Fear Mongering Spending Cuts

[kwc57]

Will automatic spending cuts have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. No.

What will happen is that bureaucrats will deliberately try to spread "the hurt" as far and wide as possible in order to defend their inflated budgets.

They will not cut waste, they will cut services. They want to inflict as much pain as possible so we come crawling back screaming uncle and throwing dollars at them - BEGGING them to take more of our money - just to make the pain stop.

We have the wrong people, motivated by the wrong reasons, making the wrong choices.

I wonder why Obama suggested it, signed it into law and said he would veto any attempts to change it?

Maybe he wants to cut spending?
Is that a bad thing?

But reality check - the GOP got the automatic cuts in return for their votes to raise the debt ceiling. They negotiated for this and got it - why don't they want to take the credit?

Because the game right now is to make these meager spending reforms hurt people as much as possible and then blame the other side of the aisle. They are still just playing political games with our money and our lives and some folks STILL aid and abeit them by joining in their silly reindeer games and refusing to address the real issue.

The only impact these cuts will have are the ones forced by Obama's choices. First, they are not true spending cuts. They are reductions in increased spending over the coming year. Second, they are actually around 44B instead of 83B. Third, tat amounts to a 1% reduction. Anyone.......and I mean anyone, from a welfare receipient to the US government can survive a 1% cut. All you do is prioritize your spending. You pay the mortgage and you eat hamburger instead of steak. Obama's litany of misery is fear mongering. He is a petty man who insists on having his way. He's dangerous and the only thing standing in his way right now is the Republican led house. I hope his miscalculations lead to an increase of Repbulican seats in the house and senate instead of his intending killing of the opposition.

Remember, you heard it here first. The sequester will have little to no effect on our day to day life.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The only impact these cuts will have are the ones forced by Obama's choices.

Obama will not choose the specifics of this event. Bureaucrats will.

Those who view this as a political opportunity (whether they want it to be an opportunity for the Democrats or whether they want it to be an opportunity for the Reopublicans) are all just part of the status quo problem that got us into this situation.

Only hold half of the responsible parties accountable and then let everyone bicker over which half that is. That way, they never have to address the real problems - they just have to attach them to their opponents.

They love you.

 

[kwc57]

The only impact these cuts will have are the ones forced by Obama's choices.

Obama will not choose the specifics of this event. Bureaucrats will.

Those who view this as a political opportunity (whether they want it to be an opportunity for the Democrats or whether they want it to be an opportunity for the Reopublicans) are all just part of the status quo problem that got us into this situation.

Only hold half of the responsible parties accountable and then let everyone bicker over which half that is. That way, they never have to address the real problems - they just have to attach them to their opponents.

They love you.

Have you seen Obama's road show? Have you heard the doom and gloom about the sky falling? Many of the coming "cuts" are under his purview. If a ship doesn't go to sea over this, it is because the CIC made a choice for it not to for political gain. The House had a Sequester replacement bill in May of last year and again in December. Did the Senate take it up, vote on it? Did Obama hold any talks with them? When did Obama finally agree to sit down with Congressional leaders in this matter? I'll tell, you.....after the sequester hit. Where was he the past two months? I'll tell you.......he was out making campaign stops to whine to the American people to make Congress bow to his will. Maybe that time would have been better spent hammering out a compromise instead of making demands. He is a petty man who refuses to lead.

 

[DiamondDave]

Will automatic spending cuts have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. No.

What will happen is that bureaucrats will deliberately try to spread "the hurt" as far and wide as possible in order to defend their inflated budgets.

They will not cut waste, they will cut services. They want to inflict as much pain as possible so we come crawling back screaming uncle and throwing dollars at them - BEGGING them to take more of our money - just to make the pain stop.

We have the wrong people, motivated by the wrong reasons, making the wrong choices.

I wonder why Obama suggested it, signed it into law and said he would veto any attempts to change it?

Maybe he wants to cut spending?
Is that a bad thing?

But reality check - the GOP got the automatic cuts in return for their votes to raise the debt ceiling. They negotiated for this and got it - why don't they want to take the credit?

Because the game right now is to make these meager spending reforms hurt people as much as possible and then blame the other side of the aisle. They are still just playing political games with our money and our lives and some folks STILL aid and abeit them by joining in their silly reindeer games and refusing to address the real issue.

For about the billionth time.. this is NOT A SPENDING CUT... IT IS A REDUCTION IN INCREASE... THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING MORE THAN LAST YEAR

My God are some of you very thick headed

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder why Obama suggested it, signed it into law and said he would veto any attempts to change it?

Maybe he wants to cut spending?
Is that a bad thing?

But reality check - the GOP got the automatic cuts in return for their votes to raise the debt ceiling. They negotiated for this and got it - why don't they want to take the credit?

Because the game right now is to make these meager spending reforms hurt people as much as possible and then blame the other side of the aisle. They are still just playing political games with our money and our lives and some folks STILL aid and abeit them by joining in their silly reindeer games and refusing to address the real issue.

For about the billionth time.. this is NOT A SPENDING CUT... IT IS A REDUCTION IN INCREASE... THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING MORE THAN LAST YEAR

My God are some of you very thick headed

I understand your frustration that everyone is not adopting your labels. Who cares what kind of label you put on it.
It is what it is.
There are plenty of better things than a label (imho) to get all worked up about.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have done business with non-profits, universities, military and local governments for years.
Take my word for it - without question the single worst nightmare of any bureaucratic organization is for anyone to discover they can do with a lot less.
Every year November is balls to the walls busy time for us producing orders by organizations that "have to spend" X dollars by the end of the year or they lose it for next year.
That is why no matter what the economic conditions are - the budgets of bureaucratic institutions NEVER get smaller. They always rise every year no matter technological changes or other efficiency factors lowering their cost - they just hire a few more poeple or buy a few more things to keep the budget amount coming year after year.
Now - multiply this by a factor of 1 million - and you have the federal government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have done business with non-profits, universities, military and local governments for years.
Take my word for it - without question the single worst nightmare of any of bureaucratic organization is for anyone to discover they can do with a lot less.
Every year November is balls to the walls busy time for us producing orders by organizations that "have to spend" X dollars by the end of the year or they lose it for next year.
That is why no matter what the economic conditions are - the budgets of bureaucratic institutions NEVER get smaller. They always rise every year no matter technological changes or other efficiency factors lowering their cost - they just hire a few more poeple or buy a few more things to keep the budget amount coming year after year.
Now - multiply this by a factor of 1 million - and you have the federal government.

I have had more limited exposure to this than you have, but I have seen it enough to know that what you are saying is 100% true.

In one National Park I saw an attic jam-packed with dry-rotting hip waders because that is what that manager wasted his money on at the end of the budget cycle. Another closet packed with unopened boxes of computer equipment (some so old they were already out of date).

Clinton and Newt Gingrich were shutting down government - but this never slowed a bit.

 

[DiamondDave]

Maybe he wants to cut spending?
Is that a bad thing?

But reality check - the GOP got the automatic cuts in return for their votes to raise the debt ceiling. They negotiated for this and got it - why don't they want to take the credit?

Because the game right now is to make these meager spending reforms hurt people as much as possible and then blame the other side of the aisle. They are still just playing political games with our money and our lives and some folks STILL aid and abeit them by joining in their silly reindeer games and refusing to address the real issue.

For about the billionth time.. this is NOT A SPENDING CUT... IT IS A REDUCTION IN INCREASE... THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING MORE THAN LAST YEAR

My God are some of you very thick headed

I understand your frustration that everyone is not adopting your labels. Who cares what kind of label you put on it.
It is what it is.
There are plenty of better things than a label (imho) to get all worked up about.

It is what it is, and that is NOT a cut....

You spent $100 last year.. you spent $99 this year.. THAT is a cut
You spent $100 last year and you planned on spending $105 this year and instead you spent $104.. that is not a CUT it is a REDUCED INCREASE

Fucking idiots

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have done business with non-profits, universities, military and local governments for years.
Take my word for it - without question the single worst nightmare of any of bureaucratic organization is for anyone to discover they can do with a lot less.
Every year November is balls to the walls busy time for us producing orders by organizations that "have to spend" X dollars by the end of the year or they lose it for next year.
That is why no matter what the economic conditions are - the budgets of bureaucratic institutions NEVER get smaller. They always rise every year no matter technological changes or other efficiency factors lowering their cost - they just hire a few more poeple or buy a few more things to keep the budget amount coming year after year.
Now - multiply this by a factor of 1 million - and you have the federal government.

I have had more limited exposure to this than you have, but I have seen it enough to know that what you are saying is 100% true.

In one National Park I saw an attic jam-packed with dry-rotting hip waders because that is what that manager wasted his money on at the end of the budget cycle. Another closet packed with unopened boxes of computer equipment (some so old they were already out of date).

Especially non-profits.
Unfortunately I have become very cynical of charitable organizations over the years.
As a vendor supplying a product to them...I see the rampant waste that occurs in any situation where you have people in charge of money they didn't personally earn.
I can mention no names, but let me say there are national charitable organizations that purposely choose more expensive materials and production processes so a certain dollar amount can be reached.
On the B2B business it is the opposite - projects are designed/modified to lower cost and stay within a certain budget...bureaucrats design/modify projects to raise costs to make sure every penny budgeted is spent.

 

[nodoginnafight]

For about the billionth time.. this is NOT A SPENDING CUT... IT IS A REDUCTION IN INCREASE... THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING MORE THAN LAST YEAR

My God are some of you very thick headed

I understand your frustration that everyone is not adopting your labels. Who cares what kind of label you put on it.
It is what it is.
There are plenty of better things than a label (imho) to get all worked up about.

It is what it is, and that is NOT a cut....

You spent $100 last year.. you spent $99 this year.. THAT is a cut
You spent $100 last year and you planned on spending $105 this year and instead you spent $104.. that is not a CUT it is a REDUCED INCREASE

Fucking idiots

May I suggest decafe

 

[DiamondDave]

May I suggest you actually deal in reality

 

[nodoginnafight]

May I suggest you actually deal in reality

and word everything exactly as you dictate in order to avoid your vulgarities ??????????

You need to stop majoring in the minors and work on ways to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

But that's your choice. If you're satisfied with everyone thinking your a strident little prick then it makes no difference to me.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because a cut does not mean an increase.. it is that simple.. it is the same exact word game politicians are using to fool the populace.. and you are going right in stride with it... which shows you are indeed the one that is part of the problem

 

[DiamondDave]

For about the billionth time.. this is NOT A SPENDING CUT... IT IS A REDUCTION IN INCREASE... THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING MORE THAN LAST YEAR

My God are some of you very thick headed

I understand your frustration that everyone is not adopting your labels. Who cares what kind of label you put on it.
It is what it is.
There are plenty of better things than a label (imho) to get all worked up about.

It is what it is, and that is NOT a cut....

You spent $100 last year.. you spent $99 this year.. THAT is a cut
You spent $100 last year and you planned on spending $105 this year and instead you spent $104.. that is not a CUT it is a REDUCED INCREASE

Fucking idiots

To show the idiocy in your premise once again.. you are claiming 'hurt' because of 'cuts' in 'services'

Well. there was $100 spent on the service last year.. they planned on spending $105 on the service this year but instead spent $104... NOTHING WAS CUT.. there was an INCREASE still, no matter how you or the other smoke and mirrors assholes try and word play it

 

[kwc57]

May I suggest you actually deal in reality

and word everything exactly as you dictate in order to avoid your vulgarities ??????????

You need to stop majoring in the minors and work on ways to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

But that's your choice. If you're satisfied with everyone thinking your a strident little prick then it makes no difference to me.

Except his words are correct and yours are not. The words you use make a difference and have consequences. Do you not realize that you're wording everything exactly at the press and administration dictates? These are not cuts. They are a reduction in increases. That actually means something. True story.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because a cut does not mean an increase.. it is that simple.. it is the same exact word game politicians are using to fool the populace.. and you are going right in stride with it... which shows you are indeed the one that is part of the problem

You CLAIM you want less government spending yet when I come on these boards SCREAMING for lower spending, THIS is what you got for me?

Argumentative, simple-minded, divisive WORD GAMES??????????????????

What do you think you are accomplishing, other than driving away people who are your natural allies by being a prick?

Good luck with that approach.

If we are both working towards spending less money - why would an intelligent person pick a fight with the guy working with him.

Here's a hint: The intelligent man wouldn't.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because a cut does not mean an increase.. it is that simple.. it is the same exact word game politicians are using to fool the populace.. and you are going right in stride with it... which shows you are indeed the one that is part of the problem

You CLAIM you want less government spending yet when I come on these boards SCREAMING for lower spending, THIS is what you got for me?

Argumentative, simple-minded, divisive WORD GAMES??????????????????

What do you think you are accomplishing, other than driving away people who are your natural allies by being a prick.

Good luck with that approach.

You are the one playing the word game... calling something one thing when it is not....

I still demand a REDUCTION in government spending and I will not applaud a reduced increase because it is still and increase and not a reduction at all.. it is not a cut, it is an INCREASE, and you simply will not get it thru your thick ignorant skull... I will applaud it when last year's spending of $100 on program X is followed up with $95 spending this year on the program... you applaud like a retard with an increase because someone used the nice word of 'cut' in the easy attempt to fool and appease you

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since the headline of the thread (which is uneditable) I have been trying to NOT call this cuts.
I understand your argument completely and have elected not to argue with you about.

You INSIST on making this thread about YOUR defitions and YOUR demands that everyone else acknowledge and accept YOUR defitions or be subjected to YOUR vulgarities.

You had someone who shares your belief on spending and have pig-headedly turned that person - a natural ally - into someone who is not in a mood to piss on you if you were on fire.

Congratulations.

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. you have CONTINUALLY talked about the 'cuts', the 'gutting' and all the other 'pain' or 'hurt' coming up... you have been basically calling it cuts all along, and there is no stopping you now.. you act as if any program or budget at all is getting less money, which is BLATANTLY FALSE... you fell into the fear-mongering hook, line, and sinker...

Yes.. waste should be attacked, and hard.... but there should be actual budget and spending cuts across the board coupled with flat out eliminations of redundant agencies, unconstitutional entitlement programs, etc... I don't care if Joe crackhead has to now try and work for his cheesy ramen and clean needles, the government never had any business feeding him or supplying him shit anyway.. I don;t care if defense project X asked for $105B over the $100B they budgeted for and spent last year, they need to be cut to $95B... I don't care if it is nice to have a website for program Y in 13 different languages, it is not a necessary spend when we are in horrible debt...

Unlike you, I call things like they are and I don't fall for the smoke and mirrors... I don't coddle to pet projects or tear jerker sob stories brought about by fear-mongering politicians.. it ALL needs to be ACTUALLY CUT

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are simply being the useful idiot that both sides need in order to keep spending us into oblivion. By insisting on turning the issue into a merriam webster circle jerk, you insure that no real focus is put on the REAL issue oif spending.

You are a prime example of why those we have entrusted with the stewardship of our money and our nation are failing so miserably in their duties. So many of them - just like you - refuse to address the real issue and simply piss and moan about semantics and defining things and labeling things "correctly."

Well done.