They actually did it: US automatic spending cuts officially become law after lawmakers fail to avert - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;39776102]You have to start somewhere, this 85bn cuts a lot of (jobs), in my area. Cutting 16T won't happen overnight.[/QUOTE] it won't happen ever because the deficit isn't 16 trillion

digging those military spending cuts. Thank youuuuuuuuuuu!

[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39776712]digging those military spending cuts. Thank youuuuuuuuuuu![/QUOTE] Unfortunately it's pretty likely the cuts will be personnel cuts instead of cutting funding to any of the indefinite vapor ware research embezzlement schemes.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;39777006]Unfortunately it's pretty likely the cuts will be personnel cuts instead of cutting funding to any of the indefinite vapor ware research embezzlement schemes.[/QUOTE] Spot on. Around 110,000 Soldiers are being cut alone, and that does not even count the number of Airmen, Marines, Sailors, and Coasties that will be cut. Let me tell you, sequestration has hit hard. People are being put on holdover to go to their AIT (Advanced Individual Training, where you learn the basics of your particular job) for months on end. Some training excursions have been cancelled due to lack of funding. Hell, they had problems getting my squadron home from deployment due to lack of money. They limited us to 100 aircraft hours per troop (company sized element of air cav) per month, which is barely enough for the pilots to keep current in their certifications. Birds will be down for longer periods of time, waiting on expensive parts to come in to maintain them. These are just aviation specific examples, the cuts have hit everyone just as hard. We have also prepared to not get paid, and many soldiers live paycheck to paycheck to support themselves and their families. It is really ugly, and I really wish that congress would have listened to Panetta, and avoided such broad measures to cut funds. It is always personnel cuts. I really, REALLY would want them to cut the super expensive civilian contract workers and have us take over for them, seeing as how we can totally do their job, but they get paid way more than us. It is going to be very rough for a while.

110,000 soldiers? Thats almost a 5th of the active duty personnel if i am correct. How the hell do they cut them though?

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;39778965]110,000 soldiers? Thats almost a 5th of the active duty personnel if i am correct. How the hell do they cut them though?[/QUOTE] That is the problem that has now been shoved onto the leadership. Remember, that number is total, so that includes Guard and Reserve soldiers, though far fewer of those are being cut. So far, the plan is to enforce standards extremely tightly, separating anyone who does not meet PT, Height/Weight, pretty much anything that will flag you. Get the people who have not advanced, nor show any drive to advance, out of the Army, such as 10 year Specialists and 10 year Sergeants. Forcibly retire those that have over 15 years in and meet certain conditions. Then it gets to the awful part. Bar soldiers from re-enlisting. They also revamped the NCO promotion system so you need 6 years time in grade per NCO rank before being looked at for the next one. That will make a lot of people not even want to re-enlist. That is the initial plan, we shall see how effective it is over all of this.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39767420]So let me get this straight. You have 16 TRILLION in debt and you only cut 87 billion? That's like spending being $16,000 in debt and saying you'll cut back by $87.[/QUOTE] I'm not really one to give responses like "Well lets see you do better!" but really please do explain how we should cut 16 trillion dollars in one go? I'm thankful that they stopped at 87 billion for now because enough servicemembers are going to get laid off as it is, the first thing that they always go for is jobs and not the ballin' politician luxuries and expensive research projects like all those jets that ultimately went nowhere

National Lab spending got some cuts last summer. Looks like they will this year as well.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39767420]So let me get this straight. You have 16 TRILLION in debt and you only cut 87 billion? That's like spending being $16,000 in debt and saying you'll cut back by $87.[/QUOTE] I skimmed through the thread, but didn't see a direct answer. Take a basic economics course. This is 85billion from the budget, not the debt. We've accumulated $16 Trillion by spending about a trillion per year MORE than we take in. Cutting 85billion is a step to slow down the growth of the debt. Supposedly, they will ramp up over time to cut more and more from the budget. We're trying to close the gap in the deficit. We take in a lot less taxes than we should and spend a huge worthless amount on military, education, and medical. Not saying we should cut medical or education, but they are bloated. They need to rework it. Those stories of schools buying 5,000 iPads and then getting rid of them after a year are good examples.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;39768750]Oh no we cut military spending what ever will we do! it's not like we're massively overpaying for shoddy equipment that if we would hold certain corporations accountable for we could easily have a military that's both cheaper and more effective.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=booster;39774358]US making military budget cuts? Maybe there still is hope.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39776712]digging those military spending cuts. Thank youuuuuuuuuuu![/QUOTE] Lets get some things straight about what is going to happen with the military budget cuts. The first year cuts the military budget by 9% across the board, with no ability to re-negotiate contracts or re-locate percentages to different projects. It is literally a 9% cut to all areas. Basically saying, that the military is either going to have to fire a huge number of people (about 115,000) to reduce their budget to the required levels or they are going to have to claim cost overruns which will worsen the budget going into next year. Either way, the military gets bad press, hundreds of thousands of people will be fired or lose jobs and the economy as a whole will suffer if not this year, then far worse next year. The sequestration is not a 1-year deal, it's a 10 year ordeal. I'm basically saying that cutting the military which is so heavily entrenched into the USA's market economy is going to make the recession a hell of a lot worse than if a deal had been struck to cut from the military over time (which would happen anyway if/when the war in Afghanistan was over). [editline]3rd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=zakedodead;39777006]Unfortunately it's pretty likely the cuts will be personnel cuts instead of cutting funding to any of the indefinite vapor ware research embezzlement schemes.[/QUOTE] No one has a say. No one can explicitly say where the 9% cuts to the military will go to. They are 9% cuts across the board in all sectors. This means personnel, research, development, upgrades, production, etc all get a 9% cut. Probably the second worst possible scenario.