GOP Forcing Women ‘To Stay in Their Homes With Their Abuser’ Because of Sequester

Originally posted by jibeho

Ok there you have it. They will clearly say anything just to make a point. A point that has no basis in the factual world of reality. This kind of crap pisses me off.

Get the facts straight

Edwards said $20 million in cuts will be made from programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act, as a result of the sequester.

According to the Justice Department, however, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) operated on a budget of $412.5 million during fiscal year 2012, and has requested the same amount of funding for this fiscal year.

The sequester would amount to a 4.5 percent cut to OVW

No basis in reality? Get the facts straight?

OK...I am trying to "get the facts straight"....4.5% of 412.5 Million equals what?

Anyone?

reply to post by beezzer


Yah...I think the point is that smartly targeted "automated spending cuts" of an equal amount would have been easier to swallow because the fat would almost surely get hit first. But the sequester was actually designed to cut muscle. A poisen pill by design in hopes of motivating both parties to deal.

If we could redirect the same amount of cuts to programs that wouldn't impact jobs in the same way, it would be better.

Lets skip the news outlets and DC and look at folks who have money in the game...folks who care less about politics and more about whether thier investments make money..I find the investment community the most BS free zone for predicting economic outcomes, because their profits depend on accuracy...and they care more about money than politics.

Macroeconomic Advisers LLC

•Our baseline forecast, which shows GDP growth of 2.6% in 2013 and 3.3% in 2014, does not include the sequestration.
•The sequestration would reduce our forecast of growth during 2013 by 0.6 percentage point (to 2.0%) but then, assuming investors expect the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to delay raising the federal funds rate, boost growth by 0.1 percentage point (to 3.4%) in 2014.
•By the end of 2014, the sequestration would cost roughly 700,000 jobs (including reductions in armed forces), pushing the civilian unemployment rate up ¼ percentage point, to 7.4%. The higher unemployment would linger for several years.

macroadvisers.blogspot.com...#!/2013/02/mas-alternative-scenario-march-1_19.html

So GDP falls a half-percent, Unemployment ticks up a quarter percent...and it "lingers" for several years...meaning it is difficult to combat...it has a multiplier effect...the economies rate of growth slows which means the unemployment rate stagnates.

All BS aside...whether you are for spending cuts or not...the sequester is the least effective and useful way to get those spending cuts done. It preserves fat, cuts muscle....and needed muscle during a recovery IMO.

reply to post by jibeho


Term limits and campaign reform.
Spending millions to get elected or re elected to get a job that only pays 200K a year?
Something is wrong with the math and I smell rats. And rats stink let me tell you.

This administration is forcing America to stay with their government-abusers because they dont want to man up to their responsibilities.

If the end is near(as they like to claim)- then why dont we just relieve them of their duties before its too late?

This is what happens when you wear your sequined spandex underwear too tight... All the oxygen-rich brain feeding blood gets pushed down to your ankles.

Come to think of it, this actually explains a lot of the stupidity flowing out of our politicians' mouths.

Maybe we need some new spandex control laws to be enacted ?

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jibeho

 

Term limits and campaign reform.
Spending millions to get elected or re elected to get a job that only pays 200K a year?
Something is wrong with the math and I smell rats. And rats stink let me tell you.

And in todays news...
Speaker Boehner's right-hand man heads to K Street in blockbuster hire

Barry Jackson, a long-time senior adviser to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), is heading to K Street.

Jackson has agreed to join Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck as a strategic adviser, delivering a coup to one of the top-earning lobby firms in Washington.

The blockbuster hire brings a premier Republican name in Washington politics to the firm. In Jackson, Brownstein Hyatt will have one of the Speaker’s longest-serving and most trusted aides, giving the firm access and insight into the House GOP majority that few can match.

thehill.com...

This is why I am neither democrat or republican. They just sit there and point fingers at each other all day. They rather figure who caused it, rather than fix it. Bunch of kids in a sandbox.

Both sides have enough insanity to go around. But it does seem like liberals are going off the deep end.

Wow she might have Maxine Waters beat with this one.

Interesting though and this is the general thought from some of these people up on the Hill. There are a multitude of resources available, via private organizations, who do this very thing. This in my opinion has a residual effect though. The current crop of some democrats (and even some republicans) have been grooming their constituents to believe that all flows from Government and that it is Government that is there with these services and they are the only ones who can do them.

So the YMCA, National Domestic Violence Hotline, Crisis Intervention Service, YWCA, and on and on and on are nothing. Women, you can only look to the Government for this help.....

ETA: Anyone remember the big blitz after President Obama first was elected with the explosion of .gov sites from seat-belts to breast-feeding. These "PSA" type sites were designed to funnel people to Government services and begin the push that it is Government who cares for you; not private organizations.

reply to post by jibeho




GOP stands for Gas, Oil and Propane. Them along with the military industrial complex and 400 American Heritage Families (American Royalty) is what the GOP protects. Nobody else is even on the radar and that includes gays, workers, women, children, even average citizens who might like to walk through the park or have their roads salted in the winter. These people can't pay them, they don't represent them.

So forget it folks - the park is closed and salt isn't free. We can't afford those or a thousand other common sense services, agencies and tool useful to regular people. Why? Because not even counting defense, we set aside 50 billion for Oil, Coal and Gas subsidy's. The GOP is in the business of padding pockets of the wealthy and so removing loopholes and ensuring tax equality is also something they refuse to do. They should be fired. The role of government is to collect taxes the country needs and we can get it by closing loopholes and walking back scams the wealthy have already run.

Originally posted by Lingweenie
This is why I am neither democrat or republican. They just sit there and point fingers at each other all day. They rather figure who caused it, rather than fix it. Bunch of kids in a sandbox.

Both sides have enough insanity to go around. But it does seem like liberals are going off the deep end.

because none of this would be necessary if the wealthy paid tax rate of 16% like everyone else does but with breaks and loopholes engineered by republicans and slid through on the backs amendment they only pay 11 or 12%.

This is money the country needs and is entitled to. The wealth was made here and it is ruining the country (and everyone else's fair chance of wealth) by slipping the richest members of society, who should be contributing the most, a full 5% of their taxes back under the table.

Add to this the money they get thrown back at them because they own the corporations and industries that are subsidized...we are all working to support them.

reply to post by Indigo5


We have much bigger problems if we consider a cut in the increase in spending, "muscle".

Some are even calling this, "austerity".

A 2.3% cut in the increase in spending.

Now let's cut 25% from spending, THAT'S what I'd like to see. If a 2.3% cut on the increase can cause "Nirubu-like" epic panic among the pols, then a 25% cut would be "zombie-apocalypse".

We need to cut. We need to stop spending. Somewhere along the way we've switched to an entitlement nation and if it continues, we'll collapse.

reply to post by beezzer
You can bet that the "decreased rise in spending" is a hell of a lot less money than the tax-payer's have been forced to pay out on the first sasquatches food bills, and their seperate vacations in the last 5 years.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Lingweenie
This is why I am neither democrat or republican. They just sit there and point fingers at each other all day. They rather figure who caused it, rather than fix it. Bunch of kids in a sandbox.

Both sides have enough insanity to go around. But it does seem like liberals are going off the deep end.

because none of this would be necessary if the wealthy paid tax rate of 16% like everyone else does but with breaks and loopholes engineered by republicans and slid through on the backs amendment they only pay 11 or 12%.

This is money the country needs and is entitled to. The wealth was made here and it is ruining the country (and everyone else's fair chance of wealth) by slipping the richest members of society, who should be contributing the most, a full 5% of their taxes back under the table.

Add to this the money they get thrown back at them because they own the corporations and industries that are subsidized...we are all working to support them.

Yeah the wealthy need to be taxed more just as much as the common worker.

It also doesn't help we get our money from a private bank, with interest tacked onto it. That's another reason for all of this debt. We borrow money from the Fed. reserve, and they expect x amount of interest in return. And guess where the money to cover the interest comes from? The citizens taxes. And you'll never be able to pay back all of the debt due to interest, it's impossible. We need to end that greed machine, all countries shouldn't have private banks.

reply to post by Happy1


That plays towards the "entitlement" mindset of the Obamas.

They deserve it.

As do the folks who "deserve" free;
healthcare
housing
food
phones
cable tv
transportation

etc.

reply to post by newcovenant


Well, funny thing they found billions to start up that new drone base in Niger last week,
oh yes that is the Democrats, and Obama being one of them.

So...why dont they just spare 1 predator drone from Niger at 4 million each.. and fund all of the
cry babies? I will say it...its not in their scope of vision that is why.

These Democrats do not have a genuine bone in their body...

Dont call me out as a Republican, I am not.

Here is the beloved leader himself....

reply to post by jibeho


I guess next we will have thousand dying from explosive diarrhea.

Amazing all the services we are losing yet we are actually going to be spending more than ever before. I have not figured out how every department of the federal government is going to receive the same amount of money as last year +3% instead of 5% but we are going to be laying of 800,000 pentagon civilian employee, air traffic controllers, police, teachers, firemen, lead paint inspectors, health care, and I am sure they have mentioned others. Wow. How stupid does Washington DC believe we are? It is very insulting.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


I think all that money goes to the companies the government outsources everything to. They privatize it to "save money" and make it more "efficient" then the minute they do, efficiency gets worse and costs skyrocket.

reply to post by neo96


Yeah.. that's a good idea.
Because they won't go to jail for life for shooting an abusive partner. Those rarely work out for the defense.

There's a difference between arguing that you shot an intruder and arguing that you shot someone you live with.

reply to post by Indigo5


At first I thought you were being sarcastic.. now I see that you just missed the point.

Nice catch OP.... This reminds me of what I saw about Maxine Waters stating yesterday that all this was going to cost 170 million jobs. It was a "Guam tipping over" moment if there ever was one, but some people are too far gone to even realize that, it would seem. There are only 130 some million working Americans as a total by current stats. I guess that's entirely too much to expect an elected official to keep straight though.

Just like doing a few minutes research before they make silly claims like the OP highlights wouldn't be too much to ask. After all, that is literally what our taxes are paying them to take the time to do. They're being paid to know this, so we don't have to.