• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whose fault is sequestration?

Whose fault is sequestration?


  • Total voters
    39
All the sequester does is cut one-fortieth of projected non-entitlement spending over the next decade. That comes on the heels of a "bipartisan explosion in federal spending" over the last few decades.

I personally say that its time to rid our nation of about 535 members of Congress. If these folks in office don't like doing the job, then there's probably a few out of 300 million plus people would and is ready and willing.
 
Yeah we voted for them who are a two party monopoly.

Who are we supposed to vote for? The Easter Bunny?

You vote for people that you believe will do a good job.

Even if they only are minor candidates.

If no candidates meet that criteria - you don't vote.

The higher the number of undecided voters - the more nervous the major parties get.

If less and less people vote for a party because they demand excellence from their candidates. Then the party leaders will start insisting the candidates be superior or they won't get nominated.


Anyone that votes for a candidate they know is not up to the job, and not for a candidate in a minor party that they feel is better for America just because they want their vote to 'mean something', is a pathetic voter (imo).

You should ALWAYS vote for the best person for the job...the party they represent should be a minor factor - especially in a presidential election.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
You vote for people that you believe will do a good job.

Even if they only are minor candidates.

If no candidates meet that criteria - you don't vote.

If less and less people vote for a party because they demand excellence from their candidates. Then the party leaders will start insisting the candidates are superior.


I realize (judging by your name/posts) you are ridiculously partisan and this concept is WAAAY over your head...but this explanation is for those people who actually have an open mind on the subject.


Have a nice day.

I voted for nader once and an ass hole was elected because of ass hole like me who voted for nader, who turned out to be a real asshole.

I don't even want to talk about Ross Perot. Don't get me started.
 
I voted for nader once and an ass hole was elected because of ass hole like me who voted for nader, who turned out to be a real asshole.

I don't even want to talk about Ross Perot. Don't get me started.

I applaud you for thinking outside the box.

Though back then it was more difficult since the internet was either not around or only in it's infancy (i.e. access to unbiased information was much harder to comeby then it is today).


To me, voting is something that should be taken very seriously.

But today, partisan politics is destroying America as too many people refuse to vote for anyone who is not either a Dem or a Rep.

And since the party's know this - they play it safe and only nominate candidates that tow the party line, act likeable and who think outside the box as little as possible.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so lets pay them nothing at all. Now what?

It is their job to do certain things, if they fail to do them, not only should we not pay them, we should fine them out of their personal wallet for their failure.
 
who fault is is?

in the House.. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats

in the Senate 28 Republicans ,45 Democrats, and 1 independent.

in the White House.. 1 Democrat.



as for who is to blame for the doom and gloom hype.... that would primarily be the White House.


i'm not opposed to capping spending growth ( "spending cuts" is not really an accurate term)... and I don't give rats ass which party get's "blamed".
 
All the sequester does is cut one-fortieth of projected non-entitlement spending over the next decade. That comes on the heels of a "bipartisan explosion in federal spending" over the last few decades.

I personally say that its time to rid our nation of about 535 members of Congress. If these folks in office don't like doing the job, then there's probably a few out of 300 million plus people would and is ready and willing.

Know what's worse than a constitutional monarchy? An actual monarchy.
 
It was Obama's idea to allow more time for the deal that he was never going to make with the republicans. He knew that the cuts were coming, this is what Boehner and he agreed on last time this happened. Just this time the American people are not believing his chicken little story. They want spending cuts! Even the media and far left govenor's are beginning to grow tired of Obama scare tactics Congress has plans, but Obama wants to veto them...
 
Know what's worse than a constitutional monarchy? An actual monarchy.

Yep, 535 constitutional monarchists...who don't like doing their job and who don't respect the intent of the institution, which they were entrusted, created within the constitution...can easily be replaced with 535 more constitutional monarchists. But I don't see an actual monarchy in the picture.

I think I'd like to see the long-time staffers in Washington go along with the current 535 elected seats. Probably even more so. Maybe do it at a pace of like 10% of the seated and staffers per month over the course of say...one year. Now that would really ruffle the power structure.

It’s going to get really interesting to see the types of very serious decisions that our beloved politicians in Washington simply places on auto-pilot come tomorrow. It'll be a real foot tapper, indeed.
 
Yep, 535 constitutional monarchists...who don't like doing their job and who don't respect the intent of the institution, which they were entrusted, created within the constitution...can easily be replaced with 535 more constitutional monarchists. But I don't see an actual monarchy in the picture.

I think I'd like to see the long-time staffers in Washington go along with the current 535 elected seats. Probably even more so. Maybe do it at a pace of like 10% of the seated and staffers per month over the course of say...one year. Now that would really ruffle the power structure.

It’s going to get really interesting to see the types of very serious decisions that our beloved politicians in Washington simply places on auto-pilot come tomorrow. It'll be a real foot tapper, indeed.

Yeah, my bad. I originally read it as you wanting to eliminate all of Congress.

Hmm...I wonder...
 
Yeah, my bad. I originally read it as you wanting to eliminate all of Congress.

Hmm...I wonder...

No biggie, I kind of figured that you did, that's why I elaborated a bit more. But it really is going to be interesting to watch this all unfold.
 
I applaud you for thinking outside the box.

Though back then it was more difficult since the internet was either not around or only in it's infancy (i.e. access to unbiased information was much harder to comeby then it is today).



To me, voting is something that should be taken very seriously.

But today, partisan politics is destroying America as too many people refuse to vote for anyone who is not either a Dem or a Rep.

And since the party's know this - they play it safe and only nominate candidates that tow the party line, act likeable and who think outside the box as little as possible.

The voting laws and the big bucks are stacked against the independents, not to mention most of the mainstream media.

It's hard to defeat a corporation.
 
The voting laws and the big bucks are stacked against the independents, not to mention most of the mainstream media.

It's hard to defeat a corporation.

But if no one tries - it will never end.

Nothing truly worthwhile is easy.
 
There is only one clear choice to the poll. The entire sequestration idea was Republican. It was the only way that the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling. The fact that they are now running from it is not surprising, but the fact that there are people out there that cannot see that it was completely Republican is baffling.


Obama signed Seqestation into law?:confused:
 

Obama signed Seqestation into law?:confused:

The reality is NP, the deep cuts (aka "Sequestration") came about only because the GOP would not agree to raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid the fiscal cliff without them. You Republicans can try to run from the facts...but facts are facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom