June Jobs Report

archer wrote:

mtntrekker wrote:

archer wrote: No it isn't socialism, and I didn't say it was the solution. Nice deflection though. The question was how do the Republicans spin putting thousands of government employees out of work and increasing the unemployment numbers? All we hear is how Romney will create jobs, but reducing the size of government will destroy jobs

Looks like Otis answered this one already.

otisptoadwater wrote: Well, let's see... If Gubment is smaller and more efficient then they need less revenue to operate. That would mean that the 99% would be able to keep more of their own money and do crazy things like start new businesses and invest in other companies that are succeeding. Imagine being able to pay off debts and not need to be as dependent on credit.

Or we could go the other way, everyone works for the Gubment and everyone in the 99% gets what the Gubment decides they should have. North Korea and Cuba are examples of how that model works.

A statement that unrealistic is hardly an answer.

.....read my previous post.....trickle down economics has never worked......although the right does love to pretend that it will ......someday......maybe......they hope.

So I ask again....how will the Republicans sell the American people on the idea of reducing the size of government, throwing thousands out of work, and increasing unemployment?

Farm out some goverment services to private companies, this has worked well for New Zealand recently.

And reducing tax rates for the rich doesn't help the economy? John F. Kennedy will dispute you on that point. He reduced the super high tax rates from the previous Eisenhower administration and that provided a boost to the economy.

There is a graph that shows the best combination of tax rates compared to economic stimulus. The big question is where is the best point because the graph is constantly changing.

Archer, the Bush tax cuts? Are you against them? Want to see Clinton's tax rate back? Well, your leader, Obama, declared just today he wants to keep some of those tax cuts, the ones for the middle class. Agree with Barack or LJ?

Or is this just about who is goring whom? Since you don't consider yourself rich, you don't feel your taxes should be raised. But stick it to the rich! They can afford it.

Uh Fred.....what does your post have to do with putting government employees out of work? You are like the third conservative who seems to think that lowering taxes across the board will solve all our economic problems, but wont answer the actual question.

But I will answer some of yours......I was against the Bush tax cuts from day 1. I'm a fiscal conservative....Bush was given a surplus...it should have been saved for future issues or used to pay down debt.

I don't think Kennedy would approve of the 1% paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class....

Where did I ever say I didn't think my own taxes shouldn't be raised? I think all the Bush tax cuts should go away.

archer wrote: Uh Fred.....what does your post have to do with putting government employees out of work? You are like the third conservative who seems to think that lowering taxes across the board will solve all our economic problems, but wont answer the actual question.

But I will answer some of yours......I was against the Bush tax cuts from day 1. I'm a fiscal conservative....Bush was given a surplus...it should have been saved for future issues or used to pay down debt.

I don't think Kennedy would approve of the 1% paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class....

Where did I ever say I didn't think my own taxes shouldn't be raised? I think all the Bush tax cuts should go away.

But you are contradicting yourself, you want a balanced budget but if it means cutting goverment employees you are for massivly increasing the US debt levels.

How about this? Let local and state goverments pay for their own employees instead of expecting the Feds to bail them out? If you want only 20 students per teacher, raise the shool levy. Want 5 firestations instead of 4, increase property taxes.

I am not necessarily against the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, but I would love to see a series of mandated cuts of 5% per year, or even complete budget caps for 5 years in exchange for increasing the taxes. And I think all the cuts should be repealed, not just the ones targeting the successful.

archer wrote:

LOL wrote: I did answer, sorry you didn't like the answer. Go back and re-read it.

I re-read all your posts in this thread, not one answered the question of how the Republicans plan to explain to the voters that reducing the size of government will put thousands out of work and raise unemployment. I don't care how many jobs they think they will create in the private sector......if they even will.....that doesn't negate the fact that shrinking government WILL cause unemployment to rise......It seems to me that this fact is the elephant in the room when it comes to Republicans claiming that Romney will create jobs and lower unemployment(pun intended)

It amazes me how month after month-year after year, people on the left fail to progress in their thinking. The mis-understanding of how the economy works just goes on and on. And they keep saying such utterly stupid things like "trickle down never workes".

Arlen is completely right on this point- whatever the hell you want to call it- those times in our history when tax rates were lowered- the economy did show improvement. Those times when government was more pro-business, the economy improved.

Here's the concept that the left just can't get right- the government, with all it's employees- does not create a single dollar of wealth in America.

In fact all those Federal employees add ZERO to the economy as a whole- they cost us trillions of dollars of our hard earned money every year. Sure- if you are one of the government employees- it feels good to have a job making good money (usually overpaid when compared to the private sector).

But as a whole- the government consumes America's wealth, it does not create wealth, it devours our money without adding any wealth to the big picture.

Every federal employee that is fired, every government budget that is cut, every dollar that is saved and not borrowed or spent- is a dollar that can go to work in the private sector where the real wealth is created.

Every federal employee that is "relieved" of their government job will more than likely find themselves doing somthing (sooner or later) in the private sector where actual contributions to the economy occur.

The idea is to convert the masses of government employees- who add nothing to the economy- into workers who actually do add to the productivity of America's economy.

The idea is to have fewer people who are net tax consumers (government employees)- and convert them into net tax payers (private sector businesses).

This - along with spending cuts would have a tremendous positive affect on the economy as we turn looters into producers. We turn resources who previously devour tax dollars into tax payers.

If the government actually produced anything- they would not be spending 3.8 trillion dollars of American's wealth each year- instead they would be cutting us the checks!

Are you saying we cant have a balanced budget without cutting government employees Fred? Really? They are not a large part of the federal budget. You balance a budget by working on both sides of the ledger....expenses AND income. I see no contradiction in what I posted. You don't fix big economic problem's by going after the little guys.

archer wrote: Are you saying we cant have a balanced budget without cutting government employees Fred? Really? They are not a large part of the federal budget. You balance a budget by working on both sides of the ledger....expenses AND income. I see no contradiction in what I posted. You don't fix big economic problem's by going after the little guys.

I realize we need goverment employees but the rolls have expanded way too fast, and it used to be you gave up income for the security of a federal job, now federal jobs pay higher than civvie jobs.

When the housing market collapsed, what area rebounded quickest? The northern Virginia & DC area, increased goverment hiring was actually raising the prices of real estate, plus in the downturn, lobbyists were being hired to get as much of the stimulus as they could.

A,
So you think all those federal workers are worthwhile? I think you could trim 5% of the payroll and they wouldn't even notice it, or even better, trim 5% of the salaries.

Lets try to put it in a context that even a liberal can understand. It's like the day your 26 year old deadbeat son or daughter who is living in your basement, finally gets a job and moves out.

Instead of eating potato chips and playing video games- sucking up your electricity and running up your water bill, crashing the family car you just lent them, driving up your insurance rates- they are out there in the job market starting to make their own way in the world.

It has an immediate and positive effect on your pocket book- all of a sudden you go from eating chuck roast to prime rib. All of a sudden- you start thinking about turning their bedroom into that sewing room you always dreamed about.

This is what dreams are made of- Getting rid of federal, state and local government workers that are not really needed in a contracting economy has the same effect- it's immediate and it has a positive effect.

Even if those bums are just working at Mc Donalds- at least they are not a drag on the rest of us- kinda like that 26 year old still living in your basement.

Consider that most federal government employees are not just a drag- but their salaries are being paid with borrowed money, just getting rid of them is a positive step- even if they wind up as greeters at Walmart.

Since 2007- our private sector economy has been contracting- increased taxes and regulations compound the problem for businesses- and at the same time that all of us have been cutting back and struggling to make ends meet- the Federal government has grown by 40%. They have plans to keep on growing, even though the days when we could even dare to say that we could afford it have long since become history.

We need these cuts now- the sooner we get government spending in line with current economic conditions- the better off we all are.

Kinda like that bum living in your basement- the sooner he/she gets a real job and a place of his/her own, the better off you will be. And the effects are immediate, positive and profound.

Let's put this in terms that even a sociopathic conservative can understand:

Your entire scenario, replete with all of it's derogatory smears, is nothing more than a Reaganesque/Limbaugh/talk-radio fantasy/wet-dream. Your usual generalizations about "most federal government employees" is the usual crap opinion.

Nowadays most of those 26-year-old deadbeats in the basement are people who had GOOD PAYING jobs and got laid-off so their jobs could be outsourced--(or is it "off-shored", I can never remember)--and they spend hours every day sending resumes, going to job-fairs, registering with work-placement state-agencies, and doing their best get out of the basement and back into their own places...(that they had to give up when Bush's Recession took hold).

You can take your usual Rand-ian "I've got mine, screw you" drivel and shove it up the usual orifice.

Dang those last two posts were good!

archer wrote: I was against the Bush tax cuts from day 1. I'm a fiscal conservative....Bush was given a surplus...it should have been saved for future issues or used to pay down debt.

I don't think Kennedy would approve of the 1% paying a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class....

Where did I ever say I didn't think my own taxes shouldn't be raised? I think all the Bush tax cuts should go away.

The rich don't pay a smaller percentage of taxes - quite the opposite in fact. The top 10% pay the highest percentage of the taxes levied by all levels of government. The top 1% pay double the percentage of income taxes that their income represents (20% of the AGI and 38% of the income taxes). For the top 10%, they take in 46% of the AGI and pay 70% of the income tax burden. How is it that you came to the belief that they pay a smaller percentage of the taxes archer?