U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2013, 12:17 PM
 
3,047 posts, read 2,179,605 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Harry Reid, the well known Republican from Nevada.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
Since this sequester procedure was suggested by an Obama associate named Jack Lew (he was the Obamaminable One's chief of staff at the time as Bob Woodward pointed out in his recent book), who's REALLY going to get blamed for this if the liberal media will only do their jobs and tell the nation the truth????

Hint--it won't be Mr. Boehner or anyone from the GOP.

Obama strong-armed this into that 2011 budget deal, and now he and his equally extreme disciples & followers have to live with the consequences.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for!!!!
Both Reid and Boehner needs to go. Not even the Republicans like those clowns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Where the corn meets the sky
69 posts, read 50,488 times
Reputation: 47
The sequester doesn't cut spending at all. We still increase SUBSTANTIALLY over 10 years yet senate democrats are bi*ching and moaning like it's going to devastate the country...please.

"The only thing worse than the sequester is no sequester."
-Boehner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 12:18 PM
 
488 posts, read 356,307 times
Reputation: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
Are you really serious? Do you have ANY clue who is responsible for a budget?

it is the job of the SENATE to write up and pass a budget. NOBODY is preventing the Senate from working on, and passing a budget.
And we're going on 4 years where they've consciously objected to completing this task...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 01:03 PM
 
11,312 posts, read 7,313,356 times
Reputation: 4479
Sequestration is a dumb way to reduce spending. A smarter way would be to pick and choose what we can live with and what we can live without. We should also do that with all tax expenditures.

I understand that is a rational way to do things, but Congress is not a rational group of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 01:05 PM
 
77,887 posts, read 33,233,798 times
Reputation: 15565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Sequestration is a dumb way to reduce spending. A smarter way would be to pick and choose what we can live with and what we can live without. We should also do that with all tax expenditures.

I understand that is a rational way to do things, but Congress is not a rational group of people.
Many people have called for that for years and unfortunately politicians simply can not agree on what to cut and what not to so the next best solution is across the board cuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,999,305 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Sequestration is a dumb way to reduce spending. A smarter way would be to pick and choose what we can live with and what we can live without. We should also do that with all tax expenditures.

I understand that is a rational way to do things, but Congress is not a rational group of people.
But thats what they are going to do. The sequester is to cut 1.2 trillion over 10 years. I think they can figure out where to cut over the 10 years.

This just forces them to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 01:47 PM
 
11,312 posts, read 7,313,356 times
Reputation: 4479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
But thats what they are going to do. The sequester is to cut 1.2 trillion over 10 years. I think they can figure out where to cut over the 10 years.

This just forces them to do it.
Not exactly. I just shrinks everything by that percentage. If we are using our household as a metaphor, which a lot conservatives do, then it is smarter to cut spending on new clothes than on food. Cutting both food and clothing spending equally doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,999,305 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Not exactly. I just shrinks everything by that percentage. If we are using our household as a metaphor, which a lot conservatives do, then it is smarter to cut spending on new clothes than on food. Cutting both food and clothing spending equally doesn't make sense.
To use it as a household term, its like expecting to get paid 1,500 dollars at the end of two weeks of work, and suddenly finding out you'll get paid 1,300. Choicse must be made immediately.

I think there is waste in federal program, and they'll have to cut where they find it because of the sequester. Its not like suddenly USDA meat inspectors are suddenly getting a pay cut on March the first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 02:01 PM
 
11,312 posts, read 7,313,356 times
Reputation: 4479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
To use it as a household term, its like expecting to get paid 1,500 dollars at the end of two weeks of work, and suddenly finding out you'll get paid 1,300. Choicse must be made immediately.

I think there is waste in federal program, and they'll have to cut where they find it because of the sequester. Its not like suddenly USDA meat inspectors are suddenly getting a pay cut on March the first.
Right, which brings me back to it is better to pick and choose what can go or not instead of picking a random percentage number and chopping everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,999,305 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Right, which brings me back to it is better to pick and choose what can go or not instead of picking a random percentage number and chopping everything.
They are going to pick and choose. If there is something they can't live without, the "continuing resolution" fight is coming up at the end of next month. Its two weeks before they'll "fix" it, this just forces the money to be pulled. There is plenty of fat in the programs its already slated to cut, so that actual services aren't effected, or that will hurt the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top