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?
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.
Obama wanted sequestration, now he has got and he is *****ing like a spoiled child. No Tax Hikes. Cut the spending NOW!
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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" . . .
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.