On massive job loss, Boehner says: "So be it..."

1. 0

   Texasbetaposted 13 years ago

   Republicans like Boehner will shed a tear when asked about THEIR federal job, but when the topic of you losing YOUR federal job, they respond: "So be it."
   
   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ … XO20110215
   
   BTW- He also lied about how many jobs were in question as well...just to throw that in.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stoneyyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, that's that Christian 'compassionate conservatism'.  What would be a surprise is them telling the truth.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If I were American I would be a democrat for so many reasons, but there is one thing that would scare me about Obama.
      
      And that is his unwillingess to tackle your deficit, which is huge. So whilst his lack of compassion is ugly, the Republicans do have that one aspect right. Job losses are ugly, but it is the taxpayer who pays off the decades of public debt that your country is building.
      
      It is a clear choice between astronomical tax rises for your children and your childrens children or job losses now, which affects other peoples children. People in work are always going to choose other peoples children if they don't believe that their job is at risk.
      
      Obama should be doing more to tackle your public debt, which is running at 58% of GDP. Ours is even worse, but at least the deficit is being actively cut.
      
      Ironically though, the Republicans went to war. Without your military spending you wouldn't need to cut jobs and you wouldn't need to place a tax burdeon on your children.
      
      So that is a major twist.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the comments, however our deficit is by no means 58% of our GDP. I am not sure how you could possibly come up with anything near that figure. As of 2010, it is 9.8%. 
         
         http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed … chart.html
         
         Tackling the debt is going to require not only spending cuts, but more income to the federal government. The top 2% on average pay a little over 17% after the loopholes and credits. Almost 50% of the nation didn't pay taxes last year. We paid it, but we got it back at the end of the year. Our tax rate is at its lowest point since the 1950s and Eisenhower. Our corporate taxes are extremely high, but the only corporations paying them are the small guys who can't use the tax funneling that the likes of Google uses to keep their corporate taxes to around 2%. Think about that...Google made over $16 billion last year and only paid 2.3% corporate tax in the United States. So, the only people paying their share are middle to higher middle income people. Additionally, we need more tax brackets. $250k is by no means the same as $2 million a year. When you make a million a year, you can manipulate the system to the point that you pay less of a percentage of your income than someone making 35k a year.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't say that your deficit is 58% of GDP, I said that your public debt (otherwise known as government debt) is 58% of GDP. The relevance being of course that a deficit adds to this figure, a surplus can lower it. A deficit of 9% (a huge deficit) will result in that public debt figure shooting up. At this rate it will only be 5 or 6 years before your deficit reaches 100% of GDP, effectively insolvency.
            
            The danger with the United States is that there is nobody in the world who can bail you out if you reach the point where you can no longer service your debts, the EU member states may have been able to bail out little old Greece and Ireland, but there just isn't anyway that the world would be able to provide a rescue package for the US. Not even China, whilst Japan have too much public debt of their own.
            
            You need to understand that any deficit has to be borrowed, for this year alone you will be borrowing another 9% of your GDP, an astonishing figure. That debt then needs to be serviced, in other words interest needs to be paid on it. Your children and your childrens children will be suffering from the cost of that debt for decades. Just look at Japan to see evidence of that, after their borrowing in the nineties.
            
            That is why Obama would worry me, and if it doesn't worry you then all the fool to you, you speak as if 9% of GDP is small change. You, the taxpayer, will pay back the interest for decades to states like China and Russia (who will earn enough interest from their US government bonds, if you don't go bust, to pay back their own modest public debts entirely). You need to cut your spending drastically, and to be honest I expected Obama to do so. You have the Republicans who caused much of the mess in the first place (multi Trillion dollar war, which also pushed up oil prices) and the Democrats who seem happy to push your face in the sh*t even further.
            
            With nobody brave enough to stand up to take responsibility and cut your deficit, you are f*cked.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The national debt will exceed GDP very soon, perhaps by the end of this month.
               http://www.usdebtclock.org/
               
               The insolvency of the American economy is not good for the global economy.  It is a matter of scale, reach and scope.  The Democrats plan for more spending.  The Republicans are tepid in their efforts to reduce spending.  The solution is massive, deep, far reaching permanent cuts in federal, state and local government spending and taxing - ability and authority.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I was using CIA statistics, but it looks like the US treasury claims 96%, so that is consistant I suppose.
                  
                  All the more reason to be highly afraid of a 9% deficit, that is madness.
                  
                  The UK has cut spending massively, it means job losses which will be hard to swallow, but general public consensus is that they are neccessary to reduce a public debt level of almost 70%.
                  
                  If we are taking drastic measures to reduce a debt of less than 70% (500,000 public sector jobs to go in the next few years) then why aren't the States taking drastic measures to cut a debt of 96%?
                  
                  Ireland have recently had to be bailed out with a public debt of a little over 100%, and the result? A public debt which is now 176%.
                  
                  The result of a Japanese public debt of nearly 200% has been two decades of zero growth and probably another two decades of zero growth to come, that debt was largely as the result of a stimulus package.
                  
                  Do American want to become the next Japan? It will cause nothing but the end of the American dream. A failure to cut the deficit will bring more long term misery than severe short to medium term public spending cuts would.
                  
                  My two pence. I don't blame the Democrats, I think that both parties have been astonishingly weak in tackling this problem, like an Orange county housewife refusing to cut down her spending on designer clothes and salon appointments on the credit card of her struggling businessman husband.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually, I think we want to be Greece.  A wash in debt, populated by lazy people and subject to social upheaval at the mere idea of actually working for our daily bread.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Look at our productivity - we are anything but a lazy people - that just isn't in the national character and will never be. You know that....

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Forget that. I work at the office, at home, middle of the night phone calls...but, I tell ya what, I am with him on going to Greece. I need a vacation for about 30 years, but I want to eat and live in an ok place too. Oh yeah, I want high speed internet too. Greece! Here I come!

                           replyreport
                        2. 60

                           uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Κοιτάξτε Ουισκόνσιν εκφυλιστούν σε ο ζητιάνος διαμαρτυρίες που χαρακτηρίζονται έτσι οι Έλληνες.

                           replyreport
                  2. 69

                     junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     ryankett:  I was wondering If you advised or advise at this time the economics leaders or decision makers in the  UK?  Being a capitalist in the UK how were you affected  by the massive spending cuts in the UK?  I'm asking because  here in the US there are some  who will profit from what you fear will happen here.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I do not neccessarily consider myself a capitalist, in fact I have socialist ideals, its just that social expenditure needs to be sustainable - in other words we can't keep running at a deficit, else the standard of living for the man on the street will fall in the long run. Identifying the need to pay my bills by working for 'the man' doesn't constitute a subcription to capitalist ideals. I consider myself to be pretty central.
                        
                        How was I affected? That remains to be seen, we haven't seen anything yet, the ball has only just started rolling. We will see a slow economic recovery, with unemployment continuing to rise until 2012, and not falling below todays levels until 2015. Ultimately though, I would sooner see that than a situation whereas there are mile long queues to take sack barrows full of worthless £20 notes.
                        
                        You can't spend your way out of debt, the last government spent too much for too long. Taxes will rise as a result. How can be subscribe to 'socialism' if the longer term result is a situation whereas the everyday man becomes poorer in order to pay back debts to capitalists? The more we borrow, the more we are spending on interest rates in the future, the less money can be invested in public services. Over-investment in public services results in us subsequently being unable to invest in public services in the future.
                        
                        Our quality of living will fall in the short to medium term, but that is much better than a quality of living which falls in the longer term.
                        
                        I'm not sure what you trying to say in the first line, but no I do not advise the economic decision makers in the UK I can assure you that anybody who does would not be messing around on Hubpages
                        
                        The only people that I can see gaining as a result of a budget deficit is the Chinese and to a smaller degree the Russians. There are always winners in an economic downturn, granted. The corporations can employ skilled people for peanuts, they probably even have a vested interest in keeping the unemployment rate high if they are multi-national and base themselves in the US or UK.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           ryankett:  Short to medium quality of life fall vs. the longer term fall.  I never heard it expressed like that. You say the medicine would be good for the US but you don't know how long we have to take  the fall before works. There is more than one way to solve a problem. I believe the upper half should lift the lower half. The lower half has nothing more to give.  Thank's for the answers, good man.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I'm not sure how the tax system works in the US, but in the UK and most of Europe there is already a tiered system in which you pay a higher proportion of tax the more you earn. The tax thresholds in 2011 will be:
                              
                              First £7475 tax free.
                              £7476 - £35,000 20%
                              £35,001-£150,000 40%
                              Over £150,000 50%
                              
                              So if I earnt £200,000 in one year (I wish!!), I would pay:
                              
                              £7475 (£0)
                              £27525 (£5505)
                              £114999 (£45999)
                              £50000 (£25000)
                              
                              If I earnt £200k I would pay £76504 in income tax, equivalent to 38%. If I earnt £34000 I would pay £5305, equivalent to about 16%.
                              
                              Is your system similar? You could argue that such a system just sees CEOs and Directors pay themselves more to cover their tax, at the expense of those at the bottom who would otherwise be paid more, but I am largely supportive of such a system.

                              replyreport
                  3. 61

                     logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Your last paragraph is exactly right on!  Neither party has the guts to stand up and do what is right!
                     I had to laugh though when Obama had the gall to say he needed the Republicans on board to 'fix' Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  For 2 years he had a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate.  The Republicans could say no or whatever they wanted but they did not have the votes to overrule the Democrats if they really wanted to pass something.  Yet here we are 2 years later and Social Security is not fixed, we are deeper in debt than ever, unemployment is at stratospheric levels and just watch the Dems are going to blame the Repubs for not 'fixing' any of the entitlement programs!
                     The sad thing is the Republicans had the majority a few years back and they didn't 'fix' anything either!
                     All any of them are concerned about is getting reelected.  If they weren't, they would stand up for doing the right thing and not worry about whether or not they get reelected.  That's what serving your country is all about!  That's what statesmanship is!  Serving in an elected position was never meant to be a career.  Serve your country for a time and then go home and let someone else serve.  Time for a change to the status quo!

                     replyreport
            2. 58

               C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ryan, I think I mentioned this to you before. As a Country we simply REFUSE to see whats in front of us. We are sharply divided and seem to be content to argue the talking points backed by our chosen media outlet. Its going to be a SHOCK when this house of cards falls. Not all of us, but many.

               replyreport
            3. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Awesome response. You've put it in a very clear manner. Scary stuff and a great read, again. Thanks

               replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Uh, I think he was referring to all those "new jobs" that Obama had "created", many of them specifically for his dear friends to line their pockets with.  In which case, yeah, they should be the first to get the axe.   I saw Pelosi popping off to Boehner about this, implying falsely once again that those jobs were the same as the average citizen's job they need for their livelihood.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Uh, no, he specifically used the exact words:
         
         "Obama should be doing more to tackle your public debt, which is running at 58% of GDP"
         
         So, uh....could you be more of a 10yr old partisan who can't think beyond what team you are on? FAIL

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            lol
            Uhhhh...yep I'm a team player at heart.  Unlike those famous people like Colin Powell who go with whatever Party's gonna benefit his prejudiced ol' self the most at any given time.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That is peculiar to read actually. Colin Power had a duty to support the President (Bush), while he served in that position, and did so...lobbying for the Iraq war publicly, under the direction of the administration, and then when he no longer had that obligation, he was outspoken in his own thoughts, which were opposed to said lobbying. That appears to me to be a man who holds true to his duty to his country and his job, rather than being focused on who benefits himself. Now, additionally you called him prejudiced. Do you have any reasoning behind that?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course.
                  He said first that he would choose who to vote for without considering the person's race.
                  Then he comes out and backs Obama publicly, knowing full well that his choice would sway a lot of voters.
                  It's not like he had to choose between Bush and Obama.  He had to choose between McCain and Obama.   Bush may have preferred McCain, but McCain isn't Bush.  And no Republican worth his/her salt would've jumped ship like that.  There are only two plausible explanations---either Powell did it to get vengeance on Bush, or else he did it because Obama's skin is black.   Either way, he made the wrong choice.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow, did you have to pull back the white sheet and hood in order to write this? Holy cow. Again folks, the seeping racism that comes from these people is the true evidence of their motivation.
                     
                     Now, to address your statement - you are entirely speculating as to why Colin voted for Obama, as from your position, Obama presented nothing other than a black face. Holy cow. Seriously, just come out and tell me the South will rise again, stop being coy. You believe no one could vote for a black man for any reason other than him being black, that they lack any quality or value as humans. Well, at least you don't let it go too long before you just come out and let is slip huh? Nice human being you are. Wow, very sad.

                     replyreport
            2. 71

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "Unlike those famous people like Colin Powell who go with whatever Party's gonna benefit his prejudiced ol' self the most at any given time."
               You're accusing Colin Powell of being prejudiced. What an ugly thing to say.
               
               Plus, if someone had set me up with bad intel and basically got me to lie to the world? You bet I'd jump ship as soon as I figured out I'd been tricked.

               replyreport
   4. 61

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Massive federal jobs need to go, that is just the way it is.  The private sector will fill that "gap".  Enough already.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So Boehner is going to increase the unepmloyment roles....good goin

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Really? Do you have any proof or reasoning behind that statement...at all? If the private sector will "fill the gap", then why aren't they hiring the vast "gap" we have NOW? Do you see the idiocy involved in your statement? They aren't hiring NOW. What makes you think they will hire THEN?

         replyreport
      3. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Additionally, based on the percentage of our population, government jobs are at a 50 year low. Again...everything you state is ENTIRELY incorrect.

         replyreport
   5. 59

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good! Everyone else has no choice but to cut back sooo im sorry if some of the 200,000 new federal workers Obama hired in his first 2 years have to lose their jobs but we're broke!! So be it!!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am not "pro-federal" as far as jobs are concerned, but you must be aware that most federal jobs are "measured" to determine if the private sector can do them more affordably - case in point - DOD Civilian Employees. And on the whole, the private sector can't compete with the actual cost of federal employees. I can't speak for state and local government jobs, but with the feds, I am certain.
         Contrary to the popular conception, over 50% of Federal Employees are at the rank of GS 7 - starting pay around $34,000 a year. And these employees are routinely doing work that the private sector would pay over $50,000 a year for. My point is most Federal Employees are neither overpaid nor more expensive than their private sector counterparts.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Again - another lie from Lalo. Try 58,000 jobs.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            But why should she? 200,000 sounds much better than 58,000 and she ain't bothered by the truth, only scaremongering and rabble rousing

            replyreport
         2. 59

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-program/
            I doubt that number or your stats are any more accurate than mine. One thing is certain thus president is growing government and government workers are making more than ever before all at a time when those that pay those salaries and benefits have lost their jobs and their homes! Still Obama wants to keep spending keep growing government while debt destroys this country!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Really, how about the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
               
               http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -have-spr/
               
               Doubt all you want, you have been "lawyered."
               What do you think those people who have those government jobs DO WITH THAT SALARY? They spend it. That spending stimulates private business revenue, which in turn creates consumer demand, which in turn allows the private businesses to hire more people, who spend more money, etc. Do I need to mail you an 8th grade economics text book?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  How do you propose we stimulate consumer demand, and thus lowering unemployment and stimulating the economy with cutting those government jobs? Is the private sector going to pick up the slack? NO! They aren't hiring NOW! Why would they hire when less people are working with less income and less to spend? Let me guess: (Insert generic Republican bumper sticker here)

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  8th grade may be a little too advanced for LaLo!    Got one with just pictures she can color?  Watch it though, she'll eat the crayons if you let her!

                  replyreport
               3. 59

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Lol! According to your source its either 153k, 140k, or 107k depending on which numbers you use none of which included census jobs which were in Boheners numbers!

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Temporary workers don't count in added jobs. Again, this is basic stuff you learn your freshman year in college.

                     replyreport
   6. 66

      AnnCeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You prefer the continued free fall of our economy then?   The solutions to the rape of our economy by Democrats trying to put a poor man in every house will not be simple or painless.
      
      

      replyreport
   7. 70

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No matter how he pronounces "Boehner" it is still "Boner".

      replyreport
   8. 80

      2besureposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How about that!  This man is an enigma wrapped in a riddle!
      
      You are right.  He cries about his pain, but seem untouched by the pain of others.

      replyreport
2. 61

   logic,commonsenseposted 13 years ago

   It doesn't matter how many you have on your payroll, if you are broke and can't pay them, they still are SOL!
   This country is deeper in debt every second and yet the morons in Washington want to keep spending like there is no tomorrow.
   At what point does a taxpayer just give up and quit working and go on the public dole because he is further ahead that way?  Why bust your ass when it most of it is going to be taken for local, state, federal tax.  If we add up all our taxes, most would be shocked at how much of our wages are consumed by various taxes.  If we took a close look at what we throw money away on, we would be doubled over, puking at the stupid wasteful things we do.
   3 brothers in Florida bilked Medicaid out of over 10 million dollars.  How many people could that have that kept on the payroll if it wasn't wasted like that?

   replyreport
3. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   How about they rescind that tax cut for wealthy people who don't need it?
   That would take 70 billion off the deficit.
   
   Pulleeeaze...for Repubs to act like they care about the deficit...
   
   Dick Cheney:
   "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter."
   
   Just try and touch any pet project of theirs and see what happens...the deficit goes out the window!
   
   And where are the jobs those tax cuts were supposed to produce? Where are the jobs Boehner?

   replyreport
4. 60

   uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

   Thank God.  Government positions aren't jobs.  They are transfer payments from the productive to the non-productive.  A butcher, baker or candle stick maker is a productive person with a job.  An IRS tax examiner produces nothing and requires that money be taken from the private sector which consists entirely of productive jobs.  Even private sector service jobs are productive.  Public sector positions consist of doing things whose need has been created by another department(s) of the bloated tick  federal government.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That is total bs.
      We need these people. Some are creeps, just as you have in the private sector, but these people do a lot for us.
      
      And I find if very interesting that the workers who are striking in Wisconsin--sort of like the protests in other part of the world...it is a Republican gvr who is threatening to send the National Guard in against these people!
      
      I have heard for 2 years now how Obama will "send us to the Fema camps, will stomp on our rights, is anti-American" blah blah blah....and just LOOK who is the one wanting to suppress people!!
      
      It is a Republican....as always.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         We need these people is an interesting and baseless assertion.  I don't need them.  Bureaucracies are self replicating, self perpetuating money holes of byzantine madness that do little more than pay people to shuffle around the chairs.
         
         As for Wisconsin.  You are wrong, yet again, but I suppose by now that really doesn't bare comment.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...like firemen, police, sanitary workers, and the military? Yeah right. FAIL.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What percentage of total government positions are not vast paper vomiting bureaucratic patronage jobs intended to do nothing more than bring more voters to the Democrat Party.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Let's see 1.5 million active-duty  in the US military
            650,000 postal workers - I am one and I am productive.
            about 1.5 million teachers - is there any job more important?
            and as Tex noted Police and fire depatment...

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You are a productive postal worker?  Really, what do you produce a further drain on the public coffers?  A hole in the budget?  Red tape?  Red ink? Negative ledger entries?   Dollar loses?  There are no productive postal workers because the Postal Service losses money every year at ever increasing amounts.  A productive worker creates surplus value/profits.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You forget that for decades the USPS was a cash cow for the federal government, generating more in revenue than it spent. The loss of revenue for the USPS coincided with the recession and the USPS is restructuring, shedding tens of thousands of jobs without layoffs, to become more streamlined.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Lol!!! The post office is a dinosaur it might as well manfacture covered wagons!!! Lol

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     My father is a retired letter carrier and a former shops steward for the letter carriers union.  I am quite familiar with the USPS.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Obviously not. Great work calling your Dad an unproductive worker. Nice.

                        replyreport
               2. 0

                  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  That is why it is a government service, because it can operate in the red. That is the point. Not everything needs to make money. Can you figure out how to move an envelope across the country in under a week for $.50? Yeah, doubt it.

                  replyreport
5. 60

   John Holdenposted 13 years ago

   Ryan, you're much too young to remember the Thatcher years, and seemingly so is Cameron!
   
   Thatcher decided in the early 80s to cut public spending which she did by cutting public jobs amongst other things.
   
   As a result of cutting employment, public expenditure increased, not decreased!
   Why?
   Simply because she turned productive tax payers into non-productive tax drawers!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lol ludicrous!! Who do you think pays public workers?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Where do you think they spend their money? What do you think that does? Ridiculous!!!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Dude! They're not spending "their" money... they're spending OUR money!!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               What money do you think Wal Mart employees get paid with? Where do you think that comes from? Underpants gnomes? GROW UP!

               replyreport
   2. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually I know a lot more about that then you would think, I am not a conservative voter, and neither am I supportive of the majority of their policies, but they are at very least RIGHT to say that Labour spent too much too quickly. Whether you attribute that to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the growth of the civil service, or even the sale of our gold at the market bottom.
      
      I am old enough to remember the violent riots in London in the early nineties, because my relatives attended them. I can quite easily acknowledge gross over-spending and significant labour tax rises whilst objecting to an increase in VAT and being entirely unsupportive of drastic NHS reforms. I simply refuse to have to pick a party, as it happens Nick Clegg stole my vote, will I be voting for the Liberal Democrats again? Certainly not. I will be voting for Adrian Ramsay, my local Green Party candidate. They want instant withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, fantastic - problem half solved.
      
      The solution may not be severe public service cuts, at least not without being accompanied with policies to attract business (e.g. zones for lower corporate tax in high unemployment areas, CUTS in VAT), but neither is the solution to borrow MORE money which would have been the labour way. What you need to understand is that a huge proportion of our public spending is NOT on jobs, NOT on the NHS, but on interest repayments. As we borrow more those interest rates become higher and higher, and we find ourselves in a position where there is NO money to spend on public services, because we are spending it all on debt. The result is ludicrious tax rises, and in turn further falls in consumer spending.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I have so lost track of British politics over the years.  It is a shame since your political affairs are at least as interesting as ours.  I find now that I only have time to dream of Emma Peel
         http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J_UolqS9FA0/T … a-peel.jpg
         And the Astin Martin DB9.
         
         Thank You Great Britain.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The only bit that I really observe is Prime Ministers Questions in the Houses of Parliament, that is the only exciting bit, especially on the odd occassion that the resort to childish insults. They are cut down to half an hour every week and uploaded to YouTube:
            
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W82Z9_-Ccfo

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I wonder if they still carry Parliament grilling the PM on C-Span in the States.  That is great fun.  Can you possibly imagine the Congress of the United States yelling at the President.  The media here would wet themselves.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You don't think the international banking crisis bringing about global recession played any part in it then?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Any part in what? The budget deficit?
            
            The statistics are freely available, net public debt has risen each and every year since 2002/03, from 30% in 2001/02 to where we are now.
            
            Note a clear steady increase between the start of the wars to the start of the financial crisis, in boom years, years during which we could have been producing a surplus, we failed to reduce our liabilities to the benefit of states such as China and Russia.
            
            We have had a deficit in each of those years too, following a surplus of £12bn in 2001/02 to a deficit of £100bn in 2009/10.
            
            You can blame the financial crisis if you wish, that is precisely what Gordon Brown wanted us to believe with his Millaband written manifesto.
            
            Good luck in trying to justify the public debt increases in 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07 with the financial crisis. That is five full years that we could have reduced the national debt from its prior figure of 30% (just as we reduced public debt marginally in 1999/00, 2000/01 and 2001/02). Instead we saw significant increases in public spending, at a time when we could have produced a surplus of some sort to reduce the public debt levels.
            
            By all means borrow on the credit card when your short of cash, but make sure you pay it back when you sustain a well paid job for 7 years, because you never know when you will need to use that credit card again.
            
            Of course the financial crisis has led to us needing to borrow, the simple truth of the matter is that Gordon Brown quite specifically stated on numerous occassions that he believed economic cycles were a thing of the past. There was a man entrusted with the single most important financial job in the country, a so called leading economist, who was willing to pile up debt in the niave belief that we wouldn't be having another recession.
            
            Is it any surprise that nobody wanted to listen to him when he assumed the role as an unelected prime minister? Vowing to tackle the crisis which he denied could happen and failed entirely to prepare for?
            
            Note that the budget deficit returned in the 2002/03 financial year, the year after we entered Afghanistan; at the end of that financial year we entered Iraq. By what stretch of the imagination can Labour be exempt from criticism? They led us into a war on terror which cost us a minimum of £20 billion up to 2010, a war which nobody supported.
            
            By all means invest in society, in the health of your people, in the education of your people, in arts, in culture, in sports, but you can only invest as much as your budget dictates. A culture of religiously spending more than you recieve is not sustainable, anybody that thinks it is would probably be a prime candidate for bankruptcy.
            
            I do not subscribe to the Conservative ideology, neither have I ever voted for them, it is about as far removed from my upbringing as possible. The truth is that Labour failed, messed up, gambled with our future, in a big way.
            
            The most that we can hope for is that if we are lucky enough to experience a sustained period of significant growth again we manage to achieve a surplus which is used to reduce the debt burdeon that we have placed on ourselves.
            
            You are clearly defending the position of the left, in the belief that I am defending the position of the right, the truth is that I sit somewhere in the middle but that aside......
            
            But if Labour were truly left wing and socialist they would not have shown an open willingness to increase the amount that we as a society spends on international debt servicing by hundreds of billion pounds a year. A government which truly claims to speak for the people, who truly care about the welfare of its citizens, would want as high a proportion of tax reciepts as possible to be distributed amongst front line services and social projects. They knew damn well that deficit spending would result in lower public spending in the future unless growth was sustained indefinitely or taxes would have to rise.
            
            A government which places a burdeon of debt on its people and raises taxes to claw it back? In the full knowledge that it would line the pockets of world financial institutions and the new capitalist nations? Give me a break, that isn't socialism. Neither were they democratic, they went to war without giving a sh*t about the opinions of our wider society.
            
            If you support socialism there simply isn't a party for you anymore, the working classes are not represented by Labour, any socialist who votes Labour is voting for the Labour of old. And any positive impression of Milliband Jr that I may recently have been developing has been thrown out of the window entirely now that we have Billy Bullshitter as shadow Chancellor.
            
            Like I said, I shall be voting Green Party, but I would prefer the ConDem's to the current Labour set up, purely shambolic.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Brilliant post!!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Except he side stepped the question and addressed an entirely OTHER question. So, no...fail.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Did I? Sidestep the question?
                     
                     John Holden: "You don't think the international banking crisis bringing about global recession played any part in it then?"
                     
                     Me "Of course the financial crisis has led to us needing to borrow, the simple truth of the matter is that Gordon Brown quite specifically stated on numerous occassions that he believed economic cycles were a thing of the past."
                     
                     I'm not sure that I could have anwswered that question any more clearly. Don't confuse my unwillingness to provide anything other than an in depth answer as an attempt to dodge a question; perhaps somewhat ironic considering John has been very active on this site in other threads over the past few hours whilst wilfully avoiding this one. What more could I have said? My response was as relevant to the question as possible.
                     
                     I'm not really sure why the American left feels the need to defend the British left, seeing as our left side spent 8 years of their 13 year reign cosying up with the American right. You would without a doubt be quick to criticise Bush and his foray into a pointless and expensive war, yet seem to somehow dissaprove when I show objection to entry into the same pointless and expensive war by the British left. Or the British not-very-left-wing-left.
                     
                     I would love for our Labour party to be genuinely left wing, as I would probably vote for them, as I stupidly did in June 2001 around 4 months before they entered Afghanistan.

                     replyreport
6. 66

   safiq ali patelposted 13 years ago

   We have been through recessions before but never quite like this one. In the United Kingdom the bank of england interest rate has stood at 0.5 percent for over one year. This low interest rate is helping people cope. But regardless people are losing their jobs, they are losing their homes and then eventually on the back of all this stress they will lose their family too.
   I firmly belive that this recession is the worst one I have ever seen. And the cost of this recession the human cost is unbearable. I know prayer is no currency but I am saying prayers every day for people all over the world that they may survive through this.
   This recession is the toughest recession we have seen since the end of the second world war. What most disappoints me is that most of the western economies including the United Kingdom and the United States economy keep falling into recession. We were in recession from 1977 to 1981. We were in recession again 1989 to 1999. And then another recession from 2008 to present day. We can not go on like this with people losing their jobs and homes and eventually their families every time a recession comes round. The governments of the world must put a system in place that protects homes and incomes and families from recessions or guarentee that even if recessions come round in future homes and incomes will be safeguarded. I completely share in distress and poverty facing so many people all over the world at this time.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      HEY…that’s a brilliant idea…why not just pray our way out of this debt mess?...since praying is so productive.

      replyreport
7. 76

   Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

   Are we alarmed enough over debt to make hard choices?
   
   Gov. Christie of R-NJ gave what was supposed to be the most realistic, hard hitting speech yet about the debt situation. While pointing out all of the entitlements that must be cut, there wasn't any mention of military spending - at least not that I heard.
   
   Neither party seems ready to bite the hand that bribes them. A multi-billion dollar debacle over an unneeded new jet engine for a new fighter is still being pushed by those (incl. Boehner) who have a vested interest in the project. Dems are doing the same thing for their traditional interests.
   
   So...Are we alarmed enough over debt to make the necessary hard choices? Seemingly, not yet...
   
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 … 13694.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah I'm beginning to think they're all weenies.
      All the more reason to push harder to hold them accountable.
      
      I didn't hear all of Christy's speech (the news zeroed-in on his mention of cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid) but I was about ready to shout at him-------Why are you picking on Medicare and Medicaid?!  You should be cutting out all those loans and grants that go toward monitoring the habits of exotic animals or sending man to Mars or shining Obama's shoes or giving insurance to homosexual lovers or other junk first!

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Carpwash

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hogfins!
            
            Haaaha Ron.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Glenn Beck called Brenda - he wants his "wacky" back...

         replyreport
8. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   a good economy doesn't want jobs, it wants an absence of want.
   
   To illustrate this:
   
   If you want jobs, then simply outlaw electricity. That'll create a lot of jobs! The number of people who will need to work will skyrocket because we can't do things like "drive a car" or "use a computer", and so we'll need to work harder to compensate.
   
   BUT!
   
   IF you want supply, then produce enough of what people want to the point where they can have anything they ever want any time they could want it.

   replyreport
9. 71

   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago

   A touchstone for how serious someone is about cutting the deficit: ask them how they feel about cutting aid to Israel.
   
   A touchstone for how serious someone is about cutting the debt: ask them how they feel about raising taxes.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Raising taxes suppresses economic activity.  How can one cut the debt as the economy lags further reducing revenue?  How serious are we about cutting the debt while continuing to pursue massive deficits?

      replyreport
10. 79

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Don't forget the huge impact of the Internet. Think of how many fewer catalogues are mailed out, now that people can shop online. Think of how many fewer bank statements and bills get mailed, as the action is moved online as well.
    I know my daily mail volume is about 10% of what it used to be. But the mailman still must deliver it!

    replyreport
11. 76

    Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

    This thread was probably one of the most intense ones that I've seen on HP. Suddenly race gets mentioned and immediately everything stops. No one wants to make the next post? Why?
    
    We've come a long way -- electing a black pres., for 1 example -- but it seems obvious that we're not there yet.
    
    We'll need a united country to face the challenges ahead. If we choose to divide ourselves into separate camps, based on race or anything else, then we all lose. All races will have to find a way to cooperate and respect each other or our problems, including economic ones, just won't get solved.
    
    "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" (B. Franklin)
    
    My thoughts.

    replyreport