Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

[Provocateur]

"So be it."

That was House Speaker John Boehner's cold answer when asked Tuesday about job losses that would come from his new Republican majority's plans to cut tens of billions of dollars in government spending this year.

"Do you have any sort of estimate on how many jobs will be lost through this?" Pacifica Radio's Leigh Ann Caldwell inquired at a news conference just before the House began its debate on the cuts.

Boehner stood firm in his polished tassel loafers. "Since President Obama has taken office the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it," he said.

"Do you have any estimate of how many will?" Caldwell pressed. "And won't that negatively impact the economy?"

"I do not," Boehner replied, moving to the next questioner.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do. I checked with budget expert Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress, and, using the usual multipliers, he calculated that the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.

So be it?

More

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs is your title. Then you quote him talking about the 200,000 new federal jobs added.

Why do you lie?

You'd do yourself a much better service if you actually read the whole post before replying. You look silly otherwise...

I read the whole post, thanks.

You want the title to imply that Boehner says "so be it" to a million jobs lost.

He didn't say that at all. You are being disingenuous.

 

[Dr Grump]

funny Dr. Grumpy, but I don't recall where I said that. but nice try.

Well, when you mean less govt. How?

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

 

[Provocateur]

Well, when you mean less govt. How?

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

You could start with departments and/or positions that are duplicated.

 

[Dr Grump]

Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs is your title. Then you quote him talking about the 200,000 new federal jobs added.

Why do you lie?

You'd do yourself a much better service if you actually read the whole post before replying. You look silly otherwise...

I read the whole post, thanks.

You want the title to imply that Boehner says "so be it" to a million jobs lost.

He didn't say that at all. You are being disingenuous.

I didn't read into it what you did....

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn, Personally I'd like to see a whole lot more than 650,000 Federal Employees lose their jobs. I'd like probably about 90% of the non-military Federal Employees lose their jobs. Not because I have anything against those individuals, but because their jobs are unConstitutional and are costing me money via my taxes. Oh, and before you say... "Well, you'll just have to pay for their unemployment and/or welfare benefits..." Those are two of the programs that I believe need to be done away with as unConstitutional, so NO I wouldn't have to pay for that either.

Has there been any lower form of life in existence than today's 'Constitution' radicals? The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead...that would be YOU. A country faces economic issues and moral issues, and they are deeply intertwined. The economy of any nation that calls itself 'moral' does not severely punish it's hard working people. THAT is not the nation our founders intended. It was the nation Hitler intended.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

 

[Dr Grump]

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

You could start with departments and/or positions that are duplicated.

Such as? The Marine corps should run the navy and army?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The senate was 49 to 49 from 2006 to 2008 with two independents.

Every president runs on the budget of the previous president for the first 8 months they are in office. Everyone knows that. The last day of Clinton's budget, unemployment was 5.3%. The last day of Bush's budget, unemployment was 10.1%. Currently, it's around 9%.

How can anyone debate people who don't know anything except what their delusional minds imagine?

Right wingers. Never know what they are talking about. Too bad they can't feel shame.

10.1%???

Are you saying the government lied to me?

What's MORE troubling is that HE is just finding this out.

He probably didn't even notice.

 

[uscitizen]

And some say the government cannot and does not create jobs. Hummph...

cutting spending is going to cut jobs no matter where you cut spending.

 

[Stephanie]

Bfgrn, Personally I'd like to see a whole lot more than 650,000 Federal Employees lose their jobs. I'd like probably about 90% of the non-military Federal Employees lose their jobs. Not because I have anything against those individuals, but because their jobs are unConstitutional and are costing me money via my taxes. Oh, and before you say... "Well, you'll just have to pay for their unemployment and/or welfare benefits..." Those are two of the programs that I believe need to be done away with as unConstitutional, so NO I wouldn't have to pay for that either.

Has there been any lower form of life in existence than today's 'Constitution' radicals? The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead...that would be YOU. A country faces economic issues and moral issues, and they are deeply intertwined. The economy of any nation that calls itself 'moral' does not severely punish it's hard working people. THAT is not the nation our founders intended. It was the nation Hitler intended.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

oh brother, the drama.
And I notice you didn't take me up on my suggestion, figures.

 

[Bfgrn]

The right wants government shrunk. 1 millions jobs is, I'm sorry to say, a small price to pay for the larger picture. It's a means to an end.

Hate me now.

They never did it, in all the years they were in power...Reagan grew government, Bush grew government. They are waging class warfare...it is the end to their means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, when you mean less govt. How?

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

Department of no education, Department of homeland security,
Departments that are not part of the government IRS, Federal Reservor

 

[Avatar4321]

The right wants government shrunk. 1 millions jobs is, I'm sorry to say, a small price to pay for the larger picture. It's a means to an end.

Hate me now.

They never did it, in all the years they were in power...Reagan grew government, Bush grew government. They are waging class warfare...it is the end to their means.

Amazing. How come you never admit that you are waging class warfare?

You divide people into classes and yet somehow the people who dont see people as in classes are the ones waging class warfare? Creating policies that benefit all people is class warfare.

I'm so sick of you Robbers pervading our society.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Winning an election does not mean you can destroy the middle class and the poor.

Tell that to your own party. The Democrats seem to have been thinking it does since the 1960s.

 

[Provocateur]

So who do you get rid of?

You could start with departments and/or positions that are duplicated.

Such as? The Marine corps should run the navy and army?

Strange, but liberal Jerry Brown took office and promptly shut down 25% of the field offices throughout the state and demolished the funding for the 1st lady of CA.

That is what I'm referring to. There is a lot of waste.

On a smaller scale, if you look at most departments, generally two positions could be filled by one person.

 

[Avatar4321]

Winning an election does not mean you can destroy the middle class and the poor.

Tell that to your own party. The Democrats seem to have been thinking it does since the 1960s.

Please. you expect a partisan hack like him to admit that his party has had anything to do with it?

No it's all those other guys. They are the problem.

 

[kyzr]

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

Department of no education, Department of homeland security,
Departments that are not part of the government IRS, Federal Reservor

In 1984 there was a "Grace Commission" whereby a Wall Street consultant studied the Federal government and recommended changes that would save trillions. Its time for another "reorganization" of the Federal government and a look at cutting entitlements.

 

[Dr Grump]

Having less government does not mean no government.

So who do you get rid of?

Department of no education, Department of homeland security,
Departments that are not part of the government IRS, Federal Reservor

So you would get rid of the education dept? Are you crazy? Homeland security I understand.

The IRS is, by default, part of the govt. Unless you want to get rid of income tax, which will never happen.

As for the fed reserve, who pays for them if the Govt doesn't? They need to be answerable to the people via the govt...

 

[Bfgrn]

Tell me again how getting the budget in order destroys the middle class? Or, is this just more of the "they're gonna make old people eat dog food" nonsense?

There are a lot of ways to get the budget in order. Doing it at the expense of people who can least afford it has to be the LAST solution, not the first. All we heard from Republicans after the crash of the economy is that the worst thing you can do during a recession is raise the taxes of the rich. NO...the worse thing you can do is cut services to the people whose existence depends upon them and cutting off people's source of income in a job market where there are not enough jobs for the people already unemployed. Now, that Republicans secured the Bush tax cuts for the rich, their solution is to cut jobs and services to the middle class and the poor. That is not only the worse thing you can do during a recession, it is cruel and unusual treatment of citizens of this country who were in NO WAY TO BLAME for the crash. If you really can't understand that Soggy, then I have to question your understanding of what a civil society is.

The question shouldn't be about people being forced to eat dog food, it should be about the opulent having to order a few less cases of caviar.


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Wow, you really have put a lot of thought into this!

And tell me again what policies have created people as you put it, whose existence depends upon them ? That's civil society? Generation after generation living off the taxpayer?

Sounds like B.S. to me.

And you have put no thought into it. You have simply done what conservatives always do.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[Dr Grump]

You could start with departments and/or positions that are duplicated.

Such as? The Marine corps should run the navy and army?

Strange, but liberal Jerry Brown took office and promptly shut down 25% of the field offices throughout the state and demolished the funding for the 1st lady of CA.

That is what I'm referring to. There is a lot of waste.

On a smaller scale, if you look at most departments, generally two positions could be filled by one person.

Well, Cali is almost bankrupt. They probably do need to streamline a lot of depts. They did that down here in the early 90s. Most govt depts run very efficiently now. Nowhere near as much wastage as in the bad old days..

 

[Avatar4321]

So you would get rid of the education dept? Are you crazy? Homeland security I understand.

The IRS is, by default, part of the govt. Unless you want to get rid of income tax, which will never happen.

As for the fed reserve, who pays for them if the Govt doesn't? They need to be answerable to the people via the govt...

Could you name the provision of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to become involved in Education?

Could you explain what is wise about removing money from states so Washington can give it back to states for education purposes?

Why is it better for Education to be controled at the national level instead of at the local levels by the people who are actually affected by educational choices?