Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2013, 08:18 PM   #31
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,754
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.
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....
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is online now   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-03-2013, 08:21 PM   #32
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,185
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

again, everyone benefits from us having a stable government. Those making >250K, while possibly receiving the least direct cash benefits, certainly receive benefits that aren't necessarily itemized. A stable, free market based (maybe not as much) government economic structure, where they are able to invest.

Ideally, the >250k crowd would pay a reasonable percentage but we are not in the ideal right now, and again, EVERYONE will end up making sacrifices if we are to get this debt issue back under control.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 08:32 PM   #33
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,185
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
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....
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?
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 10:08 PM   #34
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,185
also, it is the navy and the air force departments deciding that these shows should be cancelled not Pres. Obama dictating they be stopped.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 08:43 AM   #35
Gamebreaker
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 13,751
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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.
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.
__________________
“Nobody’s going to be handed a job; not my standpoint, and I know Jay feels that way and I know Bruce feels the same way. You have to earn it. That’s what the NFL is about. Prove to me that you deserve to be on the field,’ and that’s the way it has to be in the NFL.”- McC
Chico23231 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 10:51 AM   #36
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

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

Boehner, David Gregory Spar On Sequester Cuts - Business Insider

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.

Well dumbass, why haven't they passed anything?

Let The Cuts Begin! | TPMDC

Your GOPers filibustering it is why.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:05 AM   #37
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
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.


Who Takes Heat For Sequester Mess? Even Majority Of Polled Republicans Blame GOP | Addicting Info


__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:06 AM   #38
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
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...

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.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:19 AM   #39
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

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

Jeffrey Sachs: How Obama's Politics Led to Sequestration


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.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:25 AM   #40
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
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.

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.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:32 AM   #41
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
What is the Obama plan? Funny your last post said that the Rep. agreed to a tax cut for everyone but the rich. HMMMM
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.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:21 PM   #42
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.





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

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


US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts


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...
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:28 PM   #43
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Relevant to this discussion.


4 Myths about the Spending Cuts - Yahoo! Finance
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:55 PM   #44
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,752
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
You cannot pick and choose what part of welfare you decide to count. Its over 10% of the budget.
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.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 01:08 PM   #45
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,185
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).
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.44437 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25