Skip to main content

I read a piece on one of the MSM websites today that says 1 in 5 people (21%, up from 16%) say that sequestration has negatively affected their lifestyle.  My primary observation is that the doom and despair picture painted by the Obama administration did not occur and that here we have ultimate proof that there is rooom to make cutbacks in the government spending before rasing the tax rates any higher. How has sequestration hurt you and please be specific.  I would like this conversation to occur without the unjust name calling nor Bush blaming that typically occurs.  Convince me that this has been a bad thing.

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Well, of course Congress saw some of the error of their ways when flights were cancelled due to air traffic control layoffs , and made a quick fix for that.

It has not hurt me personally at this point, but I am retired. At some time it may have an effect on my part time job, but we'll see.
I do think there are a lot of people who either work for the government directly, or indirectly who will have less money to spend so as time goes on, the economy will probably start to take a hit (but a bad economy under Obama is what Republicans have been trying to accomplish every since he was elected). The cuts are scheduled to become more severe as the year progresses, so it is likely we will begin to see some inconvenience here, I suspect Huntsville will be more affected tho. 

On the other hand, for the last few months , partially due to the sequester, and partly due to eliminating some of  the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, and partly due to the continuing increase of jobs in the economy overall, our budget has been running a surplus instead of a deficit.  While that is good news for the nation, it is bad news for Republicans - especially the teabaggers, but they have never been concerned with facts so - it is what it is.

 

Me, no!  Anyone who states that sequestration will harm the economy, in general, knows little about economics, is a demagogue, or is lying!  First, in a $17 trillion economy $85 billion isn't a large percentage.  There will be localized harm in communities with a large federal presence -- DC, or with military installations (Huntsville, Anniston and Dalesville, for instance). To get the $85 billion, the federal government would have to issue treasury instruments -- borrow the money from the private sector.  Since the federal government didn't borrow the money, somebody else did.  That includes the private sector and state/municipal governments.  Either way, money was spent. 

SW,

DO you agree that the government should not be continuously running a deficit? I am encouraged to see that there is somewhat of a surplus, however, you yourself just admitted that this would not have been possible if the sequaester had not taken place. The tax cuts for the most part have not been fully recinded yet so I don't think you can credit the surplus with that fact.

I do not think the emplyment numbers should be propped up with government jobs. I have no problem with government contracts for work (shovel ready projects),  but there are huge numbers of administrative staff in the government who are barely able to justify their existence.

 

One month of surplus doesn't end the deficit.  FY 13's total deficit to be between $670 and $759 billion.

 

“The U.S. budget deficit widened in May from a year earlier on a 10 percent increase in spending, the Treasury Department said.

 

Outlays exceeded receipts by $138.7 billion last month compared with a $124.6 billion shortfall in May 2012, the Treasury said today in Washington. The gap was in line with the $139 billion median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 23 economists.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...g-increases-10-.html

 

“WASHINGTON -- The federal government on Thursday reported a rare surplus of $116.5 billion in June, the largest for a single month in five years. The gain kept the nation on track for its lowest annual deficit in five years.

 

The June surplus was due in part to $66.3 billion in dividend payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The mortgage giants were taken over by the government at the height of the 2008 financial crisis and are now repaying taxpayers for the support they received.

Through the first eight months of the budget year, the deficit has totaled $509.8 billion, according to the Treasury. That's nearly $400 billion lower than the same period last year.

 

The Congressional Budget Office forecasts the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends on Sept. 30. If correct, that would be well below last year's deficit of $1.09 trillion and the lowest since President Barack Obama took office. It would still be the fifth-largest deficit in U.S. history.

 

The Obama administration also estimates a lower annual deficit, although it projects a slightly higher figure of $759 billion.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...rplus_n_3581160.html

Tey, well, I really don't have the experience to answer that question. Except for a couple of years during the Clinton admin,and a few years in the Truman and Eisenhower admins, our government has run a deficit all my life. I remember the Eisenhower years were pretty rough ones for my dad, and the latter part of the Reagan years and the Bush1 years were very rough on me personally, and until the latter part of the Bush2 years, those were some of the biggest deficits we ever had.

There is an economic theory that for governments (not for individuals) , deficit spending is actually a good thing for the economy. I know our best years, economically speaking, in my lifetime, were the Clinton years when there was a surplus, so with that limited experience, I would agree that running a deficit is not necessarily a good thing.  These are merely my personal observations thru the lens of my personal experiences.

Having said all that, I do think we have way too much debt, and too much of it is owed to China. There was a time when US debt was owed to US citizens, but they borrow less and less from us, and more and more from foreign countries.  I think it was wrong sited to do away with the "H" bond which was done in 2004 (not to mention any names here). That sure screwed a lot of people, me included, and did away with one of the incentives for citizens to borrow money from their own government.

But , lets get some perspective on the situation today; the military industrial complex , and the VA benefits today take about 65% of our budget spending. This includes the "wars" and the resulting VA needs from the casualties of those wars. Not surprisingly , the largest share of the cuts was to the Pentagon. However, as I understand it, there was no mention of how those cuts were to be applied, and because of Congressmen whose pockets are lined with dollars from the defense industry, the military is still having to buy tanks , planes, and ships they don't need or want, while at the same time taking the most cuts out of the hides of the soldiers.  In other words, I believe the sequester was not thought thru adequately .
It does seem odd to me tho, that the part of the budget that seems to get the most people riled up, and is echoed on and on in right wing talk or tv , is some of the smallest percentage, and that is some of the social safety net programs which are about 2% of the budget. I have no personal stake in that issue, except it seems ridiculous to me that what is getting attacked by those groups , is such a small piece of the pie , and it actually goes to help down and out people.

But, I digress;

I think as time goes on, the sequester will begin to affect more and more people, and ultimately the economy as a whole unless it is dealt with. To those of us who need or want the services that will be slowed to a crawl, like passports, etc, it will become quite an inconvenience. To the actual people who are doing those jobs, it will be a nightmare.

What will be even more harmful , is if the R's insist on shutting the government down come fall in order to try to extract from Obama (who has said he WILL NOT DEAL ON RAISING THE DEBT CEILING) cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  I for one, hope he stands firm and let's them shut it down. The end of the world as we know it did not occur the last time it happened, but the end of Republican controlled House did.

As to the "huge numbers of administrative staff in the government who are barely able to justify their existence." , you seem to forget, that is the thing that Al Gore took care of during his time as VP., so that's already done. Sure , some may have come back during the last admin, but I think you are still living in a pre-Clinton world in that matter.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

If, adjustments are not made to Social Security, there will be cuts as revenue decreases.  Adjustments made to reflect the actuary tables, can be small if started in time. 

========

Not so , the truth is , that if left alone, SS like it is is secure for about another 40 years. Doubtful if I'll be here to worry about it then. On the other hand, lifting the cap on payroll taxes would solve the problem forever. A very, very simple fix.

Medicare is probably in trouble, although from what I have read, Obamacare will help that situation.

All this crap from Ryan about SS going broke and them wanting to "privatize" (read that eliminate it), is just flat out right wing lies.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

If, adjustments are not made to Social Security, there will be cuts as revenue decreases.  Adjustments made to reflect the actuary tables, can be small if started in time. 

========

Not so , the truth is , that if left alone, SS like it is is secure for about another 40 years. Doubtful if I'll be here to worry about it then. On the other hand, lifting the cap on payroll taxes would solve the problem forever. A very, very simple fix.

Medicare is probably in trouble, although from what I have read, Obamacare will help that situation.

All this crap from Ryan about SS going broke and them wanting to "privatize" (read that eliminate it), is just flat out right wing lies.

 

Seeweed,

I suggest you not call people liars, until you check the facts.  In this case, the Social Security public trustees.

 

“The public trustees warned that “each passing year of legislative inaction reduces the likelihood that a solution can be found that is acceptable to lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.” Waiting until 2033, when the retirement trust fund runs out, would require huge cuts in benefits to keep the system solvent.

 

Benefits would have to be cut 23 percent across the board – including those already being received by retirees. If an effort was made to confine the cuts to those newly eligible for retirement but not those already getting benefits, “even wiping out 100 percent of their benefits would be insufficient” to close the system’s funding gap, Blahous said.”

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P...ix-them-trustees-say

 

For the math deprived, 2033 is 20 years away, not the 40 seeweed stated.  Its the progressive dream to extend the SS tax to all income.  That would allow a surplus above SS costs and allow them to transfer the surplus to the general fund and spend, spend, spend,  Of course, every dollar removed from the private sector, lessens the amount available for private sector investment -- the only true source of wealth and more tax revenue.

 

Privatization isn't necessary, just a few adjustments.  Slowly extend eligibility from 67 to 67 and six months.  Similarly, index early retirement from 62 to 63.  Use of the chained consumer product index in place of the present CPI for annual raises in SS (will cut the raise by about 0.1 percent). The level of taxation rises annually by an inflation rate.  Make a one time increase on the rate by about $25,000.  Then, back to the annual inflation factor.  That should solve the problem for about 50 years, at which time all the Boomers will be gone.   

Some good news foe DoD civilians, the number of furlough days is cut from 11 to 8 and may decrease to six.

 

"AP sources: Pentagon likely to cut furlough days

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense department civilians will likely face up to five fewer unpaid furlough days than originally planned, as Pentagon leaders scrimp to find up to $900 million in savings in the final months of the budget year that ends Sept. 30, officials told The Associated Press.

 

Officials said no final decisions have been made, but they believe civilian workers will be forced to take six to eight unpaid days off rather than the 11 days that had been scheduled. The move comes as workers begin their fourth week of furloughs -- a decision that riled department employees and prompted many to complain directly to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as he visited military bases earlier this month."

http://www.federalnewsradio.co...-furlough-days-again

 

Part of the problem was no one thought sequester would actually happen until weeks before it did.  It was only for the last six months of the year. For next year, budget types have more time and guidance to plan.  If an office can't reduce their budgets by 2.5 percent, on a rising budget, replacements are needed. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×