Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

[CRedskinsRule]

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]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

As meeting yields no breakthrough, Obama blames 'dumb' cuts on GOP - First Read

[NC_Skins]

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

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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...

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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

[NC_Skins]

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

Jeffrey Sachs: How Obama's Politics Led to Sequestration

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.

[NC_Skins]

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[HailGreen28]

If this graph is true, we need more "sequestration". Not more crying while spending more and more.

[Chico23231]

its criminal the President tried to get a tax increase as part of this sequester deal.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

its criminal the President tried to get a tax increase as part of this sequester deal.

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

[Alvin Walton]

This administration continues to flounder in its incompetence.
This news story really breaks my heart -

Military spending cuts ground Blue Angels, Thunderbirds - U.S. News

[Daseal]

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 Guy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.