USA Politics

Sequestration cut the Department of Defense budget .. which I am perfectly fine with. That I am not sure cut is really accurate for that or anything else with sequestration. Not sure if it was an actual cut or a reduction from the scheduled 7% annual increase
 
It was a reduction. Glad you're good with it...I thought it was a good thing overall too. Some bullshit posturing from both sides, but it was a fair cutback level.
 
Then they would need a new job? Make that 148 (or less), the city of McKinney, TX decided to fund the traffic controllers themselves because they feel the airport is important for local business. If other cities get enough benefit from these airports (which are all muni airports), they can fund them themselves.
 
Of course, a lot of cities get money for such projects from federal or state assistance funds. But hey, I think that's a good way to do it. If the towers weren't needed, then they probably should close. I'm all for a robust and strong federal government, but I don't want it to be bigger than it has to be.
 
If those cuts hadn't been made then those towers wouldn't have to be shut down, but here is what I'm wondering. Would other, worse things have happened instead?
 
The FAA has a fleet of 46 planes, send 10s of millions on travel and contractors. Maybe some of that could have been cut. But I am not sure how many of these towers are really essential to air safety.
 
I dunno. Check out the link inside the link I posted, to the BLS .gov report (Bureau of Labor Statistics). I'm thinking that must be accurate.
 
Well... both. If you look at it strictly from the point that Obama took office, that total job growth would be correct. If you were looking at it from the 'recession low point', then the other number would be correct. Its only a difference of jobs created from a certain point in time. I was just pointing out that, if you are looking for information based on when Obama took office, it seems to be pretty clear there.
 
Here's a really, really interesting fact: the president has almost no control over the economy. The Congress does. So you might say that Congress lost or created those jobs. Of course, anything Congress does takes 2 years to kick in, because the economy isn't a dog that sits up and plays fetch whenever someone spends money.

The 2009 stimulus worked, and it took until 2011 for that to become evident. That it took so long explains why the Dems lost the house in 2010, and goes a long way towards explaining why Obama won re-election in 2012 in a landslide.
 
I have to be honest, I liked Obama because of what I perceived. I don't know if this is true, and if it isn't, what great spin machines Obama's camp was, but when I was out of work in 2010 I was taking IT training from the unemployment office, but it took almost all of my 6 months. At the end of that, I got my "Obama extension", which gave me another 3 months to find a job. I was scared shitless that I wouldn't have a job or unemployment to live off of, but that extension saved my life. A month and a half into it, I found a job. For me, the whole system worked: I was able to pay my bills, get training in a new industry, and find a great career. I'm not ashamed to admit, I voted for Obama just because of that. It was a personal thing; I felt that something he did directly made my life better.

I know the POTUS doesn't have any control over the economy or making legislation, but in my head, he was responsible for it. From what Loosey said, I must be glad that it was 2010 that I got laid off and not a year or two sooner!

I guess the 'figure head' thing is far much easier to look at than a mass of legislators. You know? It's far easier to blame or applaud one man than several hundred, so Obama gets the recognition, both positive and negative.
 
bearfan said:
Back to the FAA and sequester . Politico has a good article about this

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...lds-no-quester-for-travelers-89483.html?hp=t1
Click to expand...
That is a well written and accurate article. You haven't heard of any defense contractors closing the doors yet due to the sequestration either. The half-built hulk of the Gerald Ford hasn't been sold at a Chinese scrapyard. The bitching about the sequester was just...stupid.

There's a ton of money to be cut out of the military in the USA. There's even more to be found if both sides will sit down and let someone neutral attack the budget.
 
There is a ton of money to be cut everywhere. The best thing about the sequester is that people have seen the sky is not falling because of cuts. A huge thing they could do is tie annual spending increases to inflation instead of the usual 7%
 
Yeah, I think so. I also think it's possible for entitlement programs to be maintained at a current level with some tweaks that will save money. Of course, defense becomes the main target for cuts then, and try explaining that to the American people.
 
I am all for a strong defense, but I do think it could be had for less. Partly though diplomacy and encouraging EU countries, Japan, etc to pick up a bit more of the load, but mainly through a thorough examination of what type of defense force the US needs today. There are still many relics of the Cold War in US defense. I know I have mentioned this before, but the base closing commission in early 1990s was a great approach and we should do that again, not just with bases, but with weapons systems.

I think these commissions can work of they have a fairly narrow focus and credible people on the commission. The problem with the Simpson Bowles commission is that it had such a broad mandate, it was bound to piss everyone off. On the domestic front, similar commissions can be set up for unemployment insurance, food stamps, heating subsidies, farm subsidies, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top