Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

So where does everyone fall on this, I assume it will be fairly normal lines, but does anyone think that this will actually force uniform across the board cuts, or is it all just normal inside beltway drama?


[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/harry-reid-says-its-still-not-too-late-to-avert-sequester/2013/02/28/d252595e-81b8-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html]Competing sequestration bills fail in Senate - The Washington Post[/url]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;995942]So where does everyone fall on this, I assume it will be fairly normal lines, but does anyone think that this will actually force uniform across the board cuts, or is it all just normal inside beltway drama?


[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/harry-reid-says-its-still-not-too-late-to-avert-sequester/2013/02/28/d252595e-81b8-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html"]Competing sequestration bills fail in Senate - The Washington Post[/URL][/quote]

OK, my:twocents:! This is going to hurt many and I blame washington as a whole not one group,to me anyway between the President,the Senate and Congress they all want this so noone takes blame and all can blame each other,I think they want it.It will also be a bigger hit here in the DC area then outside in the rest of the country.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

Sequestration is very, very bad. I don't know a single person that doesn't believe there can be some significant cuts to the government. That said, a flat 15% cut is a very ineffective way to get those results. Critical programs will be affected the same way as less-critical programs.

Additionally, there will be a massive hit to the US economy because of this, which has already started. Many of the government employees I work with/know have already started the belt tightening, and that will only get worse if it hits. Local businesses will be affected the hardest of all because of this shutdown.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

We need to cut a ton in our wasteful, ineffecient government. It needs to get done, but this is probably the wrong way. Your taking piece of meat and cutting it clean without trimming the fat properly. Our idiot president and idiot congress has proven they cant agree on one meaningful economic policy. They should burn the f*cking white house and congress to the ground. both are lying, f*cking worthless bodies of the government.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Chico23231;995980]We need to cut a ton in our wasteful, ineffecient government. It needs to get done, but this is probably the wrong way. [B]Your taking piece of meat and cutting it clean without trimming the fat properly.[/B] Our idiot president and idiot congress has proven they cant agree on one meaningful economic policy. They should burn the f*cking white house and congress to the ground. both are lying, f*cking worthless bodies of the government.[/quote]

That is the perfect analogy to this issue.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

If anyone doubted that government has become a travesty of its original purpose, this latest piece of nonsense encapsulates all the faults perfectly.

Chico23231 for President!

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

I'm tired of hearing all the bitching from everyone involved. With this cut there is still a 15 BILLION INCREASE in 2013 over 2012. Where Chico23231 is wrong is that this will force them to cut the fat or they can just be lazy and make the ez cuts like in personel. So now defense needs to find the FAT and trim the meat. Social programs need to also be cut back because too many people are sitting on their ass living off all the goverment assistance they can get. So I guess you can see I'm for the cuts. Might not be the best way to get them done but this way they are getting cut. While I hate to see anyone loose their job I feel we could probably cut 5 to 8% of the federal workers and never no the cuts were made.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

It was also depressing to see the Democrats using the "political fear tatics" on the public and the media. Thats GOP go to move. We really have no choice in Washington.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Chico23231;996001]It was also depressing to see the Democrats using the "political fear tatics" on the public and the media. [B]Thats GOP go to move[/B]. We really have no choice in Washington.[/quote]

What I don't like is when our stupid ass President announces that we cannot protect the airports and the American people because of the sequestration. WTF, I don't buy that but why the hell would you announce that to the world? Does that not invite trouble.

As for the highlited area the Dems have been doing that for as long as I can remember. When N. Gengrish back in the 80's wanted to do welfare refrom the dem's said we were going to starve children, old people would die, people would become homless, etc... Its not new.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

^yeah no one does it better than the republicans. Karl Rove and McCains baby robo call during the primaries in Carolinas and the Obama's a Muslim rhetoric during the campaign are my favorites.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=Chico23231;996010]^[B]yeah no one does it better than the republicans[/B]. Karl Rove and McCains baby robo call during the primaries in Carolinas and the Obama's a Muslim rhetoric during the campaign are my favorites.[/quote]


We will have to disagree on that.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

This should help clarify things in the future:

[URL="http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm"]A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections[/URL]:-

[I]Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.[/I]

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. [COLOR="White"]/SARC[/COLOR]

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;996031]This should help clarify things in the future:

[URL="http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm"]A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections[/URL]:-

[I]Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.[/I]

[I]The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.[/I]

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. [COLOR=white]/SARC[/COLOR][/quote]

Makes some sense to me. I own a business in one city and have no voting rights and have no voice in the city. I can guarantee I pay more taxes in the city then probably 90% of the residents.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;996031]This should help clarify things in the future:

[URL="http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm"]A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections[/URL]:-

[I]Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.[/I]

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. [COLOR="White"]/SARC[/COLOR][/quote]

Honestly, if we could only eliminate citizen voting, and move to robotic voters, we would solve the country's problems.

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 

For me, anything that forces spending cuts on the holy grails of the government budget is good. And this bill gives everyone cover so we can trim some and let 2011's congress and president take the blame. We should make automatic 5-10% cuts after each house term (unless we are in a balanced budget or net surplus situation) and then let the new Congress reset priorities if needed.