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.

(Washington Post)   Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies? Seems we can live without a little spending   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Obvious, Concord Coalition  
•       •       •

1726 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 10:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-07-02 10:00:07 AM  
There would be one-hour waits at airport security....but none of those things happened.

That did happen, you pair of miscreants. It was only undone because the gutless yambags in Congress decided they didn't want to deal with their own fallout as they were leaving for a recess.

As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.
 
2013-07-02 10:05:04 AM  

Pocket Ninja: As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.


With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-02 10:09:23 AM  
Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".
 
2013-07-02 10:09:25 AM  
People take shiat to the extremes.

We need to stop bullshiatting ourselves and stop being afraid of our own farking shadows.

The apocalypse isnt coming! Even if it were there is nothing we could do about it.
 
2013-07-02 10:23:51 AM  

Pocket Ninja: There would be one-hour waits at airport security....but none of those things happened.

That did happen, you pair of miscreants. It was only undone because the gutless yambags in Congress decided they didn't want to deal with their own fallout as they were leaving for a recess.

As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.


wait... not sure if serious.

because i agree with everything you said, and normally, well, you know...
 
2013-07-02 10:27:31 AM  
So the best congress is an ineffective congress?
 
2013-07-02 10:29:56 AM  
So many predictions fell short because, in recent months, the administration and Congress did what was supposed to be impossible: They undid many of sequestration's scariest reductions

So it would seem that by not actually reducing spending, we avoided the consequences.
 
2013-07-02 10:46:29 AM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


Those things don't get reported on in the news, so it's all good. Out of sight, out of mind.

But God help us if a Congressperson has to wait at an airport an extra hour. They put a stop to THAT particular cut-back right quick.
 
2013-07-02 10:51:45 AM  
Yeah guys, all that is over, it's fine now.
 
2013-07-02 10:51:52 AM  
Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html
 
2013-07-02 10:55:49 AM  
I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.
 
2013-07-02 10:56:17 AM  
I'm still not convinced we've been hit by it fully yet.  I deal with a lot of people that take government money and they were pulling more shenanigans than usual last month because the lockdown on their funds didn't start until the new fiscal year (which started yesterday).
 
2013-07-02 10:57:10 AM  
The cuts to unemployment payments have just come into effect in a number of states.
 
2013-07-02 10:57:40 AM  
Unless you've been effected by the sequester, you haven't been effected by the sequester.

Got it.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:09 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Unless you've been effected by the sequester, you haven't been effected by the sequester.

Got it.


The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point. It didnt happen.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:13 AM  
So basically they just held up our government and trashed the credit rating for nothing.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:26 AM  

palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.


Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army
 
2013-07-02 11:00:18 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Pocket Ninja: As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.

With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.


Growth just under 2% is pretty weak, especially when pre-sequester predictions were quite a bit higher. Slashing government spending hasn't killed the economy, but it's certainly having a significant impact on the recovery, not to mention the people who actually relied on those programs.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:30 AM  

Pocket Ninja: There would be one-hour waits at airport security....but none of those things happened.

That did happen, you pair of miscreants. It was only undone because the gutless yambags in Congress decided they didn't want to deal with their own fallout as they were leaving for a recess.

As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.


That and making air travel even more inconvenient would be a burden on well off people who travel a lot for business.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:39 AM  
Seems Subtard has a short f'n memory.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:50 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Unless you've been effected by the sequester, you haven't been effected by the sequester.

Got it.


Also, they undid many of the proposed spending cuts so spending cuts clearly don't do anything bad.
 
2013-07-02 11:02:23 AM  

cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point.


Whose talking point? The CBO said it would cut GDP growth by about 1.5%. Nothing about a recession.
 
2013-07-02 11:03:13 AM  
A relative of mine who works for the FBI was talking about the furloughs that he is going to start going through. His wife added "because of Obama."

Since we had to spend the rest of the week at their house as a guest, I decided against explaining the non-Fox News version of how the sequestration works.
 
2013-07-02 11:05:02 AM  
Tell that to my friend that got furloughed.
 
2013-07-02 11:05:03 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point.

Whose talking point? The CBO said it would cut GDP growth by about 1.5%. Nothing about a recession.


Are you serious? I know that Americans have short attention spans, but Jesus. It was the biggest talking point in the media.
 
2013-07-02 11:06:35 AM  

cman: Are you serious?


Yes.

That headline: The Sequester Could Cause A Recession

Quite a big difference between could and would.
 
2013-07-02 11:07:01 AM  

snowshovel: A relative of mine who works for the FBI was talking about the furloughs that he is going to start going through. His wife added "because of Obama."

Since we had to spend the rest of the week at their house as a guest, I decided against explaining the non-Fox News version of how the sequestration works.


You'd think a proponent of smaller government would be thrilled with government cut backs.
 
2013-07-02 11:07:31 AM  

cman: Dusk-You-n-Me: cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point.

Whose talking point? The CBO said it would cut GDP growth by about 1.5%. Nothing about a recession.

Are you serious? I know that Americans have short attention spans, but Jesus. It was the biggest talking point in the media.


From your link...

The latest warning about the dangers of the "sequester" -- the $85 billion in -- comes from Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris. In a research note on Friday, Harris writes that he expects this painful shot of austerity to slow GDP growth to just 1 percent in the second quarter, with job growth averaging less than 100,000 per month for those three months.

That is not exactly recession territory, but it is dangerously close. Harris's numbers match up pretty well with those of other private-sector economists, including Macroeconomic Advisers. The the sequester would gouge about 1.25 percent from GDP growth in the second quarter, leaving growth at a paltry 1.2 percent. Macro Advisers said the sequester could cost the economy 700,000 jobs through 2014.



You might want to start reading more than the headline of the articles you link to.
 
2013-07-02 11:08:38 AM  
I had plans to see the Blue Angels. That was cancelled.

I had plans to go to Fleet week. Cancelled.


So instead maybe I *will* do a Mad Max cosplay event

www.wastelandweekend.com/
 
2013-07-02 11:08:54 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: cman: Dusk-You-n-Me: cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point.

Whose talking point? The CBO said it would cut GDP growth by about 1.5%. Nothing about a recession.

Are you serious? I know that Americans have short attention spans, but Jesus. It was the biggest talking point in the media.

From your link...

The latest warning about the dangers of the "sequester" -- the $85 billion in -- comes from Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris. In a research note on Friday, Harris writes that he expects this painful shot of austerity to slow GDP growth to just 1 percent in the second quarter, with job growth averaging less than 100,000 per month for those three months.

That is not exactly recession territory, but it is dangerously close. Harris's numbers match up pretty well with those of other private-sector economists, including Macroeconomic Advisers. The the sequester would gouge about 1.25 percent from GDP growth in the second quarter, leaving growth at a paltry 1.2 percent. Macro Advisers said the sequester could cost the economy 700,000 jobs through 2014.


You might want to start reading more than the headline of the articles you link to.


Now why would I do that?

/Kidding
 
2013-07-02 11:09:25 AM  
In October, when the new fiscal year begins, so will another round of sequestration. The administration expects a $109 billion cut.

This time, it says, there will be fewer ways to soften its impact. Many of the easier trims have already been made. The White House is again pressing Congress to agree on a broader budget deal, and replace the sequester, before October comes.


This will actually be a problem. They're talking Reduction in Force (RIF) cuts next year. Basically, the govt may start firing people.
 
2013-07-02 11:10:25 AM  

Albino Squid: Dr Dreidel: Pocket Ninja: As for the rest...well, we all know that if you get stabbed with a knife in the belly and don't die instantly on that spot, you're going to be totally fine.

With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.

Growth just under 2% is pretty weak, especially when pre-sequester predictions were quite a bit higher. Slashing government spending hasn't killed the economy, but it's certainly having a significant impact on the recovery, not to mention the people who actually relied on those programs.


I recall predictions that had us at weaker growth without the cuts, trimmed by another 1.5% by the sequester. We are still getting out of recession - I'd like to see 5% growth every quarter, but I'll take a hamstrung sub-2% over a non-hamstrung 1.5% any day. What really hurt in Q2 was Bernanke suggesting the Fed might stop bond-buys - May's numbers were all over the place.

Put another way: if we can make it through the sequester with sub-2% growth, "the new normal" will likely build on that. We'll get to 3 soon enough.

// we can still do some other things, e.g. to the tax code, that would help grow GDP - I'm not opposed to that
 
2013-07-02 11:11:05 AM  
It is too early to tell. Not everything that will happen has happened. Lots of fed employees are now starting their furloughs this week.
 
2013-07-02 11:12:25 AM  

PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army


Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!
 
2013-07-02 11:12:34 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cman: Are you serious?

Yes.

That headline: The Sequester Could Cause A Recession

Quite a big difference between could and would.


your forgetting the difference between new headlines, and the 12 hours of opinion show head lines.
 
2013-07-02 11:13:00 AM  

stappawho: It is too early to tell. Not everything that will happen has happened. Lots of fed employees are now starting their furloughs this week.


This.

And just wait to people have to wait in line a lot longer when they have to take care of business at a government office.
 
2013-07-02 11:15:29 AM  

cman: Lionel Mandrake: Unless you've been effected by the sequester, you haven't been effected by the sequester.

Got it.

The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point. It didnt happen.


As others in this thread have pointed out, it's not done yet.
 
2013-07-02 11:16:04 AM  

VoodooTaco: Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me). Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!


They say that the private sector is da shiznite.... you may have to trade in the security of public-sector work for the unending cascade of golden wealth that flows upon those who work in the private sector.
 
2013-07-02 11:16:15 AM  
Also:
www.davehulihan.com

He looks legit. Maybe he CAN solve our problems...

// he's a doctor, after all
 
2013-07-02 11:16:40 AM  
Translation of headline: "Cuts which don't affect me are fine with me" - Retarded White Trash Subby"
 
2013-07-02 11:20:45 AM  

VoodooTaco: Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me). Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!


That sucks dude. Good people are going to get screwed on this, through no fault of thier own. The effects will be long term. For no goddamn reason.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:19 AM  

DON.MAC: So the best congress is an ineffective congress?


After your legislative agenda is enacted, yes.
 
2013-07-02 11:25:55 AM  
Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies?

No, and I farking hate this trend where, if someone says there will be the slightest problem with something, some "journalist" somewhere will pretend like they predicted the end of the world.
 
2013-07-02 11:26:17 AM  
We're done with our mandatory "everybody works at 80%" for two months as of yesterday. It hurt, but I was able to bring packed lunches, and make some other changes....we also laid off 22 people, I think 2-3 of them were hired back yesterday.
 
2013-07-02 11:28:56 AM  

vernonFL: I had plans to see the Blue Angels. That was cancelled.

I had plans to go to Fleet week. Cancelled.


So instead maybe I *will* do a Mad Max cosplay event

www.wastelandweekend.com/


That's cool looking.  Is it a LARP or just a bunch of folk admiring each other leathers for the weekend?
 
2013-07-02 11:29:28 AM  
Some of us can live with a little less spending... those seniors who were on Meals on Wheels, or the people who were dependent on funding for cancer treatment centers... well, they die... but that's the conservative faux-christian way.. I guess that's what you end up with when you print "I got mine." on the front of a bible.
 
2013-07-02 11:31:53 AM  

PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army


Mine got "suspended" indefinitely because I work for an agency that was able to slightly inconvenience Congress during their vacations.

But the contractors I work with have been cut to the bone, with no end in sight.
 
2013-07-02 11:32:12 AM  

PanicMan: VoodooTaco: Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me). Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

That sucks dude. Good people are going to get screwed on this, through no fault of thier own. The effects will be long term. For no goddamn reason.


The government paid for my fiancee's grad school and to train her, but, thanks to the sequester, they can't pay to keep her. Oh well, thanks for the paid training and graduate degree, taxpayers. It's a shame Congress was too stupid to get a good employee out of it.
 
2013-07-02 11:34:39 AM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


or if you're about to miss out on two weeks pay due to furloughs.  But I guess I'm not part of the "we" either.
 
2013-07-02 11:35:26 AM  
Meh. What's slowing the economy is tax hikes, the elimination of rhe temporary reduction in payroll taxes and especially the expiration of a portion of the Bush tax cuts. That's the farking killer. The sequestration is just a small reduction in our overspending.

/just kidding. The economy is slow for many reasons, and is probably a bit slower due to the tax hikes and the sequester. Doesn't mean they aren't appropriate. Got to pay our bills sometime.
 
2013-07-02 11:37:11 AM  
Furloughs for DOD civilian employees start next week. Political fallout should follow closely.
 
2013-07-02 11:38:08 AM  

BMFPitt: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Mine got "suspended" indefinitely because I work for an agency that was able to slightly inconvenience Congress during their vacations.


Yeah, got to love that.

"Sir! The little people are complaining that these cuts are deeply affecting their lives!"
"Who cares?  Let them eat cake!"
"Also, it appears that your flight is going to be delayed by a couple hours due to a lack of air traffic controllers."
"The hell you say!?  Emergency session! Get them back to work!"
 
2013-07-02 11:39:04 AM  

cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point. It didnt happen.


While it's true it didn't slide us into a recession, perhaps that has something to do with the sequester hasn't started yet.  It was postponed.  (At least for the Navy.  Don't know if it was postponed for everything equally).

My wife is getting the one day off a week starting this month, which according to the calculator they provided will be a 24% pay cut.  (Something to do with taxes, etc, for why it's more than a 20% cut.)
 
2013-07-02 11:40:06 AM  

SwordBuddha: Furloughs for DOD civilian employees start next week. Political fallout should follow closely.


It is going to get real ugly when all of those company in Republican districts that have government contracts have to lay people off because those contracts are being suspended until further notice.
 
2013-07-02 11:43:31 AM  

ongbok: SwordBuddha: Furloughs for DOD civilian employees start next week. Political fallout should follow closely.

It is going to get real ugly when all of those company in Republican districts that have government contracts have to lay people off because those contracts are being suspended until further notice.


If something like that were to happen, they would just cancel those cuts.
 
2013-07-02 11:44:08 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Got to pay our bills sometime.


I think we should pay our bills after some huge infrastructure improvements around this gigantic farking country of ours reduce the unemployment so that we have more revenue attack that debt.  Another option is to keep coddling the quivering job creators, whoever they are.
 
2013-07-02 11:45:35 AM  

BMFPitt: Mine got "suspended" indefinitely because I work for an agency that was able to slightly inconvenience Congress during their vacations.

But the contractors I work with have been cut to the bone, with no end in sight.


Our government people have been cut, but the contractors are humming along. This is for a military-medical research project, something Congress is very keen on NOT cutting (the optics alone would be terrible).

It works out, as the contractors are the ones doing the day-to-day work, but it means that our program is essentially unmonitored by some facet of government for a day at a time (I mean, we've planned it so that everything is covered, but sometimes rather thinly). Is that really the smart way to go?

Would it not have been easier to cut $85B from programs and projects the Pentagon doesn't want?
 
2013-07-02 11:45:50 AM  

thurstonxhowell: ongbok: SwordBuddha: Furloughs for DOD civilian employees start next week. Political fallout should follow closely.

It is going to get real ugly when all of those company in Republican districts that have government contracts have to lay people off because those contracts are being suspended until further notice.

If something like that were to happen, they would just cancel those cuts.


Would they cancel them if they are nonessential contracts?
 
2013-07-02 11:46:16 AM  

DON.MAC: So the best congress is an ineffective congress?


"Best congress" suggests that there's an alternative.
 
2013-07-02 11:46:54 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Would it not have been easier to cut $85B from programs and projects the Pentagon doesn't want?


But that would leave us vulnerable to the Kaiser's High Seas fleet!
 
2013-07-02 11:47:22 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Debeo Summa Credo: Got to pay our bills sometime.

I think we should pay our bills after some huge infrastructure improvements around this gigantic farking country of ours reduce the unemployment so that we have more revenue attack that debt.  Another option is to keep coddling the quivering job creators, whoever they are.


No, damaging economic growth will totally help "pay the bills". That's why when money's tight I take fewer hours at work.

You know, to save gas.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:34 AM  

ongbok: thurstonxhowell: ongbok: SwordBuddha: Furloughs for DOD civilian employees start next week. Political fallout should follow closely.

It is going to get real ugly when all of those company in Republican districts that have government contracts have to lay people off because those contracts are being suspended until further notice.

If something like that were to happen, they would just cancel those cuts.

Would they cancel them if they are nonessential contracts?


Does it help them get re-elected?

The answer to both of our questions is the same.
 
2013-07-02 11:49:30 AM  

Arkanaut: DON.MAC: So the best congress is an ineffective congress?

"Best congress" suggests that there's an alternative.


Well, there are quite a number of alternatives but they all involve not letting fascistic right-wingers who never evolved a forebrain run things.
 
2013-07-02 11:52:12 AM  
US Attorney's Office in a nearby jurisdiction laid off a bunch of people immediately post-sequestration, then hired them back as "contract workers" for a while (reduced pay, no benefits), but then were just told that they had to cut 50-70% of their total staff due to sequestration. That means that even more crimes are not going to be prosecuted and less support from feds for state law enforcement, which includes technical assistance for computer crimes and major crimes and taking over referrals for RICO cases for gang murders and violence. Just had a great case rejected for a referral because of this. Grants are drying up for state/local agencies as well. Some of the local agencies are cutting staff up to 70-80% due to lack of funding, which in large part came from federal rural law enforcement grants and federal timber funds in the western states. There's many places which won't even charges thefts less than $1000 because they don't have the resources, and I've heard, but not confirmed, that there is one that won't charge felony theft (>$1000) unless the person would go to prison, which means the defendant had an extensive prior record, because the agencies have to prioritize and can't afford it due to staff cuts.

In other words, just in law enforcement the cuts have hit hard and we haven't really seen the full effect yet because A. agencies have found short term ways around it, which are starting to run out, B. The grants and other funds that were hit by sequestration will really start drying up this year and the next when pre-sequestration allocated funds dry up, and C. the increase in crime that comes from criminals knowing they aren't going to prosecute you hasn't been seen in the stats... yet. That will be coming in the next year or two when the stats are compiled. Even then the stats may or may not reflect the increase because while it will look like there are less crimes being prosecuted, that won't necessarily reflect the number prosecuted just because they didn't have someone to do it. Depending on who's stats you look at they don't necessary put in the reason for a nolle prosequi.

That being said, I don't think this will be apocolyptic, but it will be shocking when people start calling the police who will take a report and say yeah we don't enforce those crimes any more because we don't have enough people or money. It's going to take some heinous crimes being committed with little/no response because of a lack of resources, which is happening (see below), before people wake up and realize they actually do need some police around. This of course varies by jurisdiction, particularly amongst individual counties/localities depending on how well their economy is doing and how well they planned ahead with rainy day funds and the like but the overall trend is a bit alarming.

For a great example of how reactionary thinking in a community affects law enforcement (Documenting cuts in Josephine County, Oregon, one of the best examples of a jurisdiction experiencing this trend. It's an outlier to be sure, but there are similar cuts happening all over the northwest.)

For a follow-up example of how these types of cuts are already starting to affect those residents (Story of girl who called 911 in Josephine County, Oregon who was told to ask her assaulter to leave because there were no deputies to respond.)

/Not a resident of Josephine County, Oregon. It's just the best example out there of the crisis going on.
//Cue the anti-law enforcement hate.
 
2013-07-02 11:55:40 AM  
So I skimmed trough the story and here's my takeaway:


"The sequester has been bad so far, but not as bad as predicted mostly because some of the cuts were undone, and it's too soon to tell just how bad it will ultimately be."


That about sum it up?
=Smidge=
 
2013-07-02 11:58:43 AM  

labman: My wife is getting the one day off a week starting this month, which according to the calculator they provided will be a 24% pay cut.  (Something to do with taxes, etc, for why it's more than a 20% cut.)


The costs for healthcare and other flat rate removals from the paycheck are staying the same.  So if she was making $1000 a week and spending $100 on health insurance (take home $900), she's now making $800 and spending $100 on health insurance (take home $700).  So that $200 reduction from a 20% gross salary becomes a 22.2% net salary reduction.
 
2013-07-02 11:58:56 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Soup4Bonnie: Debeo Summa Credo: Got to pay our bills sometime.

I think we should pay our bills after some huge infrastructure improvements around this gigantic farking country of ours reduce the unemployment so that we have more revenue attack that debt.  Another option is to keep coddling the quivering job creators, whoever they are.

No, damaging economic growth will totally help "pay the bills". That's why when money's tight I take fewer hours at work.

You know, to save gas.


When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

Also, what do you think happens to the funds that would have been borrowed to fund the foregone spending/tax cuts? Do the investors that would have bought the treasury securities issued to fund the spending just wipe their ass with the cash instead and set it on fire?
 
2013-07-02 11:59:22 AM  
But if we slip back into recession, it's Obamacare's fault.
 
2013-07-02 12:05:17 PM  

palelizard: labman: My wife is getting the one day off a week starting this month, which according to the calculator they provided will be a 24% pay cut.  (Something to do with taxes, etc, for why it's more than a 20% cut.)

The costs for healthcare and other flat rate removals from the paycheck are staying the same.  So if she was making $1000 a week and spending $100 on health insurance (take home $900), she's now making $800 and spending $100 on health insurance (take home $700).  So that $200 reduction from a 20% gross salary becomes a 22.2% net salary reduction.


She's lucky that they didn't also cut the employer contribution to her health care. If they were contributing $200 per week to health care, if they cut that by 20% she'd have to kick in another $40, reducing her take home pay to $660. Actual reduction in total comp is less than 20% if their contribution for benefits remains the same.
 
2013-07-02 12:08:51 PM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


I'm sure the 70,000 North Carolinians who lost unemployment benefits are saying the "little bit of less spending" is working out great for them too!

As long as you don't actually LOOK (talking about the author of this article), everything is just farking peachy!
 
2013-07-02 12:13:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?


Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable.
 
2013-07-02 12:14:13 PM  

Smidge204: So I skimmed trough the story and here's my takeaway:


"The sequester has been bad so far, but not as bad as predicted mostly because some of the cuts were undone, and it's too soon to tell just how bad it will ultimately be."


That about sum it up?
=Smidge=


That does a pretty good job of it.
=The_Gallant_Gallstone=

PS I think it could be a lot worse
=The_Gallant_Gallstone=
 
2013-07-02 12:14:44 PM  

cman: Dusk-You-n-Me: cman: The sequester was pushed as something that would slide us back into a recession. That was the big talking point.

Whose talking point? The CBO said it would cut GDP growth by about 1.5%. Nothing about a recession.

Are you serious? I know that Americans have short attention spans, but Jesus. It was the biggest talking point in the media.


HuffPo is not a source for anything.

There is media out there that will telll you anything. Lots of it. Media talking points are for idiots that can't handle larger narratives.

Bring some administration quotes that do not fit the scenario at the time they were made.
 
2013-07-02 12:17:46 PM  

PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable


If deficit spending is rational, its advocates have to put forth a strong formulation for it, given that it runs counter to sensible economic management at the household level.

The prudent voter may be wrong to think that the government should function like a household (income should exceed expenses), but that mistake is forgiveable if a strong explanation to the contrary is not provided.
 
2013-07-02 12:21:45 PM  

ComicBookGuy: Translation of headline: "Cuts which don't affect me are fine with me" - Retarded White Trash Subby"


Dufuk?
 
2013-07-02 12:21:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: A Dark Evil Omen: Soup4Bonnie: Debeo Summa Credo: Got to pay our bills sometime.

I think we should pay our bills after some huge infrastructure improvements around this gigantic farking country of ours reduce the unemployment so that we have more revenue attack that debt.  Another option is to keep coddling the quivering job creators, whoever they are.

No, damaging economic growth will totally help "pay the bills". That's why when money's tight I take fewer hours at work.

You know, to save gas.

When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

Also, what do you think happens to the funds that would have been borrowed to fund the foregone spending/tax cuts? Do the investors that would have bought the treasury securities issued to fund the spending just wipe their ass with the cash instead and set it on fire?


Depends on what your unsustainable lifestyle is.  If it involves traveling around the country interviewing or going to college, then yes, you might.

And no - the investors don't wipe their ass with the money, but they're sure as hell not using it to buy things and hire people at the moment either.  Mostly they're using it to buy and sell other financial products in the giant circle jerk that is our current finance system.
 
2013-07-02 12:23:39 PM  

Aarontology: So many predictions fell short because, in recent months, the administration and Congress did what was supposed to be impossible: They undid many of sequestration's scariest reductions

So it would seem that by not actually reducing spending, we avoided the consequences.


Tfa also said in some cases the effects are worse than forecast and in others it's too soon to tell. Why do I think the person who wrote the headline didn't rtfa?
 
2013-07-02 12:25:25 PM  

vernonFL: I had plans to see the Blue Angels. That was cancelled.

I had plans to go to Fleet week. Cancelled.



And the White House tours are still shut down, but somehow they found $100 million to pay for the President's trip to Africa and money to give tanks and F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Even the Farm bill was loaded with pork during this usless sequester.
 
2013-07-02 12:27:22 PM  
By "we" do you mean people that count on government paychecks for their food? Because, no, they can't live without it.
 
2013-07-02 12:29:32 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable

If deficit spending is rational, its advocates have to put forth a strong formulation for it, given that it runs counter to sensible economic management at the household level.

The prudent voter may be wrong to think that the government should function like a household (income should exceed expenses), but that mistake is forgiveable if a strong explanation to the contrary is not provided.


There will always be wage-earners in a country. In households they eventually retire or die.
 
2013-07-02 12:31:33 PM  

thurstonxhowell: No, and I farking hate this trend where, if someone says there will be the slightest problem with something, some "journalist" somewhere will pretend like they predicted the end of the world.


There's also the point that the folks on the right who brought us the sequester have literally not made one correct prediction in the last 30 years. From the economy to Iraq they're wrong time after time.

If anyone should sit down and shut up when it comes to calling people out on predictions it should be conservatives.
 
2013-07-02 12:32:23 PM  
Excerpts Obama's statement from March 1st:

"Now, what's important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away.
...
So economists are estimating that as a consequence of this sequester, that we could see growth cut by over one-half of 1 percent.  It will cost about 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly.  So every time that we get a piece of economic news, over the next month, next two months, next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we'll know that that economic news could have been better if Congress had not failed to act.
...
And, in the meantime, just to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this.  This is not going to be a apocalypse, I think as some people have said.  It's just dumb.  And it's going to hurt.  It's going to hurt individual people and it's going to hurt the economy overall."


Full statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/01/statement-pres id ent-sequester
 
2013-07-02 12:33:12 PM  
Well then, by all means, let's continue the cuts until we ARE a third-world Mad Max-style wasteland. We can do it! USA! USA!
 
2013-07-02 12:33:35 PM  
The Justice Department, for instance, prevented furloughs by "cutting" $300 million in money that had already legally expired, as well as $45 million meant to house detainees who didn't exist.

Man, someone's brother-in-law was all set to clean up on a do-nothing government contract, just to have it pulled out right from under him. Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-07-02 12:34:41 PM  

StrikitRich: vernonFL: I had plans to see the Blue Angels. That was cancelled.

I had plans to go to Fleet week. Cancelled.


And the White House tours are still shut down, but somehow they found $100 million to pay for the President's trip to Africa and money to give tanks and F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Even the Farm bill was loaded with pork during this usless sequester.


This is your brain on Fox News.
 
2013-07-02 12:36:13 PM  
Just for clarity, Obama saying the sequester "is not going to be the apocalypse" is the exact opposite of "supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies".
 
2013-07-02 12:38:52 PM  

PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable.


no you see the government works just like your household finances and furthermore comma
 
2013-07-02 12:44:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?


Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.
 
2013-07-02 12:46:02 PM  
and anyone who values the national parks are telling you to EABOD right now... they've been operated on a shoe string budget for years and are always the first victims in cuts. and they lost more funding this year.
 
2013-07-02 12:46:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Also:
[www.davehulihan.com image 439x246]

He looks legit. Maybe he CAN solve our problems...

// he's a doctor, after all


I'm Beezer Twelve Washingbeard, and I approve this message.
 
2013-07-02 12:47:31 PM  
Guess what - if you borrow money and spend it on stupid shiat that doesn't have an ROI greater than one, it's going to suck when you have to stop spending money on that stupid shiat.

If the government borrowed five trillion dollars to create a massive ditch digging program in the middle of nowhere, and we tried to scale it back, people would be up in arms.  "But think of the ditch diggers!", they'd cry.  "Think of all those businesses those ditch diggers support!", they'd moan.  And they would probably get their way - even though borrowing money to fund a ditch digging program is a completely destructive and worthless endeavor.

/Did I say ditch digging? I meant military.
 
2013-07-02 12:48:10 PM  

sabreWulf07: Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.


You might want to rethink that concept.  Central Banks just sold a record amount of US debt, and treasury yields spiked.
 
2013-07-02 12:50:20 PM  

PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable.


Central Banks just sold a record amount of US Debt.  Treasury Yields are spiking.  Greece was trying to "work" via deficit spending, and they have collapsed.
 
2013-07-02 12:51:21 PM  

palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.


Yea the sequester personally boned me.  I was selected for a really nice DOD (Navy) postition.   The position was then eliminated.  I am not too angry about my new decision to go to grad school, but I would have rather taken a career track position.
 
2013-07-02 12:52:17 PM  

StrikitRich: Even the Farm bill was loaded with pork during this usless sequester.


DAMN YOU, OBAMA!!
 
2013-07-02 12:53:42 PM  

MattStafford: PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable.

Central Banks just sold a record amount of US Debt.  Treasury Yields are spiking.  Greece was trying to "work" via deficit spending, and they have collapsed.


Not all deficit spending is created equal.  Pretty much every country in the world is a deficit spender, it's how you do it that matters.
 
2013-07-02 12:53:58 PM  
Check my posts from three to six months ago. I called it a bluff then and have stuck with that ever since. Obama was being a dick by intentionally threatening to make the cuts in the most visible, painful areas as possible in order to make it look to the American people like this is what will necessarily happen if we cut even the tiniest sliver of federal spending. "Let's see... $60 million in cuts from the FAA. Shall we do away with bonuses, encourage teleconferencing instead of travel, and combine some administrative responsibilities? Nah. Let's furlough all the air traffic controllers so planes fall out of the sky and people die screaming in smoking hulks of twisted metal. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing the sequester on us."
 
2013-07-02 12:54:08 PM  
"We" obviously means "you", selfish ass submitter. Tell that to the poor schmucks who are about to get their unemployment befits cut, or their child's day care center closed, or any one of a host of hardships that the sequester is causing.

But it's not happening to you, so everything's fine. I got mine.
/fark you
 
2013-07-02 12:54:33 PM  

firefly212: Some of us can live with a little less spending... those seniors who were on Meals on Wheels, or the people who were dependent on funding for cancer treatment centers... well, they die... but that's the conservative faux-christian way.. I guess that's what you end up with when you print "I got mine." on the front of a bible.


But we need to spend $30 billion dollars on a new Berlin Wall (with a moat with sharks with frickin' laser beams and shiat) on our border with Mexico!  Priorities, man, priorities.
 
2013-07-02 12:55:10 PM  
Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies?

No subby I don't. You know why? Because no one said anything like that.

I did have to wait hours to get through an airport line for someone to check my passport because they have almost no one working the customs booths anymore.

Have fun next time you take a flight and don't complain because you think everything is fine.
 
2013-07-02 12:56:22 PM  

cman: People take shiat to the extremes.

We need to stop bullshiatting ourselves and stop being afraid of our own farking shadows.

The apocalypse isnt coming! Even if it were there is nothing we could do about it.


Well, not with THAT type of attitude (America: Doing things is hard, so we don't do things! fark YEH!)
 
2013-07-02 12:56:47 PM  

MattStafford: sabreWulf07: Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.

You might want to rethink that concept.  Central Banks just sold a record amount of US debt, and treasury yields spiked.


[Citation please]

How are we selling "record amount" of US debt when the deficit is now less and decreasing?
 
2013-07-02 12:57:46 PM  

lunogled: Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html


Research funding has completely dried up.

My thesis adviser's NIH grant is gone. But, was it really important to cut down on spreading penicillin-resistant infections in a hospital?

My DARPA research funding is gone. But, saving guy's lives in the field in Afghanistan isn't half as important as tax breaks for the 1%.
 
2013-07-02 12:57:46 PM  

Mercutio74: Not all deficit spending is created equal.  Pretty much every country in the world is a deficit spender, it's how you do it that matters.


Yeah, deficit spending on productive things  (like infrastructure and education)  is good.  Deficit spending on non productive things (like a safety net and the military) is a bad thing.
 
2013-07-02 12:59:56 PM  

MattStafford: sabreWulf07: Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.

You might want to rethink that concept.  Central Banks just sold a record amount of US debt, and treasury yields spiked.


Doesn't the TREASURY sell US debt? Not the Central bank?
 
2013-07-02 01:00:01 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: sabreWulf07: Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.

You might want to rethink that concept.  Central Banks just sold a record amount of US debt, and treasury yields spiked.

[Citation please]

How are we selling "record amount" of US debt when the deficit is now less and decreasing?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732418860457854516168352 6 132.html

Enjoy.
 
2013-07-02 01:01:02 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: Not all deficit spending is created equal.  Pretty much every country in the world is a deficit spender, it's how you do it that matters.

Yeah, deficit spending on productive things  (like infrastructure and education)  is good.  Deficit spending on non productive things (like a safety net and the military) is a bad thing.


Why on the safety net is a bad thing? Don't those people spend that money in the economy?

Do you think it costs less to put people in prison then helping to make them productive workers that then can pay income?
 
2013-07-02 01:01:59 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: Not all deficit spending is created equal.  Pretty much every country in the world is a deficit spender, it's how you do it that matters.

Yeah, deficit spending on productive things  (like infrastructure and education)  is good.  Deficit spending on non productive things (like a safety net and the military) is a bad thing.


I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).
 
2013-07-02 01:02:05 PM  

Corvus: Doesn't the TREASURY sell US debt? Not the Central bank?


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100852546

Didn't like the WSJ link, hopefully this one works.

And yeah, the initially the Treasury sells debt, and then that debt can be sold throughout the markets just like any other security can.
 
2013-07-02 01:02:06 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: MattStafford: sabreWulf07: Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.

You might want to rethink that concept.  Central Banks just sold a record amount of US debt, and treasury yields spiked.

[Citation please]

How are we selling "record amount" of US debt when the deficit is now less and decreasing?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732418860457854516168352 6 132.html

Enjoy.


Wow a link to an article I can't read, that's very good.

Now can you link to something I can actually read?
 
2013-07-02 01:05:10 PM  

Corvus: You don't understand what you read. The TREASURY sells Treasury bonds the Central bank was RESELLING it.


FTFM
 
2013-07-02 01:05:15 PM  

Mercutio74: I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).


I would disagree on the safety net being a positive ROI.  Would a Sub-Saharan country have a stronger economy if they borrowed a bunch of money and instituted a safety net?  I would argue no.
 
2013-07-02 01:05:24 PM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


Empathy is a poor people's emotion.
 
2013-07-02 01:08:09 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).

I would disagree on the safety net being a positive ROI.  Would a Sub-Saharan country have a stronger economy if they borrowed a bunch of money and instituted a safety net?  I would argue no.


So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?
 
2013-07-02 01:08:42 PM  

mediablitz: vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".

I'm sure the 70,000 North Carolinians who lost unemployment benefits are saying the "little bit of less spending" is working out great for them too!

As long as you don't actually LOOK (talking about the author of this article), everything is just farking peachy!


Oh noes!! Fewer people are getting free money for doing nothing? The horror!!
 
2013-07-02 01:09:38 PM  
I took a 20% pay cut in 2007 a little before the birth of my 1st kid. It sucked but I kept at my job for the next 3-4 years, then was looking at another 25% cut from what was left over (switching to 3 days/wk rather than 4). Things weren't looking too brightly for the future of my line of work at that company so I quit to go out on my own. I then proceeded to be pretty well broke for a couple years, maxing out my credit, quit paying the mortgage, etc. But now things are starting to turn around. I'm hoping to file bankruptcy soon. That used to be scary to me but now I see it as the best decision I can make for myself and my family. This is my American Dream.
 
2013-07-02 01:10:10 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).

I would disagree on the safety net being a positive ROI.  Would a Sub-Saharan country have a stronger economy if they borrowed a bunch of money and instituted a safety net?  I would argue no.


Tell us about the coconuts, George.
 
2013-07-02 01:10:15 PM  

Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?


Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.
 
2013-07-02 01:10:28 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: Doesn't the TREASURY sell US debt? Not the Central bank?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100852546

Didn't like the WSJ link, hopefully this one works.

And yeah, the initially the Treasury sells debt, and then that debt can be sold throughout the markets just like any other security can.


You understand the difference between the Treasury selling bonds and the Central bank buying them and reselling them?

Are you saying then you are against reducing quantitative easing and want the Central bank to continue to buy up treasuries?
 
2013-07-02 01:11:51 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.


Because they US has higher incomes so when someone gets a job in the US they raise more in tax revenue.
 
2013-07-02 01:12:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.


Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?
 
2013-07-02 01:13:09 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.


Sorry had to quote this again because this shows pretty drastically how you really don't understand anything if you think the US government economically works the as sub-Saharan Africa.
 
2013-07-02 01:13:52 PM  

PanicMan: This will actually be a problem. They're talking Reduction in Force (RIF) cuts next year. Basically, the govt may start firing people.


Unpossible. The government doesn't create jobs.
 
2013-07-02 01:14:42 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?


Suppose a corporation takes one trillion dollars and sets it on fire. The would go bankrupt. Obviously this means capitalism can never work!!!
 
2013-07-02 01:14:44 PM  

snowshovel: A relative of mine who works for the FBI was talking about the furloughs that he is going to start going through. His wife added "because of Obama."

Since we had to spend the rest of the week at their house as a guest, I decided against explaining the non-Fox News version of how the sequestration works.


Moocher! Taker! 47%er!
 
2013-07-02 01:15:20 PM  
The sequester is currently killing US scientific research in many sectors, with repercussions that will travel up and down the economy for years to come.
 
2013-07-02 01:15:32 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?


Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!
 
2013-07-02 01:16:12 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?


They wouldn't have to "raise taxes" the people spend money and every transaction that is made with that money would be additional tax revenue.
 
2013-07-02 01:17:15 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?

Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!


OMG, I'm still laugh that he thinks the US economy works the same as the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
2013-07-02 01:17:33 PM  

sabreWulf07: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

Depends.  Are you going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit?  If so, then deficit spending is the way to go.


"effectively unlimited credit"? Wow, I never thought of it that way! I was way off.

I assume you were against the expiration of any of the Bush tax cuts, right? I mean, we have effectively unlimited credit! Why bother with that whole fiscal cliff charade to make 1/8th of the cuts expire? Why not just borrow the difference? Hell, why not just lower taxes? Why not eliminate them altogether? We can just borrow more!

And why do only the unemployed get unemployment benefits? We should get a deficit financed employment benefit, amirite? We are going to live forever and have effectively unlimited credit!

Man, what a relief. Tax cuts and gold obamaphones all around!!
 
2013-07-02 01:17:48 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?


The trick is to spend the money you borrow on things that will improve your long term financial standing. Businesses go into debt all the time to but new equipment, supplies and facilities in the hopes that these investments will pay off. Individuals do this too: student loans are a prime example, and so is getting a mortgage to live someplace closer to a good job.

The government really isn't any different: It's fine to borrow money provided that money is spent on things that improve the long term financial outlook... things that have a promise of a return. Things like education so you will have an intelligent and employable workforce in two or three generations from now, or infrastructure so the businesses of tomorrow can move the goods they consume and produce efficiently, or alternative energy programs that will help reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars that leave the country from fuel imports while also lowering operating costs for businesses so they can be more competitive, or research that will become the technologies upon which entire new industries will be based upon, or health care so people aren't going bankrupt and are healthy enough to show up for work.
=Smidge=
 
2013-07-02 01:19:28 PM  

Corvus: A Dark Evil Omen: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?

Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

OMG, I'm still laugh that he thinks the US economy works the same as the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa.


Taken as a whole, his body of work makes him one of the best comedy trolls on Fark.
 
2013-07-02 01:20:01 PM  
Is it fairly obvious to anyone else that Corvus has no agenda besides derailing threads I post in?  I mean, he's responded to some of my posts multiple times adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
 
2013-07-02 01:20:04 PM  
Are you guys seriously arguing with the coconut guy again?

Good lord.
 
2013-07-02 01:21:03 PM  
Arkanaut: DON.MAC: So the best congress is an ineffective congress?

"Best congress" suggests that there's an alternative.


I think that the alternative to "Best congress" is South Congress.....

Navy Civillian along with wife - a two-fer.  Looking forward to the stacations watching the Travel Channel....and camping.  Could be worse, but it's going to be tough for a while.  Civillian Government workers sure are spoiled.....

I'm sure there will be repercussions when a Captain, or an Admiral or other high ranking Millitary Commander can't get support for his units on Furlough Friday.  Something is likely going to happen and someone will complain.  But hard to say whether it will be enough to pick the boot up from the ankle.

As the economy drags it's ass along, it's the "flesh wounding" of a thousand cuts.
 
2013-07-02 01:23:22 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.


Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan US: : $50,120
Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan Africa: $1,345

Well that's a big one.
 
2013-07-02 01:23:32 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Tell us about the coconuts, George.

Suppose the government borrows one trillion dollars tomorrow, and distributes it to all people below a certain income level.  One year later, the government raises taxes by one trillion dollars (plus interest).  You believe that the economy is stronger after these two actions take place than before these two actions take place?


No, no, stupid. You don't pay it back, you just borrow more to pay the interest.

Of course, it wouldn't be fair to subject the recipients of the $1trillion benefit this year to a draconian $1trillion cut to benefits next year, so we ought to give them another trillion (with a cost of living adjustment, naturally) next year. We'll just borrow that as well. And so on and so on.

Don't worry about paying it back. We have effectively unlimited credit and are going to live forever.
 
2013-07-02 01:23:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?


If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.
 
2013-07-02 01:24:19 PM  

MattStafford: Is it fairly obvious to anyone else that Corvus has no agenda besides derailing threads I post in?  I mean, he's responded to some of my posts multiple times adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.


You asked me a question, I responded with my answer. How is that "derailing "?

Me answering your question is "derailing"?
 
2013-07-02 01:24:20 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Are you guys seriously arguing with the coconut guy again?

Good lord.


I just want to hear about the coconuts and fish and monkeys on pogo sticks. It always puts a big smile on my face. Is that so wrong?
 
2013-07-02 01:24:25 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!


The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.  If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.
 
2013-07-02 01:25:16 PM  
csb

My sister and her kids were coming to Chicago for the air and water show in August. Then the sequestration happened and the headliners (Thunderbirds) and a number of other groups were forced to cancel. You know who else cancelled? My sister and her kids. Thanks 0bumber.

/csb
 
2013-07-02 01:25:38 PM  

austerity101: If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.


We're rapidly running out of friends.
 
2013-07-02 01:27:13 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Are you guys seriously arguing with the coconut guy again?

Good lord.


First off he seemed to have thought that the Central bank is the originator of selling Treasury bonds not the treasury. (he has refused to clarify when I asked him more question about it so I am assuming he was confused.)

Then he said that the economy in the US and Sub-sarah Africa are similar so if something wouldn't work in Sub-sarah Africa it couldn't work in the US.
 
2013-07-02 01:27:25 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: PanicMan: Deficit spending is how every country in the world works. Our "lifestyle" is still perfectly sustainable

If deficit spending is rational, its advocates have to put forth a strong formulation for it, given that it runs counter to sensible economic management at the household level.

The prudent voter may be wrong to think that the government should function like a household (income should exceed expenses), but that mistake is forgiveable if a strong explanation to the contrary is not provided.


Eh, even in a household, income shouldn't always exceed expenses. There are times you have to expend more money than you've got in order to have more options or comfort.  Buying a car or taking a student loan, for instance, are both big expenditures but afford you more options down the road, like getting a job.

Sure, it's ideal, but not necessary.  If you've got a choice between paying for the groceries vs putting the groceries on credit and paying for the car, you take the latter because it lets you continue working/job hunting, etc.  On a household or national level, if the economy stalls, it's harder to get started again because of the damages done during the stall. It's wiser and more efficient to use credit/deficit spending to keep things afloat long enough for the natural waxing cycle to begin again.
 
2013-07-02 01:28:18 PM  

MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.   If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.


Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?
 
2013-07-02 01:29:36 PM  

austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.


But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.
 
2013-07-02 01:32:50 PM  

Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?


www.sci.fi
 
2013-07-02 01:32:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.


Canceling your cable makes you less employable and lowers your future income.
 
2013-07-02 01:34:23 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: Not all deficit spending is created equal.  Pretty much every country in the world is a deficit spender, it's how you do it that matters.

Yeah, deficit spending on productive things  (like infrastructure and education)  is good.  Deficit spending on non productive things (like a safety net and the military) is a bad thing.


Well according to the CBO you are wrong.

www.econbrowser.com
Unemployed does better than infrastructure.

For some reason I trust they know more about economics than you do who thinks that sub-sarah Africa and the US have similar economies and thinks that the central bank originates the selling of treasury bonds.
 
2013-07-02 01:35:55 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]


Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".
 
2013-07-02 01:38:10 PM  

palelizard: Buying a car or taking a student loan, for instance, are both big expenditures but afford you more options down the road, like getting a job.


And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

// currently 31
 
2013-07-02 01:38:19 PM  
The government can operate with less money?

Imagine that.
 
2013-07-02 01:40:10 PM  
Still more spending this year than last.
 
2013-07-02 01:41:21 PM  
Whoa!
You mean democrats lied about the impact of a decrease in the amount of increase in the budget???

It wasn't even a cut.
 
2013-07-02 01:42:45 PM  
The sequester stuff was taken to extremes by both the Left and the Right, much as climate change is done as well.

If anyone had actually listened to the folks in charge of figuring this stuff out, instead of politicians and opinion peddlers who make their living by keeping you afraid, they'd know that:

1) the world isn't going to come to an end
2) people will suffer (are suffering) because of it
3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree
 
2013-07-02 01:42:48 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.


The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).
 
2013-07-02 01:43:41 PM  
I was really looking forward to mounting gatling guns on my Kia.
 
2013-07-02 01:46:13 PM  
Welcome to the real world, folks. At my company, we've had to take unpaid furloughs two weeks each year for the past six years. Just got the latest notice, for the second half of the year, last week. I'm sure I'm not alone in the private sector in that.
 
2013-07-02 01:46:35 PM  

make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree


I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.
 
2013-07-02 01:47:36 PM  

MattStafford: Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).


Are you going to respond to my questions or my points or just keep ignoring I've shown you wrong or that you don't know what you are talking about?
 
2013-07-02 01:49:20 PM  
Still not spending enough.
 
2013-07-02 01:49:27 PM  

MattStafford: make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree

I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.


Why do you think increasing revenue has no affect to the budget?

You do understand it's: Surplus(deficit) = Revenue - Spending

You do understand that right? So why to you erroneously say the only way to balance the budget is through budget cuts instead of growing our economy?
 
2013-07-02 01:50:00 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan US: : $50,120
Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan Africa: $1,345

Well that's a big one.


In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

So from that perspective, the ROI on the trillion subsaharan dollars makes it a smarter buy than that America place.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:21 PM  

Keys dude: Welcome to the real world, folks. At my company, we've had to take unpaid furloughs two weeks each year for the past six years. Just got the latest notice, for the second half of the year, last week. I'm sure I'm not alone in the private sector in that.


And corporate profits are the highest they have been in 50 years.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:53 PM  

MattStafford: Dr Dreidel: And if you count total liabilities (the total owed on student loans, the total owed on your house/car, total CC debt...), how many people are flush or better?

Some of America's OMG$16TRILLIONZZZZ debt isn't scheduled to be paid off until I'm Medicare-eligible. So long as we can afford to make the payments on schedule, we're golden.

The issue isn't making payments, the issue is that we are still adding on to the debt.  It isn't like we made a huge one time purchase we are paying off, a la student loans or a house, it's that that we are just running up a credit card (and using the credit card to make the payments).


And as long as we can keep making the payments, even on $eleventy trillions of billions of Sagans, we're golden.
 
2013-07-02 01:50:57 PM  

palelizard: In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.


I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.
 
2013-07-02 01:52:05 PM  

palelizard: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan US: : $50,120
Gross National Income/Capita Sub-Saharan Africa: $1,345

Well that's a big one.

In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

So from that perspective, the ROI on the trillion subsaharan dollars makes it a smarter buy than that America place.


No the context I was talking about was getting people back to work. People make more money therefore you get more in tax money.

Also those government are much more corrupt than ours.
 
2013-07-02 01:52:40 PM  

VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!


Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't
 
2013-07-02 01:52:59 PM  

Tommy Moo: Check my posts from three to six months ago. I called it a bluff then and have stuck with that ever since. Obama was being a dick by intentionally threatening to make the cuts in the most visible, painful areas as possible in order to make it look to the American people like this is what will necessarily happen if we cut even the tiniest sliver of federal spending. "Let's see... $60 million in cuts from the FAA. Shall we do away with bonuses, encourage teleconferencing instead of travel, and combine some administrative responsibilities? Nah. Let's furlough all the air traffic controllers so planes fall out of the sky and people die screaming in smoking hulks of twisted metal. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing the sequester on us."


We did all that stuff and more. But due to the retarded way the law was written, ATC had to be furloughed, too. The "fix" didn't actually restore any funding, it just let us make more intelligent cuts.
 
2013-07-02 01:53:42 PM  

MattStafford: palelizard: In fairness, that trillion dollars is going to go a lot further in Sub-Saharan Africa.  With that kind of money, they could probably afford roads and clean water and some non-corrupt law enforcement, maybe set up some heavy duty solar power arrays with some power-distribution infrastructure.  All those people working and building things, and spending their borrowed-money paychecks on either local efforts or supplies bought with more of the borrowed money.  After some time, the economy would be bustling and you'll have taken a third world craphole and brought most of it into the 21st century.

I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.


Wow, one thing I agree with you on.

But you asked me a question and I answered and you still are holding your fingers in your ears and pretending not to notice I showed you why it is very different.
 
2013-07-02 01:55:40 PM  
Some scientist in the article said that conferences were where the "real science" happened. I would understand his butthurt if this was 1995, but this is 2013. I certainly don't want to take anything away from the collegiality and the community that conferences build, but exaggerating their importance doesn't help his argument.
 
2013-07-02 01:55:57 PM  
Oh, and by the way, the DoD civilian workforce has not completely started their furloughs.

//Monday is my first.
 
2013-07-02 01:57:25 PM  

vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".


Since very few poor people read the Washington Post, they didn't think that worth mentioning.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


The conservatives on here would cut military funding too, but the Democratic Party adamantly refuses to do so.

My post is as honest as yours.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:27 PM  

cman: People take shiat to the extremes.

We need to stop bullshiatting ourselves and stop being afraid of our own farking shadows.

The apocalypse isnt coming! Even if it were there is nothing we could do about it.


It ain't no apocalypse, but I sure don't appreciate the 20% pay cut our family must endure because republicans are obstructionist dicks.
 
2013-07-02 01:59:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


You were just saying these weren't even "real" cuts. So they magically become "real" when it affects the military?

Shouldn't you be telling this guys in the military they are lying and actually still getting more money?

Well you would if you arguments ever had any consistency to them.
 
2013-07-02 02:04:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.


No. A better "analogy" would be: "you quit eating and paying rent so you can keep your HBO and Showtime, right?"

You've made it clear people losing their only source of income (all 70,000 of them) are worthless moochers. Let them starve so we don't cut anything out of the "defense" budget.
 
2013-07-02 02:07:27 PM  

sxacho: tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't

The conservatives on here would cut military funding too, but the Democratic Party adamantly refuses to do so.

My post is as honest as yours.


All depends on who builds what in who's district.......

/good ol' liberal
//wants to cut the military budget
///but not via horizontal cuts across the board
 
2013-07-02 02:09:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Also:


He looks legit. Maybe he CAN solve our problems...

// he's a doctor, after all


Donkey Teeth
 
2013-07-02 02:10:43 PM  

Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".


It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.
 
2013-07-02 02:11:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.


Less than 2% is pretty shiatty. Might not be seppuku knife cut  to the bowels, but it's stab in the gut nevertheless. Besides, some of the sequester-related spend was going to be staggered to end of fiscal year (3rd calendar quarter) so the full effect may not have been felt yet.
 
2013-07-02 02:11:37 PM  

MattStafford: Mercutio74: I mostly agree.  A well-run safety net actually does supply a positive ROI to the gov't and the nation.  For example, you don't want to lose a skilled worker because he or she will be faced with a temporary inability to work (due to either illness/injury or something more macroeconomic like Wall St. deciding to defraud the globe).

I would disagree on the safety net being a positive ROI.  Would a Sub-Saharan country have a stronger economy if they borrowed a bunch of money and instituted a safety net?  I would argue no.


Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?
 
2013-07-02 02:14:55 PM  

MattStafford: I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.


All right, bad response on my part.  Still, assuming there was a viable economy to begin with, a trillion dollar safety net keeps people without jobs eating, makes them less inclined towards crime (to feed themselves or their family) and allows businesses to continue to have customers, necessary to the survival of the business (and the ability to pay employees who also buy things), which is necessary to the survival of the area's economy.

I understand picking a trillion dollars and one year are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, so ignoring the amounts and time for a moment, a safety net keeps things afloat long enough for the natural cycles to get back on the upswing.  In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.
 
2013-07-02 02:14:55 PM  

MattStafford: make me some tea: 3) it is preventable, if we agree to prevent it
4) it is manageable to some degree

I would argue that those two points are mutually exclusive.  In order to manage this situation, there have to be budget cuts (or at least a slowdown in budget increases).  If we fail to do that, we will reach a situation that truly is unmanageable.  If you want to manage it, you have to have some sort of sequestration.  If you want to prevent it, you will create an unmanageable situation.

/unless your "preventable" is referring to something else, in which case I apologize.


Well, it's pretty clear from reading the WaPo article that Congress is actually doing exactly what they should've done to begin with, which is to choose where to cut and where to fund, which is why we're not feeling as much as the scaremongers had predicted, and we're feeling it more than the naysayers scoffed at. The GOP House actually did get their way on this at the end of that day. The cuts almost certainly will affect economic growth negatively, but hey, the deficit is reduced, right? Yes, the economy is growing, but it could be growing a lot more right now. We can worry about deficit reduction when the economy is back to being a powerhouse and there's ample money to pay it off in the GDP.
 
2013-07-02 02:15:33 PM  

VoodooTaco: /good ol' liberal
//wants to cut the military budget
///but not via horizontal cuts across the board


It figures a lib like you would be soft on terrorism. Go ahead decimate our military, for God's sake we'll have Russia and the terrorists marching across our borders within a week. It disgusts me that people like you would support such a thing. Not me. I love America. Check out my flag pin.
 
2013-07-02 02:18:25 PM  

mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.

No. A better "analogy" would be: "you quit eating and paying rent so you can keep your HBO and Showtime, right?"

You've made it clear people losing their only source of income (all 70,000 of them) are worthless moochers. Let them starve so we don't cut anything out of the "defense" budget.


70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.
 
2013-07-02 02:20:14 PM  

Geotpf: Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".

It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.


Sure it is. But in making it your being productive. Which is what my point is. It is also paying people salaries who then spend money. I am not saying in any way that it is the best use of resources but to state it is completely unproductive and to imply that the ROI is 0 is totally wrong.

That was the discussion that was going on. If you don't want to be part of it then don't reply.
 
2013-07-02 02:20:35 PM  

Geotpf: Corvus: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corvus: Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

[www.sci.fi image 600x391]

Pro-tip: Showing something produced is not a good way to give and example of something "non-productive".

It is possible to produce things that are basically useless.


Like Subby's mom did!  Hey-o!
 
2013-07-02 02:21:48 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?


No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.
 
2013-07-02 02:21:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: 
70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.


And everyone who relies on safety net programs are worthless moochers and parasites.  This is what FarkIndependents  actually believe.

See, I can play the same game.
 
2013-07-02 02:22:16 PM  

palelizard: MattStafford: I apologize, but the hypothetical was a trillion dollar safety net - not a trillion dollars in investment.

All right, bad response on my part.  Still, assuming there was a viable economy to begin with, a trillion dollar safety net keeps people without jobs eating, makes them less inclined towards crime (to feed themselves or their family) and allows businesses to continue to have customers, necessary to the survival of the business (and the ability to pay employees who also buy things), which is necessary to the survival of the area's economy.

I understand picking a trillion dollars and one year are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, so ignoring the amounts and time for a moment, a safety net keeps things afloat long enough for the natural cycles to get back on the upswing.  In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.


That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.
 
2013-07-02 02:22:46 PM  

greenboy: Oh, and by the way, the DoD civilian workforce has not completely started their furloughs.

//Monday is my first.


I'm Wednesdays.
 
2013-07-02 02:23:56 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.


Really?  Then accept that the farkers at the top of our economy are the ones not paying what they should.  Those are the ones that need to be properly taxed (and by that, meaning they can't just offshore their money or hide it so they show no actual 'income').  Unless you think it's better to demand higher taxes on those at the bottom.  You know the old saw of trying to get blood from a stone?
 
2013-07-02 02:24:24 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.



Why is it unsustainable if we keep our debt/GDP ratio about the same?
 
2013-07-02 02:25:59 PM  
Since spending was cut 10% by the sequestration, can we get and across the board 10% tax cut?
 
2013-07-02 02:26:16 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.   If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.

Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?


Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards
 
2013-07-02 02:27:34 PM  

MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.


upload.wikimedia.org

We've had debt for over 200 years. When does this "unsustainable " actually happen?
 
2013-07-02 02:27:51 PM  

RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.
 
2013-07-02 02:29:14 PM  

RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

The StaffordCUBE never fails to please.  But in all seriousness, that is what people are suggesting.   If we borrow money and spend it on unproductive things (like transfer payments), our economy will actually be stronger after we collect taxes and pay off that debt (plus the interest).  That doesn't even take into consideration the misallocation of capital that occurs.

Who is really suggesting that? Can you give an example of something people (seriously) want to spend money that is completely unproductive?

Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.

// they spend money on things like food, the bastards


Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.
 
2013-07-02 02:30:55 PM  

Corvus: That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.


Sure, bossman.  It's in no way relevant to the discussion about how a safety net is productive or not, the CBO estimates you posted, or why borrowing money for a safety net is a wise decision.
 
2013-07-02 02:31:03 PM  

palelizard: In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.


Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.
 
2013-07-02 02:32:59 PM  

MattStafford: austerity101: If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

We're rapidly running out of friends.


The credit markets say otherwise.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:13 PM  
All I know is that I had a big grant not funded because of sequestration. NIH, NSF, and other federal agencies are having problems keeping the funding of current projects.

Hindering our technology research is not something that will show now, it will harm us later.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:25 PM  

palelizard: Corvus: That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about again.

Why not stop or read the thread so you can understand. It's not our job to reexplain it to you.

Sure, bossman.  It's in no way relevant to the discussion about how a safety net is productive or not, the CBO estimates you posted, or why borrowing money for a safety net is a wise decision.


No that discussion was about can you compare investing in safety net for sub-Shara Africa with the doing so in the US. You are confusing which topic you were discussing.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:39 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: VoodooTaco: PanicMan: palelizard: I don't know about other Federal programs, but the Navy just started the furlough this period.  They pushed the cuts to the money they'd be spending at the end of the year, so the wife's getting a 20% pay cut starting for work done this week. It's not the end of the world, but it still stinks.

Yep, mine starts next week.

/Army

Ditto. But the 20% cut results in 20-25% gross take home pay loss on average (23% for me).   Especially awesome for us primary providers trying to raise a young family.

/Navy Civ
//Time for the classics: Diapers, Natty-Ice and Ramen!

Remember that the good liberals of fark always want to cut military spending

The GOP doesn't


Shut the Fark up already.
You're a terrible troll.
Try to bring some game.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:42 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Really?  Then accept that the farkers at the top of our economy are the ones not paying what they should.  Those are the ones that need to be properly taxed (and by that, meaning they can't just offshore their money or hide it so they show no actual 'income').  Unless you think it's better to demand higher taxes on those at the bottom.  You know the old saw of trying to get blood from a stone?


No, I totally agree that we should tax the higher earners.  Corporations and the higher ups have been making a ton of money via outsourcing/automation.  Basically, they've replaced the average American with cheaper alternatives and pocketed the difference.  We need to spread those gains around.
 
2013-07-02 02:34:01 PM  

sxacho: RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.


Corvus: RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.



I love it when two posts come together.
 
2013-07-02 02:35:34 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: austerity101: If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

We're rapidly running out of friends.

The credit markets say otherwise.


Well according to him (I think by mistake) he wants the Central Bank to buy up our debt. I actually think he was confused and thinks the Central bank originates (not resells) the sell of Treasury bonds but he wouldn't respond to my follow up questions, which to me implies he has no idea what he was talking about.
 
2013-07-02 02:36:46 PM  

RsquaredW: sxacho: RsquaredW: Well, most conservatives think the recipients of transfer payments (the elderly, the poors) are notoriously unproductive.


And ultimately that money gets flushed down the toilet.

Corvus: RsquaredW: Corvus: MattStafford: A Dark Evil Omen: Beautiful! There's that MattStafford comedy gold!

Yeah but unless food comes out of thin air recently it still something that is produced. People work, get paid and pay taxes. So there is an ROI higher than zero and production.


I love it when two posts come together.


Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.
 
2013-07-02 02:37:36 PM  

MattStafford: Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.


Depends, honestly, on what's done with the safety net money.  If it's being used to merely keep food in mouths, sure, it's only going to last for a while. However, if it's enough of a bump to buy time for re-training or relocation to town B (where there's more work), it makes sense to take it.  In that case, borrowing just enough to get by is a bad idea, but borrowing a lot more to institute change can actually fix the problem.

It's one of those things that's bad to half-ass. If you do nothing, then at least the extra resources aren't spent (though that has it's own set of problems).   And in that case of going full out, "safety net" may be a poorly defined term in the context of the discussion.
 
2013-07-02 02:40:02 PM  

Corvus: I love it when two posts come together.

Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.


Food --->  toilet

/poop joke, nevermind, carry on
 
2013-07-02 02:40:57 PM  

dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.


Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.
 
2013-07-02 02:44:45 PM  

palelizard: If it's being used to merely keep food in mouths, sure, it's only going to last for a while.


You will find many people who think keeping food in people's mouths with borrowed money actually makes our economy stronger, and that a program based on that can last indefinitely.

palelizard: However, if it's enough of a bump to buy time for re-training or relocation to town B (where there's more work), it makes sense to take it.


Are you suggesting we ship our unemployed to China?  Which, if you missed it, was town B in that example.  I agree that retraining is possible, but it is difficult in our current situation.

palelizard: In that case, borrowing just enough to get by is a bad idea, but borrowing a lot more to institute change can actually fix the problem.


Only if you are actually fixing the problem.  If we're borrowing money to train the next wave of high tech workers, it might be beneficial.  If we're borrowing money to create a generation of philosophy majors, it may not be as helpful.
 
2013-07-02 02:47:55 PM  
Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?
 
2013-07-02 02:48:27 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: AurizenDarkstar: Yup.  It would be much better for our country if we basically cut off the elderly, the disabled, and poor and the unemployed from any help and did away with the safety net completely.  Nothing bad would ever happen if we do that, right?

right?

No, we should support the elderly, disabled, poor, unemployed, and really everyone - but we should do it via tax revenue.  Actually paying to support those people is a good, sustainable thing.  Borrowing money to support those people is a bad, unsustainable thing.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x292]

We've had debt for over 200 years. When does this "unsustainable " actually happen?


The minute the US defaults on a debt payment, like the Republitards almost made us do in 2011. That is when the debt will suddenly be unsustainable. As long as US debt is backed up by the full faith and credit of the US, i.e. the US does not do something stupid like not fail to raise the debt ceiling, it can continue effectively forever. Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.
 
2013-07-02 02:49:08 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?


So, do they still vote Republican?
 
2013-07-02 02:49:51 PM  
Wade_Wilson: .... but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?

This.

Asshats, the lot of them..
 
2013-07-02 02:51:06 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?

So, do they still vote Republican?


Sadly, yes, a lot of them do. I said I respect them, not that I agree with them.
 
2013-07-02 02:51:28 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.


Reserve currencies don't last forever, and it would be foolish to think that the dollar will.
 
2013-07-02 02:56:42 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Screw you, subby. Up until 2 months ago, I was a contractor on an Air Force base in Florida. My company always got excellent performance scores, and exceeded all our expectations. I only left because I was planning a move up to Ohio.

The same day I interviewed for my new job, I called my boss to let him know how it went. He told me that I was getting out just in time; it had just been confirmed that the sequester was going to apply to us, and we were going down to 4 day weeks starting in August.

A lot people I respect, many of whom have families and mortgages, are now looking at a 20% pay cut. And not through any fault of their own; they do fantastic work and the base wants them to keep doing so. but congress is throwing a hissy fit, and they are getting punished for it. Where's their pay-cut?


I was a contractor at a base in MS - same thing.  I got a new offer, moved away.  The four guys that were left were supposed to work through to the end of this FY.  Found out in March that they were being cut loose for the sequester a/o 30 April.  I was soooo thankful to be out of there already.
 
2013-07-02 02:58:46 PM  

MattStafford: If we're borrowing money to create a generation of philosophy majors, it may not be as helpful.


But how else will I get my fancy coffee slowly and with a free side of sneering disdain?
 
2013-07-02 02:59:35 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.


When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.
 
2013-07-02 03:01:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: When you are in debt and spending more than you earn, do you borrow more to maintain your unsustainable lifestyle?

If I am in debt to my friends and I can't afford my rent, I borrow more money from them so that I don't end up homeless.  I don't start paying back my debt with my rent money instead.

And since the US seems pretty keen on reducing revenue as well, apparently part of the solution is to make my wife quit her job as well.

But you do cancel your cable, right? Or at least switch from the gold plan with HBO and Showtime to basic cable. Thats a better analogy for the sequester cuts than not paying your rent.


No--at that point we're arguing whether the things we are cutting are things we can afford to cut.  In that case, neither analogy is better, because they're both predicated on a pre-conceived notion of what is necessary.
 
2013-07-02 03:04:13 PM  

dartben: When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.


I'm aware that we aren't rolling over all of our debt at once, but the difference in rolling 16.9 trillion at 1.7% and 2.46% is in the neighborhood of 128 billion dollars, which is more than the sequester this thread is about.  We're extremely susceptible to yield spikes, so I wouldn't be so cavalier about them.
 
2013-07-02 03:04:59 PM  

FooDog: Dr Dreidel: With growth at just under 2% for the 2nd quarter, it's looking less like a knife to the gut and more like pricking your finger. The bigger threat is the Fed quitting bond-buys by Labor Day.

Less than 2% is pretty shiatty. Might not be seppuku knife cut  to the bowels, but it's stab in the gut nevertheless. Besides, some of the sequester-related spend was going to be staggered to end of fiscal year (3rd calendar quarter) so the full effect may not have been felt yet.


Sure, it ain't nothing, but it's also looking like it's not the nut-kick we were all bracing for.

When the Fed's suggestion that bond-buys won't last forever (even through the end of calendar 2013) sends the markets into a greater panic than sequester fears could, it makes me think the market (warts and all) is more scared of that ending than the sequester continuing.

// also, the market only shows us how the middle-class and better are doing
// all the cuts to social services get absorbed into half a percentage point of GDP or less (not based on facts)
// sadly - economic marginalization can't be a good thing
 
2013-07-02 03:11:25 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.

I'm aware that we aren't rolling over all of our debt at once, but the difference in rolling 16.9 trillion at 1.7% and 2.46% is in the neighborhood of 128 billion dollars, which is more than the sequester this thread is about.  We're extremely susceptible to yield spikes, so I wouldn't be so cavalier about them.


Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."
 
2013-07-02 03:13:06 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.

When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.


If rates go back to a "normal" 4-6% range in a short period of time, it'll be real bad. If the world decides that some other currency is a better safe haven, we're farked.
 
2013-07-02 03:16:46 PM  

BMFPitt: dartben: MattStafford: dartben: The credit markets say otherwise.

Treasury yields just spiked, and the largest central bank debt sell off just occurred.  China has stopped increasing their debt holdings, the Social Security Trust Fund will no longer be increasing their debt holdings, Japan and Europe are both in dire straights and are in no position to increase their debt holdings.  The Federal Reserve is buying massive amounts of Treasuries.

I don't think the Credit Markets are as friendly to US debt as you seem to think they are.

When the u.s. federal debt is no longer the safe haven that everyone flocks to in bad times, and when interest rates climb back up to the double digits we saw in the early 80s, then you might have a point.

When the interest rate of a 10-year treasury "spikes" to 2.46%, I'm unconcerned.

If rates go back to a "normal" 4-6% range in a short period of time, it'll be real bad. If the world decides that some other currency is a better safe haven, we're farked.


And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
 
2013-07-02 03:20:36 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Debeo Summa Credo: mediablitz: Debeo Summa Credo: austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: 
70,000 people will starve because of the sequester. This is what farklibs actually believe.

And everyone who relies on safety net programs are worthless moochers and parasites.  This is what FarkIndependents  actually believe.

See, I can play the same game.


Except I didn't say that in the post you quoted.

You can't just make shiat up and say its what others believe. You really suck at this game.
 
2013-07-02 03:24:59 PM  

sxacho: Corvus: I love it when two posts come together.

Wow sometimes I think I am making a strawman argument I go "No one could actually be this stupid" then I just go to FARK to be proven that yes, people are.

Food --->  toilet

/poop joke, nevermind, carry on


Oh sorry. Yep that was funny.
 
2013-07-02 03:26:06 PM  

dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.


In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."


They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.
 
2013-07-02 03:27:01 PM  

MattStafford: Slaves2Darkness: Being the world reserve currency has great benefits.

Reserve currencies don't last forever, and it would be foolish to think that the dollar will.


Nothing lasts forever. So we should never base anything on any current situations because they will change at some point?

That arguments is stupid.
 
2013-07-02 03:29:05 PM  
I see the economics laureates skipped lindau to keep us all infromed in this thread. Thanks guys.
 
2013-07-02 03:30:21 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


Like I keep telling you (and you keep putting your finger in you ears and ignoring) debt really doesn't matter (except for part that adds to the continued deficit).

What matters is ABILITY TO PAY BACK DEBT holders (or borrow money to pay back debt holders) in the future.

This is DEFICIT/GDP - NOT Debt, and not deficit by itself.
 
2013-07-02 03:31:10 PM  

dartben: And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.


If you aunt had an adam's apple, a low voice, and a five oclock shadow, maybe you should start to wonder.

China is internationalizing its currency.  We have very few buyers for our debt, and there are few on the horizon.  Federal Reserve has bought tons of US debt with freshly printed currency.

Signs are pointing to troubling times ahead.
 
2013-07-02 03:32:58 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.
 
2013-07-02 03:38:03 PM  

MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.


Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)
 
2013-07-02 03:39:00 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: Spoken like someone who never lived thru the 80s or remembers the Fed's prime rate peaking at 19% in '81.

In 1981 we had about 1 trillion in debt.  Treasury yields peaked around 15%, meaning it would cost us 150 billion to roll over our debt, adjusted for inflation, about 373 billion dollars.  Today?  Treasury yields at 2.46% and it costs us 415 billion to roll over our debt.  That isn't worrisome to you?

dartben: Also, way to switch arguments from "we have no friends" to "this costs too much."

They go hand in hand.  People don't want to buy our debt, and our yields spike.


It costs us 2.46% when the fed, a non-price sensitive buyer, is buying half the treasuries. If and when the fed turns off the printing presses, or reduces the size of their balance sheet, that number is going up materially.
 
2013-07-02 03:39:50 PM  

MattStafford: Federal Reserve has bought tons of US debt with freshly printed currency.


The Treasury prints currency. But that's OK because you think the Central Bank ordinates the sell of Treasury bonds so I guess it makes sense to you.
 
2013-07-02 03:41:13 PM  
HOW WE SPOSED TO GET OUR FREE shiat?
 
2013-07-02 03:41:53 PM  

Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)


Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?
 
2013-07-02 03:44:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


I don't know why you care sense you have nothing to do with this conversation.

Do you believe the economy of the US and Sub-Saharan Africa are similar?
 
2013-07-02 03:45:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/
 
2013-07-02 03:46:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?


And the part I was using:

Much of the recent issuances reflects the growing demand for higher yields offered in developed markets and the rapidly improving perception of Sub-Saharan African countries and markets. Average yields on Sub-Saharan African debt sits around 4.28 percent for the past 12 months (ending May), compared to 3.43 percent for Asian debt and 1.75 percent for 10-year Treasuries.
 
2013-07-02 03:48:29 PM  

dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.


And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.
 
2013-07-02 03:50:26 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


OH now GDP matters (before only spending mattered). Funny it didn't matter before, at least you are learning by moving the goal posts.
 
2013-07-02 03:52:22 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


But our deficit isn't which is actually what matters.

www.npr.org
 
2013-07-02 03:54:08 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?
 
2013-07-02 03:54:56 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


Here is a more update one based on CBO stats

www.numbernomics.com
 
2013-07-02 03:56:15 PM  

dartben: MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.

So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?


Well he is partially right. They are moving to countries who are at higher risk with higher yields. People are leaving US bonds because they are just so low. (but that doesn't fit his narrative)
 
2013-07-02 03:58:01 PM  
Remember how the sequester was supposed to turn America into Mad Max meets Lord of the Flies?

No.  When was that?
 
2013-07-02 03:59:45 PM  

Corvus: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?

Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/


Thanks. I am farking shocked that sub Saharan debt is 4.3%. The article gave no context as to the maturity and where that number came from but that is ridiculously low. I know south African ten year bonds are above 7.5%.
 
2013-07-02 04:00:43 PM  

MattStafford: dartben: In 1981 our gdp was 3.1 trillion. Today it's about 16 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, we're still earning about 150% more today in real dollars than we were in 1981.

So no, I am not worried.

And our debt is a far higher percentage of our GDP.  Again, you are operating under the assumption that interest rates will remain historically low.  I've offered some reasons as why this isn't the case (or at least you shouldn't be so sure of it) and it appears you have just ignored them.


I have a question for you. If you are lending me $1000 for a month which would you take:

A) I have 2 home mortgages and I have 1,000,000 in debt financed (and I have income to pay the amount I have to every month) but I will get $1000 next month from a friend.
B) I have no debt but have no cash on hand and way to get cash next month.

You are trying to say A is more important than B for someone loaning you money, that's not true at all.
 
2013-07-02 04:01:22 PM  

StrikitRich: And the White House tours are still shut down, but somehow they found $100 million to pay for the President's trip to Africa and money to give tanks and F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


It's not "somehow", you dunce. Part of the responsibilities and duties for a chief executive happen to be diplomatic visits to other nations. Part of the job description, been that way since Theodore Roosevelt's first trip to the Panama Canal in 1906. And if there weren't people on his planet both foreign and domestic who would just love to put an "I killed the president of the united states" notch on their belt, it wouldn't cost so much for the president to go anywhere.

Imagine if you couldn't even go to the local fast food joint without five cars, 20 agents, and local law enforcement clearing the streets for three blocks around. That's what the life of a president is like. You don't go shopping by yourself, you don't go out to eat by yourself, you don't even take a dump by yourself. You either take an assload of security or you sit in your house and have people bring it to you.

How would you like not being able to drive your own car and having someone collect your sh*t for eight years?

As for the tanks and guns for the Muslim Brotherhood... I'm suspecting your beef with them is the "Muslim" part, not the fact that they might actually be doing some good in Egypt. Besides, we have more than enough surplus military bullsh*t just rotting in warehouses all over this country, and what little bit the US might have given the rebels pales in comparison with the billions of dollars worth of sh*t this country shipped to those other sandy sh*tholes, Iraq and Afghanistan every year for the last decade.
 
2013-07-02 04:01:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: MattStafford: Corvus: So you thing the US is the same as Sub-Saharan country economically?

Until you explain to me why a debt financed safety net in the US would have an ROI greater than one and a debt financed safety net in Sub-Saharan Africa would have an ROI less than one, I will operate under the assumption that a debt financed safety net works similarly in all countries.

Here is another for you to ignore:

US TREASURY BOND YIELD : 1.75

SUB-SAHRA AFRICA BOND YIELD: 4.28 (they are lower than usual)

Citation on that second one? Which countries?

And maturity on the first?

Here you go anyways.:

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/06/sub-saharan-africas-debt-capi ta l-markets-rising-to-the-occasion/

Thanks. I am farking shocked that sub Saharan debt is 4.3%. The article gave no context as to the maturity and where that number came from but that is ridiculously low. I know south African ten year bonds are above 7.5%.


I know. I was shocked too. I guess the debt forgiveness stuff has really helped them a lot.

Yea I was expecting something like 90% or something myself too.
 
2013-07-02 04:02:28 PM  

Corvus: A) I have 2 home mortgages and I have 1,000,000 in debt financed (and I have income to pay the amount I have to every month) but I will get $1000 next month from a friend.
B) I have no debt but have no cash on hand and NO way to get cash next month.

You are trying to say A is more important than B for someone loaning you money, that's not true at all.


FTFM
 
2013-07-02 04:12:00 PM  

dartben: So you admit we have a higher debt load at a historically low rate? And this is somehow a sign the credit markets are drying up?


No, I'm not suggesting that is a sign that credit markets are drying up.

The signs are:  China is internationalizing it's currency.  China has stopped increasing their UST holdings.  The SSTF is no longer able to increase their UST holdings.  Japan and Europe are both in dire financial situations and can't afford to increase their UST holdings.  The Federal Reserve has been buying incredible amounts of UST, which is the only thing keeping yields as low as they are.

Combine all of that stuff together, and you might get a glimpse at the larger picture.
 
2013-07-02 04:21:45 PM  

MattStafford: The signs are: China is internationalizing it's currency.


They are letting  their currency priced based on the markets freely and no longer artificially limiting it's price?

I was unaware of this, can you link me to a story about this?
 
2013-07-02 04:24:34 PM  

MattStafford: . China has stopped increasing their UST holdings.


As of when? Earlier this year they bought a shiat ton of US treasuries.


China, the largest foreign lender to the U.S. government, boosted its holdings of Treasuries in February to the most in 15 months, while No. 2 Japan sold the debt for a fourth-consecutive month. China's position increased $8.7 billion, or 0.7 percent, to $1.223 trillion, U.S. Treasury Department data released yesterday show.

8.7 Trillion seems more than none. Or are you confused with treasuries resold by the central bank again?
 
2013-07-02 05:22:51 PM  
Site complains that I've used 3 of my 20 free articles this month but provides no way to use the 4th.

FAIL.
 
2013-07-02 05:41:10 PM  

lunogled: Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html


Eggheads is what got us into this mess!
 
2013-07-02 05:42:41 PM  

MattStafford: palelizard: In cases of places where there's no longer a source of income (the factory moved, the mine dried up, the plant closed, etc), it gives those people enough of a bump to move to a more viable area rather than stay trapped in a cycle of poverty.

Sure - but it doesn't fix the economy.  Suppose two towns, A and B.  The major factory that used to reside in A just moved to B, because they can pay a cheaper wage there.  People are suggesting that a sound economic move from A is to borrow money and finance a safety net for its citizens.  Clearly, that isn't a sound, long term strategy and will only last as long as people are willing to loan town A money.


Which town has more coconuts?
 
2013-07-02 05:54:59 PM  
Remember how the sequester caused the U.S. Forest Service alone will hire 500 fewer firefighters and deploy 50 fewer engines this season.
 
2013-07-02 05:58:27 PM  

Evil High Priest: lunogled: Yes, well, science in the US is experiencing a disaster but who needs them learned people?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7455/full/nj7455-527a.html

Eggheads is what got us into this mess!


Kill all economists! Problem solved.

Actually, an economist is a "scientist" like a string theorist is a "scientist".
 
2013-07-02 06:00:48 PM  
It wouldn't be so bad if they made cuts like any rational business would vs. cutting the items they knew would draw attention to the cuts in order to get their cushy budgets back.
 
2013-07-02 10:25:54 PM  
Some of us haven't seen a pay raise in years and are getting furloughed but hey, no biggie as long as your taxes don't go up right?
 
2013-07-03 12:42:35 AM  
Tell that to my friend who just found out she's being laid off because of the sequester.
 
2013-07-03 08:56:23 AM  

mediablitz: vpb: Unless you're poor and rely on community health centers or one of the other health programs cut, but I guess subby didn't include them in "we".

I'm sure the 70,000 North Carolinians who lost unemployment benefits are saying the "little bit of less spending" is working out great for them too!

As long as you don't actually LOOK (talking about the author of this article), everything is just farking peachy!


That wasn't from the sequester cuts though, that was due to our stupid conservative Teabagger legislature cutting state unemployment check amounts. Federal regulations say if a state does that they lose their qualification for the Federal unemployment assistance program, which is what happened starting July 1. NC is the only farking state in the nation to have this happen, and our idiotic Teabag legislators wring their hands and whine "but we had to do this, we have to pay back this Federal debt we racked up". Except, there are states with larger Federal debts than NC has, they worked out plans to pay back the debt in a reasonable manner and the Fed granted them more time to do it.

Not NC though; they don't want to even talk to the Federal government for fear of catching liberalism or something, so they just said "no, we must pay back this debt as fast as possible", and used that as justification to slash spending on every single state funded program they could authorize. Why this isn't getting more attention from the media surprises me; what they are doing to this state is every bit as bad as what Ohio or Texas or Kansas has or is doing. Worse perhaps, since NC has been a southern Democrat state for so long, now the conservatives are ramming far-right programs through the legislature as fast as they can in an attempt to convert the state into yet another conservative paradise (i.e. Mississippi or Kansas).
 
Displayed 269 of 269 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report