Jump to content

Menu

Well, it is official


Parrothead
 Share

Recommended Posts

while it sounds political, to me, it's not. Flat out, if you create a problem, overspend, destroy someone's property, injure someone, etc. you should fix that problem yourself. Pay your debt, repair their property, pay for their medical, or whatever else restitution is needed.

 

With that as my viewpoint, the first cuts should begin in congress. Then see how long it takes them to fix it :glare:

 

I would amend that to say the first cuts should be in Congress and in the president's budget. The exhorbitant perks need to stop immediately for everyone in a government office.

 

Here's where I'd start. Everyone who flies, flies on a common carrier. Period. If it's the president, his staff can arrange a charter Leer jet, use Space A, or use the Sikorsky (if the old fleet is still in use, haven't seen an update) for shorter jogs. Any of those is way less expensive than the Boeing which costs $80,000 an hour in fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:grouphug: and prayers for all of you facing pay cuts. We haven't heard anything about dh's job yet. He is a civilian contractor under the military. Since he's not DoD, he won't face cuts right away, but who knows what will happen with the contract he's on. I'm hopeful that his position will be considered essential and he won't lose his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while it sounds political, to me, it's not. Flat out, if you create a problem, overspend, destroy someone's property, injure someone, etc. you should fix that problem yourself. Pay your debt, repair their property, pay for their medical, or whatever else restitution is needed.

 

With that as my viewpoint, the first cuts should begin in congress. Then see how long it takes them to fix it :glare:

 

 

:iagree:

 

Cut their salaries first. Then see how much work they get done.

 

DH just got his first check after a pay cut. Three dollars an hour less. I had to take his pay stubs to SSA today and the lady looked at me and at them and back at me. I could tell she was shocked because she told me she was sorry about the pay cut.

 

:grouphug: I'm sorry for everyone facing this because a bunch of politicians can't get their heads out of their rears. They need a big dose of reality - what it's like to live pay check to pay check, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would amend that to say the first cuts should be in Congress and in the president's budget. The exhorbitant perks need to stop immediately for everyone in a government office.

 

 

YES, how dare they start cutting military and government salaries of hard workers while they sit on their plush, fat a$$es "working" barely 40 hours a week. Seriously, how DARE they?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I'm with you. Dh and I aren't sure how we're going to take a cut and stay above water. Contrary to what the media says about govt employees, we don't make 6 figures- far from it. We live in a small house, drive old cars, and don't have any real luxuries (no fancy cell phones, never go to the movies, etc). He's a DOD employee and works side by side with the Air Force.

I'm especially shocked with the hate/nastiness being directed at the govt workers by the general public right now. I don't want to read any of the comment sections to any online news stories and I especially don't want to listen to any talk radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What really kills me is that the sequester was designed to be a deterrent. Some in congress have actually gone on record to say that it was "designed to be stupid". The thinking was that the sequestration cuts are so painful - and yes, so stupid - that congress would take action to avoid sequestration at all costs. Instead, the deterrent that congress itself created failed to move congress towards taking appropriate action. When you really stop and think about what this says about our congress, it's mind-blowing. :blink:

 

 

The cuts should have been to the paychecks of the members of Congress. That would have guaranteed a solution.

 

Maybe we should cut subsidies to oil and gas companies? Or perhaps the billions in foreign aid for one year until we get our own budget under control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The cuts should have been to the paychecks of the members of Congress. That would have guaranteed a solution.

 

Maybe we should cut subsidies to oil and gas companies? Or perhaps the billions in foreign aid for one year until we get our own budget under control?

 

How about subsidies to corn production? That affects everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add - we got a home equity loan several years ago when we refinanced. Used a bit for home repairs, etc. and have been paying it off. Had paid enough to have a decent chunk of equity loan "available" ...then found out this week it was frozen a while ago. So there goes the idea of using THAT. Shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're in this boat, too...as are a great number of our friends. 90,000 people in my state will be furloughed, and they are projecting up to 170,000 jobs lost in our state as a result. I've had to avoid a lot of the "news" about all of this, because it just makes me want to spit nails. Nothing like being a political football. I'm a bit scared for my active duty friends who are overseas...not because of their pay, but because their support is what is being cut. No one is talking about the fact that the 20% cut also means a 20% increase in the amount of time to get certain jobs done...like...20% more time to get ships scheduled for refueling, ammo, food and supplies delivered...and praying nothing breaks in the meantime. Because, we all know what happens when you keep running a car without doing the maintenance, right? This is just all so stupid. I'm sick of people saying it's not a big deal (looking at percentages), when it's not the percentage of the cut, it's where it's being made. I'm sick of people making comments about soldiers, sailors, airmen & Marines "not needing to be over there anyway, so who cares if their support services are cut." (Yeah, someone actually said that). UGH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DH is a government employee who has worked about 70 hrs a week all of 2013 so far. Including federal holidays and weekends he has had 2 days off this whole year (one when DS had an outpatient surgery and one when I had the flu). Somehow by April he is supposed to take a regular work day off? I don't know how that will happen, since he has worked 7 days a week for 2 months. I'm sure he will still have to work and just not get paid for it.

 

I am pretty frustrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of today, we've lost 1/3 of dh's take home pay due to the crappy job the gov't is doing on the budget and the small cut he took to take the day job.

 

And even if they get the budget under control the parts they cut today won't be coming back. So in the last 9 weeks dh has lost every pay increase he has had in the past 10 years. The down side of that is the gov't didn't take our bills when they took our ability to pay them.

 

Anyone else in this boat with me?

 

Me! We're at 40% with 33% not coming back even after sequestration. I think we're down to what DH made during training, 13 years ago. Based upon something you said a while ago, I think our DH's may have the same job. Or close to it- wearing green?

 

We paid off our van 4 months ago and that's how we'll survive. Otherwise I don't know. I know DH said he can see the shock in the eyes of the guys at work. We talked tonight before he went in and I think we'll be ok, but it'll be very tough. We've been comfortable for so long and now it's back to college years budgeting.

 

I just wish it had been an across the board cut. Every one could've had 2% taken off and not harmed anyone. And don't get me started on the fact that DH's agency is getting a significant amount cut more than some others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh everyone! I am so so sorry! I can very much relate. My dh has been furloughed for years now. We will get our first full paycheck in August since 2009. We used up our savings (after a 15 percent haircut on our check) and we had to really cut back.

 

There were some good things that came from the furloughs though: we got to spend more time together, we learned to be more self reliant (canning, couponing, living without extras), and we appreciate what we have so much more now.

 

I am so so so angry right now. This is all a big game of chicken the executive and legislative branches are playing and the workers are paying the price while our judicial brance will likely sit back and pronounce it all legal (as has happened in CA). NOthing good will come of this. As was proven in CA this is just going to cause more anger and division amongst the American citizenry and more pain to the economy until the citizens cry uncle and practically beg to pay more taxes, as did the Californians, just to stop the bleeding of the economy. Goodbye recession recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sorry for everyone affected by this. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. While we're not affect yet, we could be. James Bond will hit 17 years in the military this month and there's been talk of pushing out people instead of promoting them and if they have less than 20 years, they aren't entitled to retirement benefits. If this happens, I'm going to completely freak out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to get too political per board rules - but then, this is a political issue.

 

It was Obama that proposed sequestration to force Congress' hand. Here's one link; there's lots more info out there.

 

http://www.washingto...7c314_blog.html

 

Well, I read somewhere yesterday that certain members of Congress want the sequestration to go into effect so that the budget process starts with the lower numbers. Not Obama, Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I read somewhere yesterday that certain members of Congress want the sequestration to go into effect so that the budget process starts with the lower numbers. Not Obama, Congress.

May I just say (at the risk of being political) that I was furious when Congress took a vacation in February with the sequestration looming? Obviously they had no will to work this out, to compromise.

 

NPR aired an interview with an older Congressman who served decades ago and is back in DC. He said that Congress has reduced their number of working hours. In the old days, there were more committee meetings, more opportunities to meet with fellow members and thus understand why the needs of someone from Arizona are different than someone from New Jersey.

 

I usually do not usually wistfully reflect on days of yore, but I do opine for a return to civility and discussion. The WTM Boards could serve as a model. (Most of the time! ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I just say (at the risk of being political) that I was furious when Congress took a vacation in February with the sequestration looming? Obviously they had no will to work this out, to compromise.

 

NPR aired an interview with an older Congressman who served decades ago and is back in DC. He said that Congress has reduced their number of working hours. In the old days, there were more committee meetings, more opportunities to meet with fellow members and thus understand why the needs of someone from Arizona are different than someone from New Jersey.

 

I usually do not usually wistfully reflect on days of yore, but I do opine for a return to civility and discussion. The WTM Boards could serve as a model. (Most of the time! ;) )

 

Yes, I heard that interview too. I wonder why it is okay for their hours to have decreased while their pay has steadily risen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to freak out, you'll be joining an existing club should it happen. They'll help your husband transition and find his next career.

 

Sign me up for the freak out camp. My husband has put his entire life (minus a few years in the middle) into the military. He's just a few years short of 20. If he isn't able to retire, there goes our healthcare. That is a HUGE deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sign me up for the freak out camp. My husband has put his entire life (minus a few years in the middle) into the military. He's just a few years short of 20. If he isn't able to retire, there goes our healthcare. That is a HUGE deal.

 

The people getting early retirement will receive benefits:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=31&sid=3082255

 

But, I agree that it is a huge deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I had not seen that. Thanks for the link. I didn't especially like the "could be eligible" and the "slightly reduced" quotes.

 

 

My understanding only, not documented fact:

 

I think the "slightly reduced" is mainly referring to the percentage of your pay you receive as your pension. The percentage it is reduced will depend upon how many years you have in.

 

The "could be" eligible is because not everyone will be eligible to get out. Some branches are short officers/certain MOSes. Those people won't be eligible to retire early, even if they wanted to. The last time there was a drawdown we knew a bunch of LTs who were paid to get out early, but we knew a bunch more who were forced to serve out their full ROTC commitment, even though they wanted to get out because it depends on the needs of the military (as usual).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The cuts should have been to the paychecks of the members of Congress. That would have guaranteed a solution.

 

 

 

While this is satisfying, many (most ?) members of Congress are independently wealthy, and don't depend on their paychecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is satisfying, many (most ?) members of Congress are independently wealthy, and don't depend on their paychecks.

 

 

 

Even better, they shouldn't draw a salary at all then. They should serve as they used to - as a duty and a privilege - not because they wanted to make a career of it. If they didn't draw a salary think of the money the government could save. Give them healthcare and retirement benefits but no salary. They also shouldn't get kickbacks from lobbyists either. That should weed out the greedy to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Me! We're at 40% with 33% not coming back even after sequestration. I think we're down to what DH made during training, 13 years ago. Based upon something you said a while ago, I think our DH's may have the same job. Or close to it- wearing green?

 

We paid off our van 4 months ago and that's how we'll survive. Otherwise I don't know. I know DH said he can see the shock in the eyes of the guys at work. We talked tonight before he went in and I think we'll be ok, but it'll be very tough. We've been comfortable for so long and now it's back to college years budgeting.

 

I just wish it had been an across the board cut. Every one could've had 2% taken off and not harmed anyone. And don't get me started on the fact that DH's agency is getting a significant amount cut more than some others.

 

 

Yes, dh wears green.

 

I thought about it this morning and he said they are down to 8 hours and trying to go to 4 shifts. They forget there was a reason those people work 10 hours a day. It is going to be a logistics mightmare.

 

PM me if you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yeah. Those of us in private industy have seen mass layoffs since about 1994. Along about then our pensions and retirement medical bennies disappeared and were replaced with 401K and the suggestion that we save enough to fund medical should we stop working before 65, when Medicare kicks in. We adapted. You will too.

 

 

Did those of you in private industry jump out of airplanes, run 5 miles a day and get shot at for a living? I don't think you understand the physical and mental toll it takes on people. Our country depends upon a *volunteer* force. Many people stay in *only* because of the benefits offered. If there was no pension or medical care, we would have walked a long time ago. There would be no incentive for our family to endure what it has or for dh to endure what he has. Then what? Would you rather have conscription back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even better, they shouldn't draw a salary at all then. They should serve as they used to - as a duty and a privilege - not because they wanted to make a career of it. If they didn't draw a salary think of the money the government could save. Give them healthcare and retirement benefits but no salary. They also shouldn't get kickbacks from lobbyists either. That should weed out the greedy to some extent.

 

 

But would it? Congress does seem to serve as a stepping stone into new and lucrative careers. Jim DeMint comes to mind. He was earning $174K as a senator but will probably earn what his predecessor made as the president of the Heritage Foundation (a bit over a million). Salaries like the latter are defended as part of the free market. Yet it seems that not everyone has the same influence within the "free" market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time there was a drawdown we knew a bunch of LTs who were paid to get out early, but we knew a bunch more who were forced to serve out their full ROTC commitment, even though they wanted to get out because it depends on the needs of the military (as usual).

 

 

The LT's a year ahead of DH were allowed to get out after only serving 2 years on a 4 year commitment, but many of the ones in his year group got stuck on stop-loss (DH had to serve an extra year) :cursing: No, I'm not bitter at all about that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would it? Congress does seem to serve as a stepping stone into new and lucrative careers. Jim DeMint comes to mind. He was earning $174K as a senator but will probably earn what his predecessor made as the president of the Heritage Foundation (a bit over a million). Salaries like the latter are defended as part of the free market. Yet it seems that not everyone has the same influence within the "free" market.

 

 

I found it nauseating to read of a former speaker claiming Congress couldn't take pay cuts and should get a raise to protect the 'dignity' of serving. And this person is HUGELY wealthy and so is the spouse. This person has ZERO clue about the 'real' world.

 

The military SERVES the public. Congress serves themselves and their own selfish interests. I'm a huge fan of term limits in addition to no salary.

 

I loathe career politicians. Their party does not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating no pension or medical care. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just telling you that the other half of the working world has been in this boat a long, long time. And while they watch wages and bennies disappear, the taxes keep rising. People are choosing between medical care and taxes this year.

 

I am in favor of protecting and improving conditions for workers of all sorts. The people whose taxes need to go up and whose pay could be cut are people like my friend the defense contractor who makes over $350k for writing software from his home office. But, that is not what the sequestration will do.

 

Yes, private industry goes to dangerous spots -- you might have read that much industry has been re-located to overseas? Well, the tech support comes from here and they don't get five star hotels. You travel on your own time -- you aren't compensated for anything more than your meals. Even in Germany, dh is told what hours he can safely exit the local office. I'll leave it to your imagination or experience what he has to do to stay safe in Asian back streets. Women are discouraged from taking these jobs -- they are front up told to expact rape if taking a cab alone.

 

AI really don't know what you are suggesting about 5 star hotels. The last time my dh traveled to an Asian country he slept in a tent in a field and showered outside. Which Asian countries are you talking about that are THAT dangerous? My dh and co-workers (including women) have traveled many Asian countries without those types of issues.

 

We have lived in Germany and rarely encountered problems with crime or locals. I don't know what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loathe career politicians. Their party does not matter.

 

Again, this is an easy knee-jerk reaction, but I'd rather have a career politician than someone who views Congress as a stepping stone to a highly-paid lobbyist position.

 

Moreover, last year, the freshman class of newly-elected Congressmen was one of the largest in a long time, and we're still stuck in the mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Even better, they shouldn't draw a salary at all then. They should serve as they used to - as a duty and a privilege - not because they wanted to make a career of it. If they didn't draw a salary think of the money the government could save. Give them healthcare and retirement benefits but no salary. They also shouldn't get kickbacks from lobbyists either. That should weed out the greedy to some extent.

 

 

 

But then, wouldn't only the privileged be able to serve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're escaping for now (maybe later), but we still remember the 1995-1996 furlough. I don't remember exactly how many days, but we were both home for several weeks and eventually got paid retroactively (even though we didn't do any work for them, how silly). It was very hard on some of the people who were working for me at the time because of the delay.

 

At least they've wised up, and are doing one day a week this time versus several weeks. It doesn't sound like being paid retroactively is going to happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it nauseating to read of a former speaker claiming Congress couldn't take pay cuts and should get a raise to protect the 'dignity' of serving. And this person is HUGELY wealthy and so is the spouse. This person has ZERO clue about the 'real' world.

 

 

There are three lady politicians from California that makes me change the local news channel when they appear on TV. It is not good for your blood pressure to listen to them talk. Her home is on an expensive zip code anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I read somewhere yesterday that certain members of Congress want the sequestration to go into effect so that the budget process starts with the lower numbers. Not Obama, Congress.

 

Why would this be a bad thing? If there is no money to sustain budget increases, why should there be budget increases?

 

Why can't they use zero based budgeting instead of baseline based budgeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to freak out, you'll be joining an existing club should it happen. They'll help your husband transition and find his next career.

 

I know this, but after 17 years of serious sacrifice, injuries, being shot at, bombed, watching his friends get killed, getting several concussions and having serious PTSD, he should d*mn well be able to retire with full benefits. If he wanted out and they wanted to keep him, he'd have no choice. Three years short of retirement, no one should be forced out. They've earned it.

 

 

Sign me up for the freak out camp. My husband has put his entire life (minus a few years in the middle) into the military. He's just a few years short of 20. If he isn't able to retire, there goes our healthcare. That is a HUGE deal.

 

Yes! Yes, it is!

 

The people getting early retirement will receive benefits:

http://www.federalne...=31&sid=3082255

 

But, I agree that it is a huge deal.

 

Oh, we know there will be some things, but he has a contract with the US military that makes very specific promises if he holds up his end of the bargain (which he has), and to push someone out, who has done nothing wrong, is, IMO, a breach of contract on their end. There are loads of people looking at retirement and are getting very, very worried. JB is up for W3 this year and he's not expecting to get it because he's "too close" to retirement. Scuttlebutt is that they want to give those promotions to people who have been in 15 years or less and push out others since they only have a few years to go. Unfair!

 

Did those of you in private industry jump out of airplanes, run 5 miles a day and get shot at for a living? I don't think you understand the physical and mental toll it takes on people. Our country depends upon a *volunteer* force. Many people stay in *only* because of the benefits offered. If there was no pension or medical care, we would have walked a long time ago. There would be no incentive for our family to endure what it has or for dh to endure what he has. Then what? Would you rather have conscription back?

 

 

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: Heaven help us if we go to conscription. Thee would be outrage galore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is an easy knee-jerk reaction, but I'd rather have a career politician than someone who views Congress as a stepping stone to a highly-paid lobbyist position.

 

Moreover, last year, the freshman class of newly-elected Congressmen was one of the largest in a long time, and we're still stuck in the mud.

 

 

Not knee jerk at all. It's based on years and years of watching politicians promise the moon and stars to get into office and then never do any work - they just keep campaigning endlessly. They should go and do a term and then go home. Period.

 

 

Edited to add: It used to be that people had other jobs before they were Senators and Congressmen and Presidents and Governors, et al. And when they finished their term they went back to said job. The privileged already do serve. Are there any poor working class people in Congress at the moment? Aren't they all pretty much quite wealthy? I know mine were quite well off before they ever got elected - lawyers who had their own lucrative law careers before serving. Only the privileged can afford to run for higher office these days. It's been that way for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I'm with you. Dh and I aren't sure how we're going to take a cut and stay above water. Contrary to what the media says about govt employees, we don't make 6 figures- far from it. We live in a small house, drive old cars, and don't have any real luxuries (no fancy cell phones, never go to the movies, etc). He's a DOD employee and works side by side with the Air Force.

I'm especially shocked with the hate/nastiness being directed at the govt workers by the general public right now. I don't want to read any of the comment sections to any online news stories and I especially don't want to listen to any talk radio.

 

 

I'm in the same boat. Just this mornning, I discovered this common misconception about gov't employees not working much while making loads of money. I don't know where people get that idea - maybe they're friends with top level employees. All of the civilian gov't employees in Dh's branch that I know IRL, including the top boss at Dh's job, make only 5 figures.

 

Dh got official word in Feb. that he'd lose 1 day of work per week indefinitely; a 20% pay cut. As it was, we couldn't afford any "extras" at all. We don't have any debt except the house, but I just don't know what else we can do. We don't go to the movies, don't eat out, own our old cars that have been waiting to be fixed, can't save for college for the kids, can't make needed repairs on the house, etc. Things were already tight. The pay freeze of the last 4 years coupled with inflation and increasing costs has already hurt. I think I'll be looking for a job.

 

ETA: The way the sequestration is written, it gives them the green light for more cuts. Dh said they could cut people on an indefinite basis entirely - layoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...