It's my understanding that the upcoming "cuts" are not cuts to the base budget, but are decreases to the amount the budget is projected to increase. If that's correct, why all the concern about reductions in work hours and services ? Or, am I oversimplyfing the matter ?
9 posts and already begging for the banhammer? Bold move.
Flounder ahead!
You are correct. Only because it isn't a news story, but it is a news story if taking to a real world context something a certain area of the US of A doesn't adhere to the real world in any shape way or form.
In reply to poopshovel: Didn't intend to open a political discussion; just wanted some better insight into what's really going on w/ all the talking heads. Sorry if I broke the rules. Thanks
to be fair the "can we please stop posting political threads" thread seems to have been un-stickied.
I have no idea whats going on because I dont pay attention, but my wife who is a contractor is once again a bit concerned about what might happen if budgets get cut in one way or another, could put people out of jobs and usually contractors are cut before actual federal employees. Then again she seems to have concerns like this at least once a year, and so far she's never been let go because it seems all these budget things dont get sorted till the last damn second. every time.
I'm a contractor and concerned about keeping my job through this.
To my understanding it is cuts, not growth cuts.
there's like 3 different issues on the budget, depending on the terminology.
if you mean the 'sequester,' thats the "if you don't do something, we'll just slash everything" law. thatdeadline is Mar 1st.
that IS a cut, not a reduction in money to be spent.
if you mean the cuts being talked about in congress now, those aren't "real cuts", those are increase reductions, which they try to pass off as cuts.
I will risk posting this, as it explains it quite well.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fairy-tale-spending-cuts
That seems like a good article, and what seems to be the reality to me (trying to sift through the large amount of less then useful information).
I have been using the "end of the world" phrase (mockingly) also, since that is the impression you get when you listen to the hype.
Federal prison in LA just released 350 prisoners to save expense cuts expected in the coming Sequester. They all promised to come back.
White House knows nothing about it .....
except isnt the executive branch in charge of the federal detention system?
I'll fix the problem: Term limits on Senators/Congressmen to 2 terms. Salary decrease to $150,000 from the $175,000 (?) it is now. Additionally, get rid of their pension. Or use Warren Buffett's theory:
Warren Buffett said: "I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? (Laughs)
Without getting political, here in Huntsville there is a lot of concern. I know two of my friend's where sent a spreadsheet to figure out how much money they would lose if the sequester happens and one of them told me it would cost him $800 a month.
I'm about done with editorialized summaries. Anybody have a link to the text of the legislation? I'm finding it a bit awkward to locate...
I'm not sure I can make sense of it, but if I can slice out some time to take a stab, it seems like it might be more satisfying.
I'm starting to think that in almost all cases, uncertainty over what's going to happen is worse for business/the economy/we-the-people's-bowel-movements than any actual outcome. Once something is decided, then action is taken. It's when people won't buy/invest/move/play/act because the outcome may be about to shift that things get the most hung up.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Anybody have a spreadsheet for what will happen to their monthly income from fallout from changes needed to not have sequestration hanging over us for more than three months?
I'm in no position to know, but I'm dubious about anybody having worked out exactly what will happen down to monthly pay cuts for individuals, when I suspect there is a fair amount of departmental administration involved in working out what a given department/office/etc will do in the face of a given budget cut.
It may not sound better, but doesn't it seem more likely that this person will either be job-hunting or doing their job plus part of another for the same pay?
ransom wrote: ...Anybody have a link to the text of the legislation? I'm finding it a bit awkward to locate...
I have "heard" the the details cannot be known, because there is some sort of decisions that needs to be made when it implements.... or something like that...
... is that vague enough?
This thing was designed so no one would like it. What it appears to be actually doing is making everyone involved look like a-holes...
...well, in that way at least, it appears to be working...
In reply to aircooled:
Ha, thanks!
This was the way they "solved" the last budget talks.
Oh, so political threads are cool again? My bad OP.
With the U.S. $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, if the federal government can't afford a 2% across the board cut, we really are berkeleyed. After all, if you get a paycheck, you started having 2% more yanked out of your pocket for FICA this year, RIGHT?
If the administration wanted "calculated, targeted, specific" cuts, they've had 5 years to do it. This is the deal they agreed to.
Eye-opener: I heard some chick from the Kennesaw Battlefield park freaking out on the radio because they were going to see an EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND dollar cut in Federal funds. Ummmm. I've been to this park. There's a visitor center, some trails, a field that needs mowin' every month or so, and a couple gates. The budget (IIRC) was almost TWO MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY. Methinks they can afford to trim a little fat.
EDIT: Here's the article. They supposedly had 2 million visitors last year(?) Which I find hard to believe, but hell, charge $5 a head and pull in 10 FREAKIN MILLION A YEAR! I have to pay $4 every time we go to Carter's lake. Seems totally fair to me! Hell, dress a guy in a Mouse costume and add a couple roller coasters, and charge $40 a head! Put it this way: Put me in charge, and I'll make it a profitable place for a fraction of the cost.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/sequestration-cuts-deepest-ga-military-schools-par/nWYrM/
I don't understand why the national museums don't charge admission. It's a cool gesture and all to offer free admission, but with how expensive everything else in DC is, the trip doesn't magically become affordable from saving a few bucks on admission. $10/ticket would have brought in $300 Million for the Smithsonian system in 2012.
I'm not gonna add a lot here as there is already a pretty good explanation, except to say Congress and the WH need to get off their butts and pass a budget. There has not been a budget passed since fall '08 for the '09 fiscal year. The Senate won't even bring one up for a vote, much less pass one. And what is congress's number one job, to pass a budget. I say none of them get a dime until they get it done, and they all have to leave if they don't. If we had a budget, all of this would be moot.
mtn wrote: I'll fix the problem: Term limits on Senators/Congressmen to 2 terms. Salary decrease to $150,000 from the $175,000 (?) it is now. Additionally, get rid of their pension. Or use Warren Buffett's theory:Warren Buffett said: "I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah, yeah, now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? (Laughs)
Warren takes it downtown with that "pitch" 
I'm sure Fox News will have some problem with it....
I thought governments didn't create jobs, wasn't that the line for quite a while now? So why are people worried about their job all the sudden? Hello, this thing on?
pres589 wrote: I thought governments didn't create jobs, wasn't that the line for quite a while now? So why are people worried about their job all the sudden? Hello, this thing on?
I'm no genius or anything but maybe because these people are employed by the gov't one way or another? I'm not 100% sure that's just a wild guess. The last time I checked the gov't isn't an autonomous entity that runs itself.
There are def programs like TSA that could afford to take cuts. We the people of the USofA don't need 100 of these people sitting around at every airport for a false sense of security and making air travel a pain in the buttocks.
You'll need to log in to post.
