My dad took a government paycheck most of his life; two (or three?) years in the Army, 20 years in the Navy, and 22 years in the FAA. Hardly a useless fat cat.
My SO is a nurse who would really like to work for the VA. She’s a combat veteran, and can connect with patients in a way that other nurses might not be able to. It’s hard enough to find nursing work up here. The sequester is going to make getting a job with the VA impossible for the foreseeable future.
It’s only poison in the scheme of political gamesmanship. It’s not poisonous to the health of the country. So as I said, Obama (and those who don’t support it) are only doing it for political points, not the good of the country.
That is the reasonable place. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Your analogy is flawed in that executing 10,000 people is a bad thing whereas cutting these $X billion is a good thing. The only problem, as was alleged in this very thread by the liberal posters here (nate, Lobohan, Peremensoe), is that the cuts are across-the-board. This solves the ‘only problem,’ doesn’t it?
Admit it. You think cutting the budget is a bad thing. You think it’s like executing tens of thousands of people. It’s not the ‘where’, but the ‘what’, isn’t it?
That’s as it should be. We need(ed) a hell of a lot more cuts than tax increases.
First, you show me where conservatives keep talking about this deal.
Not really.
My dad too. Definitely not a fat cat.
I am a civilian employee and will be getting furloughed (20% pay cut) so I am directly affected by this, so I may be a little biased. I definitely agree that the military budget is bloated and there really is no big incentive for any organization within the DoD to save money… any attempt to do so basically cuts your own throat. The thinking is that if you can perform your mission for less than the budgeted amount this year, why would you need a penny more for the next year? So your budget gets cut to the actual amount you spend. If there was some way to provide an incentive for decreasing costs without getting “punished” for returning unused money, that would go a long way to solving the problem.
As far as the effects of the sequestration, I see military heavy cities’ economies coming to a stand still, while most of America carries on as usual.
When the federal government spends less money, some people who get their paychecks from the government will end up getting less money. That’s basic logic. Some will lose jobs. Some will get paychecks cut. Some people who might have been hired will not be hired. Everyone knows this.
If we as a nation always took the position that we can’t trim government spending because it will cause financial pain to some people, then we’ll never trim government spending. Instead government spending will only rise until it spirals out of control, as has happened and is happening in many countries. We cna’t continue to increase spending forever, at least not at the rate that we’ve been increasing it over the past couple generations. Sooner or later there have to be cuts. Those cuts will hurt many people, but they still have to take place.
Yes, really. The fact that other OECD countries tax more is just another signal that America is a model for the rest of the world to follow. I can’t help it if Denmark and Canada want to crush their citizens under the burden of taxation, but that doesn’t mean we’re not overtaxed, too.
BTW, it’s funny that a Google search of “Denmark unemployment” turned up this article. It looks like they’re starting to figure it out.
… or perhaps a model for the rest of the OECD not to follow. But it’s too late, they already have. Beginning around 1980, the neoliberal Washington Consensus took root in the US and UK, and began to spread among the leaders of the rest of the First World. They began doing to their own societies what they had done to the rest of the world for centuries: regressive taxation, welfare for the rich, free market discipline (austerity, “we have a spending problem”) for everyone else, with an increasingly militarized state to deal with the ensuing opposition.
So we could reverse this, and return to an era with a stronger labor movement, better workplace protections, and more progressive taxation. Or perhaps we could put our minds to toppling capitalism. Thankfully, there’s no large Communist (or other state-socialist) movement to steal the revolution from the workers.
Again, it is not just government workers who will feel the pain of it. This will have a ripple effect that will affect entire industries and communities. When consumer spending goes down, everyone’s income goes down.
If you want to cut government spending, there are smart ways to do it, and there are dumb ways to do it. The smart way would be to measure it out gradually in ways that the economy can absorb.The smart way would make sure it’s done such that there are places for displaced workers to go. It’d be smart to do it during better economic times rather than worse ones.
The way we are choosing is a spectacularly dumb way to do it. It’s a way that will send a very-much unneeded shock through a delicate, tenuously recovering, economy.
Not that that matters to the architects of the “starve the beat” movement. We are the ones who get to pay, with our paychecks, for their madcap schemes.
Are you able to provide some examples where reduction in Federal spending has been done in a “smart” fashion?
I just see a continual curve upward, and an incredible addiction to borrowing.
The typical definition of “smart” seems to be “my proposal,” and since so many people have to agree to get anything passed, nothing “smart” ever gets passed (except blame).
It seems to me as if no one ever thinks “right now” is a good time to go on a financial diet, and that no one ever thinks the economy is in good enough shape to absorb cuts. This is probably true, since the economy has become so utterly dependent on our bloated borrowing, so I’m confused about what a “smart” approach would actually be, other than just wait and see if our ballooning debt burden actually makes us collapse or not.
I know I’m going to sound like an asshole so I’m ready to be pitted but:
The general public had to suffer for a couple of years of major unemployment and upwards to 25% underemployment and unreported unemployment. Many families had to live on 30%-50% of their regular income. It sucks that Federal workers must suffer the same fate but a lot of us non-Federal workers had to live with it too.
This post seems confused as to how public versus private sector employment has trended since the economic collapse.
Here’s as of a year or so ago. Things haven’t changed since then.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-chart-public-sector-vs-private-sector-employment-2012-6
The issue of the sequester is not federal versus private employment anyway. Remember when 4th quarter GDP took a dive last year. That’s what the sequester is about.
Let’s start with oil subsidies, as there is absolutely no possible justification for them.
They need to renounce the “Hastert rule” which gives power not to just the 54% Congressional majority, but to the 54% (or so) most cynical of that 54%.
The big picture is even worse. Suppose the 54% most cynical of GOP Congresscritters are elected with 54% of the vote in a general election after being selected by the 54% most rabid GOP voters in the primary. With 54% x 54% x 54% x 54% = 8.5%, we have the situation where the House of Representatives is controlled by barely one-twelfth of American voters (and, alas, among the most crazed and ignorant voters).
Again, you are showing small scale thinking. Who buys whatever it is that you sell? If those people have less money, they buy less and you have less money. Then you buy less, and whoever sells you stuff has less.
A lot of people sell stuff to federal employees.
I wish both parties would stop with the 10 year plans. That is simply a pipe dream. We don’t know what will happen in the next 10 years. Could have a GOP President or Senate; could have a Dem controlled house. North Korea might start a war.
I remember in 2000 that Clinton had a plan to completely eliminate the publicly held portion of the National Debt in 10 years. Of course, the dot.com bubble then burst, 9/11 happened, a Republican was elected President, we fought 2 wars, and the economy collapsed. You can’t see those things 10 years out.
Further I wish parties would quit proposing these 10 year budgets that have no chance of even beginning to pass or even act as a starting point for negotiations. Ryan’s plan balances the budget in 10 years. Sounds great. But oh, part of the spending cuts is to repeal Obamacare. No way in hell that’s going to happen, so why propose it?
This kind of thing is why it is a little hard to take complaints about the cuts seriously.
“If the sequester happens, I won’t be able to go to concerts, eat out in restaurants, and I will have to get rid of the servant!”
Oh, the humanity.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s just great that some people expect to have a government staffed by competent, motivated, well-educated, and helpful Americans, and yet expect them to get by on wages where they are challenged to go out to a restaurant once a week. And then if government is filled with people who are only qualified to do work for sub-standard wages, blame the government for employing dolts.
Definitely. This is part of what got us into this mess in the first place: the Bush tax cuts that seemed like they would hit revenue less by having them sunset after 10 years. Whereas it was obvious even at the time that if they were to sunset, a lot of people would be screaming that it’s a “tax increase”.
Especially irksome are roads to balanced budgets in 10 years where most of the savings happen in the last 5 years.
Shodan, did you really not get the point about the ripple effects on people whose living comes from providing concerts, restaurant meals, or domestic service, etc.? Or on the other people whose living depends on providing things and services to them, etc.?