Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81543 Mar 1, 2013
Hi, RIcky. Angela here. Nice to meet you. HOpe you enjoy us and stick around.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#81544 Mar 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
All the sequestration means is the government will only spend 2.4 trillion over the next ten years instead of 2.5 trillion.
(And for those of you uninformed, the spending cuts aren't technically "cuts." It's just a decrease in spending increases. Understand?)
Speaking of being uninformed, you seem to top the charts.

The sequestration means they are going to cut our pay. It means across the board cuts to certain departments because the politicians won't come up with a budget, and this was the moronic deal they made a year and a half ago, everyone believing the other side would make concessions before it came to this. Reducing my pay by 20%- that's one day's pay out of five, since I doubt your ability to do such complicated math - is in fact, a cut. That is not a "decrease in increases". We haven't had cost of living increases in years, so there is no increase there to decrease. But hey, why waste time telling you, right? You would obviously know far more about it than I do.

I don't get involved with the endless back-and-forth babbling that many of you thrive on here, and this will be my last post on the subject. So feel free to come back with whatever ignorant comments you wish about how this doesn't really affect anyone or your irrelevant opinion on how much anyone should be earning. I won't be responding. I'll be busy talking to my people who are barely making it paycheck-to-paycheck right now, about how to continue making their mortgage payments if the politicians don't fix it.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#81545 Mar 1, 2013
Hi-
My name is PEllen . Close your eyes and think of Jessica Rabbit... plus about 40 years. That's me.

I make bad puns and jokes and am often after people to play nice.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

#81546 Mar 1, 2013
Sgt__Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of being uninformed, you seem to top the charts.
The sequestration means they are going to cut our pay. It means across the board cuts to certain departments because the politicians won't come up with a budget, and this was the moronic deal they made a year and a half ago, everyone believing the other side would make concessions before it came to this. Reducing my pay by 20%- that's one day's pay out of five, since I doubt your ability to do such complicated math - is in fact, a cut. That is not a "decrease in increases". We haven't had cost of living increases in years, so there is no increase there to decrease. But hey, why waste time telling you, right? You would obviously know far more about it than I do.
I don't get involved with the endless back-and-forth babbling that many of you thrive on here, and this will be my last post on the subject. So feel free to come back with whatever ignorant comments you wish about how this doesn't really affect anyone or your irrelevant opinion on how much anyone should be earning. I won't be responding. I'll be busy talking to my people who are barely making it paycheck-to-paycheck right now, about how to continue making their mortgage payments if the politicians don't fix it.
Your pay is not being "cut!" So you have to take a one day a week furlogh for a couple months. BOO FRIGGIN HOO! Welcome to the rest of the working people! I'm laid off one WEEK of every month. Overtime has vanished. AND MY TAXES INCREASED! I WISH I was only taking a 20% pay cut. I'm taking what amounts close to a 40-45% paycut. We all have to make do with pay cuts and having less money, but the government refuses to do so. You people voted for this. You people wanted this. Go cry me a freakin river.
dahgts

Chicago, IL

#81547 Mar 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your pay is not being "cut!" So you have to take a one day a week furlogh for a couple months. BOO FRIGGIN HOO! Welcome to the rest of the working people! I'm laid off one WEEK of every month. Overtime has vanished. AND MY TAXES INCREASED! I WISH I was only taking a 20% pay cut. I'm taking what amounts close to a 40-45% paycut. We all have to make do with pay cuts and having less money, but the government refuses to do so. You people voted for this. You people wanted this. Go cry me a freakin river.
I don't think she said she would get a day off with no pay. A pay cut is working the same number of days for less pay. A furlough is taking time off without pay. You voted for "this" also. Deal.

“It made sense at the time....”

Since: May 09

Des Plaines, IL

#81548 Mar 1, 2013
so, hubby just took one for the team and talked to his mom about the arrangements for tomorrow... among random topics over an hour, he had to tell her taht no, i was on a call on ANOTHER phone, not htis one (OY!!), and listen to her rant and rave about not being invited to her grandson-in-law's 30 b-day party (get over it,no family was invited!)... and, yet again, she's sworn off ever talking to my SIL/her daughter; this time b/c MIL sent an email to her meant for hubby and put in there "and of course, don't tell SIL." Sorry, this one is squarely MIL's fault. they soooo badly need family counseling, but MIL won't do it b/c she doesnt seem to think that she's done, said or at fault for anything.(they try swearing off communicating with each other every few years, and yet someone keeps calling the ohter and the other keeps answering the GD phone.)

Can't wait for MIL to start digging aobut hte estate. that will be interesting.

On the upshot, even though tomorrow's my mom's birthday, she's telling everyone that my gramma's last gift to her was having all her family together again. It will probably be the last time all of us cousins & our aunts will be tother in one place.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#81549 Mar 1, 2013
Aisle Sitter wrote:
so, hubby just took one for the team and talked to his mom about the arrangements for tomorrow... among random topics over an hour, he had to tell her taht no, i was on a call on ANOTHER phone, not htis one (OY!!), and listen to her rant and rave about not being invited to her grandson-in-law's 30 b-day party (get over it,no family was invited!)... and, yet again, she's sworn off ever talking to my SIL/her daughter; this time b/c MIL sent an email to her meant for hubby and put in there "and of course, don't tell SIL." Sorry, this one is squarely MIL's fault. they soooo badly need family counseling, but MIL won't do it b/c she doesnt seem to think that she's done, said or at fault for anything.(they try swearing off communicating with each other every few years, and yet someone keeps calling the ohter and the other keeps answering the GD phone.)
Can't wait for MIL to start digging aobut hte estate. that will be interesting.
On the upshot, even though tomorrow's my mom's birthday, she's telling everyone that my gramma's last gift to her was having all her family together again. It will probably be the last time all of us cousins & our aunts will be tother in one place.
Your mother in law will start digging about your grandmother's estate?They aren't related are they?

Even for her that crosses an awful lot of boundaries.

Will your MIL be at your grandmother's funeral/wake/lunch?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81550 Mar 1, 2013
Wait, so grandma is mad that 30yo grandson is having a birthday party and she's not invited? She doesn't get that it's for friends and most likely drinking? And not wanting your grandma there?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#81551 Mar 1, 2013
Geez, Sub. What are we, some kind of AA meeting?

I'm squishymama and I'm a topix addict.

And my name pretty much says it all.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

#81552 Mar 1, 2013
dahgts wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think she said she would get a day off with no pay. A pay cut is working the same number of days for less pay. A furlough is taking time off without pay. You voted for "this" also. Deal.


Number one, I did not vote for this, my guy didn't win. I tried warning you people, but no one wants to listen. So now you all get to sleep in the bed you made. And I have to sleep in the bed you made.

Number two, she is not taking a 20% pay cut, her base pay remains the same, she's just working 20% less hours.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#81553 Mar 1, 2013
dahgts wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think she said she would get a day off with no pay. A pay cut is working the same number of days for less pay. A furlough is taking time off without pay. You voted for "this" also. Deal.
Same difference. Each week you get 20% less money to live on. With a furlough you also get the day off.

Since: Mar 09

Miami, FL

#81554 Mar 1, 2013
Hi Ricky! Most of the regs call me Jamwow (not to be confused with Snooki's BFF, Jwoww). I recently got out of a very long relationship, so I ramble sadly a lot lately. Also, I have friends with drama so I vent about that a lot too. But I'm actually really awesome... I promise.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#81555 Mar 1, 2013
Hee,hee. It is starting to sound like an AA meeting. Not that I'd know what those meetings sound like.

I forgot to confess my sins.

I've become a Topix junkie.

Okay. I said it.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81556 Mar 1, 2013
Remember when the internet was new and in every "chat" room there'd be a round of "asl?"

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#81557 Mar 1, 2013
I'm covering the front desk for someone and it reeks of ASS up here today.
dahgts

Chicago, IL

#81558 Mar 1, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Number one, I did not vote for this, my guy didn't win. I tried warning you people, but no one wants to listen. So now you all get to sleep in the bed you made. And I have to sleep in the bed you made.
Number two, she is not taking a 20% pay cut, her base pay remains the same, she's just working 20% less hours.
I reread her posts. Nowhere that I saw did it say she was working less hours. Kept referring to a pay cut. That means same hours, less $$. Your laid off week should qualify you for unemployment. At least that's something.

You voted for congressmen didn't you? They share the blame and your bed.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#81559 Mar 1, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I'm covering the front desk for someone and it reeks of ASS up here today.
Gross. Spray the chair with something.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#81560 Mar 1, 2013
dahgts wrote:
<quoted text>
I reread her posts. Nowhere that I saw did it say she was working less hours. Kept referring to a pay cut. That means same hours, less $$. Your laid off week should qualify you for unemployment. At least that's something.
You voted for congressmen didn't you? They share the blame and your bed.
At least he is not in Jesse Jr's District

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#81561 Mar 1, 2013
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Gross. Spray the chair with something.
I think she already did and that's why it smells.

<runs>

Still not done with my project, but I need a quick break.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#81562 Mar 1, 2013
Sgt__Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of being uninformed, you seem to top the charts.
The sequestration means they are going to cut our pay. It means across the board cuts to certain departments because the politicians won't come up with a budget, and this was the moronic deal they made a year and a half ago, everyone believing the other side would make concessions before it came to this. Reducing my pay by 20%- that's one day's pay out of five, since I doubt your ability to do such complicated math - is in fact, a cut. That is not a "decrease in increases". We haven't had cost of living increases in years, so there is no increase there to decrease. But hey, why waste time telling you, right? You would obviously know far more about it than I do.
I don't get involved with the endless back-and-forth babbling that many of you thrive on here, and this will be my last post on the subject. So feel free to come back with whatever ignorant comments you wish about how this doesn't really affect anyone or your irrelevant opinion on how much anyone should be earning. I won't be responding. I'll be busy talking to my people who are barely making it paycheck-to-paycheck right now, about how to continue making their mortgage payments if the politicians don't fix it.
Here's the deal, Sarge, since 2000 our federal budget has doubled. I don't think we've gotten much of a benefit from this doubling of spending, personally, but maybe that's just me.

Some of this massive increase was due to spending on the military. They've had money literally thrown at them. Their books are a mess. They can't trace tens of billions of dollars in spending. They don't know where this money is going. There is redundancy, cost overruns, you name it. If money is just going to be thrown at them, there is no incentive for them to become more efficient.

Another thing is, the wars are winding down. We simply can't afford a military budget that was necessary when we were fighting two wars. Are jobs going to be lost because of this, yes, of course. But paying to maintain a military as if you are fighting two wars, when you are not, is not efficient spending. There are going to have to be cuts to personnel because of this. People are going to lose their jobs. I don't see anyway around it. What's the alternative ... to fund the military as if we are fighting two wars?

Lastly and more importantly, the republicans have been offering for weeks to sit down with Obama and democrats and find other cuts that would be less painful. The cuts in the sequester were specifically selected (by both democrats and republicans) to be so painful that both sides would come to the table and negotiate a balanced approach that involves tax increases and more sensible spending cuts.

The problem is, the democrats already got spending increases when we hit the fiscal cliff at the end of last year, and gave no spending cuts.

Now, instead of working with republicans to replace some of the cuts in the sequester with less painful ones, they have refused to do so. Instead they want to offset some of them with EVEN higher taxes.

Obama has been saying we need a balanced approach when it comes to our debt problem, but so far, all he seems willing to do is raise taxes. That's NOT balance.

So both sides have dug in their heels. Rather than democrats doing what is sensible and at least agreeing to replace some of the more painful cuts with less painful cuts, they decided to go on the campaign trail, in particular Obama, and use scare tactics and pointed out how painful the cuts would be in order to get the public on their side.

This tactic is dishonest, because it hides the fact that the cuts wouldn't have had to be so painful if Obama and Co. had instead decided to act like grown adults and had sat down with republicans and replaced some of the more painful cuts with less painful ones.

Anyway it is sliced, there needs to be cuts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Agents of Corruption 1,234,736
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr red and right 53,519
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr _Zoey_ 6,014
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Quirky 190,351
News Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on f... 2 hr Pat Robertson s F... 11
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 8 hr Graham Cracker 51,760
have steroidsss in USA 10 hr Nail Alexander 2
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]