Furlough Thread

[OBGibby]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

Not that i care for your comments, but my reason for what I said is because things are not being done @ washington, there are too many peoples that are in it because they think their right, in the end nothing agree. Prime example spending cuts then people turn around and blame Obama for something he's not fully in control of.

Words have meaning, and words in the past have led to awful consequences for our fellow man. To be charitable, I suspect your emotion and quickness on the keyboard created an unfortunate quote where you took comfort in the notion of dictatorship - a concept completely at odds with the country you have sworn to defend.

A repudiation of your comment would have been warranted by you, but alas, you seem to completely miss the offensiveness of your original comment.

 

[Boghie]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

Words have meaning, and words in the past have led to awful consequences for our fellow man. To be charitable, I suspect your emotion and quickness on the keyboard created an unfortunate quote where you took comfort in the notion of dictatorship - a concept completely at odds with the country you have sworn to defend.

A repudiation of your comment would have been warranted by you, but alas, you seem to completely miss the offensiveness of your original comment.

By the way, every dictatorship I can think of has gone through this kind of fiscal mess when the music stops. It obviously is not limited to pure dictatorships - but it does appear to be related to statist entities that have too much control over their peons.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

RMI...

If the cut was budgeted for the full year it would be the 9% cut. But, because many of the agencies continued spending as if it wasn't going to happen over the first half of the year then the cuts are to be budgeted over six months rather than twelve.

There are some of us who will see no sequester. Why? Because their agencies budgeted the sequester from the initiation of their fiscal year onward. Also, I think you will find that those agencies are better run, have fewer people, and didn't hire as much fat during the 'Time of the Credit Card' as the rest.

My guess is that those of us facing a sequester are in agencies who have no real budget process, really haven't automated their processes, and had poor leadership who hired lots of fat during the Sizzlin' Times. Another major reason for the Sequester Hollering is that these agencies do not want to accept the budget cuts coming their way. Normal full throated gubmint hollering. Sing 'Every Penny is Sacred' to Monty Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred' and you get the idea.

Finally, just watch Social Security and Medicare spending. They are no longer funding the sizzle. They want their chunk of fat now. And, our politicians have be spending their borrowed money on groceries and vacations. Our tax base is nearly triple that of 1980 - but, bro, we ain't got a dime. The return on those investments has been consumed by day to day spending; leaving nuthin for the bond holders (Social Security). Soon enough we will have an episode on "American Greed" all about it...

All good points, but how does that make a 22 day furlough go from a 8.5% pay cut to a 20% pay cut?

Next year, if they continue this idiocy, then it would be one day every pay period for the whole year. THAT would be a 20% pay cut.

 

[Kaufmanrider]

Here is how I see this stage playing out.

Rep's give in to some changes in tax laws/loopholes. Not really a tax increase? And the Pres and Dem's give in on how much we contribute to FER's and the chained CPI for Social Security.

Then come Oct 1, with the new budget, or lack there of, we do it all over again.

Damn, I can't wait for Jan 11, 2014.

 

[Boghie]

RMI:

Here is my math:

22 furlough days without pay out of 260 paid work days (52 x 5, assuming you get paid for holidays - salary right?)

(260-22)/260 * 100 = 91.5% or an 8.5% cut, not 20%

What am I missing?

Also, lower pay means lower taxes (maybe due to a bracket shift down too) which means the net cut may be less than 8.5%

Thanks for helping!!

Here is the skinny...

The Sequestration was intended to be a FY2013 and onward mandated spending cut. The Dolts in Congress and the Administration - and our Dolts in charge of our Agencies - couldn't stomach the 10% cut across the board that should have taken place for FY2013 spending. Then again, they seem too embarrassed to even sign off on a budget (for the last half decade or so) so out of whack that maybe they didn't want to publicize their fiasco. Regardless, we were supposed to take our draconian cuts starting October 1, 2012.

But, our ancient regime of failed lawyers who have never ran a business or budgeted anything got scared of a draconian cut of 10% so they dithered. They dithered in Fiscal Cliff I and Fiscal Cliff II. And, they dithered again in January. They kicked the can halfway down the field. Congress thought they might get some fiscal restraint and the President thought he could just badger Congress by sinking aircraft carriers and letting disease run rampant like 'The Stand'. So, after dealing with this Administration, Congress figures the only way to enforce a little restraint on the credit card purchases is to just allow the dumb bunny cuts. Best they can do. And, it sure doesn't feel like the American public is getting all lathered up about it either. Going to happen.

But, because our dithering CongressCritters and President could not decide on smarter cuts and because they couldn't initiate the dumb bunny cuts in a timely fashion, the cuts will take place in full in half the time. Thus, it is your math that is failing:

We are not talking about 52 weeks x 5 days = 260 days.
We are talking: 26 weeks x 5 days = 130 days
And actually: 22 weeks x 5 days = 110 days (because the unions forced the agencies to give 30 days notice)

So here goes...

(110-22)/110 * 100 = 80.0% or an 20% cut

There it is...

And, if the dumb @ssess in Congress or the Administration or the Agencies or the Unions further delay the cuts than our salaries will be cut harder when they come.

Winter is coming

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

Excellent post and thank you for clarifying the 20% cut in pay information I was seeing.

It is a 20% cut for the rest of the year, but in the end, it will be an 8.5% pay cut for the year.

I am not trying to minimize the pain civilians will feel for the rest of the year due to the absolute stupidity of Congress and the President. I am sorry that this is happening to yall.

I have suggested that there are plenty of military people on shore duty (very similar to civilian work) that could be furloughed too and save some money... that would also spread the pain.

I truly believe that the furlough is being used as a political tool since I know there are more efficient ways to save money in all departments, but I am just a krill in a sea of blue whales...

 

[burrocrat]

RMI:



Here is the skinny...

The Sequestration was intended to be a FY2013 and onward mandated spending cut. The Dolts in Congress and the Administration - and our Dolts in charge of our Agencies - couldn't stomach the 10% cut across the board that should have taken place for FY2013 spending. Then again, they seem too embarrassed to even sign off on a budget (for the last half decade or so) so out of whack that maybe they didn't want to publicize their fiasco. Regardless, we were supposed to take our draconian cuts starting October 1, 2012.

But, our ancient regime of failed lawyers who have never ran a business or budgeted anything got scared of a draconian cut of 10% so they dithered. They dithered in Fiscal Cliff I and Fiscal Cliff II. And, they dithered again in January. They kicked the can halfway down the field. Congress thought they might get some fiscal restraint and the President thought he could just badger Congress by sinking aircraft carriers and letting disease run rampant like 'The Stand'. So, after dealing with this Administration, Congress figures the only way to enforce a little restraint on the credit card purchases is to just allow the dumb bunny cuts. Best they can do. And, it sure doesn't feel like the American public is getting all lathered up about it either. Going to happen.

But, because our dithering CongressCritters and President could not decide on smarter cuts and because they couldn't initiate the dumb bunny cuts in a timely fashion, the cuts will take place in full in half the time. Thus, it is your math that is failing:

We are not talking about 52 weeks x 5 days = 260 days.
We are talking: 26 weeks x 5 days = 130 days
And actually: 22 weeks x 5 days = 110 days (because the unions forced the agencies to give 30 days notice)

So here goes...

(110-22)/110 * 100 = 80.0% or an 20% cut

There it is...

And, if the dumb @ssess in Congress or the Administration or the Agencies or the Unions further delay the cuts than our salaries will be cut harder when they come.

Winter is coming

+1 the stand, you're on it right there.

'that wasn't any act of god, that was an act of pure human fu*kery'.

 

[OBGibby]

"f the Senate had followed the law and produced normal-order budgets, we
wouldn't have the sequestration at all. The budget resolutions of both chambers
would have gone to conference committee, which would have hashed out the
differences. Obama would have signed the budgets, and we would have avoided
nearly four years of crisis funding for the federal government. Reid and Obama
haven't used normal order because they want to keep using continuing resolutions
as a means to keep the inflated FY2010 spending levels as the baseline going
forward, and especially because they want to keep House Republicans from having
a real voice on spending and budgeting." --blogger Ed Morrissey

 

[OBGibby]

.....Winter is coming

"Sometimes the only thing that keeps me from being pessimistic is knowing that
the when the country collapses, the people most responsible will die out in the
first winter." --humorist Frank Fleming

 

[Boghie]

"f the Senate had followed the law and produced normal-order budgets, we
wouldn't have the sequestration at all. The budget resolutions of both chambers
would have gone to conference committee, which would have hashed out the
differences. Obama would have signed the budgets, and we would have avoided
nearly four years of crisis funding for the federal government. Reid and Obama
haven't used normal order because they want to keep using continuing resolutions
as a means to keep the inflated FY2010 spending levels as the baseline going
forward, and especially because they want to keep House Republicans from having
a real voice on spending and budgeting." --blogger Ed Morrissey

Sometimes you have to laugh...

Anyway, you know what is funny about Morrissey's correct statement... It was a great plan - for a while. The big spenders could rack up the debt without the embarrassment of writing it down and voting on it. I mean, could you go to your banker with spending exceeding revenue by 40%. The banker would probably call your outstanding loans in. Could you see Senator Reid trying to justify year after year of deficits with the word 'Trillion' following them. I want to see the President's speech using the 'T' word. Basically, the spenders didn't want to discuss the 'T'urd in the living room.

But now - yuk, yuk...

All that bloat built into 'the system' wants more mullah and wants that mullah inflation and population adjusted. And, that don't happen with Continuing Resolutions. So, they spent to their last dime; built a lot of useless structure and bureaucracies and fed the middle class with free bread and big circuses. Now all this fat has a funding line and the bureaucrats are screaming for da'cash.

No money bro, no money...

I can't really see the GenXers digging deep to pay for this. Can you???

 

[WorkFE]

And, if the dumb @ssess in Congress or the Administration or the Agencies or the Unions further delay the cuts than our salaries will be cut harder when they come.

Nicely done.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

It is a 20% cut for the rest of the year, but in the end, it will be an 8.5% pay cut for the year.

Correction; rest of the FISCAL year. No one is really talking about it, but if you believe that the furloughs will last all 22 weeks... why would you believe it will stop at the end of this fiscal year? We COULD be furloughed 22 days (or more? ) every year for the next 10 (or more?) years...

BIG CORRECTION (For several people): There is no such thing as 'tax bracket drop'. You don't really move from tax brackets to tax brackets. That terminology is for people that don't understand how income taxes are calculated. You only expand into/retract from tax brackets.

***** INCOME TAX IS CALCULATED MARGINALLY *****

If you don't know what that means, you likely won't understand from a single post but basically:
For 2013, the 25% bracket starts at 36,251
Person A that has a taxable income of $36,250, Person B a taxable income of $36,251...
They both pay the SAME amount of taxes.
10% on their first 8,925 (which is $893),
and 15% on the next $27,325 (15% bracket upper limit, $36,250 minus $8,925) which is 4099.
Then Person B pays 25% income tax on $1... which is 25 cents.

So they both pay $4992 in income tax. Big difference than taking Person A and doing 36250 * 15% = 5438 and Person B doing 36251 * 25% = 9062.75

 

[burrocrat]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

you're right, both still pay $4992, and both still think it's too much for what they and everybody else gets in return.

so now what to do? raise taxes more or spend less? i think that should be left up to those actually paying taxes, not those deciding how much to spend. who begs to differ? and on what ground do you stand?

 

[Birchtree]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

I'll vote for the chump that gives me the biggest earned income tax credit - I don't like to work but I do vote.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

I'll vote for the chump that gives me the biggest earned income tax credit - I don't like to work but I do vote.

Wow, never would have thought you would have voted for him, but I guess since you like QE it makes sense...

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

Re: Furlough Thread (HURL ALERT !)

you're right, both still pay $4992, and both still think it's too much for what they and everybody else gets in return.

so now what to do? raise taxes more or spend less? i think that should be left up to those actually paying taxes, not those deciding how much to spend. who begs to differ? and on what ground do you stand?

I mentioned it as it relates to Furloughs because people were talking about possible 'dropping tax brackets'. And while you will pay less taxes, its not nearly as drastic as people were implying.

I mean its like trying to make the argument, which I've heard several times before, that a reason for not paying off a student loan is because the interest is tax deductible. Why pay thousands in interest and get hundreds back when you could pay $0 and get $0 back?? Not having the expense is always better than having a deductible expense (all else equal)

 

[Kaufmanrider]

Correction; rest of the FISCAL year. No one is really talking about it, but if you believe that the furloughs will last all 22 weeks... why would you believe it will stop at the end of this fiscal year? We COULD be furloughed 22 days (or more? ) every year for the next 10 (or more?) years...

How true. I happened to meet a few California state employees. They have been having furlough days for the past few years
Granted only three to five. I guess the good is they get COLA's.

 

[PLANO]

[video=youtube;KsFalAqhen4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KsFalAqhen4[/video]

 

[rktect1]

This is a trainwreck of a thread that i hope to have time to read later today.

i hope everybody here voted.

we are all to blame for this crapola we are in and will be in for years to come.

 

[Weather]

I'm in the DoD, Air Force. Just received an email -- we'll be furloughed 1 day/wk starting 1 May.