Sequester Question

[Kennedy 0]

So we can't afford to put carriers to sea, we can't afford to to keep combat squadrons flying, we can't afford to run tours of the White House, but we can afford $700,000 for gardening and landscaping at one house in Brussels, we can afford memphis soul concerts and vacations for first family, and more.

Does anyone think that the cuts are because POTUS has no choice, and not just for show to make the biggest splash or cause the most discomfort to lowly plebes.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

So we can't afford to put carriers to sea, we can't afford to to keep combat squadrons flying, we can't afford to run tours of the White House, but we can afford $700,000 for gardening and landscaping at one house in Brussels, we can afford memphis soul concerts and vacations for first family, and more.

Does anyone think that the cuts are because POTUS has no choice, and not just for show to make the biggest splash or cause the most discomfort to lowly plebes.

How big is the estate? If it's sizable $140k a year may be in the ballpark.

I'm not being confrontational, just asking.

28 acres, according to the article.

@Kennedy - that was the point of the sequester, hurt everyone. Shitty pointless cuts to departments left right and centre. That was supposedly meant to spur congress to reach a decent compromise instead so the shitty stuff didn't have to happen. The GOP, I feel, has been a ridiculous and petty obstructionist mob and refused to come to the table. Repeatedly. Ergo, sequester. It was avoidable, but they're all too busy playing political chess and making sure they've got a job next year rather than actually doing... I don't know... their jobs?

I'll add, your congress is broken on both sides of the aisle. I think the GOP are worse, currently, but they all need to fucking grow up.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Well they are laying off a couple of the 28 cooks at the White House. Not sure about chamber maids.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'm not being confrontational

Then get out! We have standards here.

[kallend 1,646]

Apparently you misunderstand the way the sequester was designed, and why.

Take up your quarrel with the House GOP.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Right. Because neither the Senate nor the President had anything to do with it.

Me? I like the sequester.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Right. Because neither the Senate nor the President had anything to do with it.

Me? I like the sequester.

Why should two entities give way on account of the intransigence of a third?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Right. Because neither the Senate nor the President had anything to do with it.

Me? I like the sequester.

Why should two entities give way on account of the intransigence of a third?

(A) That's how checks and balances work. Deal with it.
(B) POTUS/ White House came up with the sequester
(C) Cuts to spending are necessary, I think even you agree on that. The fact that POTUS is cutting things the way he has is insane, even for political points and grandstanding.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,426]

>The fact that POTUS is cutting things the way he has is insane, even for political points and grandstanding.

You mean cutting everything is insane? Interesting. What would you put money back into, and where will it come from?

[Kennedy 0]

You're smarter than to think he is "cutting everything". He is intentionally cutting things to make it visible and painful, rather than rational. Tours to the White House are out unless toucan pay your way in, but concerts and vacations are in. Not ok. Carriers, squadron training, and drones are at risk, but he still won't make cuts recommended by the military. DHS is consistently underfunding ICE but buying MRAPs and expanding both their bureaucracy and area of influence. Etc etc etc.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right. Because neither the Senate nor the President had anything to do with it.

Me? I like the sequester.

Why should two entities give way on account of the intransigence of a third?

(A) That's how checks and balances work. Deal with it.
(B) POTUS/ White House came up with the sequester
(C) Cuts to spending are necessary, I think even you agree on that. The fact that POTUS is cutting things the way he has is insane, even for political points and grandstanding.

POTUS proposes lots of things. The Congress gets to vote on them. Congress approved the sequester and came up with all the gory details.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CygnusX-1 42]

I think it is pretty clear that he would put money back into putt[ing] carriers to sea and keep[ing] combat squadrons flying and take it from gardening and landscaping one house in Brussels.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think it is pretty clear that he would put money back into putt[ing] carriers to sea and keep[ing] combat squadrons flying and take it from gardening and landscaping one house in Brussels.

Maintaining a garden in Brussels promotes beauty. I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent on that than using drones to kill children in Pakistan and paying asshole generals to look us in the eye and call that "defense".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Maintaining a garden in Brussels promotes beauty. I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent on that than using drones to kill children in Pakistan and paying asshole generals to look us in the eye and call that "defense".

you guys are always either/or. Worse yet, you guys tend to be don't spend it here, but add it elsewhere (zero sum game). (how's that for generalizing?)

I don't want dollars spent on gardening in Brussels. I don't want more military spending. We need this mindset, cut it all.

(Though I am pretty sure that drone missions are not specifically tasked for killing children, but it makes a pretty argument. If they are, then I am VERY against using drones to kill children standing in gardens in Brussels. Or even operating drones from a garden for that purpose - no matter how nice the landscaping)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[base698 1]

Quote

So we can't afford to put carriers to sea, we can't afford to to keep combat squadrons flying, we can't afford to run tours of the White House, but we can afford $700,000 for gardening and landscaping at one house in Brussels, we can afford memphis soul concerts and vacations for first family, and more.

The "article" compares 5 years lawn expenses to 1 year military expenses. The $700K dollar figure is supposed to get a reaction. Being intentionally misleading is usually a bad sign.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Maintaining a garden in Brussels promotes beauty. I'd much rather have my tax dollars spent on that than using drones to kill children in Pakistan and paying asshole generals to look us in the eye and call that "defense".

you guys are always either/or. Worse yet, you guys tend to be don't spend it here, but add it elsewhere (zero sum game). (how's that for generalizing?)

I don't want dollars spent on gardening in Brussels. I don't want more military spending. We need this mindset, cut it all.

(Though I am pretty sure that drone missions are not specifically tasked for killing children, but it makes a pretty argument. If they are, then I am VERY against using drones to kill children standing in gardens in Brussels. Or even operating drones from a garden for that purpose - no matter how nice the landscaping)

Hey, I resemble that. I operate my drone from my garden quite regularly and I hardly ever use it against children. Or dogs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,426]

>I think it is pretty clear that he would put money back into putt[ing] carriers to sea and
>keep[ing] combat squadrons flying and take it from gardening and landscaping one
>house in Brussels.

Agreed. The stuff he wants is military, and thus any cuts to it are heinous. "Cut someone else's stuff!" Multiply that by 300 million and we get . . . . what we have today.

[airdvr 198]

Quote

>I think it is pretty clear that he would put money back into putt[ing] carriers to sea and
>keep[ing] combat squadrons flying and take it from gardening and landscaping one
>house in Brussels.

Agreed. The stuff he wants is military, and thus any cuts to it are heinous. "Cut someone else's stuff!" Multiply that by 300 million and we get . . . . what we have today.

What we have today is a bloated government that squeals when we try to slow down spending. Can you imagine the reaction if we ever actually tried to make some meaningful cuts?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,426]

>What we have today is a bloated government that squeals when we try to slow down spending.

Right now it seems to be the GOP who is squealing. They hate the "Obamaquester" and want their aircraft carriers, combat squadrons and (bizarrely) White House tours.

[airdvr 198]

Quote

>What we have today is a bloated government that squeals when we try to slow down spending.

Right now it seems to be the GOP who is squealing. They hate the "Obamaquester" and want their aircraft carriers, combat squadrons and (bizarrely) White House tours.

So are you trying to tell me it's the Republican's fault and the Dems are blameless? C'mon...you can do better.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,426]

>So are you trying to tell me it's the Republican's fault and the Dems are blameless?

Not at all; both were responsible for the failure to come up with better cuts. However, the Republicans are currently bitching the loudest about how very bad the cuts are.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>So are you trying to tell me it's the Republican's fault and the Dems are blameless?

Not at all; both were responsible for the failure to come up with better cuts. However, the Republicans are currently bitching the loudest about how very bad the cuts are.

the most bitching I hear from the Reps in the news isn't about the cuts. It's about the last tax increase being given - "just this once". And now every single budget since wants more......but they are pretty loud about it.

you do acknowledge the lefties are loud about how, if they don't get even more money, how horrible it'll be for babies and puppies and the elderly - right?


it's more tax vs less tax - I don't think either side really cares if it makes a difference one way or the other at all. it's just the mantra to get votes and keep power from the ignorant that actually believe what they hear from the crooks

good for you, at least you are 50% skeptical of what you are being fed

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airdvr 198]

Quote

>So are you trying to tell me it's the Republican's fault and the Dems are blameless?

Not at all; both were responsible for the failure to come up with better cuts. However, the Republicans are currently bitching the loudest about how very bad the cuts are.

Are we talking about sequester or budget?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,426]

>you do acknowledge the lefties are loud about how, if they don't get even more
>money, how horrible it'll be for babies and puppies and the elderly - right?

Oh definitely. The democrats want more spending on social programs. The republicans want more spending on the military, border patrol etc. The common factor there is "we want more and we don't want to pay for it."

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

>you do acknowledge the lefties are loud about how, if they don't get even more
>money, how horrible it'll be for babies and puppies and the elderly - right?

Oh definitely. The democrats want more spending on social programs. The republicans want more spending on the military, border patrol etc. The common factor there is "we want more and we don't want to pay for it."

And don't forget the Post Office.
Congress (Both sides of the aisle) bitch about the PO not being able to break even, but when realistic cuts to service like shutting down little used Post Offices or stopping Saturday delivery, then Congress says "No, you can't do that."

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't real.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo