Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Jobs Report 'Should Be A Wake-Up Call,' Analyst Says


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#46 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • ALL-PRO
  • 8,700 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:12 AM

This is where both Reps and Dems want us. While they and those who put them in office rob us blind and our liberties are stripped.

Stopmtryingno blame, drop your bullshit party flag waving and start supporting some candidates worth a damn.


Been screaming this for a while.

I can't wait for a group, either side, that is prepared for some belt tightening.

#47 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:21 AM

Been screaming this for a while.

I can't wait for a group, either side, that is prepared for some belt tightening.


The problem is that they will be demonized and most people want to keep their free crap coming, so good luck. I agree that belt tightening is needed, but DC gets by on paying people for their votes. Don't think they will all just miraculously "grow up" and become statesmen and leaders. Nope, they will say stuff like "you want to starve Granny, kick kids out of college, and on an on and on. Morons will believe them and vote them back in. Pulling for you though.

#48 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,311 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:26 AM

The problem is that they will be demonized and most people want to keep their free crap coming, so good luck. I agree that belt tightening is needed, but DC gets by on paying people for their votes. Don't think they will all just miraculously "grow up" and become statesmen and leaders. Nope, they will say stuff like "you want to starve Granny, kick kids out of college, and on an on and on. Morons will believe them and vote them back in. Pulling for you though.

this is ironic

#49 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,894 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:32 AM

The problem is that they will be demonized and most people want to keep their free crap coming, so good luck. I agree that belt tightening is needed, but DC gets by on paying people for their votes. Don't think they will all just miraculously "grow up" and become statesmen and leaders. Nope, they will say stuff like "you want to starve Granny, kick kids out of college, and on an on and on. Morons will believe them and vote them back in. Pulling for you though.


It is more complicated than people just buying votes so they won't cut spending. The bigger problem is the major economic impacts of reeling in federal spending.

That is the dirty little secret. No one from either party really wants to cut spending, Yes both parties rail against run away spending on the campaign trail, but once they are in Washington they can't justify it when it comes to how it would affect the economy.

That is why most of the cuts you will see to entitlements is future spending not current spending. Because even a small reduction to entitlements would result in 100,000s of jobs likely being lost

#50 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:36 AM

Don't think so

haha he absolutely did.

My mom's side of the family has been staunchly democratic their entire lives. Obama runs and they "can't vote for a n****r."

Not surprised by them though, they live in WV.

They're certainly not the only ones that have voted across their normal party lines because of Obama's skin color.

#51 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • ALL-PRO
  • 8,700 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

It is more complicated than people just buying votes so they won't cut spending. The bigger problem is the major economic impacts of reeling in federal spending.

That is the dirty little secret. No one from either party really wants to cut spending, Yes both parties rail against run away spending on the campaign trail, but once they are in Washington they can't justify it when it comes to how it would affect the economy.

That is why most of the cuts you will see to entitlements is future spending not current spending. Because even a small reduction to entitlements would result in 100,000s of jobs likely being lost



Keep on believing that, they have you right where they want you.

Just wait until you are older/higher tax bracket and see if you whistle the same tune.

#52 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,894 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:24 AM

Keep on believing that, they have you right where they want you.

Just wait until you are older/higher tax bracket and see if you whistle the same tune.


Who has me right where they want me? Basic math and economics 101?

I guess your position is that lifting 100 of billions of dollars out of the economy would have no fiscal impact?

#53 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • ALL-PRO
  • 8,700 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:45 AM

Who has me right where they want me? Basic math and economics 101?

I guess your position is that lifting 100 of billions of dollars out of the economy would have no fiscal impact?



It would have an impact, and long term a good one.

Please just take a look at the debt clock I posted in here, and unfunded liabilities.

Some massive cuts to both spending and taxes would be tough at first, and much better for the country long term.

#54 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:53 AM

This is where both Reps and Dems want us. While they and those who put them in office rob us blind and our liberties are stripped.

Stopmtryingno blame, drop your bullshit party flag waving and start supporting some candidates worth a damn.

thank you!

#55 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,894 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:24 PM

It would have an impact, and long term a good one.

Please just take a look at the debt clock I posted in here, and unfunded liabilities.

Some massive cuts to both spending and taxes would be tough at first, and much better for the country long term.


Debt and deficit spending are not a bad thing. But if you are worried about deficits and long term debt than there has to be increases to revenue which is at it's lowest in 50 years pretty much across the board since Obama has been in office, and targeted spending cuts plus doing exactly what has been proposed in cutting future spending growth on entitlement programs.

Cutting taxes and cutting spending is counterproductive to both the economy and to deficit spending. You would essentially not be closing the deficit or reducing the debt while also negatively affecting the economy.

We actually need in my opinion is higher taxes, in particular on the rich, along with targeted immediate cuts to current spending, and revamp future spending on entitlements. Basically exactly what Obama has proposed.

And that isn't because I am a liberal ideologue, that is just where the economy is at this point. I Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 was the right thing also at that time because they were way too high.

#56 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,758 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:30 PM

So Obama has changed his opinion that it's no smart to raise taxes during a recession?

We all know he already did this in January, but is it smart to do it again?



#57 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • ALL-PRO
  • 8,700 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:41 PM

Debt and deficit spending are not a bad thing. But if you are worried about deficits and long term debt than there has to be increases to revenue which is at it's lowest in 50 years pretty much across the board since Obama has been in office, and targeted spending cuts plus doing exactly what has been proposed in cutting future spending growth on entitlement programs.

Cutting taxes and cutting spending is counterproductive to both the economy and to deficit spending. You would essentially not be closing the deficit or reducing the debt while also negatively affecting the economy.

We actually need in my opinion is higher taxes, in particular on the rich, along with targeted immediate cuts to current spending, and revamp future spending on entitlements. Basically exactly what Obama has proposed.

And that isn't because I am a liberal ideologue, that is just where the economy is at this point. I Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 was the right thing also at that time because they were way too high.



I would not do the cuts to both areas at the same time. Slash entitlement spending and defense spending. Then slowly reduce taxes on ALL Americans, the rich included over time.


What we are doing now is not sustainable. I think that we can at least agree on that.

#58 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:42 PM

More taxes..... more spending.... because 3.7 trillion annually isn't enough. Jesus the level of stupid on this board is beyond reconcilable.

#59 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

It is more complicated than people just buying votes so they won't cut spending. The bigger problem is the major economic impacts of reeling in federal spending.

That is the dirty little secret. No one from either party really wants to cut spending, Yes both parties rail against run away spending on the campaign trail, but once they are in Washington they can't justify it when it comes to how it would affect the economy.

That is why most of the cuts you will see to entitlements is future spending not current spending. Because even a small reduction to entitlements would result in 100,000s of jobs likely being lost


Let me agree that both sides do it, one for corporate welfare, the other for individual welfare.

I do not agree however with the long lasting detrimental impact of cutting goverment spending.

#60 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

Let me agree that both sides do it, one for corporate welfare, the other for individual welfare.

I do not agree however with the long lasting detrimental impact of cutting goverment spending.

They both do corporate welfare.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com