And this is exactly why sequester is ridiculous and a bad idea–because it makes those cuts without the possibility of reason or logic.
On purpose.
That’s a feature.
Kearsen, do you actually think you are making a point here? All you are offering are one liners with no reasoning to back them up. And they have nothing to do with the topic of the thread (although you are far from the only one guilty of that.)
The topic of the thread is ITR ridiculously pitting all of us for caring about the sequester when, as of yet, he hasn’t felt anything. I’m not exactly sure why such an obvious pitting is allowed in this forum, but I’ve given up on figuring that sort of thing out a long time ago.
This is my favorite argument.
In the real world the CEO of my company doesn’t have his decisions filibustered by a minority of his staff that he can’t fire. The President isn’t the CEO of everything that happens in America and any law that is or isn’t passed. A president doesn’t have unlimited control, it may have something to do with that whole separation of powers thing or something.
Please, sir, give us some specific examples of ways he could have “done his job” - that aren’t just, “do whatever the Republicans asked him to do”
I stood in line behind a woman at walmart last week who was telling the clerk how she was stocking up on canned stuff with a birthday check from her mother because her job at West Point was getting furloughed in a couple of weeks, and she was worried about how she would afford groceries. (the cashier made some comment about there not being a snowstorm, so why all the canned stuff, hahaha, and that was the customers response)
It has real actual negative affects on real actual people.
FactCheck.Org provides a more nuanced view. 44.3% of federal employees have bachelor’s degrees, compared with 18.7% of private-sector employees. Average federal employee is 5 years older than private-sector. When such factors are normalized, base pay is lower for feds; their advantages coming in benefits.
The figures can be twisted either way but
CEO’s are supposed to lead. Obama asked for and got a raise in taxes. In return Republicans asked for budget restraint. This was ignored by the Senate. The President has done virtually nothing to bring the houses together to work toward a budget. The President and Congress have a fiduciary responsibility to work within a budget.
I took 1 (one) unpaid day off. Frankly I am not sure if it was because of the sequester or not. But it was great!
OTOH, I have heard of town-hall lotteries to decide which kids don’t get to go to pre-school. The ‘across the board’ 5% isn’t really across the board.
The raise on taxes that was automatic without any action on anybody’s part, was originally enacted by his predecessor, which he agreed to delay for all income by two years, and which he actually campaigned on permanently reducing for everybody (although not on all income for everybody)?
See, Obama wasn’t even responsible for that! Where is the leadership?!?!?
Yeah, I love how the definition of “serious proposal” has been redefined. Apparently, if the plan includes any tax revenue at all, by definition it’s not “serious.” Only proposals that erase the deficit by repealing Obamacare and taking those pesky regulatory shackles off big banks and Wall Street can be considered “serious.”
Also interesting that the very post of mine that Kearsen quoted, asking for a cite of a serious proposal, contained a link to Obama’s offer to use chained CPI for Social Security cost of living increases … an offer that stirred up considerable opposition by Democratic lawmakers, by the way. I guess the definition of “cite” has gone the way of “serious.”
I linked to Obama’s proposal earlier on this page, I pointed out that Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that had majority support that would have eliminated the sequester, and on the previous page I linked to a story that says that House Republicans aren’t taking up any tax bills in order to “starve the Senate” from passing any sequester-related legislation.
Meanwhile, the Republican sequester plan got just 38 votes.
We have gridlock. Blaming Obama for it when there’s a good portion of Washington reflexively filibusters anything that’s associated with his name is simply not fair. The truth is that everyone - Obama, Republicans, Democrats - are just going to wait a while to see if Americans are happy with the effects of the sequester. And the polls are pretty clear on who the public will blame if they don’t like it: the white guys who want government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Eh, it’s been almost two weeks since I last debunked the claim that government workers are underpaid. Might as well do it again.
First all, we’ll note that the FactCheck.org page relies on government reports. Some people might be a little bit skeptical of the federal workers reporting that federal workers are underpaid. But even if we use data from the government, we can still debunk the claim.
Second we’ll note that the FactCheck.org page says upfront that the most recent study comparing “apples to apples”, i.e. government workers to private workers with similar levels of education, was done in 1990. This would make it somewhat out of date, I hope we agree. Wages and benefits for government workers have been shooting upwards much faster than everyone else’s lately, so data from 1990 aren’t too helpful.
Fortunately for us, FactCheck.org is wrong when stating that the issue hasn’t been studied more recently than 1990. In fact, from here:
In January the Congressional Budget Office, comparing the compensation of federal and private-sector employees, found it is actually the least educated public workers who get the biggest pay bump. Public workers with a high school degree or lower make 21 percent more in wages than equivalent private workers; those with less than a bachelor’s degree earn 15 percent more; and those with a bachelor’s degree receive 2 percent more. Only at the level of master’s degrees and higher do private wages outpace public. (Benefits are much higher for public workers at all education levels.) In federal work, it’s lower educational attainment that gets rewarded most.
So, except for the very small number of employees with post-graduate degrees, federal employees get paid more than private counterparts with the same level of education, not less.
Yes, I breezed through it at first. Posted what I posted and then made my way through the rest of it.
My point stands, the salient point being. Liberals were given the revenue streams when the sequestration agreement was signed (year or more ago)
You then turn around and say ‘hey, we need to come up with a joint plan to ensure we can pass something that we promised to cut’ (a year or more ago)
Only this time you are also wanting even MORE revenue streams to be included so that it helps pad your ‘cuts’
And you want to call that ‘reasonable’
Gotcha
Who passed the sequester with the intention that this was the preferred or desirable outcome? It was a stupid thing to do, but you’re portraying it as if it were the plan people wanted to see enacted and now the Democrats are trying to go back on it. This is a total misrepresentation.
Why do you have to misrepresent what happened in order to try to make a point?
If i was going to say I was making a point, it would be that the sequester is one of a long string of things that politicians bandy about (one way or the other) and pull on the heartstrings of the American people because they don’t give a fuck about any of you/us. But you sure think they do.
They only care about them. I post this so often, on this very board, because there are so many of the liberal mindset here that fall for these political games every single time.
The reasoning is simple, wake up.
Here’s why.
Any cut to government spending will necessarily cut the amounts of money that some people get. It doesn’t matter when, where, or how: the fact remains the same. Everyone knows that.
Obama & co. assured us there would be a devastating disaster and catastrophe if the sequester went through. We can sort the predicted catastrophe’s into two classes. First, there’s the fact that government employees get furloughs, or get laid off, or that government agencies can’t hire to fill vacancies. Second, there’s the fact that government services will get cut in disastrous, devastating, catastrophic ways.
The first class, as I just mentioned is inevitable. If we collectively decide that we can’t ever cut pay or lay off any government workers, then we’ll never cut the budget. Ever. Now I’ve lived through good economic times and bad, through Democratic and Republican administrations, through balanced budgets and badly imbalanced budgets. In all that time, I’ve never seen the Democratic Party and its allies voluntarily say that now is a good time to cut back on the federal budget. Plainly if we waited for that to happen, the budget would spiral upwards forever. If we don’t want the budget to spiral upwards forever, we need to be willing to make cuts that result in federal workers getting less money.
Of course, Obama & co. couldn’t simply say that the sequester is devastating because it means that federal employees will get paid slightly less. Instead, they threatened us with catastrophic consequences to everybody from the cutbacks in government services. In reality, there have not been and will not be catastrophic consequences from cutbacks in government services. Virtually all federal departments and offices get paid far more than they need for the services they perform. They can take a minor budget cut and still perform those services. Furthermore, many government programs do more harm than good, and we’ll actually benefit from any reduction in services.
I posted the OP to make this point. Obama’s promise of devastating reductions in government services hasn’t and won’t come to pass.
Who passed it? You tell me, it was signed on to by both parties, why?
So that the Democrats would get additional revenue streams (tax cuts expiring).
I make no such claim that ‘the people’ wanted it done. No, the people want you to be able to work within a budget but the government has ignored that very fact time and again.
What the Democrats are going back on is their promise to make the damn cuts, AFTER they already got the additional revenue!
Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the sequester agreement. Any compromise where you get 98% of what you want is a great deal for you right? Yet you act as if the republicans were forced at gunpoint to accept it. What do you think you typically get in a reasonable compromise, 100% of what you want or something? I mean that is the republican definition of compromise I suppose, but its hardly accurate or reasonable.
The Bush tax cut expiration was not a gift that republicans gave to democrats. Those were always and forever meant to be temporary. At no point did the Bush tax cuts ever not have an expiration date. So how do you call something that automatically sunsets without anyone lifting a finger something that was ‘given’ to the democrats. Its ludicrous on its face, and clear evidence that you swallow republican spin without much critical thinking.
So your whole point is void. No revenue increases have been given by the republicans at any time since the sequester. You can keep insisting it, but you just sound like fox news spinning yourself dizzy when you do, and noone is buying it.
You need to reevaluate your perspective of reasonable in this case, as your current understanding of the term seems hopelessly skewed to one side and way out of line with the reality of the situation.
I don’t watch Fox
I didn’t say you did. I said your spin sounds like them.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply though.