Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Smoke and mirrors

February 27, 2013

We’ve heard the term sequestration a lot lately, but what does it really mean. It is much ado about nothing....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(49)

JosephOtto

Feb-27-13 5:11 AM

I'm looking at a letter right now that says if this isn't handled by April 21st I'm going to be laid off one 8-hour day per two weeks (80 work hours). For those with poor math skills, that means a 10% cut in my pay. Don't give me this "much ado about nothing" crap.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-27-13 5:25 AM

Good letter.

Let the sequester happen.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Feb-27-13 5:57 AM

Ummm... eight hours per two weeks, extrapolated over a year, is two hundred and eight hours, which does, indeed, equal ten percent of annual working hours. Eighty hours, extrapolated over a year, is a 3.8% cut in hours. Which is it?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-27-13 6:00 AM

Mr. Otto - "For those with poor math skills, that means a 10% cut in my pay. Don't give me this "much ado about nothing" crap."

Maybe that's the government's way of telling you you are not really needed. In other lines of work people simply get laid off. But you actually get to keep your job. Go whine somewhere else.

I know more than a few people that have lost their jobs in this crappy Obama economy. They are hurting. You are still employed.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-27-13 6:01 AM

Wayne - he was saying that he is losing 8 hours every two weeks. And two weeks = 80 hours work.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Feb-27-13 6:15 AM

I misunderstood. Upon a reread, I see, and, as I had said in my previous point, eight hours over two weeks, for any period of time, is ten percent for that time period. My bad...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

Feb-27-13 6:18 AM

Mr. Otto, you're lucky you still have a job. Alot of people got laid off completely, not just lost hours.I bet they won't be pulling your better than average benefits package either.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JosephOtto

Feb-27-13 6:28 AM

"Go whine somewhere else." Yeah, thanks, no I won't be doing that, and you can take a flying euphemism at a rolling donut. Last I checked the country was bleeding jobs when Obama took office and has been improving ever since. Strictly because of Obama? No. And is Obama blameless in this whole sequester nonsense? No. Both sides agree its bad for the country and will do damage to the economy and the recovery. And both sides are using it as a political football and nothing more.

Sure, I feel bad for those who have been laid off or fired. That doesn't improve my attitude on getting my pay hacked by 10% for no reason. This whole thing is so f-ing ridiculous.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-27-13 6:35 AM

"We've heard the term sequestration a lot lately, but what does it really mean. It is much ado about nothing. The president has been calling it a manufactured crisis and telling us that if Congress doesn't stop it, the sky will fall. He's half right. It was manufactured in that he proposed it as part of the debt ceiling deal in 2011 and that very few of the dire consequences he promises need to happen even if Congress does nothing." - Paul Rinker

*

He probably should have thrown the term "mushroom cloud", in there, somewhere. That's prompted people to fall for hustles, in the past.

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-27-13 6:37 AM

Very compassionate of you, Mr. Otto. It doesn't mean a whole lot until it happens to you.

And the only reason the unemployment percentage has gone down is that there are fewer people in the workforce. Look at the number of people employed today vs. 4 years ago.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-27-13 6:49 AM

"I'm looking at a letter right now that says if this isn't handled by April 21st I'm going to be laid off one 8-hour day per two weeks (80 work hours). For those with poor math skills, that means a 10% cut in my pay. Don't give me this "much ado about nothing" crap." - JosephOtto

*

C'mon...c'mon...you knew those Bush tax-cuts were temporary, or...SHOULD-have-known...if you'd been paying attention.

What happened to the interest you'd generated on that "loan"??

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

Feb-27-13 7:26 AM

It doesn’t affect me is not accurate. First, neither solves the problem nor addresses the issue. Spending. Everyone is yelling the sky is falling. False. Spending has not increase the last four years near as much as other recent periods. It is around 1.5 to 3 percent. Please check the CBO. Debt is an issue that needs addressed. Second, this will affect everyone even those who don’t realize it. One person here will lose a day every two weeks, a vast majority that will lose a day a week. It does not take a math major to know that these cuts will have a big impact on the economy. These folks buy goods and services from retailers who in turn by goods from manufacturers. Well if hundreds of thousands stop buying goods and services, retailers will need less staff and goods which in turn means manufacturing will need to make less goods like cars, appliances, etc… it also means these folks will spend less on actives and eating out, so those service providers will need less folks.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

Feb-27-13 7:26 AM

Another hit will be state and local governments. This affects everyone, less money earned means less taxes paid which mean more cuts to services by local employers like teachers, construction, and fireman and policemen. It will affect almost everyone.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JosephOtto

Feb-27-13 7:30 AM

"Very compassionate of you, Mr. Otto. It doesn't mean a whole lot until it happens to you." I guess you missed that first sentence in my second paragraph. And OF COURSE I care about something that affects me personally. I care about the children in Ethiopia as well but my own loved ones are a bit more important to me.

And since you missed my larger point, I'll repeat it: NONE of this is necessary. Furthermore, this won't be the last of it. We'll have a crisis about the continuing budget resolution in a few weeks and then another for the next debt ceiling a few months after that.

And since you probably missed another point I made, I'll repeat that as well: no, I don't hold Obama blameless in this. But since its been a team effort all the way I'm not going to lay the blame solely at his feet, much as I'm sure you would like me to.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Feb-27-13 7:39 AM

Shammy - "He probably should have thrown the term "mushroom cloud", in there, somewhere. That's prompted people to fall for hustles, in the past."

That's what Obama has been doing in threatening all sorts of people (like Mr. Otto here) with their jobs if they don't convince their congressman to let Obama have his tax increases. If you look at all the cuts that he says will happen if the government has to cut 2% from what they spend, then you wonder where the other 98% of government spending goes. And remember this - Obama has discretion on what gets cut. So calling his words "threats" is exactly correct.

Notice that his vacation spending is not on the cut list.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Feb-27-13 7:55 AM

Let's not forget these are "cuts" as only the govt could define them. The are reducimg the rate of growth. The budgets next year will not be smaller than this year's. The defense budget which we hear so much about will still grow 10% over the next five years.

14 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

andy33

Feb-27-13 8:01 AM

I agree with Gavin...let it happen!

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-27-13 8:04 AM

So, this proves President Obama is a liar.

President Obama asked for a balanced approach that included tax increases and budget cuts.

The tax increases were passed.

Now, the President resists the budget cuts.

13 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Feb-27-13 8:20 AM

I agree. Let it happen. Perhaps then the voters will elect officials with some backbone for actually tackling our burgeoning budget. The Cost of Government Day last year was 7/5 compared with 2008 of 6/23 (bad enough, right?). The cost to fund the fed govt for one day is appx 10.5-11 billion. So, the "massive cuts" sequestration brings is about a week. Uh, sounds like much ado about nothing. If we actually wanted to cut our budget and reliance on borrowing (about 4.5-5 billion a day) we would stop with baseline budgeting to begin with. But, as long as we have career pols, we will never see a sensible approach to budgeting.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-27-13 8:30 AM

Rinker: "Either he (Obama) is lying to us, or he is the worst administrator in the history of the world." Actually both.

Now Obama is running around the country in campaigh mode (does he know any other way?) trying to scare everyone that the world is ending and many critical services will be cut etc etc. Are you telling me that in any budget you can't cut 2-3% fat? And guess what? It's those nasty old Republicans who won't compromise and let spending continue rising and allow more taxing. I remember when a politician wanting higher taxes was a bad thing. Now it seems to be the accepted norm.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Feb-27-13 8:41 AM

As a nation we are borrowing 40% of what we spend and we can't possibly allow budget "cuts" of 2.2% and we haven't started spending money on Obamacare yet. But the President who helped kick the can down the road and actually proposed this plan, can jump on his airplane and ride around the country complaining that it is the Repubicans in Congress fault, even though they have passed a budget every year that has been ignored and have passed three bills with plans to avoid this situation that have been ignored by the Democrat controlled Senate. Sounds like real leadership by the President to me. (SARCASM for all you libs out there)

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-27-13 9:08 AM

This is why the republicans are is such disarray. They stink and are the biggest liars in DC. They can't even embrace the drastic cuts in the sequester. They are the sniveling cowards they always were.

0 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-27-13 9:35 AM

Chuckles: "This is why the republicans are is such disarray. They stink and are the biggest liars in DC. They can't even embrace the drastic cuts in the sequester. They are the sniveling cowards they always were."

These are the kind of statements that show you have no credibility. If you want to talk liars and stinking, your party should be looking in the mirror. btw, I favor the cuts and much more.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-27-13 10:07 AM

The Republicans in Congress, they have distance themselves from the sequester and honest so has the right. It is all Obama's fault so what happens after the sequester takes effect they had nothing to do with it. The Republicans don't want to be blamed for cuts that damage the economy as predicted. They are corwards.

0 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-27-13 10:07 AM

Sorry that is cowards not corwards.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 49 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web