My order of what to save first would be the following

1. STOP
2. Teachers & Schools
3. Job Search
4. Vaccines for Children
5. Child Care
6. Work Study
7. Military Readiness

Although the biggest impact to the NH economy, and biggest ticket item, would be Military Readiness; and it may impact all of the others even more given the amount of $$$ being removed from the economy.

We agree on #7, but why did you rank vaccines the way you did?

We also pretty much agree on STOP; so what your asking is why do I have Teachers & Schools along with Job Search above Vaccines. I view those as more important than the generic title of "Vaccinations" as many of the vaccinations given to children these days can wait and in some cases are of questionable value to begin with; mind you not all vaccinations but some, this is a cut after all and not a stoppage of all vaccinations altogether. So in light of that perception I think getting people to work and keeping kids' education on track is more important.

Although in reality Newsflash's comment below has merit. This whole "cut" is really just 1% or 2% of the total budget. It certainly does hit military/defense spending and everything else. If these cuts are in fact too much for these items to bear then maybe it is time to take a better look at "entitlements" to save these items.

You would not need to cut any of these if you would simply cut the waste and more importantly cut the un-earned entitlements.
Notice how the politicians have replaced the term welfare with entitlement. This was to remove what was perceived as a derogatory connotation. You're naive if you think these politicians actually care about "the most vulnerable in our society". They're merely re-distributing trillions to stay in power and the main reason Obama was re-elected.
As far as I'm concerned the only Americans the term entitlement applies to are the ones that contributed to the system and those truly in need and unable to support themselves. All other re-distributed funds are a waste and extremely destructive to our country.
Well, I have to go, I'm late for work!

Nobody.

Military spending certainly can use a trim and a trim of our foreign policy agenda to go along with it as that is what is driving that budget. However military spending cannot be brought to "zero" regardless of how much anyone of us likes "peace"; simply put, there are those in the world who want America destroyed and even if we immediately change policy that will take a long period of time to change. Either way, as a country we are going to have to eventually address out debt and social entitlement programs as those programs project to be a bigger percentage of our budget than military is now and will certainly destroy us economically, much the same as the USSR was economically consumed, if we do not address those also. It is not if but when, neither side denies this.

There are billions of dollars the pentagon wants cut but by law cannot. Thats probably number 1 place to start. Or 2 , right after borrowing money to give it away

"The Dayton Daily News analyzed proposed defense budgets for 2013 and identified five programs that Ohio’s congressional delegation is fighting for although Pentagon officials have called them unnecessary and unaffordable. - See more at: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want/nRC7w/#sthash.wsC5tobh.dpuf";

Steve:

The F-35 joint fighter program is estimated to cost as much as $1.4 Trillion over the program's life. That's more than $4,200 for every man, woman, and child in America. If one were looking for defense savings, this might be a nice place to start, but the military has carefully programmed this to spend the program's money in more than 46 states so it seems to be pork everyone likes.

And you'll certainly have that opportunity.

But until then, she is our representative.

Not much of a leader. Leading by example in Kusters case is a joke

Celia:

Thousands of Kuster supporters disagree with your suggestion, even though you make it every chance you get.

Less now after the truth comes out

And I'm sure by now she has a sizable percentage less supporters than she had on Nov 2nd....

Celia:

When push comes to shove in November '14, the Republicans will nominate some vile person and Representative Kuster is likely to win again.

(...Even without your vote.)

Because she paid her taxes late?

Really?

Who knows what other things lurk behind the curtain?

The way I see it (no fault of Kuster), Everyone who earned a paycheck took a 2% cut on Jan 1st. And Obama and the Dems took 2% and didn't even apologize or anything. Ohh but when Sequestration takes 2% out of the Fed govt, all hell breaks loose...like the end of the world.

Aside from the human impact of the sequestration, I'm fine with it given how I got screwed Jan 1st.

Celia:

> Everyone who earned a paycheck took a 2% cut on Jan 1st.
> And Obama and the Dems took 2% and didn't even apologize
> or anything.

I'm not sure you understand what happened on January 1st. What happened was that a payroll tax holiday expired and the old withholding rates for Social Security taxes came back into effect.

This didn't effect all wage earners equally, you understand. For people whose wages exceed the maximum taxed for Social Security ($113,700 for 2013), this will have a reduced effect since those lucky folks don't pay Social Security withholdings on all of their wages.

And I'm not sure why President Obama should owe anyone an apology; he didn't have it within his authority to extend the holiday. That was the Congress's job if they had wished to do so, but the Republicans in Congress were not interested in doing so.

You can at least take solace in the fact that, contrary to Republican claims, the return to the old withholding rates helps keep Social Security on a sound fiscal basis for many decades to come. That is, there's *NO* crisis in Social Security and nothing needs to be done to trim this "entitlement" to keep its fiscal ship afloat.

Everyone can find some interesting data at:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

Heh Atlant this is what I understand. Baraq Obama ran for President saying "balanced approach" every other sentence. When it came time for the fiscal cliff there were no cuts. "Balanced approach" was an election year lie. There are no cuts in Baraq Obama's anti-American world.

Jack:

On another thread, you were moaning that people have called you a racist. Yet here you are on this thread calling our President "Baraq Obama".

I guess they were right: you *ARE* a racist.

Democrat propaganda.

Alant: I just wasted my time politely replying to two of your other posts. I now realize you are a name-calling creep. You can make a good opening argument but then you resort to name-calling when the going gets tough. Dont expect another response. I'm not interested in a moronic name-calling competition.

Jack:

It's simple: if you don't want people to assume you're a racist, don't act like one.

(It's also useful not to call people morons.)

Franklin Pierce:

Just in case you didn't notice, your reply is insane.

Our government is not "parasites"; our government is *US* and acts on our behalf. And it is controlled by our elected representatives.

You are one of the many anonymous commentators that really, really needs help -- seek it out!

Only if you have socialist inclinations

You Libertarians are so cute!

Someday your philosophy may even win some election somewhere, but for now, Americans seem to believe the proper role of government (i.e., us acting as a whole) is a bit more expansive than just providing for the common defense.

@Atlant, they why doesn't the D side of things campaign on those issues instead of social ones? Lets face it no politician would win who uses I am all for big government as their campaign slogan. Instead they divide the country against itself to carve out a niche of special interest that they can get to the voting booth and cobble as many of those as they can. That doesn't mean everyone is all for big socialistic government.......try again.