Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

They are talking about cutting one million government jobs. These people don't contribute to the economy.

Bfgrn, let me explain it to you. Right now the deficit is so huge that business and investment is flocking away from the US, because many of us think that a financial collapse is imminent. If the government is serious about reducing spending then confidence will improve.

Once confidence improves business will start to hire and workers will begin to produce once more.
 
Damn Yankee said:
They are talking about cutting one million government jobs. These people don't contribute to the economy.

Bfgrn, let me explain it to you. Right now the deficit is so huge that business and investment is flocking away from the US, because many of us think that a financial collapse is imminent. If the government is serious about reducing spending then confidence will improve.

Once confidence improves business will start to hire and workers will begin to produce once more.
Click to expand...

Cutting programs for the neediest citizens is hardly going to shrink the deficit caused by two unfunded wars and GWB's tax cuts. All it will do is cause more avoidable death and misery. If you were really worried about the deficit you would want to end the wars and restore the tax rate.
 
Dune said:
Cutting programs for the neediest citizens is hardly going to shrink the deficit caused by two unfunded wars and GWB's tax cuts. All it will do is cause more avoidable death and misery. If you were really worried about the deficit you would want to end the wars and restore the tax rate.
Click to expand...

"Neediest"? Are you on crack? Federal workers are paid more than their private counterparts. :palm:

And how is firing them going to cause "death and misery"?
 
Booyah! said:
Impossible to predict as neatly as you have put it, I'd say.

If we borrow the money to pay salaries for workers who otherwise would've been furloughed, the opportunity cost of interest and loss of the associated capital amount might cost more jobs, since that funding won't be available for other stimuli.

In a legislative environment that regards raising taxation as a last resort, where is the funding to service the additional debt load going to come from?

What happens if we maintain current spending without increasing revenue?

Default, perhaps?
Click to expand...

What is possible to predict is the cuts will end employment for one million fellow Americans, in both the public and private sector. American citizens, my neighbors and yours will move from the class of productive taxpayers, to the class of people on the public dole; people in line at the unemployment office where there is currently one job for every five unemployed. One million people unemployed in a short time frame is a HUGE hit to the economy and the safety net. The secondary effects to a consumer driven economy could metastasize and put us into a depression. THAT is not sound economic policy, that is reckless economic policy and it has no moral value, unless you believe the middle class and poor need to be severely punished for something they didn't create. The next question is, are all the jobs obsolete? Will the service they provide need to be filled?
 
Damn Yankee said:
They are talking about cutting one million government jobs. These people don't contribute to the economy.

Bfgrn, let me explain it to you. Right now the deficit is so huge that business and investment is flocking away from the US, because many of us think that a financial collapse is imminent. If the government is serious about reducing spending then confidence will improve.

Once confidence improves business will start to hire and workers will begin to produce once more.
Click to expand...

The public held debt, which is the key measure of whether a financial collapse is imminent is a bit over half of what it was in 1946 in relation to GDP. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s. The only thing that will scare away business and investment is phony scare tactics like you and the right wing radicals spew.
 
The only sector that has continued to see growth throughout the worst of this recession is the gov't.

It has become a bloated, over-funded bureaucratic nightmare. Cutting gov't jobs is not good for those who hold them, but many of those jobs should never have existed in the first place.

Cut the spending and get us back to a system supported by private sector jobs.
 
WinterBorn said:
The only sector that has continued to see growth throughout the worst of this recession is the gov't.

It has become a bloated, over-funded bureaucratic nightmare. Cutting gov't jobs is not good for those who hold them, but many of those jobs should never have existed in the first place.

Cut the spending and get us back to a system supported by private sector jobs.
Click to expand...

Which departments would you cut, which would you slim down, how much would you save, how would you better spend the saved dollars?
Just a question.
 
Lowaicue said:
Which departments would you cut, which would you slim down, how much would you save, how would you better spend the saved dollars?
Just a question.
Click to expand...

Not knowing the details of what jobs are under the gun, I don'thave an answer. But given that the growth happened during the worst economic times in my lifetime, I think its safe to say we can cut many of them.

Our gov't is spending like a drunken sailor. Dept of Defense could take some large cuts and still be very effective. Then work our way back thru less necessary and most recently created jobs.

The fact that a job will be lost is not a reason to avoid cutting wasteful spending.
 
WinterBorn said:
Not knowing the details of what jobs are under the gun, I don'thave an answer. But given that the growth happened during the worst economic times in my lifetime, I think its safe to say we can cut many of them.

Our gov't is spending like a drunken sailor. Dept of Defense could take some large cuts and still be very effective. Then work our way back thru less necessary and most recently created jobs.

The fact that a job will be lost is not a reason to avoid cutting wasteful spending.
Click to expand...

OK. What expenditure would you cut? Details?
 
Lowaicue said:
OK. What expenditure would you cut? Details?
Click to expand...

As I said, I do not have the details of the expenditures, and so I cannot detail what cuts should be made.

But when expenditures far exceed what is coming in, something must be cut.
 
I don't know how anybody doesn't know we are fucking the future generations. We spend, borrowing interest free from SS. Then come back and tell them to work a couple more years cause SS money has been spent.
 
WinterBorn said:
As I said, I do not have the details of the expenditures, and so I cannot detail what cuts should be made.

But when expenditures far exceed what is coming in, something must be cut.
Click to expand...

So your demand for smaller government is founded upon sand. You have economists, as do most nations, struggling to keep essential services and to cut inessential expenditure, but like so many people on the vague right wing in the US and elsewhere, you are prepared to sing to a given chorus rather than think for yourself.
You may well be spot on with your comments but it is more likely that you are totally unqulified to comment and that your comments are rather silly.
 
Bfgrn said:
The public held debt, which is the key measure of whether a financial collapse is imminent is a bit over half of what it was in 1946 in relation to GDP. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s. The only thing that will scare away business and investment is phony scare tactics like you and the right wing radicals spew.
Click to expand...

Actually:

usgs_line.php
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Neediest"? Are you on crack? Federal workers are paid more than their private counterparts. :palm:

And how is firing them going to cause "death and misery"?
Click to expand...

I have got to get off the crack! It makes me forget how concrete the thought process of a right winger is.

I was talking about the entire budjet cutting process being proposed, not just the specific cuts described in this thread. Sorry I violated your KISS rule about one topic only per thread Mr. Moderator.
 
Lowaicue said:
So your demand for smaller government is founded upon sand. You have economists, as do most nations, struggling to keep essential services and to cut inessential expenditure, but like so many people on the vague right wing in the US and elsewhere, you are prepared to sing to a given chorus rather than think for yourself.
You may well be spot on with your comments but it is more likely that you are totally unqulified to comment and that your comments are rather silly.
Click to expand...

So my demand that the gov't not grow during terrible economic times is just me singing a chorus?

The idea that the gov't should not expand at the expense of the economy is just me griping?

The fact that I cannot name individual depts and exact amounts to be cut means I am completely unqualified to make these demands?

The nation is wallowing in debt, losing ground against out trade deficit, and the gov't is creating more and more jobs that produce nothing but more debt, and your reasoning is the economists that the gov't hired know better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top