Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
JerryBobCo
Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
Sequestration - a legitimate concern, or yet another political football?
JerryBobCo
Posts: 8,227 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.
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.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Replies
Jerry
― Douglas Adams
Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
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.
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.
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!!!
For everyone else, it's a football.
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.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
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.
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.
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?
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
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.
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.
:blah: :troll: :vomit:
Jerry
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.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
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.
― Douglas Adams
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!).
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!".
George Carlin
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.
About time.
Luis