Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

^yeah no one does it better than the republicans. Karl Rove and McCains baby robo call during the primaries in Carolinas and the Obama's a Muslim rhetoric during the campaign are my favorites.


We will have to disagree on that.

This should help clarify things in the future:

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm):-

Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. /SARC

This should help clarify things in the future:

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm):-

Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. /SARC

Makes some sense to me. I own a business in one city and have no voting rights and have no voice in the city. I can guarantee I pay more taxes in the city then probably 90% of the residents.

This should help clarify things in the future:

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0486.htm):-

Provision for vote by corporate property owner. If a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters. In fairness to Lavin’s fellow lawmakers, this bill was tabled shortly after it came before a legislative committee, so it is unlikely to become law.

Once we get the general population out of the equation things will be soooo much easier. /SARC

Honestly, if we could only eliminate citizen voting, and move to robotic voters, we would solve the country's problems.

For me, anything that forces spending cuts on the holy grails of the government budget is good. And this bill gives everyone cover so we can trim some and let 2011's congress and president take the blame. We should make automatic 5-10% cuts after each house term (unless we are in a balanced budget or net surplus situation) and then let the new Congress reset priorities if needed.

For me, anything that forces spending cuts on the holy grails of the government budget is good. And this bill gives everyone cover so we can trim some and let 2011's congress and president take the blame. We should make automatic 5-10% cuts after each house term (unless we are in a balanced budget or net surplus situation) and then let the new Congress reset priorities if needed.

Problem is these cut are only a reduction of the increased spending for 2013. This guy has no clue how to lead only knows how to blame. Also these dumb cuts and Sequestration was his idea.

As meeting yields no breakthrough, Obama blames 'dumb' cuts on GOP - First Read (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17147525-as-meeting-yields-no-breakthrough-obama-blames-dumb-cuts-on-gop?lite)

The real cut vs cut from expected spending battle was tried already. The media calls them cuts so the public en masse is going to perceive them as cuts. And voters are going to look at them as cuts, and that goes for both sides of the argument. The military already has their numbers budgeted and if there is a reduction military proponents will blame sequestration cuts. There really is no need to point at one side or the other, although that is what US politics is about right now, both sides are sticking to their scripts, and hoping in the end the other side folds.

Honestly, if we could only eliminate citizen voting, and move to robotic voters, we would solve the country's problems.

:spank:

If this graph is true, we need more "sequestration". Not more crying while spending more and more.

http://ddoublep.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/bl-sequestration-size-comparison.jpg

its criminal the President tried to get a tax increase as part of this sequester deal.