Jump to content
one...two...tree

House Republicans Crow Triumphantly After Bernanke Confirms Their Spending Cuts Will Cause Job Loss

 Share

27 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

So if these small cuts cost 700,000 jobs then it stands to reason that increasing spending by that amount would increase jobs by 700,000. So, the trillion dollar stimulus should have gave us tens of millions of jobs. Did it? We should have full employment by that logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

So if these small cuts cost 700,000 jobs then it stands to reason that increasing spending by that amount would increase jobs by 700,000. So, the trillion dollar stimulus should have gave us tens of millions of jobs. Did it? We should have full employment by that logic.

Not sure how you rationalize this logic you propose. A cut is not the opposite of an increase. Its the opposite of maintaining. We should be paying attention to the particular jobs that would be lost as a result of the cuts, not the rhetoric behind it. But that's just an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

Not sure how you rationalize this logic you propose. A cut is not the opposite of an increase. Its the opposite of maintaining. We should be paying attention to the particular jobs that would be lost as a result of the cuts, not the rhetoric behind it. But that's just an opinion.

Take a look at what you just said. I think the logic should be apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

Take a look at what you just said. I think the logic should be apparent.

Your logic implies that adding (above and beyond maintaining) more funding (spending) to those targeted 'programs' would increase jobs by 700,000. This is your logic. What you fail at doing is stating how that additional funding would create more employment, given the purpose of said programs, and more importantly, the positions themselves that would appear as a result of this 'investment.' You may be assuming the cuts that would eliminate those jobs would be directly in places where the funds themselves create positions instead of maintaining them.

I think its wasteful to not streamline the function of government, but this does not mean that streamlining should negatively impact (beyond the scope of the point of being prudently 'austere') beneficiaries and providers of services.

Logic should be used properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Your logic implies that adding (above and beyond maintaining) more funding (spending) to those targeted 'programs' would increase jobs by 700,000. This is your logic. What you fail at doing is stating how that additional funding would create more employment, given the purpose of said programs, and more importantly, the positions themselves that would appear as a result of this 'investment.' You may be assuming the cuts that would eliminate those jobs would be directly in places where the funds themselves create positions instead of maintaining them.

I think its wasteful to not streamline the function of government, but this does not mean that streamlining should negatively impact (beyond the scope of the point of being prudently 'austere') beneficiaries and providers of services.

Logic should be used properly.

negativity in this case is in the eye of the beholder.

Many would argue the negativity comes from some of the services to begin with as it creates a scenario where people rely on government or have expectations of government in areas they were never supposed to/intended to. Scenarios and situations where they should rely more on community or their own abilities to succeed.

nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

negativity in this case is in the eye of the beholder.

Many would argue the negativity comes from some of the services to begin with as it creates a scenario where people rely on government or have expectations of government in areas they were never supposed to/intended to. Scenarios and situations where they should rely more on community or their own abilities to succeed.

Certainly. An increase in unemployment is relative. :blink: Remember this when you condemn the US Government for stifling job creation (and maintenance). And remember that those projected 700,000 job cuts came from a piece of legislation championed by the same party that has a problem with 'the job-killing health care law.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Lesotho
Timeline

Your logic implies that adding (above and beyond maintaining) more funding (spending) to those targeted 'programs' would increase jobs by 700,000. This is your logic. What you fail at doing is stating how that additional funding would create more employment, given the purpose of said programs, and more importantly, the positions themselves that would appear as a result of this 'investment.' You may be assuming the cuts that would eliminate those jobs would be directly in places where the funds themselves create positions instead of maintaining them.

I think its wasteful to not streamline the function of government, but this does not mean that streamlining should negatively impact (beyond the scope of the point of being prudently 'austere') beneficiaries and providers of services.

Logic should be used properly.

It just stands to reason. If cutting by a certain amount will cost a given number of jobs then an increase in spending should create a certain number of jobs. Unless you are saying that we have the perfect level of funding and the market is saturated. If that is the case then there is no value at all in stimulus spending in an effort to create jobs. If that is the case then we agree that all the stimulus spending was wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

It just stands to reason. If cutting by a certain amount will cost a given number of jobs then an increase in spending should create a certain number of jobs. Unless you are saying that we have the perfect level of funding and the market is saturated. If that is the case then there is no value at all in stimulus spending in an effort to create jobs. If that is the case then we agree that all the stimulus spending was wasted.

slap-logo1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Lift. Cond. (apr) Country: Spain
Timeline

It just stands to reason. If cutting by a certain amount will cost a given number of jobs then an increase in spending should create a certain number of jobs. Unless you are saying that we have the perfect level of funding and the market is saturated. If that is the case then there is no value at all in stimulus spending in an effort to create jobs. If that is the case then we agree that all the stimulus spending was wasted.

Not quite what I'm saying, but I see your point of view. IMO, it is not what you were trying to say originally.

The market is far from saturated. The market if anything, is psyched out about hiring (while the managers of the market are 'earning' record profits, might I add)- for whatever reasons, separate of what we're trying to break down here.

What I'm getting at in my opinion is much more simple: the industries (fields) those jobs are currently maintained in, and will be lost, need not be saturated to require any stimulus funding to continue. They require the funds because the market does not want to maintain or grow payroll at the expense of profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

Bernanke is part of the reason why we are in this mess in the first place...

He DOES NOT work for the American people. He works for the Fed & the Banks interest, NOT ours..

:thumbs:

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...