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.
There were not cuts. The Sequestration reduced INCREASES, so they call it a cut.
Kinda like buying a toaster, the one you were going to get is 50$ and you get a different one on sale, and instead of 75$ you pay 65$ and say you saved 10$.
WELL.. No you didn't, you SPENT $65, which was 15$ more than you were going to spend, but it WAS 10$ less than the full price WOULD have been, so you say you saved 10$. It's called new government math.
The cuts, the government is talking about is instead of let say 100 million, in increased funds for the year, you only get 80 million in additional funds.. Well they call that a 20 million dollar cut. you spend only 80 million more, instead of 100 million more.
The cuts, the government is talking about is instead of let say 100 million, in increased funds for the year, you only get 80 million in additional funds.. Well they call that a 20 million dollar cut. you spend only 80 million more, instead of 100 million more.
Of course. That's because all sequester did was to reduce the rate of increase from the "baseline." That is all they ever do, and when the Republicans want to do it, the Democrats scream, and call them "Draconian cuts!" They are never "cuts."
You need to talk to Paul Ryan, because he is the "Sequester Salesman Of The Year".
Why would you call him that? Paul Ryan had noting to do with "sequester." And he knows they haven't really cut anything. They have only reduced the rate of increase.
Why would you call him that? Paul Ryan had noting to do with "sequester." And he knows they haven't really cut anything. They have only reduced the rate of increase.
Why, because he went on and on trying to sell the idea.
‘What conservatives like me have been fighting for for years are statutory caps on spending, literally legal caps in law that says government agencies cannot spend over a set amount of money and if they breach that amount across the board sequester comes in to cut that spending. You can’t turn it out without a supermajority. We got that into law.’” - Paul Ryan
If there are no increases then you can't keep government services up to date with inflation and the needs of a growing population.
Most government "services" are unnecessary and wasteful. We could do just fine without them. Our government was never intended to be the "Nanny" it has become. The Constitution spells out it's role quite clearly. Beyond that, we could do without it's "services."
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-17-2013 at 05:19 AM..
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.
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.
