DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Amid a lot of partisan bluster, there will be some deal made. Both sides will decry the other's positions and point out the benefits of their own. Both sides will report to their base that they limited the other side and got "more than expected" in negotiations. Wow. So your view of the sequester is that it's exactly like politics as usual, except that in addition to the partisan rancor, some deal actually gets done. Yes. Some deal will get done and each side will be able to strut like little peacocks to their constituents. quote:
quote:
I think the sequester should happen. The "Draconian" cuts aren't. Forcing the sequester cuts, will force a deficit reduction, though it's not exactly a huge reduction. Well, it's a start. Unfortunately, it's a Washington solution. If a bill authorizing $500 mil for something passes and then the authorization is cut to $300 mil in a subsequent deal, the lawmakers will ignore the second part and tell their constituents that they voted to authorize $300 mil. In other words, I see political advantages to doing things this godawful way, passing pork-laden bills during one nasty argument just for show, and then reducing the bill to its final form during a really nasty argument with things on the line. The supporters of the bill will tout their $300 achievement, and their fighting for the entire bill, while the opponents of the bill will tout their fight to get it knocked down 40%. Obamacare was passed and the following month, a report comes out stating that taxes need to go up, entitlements need to go down, or both, else Government won't be sustainable. Was that really not known prior to Obamacare? Know what else I can't stand about the way Washington "works?" Obama and the D's have stated they have identified opportunities to make cuts in Medicare that won't change the benefits recipients get. Republicans have stated they have also identified places where Medicare spending can be cut without altering the benefits, too. Neither party has put together or pushed those changes through. They always have to be bundled with something else. WTF is that?!? It's Washington.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|