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.<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.
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.