Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 195

Thread: Barry's Sequester Scare Tactics

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,109
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Let me know when your office gets an Army.
    That's what you took out of my statement?

    Fine, I'll make it a little deeper. Say my overall overhead per month is about 25K. $6,000 is on rent, and another thousand on phone and utilities. Just because 28% of my overhead is on those 2 things, does not mean that the other 72% of my overhead should be ignored. Now yes, I can try to negotiate my rent down, and it's very troublesome if I purchased the office and the moron before me signed a bad lease.

    However, my wasting money there does not mean that it is OK for me to be wasting additional money by having 4 employees when I need 2 full and 1 part timer. It does not mean I should pay $100 for internet when I can find it for $50, it does not mean I should waste $1000 a month on stupid little things with my name on them (like pens), when I can just buy regular supplies for $400.

    If your business is losing money at an unprecedented rate, you cut all un needed costs. And, if you want your office to be truly successful, when it is making money you cut all non essential costs. The government seems to run the opposite of this. Are you telling me that someone with a half a brain could not go through the budget and find hundreds of millions of dollars pissed away just by looking for this crap?

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wish the govt operated without laws and were able to make simple decisions as your business. There is absolutely waste going on but the debt still exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by chirorob View Post
    That's what you took out of my statement?

    Fine, I'll make it a little deeper. Say my overall overhead per month is about 25K. $6,000 is on rent, and another thousand on phone and utilities. Just because 28% of my overhead is on those 2 things, does not mean that the other 72% of my overhead should be ignored. Now yes, I can try to negotiate my rent down, and it's very troublesome if I purchased the office and the moron before me signed a bad lease.

    However, my wasting money there does not mean that it is OK for me to be wasting additional money by having 4 employees when I need 2 full and 1 part timer. It does not mean I should pay $100 for internet when I can find it for $50, it does not mean I should waste $1000 a month on stupid little things with my name on them (like pens), when I can just buy regular supplies for $400.

    If your business is losing money at an unprecedented rate, you cut all un needed costs. And, if you want your office to be truly successful, when it is making money you cut all non essential costs. The government seems to run the opposite of this. Are you telling me that someone with a half a brain could not go through the budget and find hundreds of millions of dollars pissed away just by looking for this crap?

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Did we pay for either war with cash or credit? The wars created massive debt, so you tell me did these wars add billions to our debt?
    Even if the war added 600 Billion to the debt that is a drop in the bucket compared to 2012's 1.2 Trillion in debt added or the combined 5 trillion in debt added during Barry's first term.

    The fact that you can look over Coburns list of wasteful and pointless government expenditures and your reaction is talking about an Iraq war that ended years ago. You alongside every other American, liberal or conservative, should look at a list like and feel outrage. There is so much waste in the 3.7 trillion dollar budget. It is ridiculous. Even more outrageous is that we are discussing a reduction of approximately 40 Billion below 2012 spending levels as if this is some calamity. Obama giving speeches reminiscent of his 2008 "water levels will stop rising" speech in order to get the stupid into believing that any cut in government expenditures anywhere for any reason will send our economy into the toilet.

    Another thing you should be upset about. The fix to your furlough is for the Senate to pass a bill allowing the DOD flexibility in determining where the cuts will hit. Congress or more particularly the Senate is preventing departments from the flexibility to decide where to allocate funds and where to cut. It it technical but has a lot to do with foregoing passing a budget in favor of short term spending bill extensions these past 4 years.

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Obama wanted sequestration, now he has got and he is *****ing like a spoiled child. No Tax Hikes. Cut the spending NOW!

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    Obama wanted sequestration, now he has got and he is *****ing like a spoiled child. No Tax Hikes. Cut the spending NOW!


    People voted for Obama with the sequestration sword above our head. is idea. Let it happen. We have to cut sooner or later. Sorry, people are going to have to learn to hurt.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Soldiers dying and it costed us billions. Pancakes? Great comparison.
    Did cr726 just deflect a comment -- never saw that coming

    I had no problem with the "war", which was over in days. The problem was this idea that we "owed it to the Iraqis" to try and build some sort of democracy. I've been against that since the beginning.

    But I digress. I still don't understand why a lost cause in Iraq equates to a blank check to promote whatever stupid causes Dems want, irrelevant of cost and lack of resources. I'm a teacher, and I would be the first to say more money has been "wasted" on education than on the military. Yet education is still a worthy goal, and one worth devoting money to. Can you say the same about MANY of the items that Dems call "untouchable" on that list?

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Counterpoint


    Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/content...rk-Boehner.pdf

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    Did cr726 just deflect a comment -- never saw that coming

    I had no problem with the "war", which was over in days. The problem was this idea that we "owed it to the Iraqis" to try and build some sort of democracy. I've been against that since the beginning.

    But I digress. I still don't understand why a lost cause in Iraq equates to a blank check to promote whatever stupid causes Dems want, irrelevant of cost and lack of resources. I'm a teacher, and I would be the first to say more money has been "wasted" on education than on the military. Yet education is still a worthy goal, and one worth devoting money to. Can you say the same about MANY of the items that Dems call "untouchable" on that list?
    That list as gross as it is represents chicken**** in the overall budget and for the most part is gifts to Congressional districts to reward Congressman or Senators for their votes on key issues. Not much of that can be laid at the feet of the President, any President.

    Obama was open to a large long term budget deal that included a balanced approach. Now you can argue that what he calls balance is simple BS but he did put an ass whipping on the Republicans in the Presidential election based on his premise of taxes and cuts.

    The election in the Senate was even more embarrassing for Republicans as the demographics favored them retaking it and they actually lost seats.

    The reality of sequestration is it's bad for Congress. The President isn't running again, if the economy tanks it's not going to impact him it's going to impact the Congressman and Senators who's districts take massive military or other cuts.

    I don't believe the President is going to be the loser in sequestration I believe it's going to be Congress and their home districts. The President believes in an expanded Social Safety net and he has an agenda he would like to get through but he isn't going to be the loser in this game politically.

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    That list as gross as it is represents chicken**** in the overall budget and for the most part is gifts to Congressional districts to reward Congressman or Senators for their votes on key issues. Not much of that can be laid at the feet of the President, any President.

    Obama was open to a large long term budget deal that included a balanced approach. Now you can argue that what he calls balance is simple BS but he did put an ass whipping on the Republicans in the Presidential election based on his premise of taxes and cuts.

    The election in the Senate was even more embarrassing for Republicans as the demographics favored them retaking it and they actually lost seats.

    The reality of sequestration is it's bad for Congress. The President isn't running again, if the economy tanks it's not going to impact him it's going to impact the Congressman and Senators who's districts take massive military or other cuts.

    I don't believe the President is going to be the loser in sequestration I believe it's going to be Congress and their home districts. The President believes in an expanded Social Safety net and he has an agenda he would like to get through but he isn't going to be the loser in this game politically.
    Obama's balanced approach language is designed to fool low information voters. If you are here in this forum reading and posting you know very well that the President and Dems in general have absolutely no interest in cutting the budget anywhere for any reason.

    The Republicans win this battle by allowing the sequester to happen. Essentially the win is in the bag. The only question now is will they screw this up by caving to the demagoguery of Obama.

  10. #30
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Nah, those billions spent bombing the sand had zero impact on the deficit.
    Maybe we shouldn't have listened to these Democrats...

    One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Obama's balanced approach language is designed to fool low information voters. If you are here in this forum reading and posting you know very well that the President and Dems in general have absolutely no interest in cutting the budget anywhere for any reason.

    The Republicans win this battle by allowing the sequester to happen. Essentially the win is in the bag. The only question now is will they screw this up by caving to the demagoguery of Obama.
    If you were alive for the 6 years the Bush administration had a Republican majority in Congress you realize Republicans have zero interest in cutting spending for any reason.

    Now what.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    That list as gross as it is represents chicken**** in the overall budget and for the most part is gifts to Congressional districts to reward Congressman or Senators for their votes on key issues. Not much of that can be laid at the feet of the President, any President.

    Obama was open to a large long term budget deal that included a balanced approach. Now you can argue that what he calls balance is simple BS but he did put an ass whipping on the Republicans in the Presidential election based on his premise of taxes and cuts.

    The election in the Senate was even more embarrassing for Republicans as the demographics favored them retaking it and they actually lost seats.

    The reality of sequestration is it's bad for Congress. The President isn't running again, if the economy tanks it's not going to impact him it's going to impact the Congressman and Senators who's districts take massive military or other cuts.

    I don't believe the President is going to be the loser in sequestration I believe it's going to be Congress and their home districts. The President believes in an expanded Social Safety net and he has an agenda he would like to get through but he isn't going to be the loser in this game politically.
    He may not be hurt but this country will be left in the shambles by his total incompetence. Like a kid in the candy shop but the candy is paid for by us!

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    He may not be hurt but this country will be left in the shambles by his total incompetence. Like a kid in the candy shop but the candy is paid for by us!
    As a politician he has won every single round with the Republicans. They have lost ever battle and they got killed in the election. The focus on Obama rather than the focus on solutions is the reason the Republican party is a joke right now.

    You continue to bash Obama but the reality is there is no alternative politicaly that is offering a better solution that the public supports. He is kicking your collective asses in the arena that counts in a democracy.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    That list as gross as it is represents chicken**** in the overall budget and for the most part is gifts to Congressional districts to reward Congressman or Senators for their votes on key issues. Not much of that can be laid at the feet of the President, any President.

    Obama was open to a large long term budget deal that included a balanced approach. Now you can argue that what he calls balance is simple BS but he did put an ass whipping on the Republicans in the Presidential election based on his premise of taxes and cuts.

    The election in the Senate was even more embarrassing for Republicans as the demographics favored them retaking it and they actually lost seats.

    The reality of sequestration is it's bad for Congress. The President isn't running again, if the economy tanks it's not going to impact him it's going to impact the Congressman and Senators who's districts take massive military or other cuts.

    I don't believe the President is going to be the loser in sequestration I believe it's going to be Congress and their home districts. The President believes in an expanded Social Safety net and he has an agenda he would like to get through but he isn't going to be the loser in this game politically.
    I don't care who's in office -- the fact that we excuse such ridiculous expenditures is a symptom of a MUCH bigger problem -- the idea that something is worth spending money on even if you don't have the money to spend.

    Is that true for the military? Maybe. Education? I guess so. Healthcare? I could see it. But pancakes for yuppies? I'm sorry -- as long as we live in a society that thinks such trivial things are worth spending imaginary money on we'll NEVER have a realistic shot at economic health (which I've already resigned myself to a LONG time ago)

    It's a mindset. If I'm trying to save money, I can rationalize how "$10 on coffee a week is a drop in the bucket compared to the $10,000 I owe my bank", but does that mean I should keep spending it?

    Again, I've given up hoping this country will turn things around. I'm squirreling away as much as I can and hope my children don't get too screwed. At this point it's just an annoyance that people can continue to defend/excuse such worthless spending like a diabetic explaining why "one more Twix bar won't hurt" . . .

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    As a politician he has won every single round with the Republicans. They have lost ever battle and they got killed in the election. The focus on Obama rather than the focus on solutions is the reason the Republican party is a joke right now.

    You continue to bash Obama but the reality is there is no alternative politicaly that is offering a better solution that the public supports. He is kicking your collective asses in the arena that counts in a democracy.
    You don't think people voted for Obama because he promises them the world? Do you really feel he promotes personal responsibility to ANYONE but the rich?

    I'm as unimpressed with the Republican party as everyone else, but it continues to amaze me how that equates to a free pass for our current CIC . . .

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    If you were alive for the 6 years the Bush administration had a Republican majority in Congress you realize Republicans have zero interest in cutting spending for any reason.

    Now what.
    I am well aware of what happened under Bush when the GOP had majorities in all the branches. That is why I am afraid they will cave on the sequester as well. Personally I think that the big spending Bush era GOP is a big reason that the party has had so much difficulty in elections since. I also believe that was a big reason for the rise of the TEA Party. Fiscal conservatives are tired of the lies and lip service. That said those of us that recognize the coming disaster due to reckless accumulation of debt need to have someone to vote for. The Democrats have made it clear that cutting spending is not and will never be part of their agenda. The GOP is giving the issue lipservice and the younger generation (Cantor, Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Paul) of GOP politicians appear genuine about it.

    To go back to my original sentiment the Republicans have this win in the bag. Allowing the sequester to go through will show fiscal conservatives (A large majority of voters fall in this category) that the Republicans will follow through on their promises and rhetoric. Caving to Obama's transparently faux pressure will just piss off the fiscal conservatives and drive them further from the GOP.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I am well aware of what happened under Bush when the GOP had majorities in all the branches. That is why I am afraid they will cave on the sequester as well. Personally I think that the big spending Bush era GOP is a big reason that the party has had so much difficulty in elections since. I also believe that was a big reason for the rise of the TEA Party. Fiscal conservatives are tired of the lies and lip service. That said those of us that recognize the coming disaster due to reckless accumulation of debt need to have someone to vote for. The Democrats have made it clear that cutting spending is not and will never be part of their agenda. The GOP is giving the issue lipservice and the younger generation (Cantor, Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Paul) of GOP politicians appear genuine about it.

    To go back to my original sentiment the Republicans have this win in the bag. Allowing the sequester to go through will show fiscal conservatives (A large majority of voters fall in this category) that the Republicans will follow through on their promises and rhetoric. Caving to Obama's transparently faux pressure will just piss off the fiscal conservatives and drive them further from the GOP.
    There is no win in the bag. The win was Paul and the Republicans pushing through SImpson Bowles. Not perfect but certainly a better path than anything else that had a chance. Ryan was expossed in the debates as a feckless politician who couldn't name a single deduction he was in favor of getting rid of.

    If sequester takes place and markets get jittery and big defense contracts dry up in Republican Congressional districts they are not going to have a win at all. They will have more egg on their face just like they did when they put the credit rating of the US in jeopardy over the ceiling limit which they turned into a loss.

    This conservative notion that ideology trumps compromise is a losing proposition. Recession and the loss of big contracts in district is exactly what gets politicians thrown out of office.

    Raul Ryan bombed Simpson Bowles and he and Cantor are a good part of the reasons a reasonable deal couldn't get worked out between Bainer and the President. They are also the reason the Republicans got their collective asses handed to them in the election.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    There is no win in the bag. The win was Paul and the Republicans pushing through SImpson Bowles. Not perfect but certainly a better path than anything else that had a chance. Ryan was expossed in the debates as a feckless politician who couldn't name a single deduction he was in favor of getting rid of.

    If sequester takes place and markets get jittery and big defense contracts dry up in Republican Congressional districts they are not going to have a win at all. They will have more egg on their face just like they did when they put the credit rating of the US in jeopardy over the ceiling limit which they turned into a loss.

    This conservative notion that ideology trumps compromise is a losing proposition. Recession and the loss of big contracts in district is exactly what gets politicians thrown out of office.

    Raul Ryan bombed Simpson Bowles and he and Cantor are a good part of the reasons a reasonable deal couldn't get worked out between Bainer and the President. They are also the reason the Republicans got their collective asses handed to them in the election.
    If the sequester takes effect nothing like what you said will happen. No one will notice the miniscule reduction in government spending.

    What you describe with the Simpson Bowles plan is a win for America. I was referring to a win for the GOP politically. The sequester going through is absolutely a win for the GOP precisely because none of the draconian scenarios Barry has been preaching about will come to pass. It will be more proof that it's OK for the government to trim back its rate of growth plus Republicans will get the credit of having followed through with their promises of trimming Government.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    The military has cut back, unless you think that is made up too?


    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    If the sequester takes effect nothing like what you said will happen. No one will notice the miniscule reduction in government spending.

    What you describe with the Simpson Bowles plan is a win for America. I was referring to a win for the GOP politically. The sequester going through is absolutely a win for the GOP precisely because none of the draconian scenarios Barry has been preaching about will come to pass. It will be more proof that it's OK for the government to trim back its rate of growth plus Republicans will get the credit of having followed through with their promises of trimming Government.

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    The military has cut back, unless you think that is made up too?
    Not sure what you are referring to there. I am talking about the speeches coming out of the white house about how the sequester may force layoffs of teachers and firefighters and Air Traffic Controllers and so on and so forth. I know that this is a pile of crap. If your claiming that the military has cut back it wouldn't be because of a sequester that is yet to take place. Any cuts from this sequester would hit in April at the earliest.

    I would prefer that the cuts in spending would be targeted to programs such as Tom Coburn's list of Government Pork Projects first and foremost but since our President has refused to target wasteful projects like pancakes for yuppies and free smart phones for everyone the forced cuts in the sequester are better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us