∞ - $85B = ∞
Fill a 7 ounce coffee cup to the brim with water. Lift out a teaspoon of that water. Now pour half of that teaspoon back into the cup... then another half of the remaining half-a-teaspoon back into the cup... and another drop... The final contents of the cup and the teaspoon are a snapshot of the effect of sequestration: roughly half of one percent.

The economic principles Chris Graham clearly communicated here are so mathematically obvious as to be axiomatic. But the dumbed-down mixed multitudes that constitute 50.1% of the electorate still believe whatever their handlers tell them, even when it is phony statistics or voodoo economics. They have little idea of the relative sizes of millions, billions, and trillions... although they were among the first to catch on that a tiny dime was worth more than a nickel.

An $85 billion reduction of automatic increases in spending causes wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, "We must have a $2.4 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling, or the sky is going to fall." (The debt ceiling IS higher than the sky, so I guess a falling sky IS a problem.)

Those two figures must switch places, as in "a $2.4 trillion reduction in federal spending vs. an $85 billion increase in the federal debt ceiling," and it must happen voluntarily. Or else, when the U.S. economy collapses (think Greece, or even Zimbabwe), the creditors - the PRC, OPEC, and/or the banksters of a Eurocentric OWG - will not hesitate to put U.S. finances in order, no matter the pain it causes their serfs in the distant American colonies. "The serfs are revolting? Let them eat .40 cal HP."

When Cutting 8 Days Of Spending Is Seen As Disastrous, We're Doomed : Political Outcast