| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Forced spending cuts are the only answer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2013, 12:41 AM (272 Views) | |
| Thumper | Mar 3 2013, 12:41 AM Post #1 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I personally like the forced spending cuts. Nice to see cuts for once. No way are the greedy "interests" going to come up with a solution on their own, so you make the cuts across the board. Everything cut will adjust. Just trim the fat. As for military combat training flight hours, fly the simulators. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Mar 3 2013, 12:44 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I disagree. Agreed upon spending cuts is the answer. There won't be any more spending cuts without more revenue, imo. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Mar 3 2013, 12:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Agreed upon cuts seem to be out of reach with our current govt. Nice concept tho. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Mar 3 2013, 12:55 AM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They will be forced to come to an agreement sooner or later. It might take another election or two, though. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Mar 5 2013, 02:31 AM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it will be near impossible for a spending bill to take affect without cuts elsewhere. The house is clamping down. I read yesterday that two of the republicans in the house who were supporting Obama's position, now have eleven candidates being vetted as primary challengers. If you don't think that message will have weight, then you are dreaming. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 5 2013, 01:34 PM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tea Party challengers? Most likely supported by Grover Norquist's organization with funding from the deep pockets of folks like the Kochs, who are dedicated to using their money to bend public policy their way. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Mar 5 2013, 07:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We all know that these "spending cuts" resulting from the "sequestration" are only cuts in the increase in spending, not cuts that result in affecting the debt and deficit increase. But, like Thumper said, it's good to see some cuts, especially after the turn of the year increase in payroll taxes that have resulted in lower take home pay by the taxpayers. This nation is going to have to get used to some systematized reduction in spending along with the increased tax revenues that hopefully will be used to decrease the debt rather than just more spending. And all the hype about the coming national "pain" that the nation will be going through because of sequestration, here's what is on this morning's Huffington News front page:
|
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Mar 5 2013, 08:35 PM Post #8 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah! Playing semantic games again, Ban? If the money is in the budget and you don't spend it, that's a cut. Estimates of future deficits and debt include estimates of spending. When you "cut" those estimates, it reduces the amount of estimated deficit and debt. The so-called increase in payroll taxes was simply a reversal of a tax cut previously enacted and which was set to expire anyway. Huffpo might be right, but the airport in Grand Island, NE expects to lose its control tower according to the local newspaper. Besides, airports aren't the only things that will cause pain. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Mar 5 2013, 09:24 PM Post #9 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But, the government (Republicans, Democrats, President) could have worked together to maintain the previous tax cut. To the tax payer it still means less take home pay... that's their bottom line. It's the government that plays the games, not me. As far as the gloom and doom the president has been spreading during his recent "campaign" trips, even he has finally admitted, "We aren't going to see an apocalypse." The cuts are just a tiny adjustment in the GDP. In my opinion we will be seeing more "Republican blamed gloom and doom" by the president leading up to upcoming congressional elections. If the Democrats win control of the House (which is one of Obama's goals with all this "blaming"), there will be little or no "checks and balances" and we will see dramatic increase in spending and a corresponding increase in our national debt that our children and grandchildren will be faced with... IMO. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Mar 5 2013, 09:31 PM Post #10 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That previous tax cut was eating into Social Security funds. I think it was a bad idea to begin with considering the hoopla around the SS fund going bankrupt in a few years. Besides, the reps aren't going to approve anything Obama proposes in any case, so an agreement wasn't in the cards. I agree Obama has been hyping the results of the sequester, but, like Bush hyping the Iraq war, it's what presidents do to gain public support. Of course he will blame the reps. Aren't the reps blaming him? I used to think divided government was a good thing because it added some balance, but when one side says no to everything, nothing gets done. The debt has been increasing for many years and our parents left it to us. What's the difference? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




3:12 AM Jul 12
