Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   How the federal budget cuts could affect you - as in the airline traveler, national park visitor, bathroom visitor, federal employee, friend of a federal employee, Medicaid customer, defense contactor, president, Paul Ryan   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, Medicaid Services, austerities, Idaho National Laboratory, Savannah River Site, control towers, flight delay, Head Start, Los Angeles International  
•       •       •

2256 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2013 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-09 08:37:46 AM  
It's called The Washington Monument Strategy.  It is intended to make any budget cut as painful as possible to prove that you need the money.  So, rather than cancel a project studying the mating habits of ice worms in Alaska, you shut down Yellowstone.  It's a childish tactic and anyone, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't hold our elected officials responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Why can't Obama just try to use a little leadership instead of scare tactics and blamemongering.

Worst.President.Evar
 
2013-03-09 09:30:03 AM  

BillCo: It's a childish tactic


I don't get why you and many others think there are tons of dollars just sitting around waiting to be cut that no one would miss. There aren't enough ice worm studies to equal 800,000 Pentagon civilians taking a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. That alone would be 8 BILLION dollars (figuring 50K average salary).

How many wasteful programs you think Uncle Sam is funding anyway? Where do you imagine these savings are going to come from if not real programs?

Government costs money. Who knew?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-09 09:30:09 AM  
A national wildlife refuge in my area has no on-site staff and the gate is always open. The government was going to close it anyway the last time a shutdown was imminent. I recall New York playing a similar game a few years ago with state parks.
 
2013-03-09 09:48:46 AM  
as long as the the richest 2% get their tax cuts, its all good.
 
2013-03-09 09:51:17 AM  

ShillCo: It's called The Washington Monument Strategy.  It is intended to make any budget cut as painful as possible to prove that you need the money.  So, rather than cancel a project studying the mating habits of ice worms in Alaska, you shut down Yellowstone.  It's a childish tactic and anyone, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't hold our elected officials responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Why can't 0bama just try to use a little leadership instead of scare tactics and blamemongering.

Worst.Blah.President.Evar

 
MFK
2013-03-09 09:59:55 AM  

Linux_Yes: as long as the the richest 2% get their tax cuts, its all good.


Because they are the ones who are really suffering

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
 
2013-03-09 10:01:37 AM  
They tried scare tactics and it failed. Can we be done with this nonsense already? These aren't even serious spending cuts.
 
2013-03-09 10:04:44 AM  
Everybody wants good government*, nobody wants to pay for it.

(This does not include Teabaggers, Randians, Anarchists, Social Conservatives, Drug Dealers, Bankers, Preppers, White Supremacists, Oil Companies, Coal Companies, Sweatshop owners, Coyotes, Pimps, Organized Crime and RON PAUL!)
 
2013-03-09 10:05:36 AM  
2% cut, that isn't even a cut.  It's a reduction to 2013's increased amount.  (2013 will spend more than 2012 after sequestration).

The Wh messed up when they proposed this method of cutting.    Really.... a WH that controls 2/3 of Washington couldn't come up with a way to make 2% reduction in the 2013 increased budget,  in a way it least impacts  Americans.   Pffft... a High School economics class could come up with better proposals than Obama.

Well,  at least it's a cut to spending, even if it is tiny.     Maybe America will see that it is possible to slow the huge spending spree.    Ooooooo...that's probably what scares  the White House so much?


BTW...none of the things listed in the Article sounds bad.    I say cut some more.
 
2013-03-09 10:09:55 AM  

edmo: BillCo: It's a childish tactic

I don't get why you and many others think there are tons of dollars just sitting around waiting to be cut that no one would miss. There aren't enough ice worm studies to equal 800,000 Pentagon civilians taking a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. That alone would be 8 BILLION dollars (figuring 50K average salary).

How many wasteful programs you think Uncle Sam is funding anyway? Where do you imagine these savings are going to come from if not real programs?

Government costs money. Who knew?


BILLCO didnt...
 
2013-03-09 10:11:30 AM  

netcentric: 2% cut, that isn't even a cut.  It's a reduction to 2013's increased amount.  (2013 will spend more than 2012 after sequestration).

The Wh messed up when they proposed this method of cutting.    Really.... a WH that controls 2/3 of Washington couldn't come up with a way to make 2% reduction in the 2013 increased budget,  in a way it least impacts  Americans.   Pffft... a High School economics class could come up with better proposals than Obama.

Well,  at least it's a cut to spending, even if it is tiny.     Maybe America will see that it is possible to slow the huge spending spree.    Ooooooo...that's probably what scares  the White House so much?


BTW...none of the things listed in the Article sounds bad.    I say cut some more.


It gets more difficult when you factor in little things like basic Washington corruption. You really think Lockheed's ever going to lose its contracts? Or Raytheon, Boeing, GE, Halliburton, etc. etc. etc.? Of course not, they own too many congresspeople. The things that can and should be cut, don't get cut, while the things that are important, like air traffic controllers and refurbishing aging infrastructure, do get cut. It's the same everywhere, cuts to the education budget doesn't mean useless bureaucracy gets cut, it means teachers get cut. Profits down at your company, don't expect management to take a pay cut, they'll just lay you off or cut your pay instead. Maybe raid your pension while they're at it.
 
2013-03-09 10:13:40 AM  
Actually, the President doesn't get to pick and choose how the money is cut....these asinine cuts were designed to be the kind that brought about voter backlash...because they were never supposed to happen.
 
2013-03-09 10:14:10 AM  
We do have a spending problem. We're not spending enough.
 
2013-03-09 10:14:15 AM  
Most things the government spends money on are done via contracts, and thus cannot be quickly changed, no more than you can quickly change your mortgage payment. Things like employee salaries are the only things which are easily malleable when you require instant cuts.
 
2013-03-09 10:16:54 AM  

netcentric: a WH that controls 2/3 of Washington


Oh God, this BS again.

You don't control the legislature unless you have 60 in the Senate.
 
2013-03-09 10:17:49 AM  
What a massive, socialistic increase in spending might look like.

blogs.ajc.com
 
2013-03-09 10:21:07 AM  
If Obama was doing the allocating of cuts in each department, we'd probably not be buying more M1 tanks we don't need, or slowing down the purchase of more attack subs or F-35's, rather than these across the board general cuts in spending. When specific programs aren't and can't be targeted for cuts, then the operating budgets are all that is left for most departments, so travel, maintenance, training, salaries and day to day expenditures are what gets cut.

Don't like it? Well then, the whole concept of sequestration is working, because it's NOT supposed to be pretty, and it is supposed to be unacceptable to everyone. Too bad we've got a political party in control of enough of government that just doesn't care if these cuts take place, under some stupid idea that we the people won't remember their part in it.
 
2013-03-09 10:21:31 AM  
BillCo:...Why can't Obama just try to use a little leadership instead of scare tactics and blamemongering.

Worst.President.Evar



You're against 'blamemongering'.

But then in the next sentence, it's all Obama's fault. Gotcha.


/I think I'll farky you as blamemongler
 
2013-03-09 10:23:59 AM  
It took the right-wing no time at all to shift gears from "squeal about the absolute necessity of the cuts" to "blame Obama for all the problems stemming from the cuts".  I've grown incredibly tired of their game.
 
2013-03-09 10:25:06 AM  
You know what, I don't care. This may actually convince people to vote the bums out instead of the Insane, "Hate Congress but love my Congress" garbage.  This was set up to be terrible on purpose, so that the parties would work together.  Guess what, they are petulant children.
 
2013-03-09 10:26:07 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I've grown incredibly tired of their game.


That's what it is. The GOP is attempting to thread the needle of 'any cuts that hurt my constituents are Obama's idea/fault' and 'we'll take credit for the cuts on the whole'. It's a mixed message, but it isn't exactly not working.
 
2013-03-09 10:30:22 AM  
On the upside, looks like I picked the right year to cheat on my taxes.
 
2013-03-09 10:32:58 AM  

BillCo: It's called The Washington Monument Strategy.  It is intended to make any budget cut as painful as possible to prove that you need the money.  So, rather than cancel a project studying the mating habits of ice worms in Alaska, you shut down Yellowstone.  It's a childish tactic and anyone, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't hold our elected officials responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Why can't Obama just try to use a little leadership instead of scare tactics and blamemongering.

Worst.President.Evar


You mad, bro?
 
2013-03-09 10:38:31 AM  

BillCo: It's called The Washington Monument Strategy.  It is intended to make any budget cut as painful as possible to prove that you need the money.  So, rather than cancel a project studying the mating habits of ice worms in Alaska, you shut down Yellowstone.  It's a childish tactic and anyone, Democrat or Republican, who doesn't hold our elected officials responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.

Why can't Obama just try to use a little leadership instead of scare tactics and blamemongering.

Worst.President.Evar


Let us know any SPECIFIC programs under each agency you believe should be cut. Difficulty: should equal the total amount of the sequester.
 
2013-03-09 10:41:51 AM  

Brostorm: You know what, I don't care. This may actually convince people to vote the bums out instead of the Insane, "Hate Congress but love my Congress" garbage.  This was set up to be terrible on purpose, so that the parties would work together.  Guess what, they are petulant children.


Except gerrymandering has almost guaranteed Republican wins in some districts.
 
2013-03-09 10:54:31 AM  

edmo: BillCo: It's a childish tactic

I don't get why you and many others think there are tons of dollars just sitting around waiting to be cut that no one would miss. There aren't enough ice worm studies to equal 800,000 Pentagon civilians taking a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. That alone would be 8 BILLION dollars (figuring 50K average salary).

How many wasteful programs you think Uncle Sam is funding anyway? Where do you imagine these savings are going to come from if not real programs?

Government costs money. Who knew?


Everybody knows the federal government doesn't create jobs, so how can it possibly reduce pay or cut jobs that were never created?
If what you're insinuating is correct, then of course it makes perfect sense to take that 20% of my hard-earned tax dollars away from those wasteful beaurocrats and give it (minus a fair portion for Jeebus) directly to the almighty, benevolent private sector Job Creators, who genuinely care about our security and welfare.
 
2013-03-09 11:12:29 AM  
I live in a national park. Am I sequesterated yet? Will they be sequestering in the town square? I am so very scared
 
2013-03-09 11:41:06 AM  
So vote Republican!
 
2013-03-09 11:47:21 AM  
Too bad that we can't cut management's pay.
 
2013-03-09 12:00:55 PM  
It affects everyone. The Feds will have less debt for us to pay in the future.
 
2013-03-09 12:18:21 PM  

edmo: BillCo: It's a childish tactic

I don't get why you and many others think there are tons of dollars just sitting around waiting to be cut that no one would miss. There aren't enough ice worm studies to equal 800,000 Pentagon civilians taking a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. That alone would be 8 BILLION dollars (figuring 50K average salary).


How many wasteful programs you think Uncle Sam is funding anyway? Where do you imagine these savings are going to come from if not real programs?

Government costs money. Who knew?



Oh I'd say about $664.84/2 ($332.42 for you math whizs out there) billion worth of wasteful programs.
 
2013-03-09 12:28:35 PM  
We are spending more this year than last year. We will give $450 million to Egypt and $2 billion to Pakistan. This is all political douchebaggery by President Obama.
 
2013-03-09 12:51:55 PM  

badhatharry: We are spending more this year than last year. We will give $450 million to Egypt and $2 billion to Pakistan. This is all political douchebaggery by President Obama.



Speaking of math whizs... you've identified less than 1% of the number mentioned above. What's next?
 
2013-03-09 01:09:02 PM  

badhatharry: We are spending more this year than last year. We will give $450 million to Egypt and $2 billion to Pakistan. This is all political douchebaggery by President Obama.


If only there had been a Constitutionally mandated House in a Congress run by an opposing political party that could have stopped the sequester!
 
2013-03-09 01:09:30 PM  

milsorgen: edmo: BillCo: It's a childish tactic

I don't get why you and many others think there are tons of dollars just sitting around waiting to be cut that no one would miss. There aren't enough ice worm studies to equal 800,000 Pentagon civilians taking a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. That alone would be 8 BILLION dollars (figuring 50K average salary).

How many wasteful programs you think Uncle Sam is funding anyway? Where do you imagine these savings are going to come from if not real programs?

Government costs money. Who knew?


Oh I'd say about $664.84/2 ($332.42 for you math whizs out there) billion worth of wasteful programs.


Maybe you could break that down by specific programs Professor.
 
2013-03-09 01:11:00 PM  

netcentric: 2% cut, that isn't even a cut.  It's a reduction to 2013's increased amount.  (2013 will spend more than 2012 after sequestration).

The Wh messed up when they proposed this method of cutting.    Really.... a WH that controls 2/3 of Washington couldn't come up with a way to make 2% reduction in the 2013 increased budget,  in a way it least impacts  Americans.   Pffft... a High School economics class could come up with better proposals than Obama.

Well,  at least it's a cut to spending, even if it is tiny.     Maybe America will see that it is possible to slow the huge spending spree.    Ooooooo...that's probably what scares  the White House so much?


BTW...none of the things listed in the Article sounds bad.    I say cut some more.


If only a House of Congress run by the GOP could have had the power to stop him!
 
2013-03-09 01:18:58 PM  
My husband works for a defense contractor.  His pay has been frozen for the past 3 years, and the only reason he won't be furloughed along with the gov't employees was because the company cut back on all of the expenses it could in order to stockpile money for the eventual cuts.  Even so, they are losing a lot of people, and we may have to open up our options if things don't change soon.   For all of the griping that the GOP does about it being terrible to cut the defense's budget, they are hurting the industry by their complete and utter lack of inaction...once all of the good people go and find better paying jobs in the private sector, it will be difficult to get them back.
 
MFK
2013-03-09 01:31:30 PM  

bborchar: My husband works for a defense contractor.  His pay has been frozen for the past 3 years, and the only reason he won't be furloughed along with the gov't employees was because the company cut back on all of the expenses it could in order to stockpile money for the eventual cuts.  Even so, they are losing a lot of people, and we may have to open up our options if things don't change soon.   For all of the griping that the GOP does about it being terrible to cut the defense's budget, they are hurting the industry by their complete and utter lack of inaction...once all of the good people go and find better paying jobs in the private sector, it will be difficult to get them back.


whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!

Hold on a sec here.

I was told that the "government doesn't create jobs". Are you seriously suggesting that this might not be the case after all???
 
2013-03-09 01:31:46 PM  
As long as these dont touch the actual problems, (medicare, medicaid, social security, farm subsidies, welfare in general, military, world police etc) there will be no change because the people truly living off government wont be effected.  Enjoy your theater.
 
2013-03-09 01:37:25 PM  

netcentric: 2% cut, that isn't even a cut.  It's a reduction to 2013's increased amount.  (2013 will spend more than 2012 after sequestration).

The Wh messed up when they proposed this method of cutting.    Really.... a WH that controls 2/3 of Washington couldn't come up with a way to make 2% reduction in the 2013 increased budget,  in a way it least impacts  Americans.   Pffft... a High School economics class could come up with better proposals than Obama.

Well,  at least it's a cut to spending, even if it is tiny.     Maybe America will see that it is possible to slow the huge spending spree.    Ooooooo...that's probably what scares  the White House so much?


BTW...none of the things listed in the Article sounds bad.    I say cut some more.


So let's look at the facts

 The increase from 2012 to 2013 is 7 billion dollars, or 0.18%


The current population growth rate in the US is 0.9%

Inflation is at about 1.6%

The GDP of the country grew 2.2%, so the overall budget share of the GDP falls by a whole percent point from 2012 to 2013.

In summary, take your talking point and shove it.
 
2013-03-09 01:40:24 PM  
"Medicaid customer"

Oh lordy no! will they be cutting back on ways to deny you coverage!
 
2013-03-09 01:42:39 PM  

MFK: bborchar: My husband works for a defense contractor.  His pay has been frozen for the past 3 years, and the only reason he won't be furloughed along with the gov't employees was because the company cut back on all of the expenses it could in order to stockpile money for the eventual cuts.  Even so, they are losing a lot of people, and we may have to open up our options if things don't change soon.   For all of the griping that the GOP does about it being terrible to cut the defense's budget, they are hurting the industry by their complete and utter lack of inaction...once all of the good people go and find better paying jobs in the private sector, it will be difficult to get them back.

whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!

Hold on a sec here.

I was told that the "government doesn't create jobs". Are you seriously suggesting that this might not be the case after all???


It's heresy, I know.  But for some reason, the government likes hiring Nuclear Engineers.
 
2013-03-09 02:18:06 PM  
BillCo: It is intended to make any budget cut as painful as possible to prove that you need the money.

We need to rid of $85 billion.  Cutting NPR and PBS budgets from $1.2 million to zero isn't going to get there.  Massive cuts to real programs will have to be made.   When you start naming specific massive programs that will take the hit is where you run into problems.   You won't find any of them that a majority of Americans will agree need to be cut.   Most people want to start cutting in places that don't affect them.   Some young folks might like to see SS and Medicare expenditures reduced, by lowering monthly payments, increasing the retirement age, or something similar in order to make sure the program is still workable in 30 years.   Some folks might think getting rid of the totally useless and unneeded F-35 fighter airplane is a good way to save money.   Some folks might suggest that we quit purchasing M-1 battle tanks and immediately putting them into a field to rust.    Some folks say quit spending money on bridges or roads or trains or planes or whatever else.

The problem is that all of these things have tremendous broad support among actual Americans.

Sure there is the occasional "odd study" that looks like a waste of money, but try adding up all the completely useless studies that yield no benefits to Americans and you're not going to come up with much money.
 
2013-03-09 02:24:39 PM  
1.2% cut, MY GOD SHUT IT ALL DOWN!!!!

If this is the belly ache over 22billion, I can only imagine the terror when we finally accept we need to either cut 40% or do some balance between cuts and income to make expenses match income.  To take off a lot of zero's basically the American family has an Income $25,000, expenses $37,000 and credit cards holding  $160,000 at a very low interest rate..  All the drama over these cuts  amount to less then children finding change in the couch to pay the mortgage, really just political masturbation.

Give each department the requirement to cut 10% a year, let them figure out how.  Bring up income!
 
2013-03-09 02:29:40 PM  

suckfest: 1.2% cut, MY GOD SHUT IT ALL DOWN!!!!


There is a dozen of you in each of these threads, and never have a single one of you responded to the point that it isn't the size of the cuts, it is the immediate start point.  This means cutting pay of employees and not finding bad programs and waste.  The cuts will do no good.
 
2013-03-09 02:43:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: There is a dozen of you in each of these threads, and never have a single one of you responded to the point that it isn't the size of the cuts, it is the immediate start point. This means cutting pay of employees and not finding bad programs and waste. The cuts will do no good.


You mean we can't just burn the government down and hope a better one rises from the ashes like a phoenix?
 
2013-03-09 02:46:23 PM  
The National Park nearest me (Joshua Tree NP) is doing road repair on some of the roads, so those roads might be shut down for a bit. I can't imagine that has anything to do with the sequestor thingy.
 
2013-03-09 03:17:54 PM  
suckfest: ...  Bring up income!

Yes, being up the government's income by raising taxes! You've finally got it! And here I thought you were a retarded teabagger, who wants to live in a first-world country but doesn't want to pay for it!
 
2013-03-09 03:26:20 PM  

Smackledorfer: suckfest: 1.2% cut, MY GOD SHUT IT ALL DOWN!!!!

There is a dozen of you in each of these threads, and never have a single one of you responded to the point that it isn't the size of the cuts, it is the immediate start point.  This means cutting pay of employees and not finding bad programs and waste.  The cuts will do no good.


Good to know I'm not the only one who noticed, but I'm not sure exactly where you're going with the rest of your comment.  The start point to furlough one day a week for 800,000 people instead of delaying the F35, putting congressmen on social security instead of their own pension plan, or not wasting money on another submarine is a choice made specifically to make any cut painful and sensational.  As mentioned I would let each department chose how it would come up with a cut, not expect congressmen outside that department decide.  Then maybe put an oversite committee on top of it so if they choose douchbaggery over cutting waste its a widely publicied career ending move.

22bill in cuts this year, minus the 14B or so we fined BP leaves 8B to cut.  We crap 8B a year in the military.

How about making the presence of American troops on foreign soil a paid service to make them revenue neutral or and income generating service.  Need us in South Korea? Need us in Germany?  Need us in the gulf to ensure oil flows?  Show me the money.

Either way, 5% a year, for 5 years and increasing income by 20% would not only fix the issue but give us money to pay down debt.
 
2013-03-09 03:32:31 PM  

badhatharry: We are spending more this year than last year. We will give $450 million to Egypt and $2 billion to Pakistan. This is all political douchebaggery by President Obama.


i saw a bumper sticker: FOREIGN AID = FOREIGN MANIPULATION
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report