If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Pentagon plans furloughs of nearly entire civilian workforce, because totally unnecessary aircraft carriers don't build themselves...oh wait   (reuters.com) divider line 160
    More: Fail, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, congresses, Pentagon plans, foreign assistance, Foreign relations of the United States, Western Allies, George Little, Budget Control Act  
•       •       •

8291 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 11:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 10:01:25 AM
How about we cut up three of them and totally fund our nation health care overhaul.  Get rid of the insurance company's and so on.
/Oh right, they are in charge.
 
2013-02-21 10:29:39 AM

Revek: How about we cut up three of them and totally fund our nation health care overhaul.  Get rid of the insurance company's and so on.
/Oh right, they are in charge.


Because 0bama is in the pocket of the big air craft carrier makers.  No other explanation.
 
2013-02-21 10:44:14 AM
i1282.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-21 11:07:01 AM
And nothing of value was lost.
 
2013-02-21 11:10:13 AM
Laser like focus on jobs
 
2013-02-21 11:10:40 AM
The Pentagon's civilian employees build aircraft carriers?
 
2013-02-21 11:12:02 AM
Nobody wants to upgrade the military because they're all getting millions in kickbacks to fight the last war.
 
2013-02-21 11:12:24 AM
Maybe if they pass some sort of budget, we wouldn't have to hear about this BS every 3 months.
 
2013-02-21 11:12:32 AM
But how will we kick ass without Blackwater/Xe?
 
2013-02-21 11:13:39 AM
What really sucks is the Pentagon said the cuts aren't a killer, the killer is they don't get to decide what to cut.  Various stuff is protected because some Congresscritter made sure his district's pork was protected.

So instead of dealing with this 46 billion by say not buying the tanks that the Army doesn't want anyway or cutting back on the LCS program, the Pentagon is forced to make cuts where they don't want them.
 
2013-02-21 11:13:46 AM
Let the Budget-Boarding** of the taxpayers begin!

** "Budget-Boarding" - When politicians faced with cutting costs eliminate the most useful/valuable programs and services in order to intentionally inflict as much pain on taxpayers as possible so they can pressure the taxpayers to cough up more money so they don't actually have to cut costs. Example: Why cut City Hall landscaping when we can layoff police, firefighters, and ambulance crews?
 
2013-02-21 11:14:02 AM
So instead of firing useless overstaff or killing wastefull programs they are going to cut my pay by $400/month. farking brilliant...
 
2013-02-21 11:15:49 AM

regindyn: And nothing of value was lost.


can you please clarify?
This will seriously affect whether i call you an idiot or not.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:34 AM
22 days of unpaid leave won't affect my Farking in the least. If anything, I'll have less time to spend on Fark because I'll be at home where I can do something useful.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:49 AM
Not NEARLY enough.

As I always say, do you know what a 90% cut of this country's military funding would be?

A good start.
 
2013-02-21 11:18:07 AM

MythDragon: 22 days of unpaid leave won't affect my Farking in the least. If anything, I'll have less time to spend on Fark because I'll be at home where I can do something useful.


but the 20% cut in my pay will. 
If they decide to backpay, then i'm cool, but if not, i'm screwed.
 
2013-02-21 11:19:26 AM
Still waiting to hear if deployed DoD civilians will get furloughed, too.  Our command still doesn't have the final word.

I'm gonna be pissed if I am sitting in AFG and not getting paid.
 
2013-02-21 11:19:55 AM
If the US govt reduces spending, jobs/income will be lost.
//This is not complicated and should come as a shock to nobody
 
2013-02-21 11:20:04 AM
I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.
 
2013-02-21 11:21:18 AM

griffer: But how will we kick ass without Blackwater/Xe?


Skeezy contractor ≠ Gov civilians

greenboy: MythDragon: 22 days of unpaid leave won't affect my Farking in the least. If anything, I'll have less time to spend on Fark because I'll be at home where I can do something useful.

but the 20% cut in my pay will. 
If they decide to backpay, then i'm cool, but if not, i'm screwed.


From what I understand, there win't be a backpay - this doesn't fall under the same heading as previous gov shutdowns.
 
2013-02-21 11:21:54 AM

thornhill: I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.


we have a ton of things.  the spending cuts across the board was supposed to be ugly b/c it affected everyone.  It was supposed to be something that the republicans would do anything to avoid.  The smart spending cuts can be done, but it's not in the sequestration plans.
 
2013-02-21 11:21:55 AM
For once, I'm glad that I'm classified as a civilian contractor rather than a civilian employee. My contract can't be altered. Of course, given the current budget situation, it's not likely to be renewed, but that was the plan anyway.
 
2013-02-21 11:23:33 AM

Revek: How about we cut up three of them and totally fund our nation health care overhaul.  Get rid of the insurance company's and so on.
/Oh right, they are in charge.


I think you are like a child who when asked how much money is a lot of money, shouts gleefully, "a dollar three eighty!'

/clue: our national health care overhaul according to Obama was supposed to pay for itself
//clue: the reality is that creating the nationalized system you seek would cost far more than three aircraft carriers
 
2013-02-21 11:23:35 AM

thornhill: I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.


The current military wants nothing to do with wars of the future, those are going to be done too cheaply.  The MIC wants more aircraft carriers and billion dollar planes.
 
2013-02-21 11:23:57 AM
Can't wait until I get my notice :D

/getting a kick and all that
//project funded, not OMA funded, so there's a glimmer of hope
 
2013-02-21 11:27:01 AM
The furloughs are a joke and basically represent paid vacation.  Workers will not come in one day a week on a rotating basis and historically they receive the back pay once the budget is worked out.

There haven't been any real cuts in federal salaries since FDR was president.
 
2013-02-21 11:27:15 AM

DarkVader: Not NEARLY enough.

As I always say, do you know what a 90% cut of this country's military funding would be?

A good start.


A good start at higher unemployment numbers.  The folks in the military have jobs why do you want to take those away from them? Because you dont like the big scary things they use?
 
2013-02-21 11:29:06 AM

StrikitRich: The furloughs are a joke and basically represent paid vacation. Workers will not come in one day a week on a rotating basis and historically they receive the back pay once the budget is worked out.


Historically, DOD civvies have been kept out of work during a lack of budget, not a deliberate budget cut - this one will be different, since the whole point is to reduce costs.  So we have been advised we won't be getting back pay, and instead will just have to deal with a 20% pay cut.
 
2013-02-21 11:32:36 AM

DarkVader: Not NEARLY enough.

As I always say, do you know what a 90% cut of this country's military funding would be?

A good start.


To World War III. The US provides global security, the entire reason there has not been a third major conflict in Europe or Asia is that the US military might prevents it.

The question is do we want to continue to be the dominate country in the world or do we want to refocus our resources here at home?

Personally I feel that it is not the United States responsibility nor in the US best interest to defend Israel, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and that we need to pull our troops out of Europe and let the EU take care of itself. This would reduce our dominance of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, but would allow a reduction in military spending that instead of being used to reduce government spending could be used to rebuild America.
 
2013-02-21 11:32:42 AM

greenboy: MythDragon: 22 days of unpaid leave won't affect my Farking in the least. If anything, I'll have less time to spend on Fark because I'll be at home where I can do something useful.

but the 20% cut in my pay will. 
If they decide to backpay, then i'm cool, but if not, i'm screwed.


We were told not to expect back pay.
 
2013-02-21 11:33:51 AM

Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 503x335]


 "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts," said Obama from the White House's briefing room, adding "the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal."

Nov 2011.

This is his program, he wanted it, he threated to veto any efforts to get rid of spending cuts, now President "The Buck Stops There" 0bama is whining that he got what he wanted.
 
2013-02-21 11:34:59 AM
So were these government or private sector jobs they created and are now destroying? Just want to keep my talking points in order so I can be appropriately outraged.
 
2013-02-21 11:35:18 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 503x335]

 "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts," said Obama from the White House's briefing room, adding "the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal."

Nov 2011.

This is his program, he wanted it, he threated to veto any efforts to get rid of spending cuts, now President "The Buck Stops There" 0bama is whining that he got what he wanted.


SCORE!!
 
2013-02-21 11:40:33 AM

greenboy: regindyn: And nothing of value was lost.

can you please clarify?
This will seriously affect whether i call you an idiot or not.


I'm definitely an idiot:

*My general thoughts on the military is that it's an overbloated clusterfark of special interest handouts, so spending less is almost always good.

*Snark aside, these furloughs are pretty devastating for the employees being affected by it.  One of my best friends works at the base in Bremerton, and is struggling to figure out how he'll deal with the 20% reduction in income over the 22 week period.  The furloughs are designed in a way that the employees won't be able to get unemployment to supplement the lost income, and generally won't be designed in a way conducive to picking up a part-time side job.
 
2013-02-21 11:40:49 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 503x335]

 "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts," said Obama from the White House's briefing room, adding "the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal."

Nov 2011.

This is his program, he wanted it, he threated to veto any efforts to get rid of spending cuts, now President "The Buck Stops There" 0bama is whining that he got what he wanted.


I don't think anyone in the pols thread thought the sequester was a terrible idea.  As one who will affected by it, I still think it was a good idea.  What I didn't account for is the absolute stupidity and willfulness of congress.  It was never supposed to come to this b/c congress will never let it get this far.  Well, guess what they just did.
 
2013-02-21 11:41:22 AM

Binaryslyder: So instead of firing useless overstaff or killing wastefull programs they are going to cut my pay by $400/month. farking brilliant...


Look, it's just a government job, not an actual job, it doesn't matter.
 
2013-02-21 11:42:55 AM

regindyn: The furloughs are designed in a way that the employees won't be able to get unemployment to supplement the lost income, and generally won't be designed in a way conducive to picking up a part-time side job.


Especially since the DoN just revised their outside employment rules, requiring an employee to get chain of command approval before picking up a second job (not sure about overall DoD policy)
 
2013-02-21 11:44:31 AM

Clemkadidlefark: This is his program, he wanted it, he threated to veto any efforts to get rid of spending cuts, now President "The Buck Stops There" 0bama is whining that he got what he wanted.
SCORE!!


So now the President is evil because he's in favor of spending cuts, spending cuts  that could be stopped by Congress if they got their shiat together?  You guys need to make up your minds why he's the worst President ever--I thought spending cuts were the magic bullet of the GOP.

If the  Republicans  had come up with this plan, you all would be cheering about how they made the hard choices and stuck to them.  Which, uh--they did.  Because no choice is also a choice.
 
2013-02-21 11:44:39 AM

Revek: How about we cut up three of them and totally fund our nation health care overhaul.  Get rid of the insurance company's and so on.
/Oh right, they are in charge.


Aca costs 1 trillion dollars. Medicare and medicaid is the largest portion of the federal budget. Yet you believe 3 aircraft carriers covers the costs...
 
2013-02-21 11:47:04 AM

thornhill: I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.


Half that budget is troop pay and support. Another 20% is such silly things as procurement so we dont have soldiers on the battlefield making pew pew sounds. Only 16% is for research and development.
 
2013-02-21 11:48:07 AM

MyRandomName: Revek: How about we cut up three of them and totally fund our nation health care overhaul.  Get rid of the insurance company's and so on.
/Oh right, they are in charge.

Aca costs 1 trillion dollars. Medicare and medicaid is the largest portion of the federal budget. Yet you believe 3 aircraft carriers covers the costs...

 I see being accurate is not a concern for you. Republican, I take it?
 
2013-02-21 11:49:17 AM

greenboy: tenpoundsofcheese: Mentat: [i1282.photobucket.com image 503x335]

 "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts," said Obama from the White House's briefing room, adding "the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal."

Nov 2011.

This is his program, he wanted it, he threated to veto any efforts to get rid of spending cuts, now President "The Buck Stops There" 0bama is whining that he got what he wanted.

I don't think anyone in the pols thread thought the sequester was a terrible idea.  As one who will affected by it, I still think it was a good idea.  What I didn't account for is the absolute stupidity and willfulness of congress.  It was never supposed to come to this b/c congress will never let it get this far.  Well, guess what they just did.


Maybe you shouldn't play chicken with someone A) too dumb to jump or B) too confused to turn the car.

This isn't an "accident" of Congress, this is financial chicken being played by everyone involved.  You don't get to set up our budget debate like a terrorist threat and act shocked when you destroy innocent people in the backlash.  Deliberately setting the budget up to screw over the country if you are unable to convince them of the superiority of your position doesn't make either side innocent.  Letting one side push blame onto the other is what got us into this mess.  Both sides are to blame, because we let them blame each other instead of admitting their own flaws.
 
2013-02-21 11:49:47 AM
I wonder if Michelle Bachmann is preparing for that Soviet Union invasion once our defenses are down

//House Intelligence Committee, RFLOL
 
2013-02-21 11:50:11 AM
Obamas idea. Repubs give him enough rope to hang himself. Repubs pass budgets out of the House and the Demo-Senate fails to pass them. The setup is in place. Now when it happens the repub will get the blame for owning the property where the tree is sitting where Obama hung himself with his own rope.
 
2013-02-21 11:51:23 AM

greenboy: thornhill: I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.

we have a ton of things.  the spending cuts across the board was supposed to be ugly b/c it affected everyone.  It was supposed to be something that the republicans would do anything to avoid.  The smart spending cuts can be done, but it's not in the sequestration plans.


Weird how you isolated republicans when Jack Lew developed the plan to avoid an election year debt ceiling discussion. Also strange you isolated then as they are the only ones who have twice passed bills moving cuts around to avoid the meat cleaver approach. Also odd that democrats have not proposed a bill to allow debt transfer for targeted cuts and instead are focused on more taxes. Weird all that.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:10 AM
Thought it was kind of a cheap blow to only affect civilian employees.  Maybe only exempt active duty military in active combat - but nothing more.

/Also require congress to undergo the same 20% pay cut until something meaningful is passed.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:47 AM

regindyn: greenboy: regindyn: And nothing of value was lost.

can you please clarify?
This will seriously affect whether i call you an idiot or not.

I'm definitely an idiot:

*My general thoughts on the military is that it's an overbloated clusterfark of special interest handouts, so spending less is almost always good.

*Snark aside, these furloughs are pretty devastating for the employees being affected by it.  One of my best friends works at the base in Bremerton, and is struggling to figure out how he'll deal with the 20% reduction in income over the 22 week period.  The furloughs are designed in a way that the employees won't be able to get unemployment to supplement the lost income, and generally won't be designed in a way conducive to picking up a part-time side job.


I'm fairly sure that most people, even those in the military complex would agree that the military is too big and too bloated.  There are billions of dollars to be saved by smart cuts, but these aren't the smart cuts. 
ironically, they may serve to provide people with the justification to vote out those who refused to compromise.
 
2013-02-21 11:54:14 AM

MyRandomName: greenboy: thornhill: I have a hard time believing that we having nothing in our $600+ billion defense budget that we can cut without harming national security when: 1) We vastly outspend the rest of the world on defense; 2) Our wars are coming to an end; and 3) Wars are becoming cheaper to fight now that we're using drones that cost a fraction of conventional aircraft.

we have a ton of things.  the spending cuts across the board was supposed to be ugly b/c it affected everyone.  It was supposed to be something that the republicans would do anything to avoid.  The smart spending cuts can be done, but it's not in the sequestration plans.

Weird how you isolated republicans when Jack Lew developed the plan to avoid an election year debt ceiling discussion. Also strange you isolated then as they are the only ones who have twice passed bills moving cuts around to avoid the meat cleaver approach. Also odd that democrats have not proposed a bill to allow debt transfer for targeted cuts and instead are focused on more taxes. Weird all that.


no it's not weird at all.
Everyone in congress is at fault.  But republicans especially so.
 
2013-02-21 11:54:25 AM

GoodOmens: Thought it was kind of a cheap blow to only affect civilian employees.  Maybe only exempt active duty military in active combat - but nothing more.

/Also require congress to undergo the same 20% pay cut until something meaningful is passed.


I thought they were going to forgoe 100% of their pay by puttig it into escrow until they get a budget deal?

Which I still think is a violation of the anti-deficiency act...
 
2013-02-21 11:55:10 AM

Uisce Beatha: regindyn: The furloughs are designed in a way that the employees won't be able to get unemployment to supplement the lost income, and generally won't be designed in a way conducive to picking up a part-time side job.

Especially since the DoN just revised their outside employment rules, requiring an employee to get chain of command approval before picking up a second job (not sure about overall DoD policy)


Any citation?

I have to find additional work to compensate for the loss, I can't afford a 20% paycut and keep the bills paid and the missus happy.  Missus>Bills.

It's all fun and games until the DoD civilian workforce (Fed and Contractors alike) stop making mortgage payments.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report