Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Sequestration - a legitimate concern, or yet another political football?

JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior MemberPosts: 8,194 Senior Member
I've been following this a bit, so I thought I'd start a post about it. My questions is does it really matter?

As I understand the current situation, the amount of cuts that would kick in if sequestration were to occur is $85 billion. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it. On the other hand, our current annual budget is (I think) approximately $2.8 trillion. Or, in other terms, 2.8 thousand billon, or 2800 billion. This means that a cut of 85 billion is a little over 3% of the annual budget.

Now it doesn't sound like nearly as much, does it?

I'm also not sure if this is in regard to the amount of annual increase, or represents an actual, hard cut in the amount of money the government will spend this year. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this.

I also know that Obama is doing a lot of grandstanding, and making this sound like some sort of armegeddon disaster. I saw his press conference in which he trotted out a bunch of first responders and made claims that many of them would lose their jobs if sequestration occurred. Also, air traffic controllers would be layed off, and all sorts of other, draconian cuts would take place. Leon Panetta, current Secretary of Defense, is playing along, saying that the military would be crippled.

And then, there's the finger pointing game. The dems says it's the repub's ideas, and the repubs are pointing the finger back at Obama. There's also the game of chicken, which has to end by this Friday.

And, last but not least, is Obama and the dems plea for a 'balanced approach'. Gee, where have I heard that before? Obama doesn't want to accept any cuts unless there's tax reform that goes along with it, even though he already got his tax rate increase on the 'wealthiest' Americans. In my opinion, he has yet again moved the goal post.

It should be pretty obvious where I stand on this, but I'd appreciate other points of view. I'm sure that Alpha can explain to me where I'm misunderstanding the situation, so I'm all ready to be educated in the matter.
Jerry

Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
«1

Replies

  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Typical dummycrap tactic- - - - -Curious George is moving his lips, so it's a sure bet he's lying!
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Sequestration was Obama's and the White House's baby from the start. He pushed for it, got it passed, and now he has buyer's remorse? If anything, sequestration will force Obama to back down on some of his spending, and do something about getting the fiscal house in order. Let's face it; for the last FOUR YEARS he has defied the Constitution by not submitting a budget to Congress. He's been an incompetent fiscal fool for 4 years, and I see no change in him in the future. Time for real budget and tax reform; maybe this sequestration will finally force the issue.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Fat BillyFat Billy Senior Member Posts: 1,813 Senior Member
    The numbers are so wacky the 47 percent may catch on. Cut two rounds out of a 30 round mag and save more than 2 percent. The sequester is total BS to scare people into thinking the wrong thing. The non-Democrats need to get some reproductive organs and stand up. Without the House they can't do squat. Presidential orders need to be challenged, each and every one. Stop being weak! If Oblivit can't govern they need to show him how. :angry: Later,
    Fat Billy

    Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    It's just the crisis of the month for an administration that is run by a narcissistic community organizer who has to keep saying the sky is falling to cover up the fact that he is doing everything in his power to break this economy.

    As soon as the deadline passes on this particular cluster___, the next one will replace it and there will be a new "Republicans are the Devil" narrative, so as to bully them into raising the debt ceiling again. I expect them to bend over and grab their ankles, as usual.
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    I've been following this a bit, so I thought I'd start a post about it. My questions is does it really matter?

    As I understand the current situation, the amount of cuts that would kick in if sequestration were to occur is $85 billion. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it. On the other hand, our current annual budget is (I think) approximately $2.8 trillion. Or, in other terms, 2.8 thousand billon, or 2800 billion. This means that a cut of 85 billion is a little over 3% of the annual budget.

    Now it doesn't sound like nearly as much, does it?

    I'm also not sure if this is in regard to the amount of annual increase, or represents an actual, hard cut in the amount of money the government will spend this year. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this.

    I also know that Obama is doing a lot of grandstanding, and making this sound like some sort of armegeddon disaster. I saw his press conference in which he trotted out a bunch of first responders and made claims that many of them would lose their jobs if sequestration occurred. Also, air traffic controllers would be layed off, and all sorts of other, draconian cuts would take place. Leon Panetta, current Secretary of Defense, is playing along, saying that the military would be crippled.

    And then, there's the finger pointing game. The dems says it's the repub's ideas, and the repubs are pointing the finger back at Obama. There's also the game of chicken, which has to end by this Friday.

    And, last but not least, is Obama and the dems plea for a 'balanced approach'. Gee, where have I heard that before? Obama doesn't want to accept any cuts unless there's tax reform that goes along with it, even though he already got his tax rate increase on the 'wealthiest' Americans. In my opinion, he has yet again moved the goal post.

    It should be pretty obvious where I stand on this, but I'd appreciate other points of view. I'm sure that Alpha can explain to me where I'm misunderstanding the situation, so I'm all ready to be educated in the matter.

    I don't think it will make or break us if they do the sequestration thing or not, but Obma got up in front of God and everybody and swore he would not back off of it, but now he's turning Coat and trying to wiggle out of it. To me sequestration is a beginning, not nearly enough, but you gotta start somewhere, and now Obummer and the dems are trying to wiggle out of even it! I say hold his feet to the fire, make it happen. Then the conservatives in congress can go or more cuts. It might start a precedence.
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    It's just the crisis of the month for an administration that is run by a narcissistic community organizer who has to keep saying the sky is falling to cover up the fact that he is doing everything in his power to break this economy.

    As soon as the deadline passes on this particular cluster___, the next one will replace it and there will be a new "Republicans are the Devil" narrative, so as to bully them into raising the debt ceiling again. I expect them to bend over and grab their ankles, as usual.

    Again., I'm right with you Bisley. You really see things clearly and you have a knack for writing them down. Obummer is preaching the sky is falling, and at the same time he's sawing away as fast as he can on the columns that hold it up!!!
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,559 Senior Member
    Probably the only people it's a legitimate concern for are those who will be furloughed and those who will be impacted by the furloughed employees lack of services and pay.

    For everyone else, it's a football.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    I am waiting to see if I get hit by this. If it goes through, they are talking about 1 of 2 things happening; a 28 day furlough, or taking a 25% pay cut for a unspecified period of time.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,194 Senior Member
    I am waiting to see if I get hit by this. If it goes through, they are talking about 1 of 2 things happening; a 28 day furlough, or taking a 25% pay cut for a unspecified period of time.

    Now this is where I get confused. Perhaps you can help me understand.

    Aren't you a fireman who works for a local municipality? If so, what percentage of your pay comes from federal money? I was thinking that the feds send money to the states. Then the states determine where that money should be spent, and how much should go to city and county governments. Am I missing something here?

    If I'm right, then I think the place to look is the state and local governments. They should be able to determine how/where the federal money is best spent, and what services to trim back on. As Wambli pointed out, the administrators sure as heck will not be taking a hit. There's a lot of rats in this race, I'm afraid, and guys who do the real work are the ones who get shafted.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Sequestration was Obama's and the White House's baby from the start. He pushed for it, got it passed, and now he has buyer's remorse? etc etc.

    Excellent point. The press and all of the other Obama worshippers conveniently forget that it was Obama's choice to put the law into effect. I find it hilarious that Bob Woodward is criticizing the Prez for this, and his own newspaper is attacking him for breaking ranks.

    As for the actual sequester, I hope the Republicans stand their ground and let it go through. The lack of apocalyptic tragedy will embarrass the Obama admin and hopefully save a few bucks in the process.

    What the Republicans have to understand is that they will NEVER be given fair treatment by the press, never. Nor by the Demo admin as it's currently established. Better to just go ahead and stick to your principles and quit trying to please those who will never be pleased.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    No sir, I USED to work for a local municipality. Now I provide my services to the federal government. If you fly into CHS that is part of what I cover.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »

    As for the actual sequester, I hope the Republicans stand their ground and let it go through. The lack of apocalyptic tragedy will embarrass the Obama admin and hopefully save a few bucks in the process.

    Sam, read my post above. If this goes through, I might be without a check for an entire month, or without a quarter of my pay. I would prefer my paycheck not being used to make a political point just because the guy who can't balance the budget can't balance the budget.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    No, if I get furloughed or a temp cut of pay, I deal with it.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,194 Senior Member
    No sir, I USED to work for a local municipality. Now I provide my services to the federal government. If you fly into CHS that is part of what I cover.

    Thanks for clearing that up. It's too bad that our government's inability to pass and enforce good laws catches guys like you in the crosshairs.

    Anyone up for term limitations?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    If I am furloughed, I don't go to work, therefore I cannot be back paid. Worse part is, and yes they are this stupid, we can't drop below minimum manning. So if I get hit with a furlough, someone else would have to get paid OT to cover my spot.
    Can someone please explain how this is going to save us money again?
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,559 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    The problem is that the ONLY folks getting affected are the actual working bees. The "executives" making the decision on where to cut will make sure that the folks that do nothing are nice and safe and the public get to experience the maximum possible effect so we feel the full pain of the cuts and start screaming for that money back. The gameplan has no oversight in place to prevent that so there is no way to avoid it. As a matter of fact it is so by design. That's why this idiot in the WH is on vacation instead of getting everyone together to work on this.

    For example, I can just about GUARANTEE that instead of laying off Directors at the FAA they will lay off flight controllers so congestion in airports, slow downs and even dangerous situations become unbearable. The TSA will probably lay off a bunch of airport grunts so we only have ONE X-Ray machine working at La Guardia and have to wait 3 hours to clear security etc.
    And that is the injustice of the system: people are used as bargaining chips because they think voters won't stand for it. See the following:
    Sam, read my post above. If this goes through, I might be without a check for an entire month, or without a quarter of my pay. I would prefer my paycheck not being used to make a political point just because the guy who can't balance the budget can't balance the budget.
    If I am furloughed, I don't go to work, therefore I cannot be back paid. Worse part is, and yes they are this stupid, we can't drop below minimum manning. So if I get hit with a furlough, someone else would have to get paid OT to cover my spot.
    Can someone please explain how this is going to save us money again?

    Don't forget that you can't use any leave to make up for your furlough time, either. So, you take the cut. It's all political theater. I'd wager that cutting the pay of one or two higher ups via furlough would save more money than furloughing 4 to 8 of you. And allow services to be maintained. That's the other thing: they furlough the important jobs to make a point.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,862 Senior Member
    Probably the only people it's a legitimate concern for are those who will be furloughed and those who will be impacted by the furloughed employees lack of services and pay.

    For everyone else, it's a football.

    If you live near or work on a Mil Base it is a big concern, even civilian jobs
    will be hit in those areas.

    Local civilian businessmen are crying the blues in this local.

    But, how can congress save us, the president has to submit a budget first.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,797 Senior Member
    The way I understand this is there will be a 2.5% reduction in the INCREASE of spending for each year of the next 10 years, which amounts to something like an 82 billion dollar reduction. I fail to see how this will have ANY effect on the overall economy or the way they say federal jobs will be affected by this reduction. It's all BS and a MANUFACTURED crisis that Ovomit can use as anti-Republican propaganda.

    :blah: :troll: :vomit:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The local politicians around Huntsville AL are predicting all sorts of doom and gloom. Of course, Huntsville's main economy revolves around the space program, Redstone Arsenal, and a bunch of civilian contractors who provide services to one of the other of those facilities. It's difficult to imagine that things are as bad as the crepe hangers are presenting it!
    Jerry
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,194 Senior Member
    The way I understand this is there will be a 2.5% reduction in the INCREASE of spending for each year of the next 10 years, which amounts to something like an 82 billion dollar reduction. I fail to see how this will have ANY effect on the overall economy or the way they say federal jobs will be affected by this reduction. It's all BS and a MANUFACTURED crisis that Ovomit can use as anti-Republican propaganda.

    :blah: :troll: :vomit:

    This is one of the things I wasn't sure about. When Washington uses the term 'budget cuts', it's usually a reference to a cut in the rate of year over year spending increases, not a cut in the actual amount spent. They call it base line budgeting. In my opinion, this is very misleading, and a lot of folks don't understand this.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    I think I'll go to my AA meeting. It's about time for it to start. And besides, after reading all this, I better go because all this stuff with Obummer and his Munchkins will drive a preacher to drink!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 21,646 Senior Member
    It's a football "Give me what I want or I'll hurt you"

    Same reason they always use welfare, schools and Social Security cuts to scare the sheeple back into line :cuss:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    This is one of the things I wasn't sure about. When Washington uses the term 'budget cuts', it's usually a reference to a cut in the rate of year over year spending increases, not a cut in the actual amount spent. They call it base line budgeting. In my opinion, this is very misleading, and a lot of folks don't understand this.

    You're right about that. It's a cut in the yearly rate of increase of the budget.
    Simple example of what the politicos are saying when they say 'budget cut'.
    You expect a 10% increase in pay at your job. The boss only gives you a 5% pay increase. So you do the PMS dance and say your pay got cut by 5%. But you still got a 5% raise. It's just political theater with smoke and mirrors to fool the public, and the public is easily fooled. Because they don't think and don't find out for themselves what it all really means.

    The 'across the board cuts' are just reductions in the increases in spending, not cuts in the amount of spending now.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    Hey SirGeorge, you don't understand how the furloughs are going to work, and I'm not being a smart butt, I work for the feds too. IF your agency decides it needs everyone to take, say, 14 furlough days, first they will give you a 30 day notice, then some kind of method in which you will have some input on which days you miss. You would not be taking all the furlough days at once. Our agency was told we Might have to take one day per pay period. It's highly unlikely you would have to take more than one per pay period.

    Anyway, I got to work today, and found out money had been found in our agency to cover all but one furlough day for each employee (Our agency has bee in belt tightening mode for 18 months because, well, who didn't see this coming?). The next e-mail I read... the agency has just found some more cost cutting measures it can take, so nobody has to take any furlough days.

    This comes as no surprise, since every bonus and the purchase of new equipment for the past 18 months has been severely cut, along with no raises for four years, etc.

    In other words, the talk of doom and gloom is just SOMEONE's attempt to scare the public into demanding tax increases. If anything really is curtailed by these cuts, you can bet it will be something highly visible (probably with crying kids) and the press will be there all over it (as if by magic!).
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    According to President OweBama, sequestration means at worst TEOTWAWKI and at best the poo-poo hitting the spinning, oscillating blades. Notice how the Prez never says he will root out corruption, waste, and abuse to absorb these tiny cuts in the growth of spending? According to Senator Rand Paul, the government actually loses track of about $100,000,000,000.00 a year with no idea where it goes or where it went. A quarter of that disappears in the night and fog of the Pentagon and the rest -who knows? The GAO does reveal that the government issues $125,000,000,000.00 in what it calls "improper payments" each year. At least we can look at those checks and find out where that money went. Instead of cutting employees who provide essential services, might looking at nincompoops and incompetence be a better place to start?
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 13,086 Senior Member
    I received a letter from Medicare at the beginning of the year outlining the new Medicare fee schedule in the wake of sequestering, I am looking at a 30% cut in reimbursement on Medicare patients, that means I will be working for free or a slight loss for treating them.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,624 Senior Member
    Jim Tom wrote: »

    In other words, the talk of doom and gloom is just SOMEONE's attempt to scare the public into demanding tax increases. If anything really is curtailed by these cuts, you can bet it will be something highly visible (probably with crying kids) and the press will be there all over it (as if by magic!).


    It's called the 'Washington Monument' tactic. Instead of being able to cover things by tightening the belt here or there, you point to the things that really hurt or just sound really scary to Joe sixpack. You won't hear any talk about chopping middle management, ratcheting down waste or fraud, or cutting back discretionary accounts. It's all gonna be "We'll have to close the Washington Monument!".
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 13,086 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Honest question, why would you continue to treat them then? Or are you required to?

    I would not quit treating them because it is my job. I would not quit treating them because I care about my reputation in the area I live. I am a Participating Provider, I am not sure if I can refuse to treat a Medicare patient. Medicare actually reimburses me "ok" at the moment for the sevices they allow, thats not including the services I provide and do not get reimbursed for, that may change at my office but it requires alot more documentation on each visit to charge a Medicare recipient for these services. Medicare is a weird duck and there are bad things that can happen to a provider along the lines of what happens to an FFL holder that makes a clerical error, you just do what is required and you get paid some, now it may be less.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement