Week 1
Obama pushes Congress to avoid forced spending cuts
CNN
February 19, 2013
By Jessica Yellin and Tom Cohen
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/politics/forced-budget-cuts/index.html
Summary:
On Tuesday, President Obama said that forced spending cuts set to take effect March 1 won't grow the economy or create jobs, which he called the top priorities of his administration. He also warned of diminished emergency services, longer airport security lines and other problems if Congress fails to reach agreement on avoiding the harshest impacts of automatic spending cuts. The purpose of the deep cuts to all discretionary programs and the military was to motivate Congress to reach a comprehensive deficit reduction agreement that would replace them. However, such a deal has proved impossible, leading to the imminent application of $85 billion in spending cuts for 2013 and almost $1 trillion over 10 years.
Opinion:
Even though the purpose of the spending cuts was to reach a deficit reduction, I think it is inappropriate. It may cause a lot of problems. If the budgets are cut forcefully, it would affect many business and workers in the US. If they cut budgets on education, teachers will be laid off. If they cut budgets on defense, soldiers won't get their pay. Accordingly, it will decrease the workplace and the economy won't grow. Therefore, spending cuts should be balanced to cope with those problems.
Hmmm..my sympathy lies on both sides, I guess. I see the necessity of making the spending cut and at the same time also see the problems that might arise from making the cut. I guess the question everybody us asking is this: which one has the greater opportunity cost?-Grace Lee
ReplyDeleteI like your response ... which one has the greater opportunity cost?
DeleteHonestly, I believe the Government does need to cut in spending. However, where they make the cuts is the tricky part some think. But what if ... they cut the over inflated salaries of those who are supposedly working for the people. Do they really need 6 figured salaries? cutting it down to 5 figures would make a huge cut in spending wouldn't it? Or how about eliminating some of the excess cabinets/departments that are not needed and make for a double duty on departments and extra spending?
it's kind of ambiguous to choose a side. Government can decline their deficit and people can't get their pay. The article was well summarized and picked main point.
ReplyDeleteActually, I really don't agree on spending cuts. As you said, it might makes some bad results to business and citizens. It was very nice opinion and you used appropriate words.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree with you, Kira. We have to think the balance when we practice discretionary policy with spending cuts. However, now, I think U.S. need to have spending cuts in order to prepare emergency services.
ReplyDeletei agree with your opinion because i also think it is appropriate. thanks for your good new information.
ReplyDeleteI think it might be better if you have a section for relating the article with the lessons you've learned.
ReplyDeleteUnited States do not have much money in its national bank. It would be still hard for U.S. to reduce its debt by cutting expense.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama is giving up a little bit in order for the better good, the entire economy. In microeconomic terms, the budget cut may be critical to different government organizations, in macroeconomic terms, Obama was trying to enliven the entire economy
ReplyDeleteThe president is making sense with his words. The economic expenses on the administration is reducing for that. It is very easy to see that the scarcity exists in politics.
ReplyDeleteyayyyy it is the same topic article with me! i think President Obama should put more efforts on spending too, since the infrastructure is provided for everyone. ----crystal
ReplyDelete