The sequester

Blaster man

CAGiversary!
Feedback
12 (100%)
During the year 2000, the government collected 2,025,000,000,000 (2 trillion, 25billion) income and outlays totaled 1,789,000,000,000 (1 trillion, 789 billion) for a total surplus of 236,000,000,000 (236 billion). Refer you to page 122 out of 123:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2001.pdf

In 2008, the government collected 2,524,000,000,000 (2 trillion, 524 billion) and had outlays totaling 2,983,000,000,000 (2.983 trillion). Refer to page 90 out of 92:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040a--2009.pdf

In 2011 the government collected 2,303,000,000,000 (2.303 trillion) and had outlays of 3.603 trillion. Refer to page 93 of 96:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040a.pdf



So there you have it:
2000 - 2.025 trillion federal income and 1.789 trillion federal spending
2008 - 2.524 trillion federal income and 2.983 trillion federal spending
2011 - 2.303 trillion federal income and 3.603 trillion federal spending

Now closely examine the pie chart for fiscal year 2011. In this chart you can see that "Law enforcement and general government" accounts for only 2% of spending. Roughly half of the sequester comes out of that 2%. The other half comes from national defense which in this chart shows 24% though it's important to note that includes verteran's affairs and they're excluded from the sequester. Also excluded are the 37% social security, medicare, and other retirement, net interest on the debt, and most social programs (food stamps and such).

It's important to understand how the sequester works. When you hear a claim that "lines will be long at the airport", before you completely discount this you need to understand how the sequester works. Congress wrote IN THE LAW that federal agencies will have NO AUTHORITY to prioritize important operations over less important ones. In other words, maybe they've got a stack of supplies and they don't need to order any for 6 months so they would LIKE to put that money into paying people's wages to keep them on the job. The sequester prevents this. They'll be forced to spend their entire supply budget on supplies they don't need and don't want. It's a 9% across the board cut on all areas. In other words, Congress has mandated that the actual TSA agents, food inspectors, etc have a 9% budget cut necessitating unpaid days off for the workers.

Now consider the small part of the budget this actually impacts (again, consider that 2% slice of the chart), I find it absolutely amazing when people talk about the "bloated government" in need of cuts then claiming claiming that these cuts to the most efficient and lowest funded portion of government is all that helpful. The debt will not be controllable without both increased taxes and a change to medicare and social security. Until the government is willing to address the coming tidal wave of retirement age boomers, all the republican's are doing is lip service to the tea party and the democrats seem unwilling to address medicare and social security as well. The elderly vote and neither party is willing to change a thing.

My solution, return taxes to the Clinton era - ALL OF THEM even for the middle class. Raise the early retirement age for Social Security to 65 and regular social security retirement to 68 (current it's 62 and 65). Raise the eligibility age of medicare to 68. Means test them. Problems solved.
 
Just some small nitpicks, but full SS retirement age has already been raised to over 65. Anyone born past 1960 can only collect the full benefit at 67 and this was done a few years ago. Eligibility for free Medicare is already at 65 as well.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just some small nitpicks, but full SS retirement age has already been raised to over 65. Anyone born past 1960 can only collect the full benefit at 67 and this was done a few years ago. Eligibility for free Medicare is already at 65 as well.[/QUOTE]
I knew that about medicare, 65 was an accident and I increased the age listed while you were reading I think. Social Security I suppose should be 67 and 70 then. I don't really see a problem with regular social security retirement starting at 70 since folks that are in bad health can file for disability if needed.
 
This is a prime example of something far right extremists will say to try to fool the uninformed. The sequester targets a SMALL part of the government that actually performs services people want. This tweet attempts to downplay the impact and acts as though it's nothing when in fact, they're cutting half that entire amount from only 2% of the budget! These guys do their best to brainwash the uninformed and it works.


https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/305076546887102464



Grover NorquistVerified account ‏@GroverNorquist

Warning this photo is graphic slasher stuff. Depicts "massive" cuts from #sequester. Scary. pic.twitter.com/7fO0E5HQDZ




 
[quote name='Blaster man']I knew that about medicare, 65 was an accident and I increased the age listed while you were reading I think. Social Security I suppose should be 67 and 70 then. I don't really see a problem with regular social security retirement starting at 70 since folks that are in bad health can file for disability if needed.[/QUOTE]
Ninja'd.:lol:
 
The article just points out several situations where the law makes NO SENSE. Why can't they cut the budget in a way that doesn't cost MORE MONEY? Yeah, lets let the engines in the ships be destroyed and replace the engines instead of buying parts to make much cheaper repairs.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/28/hidden-costs-of-sequestration/1951759/

edit:
They really need to give the head of the organizations authority on where to cut so that it doesn't result in increased cost later. This just highlights the government's problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just got robbed four times on the way to lunch and 911 didn't answer any of the times, saw 31 homes burning down with no fire departments responding to them, learned that I have to get to the airport 71 hours early next week because of TSA spending cuts, and found out we are going to be murdering less people over seas because of defense spending budget cuts. This sequester is brutal man.
 
There are so many easy things they can do, they can start with prevailing wage jobs and contracts. There is really no reason to overpay for anything, $30 for a stapler? My wife is a teacher and I can't believe the prices on some of the items they get in their catalog.
 
I know the cuts were specifically chosen to be unpalatable to both D's and R's, but how in the world does foreign aid not get TOTALLY cut before any of OUR country's supposed needs? For the people should mean our people first. Until our budget and deficit are fixed, keep all that money here. Borrowing .46 cent of every dollar to ship overseas is crazy and should be criminal.
 
[quote name='skiizim']There are so many easy things they can do, they can start with prevailing wage jobs and contracts. There is really no reason to overpay for anything, $30 for a stapler? My wife is a teacher and I can't believe the prices on some of the items they get in their catalog.[/QUOTE]


http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/20...rs-siphoning-cash-from-kids-and-soldiers.html

The government is ripe for scamming because it is too bloated and complex. Who cares about competitive pricing when taxes are viewed as "other people's money"? How do we fix that? The gov't is corrupt, the contractors are corrupt, and the businesses that supply the contractors are corrupt. We need honest people......
 
[quote name='egofed']http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/20...rs-siphoning-cash-from-kids-and-soldiers.html

The government is ripe for scamming because it is too bloated and complex. Who cares about competitive pricing when taxes are viewed as "other people's money"? How do we fix that? The gov't is corrupt, the contractors are corrupt, and the businesses that supply the contractors are corrupt. We need honest people......[/QUOTE]

I could only imagine how much money this equates to, I know it probably happens in every level of the government from local to national level but as long as it's not "their money" and people unwittingly put a blind eye to it nothing is ever going to happen.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't see how many fans of democracy would support Morsi or any actions that would legitimize his rule.[/QUOTE]

I dont agree with a lot of the stuff he has done recently, but people did put him in check when he stepped over the line. Transition is never perfect and people in Egypt may not want the same type of democracy we have here.

Lets not discount the fact that Egyptians did vote for the party in power.
 
That is if you're willing to accept that there was no quantifiable election fraud (or even issues regarding ballot access to begin with).

And you're correct - the people of Egypt may not want our type of government - but that doesn't mean we should be on the hook for propping up and legitimizing whatever form of government they do end up with. We've been screwing with the internal politics of Egypt (and countless other middle-eastern countries) for far too long.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That is if you're willing to accept that there was no quantifiable election fraud (or even issues regarding ballot access to begin with).

And you're correct - the people of Egypt may not want our type of government - but that doesn't mean we should be on the hook for propping up and legitimizing whatever form of government they do end up with. We've been screwing with the internal politics of Egypt (and countless other middle-eastern countries) for far too long.[/QUOTE]

Except that major trade still takes place through the suez canal and its important to protect a valuable resource regarding international commerce. Europe is still struggling economically and people do like them some oil. Disrupting supply chains would do dramatic damage.

Decisions dont take place inside a bubble. Its easy to say something is bad, but its critically important to weigh the ramifications of that decision.
 
Yeah if you want Egypt to continue its blockade of Gaza, you give them tons of stuff, like Obama et al. have done and continue to do.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Except that major trade still takes place through the suez canal and its important to protect a valuable resource regarding international commerce. Europe is still struggling economically and people do like them some oil. Disrupting supply chains would do dramatic damage.

Decisions dont take place inside a bubble. Its easy to say something is bad, but its critically important to weigh the ramifications of that decision.[/QUOTE]

So... make poor moral choices in the name of commerce? While there are plenty of practicing capitalists that would agree with that, I have to say I disagree.

As for the ramifications of such a decision - what? Oil prices would skyrocket and it would make alternative fuels a better investment? International trade would become more expensive, making it more worth-while to source jobs locally?

Basically, instead of using taxpayer money to secretly keep the costs of goods artificially low, people would have to start paying a price closer to the true cost of the goods?

Where do I sign us up?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... make poor moral choices in the name of commerce? While there are plenty of practicing capitalists that would agree with that, I have to say I disagree.

As for the ramifications of such a decision - what? Oil prices would skyrocket and it would make alternative fuels a better investment? International trade would become more expensive, making it more worth-while to source jobs locally?

Basically, instead of using taxpayer money to secretly keep the costs of goods artificially low, people would have to start paying a price closer to the true cost of the goods?

Where do I sign us up?[/QUOTE]

You already have. See the bribery scandal in Mexico, the sweatshop fires a couple months ago, and the huge swathes of associates sucking on the government tit. Did you quit your job because this offended your morals?

You think the decisions you face are any different than the same ones the government faces? You try and work to achieve the most beneficial outcome.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']You already have. See the bribery scandal in Mexico, the sweatshop fires a couple months ago, and the huge swathes of associates sucking on the government tit.[/QUOTE]

Sweatshops fires weren't a direct result of company policy and, in fact, has influenced a pretty substantial revision of company policy.

Bribery scandal is a different company.

Associates sucking on the government teat? You're right. Walmart should just terminate every single employee who can't afford to sustain their lifestyle off Walmart wages. Then, there'd be no issues, right?

Offering a wage, then paying it to an employee who agrees to work for it is hardly an issue of morality. Even more so when that wage is one in a country that has minimum wage laws.

But it's good to know you equate a retail store selling crap to one government giving money to prop up an evil dictator in another country.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Associates sucking on the government teat? You're right. Walmart should just terminate every single employee who can't afford to sustain their lifestyle off Walmart wages. Then, there'd be no issues, right?

Offering a wage, then paying it to an employee who agrees to work for it is hardly an issue of morality. Even more so when that wage is one in a country that has minimum wage laws.

But it's good to know you equate a retail store selling crap to one government giving money to prop up an evil dictator in another country.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to really go into this because I know where your mindset and where most of the staff in your position are brainwashed to acknowledge too but there are a ton things Wal-Mart can do, especially for the majority of part-time employees they have their.

I work for a company that has full benefits for all part time and full time employees with nothing ever coming out of my paycheck. Wal-Mart has a big enough profit margin to be able to do this many times over.
 
I work at UPS, I'm a full time delivery driver. I can honestly say that most of the jobs don't require the smartest people in the world.

I've been around a lot of employees at Wal-Mart/Sams Club, I'm very pro union, I don't push my beliefs onto them but most of the employees have the same outlook. Yes, I do shop at Wal-Mart before you say anything. I can't be a hypocrite about wanting to organize and then say FU I wont shop at your store.

I'm not going to tell someone how to run their company but at the same time they can give a little starting with benefits with out the horrible premiums charged to the employee.
 
This is no walk in the park. It may be fun and exciting, but it’s also physical and fast-paced. You must pass a DOT physical exam and have the ability to operate a standard (manual) transmission vehicle. Luckily, you’ll also have a trusty Delivery Information Acquisition Device (DIAD) by your side to coordinate, track and plan your deliveries. And that means smooth sailing all the way, every day.

Please note that certain positions may also require additional qualifications, such as a commercial drivers license (“A” or “B”), Department of Transportation certifications (“Hazmat”, “Doubles”, etc.) or the ability to lift, lower and maneuver packages between 25 and 70 lbs. depending on the roll.

Ready to work at Walmart? Just pass a pee test and be able to push carts across the lot and we can find a job for you. That's not to say we don't have some jobs that require extra training, but you could take virtually anyone with average intelligence and some basic desire to keep a job and they could make it at Walmart. The closest thing I've ever needed to a special license is applying to my FOID card - which was sending the state $5 and not having committed any major crimes. :D

Are the benefits at Walmart top notch? Hell no. Far from it. But here's something to consider - the health care benefits provided by Walmart are 100% in-line with the requirements set forth by the upcoming changes in Health Insurance requirements. So, if our health insurance is so horrible... well, go Congress for passing such horrible health "care" legislation.

Truth be told, in comparison to many no skills/low skills jobs, Walmart benefits are decent (okay, "decent" might be a little generous). Way better than what I was offered in college when I worked fast food.
 
Wow 13 out of the 28 posts here are blocked for me.

How about we eliminate no bid contracts for the military? 150 billion a year is given without ANY competition? How can any conservative support that? Seems a little like socialism to me. I know but it's DEFENSE so bang bang fuck ya America...
 
[quote name='skiizim']I work at UPS, I'm a full time delivery driver. I can honestly say that most of the jobs don't require the smartest people in the world.

I've been around a lot of employees at Wal-Mart/Sams Club, I'm very pro union, I don't push my beliefs onto them but most of the employees have the same outlook. Yes, I do shop at Wal-Mart before you say anything. I can't be a hypocrite about wanting to organize and then say FU I wont shop at your store.

I'm not going to tell someone how to run their company but at the same time they can give a little starting with benefits with out the horrible premiums charged to the employee.[/QUOTE]

No offense but....how can you stand Walmart? I hate their practices but that's not the reason I don't shop there. I don't shop there because the place is fucking crowded.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sweatshops fires weren't a direct result of company policy and, in fact, has influenced a pretty substantial revision of company policy.

Bribery scandal is a different company.

Associates sucking on the government teat? You're right. Walmart should just terminate every single employee who can't afford to sustain their lifestyle off Walmart wages. Then, there'd be no issues, right?

Offering a wage, then paying it to an employee who agrees to work for it is hardly an issue of morality. Even more so when that wage is one in a country that has minimum wage laws.

But it's good to know you equate a retail store selling crap to one government giving money to prop up an evil dictator in another country.[/QUOTE]

Company policy for a long time has long exerted extreme cost cutting. To think that corners aren't going to get cut to meet those requirements is a little ludicrous. I do agree that they have done some things to corral their suppliers, but let's be real. The desire to drive price down to unreal levels exerts a hell of a lot of pressure on suppliers.

Wal-Mart's CEO knew about the bribery for years before it was exposed. To say that Wal-Mart Mexico is a different entity than Wal-Mart is a stretch.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bribery-scandal-2012-4

I do have a problem with companies using social welfare to supplement their employees earnings, but I understand why they do it. You just expressed your lack of desire to supplement the interests of corporations, and yet Wal-Mart does this all the time by putting people on welfare and other social programs because their income doesn't sufficiently provide for them. I don't know about you, but that looks like corporate welfare to me. It also allows Wal-Mart to keep wages low and increase their earnings.


I fail to see how Morsi is an evil dictator. I think that pronouncement is premature and we still have to wait to see if he does cease control if the Muslim Brotherhood loses influence in the election:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/mohamed-morsi-date-egyptian-elections
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Wow 13 out of the 28 posts here are blocked for me.

How about we eliminate no bid contracts for the military? 150 billion a year is given without ANY competition? How can any conservative support that? Seems a little like socialism to me. I know but it's DEFENSE so bang bang fuck ya America...[/QUOTE]

I would still love for someone to show me what Dick Cheney made on the War in Iraq. That Halliburton kickback has to be insane.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I would still love for someone to show me what Dick Cheney made on the War in Iraq. That Halliburton kickback has to be insane.[/QUOTE]

So much he almost blew his own lid off, too bad he missed and got someone else.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Company policy for a long time has long exerted extreme cost cutting. To think that corners aren't going to get cut to meet those requirements is a little ludicrous. I do agree that they have done some things to corral their suppliers, but let's be real. The desire to drive price down to unreal levels exerts a hell of a lot of pressure on suppliers.

Wal-Mart's CEO knew about the bribery for years before it was exposed. To say that Wal-Mart Mexico is a different entity than Wal-Mart is a stretch.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bribery-scandal-2012-4

I do have a problem with companies using social welfare to supplement their employees earnings, but I understand why they do it. You just expressed your lack of desire to supplement the interests of corporations, and yet Wal-Mart does this all the time by putting people on welfare and other social programs because their income doesn't sufficiently provide for them. I don't know about you, but that looks like corporate welfare to me. It also allows Wal-Mart to keep wages low and increase their earnings.


I fail to see how Morsi is an evil dictator. I think that pronouncement is premature and we still have to wait to see if he does cease control if the Muslim Brotherhood loses influence in the election:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/mohamed-morsi-date-egyptian-elections[/QUOTE]
It's part of the neocon MO that corporate welfare is fine. Oh yeah sure, they'll bitch about the auto bailouts and things of that nature, where money was given directly to help some company. However, if ti's indirect welfare like you describe, where the company is getting a break by putting so many of it's employees on government welfare, well that's just fine.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I do have a problem with companies using social welfare to supplement their employees earnings, but I understand why they do it. You just expressed your lack of desire to supplement the interests of corporations, and yet Wal-Mart does this all the time by putting people on welfare and other social programs because their income doesn't sufficiently provide for them. I don't know about you, but that looks like corporate welfare to me. It also allows Wal-Mart to keep wages low and increase their earnings.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious, how would you solve this?

Would you raise minimum wage across the board for all businesses? Or just corporations like Walmart? Would you like to see a system where a single parent of four gets paid a "living wage" for his/her family while the single child-less adult also gets paid a "living wage" for him/herself, even if they're doing the same exact job?
 
bread's done
Back
Top