Do Mittens and Ryan realize cutting programs will add to unemployment?

[Avatar4321]

Well, if you're so confident, give Romney and Ryan the power and support them in their efforts to cut waste from the government. I guarrantee you more people will be employed by the end of four years than if we leave Obama in charge.

 

[Erand7899]

They assume correctly that if stability and confidence were restored to the business interests companies will start hiring again.

Democrats believe that unemployment can be solved if we employ a crew to dig a hole and another crew to fill it in.

But without the jobs the market is not there.

the only way to get a bigger market is to increase the money in the hands of the average people, they will then buy more.

If that were true, we would never have a recession. It is obvious that we have more people employed the day before the economy turns South, than we do at any time in the recovery. So, if all we needed was money in the hands of consumers, why did the economy tank?

The economy tanked because hundreds of millions of Americans quit buying durable items like washing machines, automobiles, and the like. That began shutting down the economy, and the snowball effect took us into recession. When you figure out why hundreds of millions of Americans quit buying durable goods, you can reach a reasonable conclusion as to what to do to get them buying again.

 

[courseofhistory]

It will be great to have leadership in Washington that understands economics and has a fighting chance of saving the USA from the fiscal cliff.


More than 500 economists — including five Nobel laureates — have endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s economic plan as the right choice for jobs creation and economic growth.'

Economists, Nobel laureates back Romney's economic strategy | The Daily Caller

Oh, sure! 500,000 jobs lost to cutbacks (both gov't. & private sector) and 300,000 created! That's a good plan if you ask me! Not!

 

[uscitizen]

There is more than a bit of truth in this complaint.

U.S. governments at various levels employ millions of Americans in jobs that could be eliminated without compromising the ability of those governments to fulfill their legitimate functions. As much as I hate to say it, the DoD budget could be slashed by at least a third without compromising our abilityto defend ourselves. Why are we in Germany, Korea, or Okinawa? Why do we have hundreds of bases in the U.S. and around the world - bases that were thought necessary during the Cold War, but are utterly without value today. The ONLY reason they continue to exist is because the people who work there - military and civilian - cry crocodile tears to their respective Congresspersons any time their need is questioned, and somehow the closures are stopped.

Operation Head Start has been PROVEN to provide nothing more than expensive babysitting to poor children; any conceivable academic advantage is completely evaporated by the end of second grade. Yet it employs tens of thousands of child care workers (or whatever they are called), who would be unemployed if the program were stopped.

So trying to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level would of necessity result in hundreds of thousands of government workers and military people and government contractors losing their jobs.

But there are two compelling reasons to do it: (1) we are BORROWING the money to pay them, and the American taxpayers will have to pay the direct costs as well as the interest costs over the coming years, and (2) the Federal Government HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY on anything other than those functions that are outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and to pay for those functions at the lowest possible cost.

The concept is "Fiscal Responsibility."

In other countries, where the government has cut its costs significantly (NOTE: "Austerity" in Europe is generally a myth; they are spending as much as ever, but TALKING ABOUT cutting back), the business community responds by making the kinds of investments that result in general prosperity and significant increases in private sector employment.

And let us not forget that PUBLIC SECTOR employment represents a COST to the society which must be repaid with interest, but PRIVATE SECTOR employment is a benefit to society that requires no "repayment."

To mention an axiom that is apropos: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" When your government is broke and going broker every day, you do what is necessary to stop borrowing more money.

Yes, and those that are for all this shouldn't complain when the welfare roles swell to the point of no return which taxpayers will pay for. And related private industries will suffer unemployment too in severe reduction of products for these agencies and programs such as office supplies, computers, office equipment and many items that are specific to each agency or business. So, if Romeny's plan is implimented, don't complain about loss of jobs and increased taxes to pay for the unemployment and other things that result.

Are you implying that government workers have no marketable skills...that all of them will end up on welfare?

It is really sad to have such a limited understanding of how things work.

 

[courseofhistory]

There is more than a bit of truth in this complaint.

U.S. governments at various levels employ millions of Americans in jobs that could be eliminated without compromising the ability of those governments to fulfill their legitimate functions. As much as I hate to say it, the DoD budget could be slashed by at least a third without compromising our abilityto defend ourselves. Why are we in Germany, Korea, or Okinawa? Why do we have hundreds of bases in the U.S. and around the world - bases that were thought necessary during the Cold War, but are utterly without value today. The ONLY reason they continue to exist is because the people who work there - military and civilian - cry crocodile tears to their respective Congresspersons any time their need is questioned, and somehow the closures are stopped.

Operation Head Start has been PROVEN to provide nothing more than expensive babysitting to poor children; any conceivable academic advantage is completely evaporated by the end of second grade. Yet it employs tens of thousands of child care workers (or whatever they are called), who would be unemployed if the program were stopped.

So trying to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level would of necessity result in hundreds of thousands of government workers and military people and government contractors losing their jobs.

But there are two compelling reasons to do it: (1) we are BORROWING the money to pay them, and the American taxpayers will have to pay the direct costs as well as the interest costs over the coming years, and (2) the Federal Government HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY on anything other than those functions that are outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and to pay for those functions at the lowest possible cost.

The concept is "Fiscal Responsibility."

In other countries, where the government has cut its costs significantly (NOTE: "Austerity" in Europe is generally a myth; they are spending as much as ever, but TALKING ABOUT cutting back), the business community responds by making the kinds of investments that result in general prosperity and significant increases in private sector employment.

And let us not forget that PUBLIC SECTOR employment represents a COST to the society which must be repaid with interest, but PRIVATE SECTOR employment is a benefit to society that requires no "repayment."

To mention an axiom that is apropos: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" When your government is broke and going broker every day, you do what is necessary to stop borrowing more money.

Yes, and those that are for all this shouldn't complain when the welfare roles swell to the point of no return which taxpayers will pay for. And related private industries will suffer unemployment too in severe reduction of products for these agencies and programs such as office supplies, computers, office equipment and many items that are specific to each agency or business. So, if Romeny's plan is implimented, don't complain about loss of jobs and increased taxes to pay for the unemployment and other things that result.

Are you implying that government workers have no marketable skills...that all of them will end up on welfare?

No I'm talking about unemployment increasing (gov't. & private sector). Having marketable skills means nothing if the employment market is down. IE, if you are a whiz at peddling copiers for businesses, you won't have many businesses to peddle copiers to or to buy copiers. Guess what? You lose your job. So, you the great copier peddlar try to get another job peddling copiers or related office equipment. Guess what, people aren't hiring in this area because business is down! Get it now?

 

[Stephanie]

Yes, and those that are for all this shouldn't complain when the welfare roles swell to the point of no return which taxpayers will pay for. And related private industries will suffer unemployment too in severe reduction of products for these agencies and programs such as office supplies, computers, office equipment and many items that are specific to each agency or business. So, if Romeny's plan is implimented, don't complain about loss of jobs and increased taxes to pay for the unemployment and other things that result.

Are you implying that government workers have no marketable skills...that all of them will end up on welfare?

No I'm talking about unemployment increasing (gov't. & private sector). Having marketable skills means nothing if the employment market is down. IE, if you are a whiz at peddling copiers for businesses, you won't have many businesses to peddle copiers to or to buy copiers. Guess what? You lose your job. So, you the great copier peddlar try to get another job peddling copiers or related office equipment. Guess what, people aren't hiring in this area because business is down! Get it now?

oh well, well play this for them if it happens..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unemployment will rise due to the cuts in programs this team (who doesn't need to worry about employment) proposes. This will especially affect women and minorities who are employed in planned parenthood programs, social services, etc. Way to go Mittens!

Well democrats caused this mess time to clean it up

EXACTLY!

That damn liberal democrat George Bush with his tax cuts and wars are the biggest contributers to our current debt.
And all those Dems using cloture motions to impede the recovery for politcal gains, how dare they!
oh, wait a sec....

Entitlement programs go back to FDR TRY AGAIN