TSA agents could be furloughed under sequester.

[mistap]

Really? You are compairing someone who gets up and goes to work everyday, and earns a paycheck, to a "Wealfare Queen"?

Not at all. My dad worked there for 40+ and my sister's been there for 20.

I'm just saying what I think NIMBY means, albeit in more colorful language.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes there vote counts too. But the company I work for is actually mandated in the Constitution of the USA.

ETA: I did say I would be willing to take a pay cut if they cut some spend elseware. But agian this isn't a spending cut issue. All they need to do is approve a spending plan that is even close to last years budget and it would keep all federal employees from being furloughed.

You left out the part about borrowing $1.5+ trillion from China or the Fed and handing your children and grandchildren the bill.

What good is a budget when it's $1.5+ trillion over revenue? I could care less about the piece of paper called a budget until the spending is equal to or less than revenue. The federal government is broke. They don't have the money to cut your paycheck without borrowing it. Who are they borrowing it from and who is going to be stuck paying the bill? Would this point actually get through if government employees had to go around robbing little children of their piggybanks every payday?

 

[miguel]

Just another reason why the airlines should be running their own security again, and probably their own air traffic control also.

This!

 

[ClydeB]

I would personally rather see the people who get paid to "not work" get sequestered instead. But we all know that's not going to happen. Except for those occasional 'computer glitches'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EAIhj4nLSk

Could be because the gov fears the people who have nothing left to lose. Who knows.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Yes there vote counts too. But the company I work for is actually mandated in the Constitution of the USA.

Care to explain?

 

[SideArmed]

Care to explain?

Sure, Read Section 8 here. Actually just start at the top of the page.

 

[mrjarrell]

Sequestration is not even a drop in the bucket. I say let it ride. And then start making real cuts, not "cuts" in projected spending increases. If it affects some peoples jobs, then that's just too bad. I feel sorry for them, but the cuts have to come if there's going to be a country left for our children.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Sure, Read Section 8 here. Actually just start at the top of the page.

Don't see anything about a government sponsored company.

I'm assuming you mean the Navy but I'd be interested in learning more about your role.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Sequestration is not even a drop in the bucket. I say let it ride. And then start making real cuts, not "cuts" in projected spending increases. If it affects some peoples jobs, then that's just too bad. I feel sorry for them, but the cuts have to come if there's going to be a country left for our children.

It's all fear mongering. Then the government can keep you safe from the fear they artificial create.

It's a terrific marketing ploy used to get the people to surrender more power to government and has been used for thousands of years with the same results. Government grows bigger, more powerful. Becomes tyrannical, collapses either from the outside or the inside and we start again.....

 

[Big Muddy]

Mandate?

Sure, Read Section 8 here. Actually just start at the top of the page.

Sorry SideArmed, but I think that is a stretch.....
I do not assume that because we build bridges (the accepted constitutional authority for which has been "Post Roads"- also in Section 8), that my company is constitutionally 'mandated'.
Falling under the constitutional authority of Congress, does not guarantee anyone's employment......nor give them cover from fiscal oversight.

 

[SideArmed]

Don't see anything about a government sponsored company.

I'm assuming you mean the Navy but I'd be interested in learning more about your role.

I'm sorry, should I have put the "my company" comment in purple for you? Sorry I don't use purple, if you are old enough to be on the internet unsupervised then you should be big enough to recognize a bit of tongue and cheek.

And, Why? Why do I need to explain my role at my place of employment to you? Who are you and what is your role in your current position?

Sorry SideArmed, but I think that is a stretch.....
I do not assume that because we build bridges (the accepted constitutional authority for which has been "Post Roads"- also in Section 8), that my company is constitutionally 'mandated'.
Falling under the constitutional authority of Congress, does not guarantee anyone's employment......nor give them cover from fiscal oversight.

Really? Ok I'll break it down. Your company contracts with the local/state/federal governments to build roads. It is laid out that Congress has the power to lay out taxes and collect that money to build and maintain said roads. Whom they choose to task with that is up to them. Should they choose a Private company (you) to do that, that's their prerogative. So long as the taxes to do so are uniform across the nation. So you work for a private company whom holds a contract with the Gov, not the Government.

Now moving further down the list, Congress is charged with laying out taxes (again uniformly across the states) to "provide and maintain a Navy". So by virtue of the founding documents of this great nation, the leaders of this country HAVE to maintain a Navy. Since my job is directly FOR the Federal Government under what is Constitutionally mandated, in essence the "company" (again I don't use purple) I work for is protected by the Constitution.

I will agree with you though, that my individual employment with said "company", is not. But I never said that it was. And when did I ever say that anyone in the GOV was above having fiscal oversight? I am pretty sure I said there is too much spending (some of it fraudulently) in the GOV. They need to make real cuts (even if that means a pay cut for me), not furlough the entire government work force. Why don't they take an actual look at the rampant wasteful spending going on through out all the departments instead of just focusing on defense spending?...... Oh that's right, because our boss has a soft spot for people whom suck on the teet of the federal government while not providing anything in return.

 

[Prometheus]

The budget isn't worth the paper it's printed on if there isn't sufficient funds to cover it. As usual, every recipient of those funds will demand those cuts be made to someone else and not themselves.

This. x100

Government employees have been virtually exempted from the economic downtown.

Government can't keep spending like there is no tomorrow, increasing salaries for workers and allowing carte blanche overtime. I've got a friend whose an air marshal, pretty much all he wants.

The piper will be paid eventually. Be it going from 40 hours to 32 or going from 40 hours to nothing.

Everything needs to be either drastically slashed or completely eliminated.

Welfare, payrolls, work force size, military, EVERYTHING.

We could completely eliminate all federal welfare programs = it wouldn't balance the budget.

We could eliminate the entire department of defense = it wouldn't balance the budget.

It doesn't matter which is your sacred cow, you can't fix the problem without cutting BOTH.

This more than just obamaMess 2013. This is the past decade of a COMPLETELY out of control democrat AND republican 2 party debacle.

Bohner is just as guilty as obama, if not more so, he controls the purse strings right now. They should both be sitting in Leavenworth right now and all he wants to do is visit the whitehouse and bend oover for barry.

 

[cobber]

This situation isn't because of spending cuts. This situation is because our President (CEO of the GOV workforce), is unable to get a budget passed through congress. Simply put: It's because our boss and his team of mis-managers cant figure out how to run a business.

I know there is a lot more to it than that, but essentially he has been kicking the can down the road for over 4 years, signing one continuing resolution after another. And now we are having to pay the price for that.

This is going to affect a whole lot more than just "our backyard".

FIFY

 

[funeralweb]

These chumps (everyone in D.C.) agreed to this as a possible outcome, so I say let the wave crash. The more we kick this issue down the road, the worse it is going to be.

I agree. It's going to hurt but it's never going to hurt less than right now. Let's hit bottom and get it over with.