Contributors

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Let It Happen

There are a whole lot of folks that are worried these days about the sequester. The cuts that are going to happen, they say, are going to be damaging to our country and Congress must reach a deal by March 1st. I say let it all happen.

In fact, let's see how our county does for a while when federal spending is significantly cut as it will be next Friday. We should operate with these new spending levels for at least six months to illustrate exactly what it means to make the cuts that the Right perpetually whines and cries over.  It's a big opportunity for the Ayn Rand worshipers out there to strut their stuff.

Let's see how a 16 trillion dollar economy does with minimal services. Have at it, people!

17 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

This ought to bring some sanity to the discussion. Certainly better than anything coming from Obama or the Republicans.

There's a simple way to turn such emotional manipulation around. Which is: You doubled the federal budget in one decade. So what do we have to show for it? It's not enough that the fireman has his job, the Navy carrier is in the Persian Gulf, or that the Washington Monument is open--you don't get to double your budget on maintenance.

Juris Imprudent said...

Oh and a reason bonus for M about people with guns and badges.

Ladies and gentlemen (and sockpuppets), this is your FBI.

Juris Imprudent said...

Hey look, it is only wrong when the other guys do it.

In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.

Juris Imprudent said...

Sequester Catastrophe?!?

Not so much.

What was it you said about politicians and fear-mongering?

Unknown said...

Significant? Minimal? Wow Markadelphia, you sure are reaching. Cuts were Obamas idea first anyway. - you saw the youtube videos I posted and didn't say anything.

Juris Imprudent said...

Naturally M doesn't care to discuss anything of substance here - he is too busy putting up stupid posters or lying about his reading habits.

Larry said...

Minimal services??? When spending is actually going UP, just not quite as fast? Because we'll spend 3,553 billion dollars instead of 3,597 billion dollars? Mein Gott, it'll be Mad Max for real! I hope everyone's got their leathers and face colanders already, because you're not going to be able to buy them at the last minutes!

Mark Ward said...

Whatever shall we do!

We're going to get to see how your vision of government will work. Honestly, I can't wait:)

BTW,nmn, I realize that you are of the view that you are providing "the truth" to "my lies" by continuing to post as you do you are, perhaps, convincing some magical fairy readers out there that I'm wrong and you're right. Assuming that these fairies exist (and, dude, they really don't, I simply don't have the site traffic and no one but us reads the comments), you may want to consider the fact that if you ever said anything that would truly be "damaging" to my assertions, that I'd just delete it, as I have the power to do that.

Yet I never have. Why is that? Why would I allow you to post the same thing over and over again? Could it be that I somehow benefit from this?

These are questions meant for reflection. No need to respond.

Juris Imprudent said...

Yep, M is much more interested in continuing a lie about his reading than discuss the actual effect of sequester and how his fucking messiah is lying out his ass.

Why are progressives such liars?

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny how Mark suddenly isn't talking about the Sequester now that it's been pointed out that even WITH the Sequester, the Federal Government will spend MORE this year than last?

I say bring it on. (Hey look! I agree with Mark! Amazing!!!) It would be best if Congress actually decided to make appropriate cuts, but any slowdown is better than making drunken sailors look niggardly.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (46 days and counting)

Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (32 days and counting)

Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (14 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (8 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (6 days and counting)

Anonymous said...

We're going to get to see how your vision of government will work. Honestly, I can't wait:)

You are completely delusional. Spending doesn't go down! What is wrong with you? You are definitely giving credence to the saying that Democrats/Progressives are ignorant.

Mark Ward said...

These are the cuts you have been screeching about for the last several years so I don't see why you aren't happy about this. In fact, I hope we see some more cuts and live with them for several months. We really need to give your ideas a full airing.

Juris Imprudent said...

Perspective - something that M thoroughly lacks.

Spending $360,000 on a house and claiming that you can't cut $850 out without catastrophic consequences.

Really M - is that believable to you?

Juris Imprudent said...

One more link that M will ignore.

The display of spending-cut scare tactics offer a window in the worldview of those who seem to believe that government spending is the fuel on which the economy runs, and to undertake any kind of federal spending reduction at all is to start a journey to an apocalyptic hellscape.

Yep, you got it - cutting federal spending will reduce the country to a boiling pit of sewage!

Unknown said...

If the senate would actually produce a normal budget, we would not have the sequestration at all. The budget resolutions of both chambers would have gone to conference committee, which would have hashed out the differences. Obama would have signed the budgets, and we would have avoided nearly four years of crisis funding for the federal government. Reid and Obama haven’t used normal order because they want to keep using continuing resolutions as a means to keep the inflated FY2010 spending levels as the baseline going forward, and especially because they want to keep House Republicans from having a real voice on spending and budgeting.

Get a clue Markadelphia.

Mark Ward said...

They did pass a "normal" budget when they passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It accomplishes the same thing as the budget resolutions which are not binding, btw. Those committee resolutions that you are sneering at are how the money is actually appropriated now and it has been that way since 1974 with the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Juris Imprudent said...

It accomplishes the same thing as the budget resolutions which are not binding, btw.

No it doesn't. Programs are locked into the CR spending pattern, not what their needs are.