Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

[Bfgrn]

Funny how Dims scream about job losses, and then also want cuts in military spending.

What do you think cuts in military spending will do?

End welfare for corporations.

The Defense Department awarded billions of dollars worth of contracts between 2007 and 2009 to companies accused of defrauding the Pentagon, according to a preliminary report.

According to the report by the Pentagon's office of the undersecretary for acquisition, between 2007 and 2009:

• $682.1 million in contracts were awarded to 30 Defense contractors who had been convicted of criminal fraud, resulting in judgments including fines, restitution, suspensions or debarments.

• $280 billion in contracts were awarded to 91 contractors who had incurred civil judgments, and 120 contractors who had settled charges of fraud.

• $992.5 million in contracts were awarded to 43 contractors who had been suspended from contracting with the Pentagon. They were awarded more than $3.8 million while they were suspended.

• $4 billion in contracts were awarded to 164 contractors who had been debarred. They received $15 million in contracts after they were debarred.

Report: DoD awarded billions to firms despite fraud - FederalTimes.com

I agree, we should end all corporate welfare. We could start by ending all subsidies for green jobs, then move on to the ethanol subsidies, then subsidies for museums, high speed rail, transit agencies...

Why do I hear a bunch of liberals screaming in pain and horror?

The only thing a liberal would scream at your neanderthal ideas is:

Meet you permanent daddies...

 

[Stephanie]

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?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Liberalism is total bullshit designed to placate the lazy. Liberalism is a total lack of faith in the individual and a total investment in the collective. It's for dummies.

 

[Trajan]

We won.

Get over it.

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

And some people, your fellow Americans will NOT get over it...they will cease to exist.

so, do elections have consequences or not?

 

[Bfgrn]

"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?

Maybe you just got too tired after the first paragraph...

 

[Avorysuds]

I'd like probably about 90% of the non-military Federal Employees lose their jobs..

Why do the military get a free pass?

because they hate government and don't understand that it has more purposes than to blow up stuff.

(it's their way of re-fighting the civil war... destroy the federal government from the inside out instead of the outside in).

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Try and remember most the Dems voted for the war and when they took over the house/Senate they never stopped funding them. Now Obama expands them, and homeland security. All the unconstitutional parts are supported in excess by Dems too, LOL.

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

 

[Avatar4321]

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

There are too many people who don't care about corruption of our system. It's sad.

 

[jillian]

Why do the military get a free pass?

because they hate government and don't understand that it has more purposes than to blow up stuff.

(it's their way of re-fighting the civil war... destroy the federal government from the inside out instead of the outside in).

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

NO...disingenuous is proposing cuts to the budget without knowing all the ramifications. Boehner said he doesn't know.

 

[Cuyo]

Liberalism is total bullshit designed to placate the lazy. Liberalism is a total lack of faith in the individual and a total investment in the collective. It's for dummies.

Ironically, there's actually some truth to that. Chest-beating conservatives tend to think that liberalism is all about moral empathy. Not so. When you placate people who have nothing, it keeps them from comin' for what you've got. In Rome it was called bread and circus.

But in modern terms it's also about just doing what makes sense, as some things cannot be done by the private sector because it either lacks the ability, profitability, or both.

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

I actually kinda agree with you there. I think that maybe there needs to be an Education Dept, but should only be there to make sure everybody in the Union is on the same page when it comes to standardised tests. That would probably be about it. No say on allocation of monies etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Liberalism is total bullshit designed to placate the lazy. Liberalism is a total lack of faith in the individual and a total investment in the collective. It's for dummies.

You somehow equate liberal thinking as a 'collective'. That is not liberal, that is more along the lines of communism or socialism...

 

[DiveCon]

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...

the dept of education is a huge waste of money
it doesnt actually do ANYTHING

 

[Cuyo]

because they hate government and don't understand that it has more purposes than to blow up stuff.

(it's their way of re-fighting the civil war... destroy the federal government from the inside out instead of the outside in).

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

 

[DiveCon]

"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?

Maybe you just got too tired after the first paragraph...

i guess you are too much of an idiot to see the 2nd "so be it" in that wasnt said by him

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

So you would get rid of the education dept?

When you have a product that has as many failures as the departmentof education has you shut it down.

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

The original intent of the income tax was not to be a permanent tax. It wasn't supposed to get higher than 3%. The more money the government takes in the more they feel they can waste.

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

The federal reserve does not answer to anyone in the government Bernake proved that in 2009 congressional hearing.

 

[Stephanie]

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

But it never crossed your mind the way you suggest interpreting it in this post, it COULD BE WRONG.?

 

[Avorysuds]

because they hate government and don't understand that it has more purposes than to blow up stuff.

(it's their way of re-fighting the civil war... destroy the federal government from the inside out instead of the outside in).

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

LOL, you just used the GW clause. The founding fathers referred to people who would interpret the GW clause like you do to be "mentally ill" I believe.

Why even mention defense in the constitution, I mean you could have just used the GW clause LOL.

 

[Avorysuds]

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

HAhhahahaha HOLY SHIT! The people that wrote it MADE FUN of people like you HAHahaha!

 

[shintao]

Funny how Dims scream about job losses, and then also want cuts in military spending.

What do you think cuts in military spending will do?

I was thinking the same thing, better to cut 95% of the military and save lives and money.