Oh that silly Sequester

I really don't know why they are calling it sequester, but that is not the point.

Anyway the government spends roughly 3.5 trillion.
The sequester will stop us from increasing spending by 85 billion.

Let's put that into terms that we can understand:

3,500,000,000,000 can look like this: 3500

85,000,000,000 can look like this: 85

So if I was making 3500/week and something like this hit me, I would not grow by 85.

Not much of anything and will not affect us positively or negatively. Basically it is 2% of the money that passes through DC.

Please, can we not make a big deal about it???

That 2% translates to a loss of jobs. Many agencies have announced that they will not fill vacancies, will cut hours for existing employees, and/or will have to lay off employees. The Forest Service is looking at loosing 5% of its budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and has announced it will scale back its summer hire positions. This translates to more unemployment claims and reduced spending power. Reduction in government spending will also translate into less money being pumped into local economies (most government vehicles are fueled at the gas station around the corner form the office, odds-and-ends supplies are purchased at the local hardware store, etc), and thus will result in damage to local business people. These are large ripples.

I'd also encourage you to look at where these cuts are being proposed. Its not simply that its a 2% cut in the governments budget, its where these cuts are slated to take place. The idea was to make any potential cuts be in the worst possible places to encourage compromise.

Bryant wrote:That 2% translates to a loss of jobs. Many agencies have announced that they will not fill vacancies, will cut hours for existing employees, and/or will have to lay off employees. The Forest Service is looking at loosing 5% of its budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and has announced it will scale back its summer hire positions. This translates to more unemployment claims and reduced spending power. Reduction in government spending will also translate into less money being pumped into local economies (most government vehicles are fueled at the gas station around the corner form the office, odds-and-ends supplies are purchased at the local hardware store, etc), and thus will result in damage to local business people. These are large ripples.

I'd also encourage you to look at where these cuts are being proposed. Its not simply that its a 2% cut in the governments budget, its where these cuts are slated to take place. The idea was to make any potential cuts be in the worst possible places to encourage compromise.

Jobs??? What inflated government positions??? Really, it is about time they go through what private industry has gone through since 2008 and continues to go through because of things like the Affordable Health Care Act, the moratorium on drilling, and what not. It is time they feel the pain we feel. Maybe that will begin to wake them up. Besides, we really need to cull the political herd and get rid of the bloat.

I really don't feel sorry for anyone who looses their job over this. I know it sounds bad, but that is the truth. It had to happen sooner or later and it is better sooner than later. Need to start thinking of what is gonna happen when we can't even pay the interest on our debt and this fiat system comes crashing down. That is what we really need to think about. Private industry is better served by private industry and not by the political class.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:That 2% translates to a loss of jobs. Many agencies have announced that they will not fill vacancies, will cut hours for existing employees, and/or will have to lay off employees. The Forest Service is looking at loosing 5% of its budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and has announced it will scale back its summer hire positions. This translates to more unemployment claims and reduced spending power. Reduction in government spending will also translate into less money being pumped into local economies (most government vehicles are fueled at the gas station around the corner form the office, odds-and-ends supplies are purchased at the local hardware store, etc), and thus will result in damage to local business people. These are large ripples.

I'd also encourage you to look at where these cuts are being proposed. Its not simply that its a 2% cut in the governments budget, its where these cuts are slated to take place. The idea was to make any potential cuts be in the worst possible places to encourage compromise.

Jobs??? What inflated government positions??? Really, it is about time they go through what private industry has gone through since 2008 and continues to go through because of things like the Affordable Health Care Act, the moratorium on drilling, and what not. It is time they feel the pain we feel. Maybe that will begin to wake them up. Besides, we really need to cull the political herd and get rid of the bloat.

I really don't feel sorry for anyone who looses their job over this. I know it sounds bad, but that is the truth. It had to happen sooner or later and it is better sooner than later. Need to start thinking of what is gonna happen when we can't even pay the interest on our debt and this fiat system comes crashing down. That is what we really need to think about. Private industry is better served by private industry and not by the political class.

What jobs? Could well be my job* or those of others like me. These cuts aren't going to hit the politically connected bureaucrats, but rather the low level technical personnel (ie those who actually do the work). More over, while things have been getting better the private sector isn't yet able to absorb most of this soon-to-be laid off workforce.

While I agree government spending cuts/revenue increases would eventually be necessary, it seems idiotic to me to play these games when the economy is weak. The Federal government was keeping many people gainfully employed and out of the unemployment and welfare lines. Now look what happens. You slash budgets, Federal employees loose their jobs and have no where to go. Think of what this does to the wider economy when those former workers loose their spending power?

Take downtown Fresno as a case study. The different economic classes of Fresno are generally geographically separated, with the poor living in downtown, south, south-east, and south-west Fresno, the middle class living mostly in north-central Fresno, and the upper-middle class and rich living in extreme north Fresno along the San Joaquin River. The only people with any spending power in downtown Fresno were the city employees and private lawyers. Several shops and restaurants in downtown Fresno relied on the patronage of these lawyers and city employees to remain in business. A couple years ago the City laid off a very large part of its work force and cut the pay of much of the rest. Because of this the number of people with any spending power in the area was greatly diminished and most of these shops and restaurants went under (sad, considering all the hope for revitalization of downtown Fresno) and had to lay off their employees in turn.

*I already lost my job due budget cuts, and while I am being considered for other positions I have been warned that even if selected these positions may never be filled due to possible further budget reductions. As most of the local engineering and environmental geology shops aren't in a hurry to hire, I'm out of work.

Only in government can an increasing budget be called a shrinking one. I mean wS the government able to run under bush for like $800b annually? Of course it was, and it was even too bloated then. Now were racking up about a trillion and a half in deficits annually, yet we are to believe $85b will spell out doom? Thing is, i think since the 2008 collapse, the dems have croed wolf a little too much about armageddon, that not too ppl seem to be buying it this time. I mean i remember the fiscal cliff negotiations which led to the sequester, had the markets and ppl much more nervous than these cuts. Well outside of washington anyway

You do realize that the number of government employees and their pay has increased since obama came to office? Surely we can survive by getting rid of some of these add ons. I mean if it was feasible id say let the government hire everyone and wed have no u employment, but unfortunately the public sector doesnt produce anything, and such a system cant work

Not only has the house passed two bills to try to give government agencies more leeway in how they make their cuts and prioritization but obama also turned down two offers from the senate to do the same. So i think its pretty clear that obama isnt interested in trimming the fat, and primarily eliminating waste, but is intent on making these cuts as painful as possible, going right after important staff, like border patol and tsa agents. Letting illegals out of jail and the like.

In 2011 the government accidentally paid $30b MORE than the $85b of the sequester

Think its also funny how for weeks obama and the administration were preaching gloom and doom (probably thinking he cud bully the reps into a usual last minute deal to avoid it) and then over the past two days hes been kind of like, eh its no big deal. We'll make it. Wait i thought it was going to be armageddon, now ur trying to lower everyones expectations??

The fear is all part of the government sponsored media's echo chamber.

Considering there is a thread dealing with that subject, that mistaken believes only one type of people listen to, or even have, an echo chamber, I find this subject funny.