Author Topic: If its so bad, why did he propose it??  (Read 626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« on: February 27, 2013, 07:42:13 PM »
More Sequester Alarming

The looming budget sequestration will make Americans less safe, Eric Holder says—and anyone who says otherwise isn't telling the truth.

"This is something that is going to have an impact on the safety of this country," the U.S. attorney general told ABC's Pierre Thomas on Wednesday in a wide-ranging, exclusive interview.

"And anybody that says otherwise is either lying or saying something that runs contrary to the facts," Holder said.

In his interview with ABC News, Holder reiterated warnings that if automatic spending cuts are triggered on Friday, the Justice Department will be handicapped in some of its most vital missions to prevent terrorist attacks and crime.

"The Justice Department is going to lose nine percent of its budget between now and September 30th. We're going to lose $1.6 billion. There are not going to be as many FBI agents, ATF agents, DEA agents, prosecutors who are going to be able to do their jobs," Holder said. "They're going to be furloughed. They're going to spend time out of their offices, not doing their jobs."  

President Obama's Cabinet members have been warning for weeks that budget sequestration, which will begin Friday unless Obama and Republicans reach a deficit-reduction deal to avoid it, will leave their agencies shorthanded and could bring about disastrous consequences. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have both appeared at the White House press briefing room to warn that furloughs for border-patrol agents, TSA agents and air-traffic controllers will mean weakened border and port security, longer waits in airport security lines, and logjammed air travel.

Holder, for his part, warned in a Feb. 1 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee that cuts to the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorneys would limit the department's capacity to investigate crimes. Cuts at the Bureau of Prisons, Holder wrote, would mean lockdowns and potential violence, with fewer staff members on hand. In a separate letter, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned that counterterrorism operations would be affected, with the possible elimination of some joint terrorism task forces with state and local police. Limited surveillance and slower response times would mean unwatched targets and the possibility that individuals on terrorism watch lists could gain entry to the U.S.

"FBI's ability to proactively penetrate and disrupt terrorist plans and groups prior to an attack would be impacted," Mueller wrote.

To Holder, the problem is simple.

"If you don't have prosecutors and agents doing what we expect them to do, and we won't if this thing actually takes place, we are going to be a nation that is going to be less safe. And that is simple fact," Holder said.

Some Republicans have claimed the Obama administration is exaggerating the sequester's purported consequences as a ploy to campaign for tax hikes. On "Fox News Sunday" this week, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., posited that federal agencies enjoy enough flexibility to avoid the worst consequences of the cuts.

On Wednesday, Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department will do what it can to avoid compromised security, while maintaining that furloughs can't be avoided.

Let's see Democrats compromise for a change
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2013, 11:28:21 PM »
Government spending this year will be higher than last year with agreement or not.. The sequesterbites evenly across the boardall the programs that are cut , but not the programs that are not cut at all.

I don't like it , but I expect it to happen , and it is better than balooning spending that grows without thought.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 10:12:13 AM »
Government spending is due to fewer people working and more people, including a lot of Boomers that retired early because of the Recession, retiring before they normally would have. And,of course, the Juniorbush tax cuts, which were always a bad idea.

If you want a smaller government the solution is simple. Move to a smaller country. Belize, Costa Rica, perhaps Nauru has too many problems and Pitcairn Island is not accepting immigrants. No president has ever reduced the size of government. And the population is growing. If you live in a system based on perpetual growth, bigger government is inevitable.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 11:11:58 AM »
Geographic size of a country, does not equate to a smaller government.  See Greece.     ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2013, 12:46:48 PM »
Greece's problem is not that the government is too big. It is that rich Greeks dodge taxes, poor Greeks have no money and benefits are greater than taxes received.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2013, 01:08:02 PM »
Greece's problem is not that the government is too big.

That's PRECISLEY their problem, but I appreciate you helping to validate that there's never going to be enough "rich people" to pay for all this utopain government, despite how gorgeous their beaches may be

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2013, 02:19:07 PM »
The wealthy Greeks pay NOTHING in taxes,and receive many advantages from the Greek government. Why don't you actually try to LEARN SOMETHING instead of gassing off crap you hear on AM radio?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: If its so bad, why did he propose it??
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2013, 02:39:26 PM »
The wealthy Greeks pay NOTHING in taxes

Source please, since a simple google search demonstrates a PROGRESSIVE  income tax rate structure, with anyone making over 85.5k euro as taxed at 40%, and the those not even making 10.5k are EXEMPT, while receiving all the cool government benefits.  Capitals Gains which "the rich" are primarily a recipient of can be taxed up to an additional 20%, on those.  Looks like "the rich" are again having to bear the massive burden of paying for everyone else.

Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach, as it relates to spouting Democrat talking points, that are nearly always wrong, and actually back up what you're opining

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle