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?