SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (313464)12/3/2006 12:45:09 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573901
 
CJ, > The problem with across the board cuts is that when you have areas that are understaffed and/or underbudgeted in the first place, then they effectively shut down.

The problem with worrying about which departments are understaffed or underbudgeted is that you can spend all your time worrying or arguing over it.

Everyone has their priorities. Every department is going to claim that they're understaffed or underfunded. That's the nature of a bureaucracy, isn't it?

> So across the board means that there would be even less oversight and departments like Homeland Security would be wasting even more money than they are now.

So to you, cutting the funding means departments will waste more money than before? That's backwards logic and reflects a view that to save money, you have to spend money.

If you cut the funding, departments will be forced to oversee their own spending. It's no different than a spoiled rich kid whose generous allowance is significantly cut.

> I didn't say there was a surplus, so I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Straw man time I guess.

Would you like to explain this comment of yours then?

Message 23063293

> Your guys were handed a budget that was balanced and headed for decent surpluses, they decided that was stupid.

Or are you just going to split hairs and hide behind "nuances"?

Tenchusatsu