View Full Version : "Sequestration": A new day
Bailey Guns
03-01-2013, 07:20
OMG! The sun...it's actually going to rise today. The world DIDN'T end because of the "draconian" spending cuts required under sequestration. Obama was wrong. I feel so...alive.
muddywings
03-01-2013, 07:25
Took the day off....going to go shoot!
I think any thing that slows the spending of our government down in any way has to be a good thing and the more they bitch about it the better I like it.
NitroxBoss
03-01-2013, 07:30
+1
I think any thing that slows the spending of our government down in any way has to be a good thing and the more they bitch about it the better I like it.
Get back with me in 2-3 months.
KestrelBike
03-01-2013, 08:58
Get back with me in 2-3 months.
If I missed a thread earlier where you elaborate, I'd like to hear what you think
If I missed a thread earlier where you elaborate, I'd like to hear what you think
I am in the Military. I have been doing less with nothing for years.
Keeping my aircrews qualified and ready to deploy is going to be ugly with a 28% cut in flying hours. Fixing planes isnt going to be fun either.
I am in the Military. I have been doing less with nothing for years. Keeping my aircrews qualified and ready to deploy is going to be ugly with a 28% cut in flying hours. Fixing planes isnt going to be fun either.
They cut necessities so they can gain leverage over the populace. God forbid some welfare whore or illegal alien baby raper doesn't get their check.[Mad]
Bailey Guns
03-01-2013, 10:28
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
Sharpienads
03-01-2013, 10:31
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
Dang, how old are you?
Kraven251
03-01-2013, 10:41
Dang, how old are you?
He farts dust.
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
A one-upper. Awesome.
I think any thing that slows the spending of our government down in any way has to be a good thing and the more they bitch about it the better I like it.
That will comfort my family & I while I enjoy my 20% reduction in pay the next six months...
What I find interesting about this is who ultimately is paying the price. I keep hearing how the original intent was to make this whole prospect so unpalatable that our noble leaders would HAVE to come together to avoid it. Unpalatable for who... them? No, the rest of the voting populace. There's the shocker of the century.
This woman's a Damnocrat, but I think she has the right idea. Shame that nobody will vote for it, and that it's just grandstanding on her part.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/366056/3/Sen-McCaskill-wants-sequester-pay-cut-for-Congress
They cut necessities so they can gain leverage over the populace. God forbid some welfare whore or illegal alien baby raper doesn't get their check.[Mad]
This is what pisses me off... Ofucktard will cut funding for military, PD, FD, etc... but no, we can't touch the leeches, we need them to continue to be happy with us so we can continue to erode the constitution. Fuck the Democrats!
onebadfx4
03-01-2013, 11:37
This is what pisses me off... Ofucktard will cut funding for military, PD, FD, etc... but no, we can't touch the leeches, we need them to continue to be happy with us so we can continue to erode the constitution. Fuck the Democrats!
Agreed, believe it or not, there are hard working gov civilians who get screwed by this crap while the non working lazy sacks of crap continue to receive the handouts. How the hell does this make sense?
hollohas
03-01-2013, 11:42
So the whole deal is they are cutting, what, $85B over two years? But I keep hearing 28% from the military overall, furlough days, the Marines will have to cut their ranks by 25%, air traffic controllers hours will be cut, ICE can't afford to house criminals anymore and is letting them walk free, the TSA will lose people (ok by me), beef inspectors will not be able to work, National Parks will close, the Pentagon will be running on a skeleton crew, etc, etc, etc.
Does anyone else think that all of that adds up to more then $42.5B/year? That seems more like hundreds of billions in cuts to me. They are blowing this way out of proportion.
In any case, let's not forget that Comrade Leader had the ability to decide where the cuts were being made...HE choose to put most of it on the military. He could have made such measly cuts painless. But in reality, if the $42.5B/year has to be split between everything I listed above, the impact on the military should be minimal. Although who can be certain what cuts will actually be made because everything we have heard so far is simply scare tactics.
But Comrade Leader wants us to be scared and he wants the cuts to hurt.
My wife just called. Apparently, most of the money for her department at CU comes from NIH grants, and they have sent out a scary email stating that the effects of sequestration would be "uncertain". Her supervisors have opined that it may include up to 1 day a week furlough. This will get ugly, and I hope that the people will remember that BOTH parties agreed to this, and both parties failed to deal with it in any meaningful manner, kicking the can down the road several times. How is it that the vast majority of incumbents were reelected when only 9% of Americans approve of the job they're doing? How the hell are these people getting paid when they haven't managed to approve a budget in nearly FOUR FUCKING YEARS?!? If I didn't do the most important parts of MY job for 4 WEEKS, I'd be staring bankruptcy in the eye. Strip Congress and the Executive Branch of all salaries and benefits, retroactively, unless and until they can pass a budget that is balanced and sustainable!!@!
ChunkyMonkey
03-01-2013, 11:56
If the reality sucks.. let's face it. If Washington refuses to cut the fat off and instead, sacrificing what really matters, so be it. The decline of this Nation may be what it takes to better the future..
hollohas
03-01-2013, 12:02
Her supervisors have opined that it may include up to 1 day a week furlough. This will get ugly, and I hope that the people will remember that BOTH parties agreed to this, and both parties failed to deal with it in any meaningful manner, kicking the can down the road several times.
So basically, anyone who is even secondarily employed by the feds or receives ANY money from the feds is looking at a 1 day per week furlough and other budget cuts. How in the world does that equate to $42.5B/year????
I sure hope your wife doesn't have to deal with that because this whole thing doesn't make sense. Our government is running Trillion dollar deficits but somehow a measly $42.5B/year is going to hurt EVERYONE? They are trying to scare us folks. They are actively trying to hurt us. That is their goal...if they hurt the people then the people will demand the spending cuts stop. That's what they want.
So basically, anyone who is even secondarily employed by the feds or receives ANY money from the feds is looking at a 1 day per week furlough and other budget cuts. How in the world does that equate to $42.5B/year????
I sure hope your wife doesn't have to deal with that because this whole thing doesn't make sense. Our government is running Trillion dollar deficits but somehow a measly $42.5B/year is going to hurt EVERYONE? They are trying to scare us folks. They are actively trying to hurt us. That is their goal...if they hurt the people then the people will demand the spending cuts stop. That's what they want.
You're right, this doesn't pass the smell test. $42.5B doesn't even cover 5 DAYS of the federal budget...
Troublco
03-01-2013, 13:26
I am in the Military. I have been doing less with nothing for years.
Keeping my aircrews qualified and ready to deploy is going to be ugly with a 28% cut in flying hours. Fixing planes isnt going to be fun either.
Agreed. It's going to get very interesting.
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
A one-upper. Awesome.
Yeah...
If the reality sucks.. let's face it. If Washington refuses to cut the fat off and instead, sacrificing what really matters, so be it. The decline of this Nation may be what it takes to better the future..
So...the decline of the nation will make it better? Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory, at best. No thanks - I'd rather beat the bastards early.
If they shut down the Federal Govt. entirely...how long would it be before we would notice?
I'm willing to give it a go.
HoneyBadger
03-01-2013, 13:43
If they shut down the Federal Govt. entirely...how long would it be before we would notice?
I'm willing to give it a go.
This sounds ideal. When can we start?
hollohas
03-01-2013, 13:50
Bama was on TV saying economists predict this spending cut will cost 750,000 jobs. In other words, $42.5B/ year means 750,000 jobs at $60,000 each. So basically every single dollar they cut comes from someone's paycheck. Anyone else think that the government could cut spending without cutting jobs? Yeah, me too. Maybe stop with the Hawaiian vacations, charter jets, weeklong conferences that cost hundreds of millions...on and on.
I am a GS civilian working at HQ USNORTHCOM. Beginning in the middle of April, we all will have one day off (without pay) every week for 22 weeks (11 pay periods). That is a 20% pay cut for those 22 weeks.
So where is the 20% pay cut for the politicians in DC? How about welfare recipents? Food stamp recipients? Etc....
Sharpienads
03-01-2013, 14:25
I don't think you can alter a congressman's pay whenever you want. 27th Amendment.
The usual lib tactic. When you bring up cuts, the first thing they bring up is cutting emergency services...Fire Departments, Police, etc. There's tons of pork to cut, but let's just try to ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
I don't think you can alter a congressman's pay whenever you want. 27th Amendment.
Some of them don't seem to have a problem disregarding the 2nd Amendment....
Kraven251
03-01-2013, 14:44
I don't think you can alter a congressman's pay whenever you want. 27th Amendment.
If they were actually serving the people I would be inclined to agree with you. However, the Constitution is an antiquated document that isn't as necessary as it once was ...I wonder how many of them would keep saying that when it was going to impact their pocket, incompetent asswipes.
Sharpienads
03-01-2013, 14:58
Some of them don't seem to have a problem disregarding the 2nd Amendment....
If they were actually serving the people I would be inclined to agree with you. However, the Constitution is an antiquated document that isn't as necessary as it once was ...I wonder how many of them would keep saying that when it was going to impact their pocket, incompetent asswipes.
Both good points. And I know you guys are being partly serious/partly joking. I'll choose to uphold the Constitution regardless of how I would love for for them to take an immediate pay reduction. But it also goes to show how little they in DC know of the document that outlines how they are supposed to do their jobs.
If the reality sucks.. let's face it. If Washington refuses to cut the fat off and instead, sacrificing what really matters, so be it. The decline of this Nation may be what it takes to better the future..
Oh my friend, that stone is already a rollin'. This nation is on decline at an ever increasing pace and the folks who don't see it need to wake up. We are very well insulated economically here in CO, but don't be naive. Our dollars will lose value just as quickly as the po folks in Detroit, just wait.
KestrelBike
03-01-2013, 15:43
If the reality sucks.. let's face it. If Washington refuses to cut the fat off and instead, sacrificing what really matters, so be it. The decline of this Nation may be what it takes to better the future..
No more band aids on gangrenous wounds. Cut/saw the f'er off.
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
Ha, I was too. Whole lines grounded. We had more hangar queens getting stripped for parts than were flying
Sent from my iphone using Tapatalk
Blockhead
03-01-2013, 16:42
I am a GS civilian working at HQ USNORTHCOM. Beginning in the middle of April, we all will have one day off (without pay) every week for 22 weeks (11 pay periods). That is a 20% pay cut for those 22 weeks.
So where is the 20% pay cut for the politicians in DC? How about welfare recipents? Food stamp recipients? Etc....
Same boat here. Pissed off that the blinding incompetence of leadership in our executive and legislative branches get to skate by with little consequence while my pay drops 20%. At least we are well versed in living frugally from having lived in the DC area and making no money before we moved to Colorado.
Charles Krauthammer said something great- in response to a list of all the potentially bad stuff than can happen from this Sequestration (Like prisons going on lockdown, food shortages, enormous lines at airports, rampant wildfires, etc.) he stated that the worst thing for Obama will be when NONE of this happens, and people realize after these cuts that our government can still function on less $$$.
hollohas
03-01-2013, 22:07
This whole thing is just BS. The CBO says the $85B will only actually be $44B in cuts this year. Which is about 1% of the Fed budget. And somehow that equals out to ALL federal agencies cutting their budgets by 9% and the DoD to cut it's budget by 13%. And that 13% cut in the DoD budget means a 20-25% pay cut for you folks who wear a uniform.
Here is the military's spending overall per year that has only gone up from the years listed below. The DoD budget for 2012 was $707B but that included extra for the wars.
Budget 2010
Operations and maintenance - $283.3 billion
Military Personnel - $154.2 billion
Procurement - $140.1 billion
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation - $79.1 billion
Military Construction - $23.9 billion
Family Housing - $3.1 billion
Total Spending - 683.7 billion
A 13% cut in their annual budget is $88B, or more than the entire sequestration amount. So someone please tell me how any of this adds up??????
How in the hell are airports going to shut down, flights get canceled, commercial fishing get delayed, National Parks close, meat packing plants close, teachers going to get fired, the boarder open up, 5,000 illegal criminals get released, etc, etc, etc for just $44B/year?
Why is nobody asking these questions? Something doesn't add up here folks. We're being swindled.
<MADDOG>
03-01-2013, 22:17
+1
The math doesn't add up. More hype drawn up by the media, and at the same time, the actual Fed employees get the brunt.
But hey, don't forget the F-35, or aid to Syria, or trips to Hawaii, or...
I call bullshit.
He farts dust.
Can you carbon date that?
hollohas
03-01-2013, 22:30
+1
The math doesn't add up. More hype drawn up by the media, and at the same time, the actual Fed employees get the brunt.
But hey, don't forget the F-35, or aid to Syria, or trips to Hawaii, or...
I call bullshit.
Exactly. They could damn near cut that much by reducing the amount of post-it notes and bic pens they use in every fed agency. Cut out the Hawaiian vacations, golf trips and arms giveaways they would blow the $85B cut goal out of the water. $85B out of the trillion dollar per year deficits is nothing. It's pennies.
But the President says the DoD will have to cut 13% and everyone simply freaks out instead of actually thinking about that. I just find it so hard to believe that not a single reporter has stopped and asked them-self, "how much is 13% of the DoD budget exactly?"
<MADDOG>
03-01-2013, 22:38
Exactly. They could damn near cut that much by reducing the amount of post-it notes and bic pens they use in every fed agency. Cut out the Hawaiian vacations, golf trips and arms giveaways they would blow the $85B cut goal out of the water. $85B out of the trillion dollar per year deficits is nothing. It's pennies.
But the President says the DoD will have to cut 13% and everyone simply freaks out instead of actually thinking about that. I just find it so hard to believe that not a single reporter has stopped and asked them-self, "how much is 13% of the DoD budget exactly?"
I see a bigger number - $85B out of a $3T "budget", if you can find it...Its 3%.
Military spending is another matter. There is a reason our military pays "$50 for a toilet seat".. It has DOD and the USACE all over it.
Aloha_Shooter
03-02-2013, 03:14
$85B out of $3.8T (FY12 budget) is just over 2.2% but the effects are magnified because the "cut" (or reduction in desired growth since they will actually spend more in FY13 than in FY12) has to be taken in less than half the year since Obama steadfastly refused to consider any kind of reduction in his grandiose plans. Make no mistake, Obama is going to take the reductions in the most publicly hurtful ways possible while leaving intact his unconstitutional power grabs and transformation of the essence of America.
Bailey Guns
03-02-2013, 10:38
A one-upper. Awesome.
It wasn't meant to be that at all. If you'd been in during the early post-Viet Nam years under Carter, you'd understand what I meant. Besides...pretty dubious "one-upper", at best.
Kraven251
03-02-2013, 10:42
It wasn't meant to be that at all. If you'd been in during the early post-Viet Nam years under Carter, you'd understand what I meant. Besides...pretty dubious "one-upper", at best.
Sorta like an "Upper Decker?"
$85B out of $3.8T (FY12 budget) is just over 2.2% but the effects are magnified because the "cut" (or reduction in desired growth since they will actually spend more in FY13 than in FY12) has to be taken in less than half the year since Obama steadfastly refused to consider any kind of reduction in his grandiose plans. Make no mistake, Obama is going to take the reductions in the most publicly hurtful ways possible while leaving intact his unconstitutional power grabs and transformation of the essence of America.
^^^^^This. A reduction in growth to our rulers in DC equals to what they call a "cut". A "promise" (that they know they won't keep) to reduce in the future is also a "cut" to them.
...and all of this partisanship coming from Obama is laughable. He couldn't get his own party, when it held majorities in both houses of Congress, to pass his budget.
The sequestration was the idea of the White House, not the Republicans in Congress.
It's yet another "crisis" to instill fear in the people. It has become their SOP. Wind everything into a crisis and jam through your agenda so that hopefully the people are distracted only enough to allow it...without pulling them away from what's the latest "news" on American Idol.
“Fear is the foundation of most governments.”
― John Adams (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1480.John_Adams)
Troublco
03-02-2013, 10:56
It's really easy for people who are not directly involved in a situation to say "Waah, too bad. Suck it up." Does Government spending need some real working on? Hell, yes. Does it need to be done the way they're doing it? NO. It was done this way for theatrics, by Maobama and his ilk, and it was designed to hit places that we shouldn't hit, with the idea that it wouldn't be allowed to happen if done that way. Well, here it is. Those who are going to be dealing with the direct effects have, in my mind, every right to be concerned. Because those direct effects are not directed where they should be. Those who are saying WAAAH, suck it up, are YOU one of the ones being directly affected? If you have been affected by the economic condition in this country in the last few years, yes, that's tough and it sucks. I've been there in the past, too. But when you start socking it to the people in the DoD and not the extra crap programs, it's a losing situation. I'd say Hoser and other folks in the same situation have a better grasp on the direct impact to them than the sideline lookieloos do. There are plenty of places in the DoD, that the cuts could be directed to without directly affecting people. But Maobama wouldn't get his drama that way, much better to manufacture a crisis where people suffer so he can get more of what he wants.
Inconel710
03-02-2013, 11:09
I'm a DoD civilian and I still say "bring it". I've got food on the shelf and money in the bank. This manufactured crisis will turn out to be a fart in the wind and the people will realize its just a charade.
The military, industrial complex must be fed!
I'm a DoD civilian and I still say "bring it". I've got food on the shelf and money in the bank. This manufactured crisis will turn out to be a fart in the wind and the people will realize its just a charade.
I think the fart has already dissipated and they know it. They are 'struggling' to explain impact on Americans.
President Obama and top administration officials are struggling with accuracy in explaining the impact of billions in federal budget cuts known as sequester that kicked in Saturday morning -- even getting called out by a Capitol Hill superintendent about furloughs for support staffers.
Carlos Elias, the Capitol Building superintendent, sent out a memo Friday reminding staffers that the current sequestration plan does not include “reductions in force or furloughs” and that “pay and benefit of each of our employees will not be impacted.”
Though not directly mentioning Obama by name, Elias also said in the memo that a “high-ranking official said employees that clean and maintain the U.S. Capitol will receive a cut in pay.”
Hours before the memo was released, the president, in what appears to be the administration’s attempt to maximize the potential impact of the cuts, said at a press conference: “Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”
The cuts were proposed by the president and agree upon by Congress in 2011 after Democrats and Republicans failed to agree on a more measured way to reduce the deficit. The $85 billion in cuts in 2013 to the Defense Department and domestic program will be more like $45 billion when pro-rated this year.
Last weekend, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told CBS “there are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can’t come back this fall." However, Duncan appeared to backpedaling Wednesday, coming up with just one example, a West Virginia county, and the disclaimer that “whether it’s all sequester-related, I don’t know.”
Officials in the state’s Kanawha County told The Washington Post that “transfer notices” were sent to at least 104 educators and they had more to do with how West Virginia allocates federal dollars designated for poor children.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/obama-his-team-struggling-with-accuracy-when-explaining-impact-sequester-cuts/#ixzz2MPAwPPZZ
How about the DHS just cancels its 2.2 BILLION round ammunition order. That ought to take a big chunk out of the sequester...
gnihcraes
03-02-2013, 13:19
A friend who is .mil was complaining this morning about all the furlough days he'll have to take. I don't have much sympathy because of the furlough days I've had to take over the last 5 or more years, no pay raises etc.
Just difficult to feel anything on this.
Aloha_Shooter
03-02-2013, 13:50
Budget 2010
Operations and maintenance - $283.3 billion
Military Personnel - $154.2 billion
Procurement - $140.1 billion
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation - $79.1 billion
Military Construction - $23.9 billion
Family Housing - $3.1 billion
Total Spending - 683.7 billion
A 13% cut in their annual budget is $88B, or more than the entire sequestration amount. So someone please tell me how any of this adds up??????
I happen to think Obama's agit-prop is BS too but bear in mind some things can't be cut. Military salaries are set by law and have monthly rather than hourly or daily rates. (Yes I know these salaries are prorated daily when determining final pay due to death or retirement.) Family housing can't be reduced and most military construction contracts have penalties for slow down or reduction at the convenience of the government -- in fact, most contracts I've dealt with have penalties for termination or reduction for convenience of the government so are not good targets to achieve savings so the only places to get those savings are in O&M, RDT&E and some procurement. In O&M, there just isn't much savings from utilities or leases so the savings targets are limited to civilian salaries (which are paid at hourly rates and therefore more easily reduced than military), travel and other incidental expenses.
The more you constrain your options to taking the reductions, the harsher the impact on those things that are actually reduced -- like flying or training hours.
68Charger
03-02-2013, 14:18
Catching up on this thread, here's my take:
If anyone wants to play "who had it worse", I'm game. But be warned...I was in during the Carter administration.
I'm not that old, but I lol'd- since many members here were "in" the WOMB, or "in" diapers during Carter's admin... I was in.... Garanimals [ROFL1]
My wife just called. Apparently, most of the money for her department at CU comes from NIH grants, and they have sent out a scary email stating that the effects of sequestration would be "uncertain". Her supervisors have opined that it may include up to 1 day a week furlough. This will get ugly, and I hope that the people will remember that BOTH parties agreed to this, and both parties failed to deal with it in any meaningful manner, kicking the can down the road several times. How is it that the vast majority of incumbents were reelected when only 9% of Americans approve of the job they're doing? How the hell are these people getting paid when they haven't managed to approve a budget in nearly FOUR FUCKING YEARS?!? If I didn't do the most important parts of MY job for 4 WEEKS, I'd be staring bankruptcy in the eye. Strip Congress and the Executive Branch of all salaries and benefits, retroactively, unless and until they can pass a budget that is balanced and sustainable!!@!
This just wakes people up to all the different things the FED Gov't has their fingers in- which IMHO they have no business being in... just the Libertarian in me- but more than likely, it's just the liberal CU admin stoking the fires for the "crisis" created over this.
If the reality sucks.. let's face it. If Washington refuses to cut the fat off and instead, sacrificing what really matters, so be it. The decline of this Nation may be what it takes to better the future..
+1, grants for researching the Ph of rat vaginas in desert climates is just a waste of tax dollars (ok I made that up, but you KNOW you've heard of grants like that)
If they shut down the Federal Govt. entirely...how long would it be before we would notice?
I'm willing to give it a go.
+1, besides national security (which is largely being done badly right now), all I'd notice is if my employer decided to stop withholding from my check...
The usual lib tactic. When you bring up cuts, the first thing they bring up is cutting emergency services...Fire Departments, Police, etc. There's tons of pork to cut, but let's just try to ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
Drama, drama and more drama... like a F'ing child who doesn't get their way
No more band aids on gangrenous wounds. Cut/saw the f'er off.
+1, kill departments that are just a money pit!
How about the DHS just cancels its 2.2 BILLION round ammunition order. That ought to take a big chunk out of the sequester...
OK, quit listening to Alex Jones, and those that are quoting him... he is LYING or just INCOMPETENT, this figure is just pure BOVINE SCATOLOGY
I personally looked up a RFQ that he was using as "evidence" of 21.6M rounds, but the actual RFQ was for 240,000 rounds (0.24M rounds)... when you extrapolate out the ratio, I get about 25Mil rounds, which is just under 250 rounds per federal agent with arrest powers, and authorized to carry a firearm.
A friend who is .mil was complaining this morning about all the furlough days he'll have to take. I don't have much sympathy because of the furlough days I've had to take over the last 5 or more years, no pay raises etc.
Just difficult to feel anything on this.
Because it's mostly hot air from Washington, they want to scare people into thinking the sky is falling, so they can get unlimited money printing power back
A friend who is .mil was complaining this morning about all the furlough days he'll have to take. I don't have much sympathy because of the furlough days I've had to take over the last 5 or more years, no pay raises etc.
Just difficult to feel anything on this.
The pay cut part isnt a concern, to me.
The loss in training time and reduction of qualified people to get the mission done is my concern.
I agree with budget cuts in general. But start with govt handouts first.
HoneyBadger
03-02-2013, 15:29
I agree with budget cuts in general. But start with govt handouts first.
[Beer]
Aloha_Shooter
03-02-2013, 16:50
I agree with budget cuts in general. But start with govt handouts first.
I would start with all the program increases and new starts since 2007. We obviously didn't need them in 2006 and most have been shown to be complete wastes of money. Cut out garbage like subsidizing Brazilian "green energy" work and all the other Big RedGreen programs. I'd hit the handouts next.
gnihcraes
03-02-2013, 22:21
A friend who is .mil was complaining this morning about all the furlough days he'll have to take. I don't have much sympathy because of the furlough days I've had to take over the last 5 or more years, no pay raises etc.
Just difficult to feel anything on this.
I'll somewhat clarify this, I believe the friend is a civilian contractor with military (retired military) But not really sure, he's held several positions over the years on both sides.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.