Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Posted by hamiltongardener CAN 6a (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 3, 13 at 22:52

So you woke up a couple days ago to find that America had begun it's own austerity plan. Granted, it's a plan that Congress may still be able to reverse, but for now, it is in effect.

I'm wondering if anyone believes these austerity measures to be good or whether they should be ditched as soon as possible. Does it matter where the cuts are, say cuts to military as opposed to something like schools?

Or does it even matter? Job losses are bad, but reduced government outlays are good... so the balance is acceptable?
Does austerity even make much of a difference overall?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I'm wondering if anyone believes these austerity measures to be good or whether they should be ditched as soon as possible.

1. There are close to zero examples of when austerity works in recessions.

2. Deficits are a ruse to scare the underinformed. Our deficits are decreasing. The ruse is to make cuts to gummint in order to put more into the hands of the rich.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

LOLOLOL....hey libtard its a scare tactic that Barry Satorro is implementing for the 2014 bi-elections...Earth is watching as you Americans are spending (to buy votes) like drunken sailors. America is 17,000,000,000 in debt and like spoilt children wont live within thier means. According to the Congressional budget office Obama care will cripple you and and the country. We on the out side are loving it as we are seeing the fall of Goliath.so shut off your computer and sit back and watch American Idol, lose your work ethic as your dollar (fed printing another trillion) is worth less.you are a joke if 43 billion that can be cut out in waste will have an effect. You are beeing played by the Socialist supreme...


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

sounds more like you, oil robb, are being played by those that you are getting your info from.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I've been refuted by someone with a clear and obvious high IQ and strong connection to reality! Owie.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Cuts to the military and quasi-military gov agencies are not only desired but inevitable. We can't afford to be the global "police" forever.

For example, maybe Canada should completely fund its own Imperialism instead of piggy-backing on our faltering wealth-pumps.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

And so should France in Mali.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

My opinion is that all cuts are good and useful. The less our govt does, the better off we all are. The Index of Economic Freedom makes that abundantly clear.

I am frankly amazed at people's confidence in govt to improve things. as the govt is siphoning off the last of a liberals blood, with his dying breath, he will still wait for a "good" govt. Unbelievable. As the ship is sinking ever deeper, liberals will continue to suggest new govt programs to right the ship.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

. As the ship is sinking ever deeper, liberals will continue to suggest new govt programs to right the ship.

*

That is what is perplexing to me.
Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinions, and apparently the fruits of those that work and make good decisions.

*

No, I don't think this sequester will do much of anything other than prove that it isn't the end of the world scenario that Barack Obama was telling us last week that it would be.

Now--once Obamacare is totally enacted, that could seal our fate if our economy is not poised to compensate for these major changes. That could be the beginning of the end of our economic viability.

Hey, isn't the goal to have everyone dependent on the Nanny I Know Better Government?


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I rarely do this, but I am giving credit to Obama for the sequester. Cuts in spending are so necessary in a bloated wasteful government. I think we will find out that this is not the end of the world as we know it.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Austerity certainly hasn't worked in Europe.

It's not going to work here, either.

More and more of us will fall farther and farther behind. Less discretionary spending by the rapidly disappearing middle class, small businesses closing, more houses into foreclosure, more people losing jobs, more domestic abuse, more hungry children, a failing economy, and on and on and on...............

I'm wondering if this may not be the beginning of the end for the US. We are heading into the autumn of our existence as a great country and world leader.

We may struggle out of the Bush recession eventually, but I suspect this sequestration, on top of everything else, will cost us too much over the next years, and we'll never be much of country any more.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

The way to get the economy back on track is to cut 750,000 gvt supported jobs.

Because Ayn Rand tells us that private industry will snap them right up, paying better wages and improving the economy all around, amirite?


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

.......aahhhh but.......If the economy slows as a result of these job losses then certain conservatives can blame it on Obama , saying that is exactly what they predicted.

Facts are this is a very dumb way to run a government.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I do believe that name calling is against forum policy... no?


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I don't believe that mrskjun is "giving credit" to Obama ... she is setting him up for future blame.

I agree that waste needs to be cut. The sequester is not "waste being cut", it is a dull-bladed hatchet depriving gainfully employed people of 20% of their pay just for the heck of it. Did we just release $250 million in "aid" to Egypt? There's money that needed to be CUT.

Edited for typo.

Here is a link that might be useful: Keep our money at home for now

This post was edited by esh_ga on Mon, Mar 4, 13 at 12:10


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Esh hit this one on the thumb. This meat cleaver cutting is a stupid way to get to savings. The Pentagon has at least two weapons systems they want to kill, which would have come to more than the defense share of the sequester cuts. But Congress won't let the Pentagon close those two programs down to achieve the needed savings. Instead they'll have to make many programs a little more inefficient and they are forced by Congress to keep on with unwanted weapons systems. Not to mention how much staff time is going into doing the legal necessities for furloughing peoople.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

For federal employees, it's a simple matter of staying home one out of ten work days, once per pay-period. Shouldn't be much administration for that. A ten percent pay cut, except you get the time to do whatever.

Welcome to a peek at the real world, government people. The reality for most of us, certainly for me is non-employment anytime for any duration. Total insecurity.

Life is insecure. Also, generally do we suppose that federal employees are especially productive? Maybe cutting them to half-time would be a smarter savings.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Yes, we do suppose that federal employees are, like you, pnbrown, hardworking and productive. Your snarky comment is typical of people who probably have no respect for the work anyone does.

There have been many government employees in my family, since they emigrated to the US in the early 1900's. My grandfather got his citizenship because he was with the Revenue Cutter Service (which became the Coast Guard). My parents worked for the government during WWII, in Washington, DC. And then continued to work for the government until they retired in the late 70's. My BIL worked for the GAO his whole career, and testified before Congress many times about the research they did about such things as Black Lung, and other occupational hazards.

My SIL just left the Army, after many years, including a tour in Iraq, my XH was in the Public Health Service, and I work for a local public health agency, but worked for the Federal Government for many years. I have in-laws and out-laws working for the federal government.

We were and continue to be proud of our service to the people of the US. We consider it an honor to be able to work for the government. We work hard and are productive, as are most employees, no matter where they work.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I would very much agree that we can no longer afford to play global police force with our military. It would be a huge savings to end the wars we're still in and bring our military home. The Pentagon can afford to shave a lot off its budget.

Cuts are fine where they don't harm live people, but what about REVENUE? We need to balance budget cuts with incoming revenue! Surely we can do that through our tax system, even though those uber wealthy will feel so hurt by having to pay IN a little bit more...


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

"For federal employees, it's a simple matter of staying home one out of ten work days, once per pay-period...a ten percent pay cut."

No, that's incorrect.

Federal employees are due to be furloughed one out of five work days, one day per week. That's a 20% paycut. This is scheduled to begin towards the end of April and continue for 22 weeks, until the end of the fiscal year. At any point the sequester may be cancelled - that depends on the president and Congress. On the other hand, it may continue beyond the 22 weeks. No one knows. This is the way it will be in the DOD; I don't know about other areas of the government.

On our base, an army school, contract workers began to be fired in December; that is still going on. I was amazed to hear a reporter on CSPAN claim that no jobs would be lost, that only hours would be cut. Not true! While official federal employees are indeed "only" having their hours cut, contracted people are being fired across the country.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

And while many Feddies will be facing effectively a 20 percent pay cut, most of them will be expected to perform the same amount of work if they were working a full schedule or face an unsatisfactory performance evaluation.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

esh, a moment where we both agree. I heard this morning about Kerry delivering 250 million to Egypt. Do we really think we can buy the love of people that want us dead? How many kids could go to college on that money.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 4, 13 at 17:12

The indifference to people taking a 20% cut in pay saddens but does not shock me.

The same amount of work, less pay and the added worry/stress of paying their bills with less income.

And, as Sable pointed out, the people losing jobs and added to the unemployment rolls.

Tough crowd....


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Except the money saved from Egypt would never find it's way to education......never


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

According to a source known to me in a federal law enforcement agency, what I related above is what is happening.

I don't mean to be snarky; what I mean is when work activity is not directly related to compensation for that worker, it is only logical (and in accordance with human nature) that productivity will not be the same as when it is.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

The point is that money saved by not extending foreign aid to Egypt or any other country should not find its way to education, or anywhere else. It should not be spent at all. That's the whole purpose of cutting a budget. You don't redirect money - you simply don't spend it.

However, Egypt is a country in profound crisis, and is stratigically crucial, since it controls the Suez Canal. So imo we will not be turning our backs on it completely any time soon. They would have to turn into Iran for that to happen, and I don't think that either Morsi or the army will allow that.

Ohiomom - Our local newspapers are already addressing the problems that will face local businesses and charities as a result of increased unemployment and pay cuts. Less business, fewer donations; you know all about the ripple effect!


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

According to a source known to me in a federal law enforcement agency, what I related above is what is happening. You believe this source and you are going to extrapolate to 2 million federal employees.

This source is one of 310,000,000 people in this country, I'm sure this source must know "the truth".

Good critical thinking skills.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Momj, it's possible that his source is correct for that particular section of the govt. The various departments and agencies are experiencing sequestration differently. I was reporting for the 800,000 employees of the DOD, according to the various memos that DH and his colleagues have been receiving at work.

Actually, I am not surprised that the DOD - being the largest single recipient of federal dollars - will have its civilian force take the heaviest cuts.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

PNBrown, I can assure you that there are probably as many government employees who work far beyond the minimum required as there are who do just the bare minimum. Stereotyping always leads to inaccurate observations.

I've been asking my clients who are government employees about furloughing. How many days people will be furloughed depends on who they work for. Some are being furloughed for one day a pay period; and others for one day a week. The various government entities have been told to cut so many dollars from their budgets but it is up to the individual entity to determine where to cut. DH (a GS government employee) who normally works somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week is being told only work 40 hours a week and that he will be furloughed one day a pay period.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

I don't personally know any of the other 2 million employees (nor do I know if that is the correct number). Not sure what relevance the national population number has in this context. Yes, I am presuming that a person who has received a notice about their pay is representative of the rest, and sure, I reckon it may not be so.

In fact, I don't know all that much about the world based on my direct observations. For example, I don't know for certain that Washington DC is the Capitol of the US, not having personally attended Congressional sessions nor been invited to the white house, etc. It's possible that the real Capitol is a bunker deep under ground someplace, and the real rulers are deathless Illuminati.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

Here's what pnbrown said, and it's pretty disrespectful of federal workers, and for that matter, all the workers who are going to take pay cuts or lose jobs because of this sequester. That will include contract workers, people working for companies that have government contracts - like defense and aerospace companies. And then it washes over onto the small business people who provide services, supplies, lunch for people who will no longer have jobs and won't spend money.

For federal employees, it's a simple matter of staying home one out of ten work days, once per pay-period. .... A ten percent pay cut, except you get the time to do whatever.

....do we suppose that federal employees are especially productive? Maybe cutting them to half-time would be a smarter savings.


 o
RE: Sequester: Good, bad, indifferent?

There are so many smarter ways to do the cuts without hitting so many peoples pay cheques especially as the economy struggles to move forward.

Too bad the politicians can't do the job they are paid to do.......how about furloughling them....not like that are doing much.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here