HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Tuesday Toon Roundup 1- S...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:10 AM

Tuesday Toon Roundup 1- Sequester






























21 replies, 4463 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tuesday Toon Roundup 1- Sequester (Original post)
n2doc Feb 2013 OP
ProdigalJunkMail Feb 2013 #1
n2doc Feb 2013 #3
kag Feb 2013 #5
another_liberal Feb 2013 #9
Leftcoastgary Feb 2013 #12
ProdigalJunkMail Feb 2013 #17
Dyedinthewoolliberal Feb 2013 #2
99Forever Feb 2013 #4
annabanana Feb 2013 #6
SteveG Feb 2013 #7
BelgianMadCow Feb 2013 #15
SteveG Feb 2013 #21
another_liberal Feb 2013 #8
alfredo Feb 2013 #10
WillyT Feb 2013 #11
daybranch Feb 2013 #13
Amonester Feb 2013 #16
Hekate Feb 2013 #14
PatSeg Feb 2013 #18
neoclown Feb 2013 #19
mostlyconfused Feb 2013 #20

Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:16 AM

1. what kills me about the whole sequestration hubbub

is that the total is supposed to be $85billion, yes? out of a budget of over $1trillion. i believe that instead of hurting people or cutting services they could probably find $85billion in waste and do away with that... maybe i'm nuts... i probably am.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

3. But that isn't the point.

As always, if they did cut pork and waste, people would want more. By cutting things that hurt people, they get the public to fight ANY cuts, which keeps the pork and MIC spending intact, which is where the CONgress gets its big payoffs.

People of UI or food stamps don't contribute in a significant way to political campaign coffers. They don't offer high-paid lobbyist jobs to family members or former members of CONgress. Thus they are 'expendable'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:42 AM

5. Would be nice, huh?

Problem is...written into the sequestration agreement is the REQUIREMENT that cuts be made without regard to a program's usefulness or wastefulness. After certain programs are exempted (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA) the ones that are left are required to take cuts across the board. That's how the agreement was written, and that's why it's so STUPID. It was intended to be stupid. It was intended to make cuts blindly, in such a way that useful programs get cut by the same percentage as wasteful ones, the idea being that no one would be dumb enough to allow those kinds of stupid cuts when they could just as easily agree to smart ones that would cut just as much from the budget but without hurting useful programs.

Problem is...Obama underestimated the sheer stupidity of the Republicans in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:50 PM

9. We could also raise taxes steeply . . .

We could also raise taxes steeply on the wealthiest few thousands of Americans. There are now more than two thousand billionaires living in the U.S. Yes, I said "billionaires!"

They can and should give something back to the hundreds of millions of us who make their lavish, indulgent lifestyles possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:32 PM

12. One mans waste is another

mans/family life-support system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leftcoastgary (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:28 AM

17. what an asinine comment

waste is waste and it can be properly identified and cut out. do you treat your personal/family budget with that attitude?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:25 AM

2. Thanks for posting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:34 AM

4. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:26 PM

6. boy howdy they got THAT right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SteveG (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:22 AM

15. Has anyone extended their gratitude to you for always compiling the other links?

In any case, THANK YOU! n2doc as well of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:07 PM

21. You have, thanks

and I suspect that the two hearts I received were also thanks for doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:44 PM

8. "Tea Party Sleepy Time Blend."

With, "Hurry Up. I Want A Turn," a close second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:33 PM

10. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:38 PM

11. K & R !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:24 AM

13. why not

use the $83 billion subsidy we give big banks to avoid the sequester? C'mon dems, lets say it loud and clear. This is a way to do two good deeds at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:47 AM

16. They can't because, well, they'll have to 'fundraise' one of these days, so...

raise a special tax to get it back from banksters

take $3 billion out of it to set up and fund a true Public Campaign Funding program to share between all qualified candidates

render all lobbying illegal

then use the remaining $80 billion to avert most of the sequester


easy arithmetics

so easy it won't happen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:36 AM

14. Kicktoons!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:45 AM

18. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:02 PM

19. Can we stop calling this the Sequestration?

And call it by it's real name. The TEAquestration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:56 PM

20. Why do the cuts need to be this painful, or happen at all?

It is my understanding that squestration does not actually reduce federal spending. The government will not spend $85 billion less than it spends today. Instead, they are cutting $85 billion from the amount that spending was set to increase over the coming years. If that is the case, why would a single job be cut by this? Sequestration "cuts" a bunch from defense, but the defense budget will still be increasing...just increasing less than it would have before. What am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread