824,000 fewer workers on payrolls

Quote from Yannis:

THE OBVIOUS DEFICIT-CLOSERS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on February 5, 2010

"... Doesn't the president realize that this is blocking, not catalyzing, job creation?"

Why would he "realize"... why would he care?

He aims to destroy the American financial system by overwhelming it with debt and causing a collapse. Then, he can instill a new "transformation" of Socialistic redistribution...

All going according to plan.... :mad: :mad:
 
Quote from Yannis:

THE OBVIOUS DEFICIT-CLOSERS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on February 5, 2010


"As he tells us he wants to reduce the dangerous budget deficit, President Obama brings to mind the hapless engineers at Toyota who find that their vehicles accelerate whether or not the driver wants them to. It appears that no matter how hard Obama jams on the brakes with his newfound commitment to deficit reduction (after almost doubling the deficit in one year), the level of red ink just seems inexorably to rise. The House voted yesterday to raise the federal debt limit another $1.9 trillion.

Obviously, more fundamental change in the budget's engineering is needed. But, unfortunately, it is easier to recall a car than a president.

Obama's announced intention to freeze 13 percent of the budget for three years is a relatively minor cut. It will trim the deficit by only 3 percent over the decade.

But if the president really wanted to get serious about reducing the deficit, he's got two easy steps to take:

1) Stop the remaining $500 billion of last year's $800 billion stimulus package.

2) Refund to the Treasury the $500 billion in TARP funds repaid by the banks.

Instead, he's merrily spending the remaining stimulus cash -- even though the first round failed to curb the recession, doing little more than protecting the jobs and pay of state and local government employees. The remaining money would do more of the same -- while also funding pork-barrel projects all over America.

But only $300 billion of the stimulus has been spent. Why not call back the remaining $500 billion? Because Obama is still committed to the expansion of government spending. His promise of a (minor) freeze next year brings to mind an overweight friend's talk of the diet he'll go on -- even as he starts another banana split.

Then there's the TARP funds. Most of the money laid out under President George W. Bush is being repaid by the banks that borrowed it -- but Obama is intent on intercepting the cash before it lands in the Treasury and sending it out the door again.

He wants these funds for his second stimulus, relabeled as a "jobs bill." Some $30 billion is to go to small businesses for job creation, $30 billion for consumer credit and yet another $100 billion for more state and local aid -- that is, more protection for government workers.

And none of that cash will ever come back -- even though it's TARP money that was initially appropriated for short-term lending, spending that the government would quickly recoup.

When will the president learn that deficit spending isn't the way to stimulate the economy? That by adding to the deficit, he is stopping business from borrowing to create jobs and blocking consumers from getting the capital they need to make purchases?

Treasury debt is up 41 percent over the last year, while commercial and consumer lending is down by more than 20 percent: The government is hogging the loan window. Doesn't the president realize that this is blocking, not catalyzing, job creation?"

republicans conceded yesterday that they can not cut spending any faster either. their budget said that if we eliminated medicare as a government program and cut ss they could balance the budget in 50 years:


"In all the Ryan budget plan dubbed the "Roadmap for America's Future" would take the deficit from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2050. The Congressional Budget Office shows the GOP plan would end the deficit around 2060 and they would produce a surplus of 6 percent of gross domestic product by 2083."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ecurity-and-medicare-benefit-cuts.php?ref=fpa
 
Quote from vhehn:

republicans conceded yesterday that they can not cut spending any faster either. their budget said that if we eliminated medicare as a government program and cut ss they could balance the budget in 50 years:


"In all the Ryan budget plan dubbed the "Roadmap for America's Future" would take the deficit from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2050. The Congressional Budget Office shows the GOP plan would end the deficit around 2060 and they would produce a surplus of 6 percent of gross domestic product by 2083."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ecurity-and-medicare-benefit-cuts.php?ref=fpa
Yeah, that's how the Dems understand/reitrepret what the Republicans are saying. The fact is that the Republican-led Congress did just that in the mid-90s.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Why would he "realize"... why would he care?

He aims to destroy the American financial system by overwhelming it with debt and causing a collapse. Then, he can instill a new "transformation" of Socialistic redistribution...

All going according to plan....

It's hard to pay bills when you're not working. Your evaluation here is completely wrong.
 
Quote from Yannis:

Yeah, that's how the Dems understand/reitrepret what the Republicans are saying. The fact is that the Republican-led Congress dd just that in the mid-90s.

Only under the leadership of the dem Clinton though.

Oh, this is fun, passing around the blame or praise to one entity or another to suit one's purposes!
 
Quote from Ricter:

Allow me to rephrase...

Racist, doofus.

Edit: lol, by the way, come up with your own material, fuckwit.
OK, pantie waste, bleeding heart, shit for brains, PC obsessed, thin skinned, dumb ass, liberal retard.

Any better?

:)
 
Quote from Yannis:

Yeah, that's how the Dems understand/reitrepret what the Republicans are saying. The fact is that the Republican-led Congress dd just that in the mid-90s.
the republicans can only get to balance in 50 years with phony savings from privatizing socal security. you have to be a moron to think that privatizing ss can happen after wall street was exposed for the scam it is in the last crash. just not going to happen.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Only under the leadership of the dem Clinton though...
Over his dead body (almost) as I remember it, he faught Congress on this all the way, but his "health care" plan defeat was too recent for him to risk further political bloodletting and ridicule.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

attachment.php



What is it YOU do? Youre a day trader right?
 
Quote from Yannis:

Over his dead body (almost) as I remember it, he faught Congress on this all the way, but his "health care" plan defeat was too recent for him to risk further political bloodletting and ridicule.

clinton balanced the budget with a combination of tax increases and an agreement to "pay as you go". any new spending had to be paid for.
obama recently tried to institute "paygo" again. guess who voted against it?



Senate Republicans Vote Against " Pay As You GO"

The party that is concerned with the deficits, the GOP, voted in unity against the Pay As You Go. What is Pay As You Go? Well, it's simple, if Congress passes something that costs money, they have to find a way to pay for it. Either cuts ,or taxes could be the method of payment.

Why would the people so concerned with deficits, vote against this proposal, in a total unity? How sincere is their desire to cut deficits? Just don't believe a Republican when they say they are concerned with deficits. Well, because it would involve actually raising some taxes.
http://open.salon.com/blog/stellaa/2010/01/30/senate_republicans_vote_defeat_pay_as_you_go
 
Back
Top