PDA

View Full Version : Oooooo: 800,000 PENTAGON LAYOFFS




green73
02-20-2013, 11:50 AM
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/3VnINBPd6TepQkgeUGr7xg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDI7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/images/US_AHTTP_AP_FINANCIALTIMES/a2dfdf750c95f806290f6a706700814a_original.jpg
800,000 PENTAGON LAYOFFS (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/283981-pentagon-tells-congress-it-will-furlough-800k-civilian-workforce)
http://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif (http://www.drudgereport.com/)


The Pentagon notified Congress on Wednesday it will be furloughing its civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into effect March 1.

Defense officials have warned lawmakers that sequestration will devastate the military and lead to a hollow force, but the civilian furloughs will be one of the first major impacts felt by the across-the-board cuts.

The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the country. Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, one per week, through the end of the fiscal year in September. The employees would receive 30 days notice before being furloughed.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/283981-pentagon-tells-congress-it-will-furlough-800k-civilian-workforce

CaptUSA
02-20-2013, 11:54 AM
Man, they REALLLLLY want to hold onto their increases!

oyarde
02-20-2013, 11:56 AM
Meh , one day per week.

green73
02-20-2013, 11:57 AM
Meh , one day per week.

This will devastate the country!

VoluntaryAmerican
02-20-2013, 11:58 AM
LOL. 800k employees is a joke... out of 3 million?

Austerity is coming, we told you so.

kathy88
02-20-2013, 11:59 AM
I call it a good start.

CaptUSA
02-20-2013, 11:59 AM
Meh , one day per week.Yeah, what's with the headline? Even the pentagon didn't call them "layoffs" and they're the ones pretending like a slower budget increase is going to cause havoc. Nice job of Drudge doing the work for the MIC.

VoluntaryAmerican
02-20-2013, 12:00 PM
I call it a good start.

How many of those parasites will find jobs in other Departments?

Count on it.

green73
02-20-2013, 12:02 PM
Odds of this happening: 0.00%.

oyarde
02-20-2013, 12:03 PM
This will devastate the country!

I am on salary , usually work 8 1/2 hrs a day without a break, I would be heartbroken :) if I got another day off .I would just get a part time job .LOL

oyarde
02-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Odds of this happening: 0.00%. I am hoping , but yeah , see your point....

DGambler
02-20-2013, 12:04 PM
This sounds awesome to me!!!!!

Wait, the Pentagon employs 800,000???? WTF?! That's larger than any company except for WalMart.

VoluntaryAmerican
02-20-2013, 12:07 PM
Largest Employers in the World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17429786

"And the top spot is taken by the US Department of Defense with a cool 3.2 million-strong workforce."

P.S. Walmart is 3rd.

green73
02-20-2013, 12:11 PM
Largest Employers in the World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17429786

"And the top spot is taken by the US Department of Defense with a cool 3.2 million-strong workforce."

P.S. Walmart is 3rd.

I thought the UK health care monstrosity was 3rd. I've heard that more than once. Still, 5th is crazy.

HOLLYWOOD
02-20-2013, 12:13 PM
http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wwii-propaganda-posters-500-30.jpg

Brian4Liberty
02-20-2013, 12:15 PM
Meh , one day per week.

And the money will probably be deferred until later. No cost savings at all, just free vacation.

oyarde
02-20-2013, 12:17 PM
And the money will probably be deferred until later. No cost savings at all, just free vacation.

Yep, my thoughts as well.

Matthew5
02-20-2013, 12:18 PM
So they get a three day weekend for the next 7 months?

HOLLYWOOD
02-20-2013, 12:19 PM
And the money will probably be deferred until later. No cost savings at all, just free vacation.Yes, but frankly, you know this is all just DRUDGE/DOD propaganda... because doing the cost estimates, DOD civilian contract employees costs substantially less than active duty DOD personnel when you're factoring in all the costs. Yet the 800K layoffs are the civilian portion?

LOL...what a joke of a Press Junket

pacodever
02-20-2013, 12:20 PM
Sounds great! Active duty personnel would still be required to work and would just pick up the slack one day a week.

While on active duty, we had do this numerous times when civilian contracts lapsed for whatever reason. A little more watch and work load, but extremely manageable. There is not much you can't do in 4 days that you can in 5... unless you are a DoD Civilian. The effect on operational commands, especially deployed, would be slight.

Article doesn't mention how much this would save.

AGRP
02-20-2013, 12:21 PM
Meh , one day per week.

Nice. This is like the Ryan plan....well slow down the rate of the budget increase...30 years from now.

VBRonPaulFan
02-20-2013, 01:40 PM
This is just the military grandstanding for more cash. The actual sequestration cuts are only going to be ~10% of the pentagon budget.

acptulsa
02-20-2013, 01:42 PM
This is just the military grandstanding for more cash. The actual sequestration cuts are only going to be ~10% of the pentagon budget.

Grandstanding from the outfit that's whining that they can't afford to refuel existing carriers when they refuse to stop building the next generation of carriers--the ones designed to replace carriers that are old, but are still superior to anything anyone else has?

Nah. Couldn't be.

opal
02-20-2013, 02:35 PM
So they get a three day weekend for the next 7 months?

why would they do it that way.. this is supposed to make them feel the pain - it will be rotating T-W-TH days off, if it happens at all.

Koz
02-20-2013, 03:25 PM
Yep, sounds like a good start to me.

tod evans
02-20-2013, 03:32 PM
Fire the whole lot of 'em...

I'd never notice..........Promise!

Keith and stuff
02-20-2013, 03:35 PM
So 800,000 might be a whole bunch of 3 day weekends. Wow, The Pentagon thinks a whole bunch of extra vacations for government workers is going to get me to call President Obama and ask him to reverse his sequestration plan? Sorry, it's not worth picking up a phone for.

devil21
02-20-2013, 03:40 PM
Time for all the "sky is falling!!11!1!!" calls of doom from the gov't tit suckers if even a small amount of their punch bowl is taken away.

libertygrl
02-20-2013, 04:03 PM
I call it a good start.

Especially if it's most of the Zionists. But I seriously doubt that... :rolleyes:

psi2941
02-20-2013, 04:13 PM
lol from the title, i thought the layoffs will be from people who work at the pentagon. My first thought was 800k people work at the pentagon, there's no way that building can hold 800k people.

Zippyjuan
02-20-2013, 06:41 PM
This is just the military grandstanding for more cash. The actual sequestration cuts are only going to be ~10% of the pentagon budget.

Less than that. Their budget this year is over $700 billion and the total amount mentioned to be sequestered is $81 billion- unless the vast majority of that is coming from the DOD.

Found a partial breakdown- will post chart for easy viewing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-cuts-in-one-graph/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/sequester-chart.jpg


A quick reminder of what each of these categories encompasses:
■Non-exempt defense discretionary funding sees a 9.4 percent spending reduction. This covers things, such as keeping military bases open, paying salaries and research and development.
■Non-exempt mandatory defense spending sees the biggest cut of 10 percent.
■Non-exempt, non-defense discretionary funding gets cut by 8.2 percent. This includes anything that Congress has to authorize each year, so programs like Head Start and AIDS assistance.
■Non-exempt, non-defense mandatory programs see a 7.6 percent reduction. There’s not, however, much left to cut in this category because the large mandatory programs were largely shielded from the cuts. More on that right below.
■Medicare is, well, Medicare – the health insurance program for America’s seniors. The sequester specifically limited Medicare cuts to 2 percent of the program’s budget.

Keep in mind, certain programs are exempt from the sequester completely. Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Social Security, for example, do not get touched at all. And within the programs listed above, there are specific, smaller programs that get carved out as untouchable too.

angelatc
02-20-2013, 06:51 PM
What baffles me is that the GOP seems to be trying to blame the Democrats for the spending cuts.


Uhm....I thought they were supposed to be FOR spending cuts?

TNforPaul45
02-20-2013, 06:55 PM
Unfortunately, my girlfriend is a civilian worker for the DOD. They are actually looking at 1 day a week furlough (contrary to some media reports). this is going to wipe out about $10,000 of her already limited income, and she is panicking.

Again, like the USPS/Saturday thing, this is like saying "we need to cure the cancer eating our body alive, but lets worry about this runny nose first."

Zippyjuan
02-20-2013, 07:00 PM
What baffles me is that the GOP seems to be trying to blame the Democrats for the spending cuts.


Uhm....I thought they were supposed to be FOR spending cuts?

Both sides want to blame each other- that is true of everything in Congress these days. Democrats want tax increases along with budget cuts to help reduce the deficit. Republicans only want budget cuts. If they allow the sequester to happen, they basically get what they want. But they can't be seen as favoring mandatory cuts so they are pretending to be against them happening.

Keith and stuff
02-20-2013, 07:01 PM
What baffles me is that the GOP seems to be trying to blame the Democrats for the spending cuts.


Uhm....I thought they were supposed to be FOR spending cuts?

I fully support these slight decreases in spending increases that Obama and many in the GOP worked so hard to make happen. Spending will still massively increase, but this is a good step. Maybe next year all of the DOD employees with be cut to 3 days a week.

I'd be shocked if at least 99% of the non-government paid regular posters on this forum didn't think this was a great idea! Thank you Obama! Thank you Thomas Massie!

Zippyjuan
02-20-2013, 07:30 PM
My prediction: no deal before March 1st. But the cuts won't actually happen until the end of the month (and are spread out over the rest of the year) by which time they may pass an "emergency spending bill" to "save the country" from the costs of these cuts.

LibForestPaul
02-20-2013, 07:38 PM
If you don't give us little piggies some pork, we going stiff your gradma on her prescription and she's gonna die. Spending cuts = dead grannies. R u for dead grandmamas or for increased spending. Your choice America.

Matthew5
02-20-2013, 07:49 PM
Unfortunately, my girlfriend is a civilian worker for the DOD. They are actually looking at 1 day a week furlough (contrary to some media reports). this is going to wipe out about $10,000 of her already limited income, and she is panicking.

Again, like the USPS/Saturday thing, this is like saying "we need to cure the cancer eating our body alive, but lets worry about this runny nose first."

She makes $455 a day? How is that "limited" income?

Keith and stuff
02-20-2013, 07:53 PM
She makes $455 a day? How is that "limited" income?

Good point. A 6 figure government salary is plenty. Heck, some government workers make $20,000 to $30,000 in benefits on top of their pay.

Zippyjuan
02-20-2013, 07:57 PM
If she is losing $10,000 a year by losing a day a week (20% of a normal work week), she must be earning $50,000 a year now. That is above the national average. (last figure I saw put median household income at about $44k a year).

pcosmar
02-20-2013, 08:02 PM
Uhm....I thought they were supposed to be FOR spending cuts?

Whatever made you think that?

TheTexan
02-20-2013, 08:04 PM
Odds of this happening: 0.00%.

Yup. Can will be kicked until there is no longer a can to kick.

Origanalist
02-20-2013, 08:15 PM
Whatever made you think that?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

Matthew5
02-20-2013, 09:05 PM
If she is losing $10,000 a year by losing a day a week (20% of a normal work week), she must be earning $50,000 a year now. That is above the national average. (last figure I saw put median household income at about $44k a year).

Actually a loss of $10,000 over a 22 day furlough would be $455 a day.

$455 X 5 days = $2275 a week...x 52 weeks would be $118,300.

TNforPaul45
02-20-2013, 09:46 PM
My God, ya'll, the stupid it makes my brain hurt.

Ok so she will lose about $645 of pre-tax income for every two weeks, which is 2 days of furlough (one day a week), from April 1st to sometime in September.

Over the 6 months of the furlough, that would be about $7740 pre-tax.

Is that a devastating amount? No. Is that $10,000? No. Is it enough to make a single girl who is paying for a house by herself, a car, and other bills worry about how tight money will be? Yes. Could she go out on the street corner, or get a job for those three days, or sell crack, or rob banks, to supplement the income? Yeah I suppose, but that would be some stupid shit.

And this is STILL not the point I was trying to make.

We are $16 Trillion in debt, Congress is d*cking around and causing an automatic $46 Billion be cut from DOD (lots of that from the civilian workers, these are secretaries, media specialists, IT experts, web designers, copy editors, etc.), and some of ya'll are trying to figure out how much this one person is making a year so you can say "Oh well she makes a lot it wont hurt."

Never heard a group of people sound like a bunch of dang Liberals in my entire life. "She's rich, she can afford to lose more."

Disgusting.



Actually a loss of $10,000 over a 22 day furlough would be $455 a day.

$455 X 5 days = $2275 a week...x 52 weeks would be $118,300.

Matthew5
02-20-2013, 09:56 PM
My God, ya'll, the stupid it makes my brain hurt...

Calm down, please. Just going off your original number. The way you phrased it made it sound like not working for 22 days would be a $10,000 loss. Using those numbers, it's a bit of hyperbole to say she would be panicking. Thanks for the clarification though.

:)

idiom
02-20-2013, 09:58 PM
My God, ya'll, the stupid it makes my brain hurt.

Ok so she will lose about $645 of pre-tax income for every two weeks, which is 2 days of furlough (one day a week), from April 1st to sometime in September.

Over the 6 months of the furlough, that would be about $7740 pre-tax.

Is that a devastating amount? No. Is that $10,000? No. Is it enough to make a single girl who is paying for a house by herself, a car, and other bills worry about how tight money will be? Yes. Could she go out on the street corner, or get a job for those three days, or sell crack, or rob banks, to supplement the income? Yeah I suppose, but that would be some stupid shit.

And this is STILL not the point I was trying to make.

We are $16 Trillion in debt, Congress is d*cking around and causing an automatic $46 Billion be cut from DOD (lots of that from the civilian workers, these are secretaries, media specialists, IT experts, web designers, copy editors, etc.), and some of ya'll are trying to figure out how much this one person is making a year so you can say "Oh well she makes a lot it wont hurt."

Never heard a group of people sound like a bunch of dang Liberals in my entire life. "She's rich, she can afford to lose more."

Disgusting.

She is a microcosm of the Country. Her 'GDP' is going to be cut by 10% and her debt is suddenly going to be a problem.

Much better now than later.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-20-2013, 10:35 PM
uh does this include everyone in the military?

Jackie Moon
02-21-2013, 04:51 AM
They are already paid well so I'm not worried about them becoming homeless, but I actually do feel somewhat for the employees.

I feel like they're being used in this scare tactic to say "look at these people that will get hurt if we allow any defense cuts".

It's like when government says that any cuts means less teachers and firefighters.

Rather than cut things like those new tanks that the Army said it didn't need, they want the face of the cuts to be people so there's an emotional reaction.

I agree that even having 800,000 employees is ridiculous and they need to be reduced, but I'd use Ron Paul's plan and do it through attrition.

tod evans
02-21-2013, 04:59 AM
How about using the neck-tie, pant suit rule?

If over the course of the past year an employee of the federal government has worn either to work then they are deemed "unproductive" and summarily fired with no benefits...

Aeroneous
02-21-2013, 05:15 AM
There is not much you can't do in 4 days that you can in 5... unless you are a DoD Civilian. The effect on operational commands, especially deployed, would be slight.

I think in 6 years I only met maybe 1 DOD Civilian that was actually worth their salary, and by that I just mean that the quality and amount of work she did would easily warrant that much money in a private sector role. Quite a few DOD Civilian positions are created by Officers and E-9s just so that they can have a GS gig doing the same thing when they retire. It was like clockwork... a Chief would be coming up for retirement and magically the squadron was in need of a new Resource Advisor or Unit Program Manager. We would get along just fine without these positions until upcoming retirements took place and suddenly these positions were "mission essential."

I was lectured for speaking out against ridiculously wasteful spending on more than one occasion. The American public always hears about wasteful spending, but if they had any real idea how much money is wasted they would start rioting.