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 03-04-2013, 10:54 AM   #46
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
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




Well dumbass, why haven't they passed anything?

Let The Cuts Begin! | TPMDC

From your own post they tried twice.

Your GOPers filibustering it is why.
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...
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-04-2013, 11:05 AM   #47
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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   #48
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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   #49
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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, 11:23 AM   #50
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
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.
What is the Obama plan? Funny your last post said that the Rep. agreed to a tax cut for everyone but the rich. HMMMM
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:25 AM   #51
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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   #52
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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, 11:40 AM   #53
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
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.
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.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:21 PM   #54
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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   #55
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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, 12:35 PM   #56
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
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...
You cannot pick and choose what part of welfare you decide to count. Its over 10% of the budget.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:55 PM   #57
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
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, 01:07 PM   #58
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
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.
No shit your right its a PART of welfare but its just one part. I'm tired of having to pay the way for others who choose not to work. We keep extending unemployment and the wonder why so many people are unemployeed. HMMM maybe the two go hand in hand. I've also said we need to reduce spending on the military. Hell we are having these issues and Obama announced just on 2/28 that we are sending another 150 MILLION to Syria. So we are going to borrow money fron Japan to give it to Syria. What the F is wrong with this picture. WE ARE OUT OF MONEY AND WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. I'm a 100% for these cuts and I'm in an area that will get hit the hardest.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 01:08 PM   #59
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,716
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
Old 03-04-2013, 02:21 PM   #60
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,756
Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
I'm tired of having to pay the way for others who choose not to work. We keep extending unemployment and the wonder why so many people are unemployeed.

...or maybe you are just stereotyping people on welfare? Maybe it's because jobs aren't there. You act if we can just magically go get some job and all is better! What are a lot of major corporations doing with jobs? Answer: Sending them overseas and cutting them for max profits.

It's not always that simple or that easy FD, and congrats to you for having it made to where you never understand what kind of situation these people may be in. Granted, there are some that are lazy and want free handouts, that much is certain.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
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.
It's not that I "support" any particular group. I'm just calling out the parrot heads that continue to point at one thing and say LOOK THEY AR THE REASON.

However, if given the choice, would you rather bomb somebody or feed them.


They can do away with this Homeland Security bullshit. They aren't doing anything to make us secure. We are no more secure today than we were prior to 9/11.

Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile | The Gateway Pundit


FD talked about us funding Syria. Wonder why he didn't mention Israel?

Washington DC ad campaign seeks to ‘expose’ Israeli lobby in America


Another way to save billions of dollars in wasted money is to end the faux war on drugs. It's a waste. Legalize it and tax it. You thereby create revenue.
__________________
"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
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 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.32244 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