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.

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.

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)

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.


Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

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

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.

Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

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

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.

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.

Stop buying into this whole "Al Qaeda" boogeyman.

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

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.

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?

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



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

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


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.

US Fed Spending Pie Chart for 2013 - Charts (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_fed_spending_pie_chart)

http://i.imgur.com/qjIjugO.png

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


Here are the actual numbers.

US Federal Budget FY13 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart (http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13rs12012n_1H0H0H0#usgs302 )

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)

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.

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.
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% Pensions:22% Interest:6% 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)

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


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

Things I would increase:

NASA - increase by 3 billion


Things I would end:

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.

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

Things I would increase:

NASA - increase by 3 billion


Things I would end:

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.
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.