• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Sequester

carbinemike

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
What do you folks think bout the "sequester"?

I have wanted them to cut spending for a long time so I can't say I'm unhappy with it. I wish the defense cuts were a smaller percentage but I think that side of it was suppose to make the Republicans want to negotiate. I'd like to see more of the bloated bureaucracy get cut. If they cut federal employees, it seems like that would be great as our taxes pay them. Unfortunately they will find no jobs with any real pay or benefits in the private sector...say hello to a McJob. I'm sure the Democrats will do everything they can to make such an austerity move painful. They have already released illegal aliens claiming it was due to the this.

I'd love to see a Constitutional ammendment that the budget must be balanced. I'd like to add that it's balanced as long as Congress hasn't declared war but I actually think they'd pick a fight with someone just to spend. If I ran my house finances like they do I'd be in jail.
 
In all honesty Mike, I think the only way this country can be saved is to run full-steam ahead off the cliff of financial catastrophe. Will it be unbelivably painful? Yes.....But to quote Benjamin Franklin " When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". We have reached the point in this nation where the politicians know the easiest way to stay in power is to open up the wallet and start throwing out freebies......and more than 50% of the population is all too happy to punch the ticket and hold their hands out. The entitlement system in this country has came to a point where it can best be compared to what was once said of slavery.....it's like riding a Tiger, as long as you stay on it's back you are okay......but eventually it will throw you off and there is just no painless way to get off the Tigers back.
 
A balanced budget will never happen...it is just an inside the beltway joke. How can you balance a budget when you spend $1.4 Trillion more than you take in year after year. Even obamination's budget shows a deficit of $26 Trillion in the next 8 yrs.

What pisses me off is that instead off cutting out the fat and trimming all the handouts, we cut SS for the elderly on fixed incomes, we cut veterans benefits, more than half of the cuts are coming from Defense. Medicare can be trimed because of all the artificially inflated Dr fees and hosp costs (Kroger charges $25 for a flu shot. I used my insurance and Kroger charged my Ins company $40 for the same shot).

Cut the welfare state by 1/2, create a Job Corp for those that are phyically capable of working but circumstances require that they draw welfare (with mandatory piss tests), cut out the obamaphones, the food stamp program for those that don't need it. Slash Congress' pay package (say to minimum wage...LOL), etc, etc...

I could go on and on...
 
If the Seacrestor takes place who will host American Idol? :cry:




The gov keeps saying we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Well how did we get a revenue problem without over spending.

I don't think it will be a bad think for it to happen, I don't believe that it will be as catastrophic as the pres is saying. In the overall budget, even these cuts are chump change, we need massive cuts to non-essential programs and entitlements. I understand we just can't cut everyone off overnight but we need to seriously start weening people off of the teat of government.


We need something to get the ball rolling.
 
As a federal employee in DoD who is impacted - I am not happy about it. Everything must be cut by 20% across the board (no exceptions). DoD makes up about 12% of the budget but must shoulder 50% of the reductions. Civilian personnel are not exempt from furlough (day off without pay). We will be furloughed 1 day per week. That is a 20% pay cut for the remainder of the year. This is on top of the 3 year pay freeze I have had to endure as my part of budget reduction. During the furlough time off I will not earn annual vacation time or sick leave. I will not get the percentage of my pay contributed to my retirement account. I will miss out on the compounded interest on that non-existent contribution. I will be ineligible for unemployment (technically I am not unemployed - just an extra day off without pay or benefits). I cannot take paid leave on a furlough day. I will not have local payroll taxes taken out (on the pay I do not receive) and that will directly impact the community I live in and the school district that would have received the tax revenue. Their budgets will have to be adjusted to compensate for the loss as well as where I work is the largest employer in the area. While I may be just a drop in the bucket, no single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood. Combined, teachers and schools in Pennsylvania will lose around $21.4 million for primary and secondary education from the loss of local payroll taxes. That translates into teachers' and aides' jobs being at risk and 29,000 fewer students being served and about 90 fewer schools being funded. Some 26,000 civilian Department of Defense employees will be granted that furlough too. Law enforcement and public safety — they are going to lose some of those local tax funds. While I would like to see the debt reduced I wish the DoD had the authority to prioritize the cuts and say reduce more in programs such as training and travel while leaving personnel alone. In the end the savings would be the same without impacting people directly.
 
OA, I'd like a balanced budget but I don't hold any real hope of seeing one again. but it will remain a wish.I like the idea a cutting the welfare state in 1/2.

Tim, I know what you mean. Like any addict we will probably have to hit rock bottom before anything can be fixed. It would be very ugly. It may be on the way. have you seen some of the unemployment numbers in Europe?

Dysfuntcional, I'm sorry to hear this is affecting you personally. I'd like to see the cuts spread more evenly. I went from 1986 until 2000 without missing some type of yearly pay increase. Since then I have had 4 or 5 and they weren't to good. I have also worked through pay cuts and they are no fun. I hate to say that these kinds of cuts will probably continue as we are becoming a poor country. The number you noted in PA hit me as I live in PA too. I wish they would cut more waste but I think they want to make the cuts hurt what people like so we support the borrowing train.
 
69275_10151238660190764_1202469426_n_zps439f7d81.jpg
 
That is actually a lot more true than most would want to admit Oli.

But I wouldn't stop at just Congress.

I would like to see term limits across the board. Even those elected for dog catcher.

And ESPECIALLY the supreme court.

This lifetime appointment is BS and we all know it.

Operating without a balanced budget is also BS

And spending more than you take in isn't bs, it's just plain stupid.

AAArrgh.
 
John A. said:
That is actually a lot more true than most would want to admit Oli.

But I wouldn't stop at just Congress.

I would like to see term limits across the board. Even those elected for dog catcher.

And ESPECIALLY the supreme court.

This lifetime appointment is BS and we all know it.

Operating without a balanced budget is also BS

And spending more than you take in isn't bs, it's just plain stupid.

AAArrgh.
Click to expand...


I agree with term limits but the SC is something I'd need to think about. There are only 9 justices. Most decsions are split 5-4. If there were term limits established and the makeup constantly changed then the same ground would be covered over and over again. Roe vs Wade Part 10 or 2A Part 7?

Right now there is some stability. Everytime a new President appointed someone new, the laws would change. The Constitution would become a twisted mess or could be nullified completely with the wrong makeup of justices. The way it is right now, no one President can change the entire court, maybe only 1 or 2. I believe that is why it is setup the way it is. Imagine if obama had 3 or 4 chances at changing the court, replacing almost 1/2 of the current justices. What the hell would that do to our country?

I'd like to go on but I gotta get ready to leave. I need to remember to come back to this thread...
 
I don't like the president appointing supreme court justices either.

Even if they are accepted or not via congressional vote.

That's something else I think WE THE PEOPLE should have a say in.

There's a lot I'd like to change, but I know it'll never happen.

I'd also like to see the electoral college die and go to a popular vote during elections. For far too long, districts have been manipulated and changed repeatedly to get the desired outcome. Especially in large cities.

I would also like to suspend all digital means of vote tallying. It's too easy to manipulate and hack and defraud. I don't care if it take months to find the winner.

Also, many people are tired of a few large population centers dictating the direction of our country, largely against the popular belief of the rest of the country, which probably far outnumber the few large cities anyway.

When a handful of states electoral votes decide who the president is going to be, over the majority of the states against it, something is wrong.

People have grown tired of not being represented equally. I know I have.
 
The sequester doesn't even touch entitlement spending.

In Dysfunctionals case, why would 20% be cut and yet foreign aid continues, and to places like Egypt?

Cut defense, but not entitlement and foreign aid? Tell me that ain't whacked, and I mean wiggety whacked not just regular type.
 
Also, many people are tired of a few large population centers dictating the direction of our country, largely against the popular belief of the rest of the country, which probably far outnumber the few large cities anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Over 82% of the US population lives in cities and suburbs as of 2008. A hundred years ago it was almost the exact opposite, with the majority living in small towns and farming communities. Rural flight was due to several factors, including modernization/industrialization of farming (tractors, industrial fertilizers, Dust bowl, etc.) which required far fewer people to create the same or increased food supplies. That trend has continued right up to present day.
 
In Dysfunctionals case, why would 20% be cut and yet foreign aid continues, and to places like Egypt?

Cut defense, but not entitlement and foreign aid? Tell me that ain't whacked, and I mean wiggety whacked not just regular type.
Click to expand...

Brad, do you have a link for that? I'd love to read it. I looked for one but only found a generic mention:

Much attention has focused on how looming sequestration cuts will harm national defense, but few people understand how sequestration's March 2013 onset will also hurt U.S. foreign assistance programs that advance America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. Under sequestration, spending on international affairs (a major component of which is U.S. foreign assistance) will be slashed not only by roughly 5.3 percent in fiscal year 2013, but also by as much as $50 billion over the next decade—roughly what the United States spends on diplomacy and development in a single year.

Gunny Gene, I'm not doubting your numbers but I do see an us versus them going on with cities going socialist and many suburbs and rural not wanting any part of it. Most cities in eastern PA went Obama but the suburbs and rural went Romney with the exception of the Philly suburbs. Many suburbanites are getting tired of paying for the spending that the cities don't control. I know I have no desire to fund someone else's standard of living with phones etc. The anti gun liberal mayor of my nearest city wants the suburbs to help finance his woes.
 
Oh, I agree about the politics of rural vs. metro. Understandable really, since a metro area is totally dependent on outside supply for everything, so it's a built in bias towards dependence and socialism/nanny government.

Rural areas, however, are far more self sufficient for essentials and always have been. People grow, raise, or hunt their own food, drill water wells, use septic tanks and compost bins, even make their own dams and such for electricity in many areas, build their own houses and outbuildings, and many other things. A built in bias towards independence and self sufficiency.

This fundamental difference in the basics of life translates very easily and quickly to political philosophy.

Not many people - especially in the metro areas - have any idea of any of just how fundamental this is. Until the logistics of keeping a city alive breaks down - then watch out, it's Katy bar the door!

Btw, the numbers came from Wikipedia, but they got it from the Census Bureau.
 
It's not that different here either carbine mike.

The coal severence taxes are paid to frankfort and distributed all over the state. And almost always the larger cities to support their infrastructure.

While the counties that make/pay all of those taxes get the least amount of it.

There is even a bill in this legislative session to change that, although I doubt the reps for those large cities would ever vote for it since that would be compared to killing one of their larger cash cows

http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines ... 77412.html
 
Gunny your posts reminded me of the person who said "why should I care about the farmers? I get my food at the grocery store."

I have also been bugged that they are calling this sequestration. I would prefer the term austerity measures and they should be doing them for the right reasons.

JohnA, I guess they do it all over. I hope that passes and the money goes back to where it came from. I don't want to hijack the thread but did you see where some people came up with a way to extract energy from coal without burning it?http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/
 
no, that's the first I heard of it, but it is fascinating to say the least.

Thanks for the link.
 
John A. said:
no, that's the first I heard of it, but it is fascinating to say the least.

Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

I have two issues with the linked story on Fox.

1. Many things can be made to work on a small laboratory scale, but fail at production scale. Who pays for that? We do. Take a look at all the failed Solyndras, biofuels from algae, and so on.

2. The "environmental save the planet" hook that CO2 is bad - which it isn't. It's required for life on this planet. It's what plants use to grow, and why greenhouses usually run at 1000ppm or more of CO2.
 
I'm sorry, I posted some bad info on foreign aid bein cut. I did find cuts that were bein made, but certainly nothing significant in my eyes. I don't feel 500 mil is significant enough anyway.

What I found didnt specify the type of aid bein cut, and much foreign aid is rediculous where some is legit.

Lord knows many things can be cut, fat can be trimmed with out harming necessary spending. Honestly, there is a ton of spending outside the core functions of govt that are also outside what is prescribed by the Constitution.

Sorry about the misinformation Mike.
 
No problem. It still brings up a good point though that we borrow money that our kids/grandkids will have to pay back and give it to countries, some of which hate us. Good place to cut spending in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top