Politics

[ACamp1900]

So can I finally leave the bomb shelter???

 

[wizards8507]

The time to draw the line of responsibility isn't after the spending takes place. Aren't we operating on the CR that the Republicans wanted last time around? If memory serves Boener bragged following negotiations that he was extremely happy and he "got 98% of what he wanted." The GOP is trying to dine and dash on the federal bill.

The percentage of the federal debt that goes to interest in 2012 is 6 percent. However, they are not the only obligations required.

19% of the budget went to Defense
22% to social Security
21% to major health programs
12% to safety net programs
7% to federal retirees and veterans
3% to transportation infrastructure
2% to education
2% to science and medical research
1% to non-security international
5% to everything else

What are we going to prioritize? Stop paying soldiers? Stop paying Social Security benefits? Gutting healthcare programs like Medicare or Medicade? Pulling away the safety net? Stopping veterans benefits? Any or all of those things would have a huge negative economic impact for not only this country but for the entire world.

If the answer is to curtail spending, the time to do that is in the budgeting process. And after many months of complaining that there was no budget passed in the Senate, the GOP kept the passed bill in March from heading to conference. THAT is when these negotiations should have happened -- not at the 11th hour when the Tea Party is holding a gun to the head of the economy. This is insanity. We are debating something that has never been considered in the history of our nation and what might or might not happen. We should never be in the position to be having this debate.

You seem to think I'm pro-GOP or pro-Boehner. The GOP in Washington are largely a bunch of jackasses and Boehner is their chief.

Democrats - Tax and spend
Republicans - Tax and spend but lie and say you aren't
Select few - Stop spending

We can't even have honest intellectual disagreement because there aren't two defined sides. You're trying to argue democrats versus the Boehner-led GOP, but I DON'T support the Boehner-led GOP.

 

[NDFan4Life]

So can I finally leave the bomb shelter???

Just long enough to grab more beer and munchies.

 

[GoIrish41]

You seem to think I'm pro-GOP or pro-Boehner. The GOP in Washington are largely a bunch of jackasses and Boehner is their chief.

Democrats - Tax and spend
Republicans - Tax and spend but lie and say you aren't
Select few - Stop spending

We can't even have honest intellectual disagreement because there aren't two defined sides. You're trying to argue democrats versus the Boehner-led GOP, but I DON'T support the Boehner-led GOP.

I'm simply having a conversation in the context of the mess we are in right now. There are two distinct sides to this latest invented crisis. The side with a majority in one house of Congess does not get to call the shots for the rest of the government. Hopefully, by the end of the evening that point will be proven out when Boener is forced to bring the Senate compromise to the floor and get it through wihtout a majority from his own party. Then maybe we can get on with working together to do something productive for the country.

That said, the answers that are sought are not as simple as saying we have to spend less. Maybe we have to raise more money through additional taxes. These are two approaches that would get us to the same end and nobody is going to get everything they want. There needs to be a discussion and compromise. We can certainly agree that spending is too high, but when we do, we have to work out the details about what will get cut and to what extent. Everything has to be on the table and nobody can come in with the sense that they get whatever they want or they are going to pout and go home.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The latest Common Sense from Dan Carlin is amazing and worth the listen. Just throwing that out there if you guys have a longer commute or listen to podcasts in your spare time. He talks about the crisis, how unimportant it is, and actually discussed real issues outside of debt that truly harm our national security.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/d/d/fdd...81962269&hwt=62084321ab8723fd49237ecc313fa86c

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I'm simply having a conversation in the context of the mess we are in right now. There are two distinct sides to this latest invented crisis. The side with a majority in one house of Congess does not get to call the shots for the rest of the government. Hopefully, by the end of the evening that point will be proven out when Boener is forced to bring the Senate compromise to the floor and get it through wihtout a majority from his own party. Then maybe we can get on with working together to do something productive for the country.

That said, the answers that are sought are not as simple as saying we have to spend less. Maybe we have to raise more money through additional taxes. These are two approaches that would get us to the same end and nobody is going to get everything they want. There needs to be a discussion and compromise. We can certainly agree that spending is too high, but when we do, we have to work out the details about what will get cut and to what extent. Everything has to be on the table and nobody can come in with the sense that they get whatever they want or they are going to pout and go home.

When it comes to raising revenue, yes they do.

Origination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BobD]

You can giggle all you want. Numbers don't lie. Texas is crushing California, California middle class families are leaving for nearby states with lower cost of living and lower taxes. Losing those tax revenues (household and businesses) only sinks CA a little quicker with its debt and unfunded liabilities.

You can be serious all you want. I had lunch on the beach in Half Moon Bay today and everyone was very concerned about Texas.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm simply having a conversation in the context of the mess we are in right now. There are two distinct sides to this latest invented crisis. The side with a majority in one house of Congess does not get to call the shots for the rest of the government. Hopefully, by the end of the evening that point will be proven out when Boener is forced to bring the Senate compromise to the floor and get it through wihtout a majority from his own party. Then maybe we can get on with working together to do something productive for the country.

That said, the answers that are sought are not as simple as saying we have to spend less. Maybe we have to raise more money through additional taxes. These are two approaches that would get us to the same end and nobody is going to get everything they want. There needs to be a discussion and compromise. We can certainly agree that spending is too high, but when we do, we have to work out the details about what will get cut and to what extent. Everything has to be on the table and nobody can come in with the sense that they get whatever they want or they are going to pout and go home.

We should all agree that spending cuts are necessary, but do you truly believe Obama wants to cut spending? He's a big government liberal. Why would he compromise and reduce spending if he believes government spending is the path to shared prosperity?

 

[ACamp1900]

We should all agree that spending cuts are necessary, but do you truly believe Obama wants to cut spending? He's a big government liberal. Why would he compromise and reduce spending if he believes government spending is the path to shared prosperity?

Haven't you heard, Miss Pelosi already covered that, the cupboard is completely bare and there is nothing left to cut.........

 

[Buster Bluth]

Haven't you heard, Miss Pelosi already covered that, the cupboard is completely bare and there is nothing left to cut.........

This always cracks me up. You can throw a stone over your shoulder and hit something in the Pentagon that can go.

We currently have 2,150 active nukes, compared to Russia's 1,800 (nobody else is over 300). How about we slice these numbers down to about ~750. We could still blow away 750 cities on a mere whim. That's enough of a deterrent.

Boom, billions saved.

If you listen to Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense, he's got a great angle on the US being "over-insured" with this huge military and how it's irrelevant whether we're currently superior to China in terms of our militaries, they're spending money on building cities and a functioning society and we're building more weapons to **** around with Syria and Co with. In a matter of time we won't be able to support said military and they'll jump at that opportunity to become a real superpower.

Time to cut 25% of the defense budget and rebuild this country.

 

[DSully1995]

The latest Common Sense from Dan Carlin is amazing and worth the listen. Just throwing that out there if you guys have a longer commute or listen to podcasts in your spare time. He talks about the crisis, how unimportant it is, and actually discussed real issues outside of debt that truly harm our national security.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/d/d/fdd...81962269&hwt=62084321ab8723fd49237ecc313fa86c

Yes. Also, check out Hardcore History, if you like history at all, this guy knows how make it awesome

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes. Also, check out Hardcore History, if you like history at all, this guy knows how make it awesome

The Ghosts of the Osfront is just insane. Like "wut. the. ****."-inducing.

11/10. Would listen to again.

 

[MJ12666]

This always cracks me up. You can throw a stone over your shoulder and hit something in the Pentagon that can go.

We currently have 2,150 active nukes, compared to Russia's 1,800 (nobody else is over 300). How about we slice these numbers down to about ~750. We could still blow away 750 cities on a mere whim. That's enough of a deterrent.

Boom, billions saved.

If you listen to Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense, he's got a great angle on the US being "over-insured" with this huge military and how it's irrelevant whether we're currently superior to China in terms of our militaries, they're spending money on building cities and a functioning society and we're building more weapons to **** around with Syria and Co with. In a matter of time we won't be able to support said military and they'll jump at that opportunity to become a real superpower.

Time to cut 25% of the defense budget and rebuild this country.

I don't totally disagree with you regarding cutting military spending. The USAF recently took a delivery of five new cargo planes. The planes were flown directly from the factory to the "bone-yard" in Arizona. The Air Force does not need the planes. Additionally, five more are under contract for delivery next year. Total cost of the program is approximately $600M. However I am not so sure that reducing our nuclear capability is the correct move for two reasons. 1 - is it more costly to keep the weapons or dispose of them? I really don't know but you would need to know before making the decision. 2 - I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that China is only spending money on building cities. I am pretty sure their defense spending is fairly high and I trust them less then I trusted the old USSR.

 

[GowerND11]

We could cut military spending by 2/3 and we would still spend more than any other country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

2 - I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that China is only spending money on building cities. I am pretty sure their defense spending is fairly high and I trust them less then I trusted the old USSR.

We can cut and cut and cut and be totally fine.

There will never be a wold war again. Global economies and nuclear weapons solved that. World War II was truly the war to end wars.

The UK (61bn), France (59bn), Germany (46bn), Italy (34bn) can each pay for the defense of the EU. Russia spends 91bn annually. We spend 682bn+ (that's not including veteran costs, nuclear weapons, etc). There is not World War III threatening Europe. We can tone it down big time.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This always cracks me up. You can throw a stone over your shoulder and hit something in the Pentagon that can go.

We currently have 2,150 active nukes, compared to Russia's 1,800 (nobody else is over 300). How about we slice these numbers down to about ~750. We could still blow away 750 cities on a mere whim. That's enough of a deterrent.

Boom, billions saved.

If you listen to Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense, he's got a great angle on the US being "over-insured" with this huge military and how it's irrelevant whether we're currently superior to China in terms of our militaries, they're spending money on building cities and a functioning society and we're building more weapons to **** around with Syria and Co with. In a matter of time we won't be able to support said military and they'll jump at that opportunity to become a real superpower.

Time to cut 25% of the defense budget and rebuild this country.

We sure as hell can cut in some areas of defense and still be #1, but don't sleep on the Chinese. They have the world's largest standing army, they've been building up big time for years (esp Navy), and they're breeding a country full of men with very few women. Don't kid yourself into thinking the Chinese are spending all their money on "infrastructure" and building cities.

So those guys either really despise women (see their laws on kids) or they're building up their population for something big down the road. Oh and their students K-12 are top 5 globally in math and science, while US students are outside the top 20 in both. Other than that they are no threat.

 

[phgreek]

This always cracks me up. You can throw a stone over your shoulder and hit something in the Pentagon that can go.

We currently have 2,150 active nukes, compared to Russia's 1,800 (nobody else is over 300). How about we slice these numbers down to about ~750. We could still blow away 750 cities on a mere whim. That's enough of a deterrent.

Boom, billions saved.

If you listen to Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense, he's got a great angle on the US being "over-insured" with this huge military and how it's irrelevant whether we're currently superior to China in terms of our militaries, they're spending money on building cities and a functioning society and we're building more weapons to **** around with Syria and Co with. In a matter of time we won't be able to support said military and they'll jump at that opportunity to become a real superpower.

Time to cut 25% of the defense budget and rebuild this country.

...the entire budget of the ICBM program isn't that big anymore, Peacekeeper was already deactivated. I'd agree to the trim down (if it were up to me) if I could MRV the existing ones again...[/B] The MMIII and peacekeeper motors have been re-purposed for satellite launches, so their inventory isn't that big...[/B] The only wear out parts on the thing are Gyros...There hasn't been a major modification program since the 90s...most of the parts are in inventory so it does not suffer from price gouging on obsolete parts like other aging systems...in short, I don't think you'll find the cost savings you think you'll find...its not like decommissioning Aircraft...

As for "defense"...I still can't tell whats in there...I would need to see the actual DoD budget...haven't since god knows when. When the wars go away and we see the real sustainment budgets on the weapon systems, you might be surprised. And there isn't a lot of new weapons systems coming on line. There are entire management teams in DoD looking for ways to re-purpose every old thing they have in inventory...again, "DEFENSE" seems to mean a lot more than DoD in the context of 19%...but I'm not sure.

Its easy to claim DoD is the problem...it could stand to become more efficient...but this is not your DoD from 1985...

 

[IrishLax]

So I got a look at some financials today for my company and the ACA compliance assessment alone cost us nearly $20k. Or about $265 a head. I don't know if this is a one time thing or if we'll have to do it yearly.

Then you have the PCORI fees that are a single dollar and are going to be $2 a head sooner rather than later to end in 2019 (like that will ever happen). What's funny is that the time spent on the PCORI compliance and form filling will far outweigh the actual revenue generated for the Government. Classic Government paperwork nonsense. There are also transition fees and risk adjustment fees... I don't know how much these actually add up to.

Then there are the taxes on the insurance companies and some others expected to raise premiums ultimately by ~3-4% by 2015ish. Our premiums already went up 6%.

And finally... there is the 40% tax on "Cadillac" plans over a certain value... or as I like to call it the "no, you can't have nice things unless you want them taxed at a higher rate than the highest tax bracket" tax. I don't know how much this is actually going to cost us each, because I don't know the true dollar value of our benefits to the cent... but it's a lot. We have reallllllly good healthcare at my firm.

So ultimately, the implicit cost to me as an individual is in the hundreds of dollars a year... maybe thousands. I'd guess no more than 1-2% of my yearly income at absolute most though, and I have an ultra "Cadillac" plan. Don't really think that's too much to pay for a society with universal healthcare if they do it right. Basically I lose the value of an awesome vacation somewhere each year, but somebody who couldn't get coverage before is covered. In overall societal utility that's not the worst. My main fear is that the Government is going to do a horrible, inefficient job because.... Government. And I hate everything in life that is run poorly. Because there's no excuse for it besides incompetence.

 

[wizards8507]

So I got a look at some financials today for my company and the ACA compliance assessment alone cost us nearly $20k. Or about $265 a head. I don't know if this is a one time thing or if we'll have to do it yearly.

Then you have the PCORI fees that are a single dollar and are going to be $2 a head sooner rather than later to end in 2019 (like that will ever happen). What's funny is that the time spent on the PCORI compliance and form filling will far outweigh the actual revenue generated for the Government. Classic Government paperwork nonsense. There are also transition fees and risk adjustment fees... I don't know how much these actually add up to.

Then there are the taxes on the insurance companies and some others expected to raise premiums ultimately by ~3-4% by 2015ish. Our premiums already went up 6%.

And finally... there is the 40% tax on "Cadillac" plans over a certain value... or as I like to call it the "no, you can't have nice things unless you want them taxed at a higher rate than the highest tax bracket" tax. I don't know how much this is actually going to cost us each, because I don't know the true dollar value of our benefits to the cent... but it's a lot. We have reallllllly good healthcare at my firm.

So ultimately, the implicit cost to me as an individual is in the hundreds of dollars a year... maybe thousands. I'd guess no more than 1-2% of my yearly income at absolute most though, and I have an ultra "Cadillac" plan. Don't really think that's too much to pay for a society with universal healthcare if they do it right. Basically I lose the value of an awesome vacation somewhere each year, but somebody who couldn't get coverage before is covered. In overall societal utility that's not the worst. My main fear is that the Government is going to do a horrible, inefficient job because.... Government. And I hate everything in life that is run poorly. Because there's no excuse for it besides incompetence.

The rub is, there's no one who "couldn't get insurance but now can." Medicaid already exists for the poor. If Congress wanted to redefine "poor" for Medicaid purposes to expand coverage, they could have done so under the existing infrastructure. The uninsured are uninsured because they choose to be uninsured, since, by definition, those who CAN'T afford coverage get Medicaid. The people who declined it before will continue to decline it now because the penalty for noncompliance is cheaper than buying insurance. In effect, the only changes those folks will see is a new tax in the form of the noncompliance penalty.

Plus, you freely reach the conclusion that giving up a vacation is "worth it" so that someone can have health insurance. Someone else might come to a different conclusion, either due to different circumstances than yours our just because they're greedy. Greed is morally repugnant but I defend someone's right to be greedy if they see fit. I happen to believe in individual people and believe that churches and charities would more than pick up the slack if the burden from government weren't so great.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So I got a look at some financials today for my company and the ACA compliance assessment alone cost us nearly $20k. Or about $265 a head. I don't know if this is a one time thing or if we'll have to do it yearly.

Then you have the PCORI fees that are a single dollar and are going to be $2 a head sooner rather than later to end in 2019 (like that will ever happen). What's funny is that the time spent on the PCORI compliance and form filling will far outweigh the actual revenue generated for the Government. Classic Government paperwork nonsense. There are also transition fees and risk adjustment fees... I don't know how much these actually add up to.

Then there are the taxes on the insurance companies and some others expected to raise premiums ultimately by ~3-4% by 2015ish. Our premiums already went up 6%.

And finally... there is the 40% tax on "Cadillac" plans over a certain value... or as I like to call it the "no, you can't have nice things unless you want them taxed at a higher rate than the highest tax bracket" tax. I don't know how much this is actually going to cost us each, because I don't know the true dollar value of our benefits to the cent... but it's a lot. We have reallllllly good healthcare at my firm.

So ultimately, the implicit cost to me as an individual is in the hundreds of dollars a year... maybe thousands. I'd guess no more than 1-2% of my yearly income at absolute most though, and I have an ultra "Cadillac" plan. Don't really think that's too much to pay for a society with universal healthcare if they do it right. Basically I lose the value of an awesome vacation somewhere each year, but somebody who couldn't get coverage before is covered. In overall societal utility that's not the worst. My main fear is that the Government is going to do a horrible, inefficient job because.... Government. And I hate everything in life that is run poorly. Because there's no excuse for it besides incompetence.

Your plan costs are increased because plans aren't allowed to impute the full actuarial cost of the unhealthy. You're paying a higher price so that your unhealthy fellow Americans can have cheaper coverage. The 'Cadillac' tax does go toward subsidizing the exchanges, but the other taxes and the Employer Mandate are supposed to do most of the heavy lifting re: new coverage for the uninsured.

 

[IrishLax]

The rub is, there's no one who "couldn't get insurance but now can." Medicaid already exists for the poor. If Congress wanted to redefine "poor" for Medicaid purposes to expand coverage, they could have done so under the existing infrastructure. The uninsured are uninsured because they choose to be uninsured, since, by definition, those who CAN'T afford coverage get Medicaid. The people who declined it before will continue to decline it now because the penalty for noncompliance is cheaper than buying insurance. In effect, the only changes those folks will see is a new tax in the form of the noncompliance penalty.

Plus, you freely reach the conclusion that giving up a vacation is "worth it" so that someone can have health insurance. Someone else might come to a different conclusion, either due to different circumstances than yours our just because they're greedy. Greed is morally repugnant but I defend someone's right to be greedy if they see fit. I happen to believe in individual people and believe that churches and charities would more than pick up the slack if the burden from government weren't so great.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Totally legit. My feelings are incredibly subjective. One thing I don't doubt is that there was a better way to do the ACA than what was passed. They tried to pass as much of the burden off to the corporations as possible and defer taxes so the public wouldn't realize the cost... it's big. Obama said "it's not a tax" and that was the biggest load of horse crap ever. Especially since it was upheld narrowly in the Supreme Court based on the power to tax...

For me, subjectively, it's not a big deal because it's just disposable income. I have no kids and I make a decent salary. What about for someone who has a tight budget and that couple hundred is big? They can come to a different conclusion quite easily.

 

[Buster Bluth]

...the entire budget of the ICBM program isn't that big anymore,

It was one quick example. Of course, we're not going to even dent the budget by trimming ICBMs by 75%.

Its easy to claim DoD is the problem...it could stand to become more efficient...but this is not your DoD from 1985...

You sure about that?

I say this as an amateur, but I don't see why we need to spend a single penny over $350bn.

 

[Buster Bluth]

They tried to pass as much of the burden off to the corporations as possible

Written by corporations, for corporations.

Just like 99% of what Congress does.

Can someone make a list of net positives the feds have actually done in the last fifty years? I'm totally serious here. Go. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just honestly struggling to come up with a homerun law/policy.

They ended Don't Ask Don't Tell! Well, they did start it. Net negative.

Carter opening up craft beer brewing for everyone! Well...they just undid their pointless laws.

Seriously name some.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Written by health insurers, for health insurers.

Fixed. Normal companies hate the law. For one, they don't understand how to comply with it, which freaks them out. The part they do understand makes them cut hourly employees' hours below 30 so they don't have to decide between giving them a "qualified plan" or firing them.

 

[MJ12666]

Written by corporations, for corporations.

Just like 99% of what Congress does.

Can someone make a list of net positives the feds have actually done in the last fifty years? I'm totally serious here. Go. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just honestly struggling to come up with a homerun law/policy.

They ended Don't Ask Don't Tell! Well, they did start it. Net negative.

Carter opening up craft beer brewing for everyone! Well...they just undid their pointless laws.

Seriously name some.

Sarbanes-Oxley was actually a good law it just hasn't been properly enforced.
The 1996 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
The budget sequestration agreement in 2013 turned out to be pretty good also.

I could probably come up with some more but I need to answer the phone.

 

[wizards8507]

Sarbanes-Oxley was actually a good law it just hasn't been properly enforced.

No offense, but what is your profession? I'm a CPA working in corporate finance and Sarbanes-Oxley is known jokingly as the "accountant full employment act" because of the absurd and useless amount of work it places on accountants and auditors. Rest assured, the same shenanigans that occurred pre-SOX are still going on post-SOX, with the only difference being the bloated accounting departments and audit fees that companies have to deal with to comply. SOX compliance has nothing to do with corporate accountability and everything to do with politicians wanting to look like they were doing something post-Enron/WorldCom.

The 1996 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

This was a great law and a true sign of bipartisanship between Newt and Slick Willie. Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided to stop enforcing the work requirement in 2012 so the law has been neutered with no say-so from Congress.

 

[MJ12666]

No offense, but what is your profession? I'm a CPA working in corporate finance and Sarbanes-Oxley is known jokingly as the "accountant full employment act" because of the absurd and useless amount of work it places on accountants and auditors. Rest assured, the same shenanigans that occurred pre-SOX are still going on post-SOX, with the only difference being the bloated accounting departments and audit fees that companies have to deal with to comply. SOX compliance has nothing to do with corporate accountability and everything to do with politicians wanting to look like they were doing something post-Enron/WorldCom.


This was a great law and a true sign of bipartisanship between Newt and Slick Willie. Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided to stop enforcing the work requirement in 2012 so the law has been neutered with no say-so from Congress.

I am a CPA spending most of my career with Fortune 500 companies in various corporate financial reporting groups. I did not want to write a book to answer the original question and I included in my comment about Sarbanes-Oxley with stating that it was a good law but it was not enforced. For example, Fanny Mae misstated their financials in order to boost earnings and thus bonuses. Franklin Raines signed off on the misleading reports filed with the SEC and should have been criminally prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley but he obviously was not. That doesn't make the law bad. The criminal penalties included in the law was a step in the right direction, it was simply not enforced probably because of political reasons.

 

[phgreek]

It was one quick example. Of course, we're not going to even dent the budget by trimming ICBMs by 75%.



You sure about that?

So the blue areas pre 9/11 ... basically carter era spending for system sustainment...Bush was ramping it some to deal with aging weapon systems and diminishing manufacturing resources and material shortages...sources of supply and parts...some new programs...so draw a relatively flat line from 9/11 across for sustainment budgets...the rest of it is war and waste like ...I don't know...sole source awards to companies who did nothing productive overseas...

I say this as an amateur, but I don't see why we need to spend a single penny over $350bn.

So the blue areas pre 9/11 ... basically carter era spending for system sustainment...Bush was ramping it to deal with aging weapon systems and diminishing manufacturing resources and material shortages...sources of supply and parts...some new programs...some refueling of intel...so draw a relatively flat line from 9/11 across for sustainment budgets...the rest of it is war and waste like ...I don't know...sole source awards to companies who did nothing productive overseas...The other thing is this...a ton of money is laundered through DoD to selected recipients...ie political cronies...DoD is earmark avenue...much of it has nothing to do with DoD or defense...I could even tell you where it goes...by office symbol...but I won't

 

[Buster Bluth]

The budget sequestration agreement in 2013 turned out to be pretty good also.

But it sequestered an issue they started...

 

[BobD]