BajaNomad - border delays due to sequestration

border delays due to sequestration

Pages: 1 2

willardguy - 2-28-2013 at 06:53 PM

aw geeeze, check this out.

Expect delays at the Mexican - US border due to "Sequestration"
"Sequestration" refers to proposed across the board cuts that will impact every single agency within the US federal government, including Customs and Border Protection, FDA and USDA. Assuming, the proposed sequestration moves forward this Friday, we know that CBP will lose their overtime budgets and furloughs will be in place starting April of this year. As stated by DHS Secretary Napolitano at a recent Senate Hearing:

"Perhaps most critically it would have serious immediate consequences to the flow of trade and travel at our nation's ports of entry, including many ports represented by members of this committee."

"On the Southwest border, our biggest land ports could face waits of five hours or more, functionally closing these ports during core hours."

monoloco - 2-28-2013 at 07:19 PM

It's just attempted government blackmail: "give us our money or we'll make your life miserable". They could forego some of their high tech gear or get rid of upper level bureaucrats instead.

chuckie - 2-28-2013 at 08:36 PM

Cant believe it can make any difference..Last time I came through Tecate, got chased to secondary, sat there 55 minutes, only vehicle, and watching 7 people bullchitting or playing video games..Your tax dollars at work...

Bajaboy - 2-28-2013 at 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
It's a 2.4% reduction on the increase in this years budget not a decrease of 2.4% of the over all budget.The budget is actually greater this year than last.
The administration is already softening their "Doomsday"scenario they been preaching.

If that is the case then why are independent economist stating the contrary :?:

I've also heard many heads of government agencies say they will have to furlough employees. Are you suggesting they are making this up? If less people are working, wouldn't that suggest less money (demand) for good and services? I'm just trying to think this through versus listening to the talking heads.

[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Bajaboy]

monoloco - 2-28-2013 at 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Cant believe it can make any difference..Last time I came through Tecate, got sent to secondary, sat there 55 minutes, only vehicle, and watching 7 people bullchitting or playing video games..Your tax dollars at work...

You got that right, they are the biggest goldbrickers I've ever seen. The last time I got sent to secondary, the guy running the big vehicle scanner chewed me out because the guy who sent me there didn't put any paper work under my windshield wiper, (like somehow that was my responsibility) after that they put us in a parking space and agents kept coming up and asking what we were doing there.( Duh how would I know?) Nobody there knew anything and agents were wandering around doing nothing but shooting the breeze and drinking coffee, meanwhile it took them 1 1/2 hours to return our passports. Oh, and this was after waiting in line for 3 1/2 hours. I doubt that most of them could get a job at a 7/11.

Alan - 2-28-2013 at 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

If that is the case then why are independent economist stating the contrary :?:

This doomsday scenario proposed by the administration isn't necessary but it is what they say they are going to do. Why would they replace flights in private jets across the country and do online meetings instead? Making tactical cuts by eliminating wasteful spending won't impact you one iota so its not likely to get your attention and support for increased revenues. As he stated; It is not a 2.4% cut to their budget. It simply slows the rate that they had already planned to increase their budget.

The stupid portion of the sequester is that it will be across the board cuts rather than tactical cuts. The Congress has offered bills that would give agencies the latitude to cut things that have least impact but the Senate and the WH has rejected them unless they include additional tax increases. They already got huge tax increases 2 months ago at the end of the year as you have surely noticed already on your paycheck but once again they are saying no spending cuts without more taxes. Even Bob Woodward, a fairly liberal minded, reporter has accused the WH of moving the goal posts.

msawin - 2-28-2013 at 09:23 PM

We where going to head to Loreto tomorrow but we had some issues and have put it off for a couple weeks, but

Those piece o2 2h2it "great old protectors" of the great land of UNITES STATES of AMERICA are going to cut the north crossing protectors of FREEDOM in half and make a statement. You watch the TV, not any political PULL media, show us on Their TV networks, the poor government employees who have to contend with a reduction in funds.. 10 hour wait times..

I am so embarrassed heading north , waiting inline with folks from Mexico while our vehicles are being scanned by a 5 million dollar Save America Scan Mobil to save us all. What a sh-ty filling I have of my Country standing next to young Hispanic kids thinking "yes this is America". what a great country...

Bajaboy - 2-28-2013 at 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

If that is the case then why are independent economist stating the contrary :?:

I've got no problem discussing facts versus talking points. I think you might want to let the dust settle before you start pointing to Woodward...or at least see the email in question in full text...you might change your mind.

As for budgets, I do believe they are created in the House...so far Boener and friends have not offered up a bill. With regards to laws, Congress writes them and the President signs them....so it seems to me that Congress wrote the sequester law and Obama signed it....thus all are responsible. I also recall that way back when...2011 that Obama said he wanted to return to the Clinton era tax rates. As far as I know, he has not changed anything. And lastly, didn't Obama cut spending by 1 something trillion last year without any increase in revenue? Please explain to me why eliminating tax loop holes is wrong? We need to move past the partisan bs. I could care less which party comes up with the solution :light:

Alan - 2-28-2013 at 11:58 PM

If you review my post you will see I didn't even mention the email. I only referred to the comment he had made which had prompted the email

SFandH - 3-1-2013 at 02:05 AM

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection will furlough its employees for up to 14 days this year if the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester kick in on March 1, according to a letter the agency sent to union officials this week."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/02/2...

Assuming agents work 250 days a year, 14 days of furlough equals about a 5.5% reduction in force.

Does that mean wait times, on average, increase 5.5%?

chuckie - 3-1-2013 at 05:59 AM

Complaints? Please TRY to complain to a "Supervising officer', and see where that gets you. I think that would be the person who screamed "get back in your car" when I had to take a leak. There is a lengthy on line complaint process, which repeatedly warns that if ALL the documentation is not submitted, there will be NO investigation...Good luck...

monoloco - 3-1-2013 at 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Complaints? Please TRY to complain to a "Supervising officer', and see where that gets you. I think that would be the person who screamed "get back in your car" when I had to take a leak. There is a lengthy on line complaint process, which repeatedly warns that if ALL the documentation is not submitted, there will be NO investigation...Good luck...

Filing a complaint would probably be a good way to ensure a miserable trip to secondary every time you cross the border.

Alan - 3-1-2013 at 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
The e-mail was because of the article written by Woodward.
Here is the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-s...

Thank you. Yes, this is the article I referenced.

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
2012 federal budget,3.796 trillion
2013 federal budget, 3.803 trillion requested. sequester reduces this figure by 40 -80 billion.
The senate has not passed a budget since 2009.Why didn't the present administration pass a budget when they controlled the house,the senate and the White House?

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

ligui - 3-1-2013 at 07:38 AM

Chuckie , i'm with you . For 15 years crossing i have been sent to secondary everytime ! They have know idea how to do their job . Secondary is a joke , there is no work being done . Just lots of coffee and a place to be an a-- to returning american tax payers .

Ps. Returned from mexico in Dec. And for the first time was waved thru :tumble:

Old age help ?

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Bajaboy,eliminating tax loopholes for everybody or just for the wealthy?

I'm game for what's fair. How do you define wealthy?

DENNIS - 3-1-2013 at 10:25 AM

I'm really starting to hate our government.

MitchMan - 3-1-2013 at 10:26 AM

Wealthy = having ample abundant plentiful overflowing financial resources beyond what is required to cover necessities (necessities as distinguished from things that are only desired), especially in comparson to others.

DENNIS - 3-1-2013 at 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Wealthy = having ample abundant plentiful overflowing financial resources beyond what is required to cover necessities (necessities as distinguished from things that are only desired), especially in comparson to others.

What is one supposed to do with all that pent up motivation to excell?

MitchMan - 3-1-2013 at 11:01 AM

Invent a cure for cancer or start a hedge fund overseas.

Budget

thefishaholic - 3-1-2013 at 11:57 AM

There is no federal budget!!!!
:fire:

Bob and Susan - 3-1-2013 at 12:05 PM

even govt workers have unions...you just can't lay off people

attrition will take care of part of the excess

as fo speed up crossing times...the better they work the slower it will be to cross

if the border guys are doing their job it takes 4 min per person to cross...do the math

as for standing around... they were "on a break" or "lunch" or "coming to work early"
there isn't many places to go there at the border

mtgoat666 - 3-1-2013 at 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob and Susan
as for standing around... they were "on a break" or "lunch" or "coming to work early"
there isn't many places to go there at the border

if that's true, they seem to be on permanent break!

every time i go to secondary, i see inspectors spend more time socializing among themselves than time spent doing work. :fire:

Wally - 3-1-2013 at 12:21 PM

Quote:

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their jobs."

P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.

[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally]

DENNIS - 3-1-2013 at 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
every time i go to secondary, i see inspectors spend more time socializing among themselves than time spent doing work. :fire:

More dogs...fewer humans. Dogs don't join unions and they're more effective.

mtgoat666 - 3-1-2013 at 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Bajaboy,what do you consider fair?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_...

progressive taxation is fair. higher the income, the higher the rate. at the upper 1% level, the politicians are writing laws favoring the upper percentiles, so they should pay and extra tax, call it a tax on bribes paid/favoritism received!

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Bajaboy,what do you consider fair?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_...

I suppose this would be a valid arguement if one was only responsible for Federal Income tax. How about those multi-nationals that pay no taxes? Are you suggesting that the tax system is currently set up to favor the poor or the rich?

And another question....if one were to let temporary tax cuts expire...would that be a tax increase? Doesn't temporary mean by definition it will end? :?:

MitchMan - 3-1-2013 at 12:51 PM

Sequestration leads to reduction in the labor force. All commonly accepted authoritative sources are projecting that sequestration and the layoffs/increases in unemployment due to sequestration will reduce GDP (the economy) from projected real growth of 2% for 2013 by 1.3% down to growth of only 0.7% for 2013.

The reason this increased unemployment, hence drop in compensation to the workforce, would cause a drop in GDP (the economy) is directly due to the lack of demand caused by less compensation in public due to layoffs caused by sequestration. This is not a supply side thing, it is a demand side thing, and the majority of economists on both sides of the aisle agree/recognize the aforementioned consequence.

European austerity provides an abundance of illustrations of the above. Also, the issue is not government workers Vs. private workers, its math and basic macroeconomics.

DENNIS - 3-1-2013 at 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Doesn't temporary mean by definition it will end? :?:

Perhaps not:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/qt/incometax.htm

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/temporary-taxes-...

monoloco - 3-1-2013 at 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Sequestration leads to reduction in the labor force. All commonly accepted authoritative sources are projecting that sequestration and the layoffs/increases in unemployment due to sequestration will reduce GDP (the economy) from projected real growth of 2% for 2013 by 1.3% down to growth of only 0.7% for 2013.

The reason this increased unemployment, hence drop in compensation to the workforce, would cause a drop in GDP (the economy) is directly due to the lack of demand caused by less compensation in public due to layoffs caused by sequestration. This is not a supply side thing, it is a demand side thing, and the majority of economists on both sides of the aisle agree/recognize the aforementioned consequence.

European austerity provides an abundance of illustrations of the above. Also, the issue is not government workers Vs. private workers, its math and basic macroeconomics.

The question should be: Is it better to take a 1.3% hit to the economy now, or just keep spending like a bunch of drunken sailors and let our children and grandchildren sort it out? IMO, demographics are working against us, so it's better to get a handle on it now.

ligui - 3-1-2013 at 02:25 PM

Pay the bills and tell the sailors its time to get to work ... :bounce:

paranewbi - 3-1-2013 at 02:38 PM

The g-ment thru 800 billion at the economy when the President came into his administration...seemed to not do a whole lot.

Now we're suppose to believe one tenth of that is gonna rip us a new one?

monoloco - 3-1-2013 at 02:54 PM

Today is the day when, if one listens to Obama whose idea it was in the first place, an unprecedented $85 billion spending cuts will be sequestered, unleashing famine, pestilence, the apocalypse and grizzly bears (as all park rangers will be dead from starvation). Which is why we applaud the administration's desire to preempt this tragic for the nation outcome, by issuing, in one day alone: February 28, $80 billion in Treasurys sending debt to (obviously) what is a new all time high $16,687,289,180,215.37.

In other words, the entire apocalyptic impact of the sequester for 2013 was offset by one day's debt issuance.

rts551 - 3-1-2013 at 04:40 PM

Glen....does that include touting one liners from the radio pundits as some seem to do?

chuckie - 3-1-2013 at 04:57 PM

Its all smoke and mirrors....the more things change, the more they remain the same..dont hold your breath waiting for federal employees to be out of work...

DENNIS - 3-1-2013 at 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Can you get by-pass shocks with food stamps?

Maybe. I think you can get caviar, but you can't get toilet paper for recycling the caviar.

As far as cutting back on border patrol....so what? They're releasing 3000 detainees anyway.
Border Patrol catches them and Obama lets them go.
Wadda world.

rts551 - 3-1-2013 at 06:28 PM

nice high tech table. looks like one of mine

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.

Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the people and not from state governments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_origina...

and:
What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
- See more at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real...

durrelllrobert - 3-1-2013 at 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
http://www.examiner.com/article/taxpayers-drop-1-4-billion-o...

reported by The Daily Caller, Gray published in his book;

“"... that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the 'total cost of the presidency,' factoring the cost of the 'biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,' a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One 'running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.'"

Gray also wrote in his book that the president maintains a $400,000 salary as well a total of $169,00 for entertainment, travel, expense account and an additional $1,000,000 for "unanticipated needs."

Also cited in the book were other samples of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president;

•The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 "czars."
•The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.
•The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. "Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year."
•The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: "First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year."
•The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: "Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine. It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year."

Looks like we were played.

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
The e-mail was because of the article written by Woodward.
Here is the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-s...

Twitter exploded last night, after Bob Woodward revealed that White House official had warned him he would “regret” saying Obama had moved the goal posts on sequestration.

Predictably, conservatives latched onto this, as it confirmed our suspicion about the Obama Administration’s “Chicago-style” of politics. A lot of mainstream journalists bought into this, too — reflexively believing anything the great Bob Woodward says.

Of course, Woodward (who was expert at trolling for publicity before the internet even existed), benefits greatly from the publicity (nothing sells books like controversy).

Make no mistake. This was no accident. As Politico reported last night,

“Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

But today, things look different. P0litico has posted the exclusive email from Gene Sperling to Woodward. It begins, “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.”

(Frightening, I know!)

Sperling’s email eventually does say, “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.

When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems much more innocuous than that.

Looks like we were played.
Tags: Bob Woodward

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-an...Looks like we were played.

[Edited on 3-2-2013 by Bajaboy]

Wally - 3-1-2013 at 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

This may, very possibly, be the most absurd response ever.

The senate does Budgets. Budgets. Budgets. Got it!

For 2 years, Democrats held a majority of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate...AND the Presidency.

Your "filibuster-proof" reference is rubbish.

go bark at someone else.

.

[Edited on 3-2-2013 by Wally]

Bajaboy - 3-1-2013 at 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

This may, very possibly, be the most absurd response ever.

For 2 years, Democrats held a majority of both the House of Representatives and the US Senate...AND the Presidency.

Your "filibuster-proof" reference is rubbish.

go bark at someone else.

.

Definitely hard to debate opinions...

I suppose you still stand by your facts about the origination of spending bills :lol:

Wally - 3-1-2013 at 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Wally

I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis. Things changed when Kennedy died.

Definitely hard to debate opinions...

I suppose you still stand by your facts about the origination of spending bills :lol:

what a clever person you are.

Revenue? Spending? Budgets? Majorities? You'll always win the argument by changing the subject.

Semantics? Right?

tiresome.

You know what???

You are completely right.

I surrender.

You win!

.

mtgoat666 - 3-2-2013 at 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Obama blamed Bush for his dismal failure on the economy
his first term.
Now he needs someone to blame for this term since he can't blame Bush anymore.Looks like it will be Boehner and the Republicans.

funny how GOP has inability to look inward and see their own failures,... GOP always says it is democrats fault! :lol:

GOP is still waging a homophobic, racist, elitist (1%) agenda -- how' that working out for the GOP? :lol:

rts551 - 3-2-2013 at 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
I am not a Republican.I call it as I see and feel it.My investment income has dropped by 50%!.Looks like I won't be building a" trophy truck" in the near future.

what happened to your investments?....I've been riding the Obama express stock market the last couple of years and made more than ever. might change that soon since the Congress has decided to stalemate things.

DENNIS - 3-2-2013 at 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Now he needs someone to blame for this term since he can't blame Bush anymore.Looks like it will be Boehner and the Republicans.

It's all of them....a bunch of unconcerned losers who care more about their party status than the country. :fire:

woody with a view - 3-2-2013 at 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
It's all of them....a bunch of unconcerned losers who care more about their party status than the country. :fire:

WORD!

[Edited on 3-2-2013 by woody with a view]

MitchMan - 3-2-2013 at 06:14 PM

When it comes to economics, you guys, you have to be able to discern cause and effect and the timing of cause and effect. The huge error many make is to look at a given action or circumstance and misjudge completely when the effect takes place and how long the effect lasts and when it ends.

From 1980 to 2007, the public income from compensation was flat and meager, but the spending money that powered the GDP and the economy during that period came from the public borrowing on credit cards, department store credit, car loans, education loans and ofcourse home loans. The spending money source from home loans soared and eclipsed the other free flowing sources of money due to MBS, derivatives and the shadow banking system duplicating in spades the efforts of FNMA and GNMA together with the boom of toxic lending and other malfeasons that accompanied the shadow banking system.

The point is, people, the 27 years of economic growth from 1980 to 2007 was a faux economy supported by crazy money, that is to say borrowed money and not wage earnings...now, everyone is in debt and cannot borrow any more. Student loans are maxed out, credit cards are maxed out, home loans are maxed out and many homeowners are under water together with depressed realty values. There is no borrowing going on because everyone (not the top 2%'ers, but the bottom 98%'ers) is maxed out on debt...that's a different situation than existed in 1970. The overly indebted public finally couldn't borrow anymore to fund the economy and down came our economy in 2008. The economic status that breached in 2008 is still with us. That bust that happened because of public overleveraging led to unemployment and a Great Recession...and the overindebtedness still exists and earnings for the botom 98%ers are still as flat as ever. That's why we are still in the economic abyss!

Now, having two unfunded wars, one of which broke records in duration, at the same time that Bush decreased taxes and provided an unfunded Medicare Part D that prohibits bargaining with Pharma doesn't help the economy either. Be advised that this is the first time in history we waged a war without increasing taxes to pay for it! These wars are lasting forever and then not to pay for it? Ask yourself..."Would that have anything to do with the National Debt balance we have today? You know, 2 wars and a tax break? Come on, man.

Now, if you can't see the salient facts for what they are, if you can't take the meager amount of time to read books on what caused the 2008 meltdown and verify the big picture stats (readily available on the internet) that coincide with GDP growth, household incomes from earnings , credit card debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt and the related household tracking of household debt, and distribution of wealth among individuals in percentiles between 1970 to 2008 and see for yourself what the real facts are, then how can you authoritatively cast your opinions on what the mistakes were, what factors are at work underlying our current economic malaise...when did those factors start, how long is the duration of their existence, when did those effects from those factors begin, how long are they the case, and how long will they be reasonably expected to continue?

I don't see how anyone can logically blame one administration over the other with any credibility if you don't know the festoring history of the factors and facts and the underlying micro and macroeconomics at play.

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by MitchMan]

Terry28 - 3-2-2013 at 07:17 PM

MItch, Finally I agree with a lot of what you have to say...you just left out the wall street scandal and the deregulating of the financial institutions, they sure helped the recession along....

nbacc - 3-2-2013 at 07:43 PM

AND, the question is "will the border wait get longer"? Nancy

durrelllrobert - 3-2-2013 at 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Terry28
MItch, Finally I agree with a lot of what you have to say...you just left out the wall street scandal and the deregulating of the financial institutions, they sure helped the recession along....

The point is, people, the 27 years of economic growth from 1980 to 2007 was a faux economy supported by crazy money, that is to say borrowed money and not wage earnings...
_______________________________________________
..and don't forget that all those dot coms were part of that "crazy" money during the '80s and 90s.

rts551 - 3-2-2013 at 08:11 PM

guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.

Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.

Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551]

Bajaboy - 3-2-2013 at 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
guess that is why the stock market is flirting with records again.

Someone is making money and the economy must be doing well in some sectors.

Which in my mind is way better than regurgitating sound bites!

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551]

Not sure about where you live but housing prices are increasing as well. I recently heard that San Diego is expecting more revenue than predicted. In addition, the State of California is expected to have a budget surplus in the next year or two....and go figure...they just raised taxes :light:

Bajaboy - 3-2-2013 at 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Quick Economy & History Review

When tax RATES are lowered, tax revenue increases... because more people are working and paying tax... also buying more stuff, which helps EVERYONE.

Raise taxes (on the 'rich', but is really mostly small business) and less jobs are created, more people lose jobs, less people paying taxes... what we have now.

You can't solve this by ever increasing taxation of small businesses and the few 'rich'. Nearly HALF of adult Americans pay NO taxes at all, and they are the ones that take most of the benefits of government programs.

As it is now, the top 2% pay (almost) 50% of the taxes... just how greedy is government going to get (before every 'rich' person or business really LEAVES)?

The Reagan tax cuts created the greatest peacetime boost to the U.S. treasury in history. Our coffers didn't swell because the Democrats reneged on their promise to not increase spending as they were in control of congress... More money came in, and more money went out.

Bush '1' was fooled by the Democrats when they tricked him into signing a tax increase, after he promised 'no new taxes', then they used that to defeat him and bring in Clinton... who looked great to voters on his re-election BECAUSE Republicans were in power after his first term (Americans wanted to stop Hilary-care) and our country was on sound financial ground with a balanced budget (Republican congress/Democrat president).

His VP (Al Gore) nearly won in 2000, but no matter how many times they recounted the Florida votes, they never could pull it off, hanging chads and all... even the Supreme Court had to stop the third or fourth recount and let the new guy get on with it.

Bush prevented 9-11 from destroying our economy by reducing tax rates again... and it worked... and Republicans got control of congress after (the people were so jazzed). Then, the Republicans began to spend like Democrats... same thing, more $$ came in and too much went out. The people fired the Republicans for not being conservative, so in came the Democrat congress of 2007, they made things worse, said it was Bush's fault (he was still president)... people fell for that... McCain (not a conservative) was all we could put up against Obama who dazzled so many, and then you had a full leftest government until 2011 when we got the House back for some counter-measure.

Sadly with National-Socialism intruding into the lives of everyone (Obama-care), and us not having a dynamo to win in 2012, it is really now scary for us and our children's future...

Isn't it funny how when Bush was president, the shouts from the leftist media was "How are you going to pay for that?" Why do we NEVER hear that from the media when a Democrat is president and he not only spends more than Bush, but spends more than all presidents since George Washington... COMBINED!!???

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by David K]

Just a clarification...if you are not working as much as you were in the past, does that make you one of the people not paying taxes :?:

Should we follow the rhetoric and come after you? No, we should close corporate tax loop holes as well as invest in our economy...yes investing in our economy.

Each month I invest money in the stock market, in housing, and to pay down my personal debt...funny thing....I also strive to increase my revenue....what a crazy concept...reduce spending, invest, and strive to increase my revenue.... :?:

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by Bajaboy]

CortezBlue - 3-2-2013 at 09:08 PM

Quote:

The stock market is not doing well using traditional PE ratios. It is purely an emotional buy and not from strong economic principals used for years. It is kind of like going to vegas. In vegas, you are either a slot machine player, hoping that you have the luck of hitting the jack pot. Or you play Craps or Black Jack becuase there are hard facts of how to win and the player has control of how to move forward with bets and options.

Many in the stock market today are playing the same game, including me.

Investing, in my opinion, is like have a series of buckets in front of you and they are labeled:

Real Estate

Mutual Funds that cover, Prescious metals, Foreign stocks, Domestic Stocks, Petroleum, dividends etc.

Real holdings of precious metals

Options (to bet against the market)

Cash

Foreign Currency

The only guy to listen to on TV that tells it as it is is Jim Krammer, the rest of them have no clue!!

Bajaboy - 3-2-2013 at 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue

Quote:

I agree with you to some extent....seems like there is so much market manipulation whether it be the Street, real estate, commodities...you name it.

But what about the companies sitting on piles of cash? What about the record profits from a lot of companies...it's not all smoke and mirrors.

JoeJustJoe - 3-2-2013 at 10:25 PM

The only thing I want to know from this thread is the actual border wait at the US/Mexican border longer due to the sequestration or is it about the same?

The other stuff about Bush being a great President is funny. Bush ran the US economy into the ground, and put the US on a brink of another deep depression with stock market values losing nearly 50 percent on the major indexes.

Obama has been busy digging the US out of the hole Bush put America in, and a byproduct of Obama's work are great stock market returns the last few years, and it's looking good again this year.

My goodness what is CortezBlue talking about when he says, " The stock market is not doing well using traditional PE ratios. It is purely an emotional buy and not from strong economic principals used for years."

CortezBlue doesn't tell us how he uses the PE ratio, but traditionally stock market pros look for stocks with low PE's, and they look at high PE ratios at being a sign the stock is over heated and it might be time to sell. Of course when a stock is hot, the PE ratio is often ignored for awhile and other stock market signals or factors are looked at.

The PE of S&P 500 ratio is not too high, and in fact it's looking pretty good, and not out of line of the last few years, and the PE average of 17.27 in 2013 is nowhere near the PE levels of the late 90's, and early 2000's that often had high PE ratios in the high 20's and 30's during the stock market's bull market of the Clinton years, and the stock market bubble that started to go south during the end of Clinton's second term, and busted during the Bush years, and 911.

There is no Las Vegas mentality with stock market fundamentals like the PE this year, however there is macroeconomic issues worldwide that could hurt the US stock market at any time.

S&P 500 PE Ratio by year:

http://www.multpl.com/table

monoloco - 3-3-2013 at 07:07 AM

Quote:

The only guy to listen to on TV that tells it as it is is Jim Krammer, the rest of them have no clue!!

I hope that's a joke. Jim Cramer is the guy who was telling people to buy right up until the market tanked, then told everyone to get their money out of the market at precisely the best time in fifty years to get into the market.

monoloco - 3-3-2013 at 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
People are investing in the stock market because it is one of the few places you might get a decent return.Money market,cd's ,bonds,traditional savings account interest rates are next to nothing.If I remember right,banks were even charging you to deposit money.

Exactly right whistler, fed interest rate policy has forced anyone looking for a yield on their savings, into a mob owned casino to be fleeced.

rts551 - 3-3-2013 at 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
I guess I will see how the economy is doing.Going to put a half dozen Penn Internationals on ebay.Reel prices are a good indicator.Want to get rid of a Tiagara 20 and a Trinidad 40 also but they are at my place in Mexico.

Real prices or reel prices. Why sell the reels? no more fishing? You can advertise them on this forum except many here apparently are not working, are broke or would like them donated.

[Edited on 3-3-2013 by rts551]

wilderone - 3-3-2013 at 09:31 AM

As sure as the sun rises each day, you can bet there is a lot of waste in federal government economics. A furlough? I experienced one working for the City of San Diego Big Deal. The loss of 17 days salary (one day a month and 5 days off at Christmas) was hardly felt. At the least, this can be done with federal exployees. DOD spending? I think we can minimize naval reserve exercises, cut multi-day, out of state training conferences; definitely cut overtime with better management; etc. There are countless ways to put overspending, mis-spending, waste, and efficiency back into federal government. I have more faith in American people to be able to adjust. And get off their fat as s.

rts551 - 3-3-2013 at 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wilderone
As sure as the sun rises each day, you can bet there is a lot of waste in federal government economics. A furlough? I experienced one working for the City of San Diego Big Deal. The loss of 17 days salary (one day a month and 5 days off at Christmas) was hardly felt. At the least, this can be done with federal exployees. DOD spending? I think we can minimize naval reserve exercises, cut multi-day, out of state training conferences; definitely cut overtime with better management; etc. There are countless ways to put overspending, mis-spending, waste, and efficiency back into federal government. I have more faith in American people to be able to adjust. And get off their fat as s.

even when jobs are available, some people complain and they complain its the government's fault....maybe they just do not want to work (get off their fat....)

mtgoat666 - 3-3-2013 at 12:24 PM

Quote:

The majority of Americans are overweight. Would be good for furloughed fed workers and newly unemployed fed contractors to do exercise on their days off, would help keep health care costs down.

Sequestration and the Border

SFandH - 3-5-2013 at 06:44 AM

Just heard on TV news that in 30 days the hours worked by border guards will be cut. The reporter said they normally work 10 hours a day (no overtime pay) and that will be cut to 8 hours.

I'm guessing that means fewer gates open, longer lines.

CortezBlue - 3-5-2013 at 07:11 AM

It's a scare tactic to get everyone up in arms. But regardless, with SENTRI, if my time in line doubles it will still only be, maybe, a 20 mintue wait time

Bajaboy - 3-5-2013 at 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue
It's a scare tactic to get everyone up in arms. But regardless, with SENTRI, if my time in line doubles it will still only be, maybe, a 20 mintue wait time

Scare tactic? Please explain...especially if you came up with this idea all by yourself :lol:

MICK - 3-5-2013 at 07:39 AM

Maybe it means that there will only be ten guys hanging around in secondary doing nothing instead of 20? Just sayin
Mick

CortezBlue - 3-5-2013 at 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MICK
Maybe it means that there will only be ten guys hanging around in secondary doing nothing instead of 20? Just sayin
Mick

I read a quote from one of the sites that some govt person equated it to letting every 10th illegal cross the border without being caught?

This is such a joke, this has got to have been the longest we have ever gone without a budget in place (year 5), hell of a way to run a company

CortezBlue - 3-5-2013 at 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue
It's a scare tactic to get everyone up in arms. But regardless, with SENTRI, if my time in line doubles it will still only be, maybe, a 20 mintue wait time

Scare tactic? Please explain...especially if you came up with this idea all by yourself :lol:

Well it is hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed army!

So with that, I think you are correct, I would stay far away from the border, stay at home and read the Huffington Post and bathe yourself in the glow of the warmth of the internet knowing the end is near.

Bajaboy - 3-5-2013 at 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by CortezBlue
It's a scare tactic to get everyone up in arms. But regardless, with SENTRI, if my time in line doubles it will still only be, maybe, a 20 mintue wait time

Scare tactic? Please explain...especially if you came up with this idea all by yourself :lol:

Actually, I just confirmed the reduction of hours with my friend who works border patrol at SY. Boo

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Actually, I just confirmed the reduction of hours with my friend who works border patrol at SY. Boo

Hate to hear this since these guys know how to apply the pressure toward their own ends. They just slow the traffic down until a roar of disapproval comes from both sides of the border. That gets the attention of our government and those a-holes need to have their attention gotten.
We are caught in the middle again.

.

[Edited on 3-5-2013 by DENNIS]

David K - 3-5-2013 at 10:57 AM

Let's get this straight... the budget wasn't cut, so there is the same money as always for border patrol... actually more. The 'cut' was in the amount of INCREASE over the previous budget. Just LESS of an INCREASE ABOVE last year's money... poor poor Washington.! :lol:

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Let's get this straight... the budget wasn't cut, so there is the same money as always for border patrol... actually more. The 'cut' was in the amount of INCREASE over the previous budget. Just LESS of an INCREASE ABOVE last year's money... poor poor Washington.! :lol:

But it may take some of the joy out of demanding a raise in pay. Unions don't like this inconvenience.

David K - 3-5-2013 at 11:03 AM

Right, and we know who in Washington is 'owned' by the unions!

Bajaboy - 3-5-2013 at 11:50 AM

Quote:

Love to see you use the same logic at the gas station or grocery store.

Duh...I make the same pay as I did last year....so I should be able to buy the same amount...... :?:

Barry A. - 3-5-2013 at 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Love to see you use the same logic at the gas station or grocery store.

Duh...I make the same pay as I did last year....so I should be able to buy the same amount...... :?:

Sorta Apples and Oranges it seems to me, but yes, inflation is a factor (running at least 6%, despite what you hear)-------some belt-tightening is in order-------lets get on with it, and more!!! We simply can't maintain this insane spending and survive as a viable economy!!!

Barry

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
some belt-tightening is in order-------lets get on with it, and more!!!

Yes. Just as long as the belt is tightened in the right places. They have to get after the excessive waste....not the necessities.......quit building bridges to nowhere and leave the required military alone.

Why wouldn't they draft Romney to formulate a plan? It wouldn't be unpatriotic just to listen to it.

Barry A. - 3-5-2013 at 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
some belt-tightening is in order-------lets get on with it, and more!!!

My guess, a "Romney plan" would make too much sense, and be way too simple--------that would require a total re-think of the present directions--------a real no-no, I suspect, in the minds of the present Admin...

Barry

SFandH - 3-5-2013 at 12:23 PM

Quote:

Tell that to the Border Patrol guys who are getting a pay cut. Tell that to the workers of San Diego defense contractors who will be seeing contract cuts and fewer RFPs.

Look in the mirror and tell that to yourself when there are fewer people hiring your services. Some want belt tightening, well get ready to tighten yours.

[Edited on 3-5-2013 by SFandH]

David K - 3-5-2013 at 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

So by your logic, we have the wrong people making economic decisions in Washington? I think those of us who voted for the other guys, know this would happen.

David K - 3-5-2013 at 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
some belt-tightening is in order-------lets get on with it, and more!!!

Oh Barry, there you go again making far too easy the solution for the typical voter in America! :lol:

"Silly voter: Democrats need you to stay poor and use free services, so they will keep getting your votes!"

David K - 3-5-2013 at 12:34 PM

Yup, name calling is a sure sign of frustration... and I don't blame you!

Have a nice day!

mtgoat666 - 3-5-2013 at 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
some belt-tightening is in order-------lets get on with it, and more!!!

Oh Barry, there you go again making far too easy the solution for the typical voter in America! :lol:

"Silly voter: Democrats need you to stay poor and use free services, so they will keep getting your votes!"

a romney plan? a plan with disdain for 47% of the population

Bajaboy - 3-5-2013 at 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

So by your logic, we have the wrong people making economic decisions in Washington? I think those of us who voted for the other guys, know this would happen.

Wait, Romney suggested closing tax loop holes :light:

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
a romney plan? a plan with disdain for 47% of the population

Don't take it personally. Besides....the system could use some ideas...doncha think? They wouldn't be executive orders....just ideas.

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Wait, Romney suggested closing tax loop holes :light:

At this stage of the game, everything requires new consideration....by everybody.

Barry A. - 3-5-2013 at 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
a romney plan? a plan with disdain for 47% of the population

Don't take it personally. Besides....the system could use some ideas...doncha think? They wouldn't be executive orders....just ideas.

Dennis-------------of course your ideas here make sense-----I should have said so in response to your point above. The Admin. apparently does not want to confuse the issue with "more ideas"-----that's all I can figure out. The Romney's weekend interview was exceptional, I thought.

Barry

mtgoat666 - 3-5-2013 at 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The purpose of Obama's actions are to hurt even more Americans and blame the Republicans... Is it really that hard to see what is in front of your eyes?

"The purpose of Obama's actions are to hurt..."

you really think the chit you write?

Bajaboy - 3-5-2013 at 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

So by your logic, we have the wrong people making economic decisions in Washington? I think those of us who voted for the other guys, know this would happen.

Wait, Romney suggested closing tax loop holes :light:

Yes, far better than laying off workers, don't you think???

The purpose of Obama's actions are to hurt even more Americans and blame the Republicans... Is it really that hard to see what is in front of your eyes?

Are you for real :?:

Aren't the Tea Baggers beating the drum of cuts :?:

ncampion - 3-5-2013 at 01:41 PM

They always like to threaten cuts to "police, firemen, teachers and now border control agents"... It's always things that are "hot buttons" with the public. I never hear of the types of cuts that any well run business would make when they have a shortfall of revenue.

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whistler
Seniority did not matter like it does with unions.

Really!!! How long did the railroad union force the railroads to hire firemen on the trains after they quit using coal? Did it ever stop? :fire:

wessongroup - 3-5-2013 at 02:51 PM

Appears just about "ripe" for ........... :biggrin:

CG - 3-5-2013 at 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The purpose of Obama's actions are to hurt even more Americans and blame the Republicans... Is it really that hard to see what is in front of your eyes?

"The purpose of Obama's actions are to hurt..."

you really think the chit you write?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-f...

Interesting info

bajaguy - 3-5-2013 at 04:10 PM

Today, in a meeting in Ensenada with US citizens, the US Consul General Andrew Erickson, based in Tijuana stated that SENTRI lanes and SENTRI staffing was a top priority with DHS/CBP during sequestration.........only time will tell.

However, furloughs of DHS/CBP/Border Patrol personnel will start April 8th.....which means less booths open and less personnel to staff the booths at ALL border crossings

DENNIS - 3-5-2013 at 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Michelle's 27 full time aids.

Yea...but she needs fifteen of them to keep her bangs trimmed.

David K - 3-5-2013 at 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Michelle's 27 full time aids.

Yea...but she needs fifteen of them to keep her bangs trimmed.

You bet Dennis... She has to look good for the Oscars!

mtgoat666 - 3-5-2013 at 05:56 PM

dk: your post was idiotic

michele obama's staff is about same size as bush's. the role of first lady and the positions that support first lady were created long before obama's election.

michele obama is much better looking than laura bush :lol: