Sequestration

[chunkymonster]

Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them?

I would say that they are the direct victims of a corrupt Congress and the victim of an ideologue for a President. They are the very people who should be slamming their Congressional Representatives to quit playing games with giving Egypt Billions in foreign aid rather than using that money to ensure furloughs do not occur. They are the very people who should be up in arms about the Congress giving themselves raises during the sequester. Given their livelihood directly relies on government funding, they should form their own PAC to lobby the Legislature to spend the money in a way that favors them; play the game rather than fight the system.

 

[COLGeek]

Let there be no doubt, my civilians have (and continue to) communicated with their representatives (I have folks in 23 States). I certainly don't see a government employee PAC as anything useful (nor legal for that matter), but there are multiple Unions that represent government employees across the spectrum and they have been involved as well (and will remain so).

BTW, it took those on the Left, the Right, and in the Middle to make this mess. And it has been building for many years. Foreign Aid is but a drop in the bucket and has little impact of the immensity of the issues we face.

What is needed is for our elected officials to work together and come up with a solution vice remaining fully entrenched in their polarized corners. Both the Left and the Right are going to have to compromise.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Im still waiting for a plan, a specific one, not just ideas with vague areas talked about, with possible ways to reach an end, one that goes against what this country is, who we are, what we do, how we make our living, such as doctors in Obamas vagueness.
No, theres going to have to be some hard calls, and taxing the rich wont do it, raising the worlds highest corporate tax higher wont do it, because, we happen to still live in much wealth, and thaqt wealth is held by the middle class, and the ones who want to tax our way out of this know this, so therefor, the blame is on anyone who says we can and wont cut.

Taxes have already been raised, its time for cuts, and we can take some time doing this, as a thousand tiny cuts will kill you as surely as 1 or 2 large ones will, the corruption, mismanagement, things that we shouldn't be spending on etc should go first, no matter how hard it is to make them better, or eliminating them, but tho is often talked about little is done about it.
If something small is done, someone spikes the football, and yet its almost as bad as ever, as Obama has claimed as much, yet the records/facts/reality shows it hasn't done much against the corruption we face.
By demanding more of its citizens to do a better job than they do, all the while making the citizen shoulder all the work proves its time to quit spiking the football, do their jobs, and get us rerighted here

 

[riser]

Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them?

Time to find a new job. This is why the US Gov't is unable to retain talent. This is purely being done to get people to vote a certain way by impacting the people, not the process or excessive spending issues.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Most congressman dont think they make too much, and many also have side jobs.

Their side jobs usually make them a lot more money than their position in Congress. The somewhat recent and notably poorly-publicized issue of insider trading in Congress bears that one out, as well as how much in income taxes many of them are not paying. High-ranking government officials are above the law since they make the law, period. Their buddies who are doing the same thing are NOT going to bust them over it. They also have huge conflicts of interest that nobody does anything about. How about subjecting them to the same restrictions that they subjected people in my industry (healthcare) to? You can't own your own business, you can't be paid for a lot of what you actually do (thank you Pete Stark), and if a rep gives you anything worth more than $10.00 it's illegal. Every single day you are alive since you were done with your schooling must be accounted for. Every single thing you do at work must be recorded in a very specific way in a government-mandated computer database program. Oh, and your license can get permanently yanked if you are found to be behind in federal taxes.

Their justification for the pay is the same justification for CEO bonuses at failing companies, you need the money to simply attract the right person, and keep them.

But then they conveniently forget that when they de facto took over the healthcare industry. The government keeps on yammering on how we need more internal medicine docs, family docs, and pediatricians but is completely oblivious to the point that the reason there is a shortage is that most of those docs see a lot of Medicare and Medicaid patients at a significant loss to the practice and to their paychecks. It's awfully darned hard to get people to go into those specialties rather than well-reimbursed specialties like dermatology and plastic surgery- or to even go into the field at all. For example, Obama's dog walker makes as much as some docs do but didn't have to take on $200k+ in debt, waste 8 years of their life with their nose to a giant grindstone 24/7 in school, be beat up for 80+ hours/week for 3+ years in residency, and isn't liable to be ruined by a lawsuit by some malcontent who wants a lottery payout. I think many of the primary care docs who I work with would much rather have been the dog walker.

I think that is retarded. Cut their pay by a percentage, if they p|ss and moan then remove paid vacation days to compensate for their loss in revenue. It is a crazy idea to have them in charge of their own pay.....

I say cutting their power would be far more effective than anything. Like I said they get most of their money from graft on the side related to the fact they have so much power. Actually following the Constitution, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments, would be a lovely place to start. After that we can slash their pay and benefits to that of the median in the U.S. I'd also tear down all of the palatial government buildings and replace them with prefab metal buildings and drab orange-brick 1960s institutional office buildings like many of us work in. They don't need to get a big head because they work in some goddamn ornate Greek palace.

Congress is nothing more than a bunch of millionaires making decisions on how to get more money from non-millionaires.

They are a bunch of people with a lot of power looking to grow their power and to prevent others from obtaining power and from lessening their power. The money simply follows the power.

 

[COLGeek]

Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them?

Time to find a new job. This is why the US Gov't is unable to retain talent. This is purely being done to get people to vote a certain way by impacting the people, not the process or excessive spending issues.

Which way do you think my 3000, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, voters are going to vote?

 

[musical marv]

Then quit giving away monies to various energy companies, that should take care of it all right there.

Supporting all these oil companies are not to beneficial either to our economy.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I don't know all the contingencies regarding why they get those tax breaks, it sounds good, like not giving Israel money, many people hate the Israelis, have heard nothing but bad about them etc.
Im after the truth, the whys and why nots, weigh the situations, make determined results off of facts.

I understand why the prez gave monies to those energy outfits, which includes some cronyism, but there has to be insight and not go in blindly, which in this case, lending those companies gave us nothing, only cost us money, and made those cronies even richer.
States go after businesses as well with tax breaks all the time, except maybe California, where the liberalism has reached rare form.
The purpose for those tax breaks are to get people hired, put to work in those states, not what the prez had in mind here.
Then, it comes down to actually knowing if you have a potential winner here, and so far, the prez doesn't have a clue.
I learned an interesting bit of info from Mark Cuban, who does the show called sharktank.
Its a show where several billionaires listen to potential entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas or already running businesses looking to expand.
Cuban said he was over 70% on the money, yes 70%
Look at the BO admins attempts, its woeful comparatively, so going after oil companies, of which I know not the reasons for those tax breaks, yet knowing the score with the current admins ineptness, their perpetual inability to understand business in general, the cronyism shown etc etc, its something that should stop.
People didn't like the banks being lent to either, but at least there the people retained their monies, and yes screw the bankers, but save the folks, so it was a wash.
All the monies that were to be spent on infrastructure were never spent, not yet even today, as last Id heard only one third ever made it that far, and a lot of it was diverted to protect the unions, tho this pictures get purposely muddied by both sides here, but the one thing we do know is, that infrastructure never got what it was sold on, and still needs it.

This is how our government spends our money, they don't deserve to have their hands on it.
To ask for more is folly until this too stops, but its only complained about.
One thing the DHHS has suggested is a wise move, for which Ive given the prez some credit for, yet he spiked the football for doing it, yet isn't really his doing, is, the DHHS is asking the states, no not the feds, the states to create a fraud outfir regarding medicare etc.
Its totally unfunded by the feds and has to be a state run, supported thing.
Now, my only worry is this, as in my state, its up for vote, and I hope it passes, and here many dems, the local kind anyways, are much more fiscally conservative than what youll find most other places, and they too support this, as of course the republicans do, so hopefully itll pass, but, if it does, and other states take this on as well, as soon as the savings show such actions more than pay for themselves, is that after success the feds will then come in and mandate all states to do so, and we will see a loss in efficiency as well as higher costs to do the same thing with less results, as the federal government is greedy.
The closing of the WH is but one example of what out government thinks of us when we know theres plenty of room to hide much of the lowering of spending, which really isn't a lowering, just a less higher amount of spending to begin with

 

[musical marv]

I don't know all the contingencies regarding why they get those tax breaks, it sounds good, like not giving Israel money, many people hate the Israelis, have heard nothing but bad about them etc.
Im after the truth, the whys and why nots, weigh the situations, make determined results off of facts.

I understand why the prez gave monies to those energy outfits, which includes some cronyism, but there has to be insight and not go in blindly, which in this case, lending those companies gave us nothing, only cost us money, and made those cronies even richer.
States go after businesses as well with tax breaks all the time, except maybe California, where the liberalism has reached rare form.
The purpose for those tax breaks are to get people hired, put to work in those states, not what the prez had in mind here.
Then, it comes down to actually knowing if you have a potential winner here, and so far, the prez doesn't have a clue.
I learned an interesting bit of info from Mark Cuban, who does the show called sharktank.
Its a show where several billionaires listen to potential entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas or already running businesses looking to expand.
Cuban said he was over 70% on the money, yes 70%
Look at the BO admins attempts, its woeful comparatively, so going after oil companies, of which I know not the reasons for those tax breaks, yet knowing the score with the current admins ineptness, their perpetual inability to understand business in general, the cronyism shown etc etc, its something that should stop.
People didn't like the banks being lent to either, but at least there the people retained their monies, and yes screw the bankers, but save the folks, so it was a wash.
All the monies that were to be spent on infrastructure were never spent, not yet even today, as last Id heard only one third ever made it that far, and a lot of it was diverted to protect the unions, tho this pictures get purposely muddied by both sides here, but the one thing we do know is, that infrastructure never got what it was sold on, and still needs it.

This is how our government spends our money, they don't deserve to have their hands on it.
To ask for more is folly until this too stops, but its only complained about.
One thing the DHHS has suggested is a wise move, for which Ive given the prez some credit for, yet he spiked the football for doing it, yet isn't really his doing, is, the DHHS is asking the states, no not the feds, the states to create a fraud outfir regarding medicare etc.
Its totally unfunded by the feds and has to be a state run, supported thing.
Now, my only worry is this, as in my state, its up for vote, and I hope it passes, and here many dems, the local kind anyways, are much more fiscally conservative than what youll find most other places, and they too support this, as of course the republicans do, so hopefully itll pass, but, if it does, and other states take this on as well, as soon as the savings show such actions more than pay for themselves, is that after success the feds will then come in and mandate all states to do so, and we will see a loss in efficiency as well as higher costs to do the same thing with less results, as the federal government is greedy.
The closing of the WH is but one example of what out government thinks of us when we know theres plenty of room to hide much of the lowering of spending, which really isn't a lowering, just a less higher amount of spending to begin with

Why is the Janet Napalitono department buying more bullets and arming themselves with more weapons? What is the purpose of this may i ask?Is Obama really going to start a private type militia of his? This is really weird now.

 

[riser]

You want to talk about the 1.6 non-NATO rounds purchased by Homeland security for "training" purposes...

At the height of the Iraq war (more shooting was involved) the US military used 7 million rounds a month.

The amount she bought could war a full scale war for 20+ years.

She is simply trying to dry up the ammo supply for hunters as she did not purchase rounds available for use outside of the US (NATO rounds).

But I truly believe individuals are invested in ammo manufacturers and by doing so, they're giving money to their friends through this purchase.

 

[riser]

1.6 billion* - policies here are blocking new features of the forum.

 

[COLGeek]

Time for some tin-foil hats...[😎

 

[musical marv]

Define the loophole first, its not a bad thing always, most the time its not.
Loopholes drive a certain direction in markets, both investments and startups .
They also allow for things business wouldnt normally go into, which is what one side wants anyways, government investment into certain aspects of our economy.

Now, the businesses that get many loopholes with great return wont have the investments placed in them any longer, and this will weaken them, whether its against local or international businesses as well.

Our leaders have to actually know what theyre doing, and not vote for it now, and find out what its all about later, weve already seen the higher costs of such folly

The problem is our leaders most of them have no clue in how to fix this debt crisis we are confronted with.Cutting our entitlement programs will not help that much perhaps a trifle.

 

[MU_Engineer]

The problem is our leaders most of them have no clue in how to fix this debt crisis we are confronted with. Cutting our entitlement programs will not help that much perhaps a trifle.

Our leaders actually do know how to fix this problem. They have had multiple reports prepared by a wide variety of internal and external groups (Simson-Bowles, CBO reports, GAO reports, etc.) and all have given largely the same solutions. The problem is that the solutions are nearly all politically unpalatable to the group who holds the most power at the present.

The same two problems that all of the reports identified are current and future entitlement spending. Current entitlement spending is 57% of federal spending as you can see on the CBO graph below. (Entitlement spending is "mandatory" per the CBO.) There is also a massive and unfunded future liability for entitlement spending. The Baby Boomers continue to retire and use Medicare and Social Security dollars, the 2010 healthcare act will have tens of millions of new people on Medicaid, and so forth.

The graph of federal receipts is below the spending graph. Note that the total amount of receipts is only about 2/3 of the amount of spending. Raising tax revenues by 50% is impossible according to pretty much every economist except for people on the very fringe like Paul Krugman. The problem is that people are by nature lazy rather than greedy and raising taxes will mostly result in people taking the "eh, screw it, it's not worth it" attitude. Economic activity contracts and there is less revenue than anticipated with every major tax hike in U.S. history, sometimes considerably so.

So, there is a big debate as to how much needs to be cut and what needs to be cut, but there is no debate that significant reductions in entitlement spending absolutely has to occur. We can't tax our way out of this. Some people are just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I don't want to believe it," but it is very much true.

 

[riser]

They know what the issue is. How to go about fixing it without losing their jobs is the main issue.

 

[MU_Engineer]

They know what the issue is. How to go about fixing it without losing their jobs is the main issue.

The Democrats in Congress are very unwilling to have significant entitlement cuts because it signals that their big government welfare state economic ideology is wrong and that they would lose their massive power more than they worry about losing their job as an elected official. Getting somebody to give up their ideology is very, very difficult even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Eventually the Democrats will have to go along with cutting entitlements and it will likely destroy the party as there will be a lot of infighting between the ones who accept the reality that we are broke and the ones who continue to cling to their delusion that we are not. The Republicans will take the ball and run as the fragmented Democrat Party will be weak and offer little resistance to the Republicans rolling back much of the Democrat federal regulatory regime (such as the Department of Education and the EPA) and return much of that power to the states. Democrats obviously would want to not have the above happen, and if it does have to happen, push it off as long as possible to preserve their statist status quo.

 

[chunkymonster]

Why is the Janet Napalitono department buying more bullets and arming themselves with more weapons? What is the purpose of this may i ask?Is Obama really going to start a private type militia of his? This is really weird now.

Time for some tin-foil hats...[😎

Regarding the DHS, EPA, and BATFE buying up all the available ammo, there are a few theories as to what is going on.
1) The government's story is true, they are buying it for training purposes. Given the number of employees using an average of 600 rds for qualification, it is reasonable to think these Departments could need that much to train and qualify all their employees.
2) The government is intentionally causing a run on ammo as part of their overall gun control legislation scheme.
3) There are members of Congress invested in the firearms industry and are gaming the market to increase their profits.
4) And this is where the tin foil really comes in, they are buying up the ammo to prepare for any civil unrest that follows the up-and-coming financial collapse currently being orchestrated by the world banks and complicit governments. I know this borders on conspiracy but look no further than Cypress and New Zealand. Who's to say that Obama wouldn't create a false flag event to declare a police state under the guise of protecting America's assets (banks, government offices) from "domestic terrorists" and civil unrest. He's been caught lying and creating crisis to further political ends, would a false flag that much of a leap?

I would not be surprised if any one or a combination of the above were true.

 

[riser]

They know what the issue is. How to go about fixing it without losing their jobs is the main issue.

The Democrats in Congress are very unwilling to have significant entitlement cuts because it signals that their big government welfare state economic ideology is wrong and that they would lose their massive power more than they worry about losing their job as an elected official. Getting somebody to give up their ideology is very, very difficult even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Eventually the Democrats will have to go along with cutting entitlements and it will likely destroy the party as there will be a lot of infighting between the ones who accept the reality that we are broke and the ones who continue to cling to their delusion that we are not. The Republicans will take the ball and run as the fragmented Democrat Party will be weak and offer little resistance to the Republicans rolling back much of the Democrat federal regulatory regime (such as the Department of Education and the EPA) and return much of that power to the states. Democrats obviously would want to not have the above happen, and if it does have to happen, push it off as long as possible to preserve their statist status quo.

I think the Republican party has all but collapsed though. They look like idiots on in the media; Democrats are playing news media like champs and winning the popularity vote there, regardless of what they are actually doing. I think the Republicans will drop the ball in the end.
Sequestration is going to hit. I'm moving down to 3 days work weeks, maybe 4-8s instead. My position is still up in the air whether I am affected or not because of what I do. The sad part is we're nearly cutting all our expenses simply by making things more efficient... to the point where I would only work 10 hours less per month, instead of a true 20% cut. It goes to show how inefficient the government is currently and there is no emphasis on being efficient. As long as the gov't contracts out the work instead of directly hiring people and setting expectations, these companies will continue to feed from the gov't teat. It's a sad reality, but when you're in the business of selling hours, not results, the money is good and the government always pays. The gov't shouldn't be running business, they fail at it horribly.

 

[COLGeek]

Do any of you truly believe that President Obama (or any president for that matter) would attempt to turn the US into a police state? Seriously?

Our economy is nothing like Cyprus or New Zealand. Nor is our society.

 

[chunkymonster]

Do any of you truly believe that President Obama (or any president for that matter) would attempt to turn the US into a police state? Seriously?

No, I seriously do not think so. But history is hard to ignore. Going as far back as the Sumerians and the earliest written human history, there is example after example where those wanting to change, conquer, or control a society used taxation and disarmament to subjugate the people. And, let's face it, human beings are no more civilized (some would argue less) than they were 3500 years ago.

I am not surprised by Man's tendency towards self-interested disregard for the care and well-being for his fellow Man and I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know what is better for a society than the people who live in that society.

 

[riser]

Kicking the can on the down road another 6 months...

 

[musical marv]

Do any of you truly believe that President Obama (or any president for that matter) would attempt to turn the US into a police state? Seriously?

Our economy is nothing like Cyprus or New Zealand. Nor is our society.

Maybe not Obama specifically. I think he just thinks it's really neat to be president and he really likes the perks.

However, the people Obama has surrounded himself with throughout his life, including his mentors as a young man and more modern influences like Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder et al, would be more than happy to implement a police state and disarm the populace. Makes us more docile don't you know.

Just google the pictures of hundreds of Jews being guarded by one two soldiers. Hundreds against a few. Yet completely docile. This is called the normalcy bias. The idea that,

"ok, they took our guns, our wealth, then our homes, and now they want us to live in a labor camp. It can't GET any worse than this, right?"

Yes. Yes it can. Yes it can in a relatively short period of time too. History is clear on this.

Back to OP:

The most important issue tied directly to the budget is the continued devaluation of the dollar. America has gone from the biggest lender to the biggest borrower in the world in the past 4 decades. Until this trend is reversed, all the rest means nothing.

I read the other day that BitCoin has reached a value of $1 billion and the first home was purchased with the virtual internet currency.

We had better focus on strengthening the dollar or else all the talk about entitlements spending, military budgets, and all the rest is moot. Unless the plan is eventually move to the Amero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_currency_union

Either way, our creditors are becoming more anxious as our debt mounts and our dollar declines. What do you think the eventual outcome will be unless this train switches tracks? Nothing good for you and I that's what.

To start with Obama should have picked Robert Reich to be Secreatary of the Treasury not Lew who was always connected with big banks.Reich knows this economy and how it ticks and can turn things around in a hurry.The wars we are confronted with costs billions of dollars which ruined our economy quite a bit.This is another reason we are in such debt.We have to stop this borrowing and start to pay off our debts.I do not think Lew knows this really and cares.

 

[aford10]

That's a start. The government needs to impose tariffs on imports. That would push consumers to buy more domestic products, companies to produce more locally, create jobs locally, and strengthen the overall economy.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

We import so much it would have an adverse effect on the economy, as our exports would also be taxed higher in other countries.
Its not as clear a win as some think, but it could possibly help.
But then again, we need people in Washington that know what theyre doing, which ones to tax and not to.
Theres a conflict of interest as well, if Washington just sees more monies to them by taxation thru imports, yet some could harm the economy here, but they may not be intelligent enough to see past their revenues thru taxation.

 

[aford10]

I would expect some countries might tax what they import from the US, but the US imports so much more than we export, it would be a benefit overall. The big win, would be discouraging companies from moving out of the US for cheap labor, and then selling to the US. The goods need to be produced here, to keep the jobs here.