Will the Government shut down on the 27th of March?

[Sheilbh]

Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.

That's just another way of saying the cuts aren't intelligent.  Which departments should get more?

Cutting everything equally isn't intelligent. There should be discrimination and prioritisation - governments are elected to make choices and not doing that is a sort of abdication of that.

What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, heaven forbid the president take an opportunity to show some real leadership

Exactly my point. It was the right policy but for all the wrong reasons.

[garbon]

What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...

Well thankfully you have no say.

[Admiral Yi]

What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...

But the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid.  The obverse of stupid is smart.  So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.

[Sheilbh]

Well thankfully you have no say.

Indeed

I'm still someone who thinks the biggest disappointment of the coalition was that neither party used it to break their most expensive, ruinous and ridiculous policies of protecting NHS budget (Tories) or always largely increasing pensions (Lib Dems)

Needless to say no-one agrees with me on that

But the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid.  The obverse of stupid is smart.  So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.

Eating a Chinese buffet is stupid. Choosing a restaurant you like is smart. When you're out with a group and can't make up your mind because someone wants to gorge in a brasserie, someone fancies numerous over-priced local tapas and someone wants a rather thin Austrian gruel. Settling for the buffet is stupid. The guy who then says it while you sit down to prawn toast may be a bit of a dick, but they're not wrong.

It was stupid not to have been able to make choices - the content of those choices is going to depend on someone's political persuasion.

[Admiral Yi]

Eating a Chinese buffet is stupid. Choosing a restaurant you like is smart. When you're out with a group and can't make up your mind because someone wants to gorge in a brasserie, someone fancies numerous over-priced local tapas and someone wants a rather thin Austrian gruel. Settling for the buffet is stupid. The guy who then says it while you sit down to prawn toast may be a bit of a dick, but they're not wrong.

It was stupid not to have been able to make choices - the content of those choices is going to depend on someone's political persuasion.

Settling for the Chinese buffet is not stupid if two of the guys hate French food, two of the guys hate tapas, and two of the guys hate Austrian...gruel?  The fact that you eat Austrian gruel three times a day doesn't make Der Gruelhaus a smart choice.

[Sheilbh]

Have you been to a Chinese buffet? It's always stupid. Settle for a real restaurant.

[CountDeMoney]

What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...

Well thankfully you have no say.

No shit, right?  I think everybody regardless of political persuasion can agree on that one!

[Admiral Yi]

Have you been to a Chinese buffet? It's always stupid. Settle for a real restaurant.

So you think Obama should have settled for privatizing Medicare.  That's a real restaurant.

[Jacob]

I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.

The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).

[derspiess]

Cute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications.  You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.

The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).

Oh yeah that makes sense. 

[Razgovory]

I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. 

This is true;  apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.

The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.

And what did they want?

Uh, to give the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit. 

I meant in return.  Could you link me something describing this remarkable political charity?

[Razgovory]

What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...

But the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid.  The obverse of stupid is smart.  So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.

Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board.  It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker.  No idea why you'd nationalize something.  That seems like it would make matter worse.

[derspiess]

Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.