Sequestration its the end of the world

Posted in the Valdese Forum

My Conclusion

Hickory, NC

#1 Mar 1, 2013
What is sequestration?
It's a series of automatic, across-the-board cuts to government agencies, totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The cuts would be split 50-50 between defense and domestic discretionary spending. This plan originated in the White House. Starting today the government is supposed to trim 83 billion dollars off of a projected budget of 3.8 trillion. That’s a 2.2% cut or is it.

In Government speak it’s really not even a cut. Think of it this way. If your kid asked for a $10 dollar raise in his/her allowance and you said no but I can give you $7 dollars and the kid then went out and complained they could not buy lunch or gas for their car because you cut their allowance by 2%. That’s Government Speak!

All working people had to pay an additional 2% in social security starting in January. We had to deal with it why can’t the government cut 2.2%.
My Conclusion

Hickory, NC

#2 Mar 1, 2013
What is a Furlough versus a layoff?
If you are furloughed you do not lose your job, In the case of 800 thousand government workers that Obama claims will be furloughed it means they will only work 32 hours a week instead of 40. In 6 weeks they lose one week of pay.

The White House gets to decide who gets a Furlough and who doesn’t and with the number of Government workers out there and roving Furloughs an individual worker might only lose 1 weeks’ pay all year.
Still get paid

Denver, NC

#3 Mar 1, 2013
My Conclusion wrote:
What is a Furlough versus a layoff?
If you are furloughed you do not lose your job, In the case of 800 thousand government workers that Obama claims will be furloughed it means they will only work 32 hours a week instead of 40. In 6 weeks they lose one week of pay.
The White House gets to decide who gets a Furlough and who doesn’t and with the number of Government workers out there and roving Furloughs an individual worker might only lose 1 weeks’ pay all year.
The way to avoid losing any pay is to work overtime on the days your coworkers are missing and you are doing their work. When your day off comes they work overtime to make up for your time off. Enough overtime makes up for the day off.
really

Newberry, SC

#4 Mar 1, 2013
My Conclusion wrote:
What is a Furlough versus a layoff?
If you are furloughed you do not lose your job, In the case of 800 thousand government workers that Obama claims will be furloughed it means they will only work 32 hours a week instead of 40. In 6 weeks they lose one week of pay.

The White House gets to decide who gets a Furlough and who doesnÂ’t and with the number of Government workers out there and roving Furloughs an individual worker might only lose 1 weeksÂ’ pay all year.
The drastic effects claimed by the white house are ridiculous. It is basically a 2.2% decrease in spending which I assure you is much less budget tightening than most taxpayers have incurred. It resets budget limits back to 2009 and as for military cuts, we were funding 2 wars then so I feel sure we can manage within budget now. We spent 10 times the sequestered amount bailing the banks, green energy co and auto industry out. This is nothing but another manufactured crisis by our inept politicians. If the cuts were anywhere near the doomsday event portrayed, the stock market would not be holding at 14,000, which realistically it should not be at anyway. Secondly, as dire as they try to portray the budget cuts, we sure managed to find 600 million yesterday to send to Syrian rebels. In the end, they will manipulate the system in a way to increase taxes on the working class and cut benefits from medicare/medicaid and social security. If the situation were so crucial why did congress and senate houses recess yesterday and everyone went home(at taxpayer expense) leaving the "crisis" hanging. Just another Washington hat trick, screwing the American people.
Still get paid

Denver, NC

#5 Mar 1, 2013
Item 14 of a Department of Interior FAQs about furloughs. Looks like you get paid for not working.

14. Will I receive back pay for the period of time I am subject to a furlough?

It’s not guaranteed. Congress would have to pass legislation granting federal employees the pay
they missed while they were furloughed. This is what has happened in the past.

http://www.doi.gov/shutdown/upload/HR-Furloug...
Pike Bishop

Enfield, IL

#6 Mar 1, 2013
A created crisis that does nothing to solve our debt issues and interstingly was begun by Obama.
Everyone needs to read the Bob Woodward book and articles about the President's falsehoods regarding this issue. And folks Bob Woodward ain't no Republican.
really

Charlotte, NC

#7 Mar 1, 2013
Pike Bishop wrote:
A created crisis that does nothing to solve our debt issues and interstingly was begun by Obama.
Everyone needs to read the Bob Woodward book and articles about the President's falsehoods regarding this issue. And folks Bob Woodward ain't no Republican.
Is it not amazing how the white house embraced Bob Woodward for years, up until the moment he questioned their actions. Then suddenly he receives harassing emails and is basically labeled as a non journalist by the white house just as they did Fox news recently because they disagreed with policies. Guess Obama is showing the media who is in charge.
rwb

Van Wert, OH

#8 Mar 1, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it not amazing how the white house embraced Bob Woodward for years, up until the moment he questioned their actions. Then suddenly he receives harassing emails and is basically labeled as a non journalist by the white house just as they did Fox news recently because they disagreed with policies. Guess Obama is showing the media who is in charge.
Did you read the e-mails and his response to the e-mails? I didn't see the threat.
excerpt from Bob Sperling: I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Woodwards response: Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice.

Threatening? Doesn't appear that way and Woodward's response doesn't appear he took it that way initially. Is this a journalist trying to bring himself into the center of controversy for his own attention.
really

Charlotte, NC

#9 Mar 1, 2013
rwb wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read the e-mails and his response to the e-mails? I didn't see the threat.
excerpt from Bob Sperling: I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Woodwards response: Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice.

Threatening? Doesn't appear that way and Woodward's response doesn't appear he took it that way initially. Is this a journalist trying to bring himself into the center of controversy for his own attention.
I don't think it was an implied physical threat but more as a friend warning him as a journalist he would "regret" voicing his opinion. I interpret it meaning restricted access or additional ramifications in future coverage. I do agree Woodward garnered attention then once the story broke he played it out for all he could .
rwb

Van Wert, OH

#10 Mar 1, 2013
One of the main responsibilities of the House of Representatives is to originate revenue bills. Senate also has to agree on these bills once passed in the House. Since Boehner became Speaker of the House, the House has not been able to pass any meaningful legislation. The House was not able to bring any bill forward to address the sequester or a compromise. He handed that responsibility over to the Senate. Republicans in Senate did present a compromise bill and they couldn't even get every Republican to vote for that bill. I am thinking it only mustered some 38 votes, I believe. Senate Democrats presented a bill and it did pass something like 51-49, but it needed 60 votes and Republicans filibustered the bill.

Remember Reagan? Here is a quote from him:
Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.
Reagan increased deficit 11 times. He did a 67% increase in deficit during his tenure as President. Many tried to blame the Democrats, but this was a Reagan thing.
Here is a letter Reagan wrote for support in increasing the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019
/WashingtonPost/2011/05/14/Nat ional-Politics/Graphics/reagan _letter_0514.pdf

Actually history shows an interesting fact on the debt ceiling. Since 1960 the debt ceiling has been raised 79 times. 49 times by Republicans and 30 times by Democrats.

A part of our debt comes for the wars that started under GW Bush. We have spent $3.7T on The Bush Wars. If Republicans were so concerned about our deficit, where were these conservatives during the Bush Administration? Oh yeah, they were calling those that didn't agree with Bush as 'unpatriotic' or maybe even deemed a traitor. Actually about 20% of federal spending is on Defense Spending.
rwb

Van Wert, OH

#11 Mar 1, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it was an implied physical threat but more as a friend warning him as a journalist he would "regret" voicing his opinion. I interpret it meaning restricted access or additional ramifications in future coverage. I do agree Woodward garnered attention then once the story broke he played it out for all he could .
Exactly! Yet that isn't how it is being perceived by the right.
rwb

Van Wert, OH

#12 Mar 1, 2013
Still get paid wrote:
<quoted text>
The way to avoid losing any pay is to work overtime on the days your coworkers are missing and you are doing their work. When your day off comes they work overtime to make up for your time off. Enough overtime makes up for the day off.
I believe the overtime is controlled and has to be approved.

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.

Valdese Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
total anarchy 2 hr Waco 1954 555
Relocating to Hickory NC (Feb '06) 3 hr Waco 1954 295
Burke Weather 4 hr Someone Who Knows 4
Who Do You Support For Senate In NC in 2014 (Sep '14) 4 hr Waco 1954 6,746
Claiming to be Veterans 7 hr New Post 3
teagan clark (Apr '13) 7 hr tattedcupcake 10
Old Super 10 in Hudson 8 hr Melissa 1
Valdese Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Valdese People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:26 am PST

Bleacher Report11:26AM
Bears, Steelers Among Top Spots for FA RB Jackson
NBC Sports 2:32 PM
Falcons waive Jonathan Massaquoi
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
NFL Draft 2015: 1st-Round Mock Draft and Top Potential Mid-Round Steals
NFL 6:49 AM
Dan Quinn wants Sean Weatherspoon back on Falcons
Bleacher Report 4:54 PM
What's Best Plan for Replacements for Falcons?