Looming Sequester

The dreaded sequester seems to be looming large.

Who was the dumb ass that came up with this odious thing staring us in the face?

. . . Is Congress playing chicken with the President again at our expense?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z1

I was thinking about posting something up on this earlier....but nobody seems to care. The weirdness of the 'sequester' term seems to be limiting interest. Nobody knows what it means.

Seems like both sides think they can blame the other for any political fallout. Which is interesting and sad, since they don't seem to be considering the actual effect of the cut-off of federal funds associated with the sequester. Personally, I don't understand how cutting off funds to employ defense contractor folks and others advances any sort of economic comeback in terms of employment. Am I wrong?

Yes, it is sort of a weird term, but the implications are nevertheless quite serious.

These people in Washington do not seem to take their work seriously and seem to think it's all just a game of blaming the other side. President Obama has proposed a fair plan, but Congress in their typical idiotic fashion keep sitting on the fence on the deal. People will be seriously affected by this, but it doesn't need to happen.

. . . It's like the ghost of the Tea Party come back to haunt the American people all over again!

Yeah, too bad it was Barack Hussein Obama who came up with the idea of sequestration.

He was just SURE the Republicans would cave in and let him continue spending like a Democratic Congressman. (Drunk sailors on liberty stop spending when they run out of money. Democratic Congressmen NEVER stop spending.)

Anybody that views the Tea Party as a "ghost" is operating under some serious misinterpretations regarding what is driving the GOP these days. Mainstream Republicans....those seriously interested in doing something about the country's problems....are running scared in many states because of the nutjob Teabaggers. Check what Karl Rove is trying to do lately and the poisonous opposition he is encountering. Overall, that's probably good for democrats because the majority of Americans aren't buying what the Tea Party is selling. Regionally, maybe not so much.

Hinckley could not convert Jody, but there is hope for you two.

Hinckley could not convert Jody, but there is hope for you two. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Let's file this one in the "You're so stupid we don't get your meaning" file.

What was the "fair" plan Obama proposed, FastGoon?

And I am totally in favor of the sequester. My only problem with it is that it doesn't cut enough.

And we'll see how that works out silly old man. Less jobs, less money. Makes sense.

What was the "fair" plan Obama proposed, FastGoon?

And I am totally in favor of the sequester. My only problem with it is that it doesn't cut enough. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The correct grammar is "fewer jobs, less money". The less we borrow, the less we will owe, the less interest we have to pay, fewer people crowded out of the credit market, more people able to get loans to expand business and hire people, greater velocity of money, creating more demand leading to production and higher profits, increasing the amount of labor needed which means fewer unemployed, and the cycle continues.

Our national budget is almost $4 trillion dollars. The sequester is less than 2%. Do you mean out of a $4 trillion budget, Obama can't find 2% to cut? This is "draconian" and will cause the downfall of our country? Really? God, you are brainwashed, which may be giving you more credit than you deserve.

You arrogant stupid old asshole. If there are fewer jobs, there will be less money for those who need jobs. Suck on that grammar you jackass. You make me want to puke with your professed concern for America, but your absolute cluelessness for Americans.

The correct grammar is "fewer jobs, less money". The less we borrow, the less we will owe, the less interest we have to pay, fewer people crowded out of the credit market, more people able to get loans to expand business and hire people, greater velocity of money, creating more demand leading to production and higher profits, increasing the amount of labor needed which means fewer unemployed, and the cycle continues.

Our national budget is almost $4 trillion dollars. The sequester is less than 2%. Do you mean out of a $4 trillion budget, Obama can't find 2% to cut? This is "draconian" and will cause the downfall of our country? Really? God, you are brainwashed, which may be giving you more credit than you deserve. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Didn't pass economics, did you, Timmy?

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1052401693]Didn't pass economics, did you, Timmy?[/QUOTE

Summa cum whatever you old dumbass, but that was a long time ago and who cares. Blow me.

I've always thought we should have special file for those off-the-wall ideas that are so out there that they deserve their own file.

. . . Since a file demands brevity, let's just tab it "Stupid".

Let's file this one in the "You're so stupid we don't get your meaning" file. Originally Posted by timpage

You want stupid? Here it is:



Now, do you think, as Sen. Paul does, that some of this kind of spending could be cut?