ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for default Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.

US Sequester: Obama signs budget cuts into law

Share On Facebook
share on Linkedin
Print

Growth concerns grow following $85bn of “dumb, arbitrary” cuts implemented after political stalemate

© Image copyright seanfx

President Obama has signed into law federal spending cuts worth $85bn, after the Democratic and Republican parties failed to reach agreement on how to balance the nation’s finances.

Known as the sequester the spending cuts, described  by the President as being “dumb” and “arbitrary”, were drawn up by US lawmakers two years ago during tense debate over raising the country’s debt ceiling; the amount they government is allowed to legally borrow to pay its bills.

Republicans and Democrats are currently unable to agree raising taxes to address the country’s $16.6tn debt, with the former arguing that spending cuts should be a predominant component of any plan to repair national finances.

Mr Obama has argued that the cuts would slow US GDP output by 0.5% and would cost close to 750,000 jobs.

Before their signing into law the International Monetary Fund had raised concern that the cuts could impact global economic growth.

Commenting on the potential need for the IMF to revise its US growth forecast spokesperson William Murrary said “A lot of it depends upon how aggressively or how fully sequestration is implemented. There will be an impact on global growth”.

Purposely designed to be painful and to spur the warring parties to reach agreement on the national budget, the failure to reach an agreement will lead to a $43bn cut to the Defence department budget and $11bn in cuts to the US’s medical programme, Medicare.

Chuck Hagel, the newly appointed Secretary of Defence, criticised the cuts saying they “will cause pain, particularly among our civilian workforce and their families”.

£26bn of Non-defence discretionary and $5bn of other mandatory spending also comprise the new cuts.

The Democratic president blamed the Republicans for the deadlock, arguing that “They’ve allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing a single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit”.

“We shouldn’t be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and workers depend on,” the President stated.

Countering the President’s remarks John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said that the President had achieved the tax raising measures he had sought and that now the “discussion about revenue, in my view, is over. It’s about taking on the spending problem”.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR FREE ON ADVFN, the world's leading stocks and shares information website, provides the private investor with all the latest high-tech trading tools and includes live price data streaming, stock quotes and the option to access 'Level 2' data on all of the world's key exchanges (LSE, NYSE, NASDAQ, Euronext etc).

This area of the ADVFN.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ADVFN Plc. ADVFN Plc does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ADVFN.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ADVFN.COM and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions. Authors may or may not have positions in stocks that they are discussing but it should be considered very likely that their opinions are aligned with their trading and that they hold positions in companies, forex, commodities and other instruments they discuss.

Leave A Reply

 
Do you want to write for our Newspaper? Get in touch: newspaper@advfn.com