Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

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

2»

Replies

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    It is true that the cuts are weighed against a baseline that assumes some incremental increase in spending with inflation over the years, but the current cuts will drop spending far below the break even line for the annual spending increases.

    About time.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    It is true that the cuts are weighed against a baseline that assumes some incremental increase in spending with inflation over the years, but the current cuts will drop spending far below the break even line for the annual spending increases.

    I believe it will drop spending far below break even about as much as I believe in the Easter Bunny. That baloney about it dropping below annual spending increases is an Obama scare tactic talking point. If you don't get a raise this year, you do the best you can with what you have, and make cuts in your spending habits to cut out the unnecessary spending. And live within the budget you lived within LAST YEAR!

    I lived through this crap when the Navy got cut back after Viet Nam. I lived through it during the Arab oil embargo. I lived through it when Carter ran the economy into the ditch. I lived through it during a couple of Reductions in Force (RIF, and RIF doesn't stand for Reading Is Fundamental!) Hard times make for hard choices. If Obama isn't up to the task, or is in over his head, then maybe he isn't the man for the job.

    The government produces nothing but DEBT! And waste what they squeeze from the taxpayers. Way past time to husband the money they extort more carefully. All this money printing is causing inflation and devaluation of the dollar on the world market. Thus the need to squeeze more and more from the people. Either make do with what they have, or step aside and let someone else have a go at it!
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    If Obama isn't up to the task, or is in over his head, then maybe he isn't the man for the job.

    Exactly. He has a good bit of discretion on where the budgeted money is spent. Oh wait - there is no budget! I forgot - the one silly budget that he did submit didn't even get one vote from his own party....and, oh yeah, his own party that controlled both houses of Congress, didn't even prepare a budget, nor has Harry Reid allowed one to be debated, since.

    Nevertheless, his job is to spend the money that Congress allocates, and make whatever amount it happens to be work, in the best interests of all Americans. His job is NOT to spend it in a way that hurts the most people, so he can blame their 'misery' on his political opponents. He could easily spread these cuts out in a way where working people would not be hurt.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Last I checked the constitution the President can't introduce legislation and it is congress' responsibility to pass a budget and appropriate funds. All the president can do is make a budget request (which he has done every year...see the FY13 presidents budget request in the link below) and pressure congress to act. I'm not saying that democrats in congress don't deserve plenty of blame and that Obama has failed to lead effectively on the issue, but the ultimate responsibility lies with congress which is currently by far the most dysfunctional organization in government (which is saying a lot).

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

    The President sends a budget request to Congress, and the House and Senate use that as a guideline to formulate the budget. Problem is, Obama's budget requests are so bloated and out of line that neither chamber can come up with an actual budget, and if one finally gets cobbled together, it is voted down.

    Looking at the White House website to find out facts is like letting the fox guard the hen house and asking the fox about the health of the hens! :rotflmao: They have a vested interest in lying like a bad rug!
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Last I checked the constitution the President can't introduce legislation and it is congress' responsibility to pass a budget and appropriate funds. All the president can do is make a budget request (which he has done every year...see the FY13 presidents budget request in the link below) and pressure congress to act.

    You are evading the point.

    You stated correctly that the President can't determine the amount of money that will be spent (although this president apparently doesn't know that). He did submit a budget 'proposal' for consideration, as is the custom, but it was not taken seriously, even by his own party, and they not only ignored it, but offered no alternative, and would not discuss any proposals made by the opposition. They simply vacated their duty to pass a budget.

    It doesn't matter how much money Congress allows the president to spend. It is his duty to take whatever they give him and spend it as wisely as possible, in a way that will benefit all of the people.
  • JLDickmonJLDickmon Senior Member Posts: 1,726 Senior Member
    aw man this if eff'ing priceless...

    pick it up at about three minutes in...
    the first part is all "...blah blah blah blah..."
    When Rep Ellison comes on, it get's really bad..
    Never laugh at your wife's choices.
    You are one of them.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Representative Ellison is a DAD Obama apologist. He did a lot of talking loud and saying nothing, too! :rotflmao:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,194 Senior Member
    I watched that exchange live. It was pretty bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen a politician go off like that. It's usually Sean talking over guests who disagree. This time it was the other way around.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • sherwoodsherwood Senior Member Posts: 1,220 Senior Member
    It's all BS! Even if it does happen it's both parties fault!
    I may be old but I ain't dead!
    DPRMD
  • kansashunterkansashunter Senior Member Posts: 1,875 Senior Member
    This years budget is larger than last years even with the sequester so why do we need to lay off so many people? An ag economist was talking about how it will affect agriculture and all of the cuts in the ag department are in the farmer part, food stamps and all the nutrition programs are off limits which is the biggest part of the budget. I have no problem cutting farm payments, I would like them completly gone but to hear Obama say children are going to starve is a lie, nothing new about that.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Maybe a graphic will help. :tooth:

    attachment_zps0f24ccf8.jpg
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    You are about 7 years late on coming to this conclusion, and your party hasn't come to that conclusion, yet...or...they don't give a damn. Here's a fairly balanced article on how the Bush plan died that was never intended as anything but an honest attempt to get negotiations started on a genuine plan to make SS work, far into the future. It was probably flawed (politically) in several ways, but then, aren't most plans, when first introduced? It never got a fair hearing, to see if it could be hammered into something useful.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFUZFnOwlOFE

    I remember this well, because it was during the Howard Dean era of the Democrat Party, when an already leftist hierarchy had pretty much succeeded in purging the party of moderates, and was headed full speed ahead into the radicalism on steroids that we see today, which allows no compromise with anything traditionally American. After witnessing the viciousness with which it was attacked and ridiculed, I finally understood that this country was in some very deep doo-doo, if this incarnation of the Democrat Party ever came to power.

    Bush pushed hard for Congress to deal with this, asking Congress to simply use it as a base to begin negotiations. They scoffed at it and refused to even offer any sort of counter plan, choosing instead to stick with their moveon.org demagoguery of anything 'Bush.' This is the kind of radicalism, by one party , that forces its opposition to become more radical, in self defense.


  • JLDickmonJLDickmon Senior Member Posts: 1,726 Senior Member
    "Hello, EPA?
    Yeah, this is Barak.
    Yeah, everyone take two days off w/o pay. Make it a long weekend.
    Yeah. Jesse Jackson. See ya Tuesday."


    there. There's your 80 billion saved.
    Never laugh at your wife's choices.
    You are one of them.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The problem is, nothing will happen because baby boomers are a HUGE voting group and the only thing they all agree on is that no one is allowed to cut their SS and medicare.

    Well, that could be because they have been paying money into the plan for 50 years that would have been a hell of a nice addition to their 401K type retirement plans, while watching the government mismanage the funds that they are forced to contribute. That would not have prevented the Congress from turning this ponsi scheme that SS has always been into a properly managed fund.

    I'm all for putting people that don't contribute to their own well-being into a subsistence level assistance program, be it social security, medicare, or welfare. That's exactly what government assistance for the poor and elderly consisted of when I was a kid, and I never heard of any starvation.

    Saying that "nothing will happen because baby boomers are a HUGE voting group and the only thing they all agree on is that no one is allowed to cut their SS and medicare" is true, because the Democrats will frighten them to death about it before it can even be debated...exactly what they have done every single time it has come up. The Bush plan would not have impacted people who were already on SS, yet by the time the Dems and their media lapdogs got through demagoguing the issue, they never found that out.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,862 Senior Member
    I received a newsletter from one of the Nc senators stating that
    22,000 sandcrabs will loose 121,000,000 in wages because of the
    Sequestration.

    With taxes considered, the govt will only save 80.4 million because of
    the loss of 40.5 million in income taxes.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Jim Tom wrote: »
    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!).

    I am in a different situation than you. I won't get the luxury of choosing days. I will have to take the days given to me because of the mission critical nature of my job. Also, what will effect you by 20% will hit me 28-30% because of the amount of hours I work.
    Some bases are using OT to cover the shortages created by furlough.
    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
    cpj wrote: »
    so who would be eligible to work in your absence, if everyone is on furlough?


    And not to sound like a complete dick, but, (I know, if the shoe fits and all) welcome to my world. Except in my world it's called being laid off.

    They can't furlough us all at the same time. If that happened an international airport would shut down.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    Sir George,
    So how many day/hours/whatever will you be furloughed? My job is considered essential (don't know how that's different from mission critical) so they found savings in other areas of the ageny's budget so no furlough days would be needed, although I heard the acting Secretary say today all department employees would be furloughed at least seven days.

    What they tell the press and what actually happens are two different things!

    Also read on RCP yesterday two headlines. First was obama lamenting the dire consequences of the sequester-750,000 losing their jobs; and right under that, a headline announcing the administration was going to GIVE egypt an extra 250,000,000 american greenbacks. Guess that shows who is important to barry!
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Not sure yet. Management is still negotiating the if and whens and there is still some of them that just don't know yet.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    If you do what I think you do, I don't see how they could furlough you without operating at a dangerous shortage of manpower. They also have to give you a thirty day notice before furloughs start, so it's strange they haven't done that yet.

    Keep your fingers crossed. They should be able to cut enough to keep from furloughing anyone.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,463 Senior Member
    Other folks in my field (other bases) are getting notices, others (like myself) are waiting. They are saying some won't get notices until next month.
    And the best part is, one base is filling the shortage of manpower with overtime.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Other folks in my field (other bases) are getting notices, others (like myself) are waiting. They are saying some won't get notices until next month.
    And the best part is, one base is filling the shortage of manpower with overtime.

    Gotta love bureaucratic logic!
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,862 Senior Member
    I wounder if they will fill the shortage with crash crew.
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