Fear Mongering Spending Cuts

[Some Guy]

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.

And to think, there's a whole lot of people out there who want the government to administer more healthcare, etc. If there's any entity that operates in an inefficient manner, it's the government, on just about every level.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

And to think, there's a whole lot of people out there who want the government to administer more healthcare, etc. If there's any entity that operates in an inefficient manner, it's the government, on just about every level.

Bureacracy isn't just a government problem - healthcare is a nightmare too. What is so sad is that Medicare negotiates some of the lowest reimbursement rates of any of them. That's pretty sad when even the Federal government is more efficient at anything.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And Obama says

[youtube]O3ZOKDmorj0[/youtube]

 

[kwc57]

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.

What would you suggest in the way of actual spending cuts?

 

[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.

What would you suggest in the way of actual spending cuts?

Me personally - I'd start with a 5% cut - across the board. No sacred cows.
THEN we start a cost-benefit analysis to determine further cuts.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Those "services" are part of the economy. If it takes a businessman longer to reach his destination as a result of service cuts..it has an impact, and a very real one, to the cost of doing business. Likewise with products going to market. With people trying to get licenses. With businesses that depend on mail. And that's just the direct impact to the economy. There are other things that will have an impact in time.

This isn't good.

But it might be what's needed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Those "services" are part of the economy. If it takes a businessman longer to reach his destination as a result of service cuts..it has an impact, and a very real one, to the cost of doing business. Likewise with products going to market. With people trying to get licenses. With businesses that depend on mail. And that's just the direct impact to the economy. There are other things that will have an impact in time.

This isn't good.

But it might be what's needed.

I agree - the money that the federal government pumps into our economy helps create propserity. But I think we've become addicted to that. That is making it much harder for our economy to thrive on its own.

Yes, removing the drug will probably cause withdrawal symptoms, but we cannot keep borrowing money to prop up our economy. It's an unsustainable formula imho.

(And btw, my personal feeling is that if you ARE going to pump money into the economy, it has been demonstrated that it is far more effective to feed the money into the bottom. When you try to feed it into the top, there are way too many choke points and only a fraction really "trickles down").

 

[Interpol]

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?

Obama wanted to make it suck so bad that both sides would have to come together and make it right.

Why hasn't it worked out? Well, he probably wasn't counting on Tea Party Republicans loving things that suck.

The FDA will do more than 2,000 fewer inspections. Sucks for everyone. Fewer inspections means greater health risks and lost revenues from slaughterhouses and other things being shut down, for instance.

National Parks will either be open a lot less or will be closed altogether. Lost revenue.

The military sees 800,000 employees beginning to take one furlough day a week. That means less spending by military folks, which means lost revenue.

The sequester "cuts" actually hit real everyday people pretty significantly and I find the ignorance of some people here appalling. Unless you've got your head literally up your ass, if you check up and down all the people you know and the people in your family and extended family, you'll be able to identify actual people who will be affected by this.

Of course the Tea Party loves it, this will cause a lot of problems with an economy that is really wanting to stretch its legs now, which is something Republicans really don't want because then they think President Obama stands to benefit from a good economy.

So we have America cutting the end of her nose off today in order to spite herself, and it's because Republicans simply will not even negotiate any revenue increasing measures even though the President is prepared to sign off on significant spending cuts.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

Obama wanted to make it suck so bad that both sides would have to come together and make it right.

Why hasn't it worked out? Well, he probably wasn't counting on Tea Party Republicans loving things that suck.

The FDA will do more than 2,000 fewer inspections. Sucks for everyone. Fewer inspections means greater health risks and lost revenues from slaughterhouses and other things being shut down, for instance.

National Parks will either be open a lot less or will be closed altogether. Lost revenue.

The military sees 800,000 employees beginning to take one furlough day a week. That means less spending by military folks, which means lost revenue.

The sequester "cuts" actually hit real everyday people pretty significantly and I find the ignorance of some people here appalling. Unless you've got your head literally up your ass, if you check up and down all the people you know and the people in your family and extended family, you'll be able to identify actual people who will be affected by this.

Of course the Tea Party loves it, this will cause a lot of problems with an economy that is really wanting to stretch its legs now, which is something Republicans really don't want because then they think President Obama stands to benefit from a good economy.

So we have America cutting the end of her nose off today in order to spite herself, and it's because Republicans simply will not even negotiate any revenue increasing measures even though the President is prepared to sign off on significant spending cuts.

If pain is felt from sequestration, then it is by design.
These meager pull backs in spending could easily be absorded with better efficiency. If it is not, then the fault lies with the bureaucrats who want to make it hurt so bad that we don't ever try to demand more efficiency again.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can achieve savings without these sacrifices.

I've been in the offices of one national park and seen an attic full of dry rotting hip waders because that is what that particular bureaucrat decided to purchase in order to leave no money left at the end of the budget cycle. He did this so his budget for next year wouldn't be cut.

I saw another huge room jam-packed with unopened computer equipment that was already out of date because that is what that manager wasted his remaining budget on at the end of the cycle.

So NOW they want to close the park for a few days rather than end these end-of-cycle spending orgies. Screw 'em. They should be fired.

The same is true of ANY bureaucrat (generals included) who opt to spread the "pain" rather than adopt more efficiency.

 

[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?

Obama wanted to make it suck so bad that both sides would have to come together and make it right.

Why hasn't it worked out? Well, he probably wasn't counting on Tea Party Republicans loving things that suck.

The FDA will do more than 2,000 fewer inspections. Sucks for everyone. Fewer inspections means greater health risks and lost revenues from slaughterhouses and other things being shut down, for instance.

National Parks will either be open a lot less or will be closed altogether. Lost revenue.

The military sees 800,000 employees beginning to take one furlough day a week. That means less spending by military folks, which means lost revenue.

The sequester "cuts" actually hit real everyday people pretty significantly and I find the ignorance of some people here appalling. Unless you've got your head literally up your ass, if you check up and down all the people you know and the people in your family and extended family, you'll be able to identify actual people who will be affected by this.

Of course the Tea Party loves it, this will cause a lot of problems with an economy that is really wanting to stretch its legs now, which is something Republicans really don't want because then they think President Obama stands to benefit from a good economy.

So we have America cutting the end of her nose off today in order to spite herself, and it's because Republicans simply will not even negotiate any revenue increasing measures even though the President is prepared to sign off on significant spending cuts.

Ever heard the saying of. "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"?

How smart was that move by Obama? Proof he isn't qualified for the job. Rather than lead, he'll just throw out some shit that is bad enough no one wants it and they'll be forced to come up with something better.........but they didn't. When is he going to lead?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Obama wanted to make it suck so bad that both sides would have to come together and make it right.

Why hasn't it worked out? Well, he probably wasn't counting on Tea Party Republicans loving things that suck.

The FDA will do more than 2,000 fewer inspections. Sucks for everyone. Fewer inspections means greater health risks and lost revenues from slaughterhouses and other things being shut down, for instance.

National Parks will either be open a lot less or will be closed altogether. Lost revenue.

The military sees 800,000 employees beginning to take one furlough day a week. That means less spending by military folks, which means lost revenue.

The sequester "cuts" actually hit real everyday people pretty significantly and I find the ignorance of some people here appalling. Unless you've got your head literally up your ass, if you check up and down all the people you know and the people in your family and extended family, you'll be able to identify actual people who will be affected by this.

Of course the Tea Party loves it, this will cause a lot of problems with an economy that is really wanting to stretch its legs now, which is something Republicans really don't want because then they think President Obama stands to benefit from a good economy.

So we have America cutting the end of her nose off today in order to spite herself, and it's because Republicans simply will not even negotiate any revenue increasing measures even though the President is prepared to sign off on significant spending cuts.

Ever heard the saying of. "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"?

How smart was that move by Obama? Proof he isn't qualified for the job. Rather than lead, he'll just throw out some shit that is bad enough no one wants it and they'll be forced to come up with something better.........but they didn't. When is he going to lead?

So you don't WANT spending restraint?
First you blast him for spending
Now you blast him for NOT spending????

I'm guessing you're a glass-is-half-empty kinda guy.

 

[kwc57]

Obama wanted to make it suck so bad that both sides would have to come together and make it right.

Why hasn't it worked out? Well, he probably wasn't counting on Tea Party Republicans loving things that suck.

The FDA will do more than 2,000 fewer inspections. Sucks for everyone. Fewer inspections means greater health risks and lost revenues from slaughterhouses and other things being shut down, for instance.

National Parks will either be open a lot less or will be closed altogether. Lost revenue.

The military sees 800,000 employees beginning to take one furlough day a week. That means less spending by military folks, which means lost revenue.

The sequester "cuts" actually hit real everyday people pretty significantly and I find the ignorance of some people here appalling. Unless you've got your head literally up your ass, if you check up and down all the people you know and the people in your family and extended family, you'll be able to identify actual people who will be affected by this.

Of course the Tea Party loves it, this will cause a lot of problems with an economy that is really wanting to stretch its legs now, which is something Republicans really don't want because then they think President Obama stands to benefit from a good economy.

So we have America cutting the end of her nose off today in order to spite herself, and it's because Republicans simply will not even negotiate any revenue increasing measures even though the President is prepared to sign off on significant spending cuts.

Ever heard the saying of. "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"?

How smart was that move by Obama? Proof he isn't qualified for the job. Rather than lead, he'll just throw out some shit that is bad enough no one wants it and they'll be forced to come up with something better.........but they didn't. When is he going to lead?

So you don't WANT spending restraint?
First you blast him for spending
Now you blast him for NOT spending????

I'm guessing you're a glass-is-half-empty kinda guy.

No, I absolutely want him to cut spending......with NO tax increases. You are missing my point that was in response to what I highlighted in red. Obama suggested the sequester and signed it into law. Supposedly the purpose behind this move was that it stinks so bad, no one in their right mind would let it stand and they will be forced to come up with something better. If that was truely his intent, then he is a blithering idiot and he is now reaping the harvest of what he has sown. If it is truely as bad as he makes it out to be and cats will sleep with dogs and worlds will collide, why did HE open Pandora's box in the first place? Why take the gamble? Did he never think, what if they don't come up with something better and this really happens? No matter how hard he tries to hang this on the Republican led House and no matter how much the media is complicit in spreading that story, the sequester is his lock, stock and barrel. He conceived it and the baby has arrived. The question is, will he make allthe bad things he claims will happen come to pass and hurt people to prove his point.......or will he make any effort to make the hard decisions of what crap can get cut and protect people. After all, it's only a 2% cut that isn't even a real cut. It's a reduction of future spending.

 

[Claudette]

ONCE AGAIN.. THEY ARE NOT SPENDING CUTS... The are slight reductions in increases... JEEZ....

Yup. 2% cuts to FUTURE spending.

Its getting kicked down the road once again. We need real spending cuts NOW. Not in the future.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are missing my point

Nah, I think I'm getting it loud and clear.

That commie, Kenyan, moooslim is bad.

 

[kwc57]

You are missing my point

Nah, I think I'm getting it loud and clear.

That commie, Kenyan, moooslim is bad.

You know, I just had a liberal call me racist on another board because I said Obama was an arrogant narcissist. He said I was a racist and may as well just say he is acting "uppity". I'll tell you the same thing I told him, go pound sand. You guys can stick your head's up your ass all you want, but the historical facts are the historical facts. Obama gave birth to the sequester and he signed it into law. He didn't veto it and tell them to come up with something better. HE signed it into law. Now it's here and he is acting like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling. It's HIS OWN damn fault. When is he going to lead?

 

[nodoginnafight]

go pound sand

oh no ..... PLEASE .... anything but the dreaded "pound sand."

You say you want spending reductions.
You say Obama orchestrated these spending reductions
and then you say he isn't leading?

Did he lead us to these spending reductions?

You said he did - were you lying?

 

[kwc57]

go pound sand

oh no ..... PLEASE .... anything but the dreaded "pound sand."

You say you want spending reductions.
You say Obama orchestrated these spending reductions
and then you say he isn't leading?

Did he lead us to these spending reductions?

You said he did - were you lying?

OK, **** you. Feel better?

 

[nodoginnafight]

go pound sand

oh no ..... PLEASE .... anything but the dreaded "pound sand."

You say you want spending reductions.
You say Obama orchestrated these spending reductions
and then you say he isn't leading?

Did he lead us to these spending reductions?

You said he did - were you lying?

OK, **** you. Feel better?

You mean, am I more impressed by a snappier comeback ????
Sorry, can't say that I am.

Is it killing you to give Obama credit for spending reductions?

Don't worry - the GOP will share in the credit. They did demand this in return for an up vote on the debt ceiling you know.

Apparently there are a lot of folks in the GOP who are so certain that this will turn out badly that they are trying to ignore the fact that this is what they demanded (and got) in return for the debt ceiling vote.

I don't think I've ever heard people complain so much about getting what they negotiated for.

 

[nodoginnafight]

go pound sand

oh no ..... PLEASE .... anything but the dreaded "pound sand."

You say you want spending reductions.
You say Obama orchestrated these spending reductions
and then you say he isn't leading?

Did he lead us to these spending reductions?

You said he did - were you lying?

OK, **** you. Feel better?

why don't you save your vulgarities for your neg rep message you give me when I demonstrate what an idiot you are.

 

[kwc57]

oh no ..... PLEASE .... anything but the dreaded "pound sand."

You say you want spending reductions.
You say Obama orchestrated these spending reductions
and then you say he isn't leading?

Did he lead us to these spending reductions?

You said he did - were you lying?

OK, **** you. Feel better?

why don't you save your vulgarities for your neg rep message you give me when I demonstrate what an idiot you are.

Feel all better now? Need a tissue?