Workers Beginning To Lose Jobs Due To Sequestration

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Reports are coming in that frogs can no longer afford lilly pads thanks to the sequestration

 

[tooAlive]

Why doesn't the government cut funding to Pakistani mango farmers then? Or lesbian obesity studies? Or snail sex investigations?

 

[Mustang]

This thread is probably as good a place as any to comment on Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

As I recall, Ryan proposes to cut $4.6 TRILLION out of the federal budget over 10 years. Now, that averages out to about $460 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of jobs.

I wonder if Ryan has had any serious talks with any economists about what would happen if that kind of spending (and its ripple effect) reverberated through the economy. Keep in mind that people would still qualify for unemployment.

 

[rdean]

By Amanda Terkel

WASHINGTON -- As Republican politicians insist that the Obama administration has "exaggerated" the effects of sequestration, people around the country are beginning to see for themselves what the results of the $85 billion in budget cuts are: They're losing their jobs.

Thousands of federal employees are facing unpaid time off as agencies determine that they will have to furlough workers to absorb the cuts.

But other workers -- including some in the private sector -- are losing their jobs altogether, underscoring just how much daily life for many people is tied to a functioning government.

Some examples:

More: Workers Lose Jobs As Pink Slips Go Out Due To Sequestration

Can Republicans give us a "cheer"? Finally finishing the job started under Bush.

 

[Meister]

Why doesn't the government cut funding to Pakistani mango farmers then? Or lesbian obesity studies? Or snail sex investigations?

The libs will never admit to all the government waste.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, the White House closes tours that cost 900K total a year.
Yet fuel for Air Force 1 gets 1000 feet per gallon.
Add in the helicopter, the limos and the security it costs 4 million a trip.
One less Hawaii trip in each term he serves pays for the White House tours.

 

[tooAlive]

This thread is probably as good a place as any to comment on Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

As I recall, Ryan proposes to cut $4.6 TRILLION out of the federal budget over 10 years. Now, that averages out to about $460 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of jobs.

I wonder if Ryan has had any serious talks with any economists about what would happen if that kind of spending (and its ripple effect) reverberated through the economy. Keep in mind that people would still qualify for unemployment.

I'd like to know what percentage (if any) of those $460 billion translates into actual jobs.

 

[tooAlive]

Why doesn't the government cut funding to Pakistani mango farmers then? Or lesbian obesity studies? Or snail sex investigations?

The libs will never admit to all the government waste.

It'll be fun to watch when they realize the money being wasted is theirs as well; not just ours.

 

[boedicca]

How many jobs would have been saved if the Obama girls didn't go to the Bahamas, and Joe & Nancy had skipped visiting Pope Francis?

 

[tooAlive]

How many jobs would have been saved if the Obama girls didn't go to the Bahamas, and Joe & Nancy had skipped visiting Pope Francis?

Let them milk it while it lasts.

2016 is around the corner.

 

[Mustang]

This thread is probably as good a place as any to comment on Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

As I recall, Ryan proposes to cut $4.6 TRILLION out of the federal budget over 10 years. Now, that averages out to about $460 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of jobs.

I wonder if Ryan has had any serious talks with any economists about what would happen if that kind of spending (and its ripple effect) reverberated through the economy. Keep in mind that people would still qualify for unemployment.

I'd like to know what percentage (if any) of those $460 billion translates into actual jobs.

They're real jobs. One could certainly argue how necessary one job was as opposed to another job. And I'm sure that there's waste. I'm also sure that some salaries may be inflated. That's not really the point.

The point is that cutting THAT much money from an economy that is struggling to regain its footing is like putting the brakes on a recovery. Actually, it's more like slamming the brakes on. And considering that our country would lose the vast majority of the economic ripple effect of that spending while still having to pay out unemployment benefits and make other transfer payments like food stamps etc, it could be catastrophic for an economic recovery. The British tried austerity, and their economy is moving backward now.

 

[Gadawg73]

All this amounts to is Democratic current policy:

More PAIN for POLITICAL GAIN

 

[Wicked Jester]

Why doesn't the government cut funding to Pakistani mango farmers then? Or lesbian obesity studies? Or snail sex investigations?

The libs will never admit to all the government waste.

Well of course, brother....because we must spend big bucks in finding out why so many Lesbians are fat slobs....It's a serious issue in the grand scheme o' things, DAMMIT!

Sheeeeeesh, man, don't ya' know!?

 

[Wicked Jester]

How many jobs would have been saved if the Obama girls didn't go to the Bahamas, and Joe & Nancy had skipped visiting Pope Francis?

Just wait and see what happens in '16, after Obamacare fully kicks in, in '14, and the American people witness the IRS dogs being unleashed, and businesses en masse elect to pay the fine instead of abiding by Obama's bullshit.

That's why I LMAO, anytime one of the liberal loons up here express their certainty of a full sweep come '16.....Their ignorance is beyond comical.

 

[The Breeze]

This thread is probably as good a place as any to comment on Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

As I recall, Ryan proposes to cut $4.6 TRILLION out of the federal budget over 10 years. Now, that averages out to about $460 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of jobs.

I wonder if Ryan has had any serious talks with any economists about what would happen if that kind of spending (and its ripple effect) reverberated through the economy. Keep in mind that people would still qualify for unemployment.

It wouldn't be alot of jobs if only they'd go after waste fraud and abuse.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why doesn't the government cut funding to Pakistani mango farmers then? Or lesbian obesity studies? Or snail sex investigations?

Yeah....why doesn't it? You always make such salient points!

 

[Oddball]

This thread is probably as good a place as any to comment on Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

As I recall, Ryan proposes to cut $4.6 TRILLION out of the federal budget over 10 years. Now, that averages out to about $460 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of jobs.

I wonder if Ryan has had any serious talks with any economists about what would happen if that kind of spending (and its ripple effect) reverberated through the economy. Keep in mind that people would still qualify for unemployment.

I'd like to know what percentage (if any) of those $460 billion translates into actual jobs.

They're real jobs. One could certainly argue how necessary one job was as opposed to another job. And I'm sure that there's waste. I'm also sure that some salaries may be inflated. That's not really the point.

The point is that cutting THAT much money from an economy that is struggling to regain its footing is like putting the brakes on a recovery. Actually, it's more like slamming the brakes on. And considering that our country would lose the vast majority of the economic ripple effect of that spending while still having to pay out unemployment benefits and make other transfer payments like food stamps etc, it could be catastrophic for an economic recovery. The British tried austerity, and their economy is moving backward now.

Nothing is being cut, from a zero baseline.....More is being spent this year than last.

Calling this austerity is beyond absurd.

 

[Darkwind]

Ah yes. How is Obama's war on the federal workers going?

 

[Katzndogz]

The regime said to increase the pain as much as possible. This is just part of that. The reduction was a 2% reduction in the rate of the RISE of spending. Not in spending. If obama can't manage money better than that, he should resign.