"Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a $110 billion plan called the American Family Economic Protection Act, to delay for 10 months the $1.2 trillion of automatic spending cuts for defense and domestic programs scheduled to begin March 1. Several print reports this morning note that while the plan drew immediate praise from the White House, it also drew strong opposition from Republicans and is unlikely to bring lawmakers and the Administration any closer to agreement on how to avoid the spending cuts."


obama has just destroyed any hope anyone had of ever digging out of their hole by saddling every American with $86,000 in new debt, and then the radicals dems have the audacity to propose SPENDING EVEN MORE billions that we do not have and calling it the American Family Economic Protection Act.

They just destroyed the 'American Family', and this is the horsesh!t they propose???

HOW FUC$!NG INSANE ARE THEY??????????????

Liberals don't think the deficit matters. It's that simple. And for an unkown short-run they are right - but most of them are wealthy and will no longer be in office long after the shit hits the fan.

QuakerOats;1389893 wrote:"Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a $110 billion plan called the American Family Economic Protection Act, to delay for 10 months the $1.2 trillion of automatic spending cuts for defense and domestic programs scheduled to begin March 1. Several print reports this morning note that while the plan drew immediate praise from the White House, it also drew strong opposition from Republicans and is unlikely to bring lawmakers and the Administration any closer to agreement on how to avoid the spending cuts."


obama has just destroyed any hope anyone had of ever digging out of their hole by saddling every American with $86,000 in new debt, and then the radicals dems have the audacity to propose SPENDING EVEN MORE billions that we do not have and calling it the American Family Economic Protection Act.

They just destroyed the 'American Family', and this is the horsesh!t they propose???

HOW FUC$!NG INSANE ARE THEY??????????????

I must have missed the report where they said it was for more spending.
I read it was for $50B in cuts, and $50B in tax revenue.

The $55 billion in spending cuts are evenly divided between defense and non-defense programs. It would save $27.5 billion by eliminating agricultural subsidies and another $27.5 billion though defense cuts.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/283209-senate-dems-unveil-110b-sequester-replacement-bill

And, tell me chief, what would you do to stop the meat axe to the budget that comes March 1?

A paltry 5% reduction is not remotely close to a "meat axe". People call that, in the real world, a very typical budgeted task that non-gubmit employees have to achieve in order to keep their job, in the real world.

Those bloated govt budgets probably need to be cut 15-20% before any real pain worse than bruised egos begins to set in.

ccrunner609;1389963 wrote:revenue, revenue, revenue......dont misinterpret that for tax, tax, tax.

Takes both to get us out of the problem.

I'm more willing to chip in, and have more things cut.

ptown_trojans_1;1389972 wrote:Takes both to get us out of the problem.

I'm more willing to chip in, and have more things cut.

When spending gets cut and the Feds guarantee that tax increases will be applied strictly to debt, then I'll be willing to chip in.

But since real spending cuts aren't likely and - in fact - the track record points to a likelihood of spending increases, the Feds had better stay the hell out of my wallet.

ptown_trojans_1;1389972 wrote: I'm more willing to chip in, and have more things cut.

I'd be cool with you (and others) chipping in more. I'm sure as hell paying more than my fair share.

But in all honesty revenues are not the problem. The problem is 100% spending, going back to Bush and accelerating under Obama. And also overpromising and undercollecting for SS and Medicare.

It really is generational theft. I don't begrudge retirees for hanging on to their so-called "promised" benefits, but the reality is they neither earned nor paid for those benefits, so why does that burden fall on the working class?

gut;1389971 wrote:A paltry 5% reduction is not remotely close to a "meat axe". People call that, in the real world, a very typical budgeted task that non-gubmit employees have to achieve in order to keep their job, in the real world.

Those bloated govt budgets probably need to be cut 15-20% before any real pain worse than bruised egos begins to set in.

Agreed. We could slash 10% and the pain wouldn't be so bad. I'm rooting for sequestration to take place.

ptown_trojans_1;1389972 wrote:Takes both to get us out of the problem.

I'm more willing to chip in, and have more things cut.

I'm willing to chip in more AFTER we balance the budget.

sleeper;1390010 wrote:Agreed. We could slash 10% and the pain wouldn't be so bad. I'm rooting for sequestration to take place.

As am I. It's what, like an 8% cut to the military budget? Realistically we need to bring defense spending down 30-40%, relatively speaking, over the next decade. I tend to think spending double what the next highest country does should be more than sufficient. Raise the bar to justify military action and then don't worry about ridiculous spending to try to minimize collateral damage (a noble concept, if you can afford it which we can't).

gut;1390036 wrote:As am I. It's what, like an 8% cut to the military budget? Realistically we need to bring defense spending down 30-40%, relatively speaking, over the next decade. I tend to think spending double what the next highest country does should be more than sufficient. Raise the bar to justify military action and then don't worry about ridiculous spending to try to minimize collateral damage (a noble concept, if you can afford it which we can't).

Yeah, 10% is nice. However, the problem with this mess is every single program is getting a 6%-8% reduction, even if the reduction is mission critical.
Cuts are needed, but this is a meat axe, when a scalpel is needed.
Everything gets a cut, so even if it is logistics support to operations in Afghanistan, it gets a cut. If it is IT infrastructure to cyber security, it gets a cut. If it is services related to improving the Medicare system, it gets a cut.

Want to secure the border? Oh sorry, it gets a cut.
Want to solve an FBI murder, oh sorry that office gets a cut.
Want to issue a survey to repair a bridge, oh sorry that gets a cut.

It is blanket cuts that have no reason behind them.
Bottom line, it is a horrible way to solve the problem.


Oh, and less workers, because of furloughs, will be working in the intelligence community to defend this country.
So, now, instead of following up on North Korea, they will be working a week on and a week off.
Or the workers translating peices that may help stop an attack, will be reduced as well.

So, saying you want it happen, you have no understanding of the disruption it may have.

They will cut some of the fat. The most important projects will still get done and maybe all of them will get done more efficiently.

sleeper;1390089 wrote:They will cut some of the fat. The most important projects will still get done and maybe all of them will get done more efficiently.

No, not if every department is getting cut.
Every budget line is getting axed.

Only 3 things are off limits: military pay, SS, and Medicare.

ptown_trojans_1;1390110 wrote:No, not if every department is getting cut.
Every budget line is getting axed.

I have a very hard time believing there isn't an easy 6-8% fat in every program. Every one. You're buying-in to a mentality of a culture that simply doesn't comprehend waste. I don't think you realize how laughable some of these comments are to those of us in the business world who have been living lean for years.

Reductions aren't "easy" or pleasant - I've never seen anyone come to the table voluntarily with more cuts. The story is always "this program is critical, there's no room to cut", and I would guess such a mentality is multiplied by 10 when it comes to the gubmit and its lobbyists.

Even then, as sleeper said they'll figure out how to work their budgets and move money around.

gut;1390144 wrote:I don't think you realize how laughable some of these comments are to those of us in the business world who have been living lean for years.

I always marvel over that when I hear the crying from our public employee counterparts.

Our company has a lean department specifically designed to find efficiencies in our manufacturing environment. We are required to include departmental CIP's (cost improvement projects) in our annual budgets and are a significant part of our annual reviews.

From those CIP proposals, we set-up workflow improvement meetings (kaizen events) to discuss, plan, and implement those improvements.

It's a painful process but necessary if we are to continue to be profitable and stay in business.

If we don't hit our targets, we don't get bonuses or - worse - no annual cost of living adjustments.

Federal workers and public employee unions would implode under those guidelines.

gut;1390144 wrote:I have a very hard time believing there isn't an easy 6-8% fat in every program. Every one. You're buying-in to a mentality of a culture that simply doesn't comprehend waste. I don't think you realize how laughable some of these comments are to those of us in the business world who have been living lean for years.

Reductions aren't "easy" or pleasant - I've never seen anyone come to the table voluntarily with more cuts. The story is always "this program is critical, there's no room to cut", and I would guess such a mentality is multiplied by 10 when it comes to the gubmit and its lobbyists.

Even then, as sleeper said they'll figure out how to work their budgets and move money around.

believer;1390188 wrote:I always marvel over that when I hear the crying from our public employee counterparts.

Our company has a lean department specifically designed to find efficiencies in our manufacturing environment. We are required to include departmental CIP's (cost improvement projects) in our annual budgets and are a significant part of our annual reviews.

From those CIP proposals, we set-up workflow improvement meetings (kaizen events) to discuss, plan, and implement those improvements.

It's a painful process but necessary if we are to continue to be profitable and stay in business.

If we don't hit our targets, we don't get bonuses or - worse - no annual cost of living adjustments.

Federal workers and public employee unions would implode under those guidelines.

I'm not saying cuts are needed, they are.
However, this idea that cuts are indiscriminate makes no logical sense. Sure, bad programs are getting the cut they needed, but so are solid good programs.
We talk on the one hand of securing the border, but these cuts will actually limit how we can do that. Is that worth it?

Or, we talk about withdrawing our forces, but one agency to do that is Transportation Command, but kind of hard to do that with a 6-8% cut, when actually they need a bump in funds to get us out of the areas we are in.

We talk of making sure Iran and North Korea do not advance the nukes, but then on the other, cut programs that assist in the monitoring or analysis of those programs.
I have a friend that works at one of the ICs on work in Asia, and they will have to go on leave and stop the work in April due to these cuts.

Yes, agencies need to learn to do more with less. However, this idea that everyone gets an automatic cut makes actual decision making on how to implement programs extremely difficult and or impossible.

Oh, and adding to these is the fact that we are still under a CR, and the fact that agencies are still working with a FY12 budget. And if there is no budget by March 27, there is a Government shutdown, or if they extend the CR till the end of the FY, there is a huge gap in funding. So, it creates a double whammy for agencies.

So, I'll take the Army Corp of Engineers. Currently, in order to replace a bridge or build a new levee, they need Congressional funds in the FY13 budget. But, since we are under a CR, they cannot award that money to do the work. Add to that, they have to cut out 6-8% of construction and restoration programs. May not seem much, but in dredging and repairs various harbors and damns, it adds up. So, not only do they have to stop awarding new work, but cut down on what they area already doing.
This creates a backlog of projects. Meanwhile, our dams, levees, bridges, etc. continue to degrade and possible collapse.
And we cannot dredge our harbors so we can help our economy by allowing the new supertankers to take port on the east coast.

All I am saying is, if you dive into this, it is one of the dumbest things that our Congress ever agreed to.
It does more harm than good overall.

ptown_trojans_1;1390268 wrote: All I am saying is, if you dive into this, it is one of the dumbest things that our Congress ever agreed to.
It does more harm than good overall.

Like I was saying, we've heard this all before. I don't buy for one second that even "good" programs don't have an easy 6-8% fat to trim. The bloat is obviously rampant - yours reflects a mentality of a Beltway where a 4% increase annual increase is viewed as a cut.

You just can't call it a meat clever or indiscriminate when the total cut amounts to a scratch. People in the private sector get budgets cut 5% year after year after year. Laughable.

gut;1390274 wrote:Like I was saying, we've heard this all before. I don't buy for one second that even "good" programs don't have an easy 6-8% fat to trim. The bloat is obviously rampant - yours reflects a mentality of a Beltway where a 4% increase annual increase is viewed as a cut.

You just can't call it a meat clever or indiscriminate when the total cut amounts to a scratch. People in the private sector get budgets cut 5% year after year after year. Laughable.

Quite true. I will never understand the mentality (helped by a boot licking leftist media) that when the politicians and bureaucrats are expecting an 8% increase in their budgets but only receive 5%, they can lay claim to a 3% "budget cut".

In the private sector if we ask for 8 but only get 3 we celebrate.

Exactly. No one is saying this won't hurt but I think you'll be presently surprised how much more efficient government starts being run when budget cuts are looming.

believer;1390276 wrote: In the private sector if we ask for 8 but only get 3 we celebrate.

And I think that's a lot of the motivation for the rhetoric. Typical game where everyone fights tooth and nail for every last penny, but that should in no way be confused with the actual state of the situation.

But clearly there's a perverse mentality that's arisen after operating under at least 12 years of nothing remotely resembling budget constraint. Businesses in that time have leaned out in 2 pretty bad recessions while the Beltway has clipped along with annual increases averaging 4-5% (and outpacing inflation).

Fortunately I think (hope) enough Repubs have woken-up to this reality that there's so much fat accumulated that you can indeed START with a "meat clever" to chop-off a boatload of grizzle. Additional more targeted cuts will be needed to begin to get this mess under control.

believer;1390276 wrote:Quite true. I will never understand the mentality (helped by a boot licking leftist media)

To be fair, it's mostly driven by whichever party is in charge. Harry Reid, after all, is a "reformed" financial terrorist. Mainly Dems/Repubs only seem to care about spending when they don't dictate who gets the pork. Like most of the voters, spending other people's money and money you don't have is only wrong when you aren't a beneficiary.

believer;1390188 wrote:I always marvel over that when I hear the crying from our public employee counterparts.

Our company has a lean department specifically designed to find efficiencies in our manufacturing environment. We are required to include departmental CIP's (cost improvement projects) in our annual budgets and are a significant part of our annual reviews.

From those CIP proposals, we set-up workflow improvement meetings (kaizen events) to discuss, plan, and implement those improvements.

It's a painful process but necessary if we are to continue to be profitable and stay in business.

If we don't hit our targets, we don't get bonuses or - worse - no annual cost of living adjustments.

Federal workers and public employee unions would implode under those guidelines.

Should be repeated, but it will fall on deaf ears.

I have no idea why public sector workers think that they are immune to the current economic situation that will continue indefinitely as of our poor decision in November. How about no raises for 5 years? Or salary cuts - ranging upwards to 100% for millions of Americans. Why do these dimwits think we have a reduced tax base? Is math not taught in public schools any more?

Manhattan Buckeye;1390367 wrote:I have no idea why public sector workers think that they are immune to the current economic situation that will continue indefinitely as of our poor decision in November. How about no raises for 5 years? Or salary cuts - ranging upwards to 100% for millions of Americans. Why do these dimwits think we have a reduced tax base? Is math not taught in public schools any more?

We're talking government-run institutions topped with a heaping helping of NEA here.

BHO is having a great weekend.

He got some golf lessons from Butch Harmon (Tiger Wood's former, and Phil Mickelson's current coach) yesterday, and today he is playing his first round ever with Tiger Woods according to reports.

Not a bad way to spend a few days I guess if you have the time.

Alright, whatever guys.
Just do not complain if it takes longer to get through the airport, or if flights are delayed.
And, don't complain if that bridge continues to rot.
And, don't complain about securing the border.

I get the arguments, but the Government is not the private sector, you cannot make the argument that you are making.
It is completly different.

You want to cut the budget, fine, I'm all for it, but this way is so stupid and makes no sense.