Seven days till sequestration!

[Gamdwelf]

March 1st head lines
Fox News: It was Democrats fault the President signed the bill
MSNBC: It was Republicans fault. They passed the bill in the house.



Go read the 27th amendment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...27th+Amendment

that doesn't mean they can't cut their own salaries. I just won't go into effect for 2 years.

[Banzhe]

"Oh no, we're going over the cliff!"
*pass measure extending the deadline*

"Oh no, we're going over the cliff!"
*pass measure extending the deadline*

"Oh no, we're going over the cliff!"
*pass measure extending the deadline*

"We need to pass our cost of living increase for this year."
*vote is finished faster than the speed of light*

/trollface


I'm so tired of this political brinkmanship.

Oh come now, every American who loves his country know's it won't lead to financial ruin, it's not like.., say.., the dollar will lose value as time goes on, or that there will be inflation >.<
On a serious note though, I for one would love to see lobbyism removed from the political scene so some real changes could be made!

Why would you want the military to take a pay cut? They're the ones fighting and dying overseas to protect us. I'd gladly take a bit more taxes on my paycheck if it prevents a pay cut or hold on our military.

/facedesks!

[Thetruth1400]

Why would you want the military to take a pay cut? They're the ones fighting and dying overseas to protect us. I'd gladly take a bit more taxes on my paycheck if it prevents a pay cut or hold on our military.

We're not in danger, we're fighting for our interests, not protection. We've had one small attack on American soil. Not only was that 11 years ago, but it also resulted in the death of only 2,996 people. The US population in 2001 was 284,970,000. In other words, 0.001% of the population was killed. To put that in even more perspective, in 2001, there were 418,687 people that died of heart disease. That's 0.14% of the population. We're not in any serious danger at all. We don't need protection from terrorists, we need protection from ourselves.

That being said, we also have a separate military and defense budget. We can slash the military down to nothing and still have a fine defense budget.

In addition, if you want to pay more you can. You can gift the IRS money to help pay down the national debt. No one is going to stop you from doing so. For the majority of people though, we'd rather see the overpaid get the cuts then us fork out more. The average American income is only $50,000. Our Senators and Governors make $147,000 base. The President makes $400,000. I think they can afford the cuts vs the average American.

[Kujako]

Go read the 27th amendment.

Nothing in it saying they have to cash the checks.

[Kraenen]

Cut back on the bloated projects and assets, not the pay.

actually people will still do the same amount of work for less money. it's been proven for decades in the private sector. fyi some of these planes that cost billions are crap anyways.

[Reeve]

Oh come now, every American who loves his country know's it won't lead to financial ruin, it's not like.., say.., the dollar will lose value as time goes on, or that there will be inflation >.<
On a serious note though, I for one would love to see lobbyism removed from the political scene so some real changes could be made!

As long as politicians have to campaign every 2 years and they need money to do it, lobbying will continue to be an extremely powerful force in the Congress. Some level of lobbying is good, because it gives the congressmen information they need, but they have to spend wayyyyy too much time thinking about how they're going to raise money for their next campaign, which understandably distorts their priorities.

[Tinykong]

As long as politicians have to campaign every 2 years and they need money to do it, lobbying will continue to be an extremely powerful force in the Congress. Some level of lobbying is good, because it gives the congressmen information they need, but they have to spend wayyyyy too much time thinking about how they're going to raise money for their next campaign, which understandably distorts their priorities.

The cost of campaigns really distorts the political playing field, the liklihood of an average American ever becoming involved in the government at a high level is pretty low. Even some local elections are turning into multi-million dollar events.

[Deleted]

actually people will still do the same amount of work for less money. it's been proven for decades in the private sector. fyi some of these planes that cost billions are crap anyways.

Not in the Military they won't, pay is already shit for US forces, you want to cut it further? People Would leave in droves.

[Kujako]

Not in the Military they won't, pay is already shit for US forces, you want to cut it further? People Would leave in droves.

Its not really a job you get to quit. However people would sign up less I think.

[Kraenen]

Not in the Military they won't, pay is already shit for US forces, you want to cut it further? People Would leave in droves.

actually people would. they said the same thing about the private sector. "if businesses cut pay, people will leave for another business" and guess what, they don't.

[The Riddler]

This whole thing is so much smoke and mirrors. Obama - as usual - is flapping his stupid yap about "800,000 people losing their jobs!" And horror of horrors! We won't have first responders, teachers, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers...! OMG - head for the hills, Ma Barker! It's the freaking Mayan Apocalypse Part Deux! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Or - rather - not.

We're talking about a piddling 100 billion a year over 10 years. Out of a budget of 3.8 TRILLION per year. That's less than 3% of the budget. That amount of money is no more than a rounding error - and Obama, the Democrats, and the Media are acting like it's a big deal. It's chicken feed. The Federal Government loses that much money every year just farting at the wrong time.

Quite literally these cuts are not even going to put the budget in the black. The sequester does nothing more than reduce the RATE of government growth. They government is still going to be getting bigger, and is still going to be spending more money than it takes in. All that is happening is that the Fed is going to have a 10 year period of time where it is "ONLY" (!) growing at about a 5% rate instead of an 8% rate.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

If the government collapses over this... If they can't get themselves to cut a measly, piddling, insignificant 2.6% out of their whole budget without squealing like stuck pigs then it's over. It's literally over. We might as well have Civil War 2 right now, blow up the whole system, and start over - preferably after tossing every politician into the ocean and throwing every like-minded low information government teat-slurper in with them.

[Kujako]

This whole thing is so much smoke and mirrors. Obama - as usual - is flapping his stupid yap about "800,000 people losing their jobs!" And horror of horrors! We won't have first responders, teachers, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers...! OMG - head for the hills, Ma Barker! It's the freaking Mayan Apocalypse Part Deux! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Or - rather - not.

We're talking about a piddling 100 billion a year over 10 years. Out of a budget of 3.8 TRILLION per year. That's less than 3% of the budget. That amount of money is no more than a rounding error - and Obama, the Democrats, and the Media are acting like it's a big deal. It's chicken feed. The Federal Government loses that much money every year just farting at the wrong time.

Quite literally these cuts are not even going to put the budget in the black. The sequester does nothing more than reduce the RATE of government growth. They government is still going to be getting bigger, and is still going to be spending more money than it takes in. All that is happening is that the Fed is going to have a 10 year period of time where it is "ONLY" (!) growing at about a 5% rate instead of an 8% rate.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

If the government collapses over this... If they can't get themselves to cut a measly, piddling, insignificant 2.6% out of their whole budget without squealing like stuck pigs then it's over. It's literally over. We might as well have Civil War 2 right now, blow up the whole system, and start over - preferably after tossing every politician into the ocean and throwing every like-minded low information government teat-slurper in with them.

Again, the rules of sequestration are such that it is not simply a 3% budget cut. It is far larger to some areas and it must be applied to all budget line items individually. So yes, there will be cuts to police and fire department pay roles. That is what the law requires. If it was changed to a general cut, where departments could reduce their expenses in any way they want so long as they meet the required monitory reductions, that would be a major improvement.

[Felya]

Medicare cuts don't mean anything vs the budget, because it simply shifts people to insurance. If Medicare doesn't cover it, they will need to get insurance. While as part of Obamacare and the nature of Medicare, those people will have insurance covered by the fed. I guess it depends on how it's cut, but any cuts seem to be incongruent with baby boomers bumping the amount of people on Medicare, like it never has before.

[Kujako]

Medicare cuts don't mean anything vs the budget, because it simply shifts people to insurance. If Medicare doesn't cover it, they will need to get insurance. While as part of Obamacare and the nature of Medicare, those people will have insurance covered by the fed. I guess it depends on how it's cut, but any cuts seem to be incongruent with baby boomers bumping the amount of people on Medicare, like it never has before.

That assumes people on Medicare can afford private insurance. Even under Obama Care this is often not the case. And again, it is not a simple cut. It must be applied to every line item in the Medicare budget individually under the rules of sequestration.

[Banzhe]

As long as politicians have to campaign every 2 years and they need money to do it, lobbying will continue to be an extremely powerful force in the Congress. Some level of lobbying is good, because it gives the congressmen information they need, but they have to spend wayyyyy too much time thinking about how they're going to raise money for their next campaign, which understandably distorts their priorities.

Oh, you mean where 90% of their Tv-time, adverts n' so forth are used to try and make the opponent look like doomsday?
The respective parties could easily fund the cost for their electives to travel the nation and present their agenda to the people.

Lobbyism is required due to information feed?- please, the information they get is presented in such a way to increase possibility of favourable legislation or + / - vote on whatever is put forth at any given time.
Not to mention quite a few of the elected forget to mention they actually have personal interest in certain areas which heavily influences their actions.

They also have a legion of staff available 24/7 to obtain any information they would request, tbh.., democracy today have changed from the peoples vote, to the dollars vote.

[Felya]

This whole thing is so much smoke and mirrors. Obama - as usual - is flapping his stupid yap about "800,000 people losing their jobs!" And horror of horrors! We won't have first responders, teachers, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers...! OMG - head for the hills, Ma Barker! It's the freaking Mayan Apocalypse Part Deux! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Or - rather - not.

The Fox News affiliate in Seattle, is reporting several thousand job loses in this area alone. We have a large part of the economy based on Fort Lewis and millitary spending associated with Boeing. Some states and cities will be hit harder than others, but if you have an economy that leans on millitary spending, you will be hit. If you are entering Medicare age as thousands of baby boomers are, you will be hit simply because the number of clients is sky rocketing, while spending is dropping.

[Reeve]

Oh, you mean where 90% of their Tv-time, adverts n' so forth are used to try and make the opponent look like doomsday?
The respective parties could easily fund the cost for their electives to travel the nation and present their agenda to the people.

Lobbyism is required due to information feed?- please, the information they get is presented in such a way to increase possibility of favourable legislation or + / - vote on whatever is put forth at any given time.
Not to mention quite a few of the elected forget to mention they actually have personal interest in certain areas which heavily influences their actions.

They also have a legion of staff available 24/7 to obtain any information they would request, tbh.., democracy today have changed from the peoples vote, to the dollars vote.

A politician generally don't know much about oil drilling for example. It's useful to have someone from the oil industry who's familiar with the process explain how legislation will affect their business. Then it's also useful to have someone from the environmental lobby come in and explain the counterarguments. The degree to which our politicians are dependent on lobbyists is bad. Lobbying in and of itself is not.

[Zdrasti]

Actually, most republicans want a freeze on military spending, not a raise or cut on it.

I thought Romney wanted to expand the war in Afghanistan, threatened to invade Iran, and thought the Navy needed many more ships. Doesn't sound like a freeze to me.

[Felya]

That assumes people on Medicare can afford private insurance. Even under Obama Care this is often not the case. And again, it is not a simple cut. It must be applied to every line item in the Medicare budget individually under the rules of sequestration.

It assumes that people on Medicare, would qualify for a subsidy through Obamacare. I'm assuming that to be on Medicare, they will be sick enough, with low enough income, to qualify for a subsidy.

I would like to see what gets cut, but regardless, it seems to go the opposite direction of the amount of people joining Medicare. The influx of baby boomers, seems incongruous with spending cuts.

[Tinykong]

I thought Romney wanted to expand the war in Afghanistan, threatened to invade Iran, and thought the Navy needed many more ships. Doesn't sound like a freeze to me.

Romney's opinion =/= "most Republicans"