Ponder, perhaps CHEW on this!

[billvon 2,991]

>Removing gov will help the economy return much faster

That's like saying "removing GM and Ford will help the economy return much faster." It simply makes no sense. Putting millions of people out of work does not help the economy recover.

>I also think you agree that what evey tactic is taken there will be short term pain

Yes - and that pain will come in the form of a second recession.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you cut government spending by 12% this year and 12% next year and did it at 1% per month, the economy would not even feel the change. the economy would actually improve and unemployment would drop as the cuts took place.

Which has nothing to do with 5 million additional unemployed....

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

If you cut government spending by 12% this year and 12% next year and did it at 1% per month, the economy would not even feel the change. the economy would actually improve and unemployment would drop as the cuts took place.

Which has nothing to do with 5 million additional unemployed....

there would not be 5mil unemployed if you reduced the budget and allowed the improved economy to hire them as you went. the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the first thing to go would be the waste in government

[wmw999 2,447]

Who would hire the government employees laid off?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the
>first thing to go would be the waste in government

Ah yes, the myth that you can just "trim the fat" and not affect anyone - because no politician has ever tried that before.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the
>first thing to go would be the waste in government

Ah yes, the myth that you can just "trim the fat" and not affect anyone - because no politician has ever tried that before.

I never said nobody would be affected

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Who would hire the government employees laid off?

Wendy P.

same people that are hiring now plus some that would start hiring because of the better, financially more conservative government.

Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain? sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many. Suck it up people, quit the fucking whining, not everyone can be a winner, that only happens in the dream world of the left.

[billvon 2,991]

>Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain?
>sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many.

Exactly. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. And yes, the taxes might cause you a little pain. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the many.

[quade 4]

Quote

>Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain?
>sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many.

Exactly. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. And yes, the taxes might cause you a little pain. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the many.

Obviously, he never saw Star Trek II.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Removing gov will help the economy return much faster

That's like saying "removing GM and Ford will help the economy return much faster." It simply makes no sense. Putting millions of people out of work does not help the economy recover.

>I also think you agree that what evey tactic is taken there will be short term pain

Yes - and that pain will come in the form of a second recession.

Two have a second one suggests the first is over
Which it is not

And $6 gas with Obama admin support will insure that anyway

But I do not agree the affect would be as dire as you suggest

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Two have a second one suggests the first is over
>Which it is not

Agreed that it is not over - but we are certainly recovering.

>And $6 gas with Obama admin support will insure that anyway

Uh, OK. So you want to damage the economy further?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Two have a second one suggests the first is over
>Which it is not

Agreed that it is not over - but we are certainly recovering.

>And $6 gas with Obama admin support will insure that anyway

>Uh, OK. So you want to damage the economy further?

Nope, I do not. That is why the gov needs to be shrunk so much so fast as it is what is doing the biggest damage now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Nope, I do not. That is why the gov needs to be shrunk so much so fast as it is
>what is doing the biggest damage now

Sorry, I can't keep up with you when you change your story that often.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nope, I do not. That is why the gov needs to be shrunk so much so fast as it is
>what is doing the biggest damage now

Sorry, I can't keep up with you when you change your story that often.

Not changing at all
You say shrinking the gov will hurt the economy

I say shrinking the gov will help much more than it hurts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

>Removing gov will help the economy return much faster

That's like saying "removing GM and Ford will help the economy return much faster." It simply makes no sense. Putting millions of people out of work does not help the economy recover.

>I also think you agree that what evey tactic is taken there will be short term pain

Yes - and that pain will come in the form of a second recession.

Two have a second one suggests the first is over
Which it is not

And $6 gas with Obama admin support will insure that anyway

Yes, of course! Providing personal recession insurance subsidized by the oil companies. It's Genius!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Removing gov will help the economy return much faster

That's like saying "removing GM and Ford will help the economy return much faster." It simply makes no sense. Putting millions of people out of work does not help the economy recover.

>I also think you agree that what evey tactic is taken there will be short term pain

Yes - and that pain will come in the form of a second recession.

Two have a second one suggests the first is over
Which it is not

And $6 gas with Obama admin support will insure that anyway

Yes, of course! Providing personal recession insurance subsidized by the oil companies. It's Genius!

Yes another progressive way to insure a supportive voter base

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

>Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain?
>sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many.

Exactly. We need to cut spending and raise taxes. And yes, the taxes might cause you a little pain. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the many.

Obviously, he never saw Star Trek II.

I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should have an increase. untill that time we will just need to reduce spending.

But maybe you didn't see star trek III were the needs of the one (our country) outwiegh the needs of the many.(those paying no tax)

[billvon 2,991]

>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.

Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"

Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"

Result? What we have today.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.

Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"

Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"

Result? What we have today.

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.

Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"

Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"

Result? What we have today.

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?

It breaks up the voter base

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?

Nothing. What's wrong with having the rich share in the workload as well?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those
>that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should
>have an increase.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one will ever make any progress with the debt problem. No one will be willing to sacrifice their golden calf until they get their political favors granted.

Repub: "Sure, I'm OK with raising taxes - as long as you tax those lazy fucks first!"

Dem: "Sure, I'm OK with cutting programs - as long as you tax the evil rich first!"

Result? What we have today.

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?

It breaks up the voter base

I remember when people would work hard or got made fun of or chastized, now those that don't work get coddled and given things.

[billvon 2,991]

>I remember when people would work hard or got made fun of or chastized, now
>those that don't work get coddled and given things.

Everything is better in retrospect. But people (and societies) don't change as much as everyone thinks. Even in the 1950's there were poor people who rich people hated and rich people who poor people hated. And even in the 1950's people got given things they didn't work for - and the rich got made fun of.

"I am Elmer J Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht." - 1956

[rushmc 23]

Even in the 1950's there were poor people who rich people hated and rich people who poor people hated. And even in the 1950's people got given things they didn't work for - and the rich got made fun of.

[billvon 2,991]

>and we still got democratic fuck nugget politicians who use the rich against the poor
>tactic to get votes

And republican assholes who play the race card to garner votes. Nothing much changes.