Sequester 2013

[Col Hogan]

I'm all for eliminating AG subsidies...


Are we all going to accept higher food prices...


We've been subsidizing food and dairy prices for decades...with subsidies...


I agree we need to cut them, but does anyone with a brain stem believe big AG and small family farmers alike will just suck up that loss and not jack up prices???

[HI54UNI]

I'm all for eliminating AG subsidies...


Are we all going to accept higher food prices...


We've been subsidizing food and dairy prices for decades...with subsidies...


I agree we need to cut them, but does anyone with a brain stem believe big AG and small family farmers alike will just suck up that loss and not jack up prices???

We need to get rid of ag subsidies. The farmers around here are making money like crazy plus are being subsidized. It needs to stop.

[kalm]

I'm all for eliminating AG subsidies...


Are we all going to accept higher food prices...


We've been subsidizing food and dairy prices for decades...with subsidies...


I agree we need to cut them, but does anyone with a brain stem believe big AG and small family farmers alike will just suck up that loss and not jack up prices???

Entitlement culture...

'I am an entitled to make the same amount of money the government has always helped me make... in perpetuity.'

[Col Hogan]

I'm all for eliminating AG subsidies...


Are we all going to accept higher food prices...


We've been subsidizing food and dairy prices for decades...with subsidies...


I agree we need to cut them, but does anyone with a brain stem believe big AG and small family farmers alike will just suck up that loss and not jack up prices???

Entitlement culture...

'I am an entitled to make the same amount of money the government has always helped me make... in perpetuity.'

Therein lies the issue...I believe that once the impact of cutting something like agriculture subsidies becomes obvious to the unwashed masses, there will be a hue and cry that the current administration will feel a need to respond to...

Food subsidies will be proposed for the poor and middle class, and someone will have to "pay their fair share" to pay for those food subsidies...

And the vicious cycle continues...

I can pay the higher prices...what about those who can't.

[kalm]

Entitlement culture...

'I am an entitled to make the same amount of money the government has always helped me make... in perpetuity.'

Therein lies the issue...I believe that once the impact of cutting something like agriculture subsidies becomes obvious to the unwashed masses, there will be a hue and cry that the current administration will feel a need to respond to...

Food subsidies will be proposed for the poor and middle class, and someone will have to "pay their fair share" to pay for those food subsidies...

And the vicious cycle continues...

I can pay the higher prices...what about those who can't.

Yup.

My point, and the problem with subsidies, is they inflate prices but they also inflate profits.

[SDHornet]

No gas turbine engines = no frigates and destroyers available for deployment.

Yeah, I get that. I know Navy wide that OT has been eliminated for current Fiscal year. Good luck to your dad.

My dad will be fine. Worry about all those other folks who this will actually have a major impact on.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Given the usual budgetary process in DC which just adds 8% - 10% to every item every year, will the sequester lower a department to less than they had last year or to a figure lower than what they would ordinarily expect it to increase? If the former then I might see some problems but probably not. If the latter then, OH MY GOD, we have a tempest in a teapot!

[Ibanez]

Get Ready...it's coming.

What did Congress accomplish last week?

Nothing. They were in recess or as they call it "State Work Period."

[LeadBolt]

It is my understanding that the sequestor cuts are would reduce the total that was spent by the Federal government in 2012 by about 2.36% in 2013 or about 0.5% of GDP. Is that roughly correct?

I know in the skewed logic of Washington, with built in increases they see it as much higher than that, but what they hay, are you telling me that cutting some where around $1 out of $42.25 in government spending is "strict austerity" and is going to create all the problems the administration is claiming?

We should man up, take the cuts and remember that a stitch in time saves nine. As I understand it over the last 20 years Federal spending has increased at a rate approximately 71 (according to the Heritage Foundation) times the inflation rate.

Does anyone really think this is drastic? Does anyone really feel that government spending is that effeicent that 2.36% is crippling?

[93henfan]

Does anyone really think this is drastic?

If you'll agree to give me 20% of your pay to replace the 20% of mine that gets cut starting April, I'll agree not to call it drastic.

Deal?

[kalm]

Does anyone really think this is drastic?

If you'll agree to give me 20% of your pay to replace the 20% of mine that gets cut starting April, I'll agree not to call it drastic.

Deal?

This is actually a really good point, and it kind of reminds me of the conk meme about taxing the rich that 'if you're so in favor of taxes (Warren Buffett), feel free to pay more than you are required to.'

Colonel Hogan, to his credit, has already agreed in other threads that giving up some of his own scratch in favor of a better tomorrow is ok.

I've flippantly mentioned, as others have, that maybe the sequester is the best remedy in the long run for getting spending under control.

But unless you have real skin in the game like 93...or unless your government spending footprint is as pure as the driven snow (which I can make a case that 99.9% of you it's not), than you should either be willing to fork over 20% of your income or STFU.

[UNI88]

If you'll agree to give me 20% of your pay to replace the 20% of mine that gets cut starting April, I'll agree not to call it drastic.

Deal?

This is actually a really good point, and it kind of reminds me of the conk meme about taxing the rich that 'if you're so in favor of taxes (Warren Buffett), feel free to pay more than you are required to.'

Colonel Hogan, to his credit, has already agreed in other threads that giving up some of his own scratch in favor of a better tomorrow is ok.

I've flippantly mentioned, as others have, that maybe the sequester is the best remedy in the long run for getting spending under control.

But unless you have real skin in the game like 93...or unless your government spending footprint is as pure as the driven snow (which I can make a case that 99.9% of you it's not), than you should either be willing to fork over 20% of your income or STFU.

My income dropped 40% when I found another job after being laid off for several months. I chose to be employed at a lower salary and don't regret. I might not have skin in this game but I've already given up skin and I didn't expect anyone else to make it less painful for me. Others in the private sector have done the same either with layoffs, pay freezes and/or increased personal contributions to cover benefits. The idea that people should have to pay more in taxes so the government doesn't have to cut is BS. I feel bad for 93 and others like him but we're going through a tough time right now and people are going to feel some pain if we're going to get through it.

[kalm]

This is actually a really good point, and it kind of reminds me of the conk meme about taxing the rich that 'if you're so in favor of taxes (Warren Buffett), feel free to pay more than you are required to.'

Colonel Hogan, to his credit, has already agreed in other threads that giving up some of his own scratch in favor of a better tomorrow is ok.

I've flippantly mentioned, as others have, that maybe the sequester is the best remedy in the long run for getting spending under control.

But unless you have real skin in the game like 93...or unless your government spending footprint is as pure as the driven snow (which I can make a case that 99.9% of you it's not), than you should either be willing to fork over 20% of your income or STFU.

My income dropped 40% when I found another job after being laid off for several months. I chose to be employed at a lower salary and don't regret. I might not have skin in this game but I've already given up skin and I didn't expect anyone else to make it less painful for me. Others in the private sector have done the same either with layoffs, pay freezes and/or increased personal contributions to cover benefits. The idea that people should have to pay more in taxes so the government doesn't have to cut is BS. I feel bad for 93 and others like him but we're going through a tough time right now and people are going to feel some pain if we're going to get through it.

Damn you '88! Just when I was about to get on a roll.

I've had to abosrb what amounts to a pay freeze since the recession hit, so yes, in the grand view of the economy, you're right we all have skin in the game. Sort of like we all benefit in multiple ways from government spending. The problem is the inequity of those benefits. I guess I'd be ok with sequestration if everything was cut, but here's what's not included:

Social Security, Medicaid, supplemental security income, refundable tax credits, the children's health insurance program, the food stamp program, veterans' benefits, congressional pay (at least I'm pretty sure they won't see furloughs ), and all earmarked discretionary spending.

On top of this, the CBO is predicting that public and private sector employment will be reduced by 750,000 jobs next year. That's a big number that would have a further impact on private sector guys like you and me.

Government spending and private sector earnings have become so intertwined that I still see the recession as a giant reset. The question was simply whether it should all happen at once or through the soft landing approach a la Obamanomics.

But this deal where certain government dependents like those who receive earmarked subsidies or the banks are let off the hook is bull shit. Have the balls to cut EVERYTHING, or hope the economy will magically turn around and grow us out of the recession. Good luck!

[bluehenbillk]

If you'll agree to give me 20% of your pay to replace the 20% of mine that gets cut starting April, I'll agree not to call it drastic.

Deal?

This is actually a really good point, and it kind of reminds me of the conk meme about taxing the rich that 'if you're so in favor of taxes (Warren Buffett), feel free to pay more than you are required to.'

Colonel Hogan, to his credit, has already agreed in other threads that giving up some of his own scratch in favor of a better tomorrow is ok.

I've flippantly mentioned, as others have, that maybe the sequester is the best remedy in the long run for getting spending under control.

But unless you have real skin in the game like 93...or unless your government spending footprint is as pure as the driven snow (which I can make a case that 99.9% of you it's not), than you should either be willing to fork over 20% of your income or STFU.

It'd be hard to find a group of people that doesn't realize the government overspends. In whichever way they'd choose to reign spending back in there are going to be a group of people that will suffer. The sequester is only a first step in reality, and IMo it's not a bad first step as the DOD is one of the more bloated and wasteful areas of government spending we have.

I'd like to see the Medicare age raised as well, yea if you're in your early 60's that kinda sucks but if you retired early I doubt that having to wait another two years is going to break you...

[UNI88]

My income dropped 40% when I found another job after being laid off for several months. I chose to be employed at a lower salary and don't regret. I might not have skin in this game but I've already given up skin and I didn't expect anyone else to make it less painful for me. Others in the private sector have done the same either with layoffs, pay freezes and/or increased personal contributions to cover benefits. The idea that people should have to pay more in taxes so the government doesn't have to cut is BS. I feel bad for 93 and others like him but we're going through a tough time right now and people are going to feel some pain if we're going to get through it.

Damn you '88! Just when I was about to get on a roll.

I've had to abosrb what amounts to a pay freeze since the recession hit, so yes, in the grand view of the economy, you're right we all have skin in the game. Sort of like we all benefit in multiple ways from government spending. The problem is the inequity of those benefits. I guess I'd be ok with sequestration if everything was cut, but here's what's not included:

Social Security, Medicaid, supplemental security income, refundable tax credits, the children's health insurance program, the food stamp program, veterans' benefits, congressional pay (at least I'm pretty sure they won't see furloughs ), and all earmarked discretionary spending.

On top of this, the CBO is predicting that public and private sector employment will be reduced by 750,000 jobs next year. That's a big number that would have a further impact on private sector guys like you and me.

Government spending and private sector earnings have become so intertwined that I still see the recession as a giant reset. The question was simply whether it should all happen at once or through the soft landing approach a la Obamanomics.

But this deal where certain government dependents like those who receive earmarked subsidies or the banks are let off the hook is bull ****. Have the balls to cut EVERYTHING, or hope the economy will magically turn around and grow us out of the recession. Good luck!

I agree that everything - social security, medicare, etc. - should be on the table. SS is a ponzi scheme where I believe the original age of eligibility was actually older than the average life expectancy. Life expectancy has increased significantly while the age of eligibility has only increased marginally but the gov't didn't make the necessary changes to actuarial calculations. It no longer works but nobody wants to admit it and fix it.

I also don't have a problem with tax increases being considered - Dubya's tax cuts were a mistake.

What is this "the soft landing approach a la Obamanomics?" IMO, Obama has absolutely no intention of making significant cuts. He wants to spend his way out of the recession and tomorrow be damned. His approach might give us a "soft landing" in 2014 but there will be hell to pay in 2020-2030.

[grizfnz]

How much of a pay cut are members of congress taking to feel the plight of their constituents??

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[BDKJMU]

The # of exempted programs is asinine:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

How much of a pay cut are members of congress taking to feel the plight of their constituents??

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Some have stated that they won't oppose it, others do. Ironically, some Tea Party legislators oppose cutting their pay.

[Grizalltheway]

How much of a pay cut are members of congress taking to feel the plight of their constituents??

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Some have stated that they won't oppose it, others do. Ironically, some Tea Party legislators oppose cutting their pay.

Ironically, but not surprisingly.

[BDKJMU]

How much of a pay cut are members of congress taking to feel the plight of their constituents??

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Some have stated that they won't oppose it, others do. Ironically, some Tea Party legislators oppose cutting their pay.

I'd like to see a breakdown of those opposed to those not opposed.

[93henfan]

Our HR circulated a Furlough Pay Calculator spreadsheet. I punched in the numbers. We get paid every other week and my take-home pay will go down $571.18 per paycheck ($1,237/month) when sequestration begins. I can absorb this with my savings for the initial 6 months that it's planned to go, but if it goes any longer I'll be looking for a different job. I'm not sure if Congress realizes how screwed they are if they wash out their defense acquisition workforce.

Between child support, rent, car, fuel to go see my kids every weekend, mortgage on my old upside down home which I lose $350/month on after rent comes in, etc, I need to keep the cash flow up.

Oh well, at least I have a job. For now anyway. I am thankful for that, in light of the struggles some of the rest of you have gone through with your jobs.

[Col Hogan]

Our HR circulated a Furlough Pay Calculator spreadsheet. I punched in the numbers. We get paid every other week and my take-home pay will go down $571.18 per paycheck ($1,237/month) when sequestration begins. I can absorb this with my savings for the initial 6 months that it's planned to go, but if it goes any longer I'll be looking for a different job. I'm not sure if Congress realizes how screwed they are if they wash out their defense acquisition workforce.

Between child support, rent, car, fuel to go see my kids every weekend, mortgage on my old upside down home which I lose $350/month on after rent comes in, etc, I need to keep the cash flow up.

Oh well, at least I have a job. For now anyway. I am thankful for that, in light of the struggles some of the rest of you have gone through with your jobs.

Can you send me that calculator???

I assume it will be about the same for me since we're the same grade...

I just don't have some of the same expenses since I'm handsomer than you...

[93henfan]

Our HR circulated a Furlough Pay Calculator spreadsheet. I punched in the numbers. We get paid every other week and my take-home pay will go down $571.18 per paycheck ($1,237/month) when sequestration begins. I can absorb this with my savings for the initial 6 months that it's planned to go, but if it goes any longer I'll be looking for a different job. I'm not sure if Congress realizes how screwed they are if they wash out their defense acquisition workforce.

Between child support, rent, car, fuel to go see my kids every weekend, mortgage on my old upside down home which I lose $350/month on after rent comes in, etc, I need to keep the cash flow up.

Oh well, at least I have a job. For now anyway. I am thankful for that, in light of the struggles some of the rest of you have gone through with your jobs.

Can you send me that calculator???

I assume it will be about the same for me since we're the same grade...

I am not worried about sequester because I'm a fat cat, double-dipping military retiree...

FIFY. PM me your email and I'll shoot it over.

[BDKJMU]

Just remember, Sequestration is only round 2 for 2013:

Round 1: Jan 1- Fiscal Cliff

Round 2: March 1- Sequestration

Round 3: March 27: Expiration of the continuing resolution funding the federal government.

Operating under continuing resolution at 2012 budget level for 1st 6 months of FY 2013.

Round 4: May 18- Debt ceiling limit hit.

On Jan 31 Senate & House House passed debt limit bill "No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013" extending the current borrowing cap of $16.4 trillion through at least May 18. Bill also included a provision that would delay the salaries of Congressmen of any house that had not passed a resolution on the FY2013 budget by April 15, 2013.

Republicans should again insist, as they did in 2011, that any debt ceiling increase have a matching amount of cuts (which could be in the form of entitlement reform). Remember, in 2011 if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (Supercommittee) (12 from Congress, 6 from each party, 3 from each party in each house) had come to an agreement, we wouldn't be facing sequestration now.

[LeadBolt]

Does anyone really think this is drastic?

If you'll agree to give me 20% of your pay to replace the 20% of mine that gets cut starting April, I'll agree not to call it drastic.

Deal?

Hen,

Since I am self-employed, I have no guaranteed income. My 2012 income was about 60% of my 2008 income, and every year from 2009-2012 was lower than every year from 2004-2008, so I've already felt the sting of changes in government regulations.

The sequester is a lousy way to cut the budget, but there doesn't appear to be anyone with leadership skills in a position to change things in Washington.

Typical of the Federal government and Democratic Party philosophy, they are cutting the salaries of those who work and produce for them so that they will not have to cut those who do not work or produce anything but more babies to feed.

I am sorry for your cut, but something has to be done, before we end up like Europe. We need to stop punishing those who work, and are productive, such as yourself, to buy the votes of those who won't do so.