The Upside of the Sequester - A Democratic Congress after 2014.

[edthecynic]

do you ever get tired of be a slobbering jerk?


I asked you 5 times- explain to me your remark that a job that a retiree leaves, which is then filled by a previously unemployed person, is not counted in the UE/Employment numbers anywhere....you want to address that claim or just ignore it like the previous 5 questions on same?

Well there you go again. I never said that. Those are YOUR words put in my mouth by YOU!!!!

really? what did you say then?

what/how are the words I put into your mouth?

First of all, why are you avoiding the other post and instead shifting to this diversion?

Second, I have told you what I said every time you have used this diversion in the past. You ignore it and repeat your lie again in a different thread. Why should I believe telling you again will stop you from lying in another thread?

For the last time, I said when a person retires and is replaced by another person from the ranks of the unemployed, that person's job is not counted as a NEW job. I didn't say it is not counted in the UE/Employment numbers anywhere, those are YOUR words. I specifically said the number of UNEMPLOYED goes down by that old job being filled. I said that old job being filled is not counted as a NEW job, but does show up in the BLS numbers as a reduction in the number of unemployed.
Get it?????????????

Now admit you were wrong about the post you are ignoring.

 

[Trajan]

Well there you go again. I never said that. Those are YOUR words put in my mouth by YOU!!!!

really? what did you say then?

what/how are the words I put into your mouth?

First of all, why are you avoiding the other post and instead shifting to this diversion?

Second, I have told you what I said every time you have used this diversion in the past. You ignore it and repeat your lie again in a different thread. Why should I believe telling you again will stop you from lying in another thread?

For the last time, I said when a person retires and is replaced by another person from the ranks of the unemployed, that person's job is not counted as a NEW job. I didn't say it is not counted in the UE/Employment numbers anywhere, those are YOUR words. I specifically said the number of UNEMPLOYED goes down by that old job being filled. I said that old job being filled is not counted as a NEW job, but does show up in the BLS numbers as a reduction in the number of unemployed.
Get it?????????????

Now admit you were wrong about the post you are ignoring.

first of all, you need to learn what a lie is or when one accuses of another of lying, and what a question or inference is......I am sorry if you get caught up in so much double make you forget and blow by that. Get it???????????????????????????????????????


now, can you show me the bls explanation and numbers for that please?

back to the other question-

I never said the cuts were less than 85 billion for this year, I said that the cuts were more than 850 billion for the 10 years and were 85 billion for this year because as part of the agreement for extending the sequester to March from January a part of the required sequester cuts for this year were already agreed to to cover that period.

lets try it this way ed, what is the 10 year sequester total, forget what this year works out to.

that, is the point.

 

[edthecynic]

really? what did you say then?

what/how are the words I put into your mouth?

First of all, why are you avoiding the other post and instead shifting to this diversion?

Second, I have told you what I said every time you have used this diversion in the past. You ignore it and repeat your lie again in a different thread. Why should I believe telling you again will stop you from lying in another thread?

For the last time, I said when a person retires and is replaced by another person from the ranks of the unemployed, that person's job is not counted as a NEW job. I didn't say it is not counted in the UE/Employment numbers anywhere, those are YOUR words. I specifically said the number of UNEMPLOYED goes down by that old job being filled. I said that old job being filled is not counted as a NEW job, but does show up in the BLS numbers as a reduction in the number of unemployed.
Get it?????????????

Now admit you were wrong about the post you are ignoring.

first of all, you need to learn what a lie is or when one accuses of another of lying, and what a question or inference is......I am sorry if you get caught up in so much double make you forget and blow by that. Get it???????????????????????????????????????


now, can you show me the bls explanation and numbers for that please?

back to the other question-

I never said the cuts were less than 85 billion for this year, I said that the cuts were more than 850 billion for the 10 years and were 85 billion for this year because as part of the agreement for extending the sequester to March from January a part of the required sequester cuts for this year were already agreed to to cover that period.

lets try it this way ed, what is the 10 year sequester total, forget what this year works out to.

that, is the point.

1.2 trillion, not the 850 billion you claimed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I correctly predicted that the ACA decision assured President Obama a second term. Welp...this will assure a Democratic majority in both houses of congress.

You can take that to the bank.

Given the gerrymandering of congressional districts, the likelihood of a democratic House is bleak, regardless the will of the people.

But it will keep democrats firmly in control of the Senate.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How can you say repairing and replacing infrastructure doesn't create jobs. Without infrastructure you don't have commerce or industry. What's killing us is "defense". Defense has replaced commerce and industry and is money poured down a rat hole considering we have more than enough military to handle any situation we face very easily, but too many interests want to keep the defense gravy train rolling forever.

The jobs are already out there and full. Adding more work to be done will not hire another crew to do it....It's not rocket science.

We have enough military to handle any situation very easily? Really? then why are we still getting the shit kicked out of us in Afghanistan after 11+ years?

Now can we cut defense spending? No doubt. We just did, and at the same time screwed over the military retiree again. Can we cut some more? Certainly, but it has to be done by people who know what they are talking about, not a bunch of idiots in DC.

So military retirees are getting screwed over? That's too bad. Anybody that does 20 or 30 years deserves a raise to keep up with cost of living, not to get screwed over. But when we have a political party (republicans) that would rather see children in poor health and have their head start pulled out from under them, and have retirees get screwed over rather than raise taxes on multibillionaires or just put a penny transaction tax on automatic stock trades to raise money and this party overrules this, what else can we expect. Worse times in store because some "conservatives" want to even end corporate taxes althogether.

You haven't a clue.......

 

[Trajan]

First of all, why are you avoiding the other post and instead shifting to this diversion?

Second, I have told you what I said every time you have used this diversion in the past. You ignore it and repeat your lie again in a different thread. Why should I believe telling you again will stop you from lying in another thread?

For the last time, I said when a person retires and is replaced by another person from the ranks of the unemployed, that person's job is not counted as a NEW job. I didn't say it is not counted in the UE/Employment numbers anywhere, those are YOUR words. I specifically said the number of UNEMPLOYED goes down by that old job being filled. I said that old job being filled is not counted as a NEW job, but does show up in the BLS numbers as a reduction in the number of unemployed.
Get it?????????????

Now admit you were wrong about the post you are ignoring.

first of all, you need to learn what a lie is or when one accuses of another of lying, and what a question or inference is......I am sorry if you get caught up in so much double make you forget and blow by that. Get it???????????????????????????????????????


now, can you show me the bls explanation and numbers for that please?

back to the other question-

I never said the cuts were less than 85 billion for this year, I said that the cuts were more than 850 billion for the 10 years and were 85 billion for this year because as part of the agreement for extending the sequester to March from January a part of the required sequester cuts for this year were already agreed to to cover that period.

lets try it this way ed, what is the 10 year sequester total, forget what this year works out to.

that, is the point.

1.2 trillion, not the 850 billion you claimed.

ok, so, as I said before, where is the rest? I said the dems would not cough up the balance to meet the formula. So my estimate ( that is, what you said I said) was short, not 350 Bn , but they are approx 600 bn short.



back to square 1.



can I have that BLS link please?

 

[edthecynic]

first of all, you need to learn what a lie is or when one accuses of another of lying, and what a question or inference is......I am sorry if you get caught up in so much double make you forget and blow by that. Get it???????????????????????????????????????


now, can you show me the bls explanation and numbers for that please?

back to the other question-


lets try it this way ed, what is the 10 year sequester total, forget what this year works out to.

that, is the point.

1.2 trillion, not the 850 billion you claimed.

ok, so, as I said before, where is the rest? I said the dems would not cough up the balance to meet the formula. So my estimate ( that is, what you said I said) was short, not 350 Bn , but they are approx 600 bn short.

What are you babbling about? If no deal is reached the 1.2 trillion is automatic across the board cuts over 10 years.

Here is what you said;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6866998-post365.html

obama and the dems have painted themselves into their own corner, over that ten year window , the 1.2 trillion he alludes to above, is still short as the sequester only cuts 850 Bn, if he and the dems cannot even stomach 850 bn, there is no way they are coming up with another 350 bn either, and, remember when he made this speech he didn't have his tax revenues either.

I am sure this will all make Eds head explode, but theres no way out.

 

[SFC Ollie]

1.2 trillion in 10 years isn't shit.........

 

[jasonnfree]

The ACA is still as unpopular as it was when Dems forced it on the nation with legislative tricks, and numerous LIES and misinformation from the White House.

What got BO a second term was a very good job by his campaign team of herding millions of unproductive sloths -- who otherwise probably wouldn't have voted -- into polling places with promises of many more gov't freebies.

His "mandate" is a mandate from millions of lazy opened mouths, opened hands, and empty minds, all wanting something for nothing

Never too late to start the hate, right?

The "hate" will develop on it's own, as more and more folks are kicked off their employer's HC plan, and/or shifted to part-time to avoid the penalties, and see their own premiums continuing to rise. And as young folks suddenly realize they're in on this as well. No more going "bare" (without HC) when you're in your 20s.

It's gonna get ugly IMO. Already there' a doctor shortage, and no good fixes in the works.

I think the hatred you have for your fellow man started before Obamacare.

 

[jasonnfree]

The jobs are already out there and full. Adding more work to be done will not hire another crew to do it....It's not rocket science.

We have enough military to handle any situation very easily? Really? then why are we still getting the shit kicked out of us in Afghanistan after 11+ years?

Now can we cut defense spending? No doubt. We just did, and at the same time screwed over the military retiree again. Can we cut some more? Certainly, but it has to be done by people who know what they are talking about, not a bunch of idiots in DC.

So military retirees are getting screwed over? That's too bad. Anybody that does 20 or 30 years deserves a raise to keep up with cost of living, not to get screwed over. But when we have a political party (republicans) that would rather see children in poor health and have their head start pulled out from under them, and have retirees get screwed over rather than raise taxes on multibillionaires or just put a penny transaction tax on automatic stock trades to raise money and this party overrules this, what else can we expect. Worse times in store because some "conservatives" want to even end corporate taxes althogether.

You haven't a clue.......

So, what I said was untrue? So tell me where I was wrong. How was Vietnam a threat to the security of the USA? How is Afghanistan a threat to the security of the USA? Do you deny that republicans worry more about tax breaks for the very wealthy than they worry about the needy?

 

[Trajan]

1.2 trillion, not the 850 billion you claimed.

ok, so, as I said before, where is the rest? I said the dems would not cough up the balance to meet the formula. So my estimate ( that is, what you said I said) was short, not 350 Bn , but they are approx 600 bn short.

What are you babbling about? If no deal is reached the 1.2 trillion is automatic across the board cuts over 10 years.

Here is what you said;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6866998-post365.html

obama and the dems have painted themselves into their own corner, over that ten year window , the 1.2 trillion he alludes to above, is still short as the sequester only cuts 850 Bn, if he and the dems cannot even stomach 850 bn, there is no way they are coming up with another 350 bn either, and, remember when he made this speech he didn't have his tax revenues either.

I am sure this will all make Eds head explode, but theres no way out.

Can you not read what I wrote?

I said- "the 1.2 trillion HE Alluded to ", that was not my number and if I used that number it's always been incorrect, it's 1.8 trillion,3-1 revenue for cuts, how many times would you like me to state it? that is and always has been my point in all this, I could give a shit about the sequester other than it cuts.


This is not a way out ed.

So, back to square one, where is the cuts from Obama?


Can I get that link to the bls explanation please?

 

[SFC Ollie]

So military retirees are getting screwed over? That's too bad. Anybody that does 20 or 30 years deserves a raise to keep up with cost of living, not to get screwed over. But when we have a political party (republicans) that would rather see children in poor health and have their head start pulled out from under them, and have retirees get screwed over rather than raise taxes on multibillionaires or just put a penny transaction tax on automatic stock trades to raise money and this party overrules this, what else can we expect. Worse times in store because some "conservatives" want to even end corporate taxes althogether.

You haven't a clue.......

So, what I said was untrue? So tell me where I was wrong. How was Vietnam a threat to the security of the USA? How is Afghanistan a threat to the security of the USA? Do you deny that republicans worry more about tax breaks for the very wealthy than they worry about the needy?

How much have you donated to the needy? My bet is that you won't catch up to me in 20 years.... Yes we worry about the needy, But the dollars i give do a lot more good than if I gave it to the IRS.

Afghanistan was attacked because they were harboring UBL. I thought everyone knew that...
Now why we are still there is a whole other subject.

 

[edthecynic]

ok, so, as I said before, where is the rest? I said the dems would not cough up the balance to meet the formula. So my estimate ( that is, what you said I said) was short, not 350 Bn , but they are approx 600 bn short.

What are you babbling about? If no deal is reached the 1.2 trillion is automatic across the board cuts over 10 years.

Here is what you said;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6866998-post365.html

obama and the dems have painted themselves into their own corner, over that ten year window , the 1.2 trillion he alludes to above, is still short as the sequester only cuts 850 Bn, if he and the dems cannot even stomach 850 bn, there is no way they are coming up with another 350 bn either, and, remember when he made this speech he didn't have his tax revenues either.

I am sure this will all make Eds head explode, but theres no way out.

Can you not read what I wrote?

I said- "the 1.2 trillion HE Alluded to ", that was not my number and if I used that number it's always been incorrect, it's 1.8 trillion,3-1 revenue for cuts, how many times would you like me to state it? that is and always has been my point in all this, I could give a shit about the sequester other than it cuts.

You can make up all the numbers and ratios you want, you said it was 850 billion over 10 years because you believed the 85 billion this year was for each of the 10 years, and YOU were wrong. Man up and admit it.

There was no 1.8 trillion or 3 to 1 ratio in the Budget Control Act of 2011, you just made that shit up like you always do. There were 900+ billion in cuts over 10 years first installment and 1.5 trillion in additional debt reduction of revenue and cuts from the Super-committee. If no agreement was reached by the Super-committee then there would be 1.2 trillion in automatic across the board cuts.

So you already got your 900+ billion in cuts and now another 1.2 trillion, that's over 2.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. For you to still be 600 billion short of your made up 3 to 1 ratio then Obama should have 900 billion in revenue in hand.

 

[edthecynic]

Can I get that link to the bls explanation please?

Are you denying that the BLS keeps track of replacement workers as a separate count from NEW jobs???

What will it take from the BLS to get you to stop lying?

 

[Trajan]

What are you babbling about? If no deal is reached the 1.2 trillion is automatic across the board cuts over 10 years.

Here is what you said;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6866998-post365.html

obama and the dems have painted themselves into their own corner, over that ten year window , the 1.2 trillion he alludes to above, is still short as the sequester only cuts 850 Bn, if he and the dems cannot even stomach 850 bn, there is no way they are coming up with another 350 bn either, and, remember when he made this speech he didn't have his tax revenues either.

I am sure this will all make Eds head explode, but theres no way out.

Can you not read what I wrote?

I said- "the 1.2 trillion HE Alluded to ", that was not my number and if I used that number it's always been incorrect, it's 1.8 trillion,3-1 revenue for cuts, how many times would you like me to state it? that is and always has been my point in all this, I could give a shit about the sequester other than it cuts.

You can make up all the numbers and ratios you want, you said it was 850 billion over 10 years because you believed the 85 billion this year was for each of the 10 years, and YOU were wrong. Man up and admit it.

There was no 1.8 trillion or 3 to 1 ratio in the Budget Control Act of 2011, you just made that shit up like you always do. There were 900+ billion in cuts over 10 years first installment and 1.5 trillion in additional debt reduction of revenue and cuts from the Super-committee. If no agreement was reached by the Super-committee then there would be 1.2 trillion in automatic across the board cuts.

So you already got your 900+ billion in cuts and now another 1.2 trillion, that's over 2.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. For you to still be 600 billion short of your made up 3 to 1 ratio then Obama should have 900 billion in revenue in hand.

You're not reading digesting a word I am saying , read what I am writing ed not what your hatrack wants to.

I don't give a shit about the budget control act, sequester etc. I am referring to the revenues in exchange for cuts on the 3 to 1 Simpson bowles exchange and what Obama called balance , 3-1 cuts to revenue. He got approx. 65bn in revenues. (the 900 bn debt ceiling deal ? you're nuts )

I am giving him the sequester $$$$, even if he wanted to weasel out of it......he must come up with other cuts to complete the formula. That's at least the third time I have said this to you.

 

[Trajan]

Can I get that link to the bls explanation please?

Are you denying that the BLS keeps track of replacement workers as a separate count from NEW jobs???

What will it take from the BLS to get you to stop lying?

I want the link with the numbers and the explanation as to your answer in that post.

 

[edthecynic]

Can you not read what I wrote?

I said- "the 1.2 trillion HE Alluded to ", that was not my number and if I used that number it's always been incorrect, it's 1.8 trillion,3-1 revenue for cuts, how many times would you like me to state it? that is and always has been my point in all this, I could give a shit about the sequester other than it cuts.

You can make up all the numbers and ratios you want, you said it was 850 billion over 10 years because you believed the 85 billion this year was for each of the 10 years, and YOU were wrong. Man up and admit it.

There was no 1.8 trillion or 3 to 1 ratio in the Budget Control Act of 2011, you just made that shit up like you always do. There were 900+ billion in cuts over 10 years first installment and 1.5 trillion in additional debt reduction of revenue and cuts from the Super-committee. If no agreement was reached by the Super-committee then there would be 1.2 trillion in automatic across the board cuts.

So you already got your 900+ billion in cuts and now another 1.2 trillion, that's over 2.1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. For you to still be 600 billion short of your made up 3 to 1 ratio then Obama should have 900 billion in revenue in hand.

You're not reading digesting a word I am saying , read what I am writing ed not what your hatrack wants to.

I don't give a shit about the budget control act, sequester etc. I am referring to the revenues in exchange for cuts on the 3 to 1 Simpson bowles exchange and what Obama called balance , 3-1 cuts to revenue. He got approx. 65bn in revenues. (the 900 bn debt ceiling deal ? you're nuts )

I am giving him the sequester $$$$, even if he wanted to weasel out of it......he must come up with other cuts to complete the formula. That's at least the third time I have said this to you.

The Budget Control Act came AFTER the Simpson Bowles commission (which was never adopted). The sequester was the BCA, there was no sequester in SB. Since SB you got 900+ billion in cuts and 1.2 in sequester cuts, that's 2.1+ trillion in cuts over 10 years. So that 2.1+ trillion in cuts means that at your not agreed to and not in the law 3 to 1 ratio Obama is entitled to 700+ billion in revenue. You admit he only got 650 billion in revenue, so you owe Obama another 50+ billion in revenue.
Pay up!

 

[edthecynic]

Can I get that link to the bls explanation please?

Are you denying that the BLS keeps track of replacement workers as a separate count from NEW jobs???

What will it take from the BLS to get you to stop lying?

I want the link with the numbers and the explanation as to your answer in that post.

Here are the BLS replacement worker numbers.

Replacement needs

And here is what the BLS says about new jobs and replacement jobs.

Estimating Occupational Replacement Needs

Projections of job growth provide valuable insight into future employment opportunities because each new job created is an opening for a worker entering an occupation. However, opportunities also arise when workers leave their occupations and need to be replaced. In most occupations, replacement needs provide many more job openings than employment growth does.

To project the magnitude of replacement needs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculated an estimate of openings resulting from workers retiring from or permanently leaving an occupation

 

[Sallow]

The ACA is still as unpopular as it was when Dems forced it on the nation with legislative tricks, and numerous LIES and misinformation from the White House.

What got BO a second term was a very good job by his campaign team of herding millions of unproductive sloths -- who otherwise probably wouldn't have voted -- into polling places with promises of many more gov't freebies.

His "mandate" is a mandate from millions of lazy opened mouths, opened hands, and empty minds, all wanting something for nothing

Never too late to start the hate, right?

The "hate" will develop on it's own, as more and more folks are kicked off their employer's HC plan, and/or shifted to part-time to avoid the penalties, and see their own premiums continuing to rise. And as young folks suddenly realize they're in on this as well. No more going "bare" (without HC) when you're in your 20s.

It's gonna get ugly IMO. Already there' a doctor shortage, and no good fixes in the works.

No it's not.

You have a few disgruntled employers taking out their frustration with the whole thing on employees.

Most of which can get all sorts of exemptions from the ACA or would be able to stagger it.

It's grandstanding bullshit..and nothing more.

 

[Rinata]

The democratic leadership has made more concessions than the republican leadership has since President Obama first took office. All they care about is doing the opposite of what the president suggests.

Republicans have threatened our economy and have made it quite clear that they will not compromise. They want all or nothing despite the fact that they were soundly defeated in the last election by the American people!!

But that's okay. Polls continue to show that they will be blamed when our economy goes down the toilet.