I don't think they can shift any of the money from one agency or program to another under the sequester. There are many corporations that benefit from federal money, but they aren't losing their funding. It is the poor, many of them children, that will loose in this situation.

To add no, SS, Medicare, Disability etc checks have ever been denied. No employee pay has ever been effected as it has never lasted long than a pay period and these things are planed that way. To include a couple days after the first of the month so those checks in programs like SS, Medicare, etc are all ready sent out by the time it takes effect. That is why this was set for March 4.

Contractor are not paid the same as federal employee's, the Contracting Company is awarded the funds when they win the bid for services mot monthly or bi-weekly, make that point moot also as it is the contractors responsibilty not the fed.

This is all nothing more than scare tactics and voter pandering for the 2014 elections for congress.

The House is the only part of government that can approve or disaprove funds. They can also defund anything they want even wars as they did with veitnam. They cannot take away funds allready aproved however. The must wait for the funding to be requested.

Banks have always been requested to honor employee's pay even if the government has shut down and they have always honored those request in every case.

There is a good reason you do not hear Unions screaming about this. It would defeat the administrations and some in congress, scare tactics and expose the fallacy of all this doing a damn thing to effect the economy.

Forgot to mention that employee's are paid for the 2 weeks prior to the pay period, not the current one they are working, so actuall the shut down would have to be a month, for them to technicly not get a check as they are allway a pay period behind.

Sorry for so many post, but this is complicated to explain in detail as all government is, due to the red tape and so many rules and regulation that govern these things. It is not clear cut as the President and other are saying. They do not explain the whole process only possible results should it actuall happen in whole.

The media obviously to enjot the scare tactic and repeat them, as the story would be moot for the most part should they explain it out right and its neglible effect if any that would happen. Very few are reporting it that way and there are some congressman do it also. Sadly they are not widely in the media, again for obvious reasons. If it bleeds it leads is alive and well.

The whole truth is not as good reading.

Erica, They CAN shift it -- House Republicans told Obama that he could make any cuts he wanted. Cuts to things that we really don't need, like production of military equipment that is obsolete. He won't do it. He would rather let people suffer so they will blame Republicans and he will get back the House in 2014. BTW, one of the primary reasons everything costs more is the cost of energy. Obama could do something about that, too, but he refuses. North Dakota is bucking the national trend because there is so much oil being pulled out of private property. Lastly, the sequestration was the President's own policy, and now he wants to point the finger at the opposing party. Read the Wall Street Journal and you will see a very different side of the story.

US pledges help to Syrian oppostion - Thursday 28 February 2013

• Some of the $60m in aid will go to rebel military council
• US reported to be training rebels in a third country
• UN refugee chief warns of 'moment of truth' on Syria

welcome back Bryan

Thanks! I'm just getting settled back into RI. Living in Warwick now... there's no patch here so I'm sticking with my hometown patch.

This is all very interesting to watch.

The Dems want this to hurt, and hurt badly, for poltical reasons as they feel the Repubs will be blamed. They are praying for disaster.
The Repubs want the effects to be minimal, to show that we CAN cut spending, even somewhat mindlessly, and do ok - so why dont we try doing it intelligently.

Amazingly to this point the Dems seem to be being outmaneuvered politically -amazing because this Pres has always run rings around the GOP in terms of political savvy.
But openly rooting against the American people simply does not look good.

All I know is that the GOP run House has passed two bills to avoid the sequester, neither were taken up by the Democrat run Senate for debate, never mind a vote.

The least the Senate could have done is voted on either of them, with added amendments and then have it reconciled in committee and voted on by both houses. You know, like our government is designed to work.

Never mind the fact that the $85 billion cut could be cut in such a way that no one would feel it at all, but like Small Change said... Obama and the Dems want it to hurt. So do they cut "Robot Squirrel"? Nope... they furlough federal workers instead.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid not many Americans will be able to see though this.

It's true. In May they passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, without any Democratic support. And then in December, House Republicans passed the Spending Reduction Act of 2012, also without any Democratic support. That's because these sequester replacement measures, among other things, would defund significant portions of the president's health care law — something Democrats wouldn't go for. The Democratic-controlled Senate never voted on them.

The Republicans would never play partisan politics with something so important, right?

Again, OldTownie, the passed two bills.

Obamacare is costing over a trillion dollars, of course they are going to cut some of that. Also in the bill were other cost cutting measures, like clarifying a law that some states were abusing that costs the government $2 billion (the rules regulating LIHEAP), or even raising the amount of money that congress has to pay into their retirement plan... though the fact that congress even has a retirement plan at all is sickening to me.

The correct way to deal with the above for the Senate would be to have the bill debated on, amendments adding to or taking away from the bill and then voted on. If passed, that bill goes to committee to be reconciled and then voted on by both houses and/or the house votes on the bill as changed by the Senate. That's how our government is supposed to work... not, oh, they touched a trillion dollar program that we want to keep so lets pretend it doesn't exist.

Hey Hatter,
You do know that the POTUS can't spend a dime without a authorization bill, right? That would be a bill from the Republican led HOUSE, which clearly spells out how and when every dime gets spent.. So if you want to point fingers, try a little research first.

OldTownie, that isn't true. Because the Senate hasn't passed a budget since May 2009, they rely on continuing resolutions... which means the budget just keeps going on and on until a new one is passed.

Guessed who controlled the House and Senate and the Presidency in May 2009?

Also, the $85 billion were across the board cuts. Each Department with the President's direction could have cut that $85 billion from anywhere. They could have cut the funds earmarked for Egypt, for instance, but then everyone would see that we can cut the budget... so instead, they furlough workers.

Brian,
I understand that your mantra won't allow you to spread the blame to both parties. That would make far too much sense.

My point was to Hatter. Since when does the POTUS "vote" for anything? Both sides negotiated this "poison pill", remember? It was supposed to get them to work together. And as we saw last Thursday, the House leadership (Boehner) clearly stated that revenue increases were not acceptable in any way shape or form. So how is that working together?

And to further my point, because no budget has been passed, it falls to the House to pass spending authorization bills. Hatter seems to think that the POTUS drives a truck up to the mint and takes as much as he wants and spends it where ever he wants.

OldTownie, only if additional spending that surpasses what is already budgeted for in 2009. Which these instances were. Those funds are already authorized because that budget passed in 2009 was good for 10 years worth of spending.

The congress can also pass bills which lower the amount of spending on specific items in the budget, but that budget is law until a new one is passed.

As far as Hatter, he's right to a point and wrong on others. For instance, once money had been budgeted in 2009 for the executive to give out following certain criteria, it's up to the President to follow that criteria and spend it. Hatter is correct that the President decided to give $350 million dollars to one of his cronies.

As far as Obama not allocating it correctly, he's right there as well. As I noted above, when congress give the executive, lets say $10 billion, for purpose X and he decides to spend a billion on something else, then he isn't allocating it correctly. Though to be fair, I think every President has done that.

As far as Syria, each department gets discretionary funds for certain situations. State is budgeted an amount yearly that he can use for things like that. But instead of cutting those funds (since the cut was arbitrary all the way around, the only thing that wasn't was the amount), he'll furlough embassy workers instead because people won't feel the pain from not giving Syrian rebels or Egypt their money, but they will with furloughed workers.

Ralph,
Really? "us against them" You mean like Mitch McConnell? "It's not my job to work with this president, I am a republican."

@OldTownie- I meant both sides of the aisle. MCConnell is just as guilty. However, Mitch McConnell isn't the head of this country. Barry Obama is. He has shown time and time again, that he will not compromise. He will not meet in the middle. Heck, just his actions of trying to scare the people of America about the sequestor, then trying to blame the GOP? I mean, do I need to spell it out any better. Plus he and his minions were all caught in lies about the terrible things that were to come from the initial start of the sequestor.

His minions telling lies? You mean like John Boehner? "This sequestration will have horrible, dire consequences on our nation." Try read a few other sources beside Fox.

We need jobs to end hunger and want, yet we have a president who does everything he possibly can to thwart the businesses that create jobs -- unless they are boondoggles like Solyndra that cost about a half a billion of our tax dollars, only to go belly up. Lastly, all of this borrowing from China should be a national disgrace, if for no other reason than we are supporting their, I might as well call it what it is, downright sinful human rights violations. People and especially women and girls are suffering in that country. Surely this is one issue that can bring both sides of the aisle together?

Sorry Oranges but Solyndra was a "Bush" era legacy. Look it up.

Not true Odd townie@, I looked it up. The loan was stopped under Bush and revived under Obama, read the investigation.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/analysis/20120802solyndra.pdf

PAGE 15

January 9, 2009, concluded that a “recommendation for approval” of the
Solyndra application was “premature at this time” due to the “number of issues
unresolved.”47 The unresolved issues identified by the Credit Committee were similar to
some of the issues identified by Ms. Colyar and Mr. Frantz in December 2008.

For
example, the Credit Committee noted the lack of an independent market analysis and
stated that “[s]ince the independent credit assessment raised the issue of obsolescence in
marketing this project it is important to have an independent analysis of that issue as well
as the current state of the competitive market.”48 The Credit Committee also echoed Ms.
Colyar’s concerns about “the nature and strength of the parent guarantee for the
completion of the project.”49 For those reasons, the Credit Committee remanded the
project to the Loan Guarantee Program Office, within the LPO.

Part 2 on Solyndra.
Just days after the Credit Committee meeting, then-Chairman of the Credit
Committee, Lachlan Seward, sent an email to the other committee members as well as
DOE staff, stating that “[a]fter canvassing the committee it was the unanimous decision
not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra at this time.”51 In his interview, Mr.
Isakowitz confirmed the decision of the Credit Committee not to engage in further
discussions with Solyndra at that time.

Notice it was shot down and they decided to have no further discussions with Solyndra period. That was under Bush, so thought the program to help green energy did start under Bush in 2005, The Bush administration is not responsible for Solyndra getting the money, it all falls on Obama Administration.

Ericka,

I help several seniors living on the edge (below the poverty level) who have EBT cards. I work with them on ways to stretch the spending (coupon clipping, etc). They never go hungry because they work at stretching the available dollars.

Where I have a problem is in the lack of efficient use of limited funds, and, the lack of outrage by people who purport to be speaking up for the poor, but vote in politicians who do little about fixing government waste (aka - single issue voters).

I'd like to hear people voting for those who can bring greater efficiency with our limited government dollars.

Jack,
I know ommitting a few facts makes your "Obama/Solyndra" arguement look valid, but the truth is it doesn't hold water.

In the final hours of the Bush Presidency, the administration tried to unconditionally get the Solyndra loan passed. They literally ran out of time. That is not "stopping" it as you claim. Your post is disingenuous at best. Bush tried to get it through and failed because of red tape.

So the conclusion of the congressional investigation means nothing only OLD townies is right, even though he has no information and congress heard all of it from the people involved. What did you want me to post the whole investigation?

I gave you the link to read the PDF file of 150 pages. I post the Conclusion that was reached before Obama took office and still you blame Bush who by the way I did not support in his 2nd term due to the wild spending, Iraq, Patriot act, lack of using veto powers etc.

You are letting your hate for Bush cloud your judgement obviously, if you do not believe the investigation and conclusions in black and white from those actually involved in the energy department. Everything else you say are assumptions not based on fact and conspiracy theories not based on anything.

old townie@

To futher answer the silly reply you made of last minute.

So you are saying that from January 9, 2009 the day they refused to talk to solyndra anymore and decided not to approve it, that for the next 11 days they tried to pass it. Obama took office on the 20th. Funny how there is no evidence of that happening in those 11 days in the investigation.

You wonder why peop0le think you are going off the deep end. Thats why, even when you are given the facts you cling to a conspiracy theory based on nothing. geesh

However what I did omit since I was only answering your blame that Bush gave them the money. (They were the first company by the way to reach the point of actually getting approve from the fund set up in 2005 by Bush)

Read up on how Obama administration restructured the loan and left the taxpayers on the hook to protect the private investors, who by law were suppose to be second to the taxpayers, but instead were paid first and then surprise no money was left for the taxpayers.

Might want to check on who those investors were their name are big and they give big money to you know who.

That quote is a perfect example as to why Elizabeth Warren should never have gotten elected. Without the people to put up the money and take the risk for building that factory, then those "people we paid to educate" would be sitting around the house doing nothing... like the 10.3% of Rhode Islanders currently unemployed.

You are quoting “Warren”, who knows nothing about history including her own ancestry?

Do you know how foolish this “you didn’t build that argument” is?

What Government infrastructure was around when the American Industrial revolution started? (NONE)

What Government infrastructure was around when Henry Ford invented the assembly line? (NONE)

What Government infrastructure was around when Henry Ford Built Cars, (they were dirt roads in the vast majority of the Country. ( SO NONE)

By 1896, Ford had constructed his first horseless carriage which he sold in order to finance work on an improved model.

Ford; "I will build a car for the great multitude." In October 1908, he did so, offering the Model T for $950. In the Model T's nineteen years of production, its price dipped as low as $280. Nearly 15,500,000 were sold in the United States alone.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.(Prior to this law taxes were charged sporadically and for wars).

Who built the railroads? (Not taxes there were none)

Who built the National Telegraph System.(Not taxes there were none).

Who Built the Pony Express a private Mail service? (Not Taxes there were none)

The Pony Express was a mail delivery system of the Leavenworth and Pike's Peak Express Company of 1849 which in 1850 became the Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company. This firm was founded by William H. Russell, Alexander Majors, and William B. Waddell all of whom were notable in the freighting business.

Who Built the US Navy. It was Contractors in the beginning whom were called Privateers and Hired by Jefferson for the Barbary Coast war.

Who built the Revolutions war machine (Private Donations)

The only thing you can say is that the Government lent money at times from the taxpayer's which still continues corrupt as always today to accomplish some things.

By the way The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System, Interstate System, or simply the Interstate.

Notice Defense Highways in the name. It was a national security issue is how it was sold. That’s why the taxpayers were involved in it, not some nobel benevolent Governement to help people who built nothing according to Warren an Obama.

Feel free to send this to that uninformed lier known as “Warren” Copy to Obama also lol

By the way, like Warren and Obama you ignore just who the heck payed the taxes after 1913 that funded the Government into the monstrosity it has now become. The Government builds nothing at all. They are elected to govern by the Republic, they are not a business, they do not create jobs outside of Government jobs, that is not their mandate. Their mandate is to serve the Republic.

Ericka you really need to do a lot of reading it would seem, I am not insinuating anything on your intelligence. I merely think you are extremly uninformed of our government and our history as a Republic. The Republic and the Government are two completly different entities. It is the Republic that control the Governemtn not the other way around. Read up on States Rights and the Constitution. To paraphrase "all rights not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the States!!!!!"

"Who built the railroads? (Not taxes there were none)"

That would be the US Army as directed by John Quincy Adams Adams under the General Survey Act of 1824. These were financed by the treasury.

"Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, scandals involving the Union Pacific and Central Pacific inspired concern in Congress over repayment of the subsidy bonds. As a government-created corporation, the Union Pacific received the most attention, but the Central Pacific did not escape scrutiny. In 1887 Congress established the Pacific Railway Commission to investigate wrongdoing by the railroads. The commission found plenty. It reported that the Central Pacific had defrauded the United States government, violated "[n]early every obligation which these corporations assumed under the laws of the United States,"

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900486&chunk.id=d0e542&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1998/eirv25n28-19980717/eirv25n28-19980717_044-how_the_government_and_army_buil.pdf

Telegraph wires were strung next to rail lines.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/morse_hi.html

It would be nice if the Mods insisted on the factual requirements for posting in the Terms of Use. Too much of what is submitted here is fabrication.

You are so full of it NL@ lol. All the government did was same as they do today, they lent money through loans and subsidies to the companies to be able to build it. That is not the government building anything. That is the government loaning money, because the banking system at the time had no liquidity like the taxpayers treasury did.

Good try and failure at spin. Again if you are going to moderate try being correct first lol.

Bottom line is that "warren" was and is full of it also in her statement. "Didn't build it" lol what is wrong with the people who say that? nuts I guess lol

"You are so full of it NL@ lol."
Such a class act.
"Who built the railroads? (Not taxes there were none)"
I gather this was a rhetorical question, then as this gem follows:
"All the government did was same as they do today, they lent money through loans and subsidies to the companies to be able to build it. "

So, you think that the railroads would have spontaneously stretched to the horizon without any support from the public purse? Odd how construction began AFTER
the money was appropriated, is it not?

Would it surprise you to find that
connected financiers managed to defraud the American taxpayer in the scheme?

In that regard you did get one thing right, a corrupt government transferred the wealth gathered from American Treasury to it's wealthiest financiers.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142332/Credit-Mobilier-Scandal

What's next, shall we hold up Tea Party cranks like Orly Taitz and Publius Huldah
as candidates for the next Supreme Court appointments?

Fifteen submissions (so far) on this topic alone from you.
I may be full of it (if by IT you mean verifiable facts) but at least I'm brief.

Is this all you do, all day, every day?
You're not just long winded, you're also inept.

ahhh NL@, The topic is"Sequestration And Hunger". Jack bashing day. just saying

"The topic is"Sequestration And Hunger".

"You are quoting “Warren”, who knows nothing about history including her own ancestry?

"Who built the railroads? (Not taxes there were none)."

"By the way, like Warren and Obama you ignore just who the heck payed the taxes after 1913 that funded the Government into the monstrosity it has now become."

"All the government did was same as they do today, they lent money through loans and subsidies to the companies to be able to build it."

"Jack bashing day. just saying.."

- Jack Baillargeron, thread monopolist

You drove this thread onto the switchyard, I'm telling you that you can't dump a load here without clearance from the Stationmaster.

Considering how often you've posted on this (and every other) thread it's not surprising that you've got your signals crossed. Considering you have decided
to drive this Train of thought, you're apparently asleep at the switch.

Well put.

When did the concept of infrastructure become incomprehensible?

The full remarks from Elizabeth Warren responding to charges that she
(and others) wish to promote class warfare,

"“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

What's well put about this submission, in content or relevance to the sequester?

But whadda I know?

My wife works in a place that accepts EBT cards. They use cash for cigarettes and then use the EBT for Red Bull... so happy our taxes go to that.

Lee,
Let's get something straight. I was born and raised here. I have lived here my entire life. So get over it. Even graduated from PHS. I'm sorry you don't like that fact that I am a Portsmouth resident, but get over it (actually, I'm not sorry at all.)

How about you answer me a question....Where was Howard Johnson's? Come on, smart boy. Answer it or just go away, your boring me.

By the way, nobody pays me to post. But that was a really nice deflection. Hahahaha

I didn't notice the "paying" and not being from Portsmouth. Come on, man... no one is paying anyone to do this. We're sharing our opinions, that's it.

I agree Bryan EBT cards are biggest scam on the taxpayer to date besides Medicare fraud.

How people forget the investigation in CA, where they discover millions and millions of dollars being spent with the cards every year in of all places casino's in Vegas.

Not saying the system does not help those in real need, but it has become so big and corrupt it needs replaced period. If you are going to help under the guise of the good of the people and the taxpayers approve it, then you are responsible to see fraud waste and abuse are corrected. Not to say the GOP or others are trying to starve kids etc. It is Poop.

You fix a problem you do not let it remain status quo, because it gets you votes and make a great football of lies for political reasons.

I am from East Greenwich, and I see plenty of good hard working people going hungry right now. The corporations and banks that run the country have seen to that. Quite a few multi-billion dollar companies receive welfare. The majority of food stamp recipients work, are disabled, or are elderly. Look at all of the folks working at Walmart and places like that. Many of them make so little that they qualify for food stamps. One in Four children benefit from food stamps. Are the children lazy bums. I don't think so. What about the elderly and disabled. Do you want granny to go hungry? Open up your eyes, this is not a republic any more, it is an oligarchy.

"O No" here comes the full time paid commentors "Naomie and Old Townie", both of whom at not from Portsmouth and are more than likely paid to do this, they have to many facts and know nothing about our area..."

I know the smell of male bovine excreta when it's in print.

Here's a question; why do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is paid?
I'm not chiming in, during business hours (pesky J-O-B rules).

There DO seem to be a few that are in here, all day, everyday...

I don't know. I am sure there are things that can be cut. I don't quite know how the cell-phone thing works, so I can't really say if that is one of them. Everyone seems to have their own pet projects that they want to keep funded, not all of them are bad, not all are good. The Senate, Congress, and the President need to clear this up. I think that reasonable cuts and reasonable tax increases should be looked into. But, like I said, people are hurting. This is something that should be kept in sight when they do come up with something, if they ever come up with something.

Ericka@

I for the life of me cannot figure out this idea that Revenure needs to increase if you cut things, it is illogical to to say the least. It only remains the stus quo with constant stagnation of increase of yet more worthless social programs that demean and create nothing more then generational dependency.

Heres a novel idea. How about the government balance a budget and live with in their means like I have to.

We have a president who has said many time that the wealth needs spread around. Well I may not have much wealth, where the heck does it say the government has the right to take money from me so my nieghbor can be equal to my life style I earned. If my neighbor want the same as me, let them work for it like I did.

Ericka@

When you have one side that wants cut, and the other side say they will only do cut if they get increase in revenue it is insanity at best.

If I cut a $100 dollars from the federal budget, and raise revenue of taxes to get a $100 dollars (though we all know the tax increase would be more than that) I have accomplished nothing but being in the same boat I was before. If i raised more that the revenue of a $100 dollars I have put the taxpayers in the same place only I will spend even more to end up in deficit just as before.

I will agree both parties do this for political means(pandering for votes from the uninformed). Last budget was 2009 when Obama took office, continuing resolutions since then. Nothing can run forever on borrowed money it collapses eventually. Thats indisputable. (housing market bubble)

Jim L. This passed last night and more on the way as usual they will not allow the shut down to actually affect pay in the end.

March 6, 2013
The U.S. House today approved H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013

Also Jim L. Don't know whats going on there, but they are require to give 60 or 90 day notice I believe it is before they can furlough with out pay.

Also there is this.No government shut down has ever lasted mor than a pay period where it stopped anyone from getting pay. I suspect the same will happen here since the house passed a continuing resolution, they will do it for all probbaly over the week end as the political scare tatics and lies by the administration are about wore out.

The Environmental Protection Agency is considering an “agency shutdown” for three days between April 21 and Sept. 30 if the agency is hit with automatic discretionary spending cuts, a union official told BNA Feb. 21.

The agency, during “pre-decisional involvement talks” with officials from the five unions that represent agency employees, described a scenario under agency consideration in which every EPA employee also would be required to take 32 hours of unpaid leave between April 21 and June 15. This would include a mandatory furlough day for the entire agency on May 24.

http://www.bna.com/epa-considering-mandatory-n17179872498/

Jim L, do all your family members work for the federal government(like you used to) and are eligible to receive a federal pension?

Having just read about it at here. It funda the whole governernment till Sept 30th as long ass Obama signs it today since it passed last night. That is what the "Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013" mean after the defence part I guess. So sequestration is over at the last minute yet again.

http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=322361

The U.S. House today approved H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013. The bill provides necessary funding to keep the doors of the government open until the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

Overall, the cost of ownership represents a very large and continuing requirement for the life of fielded aircraft. According to the new estimate, we calculate that DOD will incur about $24 billion per year to operate and support JSF units, assuming the quantities now planned and an 8,000-hour service life for each JSF aircraft fielded over time. - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

$24,000,000,000 x 2443 = 58,000,000,000,000
8000 hours flight time is interpreted as a 30 year cycle.

That's 1.9 Trillion dollars PER YEAR to operate the fleet.
Thanks for pointing out the innaccuracy of my math, it turns out that the Joint Strike fighter program actually will cost 25 times the cost of SNAP benefits.

Good to know. Math is hard.
Tea Party math is impossible.

If you're gonna get it right the first time....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

Thanks RI!

I needed a good laugh. I'm old enough to remember this stuff.

Wow...wrong yet again! Read your post--It's not $24B per aircraft per year, it's $24B for ALL the JSF aircraft in a year--given 8,000 flying hours per aircraft. Moreover--if you want to add in overhead, does not the EBT program have operating costs? Do not thousands of civil servants to take and process applications, ensure the program is executed, and, of course, to ensure our money isn't being used incorrectly? So, in the end, the EBT program cost 2-3 times that of the JSF program. Thanks for pointing that out.

Seriously--when you evaluate something, it's better not to prejudge and try to twist facts and cherry-pick info to meet your preconceptions. Better to understand the whole issue and let the facts lead you to the correct answer. This of course, assumes that ones is trying to be honest, however, and not push an agenda without care for the truth.

Math isn't really that difficult. Try a little harder...

Your family benefits from the largess known as the federal government yet you are the first to complain about teacher's salaries and retirement benefits at the local level. This is called hypocrisy. God Bless America and the TCC.

Jim L, I bet your union made sure you were paid time and a half for overtime. The point is that you are a hypocrite.

I BELIEVE THE PREVIOUS TOWN COUNCIL WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH STEALING THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT'S MONEY AND FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE TOLLS WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED AT THE STATE HOUSE.

Jim L the nameless union bashing union member and JAck B the union bashing former union fireman and federal employee. This stuff is to funny to even make up.

bigmanny, while I don't agree wholeheartedly with Jim or Jack's positions on Unions (I think they did a lot to help the common worker in many different areas), you can't fault them for being in Unions if they had a job in a closed shop. They either take the job and pay the Union dues, or they are unemployed.

To me, that's unconstitutional because it violates our freedom of association. Luckily, the job I have now is not a closed shop and I was able to tell the Union folks to pound sand. I do not agree with the legality of Public Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions have too much power because they can directly effect who gets elected and who doesn't, meaning that they can essentially negotiate with themselves, the terms of their contracts. This is why many towns, cities and states are underwater.

If Public Sector Unions were illegal, those towns, cities and states would decide what they can afford by way of salary, benefits, ect. instead of making the big pay day just so they can get re-elected. We, the workers would have to decide whether that pay, benefits, ect. is good enough to apply for or take a job with them.

Right now, what the public sector unions have done is doomed those from my generation and younger, and they have also doomed themselves. When those towns, cities, and states can't afford those pensions or to hire as many as needed, then we're screwed. If there's no money, there's no money. You can't magic any more up.

@bigmanny

Remember, it's only "Socialism" when somebody else cashes the check.

Dim L how exactly did you figure out that JAT was from East Greenwich. Was it because this article is linked to the East Greenwich Patch. you are a true genius.

Slight correction Bryan@, Federal Unions are nor closed Shops. However any help the Union gives a non-union member can be billed them for time used to defend them if any.

Also I would add, that just because a Union member belongs to the Union, does not mean they blindly follow all union policies, nor should they in my opinion. Wrong is wrong period. ( Proud Whistle Blower I am ) ;-}

Oh not sure if the USPS is closed off hand though.

Agree with you on closed shops being unConstitutional, all States should be right to work period just like the Federal Government is.

Just for clarity Not to get to involved in this robert, since Jim L can obviously hold his own.

But if you are talking about a federal workers robert, the Unions are forbidden from Negoiating wages or Benefits or pensions by law.

Hours of work are governern by the FLSA (Fair labot standards Act) unless you are exempt from it as Firefighters in Government are, so management can do what they want concerning, I.e. Mandatory overtime etc.

These riles were written in the 1800's after the Civil was when the Civil service was formed and then amended on the Union rules by FDR who actually wanted Unions forbidden from organizing any federal workers. Just saying ;-}

On the other hand Robert, I do not know Jim L nor what is Job is or was. If it is or was the post office, that is totally different then Federal Workers as the are a quasi-Government agency. They are Over seen by Congress, and though people like to say they get no taxes, that is not true at all. They borrow money to the tune of billions lately, and are still in deficit.

I think it is a stretch to your impact on Federal workers, however as I point out the post office is a different animal Since Nixon Seperated them and yes they can negoiate wages and benifits, and pebsions. I was talking about in General, becuase like I said I do not know what his jobs is as it is not my business. Don't recall him saying he was a mailman.

As for uNions, including the Postal Union which I consider a prive Union now. I could careless what they negoiate and win. That between then and management of the companies.

With Public State Unions, yes I have a problem there though which is not a debate for this article i think ;-}

Someone collecting a disability pension from the USPS should not be criticizing local and state government workers on their pay or pensions. It is not hard to deliver mail. It requires no education. You just need to know how to read. Which may be a challenge for someone here who can't spell.

"Someone collecting a disability pension from the USPS should not be criticizing local and state government workers on their pay or pensions."

True enough. Let us not disparage those carriers on the job, regardless of the qualifications - they show up every day and handle nasty conditions.

Some of them are among the nicest people you'll meet around here.

It's fair to say that Tea Party adherents recieving Government benefits have a blindspot in their World view. It's not fair knock the carriers on their routes.

Gee tom, are you aware that it is one of the most stressfull jobs? The Mail never stops coming you know. The have had to address issue of depression, breakdowns, suicide, violent acts etc for decades.

Are you forgetting what put work place violence on the front page in the 80s' (going postal). Pretty darn disrespectfull to those workers to insult all of them for a personal attack on a single person who I guess worked for them. The did or do a service for the Country and you cannot group them all as a single entity like they use to for the "going postal" thing in my opinion. That is bigoted also my opinion ;-}

Is that a question at the end of your post? I don't understand the post?

Jim, Joe Sousa's camo T-shirt was in the Army, before it was at the Army/ Navy surplus store.

What is the land of TOM?