Time to audit the Sequester?

[Phaing]

This might be drifting on Politics, but I see it as a Law Enforcement issue.

One that could prove weather our Politicians can still be Policed, at all.

Simply put, as I understand it the Sequester was about 2.5% of the Budget, and yet it is being use to cut 10% of all public services. 10% reduction in Unemployment, 10% fewer Air Traffic Controllers... counting down to the hour that leads to multiple airliners crashing in to each other.... and the list includes the Golden Goose to end them all; the IRS itself.

So, where is the other 7.5%, anyway?

And yet, no entitlements to the Bog Bosses in Govt, elected or otherwise, seem to be affected.

And then there are all the things they say can't be cut at all... follow that trail and I'm sure you'll find even more missing funds.

Its a dead certainty that no Govt agency is capable of uncovering any wrong-doing on this scale, they are not allowed to. However, there are other agencies that have proven capable of obtaining information. This is a case where Wiki-leaks could do the US some good, there are also the more sophisticated sort of Private Detectives out there. After all, uncovering embezzelment would be a positive thing, wouldn't it?

And then there are those spooky folks at Anonymous ... or is something like embezzlement to the point of endangering human life beneath their notice?

Just my thoughts on what could be the biggest crime since Bernie Madoff.

[Shryke]

Um, or it's because the cuts are not distributed evenly across all things the government pays for. Mostly because it's not allowed to be.

[Sturn]

Um, or it's because the cuts are made to be as painful as possible for political points.

[Fragile Bird]

Well, weren't the cuts negotiated when the sequester was agreed to in the first place?

ETA: Budget Sequestration in 2013

[Shryke]

Um, or it's because the cuts are made to be as painful as possible for political points.

That might cover a tiny bit of where some of the cuts go, but the size of the cuts is almost certainly because parts of the budget are exempt, which is what he was talking about. Also, cuts have to be distributed basically evenly across the parts of the budget it's allowed to touch, according to the sequester, so the cuts are mostly painful because the government has no choice.*

Or, simply, the entire premise of this thread is uninformed bullshittery and the OP has no idea wtf he is talking about. Which, given the poster, is no surprise.

*In fact, the government is trying to make the cuts as unpainful but obvious as possible in order to attract more attention to the sheer stupidity of the sequester. Hence cutting shit like the White House tours which hurt basically nobody but get alot of attention. Sadly, it doesn't seem like anyone cares anyway so the US economy and government are just gonna take another self-inflicted kick to the balls.

[Phaing]

*In fact, the government is trying to make the cuts as unpainful but obvious as possible in order to attract more attention to the sheer stupidity of the sequester. Hence cutting shit like the White House tours which hurt basically nobody but get alot of attention.

Which would prove Sturn's point.

I'm asking for an audit in the spirit of transparency.

Are you advocating for a cover-up?

And if you want to make this personal, then say hello to the ignore list.

[Tempra]

Where are your numbers coming from? Agencies are generally required to cut 5 to 7 percent from FY2013 funding.

[Shryke]

Which would prove Sturn's point.

Um, no. Because, as I said, they are trying to not make the cuts painful cause who wants pain? What they are trying to do is make the cuts very visible, hence my example of the WH tours.

I'm asking for an audit in the spirit of transparency.

Are you advocating for a cover-up?

This doesn't even make sense. What are we auditing? It's not like there's anything secret going on here.

[Angalin]

This is what the US politics threads are for.