Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fiscal cliff"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DamianJohn (talk | contribs) (remove racist nonsense) |
(explain my edits as a polite geture to the other editor) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | On January 4, a number of edits were made that do not accurately reflect the background and context of the fiscal cliff. It is improper synthesis to link the fiscal cliff (which was a coincidence of federal policies that in combination would create a recession because they were scheduled to take effect at the same time) with the "Cloward-Piven Strategy". If an editor wants to add a separate section to the article about a "Cloward-Piven Strategy" theory it should be at the bottom of the article and not in the main section. Also note, the sequestration applies to both security and non-defense domestic spending, but does '''not''' apply to any entitlements. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:24, 6 January 2013 (EST) | |
Revision as of 07:24, January 6, 2013
On January 4, a number of edits were made that do not accurately reflect the background and context of the fiscal cliff. It is improper synthesis to link the fiscal cliff (which was a coincidence of federal policies that in combination would create a recession because they were scheduled to take effect at the same time) with the "Cloward-Piven Strategy". If an editor wants to add a separate section to the article about a "Cloward-Piven Strategy" theory it should be at the bottom of the article and not in the main section. Also note, the sequestration applies to both security and non-defense domestic spending, but does not apply to any entitlements. Thanks, Wschact 02:24, 6 January 2013 (EST)