Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

One of the greatest recruiting tools we ever had and a huge source of national pride flushed right down the toilet.
But I expect no less from an incompetent liberal administration.

Yes, because the military needs help recruiting. Come on. The military is a great way for anyone that doesn't have money for college, came from a lower socio-economic background, etc to make something of themselves. It takes very little in the way of credentials to get into a military role. They will take the onus of training you and teaching you important skills, discipline, etc.

Regardless, the days of foot soldiers are coming to an end. That is a direct quote from a retired 2 or 3 star general that taught a few classes. We have massive weapons that can be delivered without a human delivery vehicle. The real wars are based on information and economy. The loss of life and the buildings weren't the main goal of 9/11, the financial issues it caused because of the aftereffects were the main goal.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

FD. I don't disagree that there are other programs as well. However, we are focusing on one-of-many right now. I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair to point at X, Y, and Z because it doesn't affect you, then say something like the blue angels is important. It's a drop in the bucket, but with enough drops the bucket eventually fills up.

I agree there should be more incentives for saving money in the government. I believe incentive programs would be a great way to start helping the savings. As someone that has been involved with our end-of-year funds lately, it's not as cut and dry. Yes, there is BUY BUY BUY at the end, but we're still making choice of what to get and what not to get. I'm an IT guy and I'm using a 7 year old desktop at work because we've sacrificed our tech refresh to focus on getting OIG mandated products.

Just because a lot of buying happens at the last minute doesn't mean it's being spent on useless products. Part of the reason it is spent that way is instead of 'financing' a product we need to purchase, we try to front-load it to reduce payments over time.

I never said I was against cutting things like the BA I was giving what I thought the reason was for cutting the program.

Thats probably true tp some degree but my guess is alot of $$$$ is spent on things really not needed. My brother in law own a welding equipment co. and he would tell me his sales would go way up in Nov & Dec selling the Gov equipment that was not needed. They would replace stuff that worked just fine and would buy stuff they did not really need.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

One of the greatest recruiting tools we ever had and a huge source of national pride flushed right down the toilet.
But I expect no less from an incompetent liberal administration.

so what would you cut from defense? Your knee jerk reaction is no better than when a liberal cries about their programs being cut, or a >$250K person complains that their taxes are being raised. If we are going to somehow solve the govermental bloat, some things have to let go for a while. It's not like they can't reinstate the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels later, but it's also not the end of the world if they never fly again - and again, I loved going to AAFB to watch them.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

You really have no idea what the feck you are talking about.
It is hardly wasteful spending.

it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action, and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action, and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.

[CRedskinsRule]

For the record, one show requires 7,200 gallons JP-8 jet fuel and 440 gallons smoke oil required for each performance. A typical yearly schedule is 80 shows. JP-8 costs $3.13/gal. Or just under 2mil for the typical year.

My point with this number, is in the grand scheme of cuts, it's miniscule, but there is a group of people who, rather than accept a tiny cut for the needs of the country, will criticize and berate their opponent, because, that's the US today. The same happens over every dollar, or million dollars cut.
"obama is an idiot", congress wants to starve children, etc etc etc.

reducing a debt of

isn't going to be done without some give from every person/group/interest/pac/etc in the US

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so what would you cut from defense? Your knee jerk reaction is no better than when a liberal cries about their programs being cut, or a >$250K person complains that their taxes are being raised. If we are going to somehow solve the govermental bloat, some things have to let go for a while. It's not like they can't reinstate the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels later, but it's also not the end of the world if they never fly again - and again, I loved going to AAFB to watch them.

They should complain. By the time they pay federal and state taxes they are paying around $100,000 a year. Thay are not the people who should get hit. Its the people paying no taxes and the millionairs who can afford to pay more.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.

I dont view them as a military units.
I view it as a source of national pride and an American icon. So do a lot of other people.
Something every president in my lifetime has been able to finance except the guy from Hawaii.
And your luxury word is fairly stupid since you cant put a price on national pride.
But like I said, the treehuggers are in charge and treehuggers arent going to care....

[CRedskinsRule]

again, everyone benefits from us having a stable government. Those making >250K, while possibly receiving the least direct cash benefits, certainly receive benefits that aren't necessarily itemized. A stable, free market based (maybe not as much) government economic structure, where they are able to invest.

Ideally, the >250k crowd would pay a reasonable percentage but we are not in the ideal right now, and again, EVERYONE will end up making sacrifices if we are to get this debt issue back under control.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

I dont view them as a military units.
I view it as a source of national pride and an American icon. So do a lot of other people.
Something every president in my lifetime has been able to finance except the guy from Hawaii.
And your luxury word is fairly stupid since you cant put a price on national pride.
But like I said, the treehuggers are in charge and treehuggers arent going to care....

but they are military units, specifically the USAF Air Demonstration Squadron, and the Flight Demonstration Squadron.

Your statement about every president is ridiculous in light of the fact that I could say the same about several entitlement programs that I would prefer be reduced or cut. The fact that it has been around doesn't prove it's worth when our country's national economic health is on the line. In fact, after the tragic crash in 1982, the AF considered disbanding the unit, but didn't. (said to point that it's not some unpatriotic tree hugger idea, when the military legitimately debated it, when our finances weren't nearly as bad).


You never did answer what defense cuts you would make to offset keeping the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels going. It's only 4mill a year(2mil each) so surely you can suggest another option?

[CRedskinsRule]

also, it is the navy and the air force departments deciding that these shows should be cancelled not Pres. Obama dictating they be stopped.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They should complain. By the time they pay federal and state taxes they are paying around $100,000 a year. Thay are not the people who should get hit. Its the people paying no taxes and the millionairs who can afford to pay more.

As someone who looked at tax returns for several years, they are people who take advantage of the tax system in every single tax bracket. But what I found who took advantage of it the most with stretching things were real estate agents and small business owners. Its really a game, they do everything in their power to show no income to the IRS and then over exagerate income when it comes to personal lending.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

As someone who looked at tax returns for several years, they are people who take advantage of the tax system in every single tax bracket. But what I found who took advantage of it the most with stretching things were real estate agents and small business owners. Its really a game, they do everything in their power to show no income to the IRS and then over exagerate income when it comes to personal lending.

The first thing that a bank ask for when a self employed person wants a loan is tax returns so you can't have it both ways. It has to be claimed as income on your taxes for a bank to even consider it income. Second as a business owner you can avoid paying taxes on some money but your having to spend money on business things and thats money that could have been actual income. I'm sure you have heard someone say donate you can write it off. Sure I can write it off but it also was money that is no longer income. So do I want to donate $100 to avoid paying taxes on that money. I can put a meal or two on the business credit card or a round of golf but I olny can take a % of those charges off as an expense.

[NC_Skins]

Nothing is going to change while douche bags like these are in place. Boehner is flat out lying.

Boehner, David Gregory Spar On Sequester Cuts - Business Insider

Here's the exchange:

BOEHNER: Now listen, we've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester. And over the last 10 months, House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester. There are smarter ways to cut spending than these automatic across the board...

DAVID GREGORY:
GREGORY: But Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. They've made it very clear, as the President just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts, that you've made a choice as have Republicans to leave tax loopholes in place. And you'd rather have those and live with all these arbitrary cuts...

BOEHNER: Well, David that's just nonsense. If he had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it? The House has acted twice over the last ten months to replace the sequester. If we’re going to — the president got his tax hikes on January the first. If we're going to get rid of loopholes, let's lower rates and make the tax code fair for all Americans.

Well dumbass, why haven't they passed anything?

Let The Cuts Begin! | TPMDC

Your GOPers filibustering it is why.