Rolling furlough may ease meat indust...

Rolling furlough may ease meat industry pain from US budget cuts

There are 11 comments on the Reuters story from Feb 26, 2013, titled Rolling furlough may ease meat industry pain from US budget cuts. In it, Reuters reports that:

The Obama administration may institute a "rolling" furlough to keep meat plants open during automatic budget cuts rather than idle all 8,400 U.S. meat inspectors at the same time, a House subcommittee chairman said on Tuesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Otis B Driftwood

West Sayville, NY

#1 Feb 26, 2013
Obama: President Meathead

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#2 Feb 26, 2013
But the wars still wage on and the billions of dollars given away in foreign aid continues. Not to mention the new bases we are building overseas.

Can't stop that, can't cut that.

“Trump fixing Obama's mess”

Since: Mar 09

& Making America Great Again!

#3 Feb 26, 2013
These so called "budget cuts" is a result of Obama's out of control massive government spending. If you lose your job you can blame it on the crazy spendaholic.
TedsLiver

Oakland, CA

#4 Feb 26, 2013
Maybe if Obammy and Moochelle took less vacations we could pay the meat inspectors.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#5 Feb 27, 2013
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

And teabaggers don't understand much of anything, let alone a budget.

Poor teabaggers.
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#6 Feb 27, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.
The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
And teabaggers don't understand much of anything, let alone a budget.
Poor teabaggers.
Thanks for demonstrating that the liberals have been bamboozled by their fearless leader and their misinformation machine.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#7 Feb 27, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating that the liberals have been bamboozled by their fearless leader and their misinformation machine.
Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.
One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):
2008: 20.8 percent
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.
"but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy".

No the relative size of the BUDGET.

"Rolling furlough may ease meat industry pain from US BUDGET cuts"

The TOPIC.

The politicians have little control over inflation or the size of the economy.

The Federal Reserve has more control over those things.
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#8 Feb 27, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy".
No the relative size of the BUDGET.
"Rolling furlough may ease meat industry pain from US BUDGET cuts"
The TOPIC.
The politicians have little control over inflation or the size of the economy.
The Federal Reserve has more control over those things.
How do we measure the size of the economy?

Typically there's a couple different ways to do it.

One is through nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

GDP is Gross domestic product. For a region, the GDP is "the market value of all the goods and services producted by labor and property located in" the region, usually a country. It equals GNP minus the net inflow of labor and property incomes from abroad.

Government policies "do" directly affect the GDP in this country.

It's not convincing for Obama to suggest — as he routinely does — that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.

So rather than holding Obama responsible for a recession he inherited, or praising him simply because that recession didn't continue perpetually, the fairest measure of his economic stewardship is this one:

How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?

On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.

Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.
During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2%— less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-t...
Follow us:@IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#9 Feb 27, 2013
To hear President Obama talk about the so-called budget cuts known as sequestration, his two-year-old idea of those required slashes in federal spending didn't turn out to be such a good idea after all.

As usual with President Obama, however, the failure of his own plan is not his fault.

The president, his Cabinet secretaries and his press secretary are describing a veritable fiscal Armageddon for the country if the cuts he proposed in 2011 start taking effect on Friday, as legislatively required. And conveniently forgetting that in late 2011 Obama vowed to veto any attempts to disarm the sequester cuts he now raises alarms over.

Remember now, these aren't real cuts in current spending. These are cuts in the future increases of current spending. We'll still be spending more and more and more each year, as we have since Obama took the throne. In fact, he's been spending more than $1,000,000,000,000 above what the government takes in every single year.

We'll just be spending a little bit less of the usual annual federal budget increases. Only 2.3% less, as a matter of fact. Could you cut $23 in spending out of a $1,000 raise you might get someday if you ever find a job during this Obama economy? See?

But to hear Obama describe the ugly upcoming scenario you'll probably have to send your kids to school unfed, maybe even naked. See how awful Republicans are?

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-mal...
Follow us:@IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#10 Feb 27, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we measure the size of the economy?
Typically there's a couple different ways to do it.
One is through nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
GDP is Gross domestic product. For a region, the GDP is "the market value of all the goods and services producted by labor and property located in" the region, usually a country. It equals GNP minus the net inflow of labor and property incomes from abroad.
Government policies "do" directly affect the GDP in this country.
It's not convincing for Obama to suggest — as he routinely does — that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.
So rather than holding Obama responsible for a recession he inherited, or praising him simply because that recession didn't continue perpetually, the fairest measure of his economic stewardship is this one:
How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?
On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.
Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.
During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2%— less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-t...
Follow us:@IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
"How do we measure the size of the economy"?

"GDP"?

Federal SPENDING is rising at the SLOWEST pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

The subject is still the BUDGET.

NOT the GDP or the size of the ECONOMY, the FEDERAL BUDGET as in FEDERAL SPENDING.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#11 Feb 27, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
To hear President Obama talk about the so-called budget cuts known as sequestration, his two-year-old idea of those required slashes in federal spending didn't turn out to be such a good idea after all.
As usual with President Obama, however, the failure of his own plan is not his fault.
The president, his Cabinet secretaries and his press secretary are describing a veritable fiscal Armageddon for the country if the cuts he proposed in 2011 start taking effect on Friday, as legislatively required. And conveniently forgetting that in late 2011 Obama vowed to veto any attempts to disarm the sequester cuts he now raises alarms over.
Remember now, these aren't real cuts in current spending. These are cuts in the future increases of current spending. We'll still be spending more and more and more each year, as we have since Obama took the throne. In fact, he's been spending more than $1,000,000,000,000 above what the government takes in every single year.
We'll just be spending a little bit less of the usual annual federal budget increases. Only 2.3% less, as a matter of fact. Could you cut $23 in spending out of a $1,000 raise you might get someday if you ever find a job during this Obama economy? See?
But to hear Obama describe the ugly upcoming scenario you'll probably have to send your kids to school unfed, maybe even naked. See how awful Republicans are?
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-mal...
Follow us:@IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
"In fact, he's been spending more than $1,000,000,000,000 above what the government takes in every single year"

That's still at a SLOWER pace than ANY president since Eisenhower.

"his two-year-old idea of those required slashes in federal spending didn't turn out to be such a good idea after all".

It wasn't HIS idea.

On August 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act, another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013.

The sequestration became a major topic of the fiscal cliff debate. The debate's resolution, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), eliminated much of the tax side of the dispute but only delayed the budget sequestrations for two months, thus reducing the original $110 billion to be saved per fiscal year to $85 billion in 2013.

At least you were ON TOPIC for ONE paragraph.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Detained immigrant says Texas guard sexually as... 1 min Retribution 28
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min BuckStopper 1,657,669
News FBI agent removed from Russia probe called Trum... 15 min Retribution 8
News Trump accusers call for congressional investiga... 18 min BuckStopper 105
News Obama: Protect democracy or risk taking path of... 24 min Retribution 241
News Trump says US 'cannot afford' Roy Moore loss in... 38 min Retribution 136
News Judge bars ex-Speaker Dennis Hastert from being... 39 min Card Carrying Zio... 4
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 43 min BuckStopper 1,426
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Repub Lies Manufa... 46,642
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 4 hr Into The Night 1,605
More from around the web