Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

[DiveCon]

I am a government worker, a federal employee for the DoD and what you say is BS, at least federal government employees pay taxes from their jobs that will stay in the US unlike the pissy corporations who outsource America jobs overseas at a loss of tax revenue for our country and a net gain for the corporation, so who's helping Americans more?


You Republitard imbeciles are funny, the retards politicians demonize government workers and suddenly you monkeys follow suit and believe them without fact checking and even looking into what government employees do.

whats even funnier is the libertards are the ones more likely to cut YOUR job
yet you are here defending them and criticizing conservatives

why is that?

I didn't defend any damn liberals you moron, I asked a simple question to the Republitards that they haven't answered yet, are they willing to give up their jobs and pay a "small price" for the larger picture, that was all I asked, since they expect others to willingly accept that proposal, one that they themselves are not willing to accept. We're talking about people's livelihoods here, not damn monopoly money and jobs from board games.

they likely dont have a government job, like you do

 

[Jroc]

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

Liberalism was that’s back in the 1800s in Gladstone’s day “Classic liberalism” is todays conservatism, get a clue will you? “individual liberty is what todays conservatism is all about. This is Gladstone’s “Liberalism”

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization
Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[3] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ewart_Gladstone

 

[Bass v 2.0]

whats even funnier is the libertards are the ones more likely to cut YOUR job
yet you are here defending them and criticizing conservatives

why is that?

I didn't defend any damn liberals you moron, I asked a simple question to the Republitards that they haven't answered yet, are they willing to give up their jobs and pay a "small price" for the larger picture, that was all I asked, since they expect others to willingly accept that proposal, one that they themselves are not willing to accept. We're talking about people's livelihoods here, not damn monopoly money and jobs from board games.

they likely dont have a government job, like you do

Thats not the question I asked moron, seems like Republitards can't put themselves in the shoes of those they want to sacrifice.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Republitards are what they are, retarded, they want to demonize and or penalized and burden the middle class and unionized workers to pay for their damn trickle tax cuts for the rich and ignore that these businesses don't need those tax cuts because they've been richer and richer year after year and the middle class has been shrinking so the notion that Democrats and Obama have been hurting big businesses and the rich is bogus, it can't hurt when they're getting richer and richer. They simply want more and more because of their greed.

 

[Oddball]

Are you willing to be one of one million to lose your job to pay a small price? No you are not, so shut the hell up, of course you Republitards are willing to sacrifice other people's jobs but not yours and your cronies.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the bureaucrat, you bloody twit?

Can't answer the question monkey? I'll ask again, are you willing to lose and or give up *YOUR* job to pay a "small price" for the larger picture? You monkeys don't put yourselves in the shoes of others but expect people to make sacrifices that you wouldn't make.

I obliquely answered the question...You're just too simpleminded to see it.

Does it actually hurt to be so dense?

 

[DiveCon]

I didn't defend any damn liberals you moron, I asked a simple question to the Republitards that they haven't answered yet, are they willing to give up their jobs and pay a "small price" for the larger picture, that was all I asked, since they expect others to willingly accept that proposal, one that they themselves are not willing to accept. We're talking about people's livelihoods here, not damn monopoly money and jobs from board games.

they likely dont have a government job, like you do

Thats not the question I asked moron, seems like Republitards can't put themselves in the shoes of those they want to sacrifice.

you are the fucking retarded moron

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are you willing to be one of one million to lose your job to pay a small price? No you are not, so shut the hell up, of course you Republitards are willing to sacrifice other people's jobs but not yours and your cronies.

I would be willing to loose my job if it helped the country. There are always other jobs for people who are willing to work. It might take a while to find one, but it is there.

That said, I am still waiting for someone to answer the very first question I asked in this thread, are the numbers used to guestimate this 1 million job loss the same numbers that say the stimulus created 3 million jobs? If so, should I be worried about the cuts getting rid of a third of the imaginary jobs from the stimulus?

 

[Provocateur]

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.

Are you willing to be one of one million to lose your job to pay a small price? No you are not, so shut the hell up, of course you Republitards are willing to sacrifice other people's jobs but not yours and your cronies.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the bureaucrat, you bloody twit?

Do you think that Bass even knows what you are referring to with this inquiry?




But, we should give him a break. He is still reeling from the news that he might be 15% European.

 

[Provocateur]

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.

Republitards aren't folling anyone, they want to make these budget cuts to feed more of government money to the rich businesses in the failed hope that these businesses and their trickle down voodoo economics will make the economy better and when debt grows even bigger they're going to blame Democrats, unions and government regulation for their failures rather than admit their own schemes don't work.

The government doesn't have their own stash of money. Contrary to what liberals think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Yes they do. You vote stupidly and you see what we get the last 20 years is a good example.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Could you refrain from using the R word. At least with Jillian, she isn't one of those type people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

No the Commerce Clause was never intended to force people to buy somethng they do not want to buy. It's just that simple.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What happens to the economy when you start cutting the defense funds? Where do you place those people who are no longer members of the military when millions of other Americans are not working?

 

[shintao]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

One thing more spending will do?

Make fools out of those who said deficits don't matter.


Cut now or cut later. Cutting later will cost you by far more jobs and prove that Government jobs are meaningless. Create 200 million Government jobs and watch the country burn.

And who was that who said "Reagan proved that defecits do not matter"?

Cut out 1/3 of our offshore military outposts. We spend at minimum 1/4 trillion on them annually. Not counting Afganistan and Iraq.

Yes cut other things as well, but why cut taxes? That did not work before and it will not work now.

I did not say we did not need to cut, just that it would prove those who said govt spending did not create jobs to be fools.

Wow dude, let them cut MORE!!! These tiny cuts ain't going to do enough. We need deep cuts and we need large tax increase on everybody. That is the reality here. Obama isn't going to cut the military, so government workers are all thats left............

 

[WillowTree]

"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

"So be it" Yeah, that was pretty much obie wan's attitude when he closed the oil fields down in La.

 

[Stephanie]

It seems some Guberment workers figured once they hired on with the Guberment, that meant they HAD their jobs FOR LIFE and the hell with the TAXPAYERS who pay salaries. We OWE THEM don't ya know.

Other companies DOWNSIZE or go out of business all the time and PEOPLE lose their jobs.

I wonder how they are able to go out and find other WORK..

 

[shintao]

It seems some Guberment workers figured once they hired on with the Guberment, that meant they HAD their jobs FOR LIFE and the hell with the TAXPAYERS who pay salaries.

Other companies DOWNSIZE or go out of business all the time and PEOPLE lose their jobs.

It seems these folks are ABLE to go out and find OTHER JOBS.

Oh yeah, they will find other jobs. Life ain't over. Only thing I see wrong is making these tiny cuts isn't going to make 13 Trillion disappear. The Retards are playing you for a fool, and these cuts prolly won't cover the interest. They are Losers................

Do dah fuzzy math. This is the annual interest for 2011: Fiscal Year Total $169,361,712,628.99

 

[Bfgrn]

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

What Reagan revolution? What unfettered capitalism? Are you from another fucking planet, or did you just sleep during the years Reagan was President? He increased federal spending by 53%, increased the federal workforce by 250,000 people, created a drug czar, and added numerous regulations. I can understand some Republicans thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do not understand why a person who claims to hate him does not know what he did. You could destroy every person that argues that Reagan hated big government by pointing out how he actually grew it, instead you feed into their delusion, and even believe it yourself.

You are a complete idiot, and your inability to see the the truth destroys any credibility you have. I don't give a fuck how old you are, you were not paying attention, so you have zero wisdom.

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
President John F. Kennedy – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Wisdom? Really? Are you a literal idiot? Let me ask you this Einstein, what government policies did Karl Marx implement? None you say? Then how can there be Marxism?

So, the current radical right wing ideology of cutting taxes to increase revenues, mass privatization, dismantling of the government safety net, and the mantra that the only thing wrong with government is that it gets in the way of the private sector would be attributed to whom? Jimmy Carter?

Jack Goldstone, an American sociologist and political scientist, specializing in studies of social movements, revolutions, and international politics, defines a political and socioeconomic revolution as: "an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities."

I am very aware that Ronald Reagan accomplished in 5 years what every president from George Washington to Jimmy Carter acomplished in the almost 200 years of this nation's existence...accumulate $1 trillion dollars in debt.

Ronald Reagan created an ideology of a federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy. The government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion dollars.

So, aptly named one, can we have a critical discussion of our current economic disaster? Should we start with Carternomics or Obamanomics???

 

[Jroc]

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

What Reagan revolution? What unfettered capitalism? Are you from another fucking planet, or did you just sleep during the years Reagan was President? He increased federal spending by 53%, increased the federal workforce by 250,000 people, created a drug czar, and added numerous regulations. I can understand some Republicans thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do not understand why a person who claims to hate him does not know what he did. You could destroy every person that argues that Reagan hated big government by pointing out how he actually grew it, instead you feed into their delusion, and even believe it yourself.

You are a complete idiot, and your inability to see the the truth destroys any credibility you have. I don't give a fuck how old you are, you were not paying attention, so you have zero wisdom.

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
President John F. Kennedy – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Wisdom? Really? Are you a literal idiot? Let me ask you this Einstein, what government policies did Karl Marx implement? None you say? Then how can there be Marxism?

So, the current radical right wing ideology of cutting taxes to increase revenues, mass privatization, dismantling of the government safety net, and the mantra that the only thing wrong with government is that it gets in the way of the private sector would be attributed to whom? Jimmy Carter?

Jack Goldstone, an American sociologist and political scientist, specializing in studies of social movements, revolutions, and international politics, defines a political and socioeconomic revolution as: "an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities."

I am very aware that Ronald Reagan accomplished in 5 years what every president from George Washington to Jimmy Carter acomplished in the almost 200 years of this nation's existence...accumulate $1 trillion dollars in debt.

Ronald Reagan created an ideology of a federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy. The government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion dollars.

So, aptly named one, can we have a critical discussion of our current economic disaster? Should we start with Carternomics or Obamanomics???

Trillion dollars from Reagan in 5 years? Wow he was an amateur compared to Obama's 1.5 in only 1 year. Lets not forget all these liberal unsustainable social programs are what’s breaking this country also Reagan had a Republican congress to deal with he wanted cuts he couldn’t get them Bush for all his spending did try to reform Social Security but the libs would have none of it. Also can you post anything without copying and pasting a quote from someone else?

 

[Jroc]

I'm not a partisan you retarded monkey biker, I asked a simple damn question to you Republitards, are you imbeciles willing to give up *YOUR* jobs and or get laid off to save money and pay that "small price" for the bigger pitcher? Simple damn question ape, if you are not don't expect others to do the same.

Are we talking about government workers here? You mean including the 200,000 unnecessary that have been added since Obama took office? Anyway.. The 1 million is a false number, not going to happen, and if Obama would just let the private sector do what it does which is create jobs, we'd have many times more then a million jobs created in the energy exploration and production industries alone. What is funny about you libs have no problem with Obama's Cap & Trade crap, which would kill millions, more jobs and drive more business over seas.