It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by iwan2ski
reply to post by jdub297
As a DoD Employee, we were told just yesterday by our Base Commander to expect a 20% decrease in our pay starting mid April if the sequestration goes into effect March 1st. Meanwhile congress is giving themselves a pay raise. The arguement I've heard is that the government wouldn't save much if "they" took a pay cut, but by cutting the federal civilan DoD budget they could make a difference.
It's hardly an impact as a whole on the US debt, but to the individual giving up 20% of their pay could snowball onto everyone else.
Now imagine if another 50,000 DoD employees do the same. That means Verizon would lose alot of customers and start laying off some of thier employees to stay a float. Which then, trickles down to every to other buisness as they start losing customers and then lay off their employees. Then so on and so forth....
Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by jdub297
I would just like to add to your post that the grave furlough of gov't employees that is being talked about isn't as grave as it's made out to be. Basically, the employees will get a 20% pay cut by only working and being paid for 4 days vice 5. So, some will get 3 day weekends, others will get another unpaid day off.
Easy to say that when it isn't you right? Just so you know some of us are making sacrifices beyond this to maintain such equipment that ensures safe travel of airliners; point A to B. It merely isn't a 20% pay cut, but also unneeded overtime to cover such reduction. It is FUBAR all around.
Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by iwan2ski
And you are correct that this could have a trickle down affect on local economies. Economies dependent on government employees.
I believe that the heyday of GS jobs is coming to an end. The military will have to go back to doing those jobs themselves which means more overtime for them...unpaid overtime as they are salaried. I'm not saying all GS jobs will go away, but I bet GS7 command secretaries could be on the chopping block in the future, along with other low level positions.
Again, I am sorry that you folks are caught in the middle of a political battle. That said, Congress should vote to reduce their pay AND put a moratorium on future raises. I'm sure there are other ways to come up with 85 million in savings without taking from employees.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Easy to say that when it isn't you right? Just so you know some of us are making sacrifices beyond this to maintain such equipment that ensures safe travel of airliners; point A to B. It merely isn't a 20% pay cut, but also unneeded overtime to cover such reduction. It is FUBAR all around.
The military abandoned Stinson Field and everyone panicked. Some entrepreneurs took charge, converted it, and now it is a self-sufficxient civilian portal.
Weaning from the federal teat is scary, but it makes you grow independent.
The American Family Economic Protection Act includes:
New revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations: $55 billion:
The American Family Economic Protection Act includes the Buffett Rule, which reduces the deficit by $54 billion by making sure that taxpayers with a gross adjusted income above $1 million cannot pay tax at a lower effective tax rate than middle class families. Specifically, it would require these taxpayers to pay a 30 percent tax on all of their adjusted gross income (less charitable contributions), phased in between $1 million and $2 million. The proposal also eliminates a tax break that encourages companies to ship job overseas by denying tax deductions for costs associated with outsourcing, reducing the deficit by less than a billion dollars. And it eliminates a special tax loophole now enjoyed by the oil industry by including oil from tar sands among the petroleum products that are subject to taxes that support the oil spill liability trust fund, which would reduce the deficit by $2 billion.
Responsible defense cuts: $27.5 billion:
The American Family Economic Protection Act includes modest reductions in the overall level of
defense spending phased in responsibly to time with the troop drawdown in Afghanistan in 2015,
and continuing through 2021. The reduction would be about $3 billion in Fiscal Years 2015 and
2016, and then would rise slowly to a high of about $5 billion in Fiscal Year 2021.
Responsible domestic cuts: $27.5 billion:
The American Family Economic Protection Act saves $27.5 billion over 10 years by ending direct
payments, which are currently provided regardless of yields, prices, or farm income.
Originally posted by Deetermined
What is everyone's thoughts on the "democratic proposal to replace the first year of sequestration" that was proposed in the last couple of weeks?
The American Family Economic Protection ... .
www.chn.org...
Personally, I think if we could just reduce the amount of payments we send out in error by 10% each year we could reach these amounts. Why aren't we focusing on waste? For the last ten years we've been sending out $110 Billion - $150 Billion EACH YEAR in error and/or to people who don't qualify for benefits.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by kudegras
I don't disagree with you here. The main point though is, our Government cannot find 2% out of a budget of $3.3 trillion. 2%, as pointed out in the OP, that is an increase over last years spending. More and more and more and I fight it everyday in my job. I despise fraud, waste and abuse and am always kept at arms length because I am that guy at work who questions why we need a 50" TV or why we need a new work-truck; to which I get the answer "because we need a bigger budget". It makes me sick. But I try and fight it.
Originally posted by beezzer
With the amount of doom coming from DC, they should be authors of Nirubu threads!
The way I understand it is DoD has to cut 1% of their increase in budget while DC has to cut 1% in their increase in discretionary spending.
The DoD is going after GS civilians (as illustrated by the poster in this thread) as well as hiring freezes and early retirements at major facilities.
The cuts DC has to make are just grandstanding.
They could cut MORE by not allowing ANY increase in spending.
Get that?
MORE COULD BE SAVED IF THEY JUST DIDN'T INCREASE SPENDING!!!
They could keep DA civilians with no furlough, they could keep all programs going with no lay-offs and SAVE MORE if they just kept spending at the same rate as the previous year!
Originally posted by Jeremiah65
I love how "reducing an increase" is poured out to the masses as a "devastating cut"...
Talking to the choir, I know.
They just want to scare everyone so they can keep shoveling that money into their own pockets through connections to the Military industrial complex and other government contractors.
Think about it...the companies that provide 'common" things through the GSA and walk away with bucket loads of cash...I wonder how many of our "representatives" are owners or investors (or their families are) in these types of companies...of course they don't want to cut spending...that would be the same to them as roasting the goose that laid the golden egg...
Criminals...all of them. Criminals that lie and steal from us and somehow manage to get people to think if the steal less, we will be in bad times...
Originally posted by jdub297
[ And, if you'd read my earlier posts, there's really no "cut" at all, but a reduction in budgeted increases!