Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by That Guy

have you ever seen their event rider. it requires a minimum of 34 dedicated vehicles, provided by the base/area, and they come with about a billionty support personnel.

I haven't seen their event rider, but I knew it took a lot to make that happen. I can't believe the priorities of our culture. Laws that make sure every person in this country has healthcare -- unconstitutional and a waste of money. Blue Angels stop flying -- and it's a travesty? Where are our priorities?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I haven't seen their event rider, but I knew it took a lot to make that happen. I can't believe the priorities of our culture. Laws that make sure every person in this country has healthcare -- unconstitutional and a waste of money. Blue Angels stop flying -- and it's a travesty? Where are our priorities?

The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects people and something we can actually see happening. He then has something to point to and blame the rep.. There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects paople and something we can actually. He then has something to point to and blame the rep.. There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.

FD. I don't disagree that there are other programs as well. However, we are focusing on one-of-many right now. I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair to point at X, Y, and Z because it doesn't affect you, then say something like the blue angels is important. It's a drop in the bucket, but with enough drops the bucket eventually fills up.

I agree there should be more incentives for saving money in the government. I believe incentive programs would be a great way to start helping the savings. As someone that has been involved with our end-of-year funds lately, it's not as cut and dry. Yes, there is BUY BUY BUY at the end, but we're still making choice of what to get and what not to get. I'm an IT guy and I'm using a 7 year old desktop at work because we've sacrificed our tech refresh to focus on getting OIG mandated products.

Just because a lot of buying happens at the last minute doesn't mean it's being spent on useless products. Part of the reason it is spent that way is instead of 'financing' a product we need to purchase, we try to front-load it to reduce payments over time.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The reason Obama is having them cut the BA and TB is beacuase its something that affects people and something we can actually see happening. He then has something to point to and blame the rep.. There are so many other things we waste our money on but cutting those would not affect people and not help him. The first thing they should do is change how they budget spending. The way they do it now when a department does not spend their annual budget it gets reduced to what they spent in the prior year. So come Nov & Dec they BUY, BUY, BUY so their budget does not get cut. We should award employees who save money not punish them. I'd also come up with a bonuse system for any employee who comes up with money cutting ideas. While I know Obama is not totally to blame his leadership right now sucks and he is acting like a little child when they don't get their way. There have been other Presidents I didn't agree with but I could respeck them for their leadership which I cannot say about Obamaq.

Seems I knew what Obama was doing before these stories started coming out. Its not that hard to figure Obama is only for Obama.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Daseal

It breaks your heart that planes flying at sporting events and air shows (the definition of WASTEFUL SPENDING) are getting grounded? If you want to cut the budget, fine, but lets really look at useless spending. Those planes cost millions of dollars and the fuel is very expensive. Not to mention the time of the pilots, the training, etc. It will affect the merchants in the area, but budget reductions will have that affect.

Alvin -- stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you want to cut spending, fine. But these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be the first to go. There is no economical gain for these programs nor is there any social gain.

You really have no idea what the feck you are talking about.
It is hardly wastefull spending.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

You really have no idea what the feck you are talking about.
It is hardly wasteful spending.

it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action, and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

it might not be wasteful spending, but I would argue it's luxury spending. The Thunderbirds have never seen combat action, and while they do serve as a recruiting tool, they are not the only means to that end.

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Daseal

It breaks your heart that planes flying at sporting events and air shows (the definition of WASTEFUL SPENDING) are getting grounded? If you want to cut the budget, fine, but lets really look at useless spending. Those planes cost millions of dollars and the fuel is very expensive. Not to mention the time of the pilots, the training, etc. It will affect the merchants in the area, but budget reductions will have that affect.

Alvin -- stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you want to cut spending, fine. But these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be the first to go. There is no economical gain for these programs nor is there any social gain.

That's the thing, people don't want to cut out something that they enjoy or that may affect them. Let's just take it away from the lesser/poorer people. After all, they (welfare recipients) are the real reason out deficit is out of control, even though we spend less than 2% on them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That's the thing, people don't want to cut out something that they enjoy or that may affect them. Let's just take it away from the lesser/poorer people. After all, they (welfare recipients) are the real reason out deficit is out of control, even though we spend less than 2% on them.

You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.





Under health care falls programs for lower income.
Education has programs for low income.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.





Under health care falls programs for lower income.
Education has programs for low income.

I have a good clue. You didn't break down that welfare spending.


US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts


Family and children spending equates to 111.7 billion of the total spending.

That is what most people bitch about when they talk welfare and that equates to about 26% of welfare spending. So about 2% of the total budget. I was a little off, it accounts for 2.6% of the budget.


Continue on...

[NC_Skins]

Relevant to this discussion.


4 Myths about the Spending Cuts - Yahoo! Finance

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I have a good clue. You didn't break down that welfare spending.


US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts


Family and children spending equates to 111.7 billion of the total spending.

That is what most people bitch about when they talk welfare and that equates to about 26% of welfare spending. So about 2% of the total budget. I was a little off, it accounts for 2.6% of the budget.


Continue on...

You cannot pick and choose what part of welfare you decide to count. Its over 10% of the budget.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You have no clue. Welfare spending on its own is above 10% then you have programs within other areas that are really welfare.





Under health care falls programs for lower income.
Education has programs for low income.

Also, it dawned on me that you have the wrong chart displayed. This is a chart displaying ALL the spending (fed/state/local) and not just federal. The real chart is here.

US Fed Spending Pie Chart for 2013 - Charts



Military spending 24% compared to Welfare's 11% and 23% in pensions.


Here are the actual numbers.

US Federal Budget FY13 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Daseal

It breaks your heart that planes flying at sporting events and air shows (the definition of WASTEFUL SPENDING) are getting grounded? If you want to cut the budget, fine, but lets really look at useless spending. Those planes cost millions of dollars and the fuel is very expensive. Not to mention the time of the pilots, the training, etc. It will affect the merchants in the area, but budget reductions will have that affect.

Alvin -- stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you want to cut spending, fine. But these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be the first to go. There is no economical gain for these programs nor is there any social gain.

I loved the Thunderbirds growing up, but absolutely agree that this is a solid decision.