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]

Well since the Coast Guard performs a lot of port and border security for Homeland Defense I reassert my stance that you are a loon and dont know WTF you are talking about. You dont know who or what Homeland defense is. And your NFL comment just cements that.
Or do you just drink a lot....cause that would explain it.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;996379]Well since the Coast Guard performs a lot of port and border security for Homeland Defense I reassert my stance that you are a loon and dont know WTF you are talking about. You dont know who or what Homeland defense is. And your NFL comment just cements that.
Or do you just drink a lot....cause that would explain it.[/quote]


Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. The Department of Homeland Security did NOT exist before 9/11. The Coast Guard, TSA, and some of the other sub groups did exist before 9/11. Get rid of Homeland Security, and move those groups back to where they came from.


How hard is that to understand? Fact is, funding is being put into Homeland Security that wouldn't have if the department was never created.

Again, you have YET to show many any god damn results for all these terrorists we've stopped, which is EXACTLY why the Homeland Security was created for.

What's the problem with the NFL comment? I don't want my ****ing tax dollars being spent guarding some private organization's event. I don't give a flying **** who's playing in that game. We have NO business spending any money providing security for the Super Bowl.

I wouldn't call anybody a loon that posts pictures of dolls in freezers. I'd be more than happy to wager that most people think YOU are the loon, not me.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Giantone;996362]Facts are still facts.[/quote]
Just off the top of my head he blamed Bush for Obama's extension of the Bush tax breaks. How is that if they where set to expire that has to go on Obama. So Obama has over 1/3 of the total def. on his watch but gets 8% of the blame.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

NC_Skins I agree on the Homeland Security funding. While there may be some slight gain in the consolidation, the bureaucracy created is just ridiculous.

I disagree about the Superbowl though. I get that it is a privately sponsored event, but it is an international spectacle, and a giant target of US opulence and excess. So I can understand some level of federal assistance in the security. Protecting the population one of the reasonable duties of the federal government.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996381]Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. The Department of Homeland Security did NOT exist before 9/11. The Coast Guard, TSA, and some of the other sub groups did exist before 9/11. Get rid of Homeland Security, and move those groups back to where they came from.


How hard is that to understand? Fact is, funding is being put into Homeland Security that wouldn't have if the department was never created.

Again, you have YET to show many any god damn results for all these terrorists we've stopped, which is EXACTLY why the Homeland Security was created for.

[B]What's the problem with the NFL comment? I don't want my ****ing tax dollars being spend guarding some private organization's event. I don't give a flying **** who's playing in that game. We have NO business spending any money providing security for the Super Bowl.[/B]

I wouldn't call anybody a loon that posts pictures of dolls in freezers. I'd be more than happy to wager that most people think YOU are the loon, not me.[/quote]

That's the goverments job is to protect its citizens you loon.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

FD and AW why do you two insist on calling posters and those who disagree with you names? Can't you make your case without resorting to that?

Just curious.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996392]FD and AW why do you two insist on calling posters and those who disagree with you names? Can't you make your case without resorting to that?

Just curious.[/quote]

Please find post where I call people names. I just called NC a loom joking around. I guess I should have put JK after it but find another example. If anything I get called the names but you seem to miss that.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996394]Please find post where I call people names. I just called NC a loom joking around. I guess I should have put JK after it but find another example. If anything I get called the names but you seem to miss that.[/quote]

Well, my comment was directly following the loon comment(which I didn't see as a joke), and if you don't normally I apologize for the generalized statement.

That said, one of the worst parts of our political society now, imo, is the lack of respectful discussion, instead turning to name calling, or partisan demagoguery. I just wonder if at the discussions of the Federalist papers, if the politicians and civil society of that day were as disrespectful as we as a rule are now.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996424]Well, my comment was directly following the loon comment(which I didn't see as a joke), and if you don't normally I apologize for the generalized statement.

That said, one of the worst parts of our political society now, imo, is the lack of respectful discussion, instead turning to name calling, or partisan demagoguery.[B] I just wonder if at the discussions of the Federalist papers, if the politicians and civil society of that day were as disrespectful as we as a rule are now.[/quote][/B]

Apology acepted. I have said the same as you in the past about the name calling. After I read my post again I can see how calling him a loon may not have come across as a joke. I figured it sounded like a joke because who calls someone a loon now days.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996390]NC_Skins I agree on the Homeland Security funding. [B]While there may be some slight gain in the consolidation, the bureaucracy created is just ridiculous. [/B]

I disagree about the Superbowl though. I get that it is a privately sponsored event, but it is an international spectacle, and a giant target of US opulence and excess. So I can understand some level of federal assistance in the security. Protecting the population one of the reasonable duties of the federal government.[/quote]

One thing I don't gat is that the National Flood Insurance Program now falls under Home Land Security.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996428]One thing I don't gat is that the National Flood Insurance Program now falls under Home Land Security.[/quote]

If our guns get wet we won't be able to shoot anyone. Duh!

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996390]I disagree about the Superbowl though. I get that it is a privately sponsored event, but it is an international spectacle, and a giant target of US opulence and excess. So I can understand some level of federal assistance in the security. Protecting the population one of the reasonable duties of the federal government.[/quote]


If you end the Blue Angels, fly overs, you have to end this as well. A terrorist can do the exact same damage at any college, NBA, NHL game my friend. Our tax payer money doesn't need to be spent on the NFL, the NFL needs to spend that money. If you are in favor of spending the money for this, then by default, you have to agree to spend it at EVERY single event that has a large assembly. (concerts, NBA games, college games, NHL)

It's a HUGE waste of spending.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Tons of money to be had for Blue Angel fuel right here.

[url=http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html]Foreign Assistance Fast Facts[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

I don't agree that the SB is equivalent to a college football game or other large event. But I will compromise, any event that draws over [URL="http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/Super-Bowl-Media-Day-draws-costumed-traditional-journalists/-/9853400/18329202/-/bxeia7/-/index.html"]100Million viewers and over 5000 world journalists[/URL], on US soil, the government will help address security issues, anything less and they are on their own.

On the other hand, if it was announced that the NFL was required to fund security, or even reimburse govt expenditures, I would be ok with that as well.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;996448]Tons of money to be had for Blue Angel fuel right here.

[url=http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html]Foreign Assistance Fast Facts[/url][/quote]

ok, but sure seems still like you are willing to take money out of the hands of others that could use a hand up, rather than make a small sacrifice of something that you yourself acknowledged was a pride issue, not defense of the country. (I could argue that many people find great national pride in the compassion and help the US is known for, ie after the Haiti earthquake).

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996450]ok, [COLOR="Red"]but sure seems still like you are willing to take money out of the hands of others that could use a hand up[/COLOR], rather than make a small sacrifice of something that you yourself acknowledged was a pride issue, not defense of the country. (I could argue that many people find great national pride in the compassion and help the US is known for, ie after the Haiti earthquake).[/quote]


Thats because I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996450]ok, but sure seems still like you are willing to take money out of the hands of others that could use a hand up, rather than make a small sacrifice of something that you yourself acknowledged was a pride issue, not defense of the country. (I could argue that many people find great national pride in the compassion and help the US is known for, ie after the Haiti earthquake).[/quote]

At this point when we give foreign aid we are giving away money we have to borrow or easier said we don't have. Its time we stop this crap. I don't have a problem providing man power to places like Haiti for a period of time but it stops there.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

how much could we save by canning the F-22 and half of the military software contracts that are outdated before they even get completed?

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

and can we stop talking about cuts to future spending as if their the same thing as budget cuts?

our country is "making cuts" yet the debt and spending are still going up. that's stupid.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=That Guy;996462]and can we stop talking about cuts to future spending as if their the same thing as budget cuts?

our country is "making cuts" yet the debt and spending are still going up. that's stupid.[/quote]

Sr. the reduction in an increase is a cut if you listen to Washington. I used this same thinking when telling my wife I cut back on drinking.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

This why is why the federal goverment helps provide protection for the SB. From what I get they don't pay the entire bill and would guess that the city picks up a big chunk of the protection.

While the FBI Special Agent in Charge responsible for Super Bowl security, Michael Anderson, notes that “no specific or credible reporting of any threats” has been made regarding the Super Bowl, serious efforts are still being expended. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Super Bowl has been designated as a “Level I” national security event by the Department of Homeland Security. This designation is notable, as it signifies that the Department of Homeland Security has determined that the Super Bowl is a type of event most likely to be targeted by terrorists.

The designation as a Level I national security event is also notable for budgetary reasons. Once an event is assigned this designation, the federal government in a sense overtakes security plans for the event. This in turn means that federal dollars are spent providing security for the Super Bowl. While the NFL would not provide an exact number for what has been spent on Super Bowl security, what is known is that a portion of the Department of Homeland Security’s $43.2 billion 2012 budget was spent on the event.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996460]At this point when we give foreign aid we are giving away money we have to borrow or easier said we don't have. Its time we stop this crap. I don't have a problem providing man power to places like Haiti for a period of time but it stops there.[/quote]

And I can agree with this in principle, just like I agree in principle to the NFL paying for the SB security, and the suspension of BA/TB air shows. But, as That Guy pointed out by asking about the F-22, the list of Foreign aid/SB sec/BA-TB shows are piddling around the edges. You can cut all foreign aid 100% (reduce it to 0) and we would still be spending at a deficit. Defense (serious programs) and Welfare both need to be re-vamped and brought in line with what our intake affords, and if we need to increase our intake from the top 1%, then they need to put it in.

Question (i don't know the answer) has anyone ever thought of allowing tax dollars to be earmarked? ie you can designate %'s for major categories, defense, welfare, maybe 3 or 4 others top level line items? I imagine it would be book keeping hell but it would be interesting to see where people want their money to go, and then have a percentage off the top that is designated for SS, and Debt repayment. Even if we can't do it on the real taxes, it would be an interesting study if conducted properly. (I am pretty sure there is an internet equivalent, but I would want a solid firm conducting it if I were to trust the results)

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996449]I don't agree that the SB is equivalent to a college football game or other large event. But I will compromise, any event that draws over [URL="http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/Super-Bowl-Media-Day-draws-costumed-traditional-journalists/-/9853400/18329202/-/bxeia7/-/index.html"]100Million viewers and over 5000 world journalists[/URL], on US soil, the government will help address security issues, anything less and they are on their own.[/quote]


Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/27/guantanamo-files-al-qaida-myth]These Guantánamo files undo the al-Qaida myth machine | Jason Burke | Comment is free | The Guardian[/url]

The media and our government love using fear as a tool to continue their stupid spending in the military.


Answer this, when has a terrorist ever attacked a highly viewed event? The Super Bowl doesn't need to be covered. Period. End of story. Why? Because it's the highest rated show in the world? Who cares? Why is this deemed a "level 1"? Because a bunch of rich assholes and celebrities are attending? Meanwhile, the same attack can be done at any other venue I suggested.

Spending this type of money is beyond foolish, it's reckless. These people are just playing on the fears and ignorance of its people.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996476]Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/27/guantanamo-files-al-qaida-myth]These Guantánamo files undo the al-Qaida myth machine | Jason Burke | Comment is free | The Guardian[/url]

The media and our government love using fear as a tool to continue their stupid spending in the military.


Answer this, when has a terrorist ever attacked a highly viewed event? The Super Bowl doesn't need to be covered. Period. End of story. Why? Because it's the highest rated show in the world? Who cares? Why is this deemed a "level 1"? Because a bunch of rich assholes and celebrities are attending? Meanwhile, the same attack can be done at any other venue I suggested.

Spending this type of money is beyond foolish, it's reckless. These people are just playing on the fears and ignorance of its people.[/quote]

I think we can agree to disagree. You always look for high value targets, why were the twin towers attacked, why were the Olympics targeted in 72, why did we hit Hiroshima, why did Washington cross the Delaware. The answer is always, the target would make a statement and an impact. Hitting a mid level college bowl might cause a stir, but not worth the retaliation it would bring, but pulling off an attack at the US's grandest stage, which the SB surely is, would show a level of sophistication of the enemy attack and question the US' vulnerabilities.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that politicians and media drive law and legislation by fear mongering. We are truly living in the Orwellian state right now, where once our enemy was our friend, and that whether there is a war to left or a war to the right, just don't look to closely at the political machine that continually shuffles the target.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996476]Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/27/guantanamo-files-al-qaida-myth]These Guantánamo files undo the al-Qaida myth machine | Jason Burke | Comment is free | The Guardian[/url]

The media and our government love using fear as a tool to continue their stupid spending in the military.


Answer this, when has a terrorist ever attacked a highly viewed event? The Super Bowl doesn't need to be covered. Period. End of story. Why? Because it's the highest rated show in the world? Who cares? Why is this deemed a "level 1"? Because a bunch of rich assholes and celebrities are attending? Meanwhile, the same attack can be done at any other venue I suggested.

Spending this type of money is beyond foolish, it's reckless. These people are just playing on the fears and ignorance of its people.[/quote]

NC_Skins. This is the issue with a lot of our spending. For the most part, worrying about security is useless. However, it only takes one breach for it to become a big deal and to have a massive effect on our country.

Overall, I do agree with you. However, I also understand how it is a difficult decision to make. If you leave these events wide open, and something happens, what do you do then?

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]


Also, it dawned on me that you have the wrong chart displayed. This is a chart displaying ALL the spending (fed/state/local) and not just federal. The real chart is here.

[url=http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_chart]US Fed Spending Pie Chart for 2013 - Charts[/url]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qjIjugO.png[/IMG]

Military spending 24% compared to Welfare's 11% and 23% in pensions.


Here are the actual numbers.

[url=http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13rs12012n_1H0H0H0#usgs302]US Federal Budget FY13 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996472]And I can agree with this in principle, just like I agree in principle to the NFL paying for the SB security, and the suspension of BA/TB air shows. But, as That Guy pointed out by asking about the F-22, the list of Foreign aid/SB sec/BA-TB shows are piddling around the edges. You can cut all foreign aid 100% (reduce it to 0) and we would still be spending at a deficit. Defense (serious programs) and Welfare both need to be re-vamped and brought in line with what our intake affords, and if we need to increase our intake from the top 1%, then they need to put it in.

Question (i don't know the answer)[B] has anyone ever thought of allowing tax dollars to be earmarked? [/B]ie you can designate %'s for major categories, defense, welfare, maybe 3 or 4 others top level line items? I imagine it would be book keeping hell but it would be interesting to see where people want their money to go, and then have a percentage off the top that is designated for SS, and Debt repayment. Even if we can't do it on the real taxes, it would be an interesting study if conducted properly. (I am pretty sure there is an internet equivalent, but I would want a solid firm conducting it if I were to trust the results)[/quote]

I have always thought if person does not think we pay enough in taxes then they can just write a check and send it to the federal goverment. Just add an addtional line to tax returns to write in what you feel you should pay in addition to what you paid over the year. Also why would anyone put more money into SS because there is no guarantee anyone will ever see a penny of the money you contribute.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996492]I have always thought if person does not think we pay enough in taxes then they can just write a check and send it to the federal goverment. Just add an addtional line to tax returns to write in what you feel you should pay in addition to what you paid over the year. Also why would anyone put more money into SS because there is no guarantee anyone will ever see a penny of the money you contribute.[/quote]
how about this, base percentages are listed and you can add or subtract up to 5%. SS would for now be a set percentage. Ultimately all the percentages would add up to 100%. So:
samples

base tax return(italics not changeable):
Def:24% Hlthcare:22% Welfare:12% Education:4% [I]Pensions:22% Interest:6%[/I] Other:10%
allowing +/- 5% for a person's discretion:
NC Skins
Def: 19 Hlth:24 Welfare 14 Ed: 5 Other:10 P&I 28
AW
Def 29 Hlth:20 Welfare 9 ed 4 other 10 P&I 28
FD
Def 29 Hlth:22 Welfare 7 Ed 4 other 10 P&I 28
Mine
Def 22 Hlth 22 Welfare 12 Ed 6 other 10 P&I 28

Obviously this is purely a simplistic example, but it wouldn't be any harder to implement then the rest of the boondoggle that is the US tax code

(enter slinging sammy with fair tax discussion)

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;996519]
allowing +/- 5% for a person's discretion:
NC Skins
Def: 19 Hlth:24 Welfare 14 Ed: 5 Other:10 P&I 28

Mine
Def: 22 Hlth: 22 Welfare: 12 Ed: 6 other 10 P&I" 28[/quote]


Not sure why you think I want welfare raised. I don't. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how the welfare (aka..food stamps) is killing this country, when in fact, it plays very little in the grand scheme of things. I'm willing to bet you right now, if I were to do a poll with every single conservative friend I have, I bet you that the majority of them would list Welfare is the #1 issue. Also, when it comes down to it, I'd rather feed somebody than bomb them.

If anything, our citizens are too stupid and I'd rather spend that money on education.

Def 15 Hlth 25 Welfare 12 Ed 10 other: 10 P&I 28

[U]Things I would increase:[/U]

NASA - increase by 3 billion


[U]Things I would end: [/U]

Oil subsidies: (account for 4-5 billion each year)

Farm subsidies: (in most cases) save about 5 billion a year



I know slashing the military that much seems drastic, but I'm in favor of pulling all of our bases and bring back our men/women to defend our own country. We don't need to be world police, and should intervene if people ask us to. We don't need brand new air craft carriers at this point, we don't any new jets at this point. We can use these guys to fortify our borders. Even slashing it to 15% would still have us spending way more than anybody else in the world. Including China, who currently has the largest army in the world.

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;996524]Not sure why you think I want welfare raised. I don't. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how the welfare (aka..food stamps) is killing this country, when in fact, it plays very little in the grand scheme of things. I'm willing to be you right now, if I were to do a poll with every single conservative friend I have, I bet you that the majority of them would list Welfare is the #1 issue. Also, when it comes down to it, I'd rather feed somebody than bomb them.

If anything, our citizens are too stupid and I'd rather spend that money on educated.

Def 15 Hlth 25 Welfare 12 Ed 10 other: 10 P&I 28

[U]Things I would increase:[/U]

NASA - increase by 3 billion


[U]Things I would end: [/U]

Oil subsidies: (account for 4-5 billion each year)

Farm subsidies: (in most cases) save about 5 billion a year



I know slashing the military that much seems drastic, but I'm in favor of pulling all of our bases and bring back our men/women to defend our own country. We don't need to be world police, and should intervene if people ask us to. We don't need brand new air craft carriers at this point, we don't any new jets at this point. We can use these guys to fortify our borders. Even slashing it to 15% would still have us spending way more than anybody else in the world. Including China, who currently has the largest army in the world.[/QUOTE]
I just put off the cuff numbers had I thought more I would have upped ed for you.

its weird that I can agree with slashing defense yet disagree about how. I do agree about bringing nearly all troops back, and putting leading tech projects on hold, but I would absolutely maintain airforce and navy forces and train for defense of vital airways and sealanes.

I also find your increasing NASA interesting.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

There's plenty of money that could be shifted from military to NASA (military and non-military uses).

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png[/IMG]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;996524]Not sure why you think I want welfare raised. I don't. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how the welfare (aka..food stamps) is killing this country, when in fact, it plays very little in the grand scheme of things. I'm willing to bet you right now, if I were to do a poll with every single conservative friend I have, I bet you that the majority of them would list Welfare is the #1 issue. Also, when it comes down to it, I'd rather feed somebody than bomb them.

If anything, our citizens are too stupid and I'd rather spend that money on education.

Def 15 Hlth 25 Welfare 12 Ed 10 other: 10 P&I 28

[U]Things I would increase:[/U]

NASA - increase by 3 billion


[U]Things I would end: [/U]

Oil subsidies: (account for 4-5 billion each year)

Farm subsidies: (in most cases) save about 5 billion a year



I know slashing the military that much seems drastic, but I'm in favor of pulling all of our bases and bring back our men/women to defend our own country. We don't need to be world police, and should intervene if people ask us to. We don't need brand new air craft carriers at this point, we don't any new jets at this point. We can use these guys to fortify our borders. Even slashing it to 15% would still have us spending way more than anybody else in the world. Including China, who currently has the largest army in the world.[/quote]

I've heard of farm subsidies but never heard oil subsidies. Your saying we are paying companies to not drill oil? Also you keep seperating welfare into food stamps when its much more then that. Its extends into education, health care, housing, etc...

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Right before the sequester happend i heard a guy on a the radio say something really funny. He said, if your family needs to cut a few percent from their budget you would cut out dinning, or a cable package, or even a cell phone plan. Obama on the other hand is selling this as you should stop feeding the baby and putting gas in your car.

Meanwhile, since things arnt going nearly as bad as Obama had scared us into believing they would:

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/]Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised - Washington Times[/url]



[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/07/gop-congressman-makes-cdc-director-squirm-after-confronting-him-on-childrens-vaccine-cuts-let-me-get-this-straight/"]GOP Congressman Makes CDC Director Squirm After Confronting Him on Children’s Vaccine Cuts: ‘Let Me Get This Straight…’ | Video | TheBlaze.com[/URL]

[QUOTE]Under the president's cut of $58 million...you think you could get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children. But under a sequester [of $30 million], you don't know if you can do that?"[/QUOTE]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;996835][URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/07/gop-congressman-makes-cdc-director-squirm-after-confronting-him-on-childrens-vaccine-cuts-let-me-get-this-straight/"]GOP Congressman Makes CDC Director Squirm After Confronting Him on Children’s Vaccine Cuts: ‘Let Me Get This Straight…’ | Video | TheBlaze.com[/URL][/quote]One youtube comment: "It's just funny how many times the answer to simple questions was "I'll have to get back to you on that." A euphemism that means "I won't answer that question."

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;996835]Right before the sequester happend i heard a guy on a the radio say something really funny. He said, if your family needs to cut a few percent from their budget you would cut out dinning, or a cable package, or even a cell phone plan. Obama on the other hand is selling this as you should stop feeding the baby and putting gas in your car.

Meanwhile, since things arnt going nearly as bad as Obama had scared us into believing they would:

[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/"]Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised - Washington Times[/URL]



[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/07/gop-congressman-makes-cdc-director-squirm-after-confronting-him-on-childrens-vaccine-cuts-let-me-get-this-straight/"]GOP Congressman Makes CDC Director Squirm After Confronting Him on Children’s Vaccine Cuts: ‘Let Me Get This Straight…’ | Video | TheBlaze.com[/URL][/quote]


This President will do anything to get his way even if it means running this country into the ground. The Dems are also playing the race card.
[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/democrats-pull-out-race-card-sequester-game/"]Democrats pull out race card in sequester game - Washington Times[/URL]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

I probably just made a big mistake telling the lady at the IRS that I hope her job is done away with because of Sequestraqtion. I could tell from the minute she answered the phone after I held fo 15 min she had that attitude thing going. I got hit with a $329.60 penalty for paying my taxes one day late (talk about excessive). They were actually paid on the due date but was processed the following day. She shrugged it off as no big deal, would not answer my question about it being excessive, and then when I ask she said "what do you want me to do about it". Thats when I got pissed but I probably should have waited until I protested the fine.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996928]This President will do anything to get his way even if it means running this country into the ground. The Dems are also playing the race card.
[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/democrats-pull-out-race-card-sequester-game/"]Democrats pull out race card in sequester game - Washington Times[/URL][/quote]


The Washington Times,really?

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Whats really sad is that the economic policies of Democrat seem to have the largest impact of negitively affecting the majority of minorities.

Here is a great documentry about the Democratic Plantation:

[url=http://www.runawayslavemovie.com/]Runaway Slave - DVD Available Now[/url]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8]Runaway Slave Movie - Own it on DVD! - YouTube[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/08/park-ranger-claims-supervisors-pushed-sequester-cuts-that-visitors-would-notice/]Park ranger: Supervisors pushed sequester cuts that visitors would see | Fox News[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=firstdown;996211][B]The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects people and something we can actually see happening. He then has something to point to and blame the rep..[/B] There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.[/quote]

Seems I knew what Obama was doing before these stories started coming out. Its not that hard to figure Obama is only for Obama.