Sequester Chart of the Day.....

[Bfgrn]

your reply to me was not on topic is was directed at me for not using your hole post.

I will tell you again- my response was intended as rebuttal to your quote, the rest of your post was not germane to my rebuttal.....

But your Mencken quote is irrelevant to the topic. I have been told numerous times by conservatives that America is not a democracy.

 

[PaulS1950]

America has a republican form of government - I am sure you can find the difference between a republic and a democracy on Wikipedia if you take the time to look but I will help you out:
In a Republic there is a constitution that sets limits on what is up for grabs by the government and the people. ie. the rights that are protected by the constitution that are a birthrite of the citizens. In a Democracy the people can limit the rights and freedoms with a majority vote.

We live in a republic - we have the bill of rights and the constitution.

 

[Bfgrn]

America has a republican form of government - I am sure you can find the difference between a republic and a democracy on Wikipedia if you take the time to look but I will help you out:
In a Republic there is a constitution that sets limits on what is up for grabs by the government and the people. ie. the rights that are protected by the constitution that are a birthrite of the citizens. In a Democracy the people can limit the rights and freedoms with a majority vote.

We live in a republic - we have the bill of rights and the constitution.

So we are an undemocratic country?

 

[Trajan]

your reply to me was not on topic is was directed at me for not using your hole post.

I will tell you again- my response was intended as rebuttal to your quote, the rest of your post was not germane to my rebuttal.....

But your Mencken quote is irrelevant to the topic. I have been told numerous times by conservatives that America is not a democracy.

I suggest you read the quote again.

 

[Trajan]

so, the sequester?

 

[beagle9]

The left is selling the idea that the world will pretty much end if we cut spending...
And that it's all the fault of the republicans....
And the democrat base is falling for it ...So what else is new?...

Is it that the dems can't stand it, because they have a use for the spending in ways that the people in this nation only wish that they knew something about (the agenda)? So of course they fight these things tooth and nail, and they continue to try and use the blame game in hopes that it will work finally.

I think that there is this hope by the dems to destroy the republican party so much so (the racist party in which they refer to it as), in so that in their minds complete justice will have been perceived by all who think the repubs are or were the party of the old white racist in this nation, and so they must be defeated completely in order to free the nation from it's chains and bondage finally, and the only way to do this is with money and whole lot of it. I mean look at all the rhetoric that has been spewed, and the statements that have been made by so many whom think in these ways now, otherwise what are people to think when they hear these kinds of mouthing's by the dems at every single turn now ?

The people ought to realize by now, that these people will not get together or at least a good many of them won't, so it's time for others who are above this b/c, to finally begin doing so (i.e. get together), hopefully for themselves, and for the good of this nation.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama has no interest in sound economics, nor does Congress. Stop getting your hopes up people. Just admit that society blows and we're screwed.

 

[ReallyMeow]

and I am talking about the sequester, that is why I started the thread and named it so.

I am too, these are all things central to the sequestration: why people say we need it, whether it will work. Firing a million people will not spur the economy.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

and I am talking about the sequester, that is why I started the thread and named it so.

I am too, these are all things central to the sequestration: why people say we need it, whether it will work. Firing a million people will not spur the economy.

Depends on what million. We have all kinds of waste in government. Undoubtedly, efficiency won't be a focus though.

 

[PaulS1950]

America has a republican form of government - I am sure you can find the difference between a republic and a democracy on Wikipedia if you take the time to look but I will help you out:
In a Republic there is a constitution that sets limits on what is up for grabs by the government and the people. ie. the rights that are protected by the constitution that are a birthrite of the citizens. In a Democracy the people can limit the rights and freedoms with a majority vote.

We live in a republic - we have the bill of rights and the constitution.

So we are an undemocratic country?

While I would love to attempt to understand the logic you used to come up with a question like this from the facts I stated, it would seem to be a waste of time. The simple fact is; our form of government is a republic, which means that there are limits on the powers of government and our rights are beyond censure.
We, the people, have the right to disolve a government that no longer serves the people and replace it with another that does. For evidence read the nineth amendment, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Idependence. (the only part of the evidence that is already law is the nineth amendment - the other parts are supportive evidence of our rights) Stated to prevent confusion.

 

[ReallyMeow]

and I am talking about the sequester, that is why I started the thread and named it so.

I am too, these are all things central to the sequestration: why people say we need it, whether it will work. Firing a million people will not spur the economy.

Depends on what million. We have all kinds of waste in government. Undoubtedly, efficiency won't be a focus though.

If republicans think its such a good idea, why arnt they specifying which million?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...-dumbest-and-most-devastating-sequester-cuts/

 

[Bfgrn]

America has a republican form of government - I am sure you can find the difference between a republic and a democracy on Wikipedia if you take the time to look but I will help you out:
In a Republic there is a constitution that sets limits on what is up for grabs by the government and the people. ie. the rights that are protected by the constitution that are a birthrite of the citizens. In a Democracy the people can limit the rights and freedoms with a majority vote.

We live in a republic - we have the bill of rights and the constitution.

So we are an undemocratic country?

While I would love to attempt to understand the logic you used to come up with a question like this from the facts I stated, it would seem to be a waste of time. The simple fact is; our form of government is a republic, which means that there are limits on the powers of government and our rights are beyond censure.
We, the people, have the right to disolve a government that no longer serves the people and replace it with another that does. For evidence read the nineth amendment, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Idependence. (the only part of the evidence that is already law is the nineth amendment - the other parts are supportive evidence of our rights) Stated to prevent confusion.

I have a very sound understanding of our form of government. I just love to watch all the gymnastics by conservatives around the word 'democracy.' Conservatives will never admit that a representative republic is merely one form of a democracy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am too, these are all things central to the sequestration: why people say we need it, whether it will work. Firing a million people will not spur the economy.

Depends on what million. We have all kinds of waste in government. Undoubtedly, efficiency won't be a focus though.

If republicans think its such a good idea, why arnt they specifying which million?

The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts | ThinkProgress

They actually have, and the Democrats screamed bloody murder.

 

[PaulS1950]

I have a very sound understanding of our form of government. I just love to watch all the gymnastics by conservatives around the word 'democracy.' Conservatives will never admit that a representative republic is merely one form of a democracy.

In a democracy there is no constitution and there are only those freedoms that the majority deems appropriate. We have freedoms and rights that are a birthrite protected by our constitution. A "representative republic" is not a democracy. The majority cannot dictate anything not allowed by our constitution if it was a democracy then anything could be dictated by the majority.

 

[ReallyMeow]

I have a very sound understanding of our form of government. I just love to watch all the gymnastics by conservatives around the word 'democracy.' Conservatives will never admit that a representative republic is merely one form of a democracy.

In a democracy there is no constitution and there are only those freedoms that the majority deems appropriate. We have freedoms and rights that are a birthrite protected by our constitution. A "representative republic" is not a democracy. The majority cannot dictate anything not allowed by our constitution if it was a democracy then anything could be dictated by the majority.

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ctrl f for "democra", learn something.

second, anything can have a constitution- constitutional dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, constitutional theocracy, you really can just throw constitutional around like an adjective, and heres the kicker, constitutions dont even have to be anything like ours.

third, how does someone wind up in a position where they are considered a respresentative of the people? are they born into it? are they assigned by a king? Ah, thats right, in America, we use a DEMOCRATIC process to decide who represents us.

fourth, you're attempting to reverse the role of the constitution to something that limits the right of the people, as opposed to something that limits the government.


finally its clear that you're nto too fond of democracy, why? is it because of that fable where an indecisive twit let a mob kill the protagonist?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc86JUAwwg]Monty Python's Life of Brian - I shall release Brian - YouTube[/ame]


Hmm, ok we are way off topic here now, let me try to walk this back to sequestration. The argument being that even though these measures are unpopular, our representatives know better and we should all just shut up, is particularly unpalpable. Its simply an admission that you are wrong and your actions are indefensible, you have arrived in this cornered position because you have no coherent reason to think that firing people will result in a boon to the country.

Depends on what million. We have all kinds of waste in government. Undoubtedly, efficiency won't be a focus though.

If republicans think its such a good idea, why arnt they specifying which million?
The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts | ThinkProgress

They actually have, and the Democrats screamed bloody murder.

link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a very sound understanding of our form of government. I just love to watch all the gymnastics by conservatives around the word 'democracy.' Conservatives will never admit that a representative republic is merely one form of a democracy.

In a democracy there is no constitution and there are only those freedoms that the majority deems appropriate. We have freedoms and rights that are a birthrite protected by our constitution. A "representative republic" is not a democracy. The majority cannot dictate anything not allowed by our constitution if it was a democracy then anything could be dictated by the majority.

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ctrl f for "democra", learn something.

second, anything can have a constitution- constitutional dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, constitutional theocracy, you really can just throw constitutional around like an adjective, and heres the kicker, constitutions dont even have to be anything like ours.

third, how does someone wind up in a position where they are considered a respresentative of the people? are they born into it? are they assigned by a king? Ah, thats right, in America, we use a DEMOCRATIC process to decide who represents us.

fourth, you're attempting to reverse the role of the constitution to something that limits the right of the people, as opposed to something that limits the government.


finally its clear that you're nto too fond of democracy, why? is it because of that fable where an indecisive twit let a mob kill the protagonist?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc86JUAwwg"]Monty Python's Life of Brian - I shall release Brian - YouTube[/ame]


Hmm, ok we are way off topic here now, let me try to walk this back to sequestration. The argument being that even though these measures are unpopular, our representatives know better and we should all just shut up, is particularly unpalpable. Its simply an admission that you are wrong and your actions are indefensible, you have arrived in this cornered position because you have no coherent reason to think that firing people will result in a boon to the country.

If republicans think its such a good idea, why arnt they specifying which million?
The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts | ThinkProgress

They actually have, and the Democrats screamed bloody murder.

link?

Search the site, there are all sorts of links to the Republican budget proposals.

 

[ReallyMeow]

nope, as always their agenda is to wash their hands by delegating decision making downwards
WASHINGTON: GOP will propose sequester changes; wary Democrats plan their own | National Politics | NewsObserver.com

sure enough, the moment the sequester goes into effect, republicans are blaming obama for it, if its such a good idea, why arnt they taking credit for it?
RNC Releases New Web Video "The Obama Sequester" - GOP

the govt does things for you, dont take it for granted

 

[PaulS1950]

The government does things for you THAT EVERYONE PAYS FOR!

The government doesn't make money - if it was a business it would have gone out of business and filed for bankruptcy long ago. Instead it is an institution wherein the employees set their own wages, when costs exceed funds they "create" more funds through higher taxes and more fees for their "services".

If the government is such a good thing why is it that EVERYTHING they do costs more than it would if it was performed by a privately owned company providing the service?

 

[Trajan]

so providing flexibility to cut the year to year 2% increase via the sequester is now a bad thing?

what happened to obama going thru the budget line by line and taking a scalpel to spending?


"In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative," Obama said. "We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

Obama vows line-by-line budget review - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com

 

[ReallyMeow]

The government does things for you THAT EVERYONE PAYS FOR!

The government doesn't make money - if it was a business it would have gone out of business and filed for bankruptcy long ago. Instead it is an institution wherein the employees set their own wages, when costs exceed funds they "create" more funds through higher taxes and more fees for their "services".

If the government is such a good thing why is it that EVERYTHING they do costs more than it would if it was performed by a privately owned company providing the service?

Funny, theres quite a few examples of your guarantee falling flat on its face:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/13-1
Privatization Myths Debunked | In the Public Interest
http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/PrivatizationFailuresPlusqullicList.pdf

I need you to understand this clearly, there is a thing called "hype", when people want to sell a product, they will market it, these private schools, private prisons, private water companies etc are selling a product, of course they're going to say that their little nike air bubbles will make you jump higher: are you a savvy enough customer to identify the snake oil salesmen? not likely since you're talking in generalities; tell me, how did "housing prices always go up" pan out?

Why would a company give money it saves back to consumers? here in reality, thats called profits. these are things that wound up as govt services because there is no room for competition, you cant have parallel tolled roads, multiple plumbing systems, multiple electrical/telephone hookups etc it just doesnt work, you're left with a defacto monopoly.

Now tell me, why is it that when a ceo makes multiple millions of dollars you insist that he earned that, yet when a public sector employee earns the national average income of $50k, you scream bloody murder?


also, back to the topic of the sequester:
Washington Monument Syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suspected this was a thing, but only now learned the name of it, for failing to specify "which" cuts need to happen, republicans are blundering right into this known dynamic of human behavior.

line by line? see page 6 of this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/280117-sequester-chart-of-the-day-6.html#post6889312
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview