GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says

[SgtMeowenstein]

You beat me to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, well, well,

here's the new Republican Senator from Wisconsin explaining how we have to cut government spending

IN ORDER TO CREATE JOBS.

 

[Samson]

So, where, again, are the people who scoffed at my previous statement that the GOP did not have a job creation plan,

they had a job elimination plan?

I missed it, but support any plan that leads to a complete shut down of the Federal Government for the next year.

Easy for you to say since you don't live here.

I don't live in DC.

Nor do 99% of Americans.

 

[Sallow]

A new report by Moody's economist Mark Zandi, says the House GOP's proposed cuts could cost 700k jobs and hurt the already unsteady recovery. This new report follows another report by Goldman Sachs, which says the GOP spending cuts would slow growth by 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year.

GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says

The report, by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

His report comes on the heels of a similar analysis last week by the investment bank Goldman Sachs, which predicted that the Republican spending cuts would cause even greater damage to the economy, slowing growth by as much as 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year.

Zandi also had bad news for liberal Democrats who are resisting sharp spending cuts: Bringing deficits down to sustainable levels will require more than a growing economy. Even if the economy recovers as expected, he writes, lawmakers will have to cut about $400 billion a year through the rest of this decade to narrow the gap between spending and revenue, and stop adding significantly to the national debt.

"Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the still halting economic recovery, it would be counterproductive for that restraint to begin until the economy is creating enough jobs to bring down the still very high unemployment rate," Zandi writes. "Shutting the government down for any length of time would also be taking a big chance with the recovery, not only because of the disruption to government services, but also due to the potential hit to the fragile collective psyche."

Lawmakers are facing a Friday deadline to approve a new measure to fund the government through the remainder of this fiscal year; the current funding bill is set to expire. Republicans insist the new measure should include deep cuts; Democrats say they are willing to cut spending this year, but not nearly as much.

Cutting jobs has been the GOP purpose since Obama took Office. Nothing will hurt Obama's chance for re-election more than rising unemployment. If they do a really good job, they may just drive the country into an even worst recession assuring a GOP sweep. Make no mistake, politics is not about what's best for the nation. It's about what best for the politician first, the party second, and the nation third.

That's basically been their agenda. To bring about the failure of President Obama. Although this has been hinted at in the past..against the opposition...never has it been so bluntly put out there.

 

[Sallow]

LOL, if I recall, the Republicans won in a historic ass kicking of the Democrats this last election on the promise, THEY WOULD CUT SPENDING.

too bad you lefties didn't PAY ATTENTION.

I guess I must not have been paying attention, because I missed it when they said they were going to cut jobs.

Actually they ran on the bizarre claim that cutting spending would increase jobs.

Brought to you by the same people who claimed cutting taxes would increase revenue.

 

[Stephanie]

nobody has to PLAN to bring the idiot in chief DOWN.

He's done a FINE JOB ALL ON HIS OWN.

he has no one to blame but himself, and his radical Comrades in Arms.

The people spoke LOUD AND CLEAR with this last election, they can't stand him and his "visions".

 

[EdSchultzIsFat]

Obama has already flushed 2 to 3 trillion dollars down the toilet,,,,does Ubama know how many jobs you can create with One Trillion? Try 25 Million !!!! that means you only needed 1/2 trillion to put all the 14 Million Americans back to work!! SO WHERE DID THE THREE TRILLION GO????

 

[steeliniraq]

All i am going to say to this thread is if you are spending more than you are making then you need to cut costs.

 

[Iowa10000]

The first thing that needs to be cut is wars and their budgets.
second thing is congress and their cost.
Third thing is bring back the taxes to the levels they were befor bush ruined the ecconomy and then put a 10% add on to anyone who owes 10,000 in taxes to the feds.
Fouth do the same at the state level, raise taxes.
fifth, SS tax on every dollar all the way to the last dollar.
Then if this doesn't do it lets start cutting things we don't need. Buy a apartment house and set every senator and congressman up with a room when they are in washington. get rid of perdiem. Get rid of lunch money, set up an account at subway. other wise they can cook at their apartment.
Lets import drugs, so other countries will end up helping us pay for their years of testing.
anyone hiring anyone who went through college needs to pay back to the govt the cost to educate that person.
Bring our soldiers home for the most part, they could at least attend to the borders.
there has got to be many more cost cutting things out there.

 

[Iowa10000]

All i am going to say to this thread is if you are spending more than you are making then you need to cut costs.

or you need to raise income, not cut taxes, and also look at cutting cost when and where you can.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The wording of this story is odd.

It say that we will lose 700k jobs.

It does not say 700k people will lose thier jobs.

It doesn't truly matter what happens just this year, it's important to save the whole country, and if spending less means we lose fewer jobs than the stimulus cost us, then it's a much better idea.

 

[mudwhistle]

A new report by Moody's economist Mark Zandi, says the House GOP's proposed cuts could cost 700k jobs and hurt the already unsteady recovery. This new report follows another report by Goldman Sachs, which says the GOP spending cuts would slow growth by 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year.

GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says

The report, by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

His report comes on the heels of a similar analysis last week by the investment bank Goldman Sachs, which predicted that the Republican spending cuts would cause even greater damage to the economy, slowing growth by as much as 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year.

Zandi also had bad news for liberal Democrats who are resisting sharp spending cuts: Bringing deficits down to sustainable levels will require more than a growing economy. Even if the economy recovers as expected, he writes, lawmakers will have to cut about $400 billion a year through the rest of this decade to narrow the gap between spending and revenue, and stop adding significantly to the national debt.

"Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the still halting economic recovery, it would be counterproductive for that restraint to begin until the economy is creating enough jobs to bring down the still very high unemployment rate," Zandi writes. "Shutting the government down for any length of time would also be taking a big chance with the recovery, not only because of the disruption to government services, but also due to the potential hit to the fragile collective psyche."

Lawmakers are facing a Friday deadline to approve a new measure to fund the government through the remainder of this fiscal year; the current funding bill is set to expire. Republicans insist the new measure should include deep cuts; Democrats say they are willing to cut spending this year, but not nearly as much.

Course you forgot to mention that the same report says that a government shutdown, which is what the Democrats want, will cause MUCH MORE DAMAGE.

The House Republicans’ proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points This would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012.

A government shutdown lasting longer than a couple of weeks would do much more damage to the economy.

Lawmakers are likely to split the difference between the administration and House Republican proposals. This isn’t ideal fiscal policy, but the economy will be able to manage through it.

A compromise could send an encouraging signal about the more serious budget battles to come.

We are in a position where we have to make cuts, and the Dems put us there on purpose. So I say go ahead, make the cuts. Because our debt is unsustainable, and everyone knows it.

Obama policies have caused the loss of millions of jobs already. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how Nancy Pelosi can say this with a straight face. She even said their primary goal was deficit reduction.

Jesus. How dishonest and out of touch can you get. It's similar to their complaints about the $500 billion dollar deficit under Bush while they've built up a $1,800,000,000,000.00 budget deficit themselves. (Notice that Obama has set up this stand off intentionally because he never submitted a budget for 2011. Only 2012) BTW, Bush had the deficit down to $160 billion before the Dems won the House and the Senate back. All of this debt has built up on their watch.

Getting back to responsible spending is gonna be painful. But then again, this is why the Dems spent so much in the first place. This was all set up. All of those bailouts actually went to prop up unions. The Dems are so beholden to their special interests that they've spent us further into debt then ever before in our history. They expected to divide this country. It's down right criminal.

This weekend the Dems want to shut down the federal government, or at least make it look like it's shut down. They want to bring in their red-flag waving protesters and raise havoc. This is what they've been waiting for. Not one penny of the debt can be paid off as long as we're operating in the red. We have to spend less then we take in or we will perpetually have to pay one billion in interest a day towards the debt.

Don't expect these people to ever work toward the greater good. It's not in them.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Course you forgot to mention that the same report says that a government shutdown, which is what the Democrats want, will cause MUCH MORE DAMAGE.

Surely you have some proof that Democrats want a gov't shutdown?...........