Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;996239]I dont view them as a military units.
I view it as a source of national pride and an American icon. So do a lot of other people.
Something every president in my lifetime has been able to finance except the guy from Hawaii.
And your luxury word is fairly stupid since you cant put a price on national pride.
But like I said, the treehuggers are in charge and treehuggers arent going to care....[/quote]

but they are military units, specifically the USAF Air Demonstration Squadron, and the Flight Demonstration Squadron.

Your statement about every president is ridiculous in light of the fact that I could say the same about several entitlement programs that I would prefer be reduced or cut. The fact that it has been around doesn't prove it's worth when our country's national economic health is on the line. In fact, after the tragic crash in 1982, the AF considered disbanding the unit, but didn't. (said to point that it's not some unpatriotic tree hugger idea, when the military legitimately debated it, when our finances weren't nearly as bad).


You never did answer what defense cuts you would make to offset keeping the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels going. It's only 4mill a year(2mil each) so surely you can suggest another option?

also, it is the navy and the air force departments deciding that these shows should be cancelled not Pres. Obama dictating they be stopped.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996236]They should complain. By the time they pay federal and state taxes they are paying around $100,000 a year. Thay are not the people who should get hit. Its the people paying no taxes and the millionairs who can afford to pay more.[/quote]

As someone who looked at tax returns for several years, they are people who take advantage of the tax system in every single tax bracket. But what I found who took advantage of it the most with stretching things were real estate agents and small business owners. Its really a game, they do everything in their power to show no income to the IRS and then over exagerate income when it comes to personal lending.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Chico23231;996267]As someone who looked at tax returns for several years, they are people who take advantage of the tax system in every single tax bracket. But what I found who took advantage of it the most with stretching things were real estate agents and small business owners. Its really a game, [B]they do everything in their power to show no income to the IRS and then over exagerate income when it comes to personal lending[/B].[/quote]

The first thing that a bank ask for when a self employed person wants a loan is tax returns so you can't have it both ways. It has to be claimed as income on your taxes for a bank to even consider it income. Second as a business owner you can avoid paying taxes on some money but your having to spend money on business things and thats money that could have been actual income. I'm sure you have heard someone say donate you can write it off. Sure I can write it off but it also was money that is no longer income. So do I want to donate $100 to avoid paying taxes on that money. I can put a meal or two on the business credit card or a round of golf but I olny can take a % of those charges off as an expense.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Nothing is going to change while douche bags like these are in place. Boehner is flat out lying.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester-cuts-sequestration-boehner-david-gregory-meet-the-press-2013-3?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare]Boehner, David Gregory Spar On Sequester Cuts - Business Insider[/url]

[quote]Here's the exchange:

BOEHNER: Now listen, we've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester. And over the last 10 months, House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester. There are smarter ways to cut spending than these automatic across the board...

DAVID GREGORY:
GREGORY: But Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. They've made it very clear, as the President just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts, that you've made a choice as have Republicans to leave tax loopholes in place. And you'd rather have those and live with all these arbitrary cuts...

BOEHNER: Well, David that's just nonsense. If he had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it? The House has acted twice over the last ten months to replace the sequester. If we’re going to — the president got his tax hikes on January the first. If we're going to get rid of loopholes, let's lower rates and make the tax code fair for all Americans.
[/quote]


Well dumbass, why haven't they passed anything?

[url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-block-sequestration-alternative.php]Let The Cuts Begin! | TPMDC[/url]

Your GOPers filibustering it is why.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996282]Nothing is going to change while douche bags like these are in place. Boehner is flat out lying.

[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester-cuts-sequestration-boehner-david-gregory-meet-the-press-2013-3?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare"]Boehner, David Gregory Spar On Sequester Cuts - Business Insider[/URL]




Well dumbass, why haven't they passed anything?

[URL="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-block-sequestration-alternative.php"]Let The Cuts Begin! | TPMDC[/URL]

From your own post they tried twice.

Your GOPers filibustering it is why.[/quote]
BOEHNER: Now listen, we've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester. And over the last 10 months, [B]House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester. [/B]There are smarter ways to cut spending than these automatic across the board...

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

You heard after the election how the GOP was no longer going to be the "party of stupid", yet here they are again doing what they do best. Being stupid. I don't get it, people hate you, even your own side, yet you still continue doing stuff deliberately trying to sabotage the economy just so you can blame it on the Democrats. While the democrats are far from innocent, I think even the brainwashed Americans at this point see who the real problem is.


[url=http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/03/who-takes-heat-for-sequester-mess-even-majority-of-polled-republicans-blame-gop/#.UTQlgJH_x9M.reddit]Who Takes Heat For Sequester Mess? Even Majority Of Polled Republicans Blame GOP | Addicting Info[/url]


[IMG]http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-02-24-fedspending-graphic.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996283]BOEHNER: Now listen, we've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester. And over the last 10 months, [B]House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester. [/B]There are smarter ways to cut spending than these automatic across the board...[/quote]


I agree, but it still doesn't negate his bold face lie that the president or democrats didn't have a plan and if it did, why haven't they passed it.


Answer: It's because his party is continuing to block it.



Dude, at this point, it's so clear who the GOP serve and who they are protecting. Rich elite.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

No, Obama has his share of blame in all this.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-obamas-politics-led-t_b_2804992.html]Jeffrey Sachs: How Obama's Politics Led to Sequestration[/url]


[quote]Obama campaigned to make the tax cuts permanent for 98 percent of households, and restore the pre-Bush rates only for the top 2 percent of households. This policy made it look like Obama was on the side of raising government revenues, and compared with the far-right Republicans, he was. Yet by making most of the temporary tax cuts permanent he sided de facto with the Republican campaign to undermine government by reducing revenues.

On New Year's Day, Obama and the Republicans agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for 99 percent of households, excluding married couples with incomes above $450,000. They also agreed to keep low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. This "deal" will cost the federal budget an average of around $400 billion per year in foregone revenues during the coming decade, or roughly 2 percent of GDP each year. Once that deal was done the stark shrinkage of discretionary government programs became inevitable. [/quote]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996286]I agree, but it still doesn't negate his bold face lie that the president or democrats didn't have a plan and if it did, why haven't they passed it.


Answer: It's because his party is continuing to block it.



Dude, at this point, it's so clear who [B]the GOP serve and who they are protecting. Rich elite[/B].[/quote]

What is the Obama plan? Funny your last post said that the Rep. agreed to a tax cut for everyone but the rich. HMMMM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Daseal;996190]It breaks your heart that planes flying at sporting events and air shows (the definition of WASTEFUL SPENDING) are getting grounded? If you want to cut the budget, fine, but lets really look at useless spending. Those planes cost millions of dollars and the fuel is very expensive. Not to mention the time of the pilots, the training, etc. It will affect the merchants in the area, but budget reductions will have that affect.

Alvin -- stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you want to cut spending, fine. But these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be the first to go. There is no economical gain for these programs nor is there any social gain.[/quote]


That's the thing, people don't want to cut out something that they enjoy or that may affect them. Let's just take it away from the lesser/poorer people. After all, they (welfare recipients) are the real reason out deficit is out of control, even though we spend less than 2% on them.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996289]What is the Obama plan? Funny your last post said that the Rep. agreed to a tax cut for everyone but the rich. HMMMM[/quote]

The thing is, those tax loopholes are still in place. The ultra rich will continue to use these to avoid taxes, and capital gains taxes weren't raised.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996290]That's the thing, people don't want to cut out something that they enjoy or that may affect them. Let's just take it away from the lesser/poorer people. After all, they (welfare recipients) are the real reason out deficit is out of control,[B] even though we spend less than 2% on them.[/B][/quote]

You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.



[IMG]https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=p3&chs=600x200&chf=bg,s,e8e8ff&chd=t:18,19,13,14,10,5,5,2,8,6&chl=Pensions 18%|Health Care 19%|Education 13%|Defense 14%|Welfare 10%|Protection 5%|Transportation 5%|General Government 2%|Other Spending 8%|Interest 6%&chtt=Total Spending for United States - FY 2013[/IMG]

Under health care falls programs for lower income.
Education has programs for low income.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996297]You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.



[IMG]https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=p3&chs=600x200&chf=bg,s,e8e8ff&chd=t:18,19,13,14,10,5,5,2,8,6&chl=Pensions 18%|Health Care 19%|Education 13%|Defense 14%|Welfare 10%|Protection 5%|Transportation 5%|General Government 2%|Other Spending 8%|Interest 6%&chtt=Total Spending for United States - FY 2013[/IMG]

Under health care falls programs for lower income.
Education has programs for low income.[/quote]


I have a good clue. You didn't break down that welfare spending.


[url=http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html]US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts[/url]


Family and children spending equates to 111.7 billion of the total spending.

That is what most people bitch about when they talk welfare and that equates to about 26% of welfare spending. So about 2% of the total budget. I was a little off, it accounts for 2.6% of the budget.


Continue on...

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Relevant to this discussion.


[url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-myths-spending-cuts-163400575.html]4 Myths about the Spending Cuts - Yahoo! Finance[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996302]I have a good clue. You didn't break down that welfare spending.


[URL="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html"]US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts[/URL]


Family and children spending equates to 111.7 billion of the total spending.

That is what most people bitch about when they talk welfare and that equates to about 26% of welfare spending. So about 2% of the total budget. I was a little off, it accounts for 2.6% of the budget.


Continue on...[/quote]

You cannot pick and choose what part of welfare you decide to count. Its over 10% of the budget.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996305]You cannot pick and choose what part of welfare you decide to count. Its over 10% of the budget.[/quote]

Anytime I've heard a GOPer barking about welfare, it's been about foodstamps. I've never heard one bitch about the other funding within welfare. I picked it, because that's exactly what your party bitches about. It's no secret that conservatives associate food stamps with welfare.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996307]Anytime I've heard a GOPer barking about welfare, it's been about foodstamps. I've never heard one bitch about the other funding within welfare. I picked it, because that's exactly what your party bitches about. [B]It's no secret that conservatives associate food stamps with welfare.[/B][/quote]

No shit your right its a [B]PART[/B] of welfare but its just one part. I'm tired of having to pay the way for others who choose not to work. We keep extending unemployment and the wonder why so many people are unemployeed. HMMM maybe the two go hand in hand. I've also said we need to reduce spending on the military. Hell we are having these issues and Obama announced just on 2/28 that we are sending another 150 MILLION to Syria. So we are going to borrow money fron Japan to give it to Syria. What the F is wrong with this picture. WE ARE OUT OF MONEY AND WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. I'm a 100% for these cuts and I'm in an area that will get hit the hardest.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

And this thread is why I overall support sequestration and any other mandatory reductions that don't listen to every grievance. Just in this thread we can see a lobby for the military, the people making the most, and those who support the poor. We can't even come together and accept the simple fact that our government is way overspending in every area, and instead throw out graphs, articles and "national pride" to plead the case for whichever group you support.

In fact, I would say sequestration didn't go far enough, and that we ought to mandate 3% baseline cuts and 3% tax increases across the board, every year until either:
a) legislatively binding financial plans are developed that bring the budget at or near balance and a fund for debt repayment is established

or

b) an amendment to the constitution is passed that mandates fiscal sanity (however that would be worded). It ought to be easy enough for the population of 2/3rds of the states to push for a straight forward amendment which says that unfettered debt is dangerous to our national health, and therefore, the Constitution is amended to require that the national debt can never exceed x% (i am sure there is a healthy percentage of debt).

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996309]I'm tired of having to pay the way for others who choose not to work. We keep extending unemployment and the wonder why so many people are unemployeed.[/quote]


...or maybe you are just stereotyping people on welfare? Maybe it's because jobs aren't there. You act if we can just magically go get some job and all is better! What are a lot of major corporations doing with jobs? Answer: Sending them overseas and cutting them for max profits.

It's not always that simple or that easy FD, and congrats to you for having it made to where you never understand what kind of situation these people may be in. Granted, there are some that are lazy and want free handouts, that much is certain.



[quote=CRedskinsRule;996310]And this thread is why I overall support sequestration and any other mandatory reductions that don't listen to every grievance. Just in this thread we can see a lobby for the military, the people making the most, and those who support the poor. We can't even come together and accept the simple fact that our government is way overspending in every area, and instead throw out graphs, articles and "national pride" to plead the case for whichever group you support.[/quote]

It's not that I "support" any particular group. I'm just calling out the parrot heads that continue to point at one thing and say LOOK THEY AR THE REASON.

However, if given the choice, would you rather bomb somebody or feed them.


They can do away with this Homeland Security bullshit. They aren't doing anything to make us secure. We are no more secure today than we were prior to 9/11.

[url=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/]Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile | The Gateway Pundit[/url]


FD talked about us funding Syria. Wonder why he didn't mention Israel?

[url=http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/03/03/269443.html]Washington DC ad campaign seeks to ‘expose’ Israeli lobby in America[/url]


Another way to save billions of dollars in wasted money is to end the faux war on drugs. It's a waste. Legalize it and tax it. You thereby create revenue.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996315]...or maybe you are just stereotyping people on welfare? Maybe it's because jobs aren't there. You act if we can just magically go get some job and all is better! What are a lot of major corporations doing with jobs? Answer: Sending them overseas and cutting them for max profits.

It's not always that simple or that easy FD, [B]and congrats to you for having it made to where you never understand what kind of situation these people may be in.[/B] Granted, there are some that are lazy and want free handouts, that much is certain.





It's not that I "support" any particular group. I'm just calling out the parrot heads that continue to point at one thing and say LOOK THEY AR THE REASON.

However, if given the choice, would you rather bomb somebody or feed them.


They can do away with this Homeland Security bullshit. They aren't doing anything to make us secure. We are no more secure today than we were prior to 9/11.

[URL="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/"]Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile | The Gateway Pundit[/URL]


FD talked about us funding Syria. Wonder why he didn't mention Israel?

[URL="http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/03/03/269443.html"]Washington DC ad campaign seeks to ‘expose’ Israeli lobby in America[/URL]


Another way to save billions of dollars in wasted money is to end the faux war on drugs. It's a waste. Legalize it and tax it. You thereby create revenue.[/quote]

I've been on both sides and know full well what it is like to be making minimum wage and a sgl father. I've also done alot of charity work so I know first hand what I'm talking about. The reason I did not mention Israel is because that is old spending and I have no problem cutting them off as well. I do agree we could legalize drugs and tax them but the right would never pass that bill.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996315]...or maybe you are just stereotyping people on welfare? Maybe it's because jobs aren't there. You act if we can just magically go get some job and all is better! What are a lot of major corporations doing with jobs? Answer: Sending them overseas and cutting them for max profits.

It's not always that simple or that easy FD, and congrats to you for having it made to where you never understand what kind of situation these people may be in. Granted, there are some that are lazy and want free handouts, that much is certain.





It's not that I "support" any particular group. I'm just calling out the parrot heads that continue to point at one thing and say LOOK THEY AR THE REASON.

However, if given the choice, would you rather bomb somebody or feed them.


[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]They can do away with this Homeland Security bullshit. They aren't doing anything to make us secure. We are no more secure today than we were prior to 9/11.[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/]Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile | The Gateway Pundit[/url]


FD talked about us funding Syria. Wonder why he didn't mention Israel?

[url=http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/03/03/269443.html]Washington DC ad campaign seeks to ‘expose’ Israeli lobby in America[/url]


Another way to save billions of dollars in wasted money is to end the faux war on drugs. It's a waste. Legalize it and tax it. You thereby create revenue.[/quote]

You're a loon.
Thats why I take almost nothing seriously you post in this forum.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996310]And this thread is why I overall support sequestration and any other mandatory reductions that don't listen to every grievance. Just in this thread we can see a lobby for the military, the people making the most, and those who support the poor. We can't even come together and accept the simple fact that our government is way overspending in every area, and instead throw out graphs, articles and "national pride" to plead the case for whichever group you support.

In fact, I would say sequestration didn't go far enough, and that we ought to mandate 3% baseline cuts and 3% tax increases across the board, every year until either:
a) legislatively binding financial plans are developed that bring the budget at or near balance and a fund for debt repayment is established

or

b) an amendment to the constitution is passed that mandates fiscal sanity (however that would be worded). It ought to be easy enough for the population of 2/3rds of the states to push for a straight forward amendment which says that unfettered debt is dangerous to our national health, and therefore, the Constitution is amended to require that the national debt can never exceed x% (i am sure there is a healthy percentage of debt).[/quote]

I agree a flat reduction in spending would have been a better plan along with a tax increase that reduces our dept.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996323]I agree a flat reduction in spending would have been a better plan along with a tax increase that reduces our dept.[/quote]

Isn't this the sticking point? The left wants to have cuts, but also add new taxes. The right refuses to allow any new taxes?

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Daseal;996326]Isn't this the sticking point? The left wants to have cuts, but also add new taxes. The right refuses to allow any new taxes?[/quote]
The left only wants to cut defense spending and add new taxes. The right says it would look at raising taxes along with spending cuts across the board. Remember we just had a tax increase in January and defense has also had pther cuts in spending. I think all spending should be on the table.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996328]The left only wants to cut defense spending and add new taxes. The right says it would look at raising taxes along with spending cuts across the board. Remember we just had a tax increase in January and defense has also had pther cuts in spending. I think all spending should be on the table.[/quote]

I agree, smart cuts to defense and everything else along with some increased taxes.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;996321]You're a loon.
Thats why I take almost nothing seriously you post in this forum.[/quote]

So tell me, how many terrorist activities have they stopped here in the US? Then tell me how many billions we've spent.


I'll be awaiting those numbers.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996320]I've been on both sides and know full well what it is like to be making minimum wage and a sgl father. [/quote]


So you managed to support you and your child with a minimum wage job with no help or support?


1) Rent
2) Car/gas
3) Food
4) Insurance
5) Clothes
6) Other supplies


No offense, but I'm not believing it one bit.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996331]So tell me, how many terrorist activities have they stopped here in the US? Then tell me how many billions we've spent.


I'll be awaiting those numbers.[/quote]

I doubt we'll ever be able to tell how many were stopped, its made it awful hard for the sundry list of bad guys to even attempt anything becuse its so expensive and complicated to pull something off like that now.

And to name a few - The Coast Guard, The Secret Service, TSA, Immigration are all part of HS.
Why do you want to do away with them?

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Where Did Our Debt Come From?Please watch.


[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LcvLHHMC4iI]Where Did the Debt Come From? - YouTube[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

keep the sequester and tax policey seperate. Big mistake

we need to attack our government's spending with substanial cuts and enforce budget control there after.

tax reforms should happen, but our government shouldnt do both at once, we are too stupid politically.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996334]So you managed to support you and your child with a minimum wage job with no help or support?


1) Rent
2) Car/gas
3) Food
4) Insurance
5) Clothes
6) Other supplies


No offense, but I'm not believing it one bit.[/quote]

I made a deal with the person I worked for and had a place to live by doing odd jobs for him on the weekends. I actually took a reduction in pay to get into the insurance field but I didn't make much money the first few years. Finally got trained and moved up and then opened my own office. The only thing I ever received from the gov was a tax credit for being a low income parent. I'm personally not against federal programs I'm against people who are on them for life and raise children who become welfare dependent.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;996335]I doubt we'll ever be able to tell how many were stopped, its made it awful hard for the sundry list of bad guys to even attempt anything becuse its so expensive and complicated to pull something off like that now.

And to name a few - The Coast Guard, The Secret Service, TSA, Immigration are all part of HS.
Why do you want to do away with them?[/quote]

Answer: None.

It made it hard? You mean how the kid that got on board a airplane with a shoe bomb? TSA agents have been nothing but a menace since their creation. Groping women, harassing kids and other passengers has been their specialty, not stopping terrorists.

[url=http://gawker.com/5986030/tsa-agents-harass-three+year+old-with-spina-bifida-take-away-her-stuffed-animal]TSA Agents Harass Three-Year-Old with Spina Bifida, Take Away Her Stuffed Animal[/url]

[url]http://boingboing.net/2012/04/25/tsa-agents-bully-7-year-old-wi.html[/url]

[url=http://rt.com/usa/tsa-rape-room-wife-179/]TSA harassment sends rape victim to emergency room — RT USA[/url]

[url=http://www.travelerstoday.com/articles/2333/20120717/tsa-agents-harass-disabled-passengers-cause-concern.htm]TSA Agents Harass Disabled Passengers: Cause for Concern : News : TravelersToday[/url]

You give our incompetent enforcement agencies way too much credit.


[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/01/30/security-is-big-business-at-super-bowl-xlvii/]Security is Big Business at Super Bowl XLVII - Forbes[/url]

We don't need to be involved with security for the Super Bowl, the NFL makes 9+ billion a year, let them handle it.


Well, those departments you named were there prior to the HS department being formed so no. I have a huge issue with pouring billions of dollars into "security" when it's not protecting us from shit. Again, I'm not talking about agencies that existed prior to 9/11.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Giantone;996336]Where Did Our Debt Come From?Please watch.


[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LcvLHHMC4iI"]Where Did the Debt Come From? - YouTube[/URL][/quote]

Nothing like a bias source.

Center for American Progress's Director of Tax and Budget Policy

Its President and chief executive officer is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neera_Tanden"][COLOR=#0066cc]Neera Tanden[/COLOR][/URL], who worked for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama"][COLOR=#0066cc]Obama[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Clinton[/COLOR][/URL] administrations and for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Hillary Clinton[/COLOR][/URL]’s campaigns.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress#cite_note-5"][COLOR=#0066cc][5][/COLOR][/URL] Its first President and chief executive officer

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996354]Nothing like a bias source.

Center for American Progress's Director of Tax and Budget Policy

Its President and chief executive officer is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neera_Tanden"][COLOR=#0066cc]Neera Tanden[/COLOR][/URL], who worked for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama"][COLOR=#0066cc]Obama[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Clinton[/COLOR][/URL] administrations and for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Hillary Clinton[/COLOR][/URL]’s campaigns.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress#cite_note-5"][COLOR=#0066cc][5][/COLOR][/URL] Its first President and chief executive officer[/quote]


SO is any of the information wrong? If so, please point out where and detail it.

It doesn't take a genius to see that starting 2 separate wars while cutting taxes was going to lead to a huge debt hole.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996349]Answer: None.

It made it hard? You mean how the kid that got on board a airplane with a shoe bomb? TSA agents have been nothing but a menace since their creation. Groping women, harassing kids and other passengers has been their specialty, not stopping terrorists.

[URL="http://gawker.com/5986030/tsa-agents-harass-three+year+old-with-spina-bifida-take-away-her-stuffed-animal"]TSA Agents Harass Three-Year-Old with Spina Bifida, Take Away Her Stuffed Animal[/URL]

[URL]http://boingboing.net/2012/04/25/tsa-agents-bully-7-year-old-wi.html[/URL]

[URL="http://rt.com/usa/tsa-rape-room-wife-179/"]TSA harassment sends rape victim to emergency room — RT USA[/URL]

[URL="http://www.travelerstoday.com/articles/2333/20120717/tsa-agents-harass-disabled-passengers-cause-concern.htm"]TSA Agents Harass Disabled Passengers: Cause for Concern : News : TravelersToday[/URL]

You give our incompetent enforcement agencies way too much credit.


[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/01/30/security-is-big-business-at-super-bowl-xlvii/"]Security is Big Business at Super Bowl XLVII - Forbes[/URL]

We don't need to be involved with security for the Super Bowl, the NFL makes 9+ billion a year, let them handle it.


Well, those departments you named were their prior to the HS department being formed so no. I have a huge issue with pouring billions of dollars into "security" when it's not protecting us from shit. Again, I'm not talking about agencies that existed prior to 9/11.[/quote]

One minute you say the gov. can do no wrong but when its a program you don't like they can do no right.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996357]One minute you say the gov. can do no wrong but when its a program you don't like they can do no right.[/quote]


Can you show me where I said the gov can do no wrong? Please do.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996354]Nothing like a bias source.

Center for American Progress's Director of Tax and Budget Policy

Its President and chief executive officer is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neera_Tanden"][COLOR=#0066cc]Neera Tanden[/COLOR][/URL], who worked for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama"][COLOR=#0066cc]Obama[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Clinton[/COLOR][/URL] administrations and for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton"][COLOR=#0066cc]Hillary Clinton[/COLOR][/URL]’s campaigns.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress#cite_note-5"][COLOR=#0066cc][5][/COLOR][/URL] Its first President and chief executive officer[/quote]

Facts are still facts.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

So Alvin still hasn't answered any thoughts on what defense spending he would cut, and NC_Skins, I might ask you if you had any part of the Welfare 10% you could see as being cut.

We all get so caught up in our own belief of what this country needs, but in order to make it work, everyone has to be willing to put something on the table. and I generally mean something more substantial than a 4 million reduction.

If we can't all do that, I mean go more than halfway, then there isn't anyway this country is going to avoid a massive impasse a la France.

And so everyone understands, I am an extremist. I would take government spending down to the bones in a lot of areas. I would let states set up their own welfare systems, and not have anything more than bare bones oversight, to make sure no gross abuses occur, but if Montana wants to set up minimal WIC, and maximize efforts to get people off, and NY wants to maximize length, let those states constituents pay. As for the rich and taxes, If you want to live here, and put your corporations here, we are going to tax a rate on par with the rest of the world, not grossly over, and not grossly under. For some of the capital flight takes place, some will come back. Defense, I would nearly gut the standing Army and have a strong reserve force uses 18-21 year olds as a mainstay, with a reserve officer corp that maintains some level of consistent training, (yes I was in it, I know that the soldiers in there are for the most part patriots and overall good guys). I would maintain our Navy and AirForce/Space services at current funding for 3 years, placing all leading tech purchases on hold for 1 1/2 years, based on a reasonable assumption that we aren't in grave danger (is there any other kind). I would mandate Military or Community Service for 3 years for EVERYONE when turning 18. Once that service at Minimum wage, with housing benefits like the military has been completed, you have the opportunity to re-up, or move on. Discretionary expenditures would be frozen at 2012 levels and re-visited every 18 months.

None of this will happen, and in my humble opinion, no faction in US politics is going to give up enough to even make a dent.

c'est la vie

[QUOTE=Giantone;996362]Facts are still facts.[/QUOTE]

From you? ROLF!