Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

[boedicca]

Nice dodge kaz. You agree with point one, and refuse to endulge in 2 & 3. What I said is correct, so what do you want to do about it, since you are willing to ax gov. employees who are taxed & contribute their wages to society at the local level where it is needed.

Straw man: "the owners of companies don't have anything to do with profit." That wasn't the point Kaz. Stocks contribute nothing to the economy, and sit in safe deposit boxes as worthless paper that does not circulate for others to borrow or use.

Dude, I said you were wrong on point one and explained why. With stockholders you're referring to the piece of paper, I'm referring to that it refers to a share of the company. The company that creates the economic growth. Stocks are how we keep track of company ownership. Do you know anything about capital markets at all?

Stocks are a means to avoid borrowing from banks, steal wages off the backs of employees, and sit in safe deposit boxes out of economic circulation. Don't you know anything from your Eco-101?? Best worry about yourself dude. LMAO!

And here ^^^ he admits his complete ignorance regarding business, economics, and the capital markets.

 

[kaz]

Nice dodge kaz. You agree with point one, and refuse to endulge in 2 & 3. What I said is correct, so what do you want to do about it, since you are willing to ax gov. employees who are taxed & contribute their wages to society at the local level where it is needed.

Straw man: "the owners of companies don't have anything to do with profit." That wasn't the point Kaz. Stocks contribute nothing to the economy, and sit in safe deposit boxes as worthless paper that does not circulate for others to borrow or use.

Dude, I said you were wrong on point one and explained why. With stockholders you're referring to the piece of paper, I'm referring to that it refers to a share of the company. The company that creates the economic growth. Stocks are how we keep track of company ownership. Do you know anything about capital markets at all?

Stocks are a means to avoid borrowing from banks, steal wages off the backs of employees, and sit in safe deposit boxes out of economic circulation. Don't you know anything from your Eco-101?? Best worry about yourself dude. LMAO!

Econ 101 is where your cover my points. Yours are covered in Marxism 101...

 

[shintao]

That's not what I said, I said we should count the people accurately who don't produce any economic benefit. While I come from a military family (including a brother and cousin who were in Gulf War I), the military doesn't produce any economic benefit. I never said we should have no one who produces no economic benefit, I said we should count them accurately.

All you want to do is count people accurately? I think that is why yoy have 10% unemployed, because someone decided to count accurately.

Like charity, those people produce no economic benefit by taking jobs from the unemployed. Count them.

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

Thanks for that admittance. If they were counted accurately you would see that a capitalist system fairs no better than a socialist system.

 

[DiveCon]

All you want to do is count people accurately? I think that is why yoy have 10% unemployed, because someone decided to count accurately.

Like charity, those people produce no economic benefit by taking jobs from the unemployed. Count them.

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

Thanks for that admittance. If they were counted accurately you would see that a capitalist system fairs no better than a socialist system.

but we are not a true free market capitalist system

 

[shintao]

Dude, I said you were wrong on point one and explained why. With stockholders you're referring to the piece of paper, I'm referring to that it refers to a share of the company. The company that creates the economic growth. Stocks are how we keep track of company ownership. Do you know anything about capital markets at all?

Stocks are a means to avoid borrowing from banks, steal wages off the backs of employees, and sit in safe deposit boxes out of economic circulation. Don't you know anything from your Eco-101?? Best worry about yourself dude. LMAO!

And here ^^^ he admits his complete ignorance regarding business, economics, and the capital markets.

Point to any discrepancy B, because what I said is accurate and factual. So here you show your complete ignorance of capitalist marketing.

 

[kaz]

All you want to do is count people accurately? I think that is why yoy have 10% unemployed, because someone decided to count accurately.

Like charity, those people produce no economic benefit by taking jobs from the unemployed. Count them.

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

Thanks for that admittance. If they were counted accurately you would see that a capitalist system fairs no better than a socialist system.

If you understood the discussion, I think the point is that socialist influences are driving up unemployment. As for socialism being as good as that, if you only count the employment rate obviously socialism is better. But having 100% employment with very little productivity because there is no incentive to work has other drawbacks

 

[shintao]

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

Thanks for that admittance. If they were counted accurately you would see that a capitalist system fairs no better than a socialist system.

but we are not a true free market capitalist system

But they are not a true socialist system.

 

[logical4u]

"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

Don't worry, this is the same office that told us they were adding jobs after the stimulus bills. If their calculations are as far off as they were for those, we should be adding MILLIONS of jobs!

 

[shintao]

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

Thanks for that admittance. If they were counted accurately you would see that a capitalist system fairs no better than a socialist system.

If you understood the discussion, I think the point is that socialist influences are driving up unemployment.

I see no hard evidence of that, or maybe it is just more obvious the Capitalists moving jobs overseas to socialist countries, laying off workers, and holding back a trillion in cash that could hire employees and spur the economy. So what do you see as this socialist threat. The trillions we have used to bailout the capitalist wallstreet & banks & housing & GM?

As for socialism being as good as that, if you only count the employment rate obviously socialism is better. But having 100% employment with very little productivity because there is no incentive to work has other drawbacks

The numbers are really not here or there, or have anything to do with incentives. Socialists have far more incentives than capitalists, so I don't see a logical connection.

 

[Bfgrn]

We taxpayers don't OWE you guberment leeches a damn thing, not even your job. We are sick of carrying a lot of your dead asses around.
The only ones I OWE ANYTHING to is our MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN. They and their families sacrifice way more than you office sitting lard asses who do nothing all day.
And I know from experience, I worked for the Sec. of State of Illinois.

Now you all better start looking for WORK.

We should count government employees in the unemployment numbers, that way unemployment would be a better gauge of economic deadwood on the economy. Unfortunately they are worse then welfare recipients because they insist on doing something. And since they don't produce any product, that doing something inevitably leads to harming those who do.

The level of disdain and dismissal of fellow American working men & women by folks like you who have been brainwashed to HATE makes me ill. In every walk of life there are hard workers, average workers and poor workers. It is not the domain of the public or the private sector.

What you spew is simple hatred for your countrymen. Spin it anyway you wish, but it tells me more about YOU, than anyone you speak of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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?

Because Marxism is a economic, social, and political system developed by Marx. Even if no one had ever tried to implement it it would still exist. Are you really that stupid, or do you just think that because you are incapable of reasoning other people are not.

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?

I don't care who you attribute it too. The Reagan revolution never happened because Reagan, and his successor Bush, both grew government and interfered in the free market. If I wanted to try to pin the blame on one person I would put it on Clinton, he is the one that said the era of Big Government is over.

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."

And how, exactly, did Reagan do any of that? He campaigned on one thing, and did the opposite, just like every politician in history before him. What you are describing as revolution sounds a lot more like what the right wing tried, and failed, to accomplish through him.

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.[

You are aware of that, yet you think he cut taxes. That, in my opinion, makes you ignorant.

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.

No one had ever done "borrow and spend" before Reagan? How did we manage to accumulate a debt without borrowing?

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

We should start with a simple fact. The only way to run a deficit is to spend more money that you have. You cannot blame that on either party, or any single person, no matter how much you want to. The fact that you are trying do defend your position that Reagan led some sort of revolution that single handily created the problem is proof that you do not grasp simple facts.

 

[Stephanie]

save the quilt for someone who cares.

US TAXPAYERS have had ENOUGH with paying greedy Union teachers, who shut down their schools to go protest, lazy as Government EMPLOYEES who believe they are OWED A JOB, no matter what, while the rest of us are struggling our asses off.

If my job shut down I would have to find another job. Government workers can do the same damn thing as the rest of us.

We are fed up and BROKE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So not making the cuts eliminates the 13+ Trillion HOW???

It is a start and MORE should be cut.. there should be more of an elimination of government jobs... if the services cut are truly wanted or 'needed' business will find a space and try and cover the 'need'... hence the creation of jobs... and 'experienced' people within that field would then be faced with a market of jobs with choices...

You want to stop the dam deficit? Eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax cuts, let every damn body suffer, including those who are getting richer and richer without trickling down a damn thing.

You are absolutely correct, that $600,000,000.00 will eliminate the deficit in no time.

Even if we raise the taxes on the rich we are still spending $900,000,000.00 more than we would take in this year alone. Exactly how is that going to eliminate any deficit? The only way to eliminate the deficit is not to spend more money than you have, and that is not going to happen by raising taxes alone.

 

[DiveCon]

So not making the cuts eliminates the 13+ Trillion HOW???

It is a start and MORE should be cut.. there should be more of an elimination of government jobs... if the services cut are truly wanted or 'needed' business will find a space and try and cover the 'need'... hence the creation of jobs... and 'experienced' people within that field would then be faced with a market of jobs with choices...

You want to stop the dam deficit? Eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax cuts, let every damn body suffer, including those who are getting richer and richer without trickling down a damn thing.

You are absolutely correct, that $600,000,000.00 will eliminate the deficit in no time.

Even if we raise the taxes on the rich we are still spending $900,000,000.00 more than we would take in this year alone. Exactly how is that going to eliminate any deficit? The only way to eliminate the deficit is not to spend more money than you have, and that is not going to happen by raising taxes alone.

hell, if they could just limit the rate of increase to the inflation index, they would have it balanced in short order
like how they do the COLA's

but if that was the law, you can bet the COLA's would start being inflated instead of deflated

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You want to stop the dam deficit? Eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax cuts, let every damn body suffer, including those who are getting richer and richer without trickling down a damn thing.

You are absolutely correct, that $600,000,000.00 will eliminate the deficit in no time.

Even if we raise the taxes on the rich we are still spending $900,000,000.00 more than we would take in this year alone. Exactly how is that going to eliminate any deficit? The only way to eliminate the deficit is not to spend more money than you have, and that is not going to happen by raising taxes alone.

hell, if they could just limit the rate of increase to the inflation index, they would have it balanced in short order
like how they do the COLA's

but if that was the law, you can bet the COLA's would start being inflated instead of deflated

There are studies that say just decreasing planned spending increases by less than 10% will balance the budget in 10 years, yet we go on merrily increasing spending, and calling the ridiculous spending freeze in discretionary spending a budget cut.

 

[shintao]

That's not what I said, I said we should count the people accurately who don't produce any economic benefit. While I come from a military family (including a brother and cousin who were in Gulf War I), the military doesn't produce any economic benefit. I never said we should have no one who produces no economic benefit, I said we should count them accurately.

All you want to do is count people accurately? I think that is why yoy have 10% unemployed, because someone decided to count accurately.

Like charity, those people produce no economic benefit by taking jobs from the unemployed. Count them.

You sell your boy Obama short. He said if we elected him Unemployment would top ff at 8%. There are a lot more then 10% of the country not producing economic benefit and I'm pointing out his massive growth in government is a big part of what we're not counting.

Dude, I said we are NOT counting unemployed accurately and we should. How can even a liberal get out of that we are counting them accurately. Congratulations on Obama, it's not easy to be a worse, more economically destructive president then W, and yet he breezed by that high hurdle.

Yes, imagine how bad Obama is, and how much worse it could have been, so thanks, America made the right choice of what we had to chose between. My my, you sure give give Bush high marks, which is another thread.

And yes, I am on the same page I think. You should either be counted employed, or counted unemployed among the 300 million people, because non-producers are bad for the economy and the GDP. Unemployed are simply people who are not working, and I don't care if they are disabled, mentally ill, or what, they should be counted.

I think it would be hard for you to make the case that government workers are not productive. If they evaporated, the private sector would collapse and where would your economic benefit be then.

 

[kaz]

We taxpayers don't OWE you guberment leeches a damn thing, not even your job. We are sick of carrying a lot of your dead asses around.
The only ones I OWE ANYTHING to is our MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN. They and their families sacrifice way more than you office sitting lard asses who do nothing all day.
And I know from experience, I worked for the Sec. of State of Illinois.

Now you all better start looking for WORK.

We should count government employees in the unemployment numbers, that way unemployment would be a better gauge of economic deadwood on the economy. Unfortunately they are worse then welfare recipients because they insist on doing something. And since they don't produce any product, that doing something inevitably leads to harming those who do.

The level of disdain and dismissal of fellow American working men & women by folks like you who have been brainwashed to HATE makes me ill. In every walk of life there are hard workers, average workers and poor workers. It is not the domain of the public or the private sector.

What you spew is simple hatred for your countrymen. Spin it anyway you wish, but it tells me more about YOU, than anyone you speak of.

We're talking about economic productivity. Government workers and unemployed are both categories that don't produce anything economically. That is a fact. How can facts hate?

As for hate though, as a liberal I bow to your superior expertise in the subject.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's not what I said, I said we should count the people accurately who don't produce any economic benefit. While I come from a military family (including a brother and cousin who were in Gulf War I), the military doesn't produce any economic benefit. I never said we should have no one who produces no economic benefit, I said we should count them accurately.

All you want to do is count people accurately? I think that is why yoy have 10% unemployed, because someone decided to count accurately.

Like charity, those people produce no economic benefit by taking jobs from the unemployed. Count them.

wrong, if they were counting accurately, that number would likely be over 16%

And how many of that 16% are:
1. Not actively looking for work.
2. Semi retired and do not need to work.
3. Do not want to work if they were offered a job
4. Stringing out unemployment benefits, disability?

How is it my 21 year old son WORKS 2 JOBS??
The real unemployment is around 8% max. Nothing that Obama has done right but the unemployment figures are not the real %s.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are absolutely correct, that $600,000,000.00 will eliminate the deficit in no time.

Even if we raise the taxes on the rich we are still spending $900,000,000.00 more than we would take in this year alone. Exactly how is that going to eliminate any deficit? The only way to eliminate the deficit is not to spend more money than you have, and that is not going to happen by raising taxes alone.

hell, if they could just limit the rate of increase to the inflation index, they would have it balanced in short order
like how they do the COLA's

but if that was the law, you can bet the COLA's would start being inflated instead of deflated

There are studies that say just decreasing planned spending increases by less than 10% will balance the budget in 10 years, yet we go on merrily increasing spending, and calling the ridiculous spending freeze in discretionary spending a budget cut.

More like 5 years.

 

[kaz]

My my, you sure give give Bush high marks, which is another thread

It's not in any thread. I've called W one of the worst Presidents in our history. My biggest compliment of him was saying that Wilson and FDR were the worst. So my biggest compliment of him is he's one of and not the worst President in our history. So that's not another thread I give Bush high marks, that's not any thread where I say that.

I think it would be hard for you to make the case that government workers are not productive. If they evaporated, the private sector would collapse and where would your economic benefit be then.

I always like the liberal bait and switch game. I said government doesn't produce anything and therefore government workers don't produce any economic value and grow the economy. That is indisputable. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. So I think we have way too much government, but I'm not in favor of no government. You buy insurance to protect what you have, it doesn't make you richer. So for example I support having a government military for the same reason, though I'd have it smaller and only for the direct defense of the US. But that I support having a military doesn't make a military create economic value, it doesn't.

You've started using another word, they are not "productive." Rather then telling me I said what I didn't say, define what you mean by "productive" and I'll tell you if I agree with it or not.