Boehner: Federal job losses? 'So be it'

[Avatar4321]

So you want working class families to pay for Federal jobs that produce no wealth in our economy despite the fact that we are broke because you think people are somehow entitled to federal jobs we cant afford?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should Fed workers be exempt from layoffs??

They shouldn't.

Who said they should?

The issue here is the Republicans running on jobs jobs jobs, but having NO plan to create jobs,

having only a plan to eliminate jobs.

And the GOP, up until Boehner accidentally spilled the beans, pretending that eliminating jobs was not part of their agenda.

 

[boedicca]

For 2+ years, the GOP has been saying that the best plan to allow jobs to be created is to do nothing to create jobs. Instead they want to make it easier for the private sector to create the jobs.

For someone who claims to know so much, why are you so "in the dark"?

You got that right.

If the environment were better the private sector would be producing jobs.

Get rid of capital gains and Obamacare and I think you would see the private sector take off like a rocket and provide those jobs.

They also need to shitcan a load of those useless Fed workers.

I'm sure none of us would notice.

Make capital gains 50% on investments of less than 6 months, 40% on investments of one year , 30% on 2 years, etc. down to 5% on 10 year investments.
Lets work for some stability and make those who create instability pay more.

Here's what you will get for that: flight of capital to other countries with less punitive capital gains taxation and LESS JOBS in the U.S.

 

[kiwiman127]

And to all the wingnuts here who ridiculed me last week when I said the GOP did not have a job creation plan...

...they had a job elimination plan

I just want to say, as Limbaugh likes to put it -

See? I told you so.

when am I ever wrong?? almost N E V E R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For 2+ years, the GOP has been saying that the best plan to allow jobs to be created is to do nothing to create jobs. Instead they want to make it easier for the private sector to create the jobs.

For someone who claims to know so much, why are you so "in the dark"?

You got that right.

If the environment were better the private sector would be producing jobs.

Get rid of capital gains and Obamacare and I think you would see the private sector take off like a rocket and provide those jobs.

They also need to shitcan a load of those useless Fed workers.

I'm sure none of us would notice.

Capital Gains/Dividend taxes were cut to 15% in 2003. As noted in the Labor Participation Rate following that, those cuts didn't have much of an effect on how many people got jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate.gif

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you want working class families to pay for Federal jobs that produce no wealth in our economy despite the fact that we are broke because you think people are somehow entitled to federal jobs we cant afford?

I want almost all of our troops brought home and the military proportionately reduced in size, for starters.

Do you? Or do you want to keep those Federal jobs, that produce no wealth, despite the fact we are broke?

 

[boedicca]

Why should Fed workers be exempt from layoffs??

They shouldn't.

Who said they should?

The issue here is the Republicans running on jobs jobs jobs, but having NO plan to create jobs,

having only a plan to eliminate jobs.

And the GOP, up until Boehner accidentally spilled the beans, pretending that eliminating jobs was not part of their agenda.

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't this the same Boehner that's fighting to keep building a useless jet engine in his state??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should Fed workers be exempt from layoffs??

They shouldn't.

Who said they should?

The issue here is the Republicans running on jobs jobs jobs, but having NO plan to create jobs,

having only a plan to eliminate jobs.

And the GOP, up until Boehner accidentally spilled the beans, pretending that eliminating jobs was not part of their agenda.

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.


The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

Uh, Fat Whore,

a good portion of the defense budget is based on the government mandating that jobs be created.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why should Fed workers be exempt from layoffs??

They shouldn't.

Who said they should?

The issue here is the Republicans running on jobs jobs jobs, but having NO plan to create jobs,

having only a plan to eliminate jobs.

And the GOP, up until Boehner accidentally spilled the beans, pretending that eliminating jobs was not part of their agenda.

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who said they should?

The issue here is the Republicans running on jobs jobs jobs, but having NO plan to create jobs,

having only a plan to eliminate jobs.

And the GOP, up until Boehner accidentally spilled the beans, pretending that eliminating jobs was not part of their agenda.

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

Where was it? Well, I dunno where it was, but here's the numbers.

Cumulative Total of President George W. Bush (R): +1,843,000 jobs
Average Jobs Per Month: +19,197.92
Total Number of Months: 96

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

Where was it? Well, I dunno where it was, but here's the numbers.

Cumulative Total of President George W. Bush (R): +1,843,000 jobs
Average Jobs Per Month: +19,197.92
Total Number of Months: 96

Bill Clinton - 22.7 million jobs.

lol

 

[Sallow]

You got that right.

If the environment were better the private sector would be producing jobs.

Get rid of capital gains and Obamacare and I think you would see the private sector take off like a rocket and provide those jobs.

They also need to shitcan a load of those useless Fed workers.

I'm sure none of us would notice.

Make capital gains 50% on investments of less than 6 months, 40% on investments of one year , 30% on 2 years, etc. down to 5% on 10 year investments.
Lets work for some stability and make those who create instability pay more.

Here's what you will get for that: flight of capital to other countries with less punitive capital gains taxation and LESS JOBS in the U.S.

Yep..that's exactly what happened the last time taxes were that high..oh wait.

That's not what happened at all.

 

[jeffrockit]

I read somewhere this morning that Obama wants the IRS to hire around 1000 employees to start implenting the first stages of Obamacare. More government jobs!

I have little sympathy for government workers who may be laid off. All those perks and hefty paychecks ... awwwwww. Maybe they'll be picked up by the IRS.

Anywho ... good to see you VaYank! It's been awhile. If you haven't noticed, Madeline has been giving you a run for your money when it comes to starting Palin threads. Are you going to let her out-do you? *wink*

So, you have little sympathy for government workers, fine. Now when those government workers begin to default on their mortgages, which in turn hurts your own assessment, what then? What about having to pay all of these newly unemployed, unemployment benefits? Money doesn't grow on trees you know. And finally, where are the jobs the gOP promised? If there were private sector jobs to absorb the Federal layoffs, I would agree with the "so be it" attitude, but since there aren't, and the GOP still has not produced the Jobs Bill they promised, what happens now?

Palin is dying a slow death, and I am happy to watch from the sidelines for now. She will stick her foot in her mouth again, soon enough and I will be here to revel in it. Promise!

Where was all the hand wringing over all of the private sector job losses the past 2 years? Are public sector layoffs more important ? I know they are to the politicians as they are used to buy votes.

 

[Claudette]

Uh. Moron.

The Government can't pass a law or a program that mandates jobs be created.

A Jobs Program in reality is a climate which promotes growth: low and reliable taxes (i.e., not threats that rates are going to increase), non-strangulatory regulation, government spending limited to receipts, etc.

The GOP will publish their budget in March. That is the big first step in creating a proper climate for growth IF they actually do something serious about cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

The Dems, btw, didn't even bother to pass a budget last year.

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

As I recall the jobless rate was about 6% or so through most of Bush's presidency.

There was no need to create a vast amount of jobs. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Hell. I had two.

You should know that since your the smartest guy in the room

 

[Sallow]

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

As I recall the jobless rate was about 6% or so through most of Bush's presidency.

There was no need to create a vast amount of jobs. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Hell. I had two.

You should know that since your the smartest guy in the room

Quite seriously..I don't trust Bush's numbers in the slightest. They never added up. There were massive layoffs yet the unemployment numbers never reflected the true picture. In some fairness, some of that was probably due to the type of people getting laid off. There were upper middle and middle class folks that delayed getting benefits by taking equity out of their properties or moving back in with parents. But just about everything the Bush administration did in terms of "reporting" was fixed in some way.

 

[kwc57]

Understood. I wonder how many of our GIs will get laid off? So, where is that Jobs Bill?

None. Sorry to disappoint you.

Why? Aren't they Federal employees?

Not exactly. They're soldiers who have contracted with the government to commit themselves to around four years of service to protect and defend our nation.

 

[kwc57]

Private companies have been laying off lately during times of crazy profits.

Which in turn caused much of the cyclical collapse in employment we've seen in recent years.

Off-shoring, Near Shoring, international conglomerates, reduction through removal of redundancy...in essence..De Facto Monopolies.

And the consolidation of wealth.

The march toward the Conservative goal of a Third World America continues! Good job boys!

Uh, no. That hasn't happened. But if you want to know why companies off-shore, look no further than Washington. When a country makes it difficult to do business within its own borders, off-shoring occurs.

BTW, did you hear that Canada just lowered the corporate tax rate? Expect their GDP to get a big boost.

Corporate Income Tax Rates | Canada Business Tax | Canadian Business & Corporate Tax Rates

Uh..yeah.

And Canada..has some extremely tough banking regulations. Hence they didn't need to do bailouts. Hence..they have the cash to cover lowering corporate rates.

But cherry picking is fun.

Carry on.

I've been in the banking business for over 30 years. If you don't think we have tough banking regulations in the US, then you've had your head up your butt for a long time. We have a sound banking industry in large part due to the regulations. What got banks in trouble more than anything else is the government forcing them to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers against sound policy. True story. Don't believe all the hype you see in those 10 second sound bites on the news.

http://www.bankersonline.com/abcsoup/abcsoup.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're wasting your time. These folks are utterly clueless, they think politicians have this Godlike power whereby the decree thing and they are so. They don't understand, no, they don't want to understand the correlation between fiscal policies and the climate in which growth (or lack thereof) occurs. Look at Obama... still incessantly rambling on about trains, education and green jobs.

But, alas, this is what you get when you have folks making policy who've never done a damn thing in their lives but read Chomsky and Marx.

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

As I recall the jobless rate was about 6% or so through most of Bush's presidency.

There was no need to create a vast amount of jobs. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Hell. I had two.

You should know that since your the smartest guy in the room

Yes, yes I am. Tied for that lead here.

Bush inherited an unemployment rate of 4% and left with unemployment at 7.7%. Almost double.

For Obama to equal that performance in 2 terms...

...unemployment would have to be at roughly 15% when he left office in 2017.

I'm thinking, no, that won't be the case.

 

[Sallow]

Uh, no. That hasn't happened. But if you want to know why companies off-shore, look no further than Washington. When a country makes it difficult to do business within its own borders, off-shoring occurs.

BTW, did you hear that Canada just lowered the corporate tax rate? Expect their GDP to get a big boost.

Corporate Income Tax Rates | Canada Business Tax | Canadian Business & Corporate Tax Rates

Uh..yeah.

And Canada..has some extremely tough banking regulations. Hence they didn't need to do bailouts. Hence..they have the cash to cover lowering corporate rates.

But cherry picking is fun.

Carry on.

I've been in the banking business for over 30 years. If you don't think we have tough banking regulations in the US, then you've had your head up your butt for a long time. We have a sound banking industry in large part due to the regulations. What got banks in trouble more than anything else is the government forcing them to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers against sound policy. True story. Don't believe all the hype you see in those 10 second sound bites on the news.

BANKING REGULATIONS: REG: A B C D E F H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE

Head up my butt?

Thems fightin' words.

And I've been arond the financial industry for around 15 years..and I've watched as regulations and regulators both got evisercerated. From the Reagan bailouts to now, the destruction of the walls set up between brokerage houses, auditors and banks led to this..and will lead to other "crisis". I, for one, would be in favor of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And the SEC really needs to be properly funded.