pick what will be restored in other agencies as well.

[3Fingas]

All I can say is that the sequester does happen than nobody in the White House nor Congress should get a paycheck. They really haven’t earned one in years. If they can’t get an official budget together, which is one of their main job responsibilities, than they should feel the pain like everyone else.

[texican01]

Any cut is a good cut!

[OneWingedShark]

Is it too late to avert the sequester's deep spending cuts?

I certainly hope so.

[JustTheTruth]

Let the cuts happen. Also, we need to start properly referring to this as:

THE OBAMA SEQUESTER He, after all, is the one who wanted it and who signed it into law.

[metesky]

...cuts designed to save $85 billion this year and $1.2 trillion over a decade.

So 120 billion (average) cut out of annual budget of 3.5/4 trillion dollars is gonna ruin gubmint?

Blow that smoke up someone else's arse.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They are NOT "spending cuts" by any rational definition.

We are talking the baseline-budgeting scam here.

In baseline budgeting, if you were budgeting a 5% increase in spending, but cancel the increase, it's a 5% cut.

You're still spending the same amount of money as you did before, but they call it a "cut."

That's not a "cut."

[jeffc]

...but "the impending spending cuts package was his [Obama's] idea from the start."

That was my impression, but I've read that it was Congress's idea (or the "committee" to work things out or whatever). I just think the "media" is trying to lay blame on the Repubs no matter what. If the sequester is bad, then it's the Repub's fault; sequester=good, then it's Zero's brilliance.

I forget, are we at war with East Asia today or West Asia?

[Cyber Liberty]

What cuts? It's something like $60 Billion per year. With a budget well north of $3.5 Trillion that's a rounding error.

[what's up]

My theory is that the Republicans are much more fond of "spending cuts" as a political issue to win votes as opposed to "spending cuts" as policy

Don't think so in this case. I do believe this policy is going to happen.