Tuesday Toon Roundup 1- Sequester

[n2doc]

[ProdigalJunkMail]

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

[n2doc]

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'.

[kag]

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.

[another_liberal]

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.

[Leftcoastgary]

12. One mans waste is another

mans/family life-support system.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

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

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

2. Thanks for posting!

[99Forever]

4. K&R

[annabanana]

6. boy howdy they got THAT right!

[SteveG]

7. All toons

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022429677

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022429684

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022429689

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022429691

[BelgianMadCow]

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

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

[SteveG]

21. You have, thanks

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

[another_liberal]

8. "Tea Party Sleepy Time Blend."

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

[alfredo]

10. knr

[WillyT]

11. K & R !!!

[daybranch]

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.

[Amonester]

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...

[Hekate]

14. Kicktoons!

[PatSeg]

18. K&R

[neoclown]

19. Can we stop calling this the Sequestration?

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

[mostlyconfused]

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?