jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (15 posts)

What do you think about the sequester?

  1. AJReissig profile image75
    AJReissigposted 5 years ago

    What do you think about the sequester?

    Apparently, according to Obama and the media, cutting $85 Billion from a $3.6 Trillion budget puts in jeopardy the government's ability to prosecute criminals, patrol the border, and inspect food. What does everyone think?  Are the cuts too big, or too small?

  2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    I think it's just another example of socializing losses while privatizing gains that our government has been doing since the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s (and possibly before).

  3. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/7733572_f260.jpg

    The cuts are too small however some of the cuts are from the wrong places.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That graphic has been debunked by snopes: all of those government pensions are false.

    2. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I know but the exact numbers aren't the point. the point is we all know they make far too much for what little crap they do.

  4. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    Personally I would have liked more cuts particularly to military spending but the truth will always be that cuts have consequences, some conservatives seem to live in this deluded fantasy land that cuts can be made without there being a drop in quality in whatever the cuts affect.
    I agree with the other poster that politician wages could do with a cut though, it's not like their service can get any worse!

  5. LandmarkWealth profile image80
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    Just another example of how politicians manipulate the masses.  There are NO Cuts in the sequester.  It is simply a slowing in the rate of growth.  In Washington DC...and only in DC is a budget that was supposed to go up by 5% and instead goes up by 3% considered a cut.  The Federal Gov't will spend more money with or without the sequester.  It is only a question of how much of an increase it will be.

  6. Angela Blair profile image79
    Angela Blairposted 5 years ago

    If cutting that little from that much can be the downfall of the United States we're on thin ice anyway and better just suck it up 'cause the end's closer than we realized.

  7. breakfastpop profile image90
    breakfastpopposted 5 years ago

    Sequestration is a political ploy to scare Americans and blame the mess on the Republicans. The funny part is that this idea was proposed by the White House, not the Republicans.

    1. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's true the white house proposed this.  But both side are making this out to be something it's not to protect their pet projects.  They'll make sure any cuts are leveled not at waste, but where we feel it most to further perpetuate govt expansion

  8. AJReissig profile image75
    AJReissigposted 5 years ago

    While all spending cuts have consequences, I find it very hard to believe that every department could not cut 3%.  There are opportunities for major cuts, but nobody will follow through because of politics.  Other than funding for the low income school lunch program, the entire dept. of education could be eliminated without hurting education (most likely education would improve). Return the management of the US nuclear arsenal to the military, and the dept. of Energy can be eliminated.  Eliminate all subsidies to business or industries (farming, oil, solar); if your business can't make it without subsidies, you have a bad business model and the taxpayer should fund your mistakes.  Eliminate most, if not all overseas military bases and bring our troops home.  Besides eliminating the cost of the bases, our troops will be spending their pay here, not overseas. 
    I would agree that all of these changes should not be made at once; too many have been at the government feeding trough for so long that the economy would take a hit.  But cutting spending over a longer period...maybe a 10 year plan...could bring the federal spending back to where it should be.  This is a huge problem that needs to be tackled, and both parties are to blame.

  9. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 5 years ago

    the jolly ol' daft resident of the White House rambles on as the nation teeters on the brink of European catastrophe.

    it is time that the nation get back to the basics required by the founding fathers.

    all government agencies except for the security forces for the nation should take a 40% cut. 

    the administration should initiate an 80% cut in all spending.

    congress should not fund anything that does not provide for the security of the nation.

    all cuts from the education budget, IRS, DHS, Energy, etc. should come through furlows of all administrative personnel working in Washington D.C.

  10. Don Fairchild profile image78
    Don Fairchildposted 5 years ago

    Yet another truck load of manure dumped on the heads of citizens in an effort to raise mushrooms. 
    We are being raped and pillaged by all political groups, banks, insurance companies, oil industries, health care industries, and we sit around pointing our fingers and blaming each other.  And then they want to take our guns away so we can't even fight back. 
    Just give up, give them your entire paycheck each week, then you can beg for a loaf of bread for your family in the hopes that they will say, "Let them eat cake!".

  11. AMFredenburg profile image80
    AMFredenburgposted 5 years ago

    It's nuts. It's a giant game of chicken, and doesn't serve any purpose. I'm all for President Obama -- voted for him twice, enthusiastically -- but he was overestimating the maturity level of Congress when he went for this deal. These guys should've had a special viewing of "Rebel Without a Cause" (drag race scene, cliff, uncooperative clothing?) before they tried this one.

  12. ib radmasters profile image60
    ib radmastersposted 5 years ago

    These questions should have been asked and answered by the politicians running for office or reelection.

    The voters didn't do their job in vetting them out, and now we know they didn't have a plan.

 
working