Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

Bfgrn

New member
washington_post_masthead.jpg


"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
 
Can you share your source for that assertion?

My brain...grow one...if you feel these cuts will create jobs, bring your proof.

Here is what Boehner says: "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.
 
My brain...grow one...if you feel these cuts will create jobs, bring your proof.

Here is what Boehner says: "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.

Please forgive me if I'm not overawed by your intellectual prowess.

Firstly, Boehner was wrong about the number of federal jobs.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...oehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/

I don't recall saying that "these cuts will create jobs".

However, you claimed that the cuts would cost jobs, gave a specific estimate, and stated that NO jobs would be lost if the cuts are not made.

Burden of proof is on you.
 
Please forgive me if I'm not overawed by your intellectual prowess.

Firstly, Boehner was wrong about the number of federal jobs.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...oehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/

I don't recall saying that "these cuts will create jobs".

However, you claimed that the cuts would cost jobs, gave a specific estimate, and stated that NO jobs would be lost if the cuts are not made.

Burden of proof is on you.

I told you...my brain. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on YOU...
 
the more government jobs cut, the less spending will occur. it's that simple. the problem is the focus of those cuts are not in the right places or right direction.
 
I told you...my brain. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on YOU...

"statements made by debaters must be supported by evidence that is convincing and accurate."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5283163_rules-debate.html

If there are no cuts, how many jobs will be lost?


I didn't say I disagreed with your estimate, I just asked how you arrived at it.

You made it up, if I'm interpreting your reply correctly.
 
"statements made by debaters must be supported by evidence that is convincing and accurate."

http://www.ehow.com/about_5283163_rules-debate.html





I didn't say I disagreed with your estimate, I just asked how you arrived at it.

You made it up, if I'm interpreting your reply correctly.

Your premise is non sequitur... I made a claim that the budget cuts would end 1 million jobs. If you don't defund those 1 million jobs, what is the net result?
 
Your premise is non sequitur... I made a claim that the budget cuts would end 1 million jobs. If you don't defund those 1 million jobs, what is the net result?

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?
 
Back
Top