General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)is that the total is supposed to be $85billion, yes? out of a budget of over $1trillion. i believe that instead of hurting people or cutting services they could probably find $85billion in waste and do away with that... maybe i'm nuts... i probably am.
sP
n2doc
(47,953 posts)As always, if they did cut pork and waste, people would want more. By cutting things that hurt people, they get the public to fight ANY cuts, which keeps the pork and MIC spending intact, which is where the CONgress gets its big payoffs.
People of UI or food stamps don't contribute in a significant way to political campaign coffers. They don't offer high-paid lobbyist jobs to family members or former members of CONgress. Thus they are 'expendable'.
kag
(4,079 posts)Problem is...written into the sequestration agreement is the REQUIREMENT that cuts be made without regard to a program's usefulness or wastefulness. After certain programs are exempted (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA) the ones that are left are required to take cuts across the board. That's how the agreement was written, and that's why it's so STUPID. It was intended to be stupid. It was intended to make cuts blindly, in such a way that useful programs get cut by the same percentage as wasteful ones, the idea being that no one would be dumb enough to allow those kinds of stupid cuts when they could just as easily agree to smart ones that would cut just as much from the budget but without hurting useful programs.
Problem is...Obama underestimated the sheer stupidity of the Republicans in Congress.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We could also raise taxes steeply on the wealthiest few thousands of Americans. There are now more than two thousand billionaires living in the U.S. Yes, I said "billionaires!"
They can and should give something back to the hundreds of millions of us who make their lavish, indulgent lifestyles possible.
Leftcoastgary
(11 posts)mans/family life-support system.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)waste is waste and it can be properly identified and cut out. do you treat your personal/family budget with that attitude?
sP
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,577 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)In any case, THANK YOU! n2doc as well of course.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)and I suspect that the two hearts I received were also thanks for doing it.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)With, "Hurry Up. I Want A Turn," a close second.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)daybranch
(1,309 posts)use the $83 billion subsidy we give big banks to avoid the sequester? C'mon dems, lets say it loud and clear. This is a way to do two good deeds at once.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)raise a special tax to get it back from banksters
take $3 billion out of it to set up and fund a true Public Campaign Funding program to share between all qualified candidates
render all lobbying illegal
then use the remaining $80 billion to avert most of the sequester
easy arithmetics
so easy it won't happen...
Hekate
(90,714 posts)neoclown
(7 posts)And call it by it's real name. The TEAquestration.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)It is my understanding that squestration does not actually reduce federal spending. The government will not spend $85 billion less than it spends today. Instead, they are cutting $85 billion from the amount that spending was set to increase over the coming years. If that is the case, why would a single job be cut by this? Sequestration "cuts" a bunch from defense, but the defense budget will still be increasing...just increasing less than it would have before. What am I missing?