Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75)
-   -   Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent? (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=51932)

CRedskinsRule 02-28-2013 11:07 PM

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]

Giantone 03-01-2013 04:10 AM

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.

Daseal 03-01-2013 09:33 AM

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.

Chico23231 03-01-2013 09:35 AM

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.

Daseal 03-01-2013 09:38 AM

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.

RedskinRat 03-01-2013 10:34 AM

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!

firstdown 03-01-2013 10:37 AM

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.

Chico23231 03-01-2013 10:48 AM

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.

firstdown 03-01-2013 11:42 AM

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.

Chico23231 03-01-2013 11:49 AM

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.

firstdown 03-01-2013 12:00 PM

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.

RedskinRat 03-01-2013 12:48 PM

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]

firstdown 03-01-2013 01:44 PM

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.

CRedskinsRule 03-01-2013 01:58 PM

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.

CRedskinsRule 03-01-2013 02:02 PM

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.

firstdown 03-01-2013 02:14 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=CRedskinsRule;996050]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.[/quote]

Problem is these cut are only a reduction of the increased spending for 2013. This guy has no clue how to lead only knows how to blame. Also these dumb cuts and Sequestration was his idea.

[URL="http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17147525-as-meeting-yields-no-breakthrough-obama-blames-dumb-cuts-on-gop?lite"]As meeting yields no breakthrough, Obama blames 'dumb' cuts on GOP - First Read[/URL]

CRedskinsRule 03-01-2013 02:55 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
The real cut vs cut from expected spending battle was tried already. The media calls them cuts so the public en masse is going to perceive them as cuts. And voters are going to look at them as cuts, and that goes for both sides of the argument. The military already has their numbers budgeted and if there is a reduction military proponents will blame sequestration cuts. There really is no need to point at one side or the other, although that is what US politics is about right now, both sides are sticking to their scripts, and hoping in the end the other side folds.

RedskinRat 03-01-2013 03:14 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=CRedskinsRule;996047]Honestly, if we could only eliminate citizen voting, and move to robotic voters, we would solve the country's problems.[/quote]

:spank:

HailGreen28 03-02-2013 02:24 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
If this graph is true, we need more "sequestration". Not more crying while spending more and more.

[IMG]http://ddoublep.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/bl-sequestration-size-comparison.jpg[/IMG]

Chico23231 03-02-2013 06:42 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
its criminal the President tried to get a tax increase as part of this sequester deal.

Giantone 03-02-2013 08:14 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Chico23231;996172]its criminal the President tried to get a tax increase as part of this sequester deal.[/quote]


No, it's not but all from him on down should take the blame for this BS.

Alvin Walton 03-03-2013 08:20 AM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
This administration continues to flounder in its incompetence.
This news story really breaks my heart -

[url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17149624-military-spending-cuts-ground-blue-angels-thunderbirds?lite]Military spending cuts ground Blue Angels, Thunderbirds - U.S. News[/url]

Daseal 03-03-2013 10:18 AM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
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.

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 12:03 PM

[QUOTE=Daseal;996190]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.[/QUOTE]
I loved the Thunderbirds growing up, but absolutely agree that this is a solid decision.

That Guy 03-03-2013 12:22 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Daseal;996190]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.[/quote]

have you ever seen their event rider. it requires a minimum of 34 dedicated vehicles, provided by the base/area, and they come with about a billionty support personnel.

Alvin Walton 03-03-2013 02:23 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Daseal;996190]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.[/quote]

You really have no idea what the feck you are talking about.
It is hardly wastefull spending.
:doh:

Daseal 03-03-2013 02:24 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=That Guy;996200]have you ever seen their event rider. it requires a minimum of 34 dedicated vehicles, provided by the base/area, and they come with about a billionty support personnel.[/quote]

I haven't seen their event rider, but I knew it took a lot to make that happen. I can't believe the priorities of our culture. Laws that make sure every person in this country has healthcare -- unconstitutional and a waste of money. Blue Angels stop flying -- and it's a travesty? Where are our priorities?

firstdown 03-03-2013 03:06 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Daseal;996210]I haven't seen their event rider, but I knew it took a lot to make that happen. I can't believe the priorities of our culture. Laws that make sure every person in this country has healthcare -- unconstitutional and a waste of money. Blue Angels stop flying -- and it's a travesty? Where are our priorities?[/quote]

The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects people and something we can actually see happening. He then has something to point to and blame the rep.. There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.

Alvin Walton 03-03-2013 03:10 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
One of the greatest recruiting tools we ever had and a huge source of national pride flushed right down the toilet.
But I expect no less from an incompetent liberal administration.

Daseal 03-03-2013 04:12 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=firstdown;996211]The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects paople and something we can actually. He then has something to point to and blame the rep.. There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.[/quote]

FD. I don't disagree that there are other programs as well. However, we are focusing on one-of-many right now. I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair to point at X, Y, and Z because it doesn't affect you, then say something like the blue angels is important. It's a drop in the bucket, but with enough drops the bucket eventually fills up.

I agree there should be more incentives for saving money in the government. I believe incentive programs would be a great way to start helping the savings. As someone that has been involved with our end-of-year funds lately, it's not as cut and dry. Yes, there is BUY BUY BUY at the end, but we're still making choice of what to get and what not to get. I'm an IT guy and I'm using a 7 year old desktop at work because we've sacrificed our tech refresh to focus on getting OIG mandated products.

Just because a lot of buying happens at the last minute doesn't mean it's being spent on useless products. Part of the reason it is spent that way is instead of 'financing' a product we need to purchase, we try to front-load it to reduce payments over time.

Daseal 03-03-2013 04:15 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Alvin Walton;996212]One of the greatest recruiting tools we ever had and a huge source of national pride flushed right down the toilet.
But I expect no less from an incompetent liberal administration.[/quote]

Yes, because the military needs help recruiting. Come on. The military is a great way for anyone that doesn't have money for college, came from a lower socio-economic background, etc to make something of themselves. It takes very little in the way of credentials to get into a military role. They will take the onus of training you and teaching you important skills, discipline, etc.

Regardless, the days of foot soldiers are coming to an end. That is a direct quote from a retired 2 or 3 star general that taught a few classes. We have massive weapons that can be delivered without a human delivery vehicle. The real wars are based on information and economy. The loss of life and the buildings weren't the main goal of 9/11, the financial issues it caused because of the aftereffects were the main goal.

firstdown 03-03-2013 04:27 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Daseal;996217]FD. I don't disagree that there are other programs as well. However, we are focusing on one-of-many right now. I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair to point at X, Y, and Z because it doesn't affect you, then say something like the blue angels is important. It's a drop in the bucket, but with enough drops the bucket eventually fills up.

I agree there should be more incentives for saving money in the government. I believe incentive programs would be a great way to start helping the savings. As someone that has been involved with our end-of-year funds lately, it's not as cut and dry. Yes, there is BUY BUY BUY at the end, but we're still making choice of what to get and what not to get. I'm an IT guy and I'm using a 7 year old desktop at work because we've sacrificed our tech refresh to focus on getting OIG mandated products.

[B]Just because a lot of buying happens at the last minute doesn't mean it's being spent on useless products. Part of the reason it is spent that way is instead of 'financing' a product we need to purchase, we try to front-load it to reduce payments over time.[/quote][/B]

I never said I was against cutting things like the BA I was giving what I thought the reason was for cutting the program.

Thats probably true tp some degree but my guess is alot of $$$$ is spent on things really not needed. My brother in law own a welding equipment co. and he would tell me his sales would go way up in Nov & Dec selling the Gov equipment that was not needed. They would replace stuff that worked just fine and would buy stuff they did not really need.

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 04:53 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Alvin Walton;996212]One of the greatest recruiting tools we ever had and a huge source of national pride flushed right down the toilet.
But I expect no less from an incompetent liberal administration.[/quote]

so what would you cut from defense? Your knee jerk reaction is no better than when a liberal cries about their programs being cut, or a >$250K person complains that their taxes are being raised. If we are going to somehow solve the govermental bloat, some things have to let go for a while. It's not like they can't reinstate the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels later, but it's also not the end of the world if they never fly again - and again, I loved going to AAFB to watch them.

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 04:59 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Alvin Walton;996208]You really have no idea what the feck you are talking about.
It is hardly wasteful spending.
:doh:[/quote]

it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action, and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.

Alvin Walton 03-03-2013 05:05 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=CRedskinsRule;996224]it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. [COLOR="Red"]The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action,[/COLOR] and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.[/quote]

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 07:15 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=Alvin Walton;996225]No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?[/quote]

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.

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 07:46 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
For the record, one show requires 7,200 gallons JP-8 jet fuel and 440 gallons smoke oil required for each performance. A typical yearly schedule is 80 shows. JP-8 costs $3.13/gal. Or just under 2mil for the typical year.

My point with this number, is in the grand scheme of cuts, it's miniscule, but there is a group of people who, rather than accept a tiny cut for the needs of the country, will criticize and berate their opponent, because, that's the US today. The same happens over every dollar, or million dollars cut.
"obama is an idiot", congress wants to starve children, etc etc etc.

reducing a debt of
[IMG]http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif[/IMG]
isn't going to be done without some give from every person/group/interest/pac/etc in the US

firstdown 03-03-2013 08:03 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=CRedskinsRule;996223]so what would you cut from defense? Your knee jerk reaction is no better than when a liberal cries about their programs being cut, or a [B]>$250K person complains that their taxes are being raised.[/B] If we are going to somehow solve the govermental bloat, some things have to let go for a while. It's not like they can't reinstate the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels later, but it's also not the end of the world if they never fly again - and again, I loved going to AAFB to watch them.[/quote]

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.

Alvin Walton 03-03-2013 08:18 PM

Re: Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?
 
[quote=CRedskinsRule;996230]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.[/quote]

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....

CRedskinsRule 03-03-2013 08:21 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.78788 seconds with 8 queries