Sequestration devastation? The facts show otherwise.

reply to post by jdub297

How about we cut fundung across the board to 2008 levels, when schools were full of teachers, no firefighters or other first-responders had been laid off, there were still construction jobs and job-training programs, and no banks or automakers had yet needed to be bailed out?

I don't have a problem with cutting back to 2008 levels, but I'm not sure you understand what the impact of that would really be. As for salaries for teachers, firefighters, first responders, etc., their salaries aren't going to go as far as they did in 2008 due to inflation and the value of the dollar today.

As for banks and automakers being bailed out, all was not what it seemed, even in the 80's.

Things were working well as far as government-run programs/jobs were concerned until the housing bubble and financial bailouts; so, why not "reset" policy and funding to those levels and let the taxpayers spend the rest as they see fit?

Due to the housing bubble and financial bailouts, we will never be able to go back to "easy credit" again to bring it back to "reset". It's too late for that and many factors were being ignored and unreported on.

We no longer have an Iraq war to pay for and Afghanistan is all but over. According to the Obamqa admionistration, Government Motors and Chrysler are flying high and do not need our help anymore. Where's all that extra money now?

GM and Chrysler are not flying high. This is a lie from our government to give us hope. GM only paid back their bailout to the U.S. government with a loan from the Federal Reserve. Their "profits" are being reported based on pushing some of their liabilities off of their balance sheets. If you were to include the expenses that GM and Chrysler incur just from their pension plans alone (let alone healthcare costs) each year, you'd probably see that there really is no "profit" at all. It's all an illusion based on how they keep their books.

reply to post by Deetermined


The U.S. Government is currently spending $18 Billion every year on 31 Federal
Job Training Programs that DO NOT WORK.

Maybe we could shut them all down and take the $18 Billion and give it to the
first responders???

reply to post by jdub297


I think where your argument fails is that once these cuts occur we can't just shift money around to keep paying for things. We could use the household analogy:

You spend $1000/month. You need to cut $23. Sounds easy right? Well, you can't just cut $23 from one or two expenditures, you have to cut a small amount from every expenditure. Even the important ones; rent, utilities, etc.

Now you're late on all your payments (because you didn't pay them all off) and the next month rolls around.

Now you're spending $977 and you still have to cut $45 from this months budget. Once again though, you can't just shift the costs to cover your bills, you have to cut everything about evenly. So now you're even more late on your rent and utility bills. Interest starts adding up on your credit card because you're not paying in full on time.

By the third month you're spending $932, your bills are showing up late and you're threatened with going to collections or worse, getting your stuff repossesed. You still have to cut almost $70 this month too, across the board, as it were.

This is what the sequester is all about, not cutting reasonably and just cutting everything, regardless of its importance.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by jdub297

 

How about we cut fundung across the board to 2008 levels ... ?

... I'm not sure you understand what the impact of that would really be. As for salaries for teachers, firefighters, first responders, etc., their salaries aren't going to go as far as they did in 2008 due to inflation and the value of the dollar today.

Teachers, firefighters and other first responders are not federal employees! The sequestration covers federal agencies, NOT state and local.

Things were working well as far as government-run programs/jobs were concerned until the housing bubble and financial bailouts; so, why not "reset" policy and funding to those levels and let the taxpayers spend the rest as they see fit?

Due to the housing bubble and financial bailouts, we will never be able to go back to "easy credit" again to bring it back to "reset". It's too late for that and many factors were being ignored and unreported on.

There should never have been such "easy credit" to begin with! It was an unsupportable fiction created by the federal government. Before the government started guaranteeing shaky loans, a buyer had to have proven income and put at least 20% of her own money into the deal. Banks and other lenders (remeber the old "Housing and Loan" companies?) were dealing with their own money, "warehousing" their mortgage loans as assets, instead of selling them into a "secondary market" created by federal insurance programs.

We no longer have an Iraq war to pay for and Afghanistan is all but over. According to the Obama administration, Government Motors and Chrysler are flying high and do not need our help anymore. Where's all that extra money now?

GM and Chrysler are not flying high. This is a lie from our government to give us hope. GM only paid back their bailout to the U.S. government with a loan from the Federal Reserve.

You missed the part where I said "According to the Obama administration" ... .

If you've read my posts elsewhere, you'd know that we will lose at least $26 billion on GM, alone. Their "profits" are the product of $35 billion in tax loss carry-overs that should have been wiped out under bankruptcy laws that apply to every other corporation, including airlines). They are a sham, and I despise everything GM and the auto bailouts stand for.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by jdub297

 

Teachers, firefighters and other first responders are not federal employees! The sequestration covers federal agencies, NOT state and local.

So, why did Obama mention them when addressing sequestration? It's because they receive federal grants.

There should never have been such "easy credit" to begin with! It was an unsupportable fiction created by the federal government. Before the government started guaranteeing shaky loans, a buyer had to have proven income and put at least 20% of her own money into the deal. Banks and other lenders (remeber the old "Housing and Loan" companies?) were dealing with their own money, "warehousing" their mortgage loans as assets, instead of selling them into a "secondary market" created by federal insurance programs.

I agree that "easy credit" shouldn't have been so easy. I'm just saying that pushing a "reset button" isn't going to bring everything back to the way it used to be because of it.

You missed the part where I said "According to the Obama administration" ... .

If you've read my posts elsewhere, you'd know that we will lose at least $26 billion on GM, alone. Their "profits" are the product of $35 billion in tax loss carry-overs that should have been wiped out under bankruptcy laws that apply to every other corporation, including airlines). They are a sham, and I despise everything GM and the auto bailouts stand for.

That I agree with. From the way you worded your post earlier, I thought you were agreeing with the Obama administration that GM and Chrysler were really making a come back.

If Obama gets his way on sequestration replacement, there won't be much of a tax loss carry over to be had in the future.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by jdub297

 

I think where your argument fails is that once these cuts occur we can't just shift money around to keep paying for things. We could use the household analogy:

You spend $1000/month. You need to cut $23. Sounds easy right? Well, you can't just cut $23 from one or two expenditures, you have to cut a small amount from every expenditure. Even the important ones; rent, utilities, etc.

Now you're late on all your payments (because you didn't pay them all off) and the next month rolls around.

Now you're spending $977 and you still have to cut $45 from this months budget. Once again though, you can't just shift the costs to cover your bills, you have to cut everything about evenly. So now you're even more late on your rent and utility bills. Interest starts adding up on your credit card because you're not paying in full on time.

By the third month you're spending $932, your bills are showing up late and you're threatened with going to collections or worse, getting your stuff repossesed. You still have to cut almost $70 this month too, across the board, as it were.

This is what the sequester is all about, not cutting reasonably and just cutting everything, regardless of its importance.

Sorry, that assumes that I have to cut ONLY $23. If I also cut my (discretionary) cell phone, liquor and cigarette expenses by an additional $50, I'll have an extra $27 to cover the "necessities." You assume that my original $1,000 was 100% efficient and well-allocated. Why? What if $150of that was for my favorite uncle's gambling debts?

People assume that everything the government spends is a "necessity;" and, that is utterly false.

While Obama and the TSA rant about lost jobs, delayed flights, etc., they are advertising to hire dozens of "drivers" at $26/hr., a "scholarship attorney" at $151,000, a human resources position at the Dept of Agriculture paying up to $179,000/year, an Air Force museum official making $165,300 per year and an $81,000 receptionist.
www.usajobs.com.

jw

reply to post by Deetermined

So, why did Obama mention them when addressing sequestration? It's because they receive federal grants.

1. It's a lie and he can't help himself.
2. Federal grants to "first responders" aren't spent on staffing, they're used to fund "training seminars" in Las Vegas, $250k "mobile command centers," and other toys, junk and distractions. The employees are local employees. It's like giving a kid a $100 bill and telling him to use it wisely to "improve himself." Somehow, Pokemon, Cheetos and a movie come before "books" on the list of "improvements" bought with free money.

reply to post by jdub297


I believe that! I knew Obama had to bring them into the sequestration for a reason, even if that's the way he chose to do it.

If our economy is so fragile that we can't handle a 2.3% cut on the increase in government spending, then this is a glaring indictment on the economic policies of our government in general and of Obama, specifically.

Originally posted by beezzer
If our economy is so fragile that we can't handle a 2.3% cut on the increase in government spending, then this is a glaring indictment on the economic policies of our government in general and of Obama, specifically.

Sequestration fear is not selling very well over at CNN.
The FAA director admits there are fewer planes now due to mergers of airlines.
Also, the the FAA has $500 Million more now than it had in the year 2008 !.

CNN host is confused. You can't cut anything???

Mark my words the Sequester will happen. Even if the GOP bowed down and gave up all ground, their pleas would fall on deaf ears. Its all part of a political power play, assuming we are really running on a balanced two party system (I have my doubts). What you see right now is just the beating of the war drums in what I would liken to a hostile takeover of the governmental system. The whole chicken little the sky is falling dance is all manufactured in order to make the Sequester and the plan hit that much harder. In reality these cuts being 2.4% make very little difference overall and all the hype you hear about homeless people starving and ships not being maintained is falsified information however very real in that these things will take place in order to further the agenda at hand. You see once this happens and people begin to see all these things taking place in their own backyard they will be begging for relief and praying for some one to save them. And that's when it happens the administration will swoop in and save the day from their own doing to great applause of the masses. This endeavor will solidify the administrations power base once and for all, guaranteeing the destruction of the GOP come 2014 and rendering the three branches of government under single party control. From there its anyone's guess as to what will happen. As I find it now I don't see a clear way out of it however people are not as predictable as some might think so there is always hope.

reply to post by Cbell77


Another point of view:

Since the liberals have promised us Armageddon, now they MUST DELIVER

Armageddon or they risk looking like fools when nothing happens!!!

reply to post by TauCetixeta

Another point of view:

Since the liberals have promised us Armageddon, now they MUST DELIVER

Armageddon or they risk looking like fools when nothing happens!!!

In their hurry to hasten their own version of armaggedon, they may end up sealing their own doom.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by jdub297

 

I believe that! I knew Obama had to bring them into the sequestration for a reason, even if that's the way he chose to do it.

And he flat out lied in the second debate with Romney when he claimed it was congress' idea. When it was his and his senior staffers idea all along.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

Those of you who are older, think back 20 or 30 years...the Gov now takes in more money, spends more than it takes in and does a crappier job of taking care of their responsibilities...anyone else wonder why that is?

30 years ago there were only 220 million people. Now there are around 310 million a 40% increase.
A loaf of bread was $0.50 vs almost $2.00 today. A 400% increase.
Gasoline was $1.25 per gallon vs $4.00 today. A 320% increase.
Minimum wage was $3.10 vs $7.25. A 200% increase.
Federal spending in 1980 was around 940 B vs. $6.4T a 650% increase.
GDP was 2T vs 14T a 700% increase.
www.usgovernmentspending.com...
www.inflationdata.com...

Not only do we have inflation (375% increase since 1980 based on CPI) we also have a 40% increase due to the increase in population. Which gives us a federal government size of 4.9T (to account for inflation and population increase). In 1980's we didn't have the cost of current technologies, and the problem with increase in agency size is the additional overhead of having to hire additional managers and other incidental costs which do not scale linearly with the rest of the government. In addition to hot wars, and the skyrocketing cost of medical care in the US the 6.4T number sounds about right.

Just my 2cp.

Originally posted by jdub297
Sorry, that assumes that I have to cut ONLY $23. If I also cut my (discretionary) cell phone, liquor and cigarette expenses by an additional $50, I'll have an extra $27 to cover the "necessities." You assume that my original $1,000 was 100% efficient and well-allocated. Why? What if $150of that was for my favorite uncle's gambling debts?

I think you're missing the point of the analogy. I understand what could/would/should be done just as well as you do. We probably disagree on the specifics, but we both understand the overall plan.

The sequester is not just cutting those discretionary items, it's cutting the necessary items as well. That was what I was trying to get at with the analogy. I was trying to explain the sequester and not what could be done to avert it or replace it.

I never meant to make anyone believe the spending was 100% efficient and well-allocated. Just that cutting in the manner that's proposed is a bad idea overall.

Originally posted by kamebard

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

Those of you who are older, think back 20 or 30 years...the Gov now takes in more money, spends more than it takes in and does a crappier job of taking care of their responsibilities...anyone else wonder why that is?

30 years ago there were only 220 million people. Now there are around 310 million a 40% increase.
A loaf of bread was $0.50 vs almost $2.00 today. A 400% increase.
Gasoline was $1.25 per gallon vs $4.00 today. A 320% increase.
Minimum wage was $3.10 vs $7.25. A 200% increase.
Federal spending in 1980 was around 940 B vs. $6.4T a 650% increase.
GDP was 2T vs 14T a 700% increase.
www.usgovernmentspending.com...
www.inflationdata.com...

Not only do we have inflation (375% increase since 1980 based on CPI) we also have a 40% increase due to the increase in population. Which gives us a federal government size of 4.9T (to account for inflation and population increase). In 1980's we didn't have the cost of current technologies, and the problem with increase in agency size is the additional overhead of having to hire additional managers and other incidental costs which do not scale linearly with the rest of the government. In addition to hot wars, and the skyrocketing cost of medical care in the US the 6.4T number sounds about right.

Just my 2cp.

Most logical post on the entire thread. Can cuts be made? Sure. That does not change the fact that America and the cost of doing business constantly increases. Thus, spending follows.

The thing that amazes me now is that the Repubs are suddenly feeling the need to pass a resolution allowing the prez to pick & choose which cuts to make (as opposed to the across the board indiscriminate cuts). They hope this will make Obama take the fall. But wouldn't that go against the separation of powers? It's Congress who decides what gets spent or not. And secondly wouldn't that create the dictatorship that has been talked about ever since Obama took office?

This feels as silly as the Repub governors giving the feds free reign to set up the exchanges in their states. Giving up states rights for some ideological silliness?

I guess in the end it comes down to the fact that the Repubs only say they want cuts and no govt intervention or fed moneys but when they get their cuts which will impact real people (I read a number of 750 000 people to be terminated by Sep 31st) then they go into reverse and scream they didn't want those cuts, it's the other side's idea. The R's are unhappy with cuts and with increases so it must obviously be just demagoguery to grab votes and keep their own comfy jobs with great healthcare and retirement and travel and very little work.

How then are we going to trim the fed budget and the national debt if the side who wants to do that can't take responsibility for the consequences?

reply to post by kamebard

In 1980's we didn't have the cost of current technologies, and the problem with increase in agency size is the additional overhead of having to hire additional managers and other incidental costs which do not scale linearly with the rest of the government. In addition to hot wars, and the skyrocketing cost of medical care in the US the 6.4T number sounds about right.

"The cost of current technologies?"

Everyone agrees that productivity has increased exponentially over that time span (think Moore's Law).
Given the ability to do more with less, the logic would dictate that we wouldn't need more managers, and "other incidental costs" would diminsh as well. I know of several businesses that have expanded through increased efficiency and lower costs.

Yup, Obama is just scaring Americans into letting him and everybody he represents (the two party system, big corporations, military industrial complex, global bankers, etc..) spend more.

If Obama says its true..it MUST! be true.....