O refuses to cut one penny

[g8trjax]

Once the sequestration kicks in good and half the country is out of work, does this mean no more lavish vacations for the Obama's? Or is it only the little people that will suffer?

[newkastle]

Originally Posted by wygator

That's 800 billion over 10 years, right?

All it does is slow the rate of growth. Is that really a cut?

Not taking sides in this discussion, but to this point, yes. Our beloved friends in Washington do call it a spending cut if they simply reduce the amount of growth. It's a wonderful way to confuse/deceive the voters.

If a politician spends $100,000 this year and $101,000 next year, they would call that a cut because it falls below their automatic increases. Crazy.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

That's 800 billion over 10 years, right?

All it does is slow the rate of growth. Is that really a cut?

Yes it is over 10 years. As are the 1.2 trillion in sequester cuts.

If it reduces the amount of spending as a percentage of GDP, it's really a cut. If it reduces real spending per capita, it's a cut. I know you guys want to think that GDP, inflation, and population growth don't matter, but they do.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by newkastle

If a politician spends $100,000 this year and $101,000 next year, they would call that a cut because it falls below their automatic increases. Crazy.

If inflation is 2%, this would be a cut. I know it's crazy, but inflation actually matters. Do you think you got a raise when you get a 1% increase in salary when inflation is 3%.

[newkastle]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

If inflation is 2%, this would be a cut. I know it's crazy, but inflation actually matters. Do you think you got a raise when you get a 1% increase in salary when inflation is 3%.

Yes, I would think I got a raise. That 1% raise may result in less spending power, but it is still an increase in income.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by newkastle

Yes, I would think I got a raise. That 1% raise may result in less spending power, but it is still an increase in income.

Well then you got fooled by the company you work for into thinking they gave you a raise. When in fact they are paying you less real money than they were the year before.

[Lawdog88]

Do any government agencies ever return a portion of their allocated budget back to the Treasury because they either didn't need it all, or through efficiencies, they found ways to save ?

Ever heard of that ?

My late father-in-law worked high level civil service after retiring from the Navy (WWII Mustang Officer), and said that the orders from his superiors - all the way to the top - were to spend every dime, every year . . . because if you didn't, your departmental budget could get cut next year.

And part of those cuts could be your salary . . . and your job.

I just don't see any incentive, anywhere, top to bottom, to come to grips with excessive spending in government - or perish the thought - that maybe we should rethink what we spend on, and how much, from the get-go.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I just don't see any incentive, anywhere, top to bottom, to come to grips with excessive spending in government - or perish the thought - that maybe we should rethink what we spend on, and how much, from the get-go.

I wish I could say that your entire post is BS, but I truthfully cannot do so.
I wish I could say that just one small part of your post is BS, but I truthfully cannot do so.
I have actually seen the very scenario that you described. My scenario was not the US Navy. It was the Duval County agencies and departments. I used to be a sales rep and I did a lot of business with these people. You could tell when fiscal year was coming. The city/county trucks were at our warehouse loading up with merchandise. They told me that if you don't use it you loose it. And some of us wonder where our tax dollars go.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Yes it is over 10 years. As are the 1.2 trillion in sequester cuts.

If it reduces the amount of spending as a percentage of GDP, it's really a cut. If it reduces real spending per capita, it's a cut. I know you guys want to think that GDP, inflation, and population growth don't matter, but they do.

If? I
So now this debate comes do to ifs and buts.

When looking back into past, you can look like a genius play "If's".

When projecting into the future you cannot rely on "If's". Especially when you are planning ten years in advance.

We need to do two thins to ensure our national security. One eliminate the annual deficit spending ASAP. Adding on to our current debt is not part of the solution. Two, aggressively pay down on the current debt.
Also, we need to rethink how entitlements should benefit our citizens. The objective should be to empower them instead of making them dependent.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by northgagator

If? I
So now this debate comes do to ifs and buts.

When looking back into past, you can look like a genius play "If's".

When projecting into the future you cannot rely on "If's". Especially when you are planning ten years in advance.

Um, yeah, when someone asks a question, then 'if' can be an important qualifier when answering the question. Like when someone asks 'Are you going to the game' and the answer is 'if I can get a ticket I am'. The 'if' is an important piece of information.

As for projecting into the future, 'if' is the only thing you can rely on, unless you can actually see into the future and know what's going to happen. Projections are based on a lot of assumptions (or 'ifs'). What do you base future projections on, if not a series of 'ifs' (in other words, things that might or might not happen)?

[wygator]

Fun Fact:

The federal government borrowed during February six times the amount of the sequester cuts for a year.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

Fun Fact:

The federal government borrowed during February six times the amount of the sequester cuts for a year.

What are the 2 numbers? How much was borrowed in February and how much are the sequester cuts for a year?

[wygator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

What are the 2 numbers? How much was borrowed in February and how much are the sequester cuts for a year?

(CNSNews.com) – During the month of February–as President Barack Obama was warning Americans they would see dramatic effects in their lives if “sequestration” of some planned federal spending kicked in–the federal government’s debt climbed by $253.5 billion.

That one-month increase in the debt was nearly six times as much as the $44 billion in spending cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimates will take place in all of fiscal 2013 as a result of sequestration.

link

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

link

Yeah, I kind of figured that was it. Calling the sequester cuts 'all year' is kind of misleading because there's only 7 months left in the fiscal year. So that's not really 'all year', is it? And I am not downplaying the size of the deficit, it's very large. But month-to-month borrowing fluctuates wildly. Only 1 billion was borrowed in all of January, while 254 billion was borrowed in February.

So another fun fact would be 'Sequester cuts for the 7 months left in the fiscal year 2013 are 42 times more than what the federal government borrowed in January.' And that would be factual, insofar as the CBO estimate is factual.

But yeah, the deficit is very large. That's why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Yeah, I kind of figured that was it. Calling the sequester cuts 'all year' is kind of misleading because there's only 7 months left in the fiscal year. So that's not really 'all year', is it? And I am not downplaying the size of the deficit, it's very large. But month-to-month borrowing fluctuates wildly. Only 1 billion was borrowed in all of January, while 254 billion was borrowed in February.

So another fun fact would be 'Sequester cuts for the 7 months left in the fiscal year 2013 are 42 times more than what the federal government borrowed in January.' And that would be factual, insofar as the CBO estimate is factual.

But yeah, the deficit is very large. That's why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

Facts are facts. Use the ones you want.

Are we still borrowing 40% of what we're spending?

If the $85 billion figure is used for sequester, it's still barely 2.5% of the new budget. If the the President and the Dems are squealing this much about cuts this small, I can't imagine what they'd do if anyone were making cuts that were actually meaningful in the long run.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wygator

Facts are facts. Use the ones you want.

Are we still borrowing 40% of what we're spending?

If the $85 billion figure is used for sequester, it's still barely 2.5% of the new budget. If the the President and the Dems are squealing this much about cuts this small, I can't imagine what they'd do if anyone were making cuts that were actually meaningful in the long run.

No, actually we are projected to borrow about 25% of what we spend this year. Still way too high, which is why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

[northgagator]

[quote="dangolegators"] Um, yeah, when someone asks a question, then 'if' can be an important qualifier when answering the question. Like when someone asks 'Are you going to the game' and the answer is 'if I can get a ticket I am'. The 'if' is an important piece of information.[/QUOTE{
We are not talking about going to a game . We are talking about the financial stability of our country!
Budgeting is a risk and with our Federal budget those risks are very high. In the mud to long term future we have a hell of a lot to lose than not getting a $50 or a $100 ticket for a game!.
Next time you compare lets keep it apples to apples in stead of BB's to cannon balls.

As for projecting into the future, 'if' is the only thing you can rely on, unless you can actually see into the future and know what's going to happen. Projections are based on a lot of assumptions (or 'ifs'). What do you base future projections on, if not a series of 'ifs' (in other words, things that might or might not happen)?

No offense intended but you show a lack of experience in financial budgeting. It is more than wetting your finger and pointing it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
I will acknowledge that to a degree "If's" are used in budget tug. However a lot if empirical evidence is used on those "If's". For instance you can take your total electric bill from last year, exclude the out of the normal costs/savings and project that you electric bill for the coming year.

In the case of our Federal gov't we do not have enough empirical evidence to make even a half ass projection. On second thought we do have enough empirical evidence. We should used the Federal gov't past failed budget projections as factors for budgeting ten years out. Doing that would soundly defeat The Dems/Obama's projections. In fact it would scare the chit out of all of us (a good cure for financial constipation we have in Washington DC).

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No, actually we are projected to borrow about 25% of what we spend this year. Still way too high, which is why we need more revenues and spending cuts.

The track record on Obama's financial projections is abysmal. Yet you are still betting the house on him. I hope that you have a good plan B come eviction day.

First of all Europe and Asia are in or headed into a recession fie this year. This bit if news is very important because it impacts our exports and eventually our revenues.
Second, the US middle class Will be hit hard by the recent Fed, State, and local tax increased. The money diverted from consumer spending is not going to help those revenue you are expecting.

We all have some nasty medicine to swallow for a while. That medicine is budget cuts in all areas and a new view point our gov't policies and entitlements.
1, Successful families rely on the family members to survive and not a giv't check
2, Life is not fair and cannot be legislated to be fair.
3, When our economy and our citizens are struggling our leaders need to feel the pain too. There should be cut backs in in gov't salaries, perks, and other spending.
4, When many Americans do not get a pay raise, get a cut in pay then the entitlements should not get a raise and if necessary there should be a cut.

[PSGator66]

He is more like a president over the Democratic party that of the nation itself.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Well then you got fooled by the company you work for into thinking they gave you a raise. When in fact they are paying you less real money than they were the year before.

Good Lord.
Umm, you think the company is spending the same on him?
Incredible