Sequestration cut priorities: poll

[Craig234]

Congress passed a bill fast than any I remember in years yesterday with passing funding to restore FAA funds to avoid air travel delays.

To reinforce the point about who Congress is actually serving and how that is different than the public's priorities, I'd like to take a poll what you would restore funding for.

I was going to have you pick one, but decided to allow voting for multiple items if you want, as I think it'll make clearer what the public would have retored funds for.

 

[Anarchist420]

How does the FCC funding affect air travel delays? Did you mean the FAA?

To answer your question, no funding should be restored. Liberty should be restored, but that's not going to happen.

 

[Craig234]

How does the FCC funding affect air travel delays? Did you mean the FAA?

To answer your question, no funding should be restored. Liberty should be restored, but that's not going to happen.

Oops, thanks. For the centrist extremists here, I could compromise on "FBB", I guess.

 

[EagleKeeper]

restore funding when/if Congress and the Executive branch actually do their job.

Not until then;

Let everyone live at the same level they did last year.
that is all the sequestration is doing;

If people have to live within their means; let the government do so;
Congress should dictate that each bill that each part of the Federal government that is covered by a Cabinet level official be responsible for the chopping.

Congress takes a hands off approach.

 

[ichy]

WIC would be the last thing I restore. If you can't feed em, don't breed em.

 

[Jaskalas]

President signed off on this plan, give him the authority to determine where and how the limit in growth is made - so long as they add up to the required amount.

 

[Craig234]

President signed off on this plan, give him the authority to determine where and how the limit in growth is made - so long as they add up to the required amount.

I don't agree with that for a couple reasons.

One is that it's a backdoor 'line ite veto' which lets the President fund his priorities and not the other party's - while I prefer this president's priorities it's still bad policy.

Congress determines the spending.

Another is that it turns this from the absurd bad idea it's supposed to be into some sort of legitimized 'spending cut', pretending it's a good idea when it isn't.

If we had a better president politically, I might go for it as a one-time act to give the people backing it what they deserve - for example it might be nearly all military cuts.

In Obama's case, though, he'd say 'ok, I have the total say on this - so let's start negotations at 90% in your favor, and then we'll make concessions for compromise'.

Then Republicans would vote against that.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I would restore cuts to the scientific research grants, WIC, and Head Start, in that order.

If we're going to maintain our quality of life in the 21st century, we need to keep to keep pushing the envelope on scientific research. We also need to keep our kids fed and educated, so they become productive members of society down the road, rather than a burden.

Everyone else can wait until the economy improves.

 

[ivwshane]

I put "other" as in, if you are making exemptions from sequestration cuts not only are you undermining the point of sequestration but the politicians (especially those that call for a balanced budget) are complete hypocrites.

Congress is the biggest piece of shit in this country and their actions relating to sequestration further reinforce that feeling for me.

 

[theevilsharpie]

WIC would be the last thing I restore. If you can't feed em, don't breed em.

It's easy to bash poor parents for making irresponsible life choices. However, the children of these parents are innocent people who didn't ask to be born, they are completely dependent on others to provide for their needs, and malnutrition during their growth years can lead to stunted physical and mental development, as well as a lifetime of expensive medical problems.

I can think of a hell of a lot of worse ways to spend taxpayer dollars than feeding hungry children.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I put "other" as in, if you are making exemptions from sequestration cuts not only are you undermining the point of sequestration but the politicians (especially those that call for a balanced budget) are complete hypocrites.

Congress is the biggest piece of shit in this country and their actions relating to sequestration further reinforce that feeling for me.

I'll have to agree. Instead of blackmail over the debt ceiling:
- Cut spending
- Increase revenue

The national debt is money that congress voted to spend, no one else. Once you've voted to spend it, it's your obligation to pay for it even if that means more debt.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's easy to bash poor parents for making irresponsible life choices. However, the children of these parents are innocent people who didn't ask to be born, they are completely dependent on others to provide for their needs, and malnutrition during their growth years can lead to stunted physical and mental development, as well as a lifetime of expensive medical problems. I can think of a hell of a lot of worse ways to spend taxpayer dollars than feeding hungry children.

WIC doesn't work because it gives infants non-breast milk.

Babies need to be breast fed because bottle-feeding is unhealthy.

 

[theevilsharpie]

WIC doesn't work because it gives infants non-breast milk.

Babies need to be breast fed because bottle-feeding is unhealthy.

I wish AT had a facepalm smiley.

 

[EagleKeeper]

WIC doesn't work because it gives infants non-breast milk.

Babies need to be breast fed because bottle-feeding is unhealthy.

Then why are so many children running around the first couple of years all healthy and at their assigned weight targets.

As a Moderator:
Provide links to multiple pediatric studies that state bottle feeding is unhealthy. studies.

You have made the statement. One of the major guidelines in DC is no trolling and the ability to back up statements when asked.

Your are being formally asked!


EK
Admin

 

[Bitek]

WIC doesn't work because it gives infants non-breast milk.

Babies need to be breast fed because bottle-feeding is unhealthy.

What a load. You've obviously never had kids. Formula was invented for very good reasons which are quickly obvious once who have kids.

According to the Nipple Nazis lactation is easy and convenient for every woman who isn't lazy, and wet nurses never existed.


To the OP.. All the cuts are stupid. Stupid and useless way to run a budget ESP during a continued global economic crisis and mass unemployment.

 

[Anarchist420]

Then why are so many children running around the first couple of years all healthy and at their assigned weight targets. As a Moderator: Provide links to multiple pediatric studies that state bottle feeding is unhealthy. studies. You have made the statement. One of the major guidelines in DC is no trolling and the ability to back up statements when asked. Your are being formally asked! EK Admin

It may not be as healthy as breast feeding. (Link),

(Link2)

They cite pediatric studies.

 

[Bitek]

It may not be as healthy as breast feeding. (Link),

(Link2)

They cite pediatric studies.

And that's a world away from being "unhealthy" which was the basis of your choice.

I'm taking your retreat as a sign you've learned something. Perhaps you can apply this to some of your other posts before you submit them.