Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Has nothing to with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.
We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.
And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.
we have funds? whose we white man?
I guess when yo panhandle on Telegraph ave all day you have funds....we are borrowing 40% of every dollar we are spending, which encapsulates your idea having money.
have a credit card? have credit left on it? you've got money.....whats a simp.
The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.
Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:
Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report
Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.
The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.
Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:
Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report
Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.
There is a reason we are so deeply in debt: Don't tax and Spend. Simply cutting taxes and government is very appealing to those who don't consider all the consequences. Idiots believe cutting taxes and government jobs is the panacea for our economic ills. Doing so will exacerbate and already serious situation and lead to a greater economic crisis then we experienced in Oct. 2008.
It took decades to get where we are, and the idiots think it can be solved in one election, in one year.
The GOP clamors for job growth even as they clamor for smaller government. Since Jan. 2010 private sector jobs have been on the increase and public sector jobs have been eliminated. The elimination of public sector jobs has an impact on the growth of private sector jobs, as any job loss slows the economy.
Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:
Public Versus Private Sector Job Gains - US News and World Report
Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.
There is a reason we are so deeply in debt: Don't tax and Spend. Simply cutting taxes and government is very appealing to those who don't consider all the consequences. Idiots believe cutting taxes and government jobs is the panacea for our economic ills. Doing so will exacerbate and already serious situation and lead to a greater economic crisis then we experienced in Oct. 2008.
It took decades to get where we are, and the idiots think it can be solved in one election, in one year.
Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.
There is a reason we are so deeply in debt: Don't tax and Spend. Simply cutting taxes and government is very appealing to those who don't consider all the consequences. Idiots believe cutting taxes and government jobs is the panacea for our economic ills. Doing so will exacerbate and already serious situation and lead to a greater economic crisis then we experienced in Oct. 2008.
It took decades to get where we are, and the idiots think it can be solved in one election, in one year.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. If government slashed spending from 25% of GDP to 20% in one year, it could be disasterous. But I'm not arguing for that. At the same time, if government deficit continues as is for the next 4 years and we end somewhere in the 110%-120% of gdp in 4 years, we could be in the same situation as Greece, where no one wants to buy our debt, and our rates get really expensive really fast.
Doing nothing is equally as bad as trying to crush the whole problem all at once.
While saying this, I do believe that we could slash spending as a percentage of GDP by .5% per year, or maybe even a little more, without crippling the economy. Do you disagree with this?
Most of the public sector job loss has been at the state and local levels. Many of these places are drowning in debt and deficit. I know many on the left are choosing the economy over the debts and deficits, but it is a greater problem then you like to admit. While the federal government hasn't yet reached the tipping point were it becomes disasterous, that day is getting closer, and the issue does need to be addressed, even at the expense of the economy.
The goal should be to lower the deficit while still improving the economy. I believe it can be done. To totally ignore the debt and deficit at this point is total lunacy to me. This cannot be ignored for another 2-4 years. I sincerely believe that. Even if we managed to lower the deficit by 100B per year for the next 4 years, I'm not sure that would be enough. If the debt/GDP ratio was 70 or 80% you might convince me to just let it continue for a few more years. But its not. Its over 100% and climbing rapidly.
There is a reason we are so deeply in debt: Don't tax and Spend. Simply cutting taxes and government is very appealing to those who don't consider all the consequences. Idiots believe cutting taxes and government jobs is the panacea for our economic ills. Doing so will exacerbate and already serious situation and lead to a greater economic crisis then we experienced in Oct. 2008.
It took decades to get where we are, and the idiots think it can be solved in one election, in one year.
ONE more time, lol… You cut Spending, that is welfare programs and military (Bush/Obama wars) seeing that they are the biggest waste currently, by far. You then cut bad regulation, there is tons of bad regulation, miles of bad regulation… THEN, IF POSSIBLE you lower taxes.
See, this idea that you can raise taxes and pay for something is avoided when anyone asks this simple question of “Who do you tax, how much do tax %’s go up on these people, what % of that revenue goes to paying down the deficit and how much revenue will it yield in all?
You could literally tax everyone 250k and above an unavoidable 20% more on top of what they do pay and you would not even pay down the annual deficit but maybe 3 whole %, that’s a guess because it could literally be less than 1%. Now that’s saying that none of that “new” revenue goes to anything else but paying for programs we currently have. This also takes into account zero context of the future loss of spending people 250k+ will be doing and loss of jobs when companies have to make huge cuts due to such an increase in taxes. In fact you might find tens of thousands of people unable to afford their homes/cars/boats/vacations because their lifestyle was set to their income as it should be.
If you cut taxes but spend more then you perpetuate a very predictable problem. The issue is that people understand that later, taxes will have to go up… So they tighten their belts, this goes for business’s and just people in the work force. As we watch the deficit rise you have to believe that people who take risks in big business hold off on plans where it might take 5-10 years to see profit. Imagine building a building for a few million, that it could take 2 years but you are looking at an economy only comparable to the great depression… Wouldn’t you consider holding off on that project when the President says they will tax you later, but don’t even give you a clue to how much more?
I don’t care if these people were paying 15% and making 3 million a year… They base their investments off a plan, if you have a possible 10% in taxes hit you that plan is fucked…
This is not hard stuff to understand, you just have to be honest and not pretend that Bush cutting taxes was the answer when he dumps billions on friends by running up our deficits.
There is a reason we are so deeply in debt: Don't tax and Spend. Simply cutting taxes and government is very appealing to those who don't consider all the consequences. Idiots believe cutting taxes and government jobs is the panacea for our economic ills. Doing so will exacerbate and already serious situation and lead to a greater economic crisis then we experienced in Oct. 2008.
It took decades to get where we are, and the idiots think it can be solved in one election, in one year.
ONE more time, lol You cut Spending, that is welfare programs and military (Bush/Obama wars) seeing that they are the biggest waste currently, by far. You then cut bad regulation, there is tons of bad regulation, miles of bad regulation THEN, IF POSSIBLE you lower taxes.
See, this idea that you can raise taxes and pay for something is avoided when anyone asks this simple question of Who do you tax, how much do tax %s go up on these people, what % of that revenue goes to paying down the deficit and how much revenue will it yield in all?
You could literally tax everyone 250k and above an unavoidable 20% more on top of what they do pay and you would not even pay down the annual deficit but maybe 3 whole %, thats a guess because it could literally be less than 1%. Now thats saying that none of that new revenue goes to anything else but paying for programs we currently have. This also takes into account zero context of the future loss of spending people 250k+ will be doing and loss of jobs when companies have to make huge cuts due to such an increase in taxes. In fact you might find tens of thousands of people unable to afford their homes/cars/boats/vacations because their lifestyle was set to their income as it should be.
If you cut taxes but spend more then you perpetuate a very predictable problem. The issue is that people understand that later, taxes will have to go up So they tighten their belts, this goes for businesss and just people in the work force. As we watch the deficit rise you have to believe that people who take risks in big business hold off on plans where it might take 5-10 years to see profit. Imagine building a building for a few million, that it could take 2 years but you are looking at an economy only comparable to the great depression Wouldnt you consider holding off on that project when the President says they will tax you later, but dont even give you a clue to how much more?
I dont care if these people were paying 15% and making 3 million a year They base their investments off a plan, if you have a possible 10% in taxes hit you that plan is fucked
This is not hard stuff to understand, you just have to be honest and not pretend that Bush cutting taxes was the answer when he dumps billions on friends by running up our deficits.
Of course there are regulations which impede development, usually based on an egregious practice in the past. I have no problem with targeted tax cuts, targeted cuts of regulations and responsible spending cuts. The fact and the problem is no one has detailed which regulations will be set aside, what spending will be cut, and what will be the aggregate impact.
ONE more time, lol You cut Spending, that is welfare programs and military (Bush/Obama wars) seeing that they are the biggest waste currently, by far. You then cut bad regulation, there is tons of bad regulation, miles of bad regulation THEN, IF POSSIBLE you lower taxes.
See, this idea that you can raise taxes and pay for something is avoided when anyone asks this simple question of Who do you tax, how much do tax %s go up on these people, what % of that revenue goes to paying down the deficit and how much revenue will it yield in all?
You could literally tax everyone 250k and above an unavoidable 20% more on top of what they do pay and you would not even pay down the annual deficit but maybe 3 whole %, thats a guess because it could literally be less than 1%. Now thats saying that none of that new revenue goes to anything else but paying for programs we currently have. This also takes into account zero context of the future loss of spending people 250k+ will be doing and loss of jobs when companies have to make huge cuts due to such an increase in taxes. In fact you might find tens of thousands of people unable to afford their homes/cars/boats/vacations because their lifestyle was set to their income as it should be.
If you cut taxes but spend more then you perpetuate a very predictable problem. The issue is that people understand that later, taxes will have to go up So they tighten their belts, this goes for businesss and just people in the work force. As we watch the deficit rise you have to believe that people who take risks in big business hold off on plans where it might take 5-10 years to see profit. Imagine building a building for a few million, that it could take 2 years but you are looking at an economy only comparable to the great depression Wouldnt you consider holding off on that project when the President says they will tax you later, but dont even give you a clue to how much more?
I dont care if these people were paying 15% and making 3 million a year They base their investments off a plan, if you have a possible 10% in taxes hit you that plan is fucked
This is not hard stuff to understand, you just have to be honest and not pretend that Bush cutting taxes was the answer when he dumps billions on friends by running up our deficits.
Of course there are regulations which impede development, usually based on an egregious practice in the past. I have no problem with targeted tax cuts, targeted cuts of regulations and responsible spending cuts. The fact and the problem is no one has detailed which regulations will be set aside, what spending will be cut, and what will be the aggregate impact.
I say Ron Paul does but then I would get attacked, not saying you would attack me but people would. The issue I have when I say Ron Paul and someone attacks me is while they or even you might not like his cuts on regulations, spending and even ideas on tax cuts he is the only one that offers the regulation and spending cuts. Everyone else just gives tax cuts then spends and regulates more.
My point is, even if Paul is wrong at least he is going in the right direction while every other politician is digging us deeper into the abyss.
And thank you for being civil.
I hate to say I told you so, Wry...but right from the start I was pointing out that stimulus spending to prop up government jobs while ignoring the private sector would fail in the long run BECAUSE it's revenue from the private sector that ultimately has to pay for government. Barry's stimulus was fatally flawed from the get go.
So now you're back saying that the GOP is waging war on women because more women work in government? That's rather amusing. The people that screwed this up were Larry Summers, Christina Romer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi...not the GOP. That little group of progressives blew a trillion dollars of borrowed money on a stimulus that didn't work. THAT is the reason that women are getting laid off from their government jobs!
Trying to link the women thing to it was completely dishonest on Wry's part.
And, like you said oldstyle, the stimulus did fail which is why we are seeing the results you brought up Wry.
Explain how my post is dishonest? Your side has blamed Obama for the higher rate of unemployment for women; the link explains why more women have lost their employment; the why is the Republican's attack on public sector employment.
Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:
The Obama Jobs Bill Hoax
by Dom Armentano
President Obama's highly touted $300 billion "jobs" bill is a non-starter. It is unlikely to get through the Republican House of Representatives and even if it did, it would not create viable private sector jobs. After three years of sluggish economic growth and meager private sector jobs growth, politicians in Washington D.C. still insist on playing smoke and mirrors with the American people.
Can government spending create jobs?
Governments can certainly create jobs in the public sector; they do it all the time and Obama's bill will do more of it. Governments can hire school teachers, social workers, and millions of other bureaucrats to administer its thousands of programs and regulations. Importantly, however, the funds for these jobs must be provided by either taxation or by borrowing from the private sector. Thus as almost all economists recognize, public sector employment comes (in some real sense) at the expense of opportunities for private sector employment.
.
Since women are 50% more likely to work in the public sector, one more lie is exposed. The loss of jobs by women has everything to do with the GOP's war on unions and the public sector, not the policies of President Obama. See for lots of detail:
The Obama Jobs Bill Hoax
by Dom Armentano
President Obama's highly touted $300 billion "jobs" bill is a non-starter. It is unlikely to get through the Republican House of Representatives and even if it did, it would not create viable private sector jobs. After three years of sluggish economic growth and meager private sector jobs growth, politicians in Washington D.C. still insist on playing smoke and mirrors with the American people.
Can government spending create jobs?
Governments can certainly create jobs in the public sector; they do it all the time and Obama's bill will do more of it. Governments can hire school teachers, social workers, and millions of other bureaucrats to administer its thousands of programs and regulations. Importantly, however, the funds for these jobs must be provided by either taxation or by borrowing from the private sector. Thus as almost all economists recognize, public sector employment comes (in some real sense) at the expense of opportunities for private sector employment.
.
People decide that a decade of Republican leadership that resulted in two recessions and the Great Depression was enough. In fact confidence in the Republican Party was so shaken that it too 20 years before people trust them again.Has nothing to with the gop and everything to do with funds that we don't have. This isn't difficult to comprehend.
We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.
And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.
What failed ideology? You mean cutting spending, lowering taxes and shrinking overall Government like Harding did that ended the depression of 1919 ? Or the idea of spending more than you have on everything you can think of while over regulating and raising taxes like FDR did? FDR who's whole time of President of 12 years was dominated by the Great depression VS Hardings amazing booming economy WHILE he was President not years after like in FDRs case, when someone cut the spending and cut taxes.
People decide that a decade of Republican leadership that resulted in two recessions and the Great Depression was enough. In fact confidence in the Republican Party was so shaken that it too 20 years before people trust them again.We have funds; the problems is a failed ideology. For those who actually think about our problems it isn't diffult to understand.
And, btw, you didn't read the link before passing judgment. I did, and then I offered my opinion, countered the phony argument by the right wingers on this message board that Obama has caused the higher unemployment of women and Romney's constant lie that Obama has made our economy worse.
What failed ideology? You mean cutting spending, lowering taxes and shrinking overall Government like Harding did that ended the depression of 1919 ? Or the idea of spending more than you have on everything you can think of while over regulating and raising taxes like FDR did? FDR who's whole time of President of 12 years was dominated by the Great depression VS Hardings amazing booming economy WHILE he was President not years after like in FDRs case, when someone cut the spending and cut taxes.
