Obama re-election results in 22 layoffs (and it's only Nov 8)

[^_^ 5,021]

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

...

"Most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees — well unfortunately we know what happened and I can’t wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences."

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/vegas-employer-obama-won-so-i-fired-22-employees/

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

we just got our sequestration talk. jan '13 might be an interesting month.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

we just got our sequestration talk. jan '13 might be an interesting month.

You're all for cutting federal spending, aren't you? Sequestration does that.

[^_^ 5,021]

You're all for cutting federal spending, aren't you? Sequestration does that.

only funding that helps people other than himself.

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

You're all for cutting federal spending, aren't you? Sequestration does that.

before you get all excited, this will apply to all defense - including combat troops.

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

[quote name=' timestamp='1352398539' post='5810365]

only funding that helps people other than himself.

when free cell phones make a positive impact on national defense, let me know.

[Dan J 277]

when free cell phones make a positive impact on national defense, let me know.

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

The cost of free cell phones is a drop in an ocean compared to the defense budget. I wont take anyone seriously who talks about reducing the deficit, but wont even consider serious cuts to defense spending.

that was just one example of many that could be cited.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

before you get all excited, this will apply to all defense - including combat troops.

We spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. That is insane. To suggest that we cannot significantly trim the defense budget and still maintain the meanest and strongest military in the world is just dishonest. It can be done. And seeing the fiscal situation we're in, it must be done.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

that was just one example of many that could be cited.

Reagan Phones (yes, this program actually dates back 1984) cost the federal government zippo. Get rid of them and the federal government will have saved exactly $0.00. You could name thousands of such programs and it would still have no effect on the federal deficit at all.

[Danno 1,228]

We spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. That is insane. To suggest that we cannot significantly trim the defense budget and still maintain the meanest and strongest military in the world is just dishonest. It can be done. And seeing the fiscal situation we're in, it must be done.

I agree, the size of our military has no justification.

And how are we going to follow the European model of social organization unless we find someone to provide for our defense as Europe has done?

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

We spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. That is insane. To suggest that we cannot significantly trim the defense budget and still maintain the meanest and strongest military in the world is just dishonest. It can be done. And seeing the fiscal situation we're in, it must be done.

citation for that trillion?

Reagan Phones (yes, this program actually dates back 1984) cost the federal government zippo. Get rid of them and the federal government will have saved exactly $0.00. You could name thousands of such programs and it would still have no effect on the federal deficit at all.

citation? someone has to be paying for the monthly bill.

Meanwhile, the program costs about $2.4 billion, which is approximately 2.3% of the amount the federal government spends annually on homeowner mortgage subsidies and a measly 0.38% of the amount the federal government will spend over the next five years on corporate tax breaks.

link

Edited November 9, 2012 by charles!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

citation for that trillion?

google it. All in, we spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. The fact that not all of that is sitting in the DoD budget does not mean that the funding isn't for defense.

citation? someone has to be paying for the monthly bill.

The Reaganphone program is paid for by the Universal Service fee that everyone pays via their phone bills not by the treasury.

[Ban Hammer 13,568]

google it. All in, we spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense. The fact that not all of that is sitting in the DoD budget does not mean that the funding isn't for defense.

your figure seems slightly inflated. and this site indicates defense is the same price as health care (24%).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed

The Reaganphone program is paid for by the Universal Service fee that everyone pays via their phone bills not by the treasury.

so someone is paying for it - you and i.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so someone is paying for it - you and i.

Yes, someone is paying for it. Someone is always paying. There's no free lunch, we all know that. But it's not the federal government. Hence, this is a bad example for programs to eliminate in an effort to reduce the deficit.