Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

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

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

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.


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.

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

Foreign Assistance Fast Facts (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html)

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 100Million viewers and over 5000 world journalists (http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/Super-Bowl-Media-Day-draws-costumed-traditional-journalists/-/9853400/18329202/-/bxeia7/-/index.html), 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.

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

Foreign Assistance Fast Facts (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html)

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).

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).


Thats because I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.