Sequester 2013

[93henfan]

Hey, look at the bright side...you'll probably be in a lower tax bracket!

If pay goes down, does child support go down?

In my case, no. Settled out of court. Of course, that also means I can negotiate.

[93henfan]

You really spend almost $500 a month on food 93?

I estimated $20/day. Just a guess. Thanks for your concern.

I also estimated $60/week on fuel.

It's hard to give exact numbers on food and fuel, but that's pretty close I think.

[LeadBolt]

We're currently have a debt to GDP ratio of about 107%. It just topped 100% Aug 2011. The national debt is pushing 16.7 trillion, GDP is about 15.6 trillion. The last time we were over 100% was 1948, and 40s were the only other time we've ever been over 100%. Huge difference between now and then.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-Then we were the world's only economic superpower. Europe lay in ruins.
-We also didn't have near the level of unfunded entitlement liabilities with medicare, medicaid, Obamacare.
-We had a double digit # of workers per retiree. Now we have something like 3.

We were in debt when Reagan left office too.

Debt as a % of GDP has doubled from 53% to 107% since RWR left office.

[93henfan]

If pay goes down, does child support go down?

In my case, no. Settled out of court. Of course, that also means I can negotiate.

Back to this topic, don't you just love that I cannot deduct child support paid from my taxes, she doesn't have to report it as income, she gets Head of Household status while I get single, she gets the kids as deductions and credits, and I have to claim rent as investment income on the house.

Yeah fuck me.

[AZGrizFan]

If pay goes down, does child support go down?

In my case, no. Settled out of court. Of course, that also means I can negotiate.

My understanding is you have a fairly decent relationship with the ex. One would think she'd understand that if YOU have to take a 20% cut, then SHE should have to as well...

Then again....

[AZGrizFan]

In my case, no. Settled out of court. Of course, that also means I can negotiate.

Back to this topic, don't you just love that I cannot deduct child support paid from my taxes, she doesn't have to report it as income, she gets Head of Household status while I get single, she gets the kids as deductions and credits, and I have to claim rent as investment income on the house.

Yeah fuck me.

Yes. There's nothing wrong with our tax code.

[BDKJMU]

We're currently have a debt to GDP ratio of about 107%. It just topped 100% Aug 2011. The national debt is pushing 16.7 trillion, GDP is about 15.6 trillion. The last time we were over 100% was 1948, and 40s were the only other time we've ever been over 100%. Huge difference between now and then.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-Then we were the world's only economic superpower. Europe lay in ruins.
-We also didn't have near the level of unfunded entitlement liabilities with medicare, medicaid, Obamacare.
-We had a double digit # of workers per retiree. Now we have something like 3.

We were in debt when Reagan left office too.

Jan 31, 1989, 11 days after Reagan left office, national debt 2.697 trillion, and about 51% of GDP:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... d/mspd.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... 111mcn_H0f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
versus about 16.7 trillion and about 107% of GDP today.

No comparison.

[BDKJMU]

We were in debt when Reagan left office too.

Debt as a % of GDP has doubled from 53% to 107% since RWR left office.

I replied before I read on and saw your post. You beat me to it. It was 51%.

[BDKJMU]

In my case, no. Settled out of court. Of course, that also means I can negotiate.

Back to this topic, don't you just love that I cannot deduct child support paid from my taxes, she doesn't have to report it as income, she gets Head of Household status while I get single, she gets the kids as deductions and credits, and I have to claim rent as investment income on the house.

Yeah **** me.

I sympathize with you here. Among male co-workers or friends, every time I hear of a divorce, esp with kids involved, it has always been the guy getting f***ed.

[SDHornet]

Best of luck to the fed employees on the board. I'll think of you guys when I am paying my higher taxes this year.

Yes, because we don't have to pay federal taxes too.

I guess I'll be reimbursed for the $25k or so on my W2 that went to federal taxes, FICA, SS, etc since I apparently suddenly became exempt.

As mentioned you could possibly move down a tax bracket. You're a smart guy, you'll figure it out and adjust your budget accordingly (contrary to what our duly elected officials do with the increased tax revenues).

BTW how many angry emails/letter/phone calls have you sent to your elected reps over their inability to address this government spending issue?

[93henfan]

Yes, because we don't have to pay federal taxes too.

I guess I'll be reimbursed for the $25k or so on my W2 that went to federal taxes, FICA, SS, etc since I apparently suddenly became exempt.

As mentioned you could possibly move down a tax bracket. You're a smart guy, you'll figure it out and adjust your budget accordingly (contrary to what our duly elected officials do with the increased tax revenues).

BTW how many angry emails/letter/phone calls have you sent to your elected reps over their inability to address this government spending issue?

I did email my new Congressman (Wittman) about 10 days ago and got no response whatsoever. Not even an auto response. This was using the submission form on his own website.

[SDHornet]

As mentioned you could possibly move down a tax bracket. You're a smart guy, you'll figure it out and adjust your budget accordingly (contrary to what our duly elected officials do with the increased tax revenues).

BTW how many angry emails/letter/phone calls have you sent to your elected reps over their inability to address this government spending issue?

I did email my new Congressman (Wittman) about 10 days ago and got no response whatsoever. Not even an auto response. This was using the submission form on his own website.

You should be blowing up his email and voice mail just like you are blowing up this thread. Bitching to us won't change anything.

[Bronco]

-
Have enough to give money to the Muzzie brotherhood

And on the was out of town sKerry was threatened by protesters...more down the toilet

CAIRO (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday rewarded Egypt for President Mohammed Morsi’s pledges of political and economic reforms by releasing $250 million in American aid to support the country’s “future as a democracy.”

[Ibanez]

Yeah, Col H and I will only be losing $1,250 per month in take home pay each. No sweat. We're federal employees, so we're subhuman anyway. **** us. We deserve it.

**** over middle-class families: Tea Party high five!

Its not the Tea Party that's f'ing you over....

Yes it is. The Tea party, GOP and Democrats have all fucked us. All of you that vote for incumbents are to blame.

[Ibanez]

We were in debt when Reagan left office too.

Jan 31, 1989, 11 days after Reagan left office, national debt 2.697 trillion, and about 51% of GDP:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... d/mspd.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... 111mcn_H0f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
versus about 16.7 trillion and about 107% of GDP today.

No comparison.

Adjust it for inflation. You can't compare 2013 dollars to 1989 dollars

[BDKJMU]

Jan 31, 1989, 11 days after Reagan left office, national debt 2.697 trillion, and about 51% of GDP:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... d/mspd.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... 111mcn_H0f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
versus about 16.7 trillion and about 107% of GDP today.

No comparison.

Adjust it for inflation. You can't compare 2013 dollars to 1989 dollars

2.697 trillion in 1989 dollars = 5.01 trillion in 2013 dollars.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So in today's dollars, Reagain 5.01 trillion, 51% debt to GDP ratio, vs Obama 16.65 trillion, 107% debt to GDP ratio.

[AZGrizFan]

Its not the Tea Party that's f'ing you over....

Yes it is. The Tea party, GOP and Democrats have all fucked us. All of you that vote for incumbents are to blame.

Very few of the Tea Partiers have even come up for reelection...

[kalm]

Adjust it for inflation. You can't compare 2013 dollars to 1989 dollars

2.697 trillion in 1989 dollars = 5.01 trillion in 2013 dollars.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So in today's dollars, Reagain 5.01 trillion, 51% debt to GDP ratio, vs Obama 16.65 trillion, 107% debt to GDP ratio.

I posted a link to an analysis by Politifact that estimated Obama's responsibility for that $5 trillion to be at least 40%. We're still adding the costs of Medicare Part D, two wars, DHS, and the interest on the tab today. Even without all of that, the current recession is deeper than what Reagan spent his way out of.

Reagan wasn't solely responsible for the debt increases during his tenure either. Yet, the debt was enough of a concern to have George Bush increase taxes in an attempt to get it under control. So like I said, Bloomberg raised some interesting points, and this isn't the first time we've had debt issues, nor can our creditors afford to see us fail, and the government is not the same as running a household.

[bluehenbillk]

So anyway, it goes without saying now, Bill K if you read this, I will not be renewing my UD season tickets this year because I cannot afford them.

Hey 93 that's cool, we have extra tickets for many games as is, I'll let you know when we have some extras.

It'll get better, after working for a company for 8 years, and making more money that I ever had, I got laid off in the summer of 2010 as a cost-saving measure. Was out of work for less than 3 months, now I work in a more recession-proof field and last year made 29% more than I ever did working for that company that is slowing going under.

One small step back, three big steps forward.

[Ibanez]

Yes it is. The Tea party, GOP and Democrats have all fucked us. All of you that vote for incumbents are to blame.

Very few of the Tea Partiers have even come up for reelection...

Why the hardon for the Tea Party?

[93henfan]

I did email my new Congressman (Wittman) about 10 days ago and got no response whatsoever. Not even an auto response. This was using the submission form on his own website.

You should be blowing up his email and voice mail just like you are blowing up this thread. Bitching to us won't change anything.

The good Congressman finally responded:


March 4, 2013


Dear Mr. 93henfan:

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding the impact of cuts to the Department of Defense required by sequestration. I value your views on this critical issue facing our Commonwealth and the Nation.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been adamantly speaking out against sequestration for over a year. After numerous briefings and hearings by DoD officials, the administration, and the men and women of our all-volunteer force, I fully understand the details and the consequences of this careless policy and the urgency of this threat to our Nation. This is a very serious matter that will have lasting second and third order effects on our national security, our defense industrial base, our all-volunteer force, our military families, our defense contractors, and our surrounding communities that have strong ties to military installations. As you may know, the House of Representatives acted twice in 2012 to replace sequestration while the Senate failed to take up legislation. I am deeply concerned that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do not share my sense of urgency about stopping sequestration as we get closer to the deadline.

As you may know, President Obama directed the Department of Defense in April 2011 to identify $400 billion in "additional savings" in the defense budget, as part of a broader effort to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. $487 billion in cuts to the defense department over the next 10 years have already been put into law (public law 112-25 signed on August 2, 2011 by the President of the United States). To place an additional $500 billion on top of the already enacted $487 billion in cuts would decimate our defense department and completely devastate our military readiness and capabilities. Further reduction beyond the already $487 billion that has been enacted represents a hollowing of our force of epic proportions and one that would present a clear and present danger to the national and economic security of the United States of America.

Our nation faces significant challenges with regard to the level of mandatory, or “autopilot” spending. Plans to simply raise taxes and cut defense even further will not solve the nation’s spending problem if autopilot spending reforms are not addressed with a long-term solution. If all defense and discretionary spending were eliminated we will still be in debt because this administration refuses to enact reforms to autopilot spending. If sequestration does go through, autopilot spending will still continue to rise.

While I fully understand the enormity of the task before our Nation of balancing the federal government’s budget and solving our debt crisis, I also believe in a strong national defense to ensure America’s national security into the future. From a Constitutional perspective, particularly article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, which provides for “the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”, not all elements of the federal budget are equal. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee charged with assuring America’s military can defend the nation against a multitude of growing threats, it is evident that additional reductions in the base budget of the DoD will critically compromise national security.

The failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was charged under the Budget Control Act to develop a plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over FY2012-FY2021, will no doubt irreparably harm our nation, and especially the Department of Defense, which faces greater challenges than any other with this lack of a plan to move forward. As a result, a $1.2 trillion automatic spending reduction process triggers on March 1, 2013, divided evenly between defense and non-defense spending. The automatic reduction in spending, also called “sequestration”, for non-exempt accounts in FY2013 is projected to be 10% for defense.

As you may know, H.R. 5652 the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 2012 with my support by a vote of 218-199. I voted in favor of this bill to prevent additional cuts to defense that would be absolutely devastating to our national security and to our Department of Defense. Passing H.R. 5652 during the 112th Congress would have been the first step towards finding a solution to avoiding sequestration. Unfortunately, this legislation did not pass the Senate and get signed into law before the end of the 112th Congress.

You may also be interested to know that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, with my support by a vote of 414-2 on July 18, 2012. The bill would have required the President to submit to Congress a detailed preview of the sequestration required by the Budget Control Act and how the required spending cuts would be implemented. H.R. 5872 would have required the President to submit a report to Congress within 30 days of enactment that includes an estimate of the sequestration cuts that will be made to achieve the required reduction for each spending category. The bill would also have required the report to identify each account to be sequestered and provide estimates of the level of budgetary resources subject to sequestration and resulting reductions at the program, project, and activity level. Unfortunately, this legislation did not pass the Senate and get signed into law before the end of the 112th Congress.

I also voted for H.R. 6365, The National Security and Job Protection Act of 2012, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 223-196 on September 10, 2012. H.R. 6365 would have repealed the across-the-board defense and non-defense discretionary spending cuts scheduled to occur on January 2, 2013, upon the enactment of H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, or any legislation that would have offset the automatic sequester with equal or greater spending reductions over the next five years. H.R. 6365 in and of itself would not have repealed the sequester. However, it would have ensured that if any legislation to replace the sequester with alternative spending reductions were enacted, the sequester would be shut off. In the event that the sequestration was replaced, the bill would have lowered the discretionary spending cap for FY 2013 from $1.047 trillion to $1.028 trillion.

Finally, on January 1, 2013 I voted against H.R. 8 the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which passed through the House of Representatives by a vote of 257-167. The President signed this bill into law on January 2, 2013, after it passed through the Senate. I regretfully voted against the American Taxpayer Relief Act because it unfortunately did what Congress does best – kicks the can down the road. While I support low tax rates for Americans and have previously voted to ensure taxes do not go up on hardworking Americans, I could not vote for this bill because it does nothing to reform our long-term spending problems, which are the real drivers of our debt and deficits. In addition, this bill postpones sequestration, the disastrous defense cuts, for only two months. This bill created even more uncertainty for our defense industry, which is so vital to the security of this nation. This bill is the epitome of what is wrong with Washington – waiting until the very last minute to pass a package negotiated by only a few.

H.R. 8 was not a solution; it was a legislative band-aid that failed to solve a problem and we are now faced with a new sequestration deadline of March 1. I am committed to finding a long term sustainable solution to this real problem, one that ensures the economic and national security of this nation while also addressing our out-of-control mandatory spending problem.

You may be interested to know that I recently joined with Senators Warner and Kaine and Representatives Rigell, Scott, Forbes, Moran, Connolly and Wolf in sending a letter to the President, the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader to show unified support for immediate action to avert the devastating impacts of sequestration. The letter goes on to state that, “We stand ready to work hand-in-hand to negotiate an agreement to avert these cuts that threaten grave consequences for the Commonwealth, our federal government, and our national security.”

The nation’s highest-ranking military leaders have warned Congress that failure by the super committee would be “catastrophic,” that sequestration would cause “irreversible damage” to our nation’s armed forces. Failure is an outcome we must not and cannot accept. I will continue to work for solutions and encourage the folks in Washington that solutions must be found, to address the real drivers of our debt. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, please be assured that I am dedicated to supporting our veterans, our men and women in uniform, their families, as well as to examining the greatest possible methods of enhancing our defense capabilities and military personnel policies. It is an honor to serve on the House Armed Services Committee and I am humbled to support and serve the members of our great all-volunteer force during this challenging time in our nation’s history. While this is a very challenging and austere time when it comes to the Department of Defense budget, I will work to ensure our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and their families have the resources, equipment, support, and benefits that they need and deserve and to ensure the security of the United States of America.

For more information on my efforts to combat sequestration over the last eighteen months, please visit my website: http://wittman.house.gov/index.php?opti ... mid=100001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

In addition, I hope that you’ll fill out a short survey on my website as I continue to seek input from you on sequestration: http://wittman.house.gov/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Thank you again for sharing your views and opinions with me about sequestration. Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues to halt the devastating cuts to national defense. I am committed to serving you to the best of my abilities. If I can ever be of assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 225-4261 or contact me online at: http://www.wittman.house.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Sincerely,

Robert Wittman
Member of Congress

RJW/be

[ASUG8]

Nice letter...it reads a little more like a resume.

I know it's difficult for an attorney to be concise, but he should have just written:

Dear Mr. 93henfan,

I got this.

xoxo,
Bob

[CAA Flagship]

Wittman is OK, despite having attended Va Tech and VCU and being a "watered-down Catholic" (Episcopalian).

[bluehenbillk]

93 - that's what you call a form letter, that was done by a member of his staff.

[93henfan]

93 - that's what you call a form letter, that was done by a member of his staff.

No shit Sherlock.