Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-08-2013, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,951,723 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
So, the amount of money matters? Look at what could be done with all that money here in the states....hell, that would avoid the sequester.
$40 billion is an insignificant amount in comparison to the federal budget and it's not close to the size of the sequester.
Quote:
The majority of US foreign assistance is contained in the international affairs budget requested and allocated through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This is also referred to as Function 150 or the “150 account”, and contains spending on global economic, diplomatic and humanitarian programs by the State Department (DOS), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) among others.

link: http://www.cgdev.org/page/foreign-as...-and-us-budget

Last edited by MTAtech; 04-08-2013 at 06:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:35 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,108,503 times
Reputation: 11130
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
$40 billion is an insignificant amount in comparison to the federal budget.
Did I ask that? Nope, I said it may have prevented the sequester. Nice deflection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:42 PM
 
3,740 posts, read 3,071,820 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy View Post
List the reasons why you can't do this simple task in this thread!
I'm All In on providing for my wife and I.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,951,723 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Did I ask that? Nope, I said it may have prevented the sequester. Nice deflection.
It's not even close to the size of the sequester. But worse, you assumption is that all foreign aid is a waste, which it is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:44 PM
 
3,740 posts, read 3,071,820 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Did I ask that? Nope, I said it may have prevented the sequester. Nice deflection.
Or was it a Red Herring in disguise??????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:53 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,108,503 times
Reputation: 11130
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
It's not even close to the size of the sequester. But worse, you assumption is that all foreign aid is a waste, which it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
Or was it a Red Herring in disguise??????
kool aid anyone....

Not what the CBO says.....but keep believing....

Quote:
In terms of actual spending, called outlays, the sequester would trim only about $44 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office says.
The hidden costs of sequestration: Save now, spend later
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:54 PM
 
1,922 posts, read 1,745,961 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Ah, this is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives that Paul Krugman wrote about in his column, "A tail of Two Moralities."

This is an excerpt that answers your question:

Personally, I favor the civilized system we now have developed over the Oliver Twist world conservatives would lead us back to.

A single mom needing food and diapers for her baby are not caused by me paying less taxes. They are caused by her having a baby she couldn't afford to care for, and often times by a man who doesn't care for either the mother or child.

Do I want her and her baby to go without? Of course not. Do I want her to make welfare a way of life? No way.

We don't have a tax revenue problem. We have a government spending problem because we have a government corruption problem.

How many trillions of dollars a year must we spend before it is too much for even the liberals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 07:00 PM
 
46,307 posts, read 27,108,503 times
Reputation: 11130
Quote:
The $42 billion figure is CBO’s estimate of the reduction in cash disbursements in fiscal year 2013;
CBO | Automatic Reductions in Government Spending -- aka Sequestration

Man, suck to be wrong huh....

Also, lets not forget...this is a cut in elevated spending.....

lets say they received a 10% increase in spending, now they are only spending 8%...
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top