Ask Me Help Desk - The sequester

Obviously Democrats in Congress have nothing better to do than focus on important issues...

Quote:

Lawmakers introduce bill to void 'Redskins' trademark

A group of House Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill that would prevent the term "Redskins" from being trademarked, a move intended to put pressure on the Washington football club to change its name.

The Non-Disparagement of American Indians in Trademark Registrations Act of 2013 is co-sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), and comes days after a federal trademark panel heard arguments over whether the team name was a slur. The panel could potentially overturn the team's trademark, which would erode profits by allowing other businesses to sell apparel and goods featuring the Redskins name.

Earlier this month, Norton said the team "should consider" a new name.

“Nobody would let a comparable name to blacks stand," Norton said, adding that she thinks the team will eventually be forced to make a change.

“I certainly do. But nothing happens without pushing and shoving... I am a fan of the Redskins. I’m just not a fan of their name," Norton said.

The trademark pushes come amid renewed calls in Washington politics and media for the team to change the name. Earlier this year, D.C. mayor Vincent Gray said the team could be forced to "work with" the city council on a name change if they wanted to build a new stadium within the District.

The team has not publicly commented on challenges to the Redskins trademark, but last month began posting articles to the team website that highlighting high schools that also use the moniker.

Read more: Lawmakers introduce bill to void 'Redskins' trademark - The Hill's In The Know
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

How about a compromise? The Redskins keep their name and change their logo to a peanut. Nuts would be an appropriate mascot for DC.

I wonder if the Secret Service people who walk Obama's dog are going to get furloughed ?

The grounds keeper probably doesn't have secret service with him, just a pooper scooper.

Hello again,

I must say your expectation of the SAME level of service with a greatly reduced budget is mindboggling... But, you've blown my mind before..

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

I must say your expectation of the SAME level of service with a greatly reduced budget is mindboggling... But, you've blown my mind before..

excon

I would say you have never heard of productivity,it is marvellous what happens when a threat emerges, particularly in government

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

I must say your expectation of the SAME level of service with a greatly reduced budget is mindboggling... But, you've blown my mind before..

excon

Service ? I'm talking trimming 2 % bloat from a $ multi-trillion budget .There should be NO service impact. Most of the government could do it just by tightening up it's procurement procedures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

service ? I'm talking trimming 2 % bloat from a $ multi-trillion budget .There should be NO service impact. Most of the government could do it just by tightening up it's procurement procedures.

Yes like they have got enough stuff they don't need any more for yonks!

The taxpayer has to adjust their spending downward every time their income is reduced because of price increases, pay cuts, reduced hours or tax increases...

The government can learn to do it too.

Yes begin by doing away with cost plus contracts

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

yes begin by doing away with cost plus contracts

The bigger problem is they don't believe in zero baseline budgets... what they consider a "baseline" really isn't... its last years amount plus an automatic increase... so even when they claim no increase... they are telling lies abut it, because there IS an increase..

I don't understand how any organisation can effectively manage without zero based budgetting. It forces each item to be examined for its worth and necessity

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

The bigger problem is they don't believe in zero baseline budgets...what they consider a "baseline" really isn't...its last years amount plus an automatic increase...so even when they claim no increase...they are telling lies abut it, because there IS an increase..

Yes. The so called cuts are nothing more than reductions in the rate of increase. Even while this is happening the Federal Government is hiring .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes. the so called cuts are nothing more than reductions in the rate of increase. Even while this is happening the Federal Government is hiring .

That's right because nothing is increasing at the rate of assumed inflation except the inflated salaries of the fat cats

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I don't understand how any organisation can effectively manage without zero based budgetting. It forces each item to be examined for its worth and necessity

And now you see the root problem with the government spending... they have lied to themselves for so long they actaually can't see things for the way they really are.

The private world and the business world live in reality of a zero baseline budget... really is a zero baseline budget, you don't add automatic pay raises you haven't gotten yet and claim that's not an increase in your income at all..

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

And now you see the root problem with the government spending.....they have lied to themselves for so long they actaually can't see things for the way they really are.

I have known the root of the problem for a long time and it isn't lack of budgeting but a lack of discipline among politicians

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I have known the root of the problem for a long time and it isn't lack of budgeting but a lack of discipline among politicians

It's a combination... and the fact they pretend that increaces aren't increases to make the real increases look smaller to the poorly informed public... causes and allows it to compound.

Run your household like that and you will end up bankrupt... run a business like that and it will end up bankrupt...

Yet Polititions seem to think its not only normal but right for them to do because after all... its only someone else's tax money...

The government is not a household, or a business. The business model is broken, and corrupt, and that makes households broke and helpless. Government is under siege by those bent on destroying it, to further their own aim of cheap labor, higher profits, and the power to exploit the rest of the globe for mo'money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The government is not a household, or a business. The business model is broken, and corrupt, and that makes households broke and helpless. Government is under seige by those bent on destroying it, to further their own aim of cheap labor, higher profits, and the power to exploit the rest of the globe for mo'money.

You got that backwards... its the Government that's trying to grab more and more power they were never constitutionally allowed to have... EVER before.

Your government has been corrupt for a long time - both sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The government is not a household, or a business. The business model is broken, and corrupt, and that makes households broke and helpless. Government is under seige by those bent on destroying it, to further their own aim of cheap labor, higher profits, and the power to exploit the rest of the globe for mo'money.

Dude, for once I have to agree with Smoothy.