Double Dip Recession looming

Just thinking said:
Can anyone on the left get real? ...

The most that can happen in November is that the Republicans take the House and Senate ...
Click to expand...

Whew! What a relief! I was afraid they might win a majority in both houses of my state legislature, and the gubernatorial race here as well. After all, a lot of people also work for state governments. And since the OP was specifically talking about state governments making cuts, not the federal government making cuts, it is a relief to hear from you that the Republicans have no chance to take any state legislatures or governorships. Thanks for helping those of us on the left to get real.

Although I have to wonder where you get your information from.
 
linusrichard said:
Whew! What a relief! I was afraid they might win a majority in both houses of my state legislature, and the gubernatorial race here as well. After all, a lot of people also work for state governments. And since the OP was specifically talking about state governments making cuts, not the federal government making cuts, it is a relief to hear from you that the Republicans have no chance to take any state legislatures or governorships. Thanks for helping those of us on the left to get real.

Although I have to wonder where you get your information from.
Click to expand...

I get it from the fact that when President Clinton lost BOTH houses and some states went with Republican governors, there was no recession and no high unemployment.
 
drkitten said:
Well, it appears to already be happening.



You know, if you kill 6,000 jobs here, and 6,000 jobs there, pretty soon you'll be looking at massively elevated unemployment.....
Click to expand...

Did you read your own link? Christie was opposed to NJ having to foot the bill with no help from NY. You think that's fair????

The planned rail had received broad support from elected officials on both sides of the Hudson, but no New York City or state agency had pledged any money. The bulk of the money was to come from the federal Transportation Department and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which had committed $3 billion each. New Jersey was responsible for the balance of the cost, which had been estimated at $8.7 billion through the summer.

But last month, when Mr. Christie learned that the federal estimates had risen significantly, he called for a review of the project. Then, this month, he said he would cancel the project because it could cost at least $2.3 billion more than forecast.
Click to expand...

I'm sure his goal was to kill jobs. :rolleyes:

Like I said before ... get real.

[Also, from your analogy, I would be killing jobs if I can't afford to hire people to service my lawn. Pure nonsense.]
 
Last edited:
HAhahahah..

Is someone here trying to spread fear if those nasty conservatives don't let them spend all those dollars they don't have?

Excuse me but that's ridiculous.

Timothy Geigther: "The current path of spending is certainly unsustainable."
 
drkitten said:
Further to above. It appears that the 6,000 jobs lost were only the construction jobs.

Good thing it was cancelled, then. Nothing like eliminating 50,000 jobs at the stroke of a pen to bring unemployment under control.
Click to expand...

Damn straight it was a good thing. Just how much of the state would suffer from going further and further into debt? ... how many jobs do you think that will kill?

Plus, I just love the rhetoric you put out there. 50,000 jobs eliminated? Those are PROJECTIONS, not existing jobs. Plus, I wouldn't put forth anything Lautenberg says when arguing a point --- pro or con. You are likely not from NJ, but I can assure you he holds his Senate seat illegally, which is disgusting enough as it is, and should upset anyone (including yourself) to the point of extreme avoidance of that man.
 
Last edited:
Well, considering that Obama's job stimulus spending creates or saves about one job for 150000 dollars and many of them are jobs that do not actually create anything that anyone wants to buy, it might be time to let the Republicans try their solution, it can't be much worse.

However, I have absolutely no faith in there actually being any reduction in spending, the voters are too fickle and the politicians don't want to lose their new jobs.
 
Last edited:
Infoexcavator said:
Well, considering that Obama's job stimulus spending creates or saves about one job for 150000 dollars and many of them are jobs that do not actually create anything that anyone wants to buy, it might be time to let the Republicans try their solution, it can't be much worse.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha.

If only we had an example of when Republicans got to try their solutions! You know, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, belligerent foreign policy. Perhaps if we had, say, eight years of this kind of government we might get a sense of where it leads.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?
 
Unabogie said:
Hahahahaha.

If only we had an example of when Republicans got to try their solutions! You know, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, belligerent foreign policy. Perhaps if we had, say, eight years of this kind of government we might get a sense of where it leads.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear, I mean fiscal conservative republicans and supporters of the free market.
 
Last edited:
Infoexcavator said:
I should have been more clear, I mean fiscal conservative republicans and supporters of the free market.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.

Heh.

Hee hee.

Oh...

You're serious...

You mean the "fiscal conservatives" who are running on a platform of running the debt up by giving tax cuts to millionaires, deregulation, and belligerent foreign policy? And who love freedom by advocating outlawing gay marriage and abortion and Muslims?

Maybe you could point me to where the new GOP policies differ from what they've been doing for the last 100 years?
 
Unabogie said:
Sorry.

Maybe you could just back up and answer my question:
Click to expand...

The republican policies that you listed as being the 100 years of traditional republican policies are not actual policies of republicans, I can't respond to that.

Anyway, I am not here to defend the republicans, I just think they have many people who would be a lot less disastrous than Obama and in average the GOP is vastly superior when it comes to fiscal policy.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
hahahaha.

Oh, not joking again?

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/natl_debt_chart_2006.gif

So, that aside, you're not here to justify their policies, just to say that those policies must be better because they must be?
Click to expand...

Thats why incumbents are getting defeated and the teaparty is so popular. That chart is also badly compiled and the axises are very misleading, use this chart instead.

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_h...loads/2010/04/national-debt-skyrocket-600.jpg
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
My chart is misleading, but your chart which shows the debt from 2040 is the "truth"?

Ok, gotta run. It's been fun.
Click to expand...

The chart came from the Heritage Foundation. A propaganda mill dedicated to reversing the social changes of the 20th century.
 
Unabogie said:
My chart is misleading, but your chart which shows the debt from 2040 is the "truth"?

Ok, gotta run. It's been fun.
Click to expand...

On the bright side, I think what they are saying is that the Democratic Party will be in power for the next 30 years.

Just today they were talking about the In-Senate candidate-lobbyist Coats who is simultaneously defending current retiree benefits, while attacking Obama for getting Federal government involved in retiree benefits.

The GOP just doesn't know whether to love or hate Medicaid.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
From where do you think the money comes to pay all these government workers? I'll tell you from where it comes. It comes out of the pockets of consumers and businesses.
Click to expand...
Actually it comes from idle funds. Tax rates haven't increased, in fact tax breaks have increased. And because it is borrowed, the consumer and businesses (actually the intermediate banks and financial institutions that handle investments for consumers and businesses) are voluntarily giving the money to the government. The government has to purchase these loans just like anyone else.

Bob Blaylock said:
It's money that business would otherwise have to employ workers who (unlike most government workers) actually create wealth; and it's money that consumers would otherwise have to spend on goods and services that those businesses would be employing workers to produce.
Click to expand...
If that was true, then the interest rates on government bonds would have to be much higher, as they would have to compete with the private market for returns on investment.

You also try to make the point that government doesn't create wealth, as opposed to a private worker. Well, unless you are actually working on the assembly line or in the engineering office creating the next new thing, you aren't creating wealth. You are just shuffling it around, trying to lose as little of it as possible. A corporate executive is no more wealth creating than a government bureaucrat.

Bob Blaylock said:
Having government consume less wealth, leaving more wealth in the hands of consumers and industry, can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...
Consumers and industry actually do have a lot of wealth. They simply aren't using enough of it for consumption or investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom