Head dem says 170 million jobs lost

[Merc14]

Yeah, Maxine Waters, a leading democrat, told America that 170 million jobs would be lost if Obama's Sequestration took place. There are 320 million Americans and that number includes children, retired folks and non-working parents. Approximately 138 million employed Americans/ That is PT and FT and ST. So why did Maxine say 170M would be unemployed? Did she mean 70M? 70M means more that half of full time employees would be out of work because the government cut $86B from the $2.1T budget which is actually 3T. She is a leader in the democrat house and she is running things. She has no idea what she is talking about or what she is doing yet she si a democrat leader.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Tiggs
Changed typo in thread title.

[+and-then]

This woman is a nasty, race baiting piece of work. She is a thug in a suit as far as I'm concerned and I suspect she will be indicted at some point because that ilk cannot suppress the urge to help themselves to the largess they milk from the taxpayers to buy votes with. When it happens I hope that as she's being perp walked she hears chants of NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE! She makes me ill.

[danielost]

All of the dems. Have been screaming about how bad it is going be if it happens. Today, Thursday the president basicly said never mind.

[RavenHawk]

All of the dems. Have been screaming about how bad it is going be if it happens. Today, Thursday the president basicly said never mind.

And We The People are just going to "Forget about it"?

[RavenHawk]

Yeah, Maxine Waters, a leading democrat, told America that 170 million jobs would be lost if Obama's Sequestration took place. There are 320 million Americans and that number includes children, retired folks and non-working parents. Approximately 138 million employed Americans/ That is PT and FT and ST. So why did Maxine say 170M would be unemployed? Did she mean 70M? 70M means more that half of full time employees would be out of work because the government cut $86B from the $2.1T budget which is actually 3T. She is a leader in the democrat house and she is running things. She has no idea what she is talking about or what she is doing yet she si a democrat leader.

Just to be fair, she could have meant 170,000 jobs?? But wasn't the original estimate like 800,000? These people really think we are all stupid morons. When in fact Obama retained the office by only a relatively narrow margin of low information voters.

[danielost]

Just to be fair, she could have meant 170,000 jobs?? But wasn't the original estimate like 800,000? These people really think we are all stupid morons. When in fact Obama retained the office by only a relatively narrow margin of low information voters.

No, not low information but, give me give voters.

[Taun]

Well... I work for the US Government and it is looking strongly like I will lose a days pay every week for the remainder of the year (at least)... Some will lose much more than that... The impact of this sequestration looks to be massive, just from the Department of Transportation... Within the FAA (where I work) flight inspections will be impacted (no inspections - no flights!), Reduced staffing among Air Traffic Controllers... Then you have harbor operations, train operations, over the road trucking operations....

Things are about to get very 'interesting' pretty quickly...

[Merc14]

Well... I work for the US Government and it is looking strongly like I will lose a days pay every week for the remainder of the year (at least)... Some will lose much more than that... The impact of this sequestration looks to be massive, just from the Department of Transportation... Within the FAA (where I work) flight inspections will be impacted (no inspections - no flights!), Reduced staffing among Air Traffic Controllers... Then you have harbor operations, train operations, over the road trucking operations....

Things are about to get very 'interesting' pretty quickly...

Sequestration is Obama's rule. He suggested it and rammed it through. This may be the first time a President has campaigned against his own law. Obama and the dems will wait to see the fall out from this but as of now they are fine because the economy is going to fail regardless but now they can blame sequestration. Sequestartion is about $80 off of a $3800 bill but that is enough to shift blame for 4 years of failure when you have a compliant media.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Merc14

[danielost]

Here is what these cuts realy are. The government spending will go up 6% instead of 8%. Not, the real numbbers but you get the point.

[Jeremiah65]

Here is a decent article about the sequester. it's not a well known source but it has some observations.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/what-will-sequestration-really-look-like

Interesting...

[Rafterman]

Well... I work for the US Government and it is looking strongly like I will lose a days pay every week for the remainder of the year (at least)... Some will lose much more than that... The impact of this sequestration looks to be massive, just from the Department of Transportation... Within the FAA (where I work) flight inspections will be impacted (no inspections - no flights!), Reduced staffing among Air Traffic Controllers... Then you have harbor operations, train operations, over the road trucking operations....

Things are about to get very 'interesting' pretty quickly...

For those of us not smart enough for a Government job, can you explain why such cuts are necessary given that, even with Sequester, the Federal budget is still larger than it was last year.

[Tiggs]

Just to be fair, she could have meant 170,000 jobs??

Apparently, that's what she meant to say.

[AsteroidX]

Well... I work for the US Government and it is looking strongly like I will lose a days pay every week for the remainder of the year (at least)... Some will lose much more than that... The impact of this sequestration looks to be massive, just from the Department of Transportation... Within the FAA (where I work) flight inspections will be impacted (no inspections - no flights!), Reduced staffing among Air Traffic Controllers... Then you have harbor operations, train operations, over the road trucking operations....

Things are about to get very 'interesting' pretty quickly...

Not to pick on you but picture how the great portion of Americans have been getting by since 2008 and let us extend a hand of welcome. No worries Unemployment will cover your loss of wages itleast for the rest of the year and there are other social programs in place to ease any sacrifice endured by our Govmnt employees. Alas we will also survive as we have been living the dream since 2008. BTW there never was any recovery despite what MSM has told us. Its been a long enduring recession. These are necessary cuts and while were here lets get our deficit payed down and all suffer for the short term for the long term good.

There is plenty of good work that needs to be done on this nation but noone in the Govmnt is wise enough to use it as a jobs booster....

And dont forget to pay your Obamacare premiums on your reduced wages. You will be fined if you dont...You will find out what we have been living and hopefully its not so short lived that you wont walk away without a changed perspective on how we all get along.(not a personal attack)

The sequester is a Fear tactic and the only cuts they are enforcing are ones that punish the average citizen for bad politics. Washington needs to grow up or move out of the way. Its not really that complicated. But it is so so very unhealthy for Americans the longer they **** on the Constitutional and refuse to be fiscally responsible.

We took our tax hikes in stride and the debt ceiling got raised without much fervor. Now its time for the Govmnt part of the deal and there playing stupid with us. And you.

[Taun]

For those of us not smart enough for a Government job, can you explain why such cuts are necessary given that, even with Sequester, the Federal budget is still larger than it was last year.

No...

[Tiggs]

For those of us not smart enough for a Government job, can you explain why such cuts are necessary given that, even with Sequester, the Federal budget is still larger than it was last year.

Broadly speaking - each department requires more money each year to deal with an increase in demand for their services as the US population continues to exponentially increase, as well as meeting any increases in their underlying costs due to inflation.

In addition, more money is required within the budget to repay the interest on the Government's debt, each year, as deficits continue.

[AsteroidX]

Broadly speaking - each department requires more money each year to deal with an increase in demand for their services as the US population continues to exponentially increase, as well as meeting any increases in their underlying costs due to inflation.

In addition, more money is required within the budget to repay the interest on the Government's debt, each year, as deficits continue.

Govmnt + Cronnies have all the money. Tough **** !!

[danielost]

Broadly speaking - each department requires more money each year to deal with an increase in demand for their services as the US population continues to exponentially increase, as well as meeting any increases in their underlying costs due to inflation.

In addition, more money is required within the budget to repay the interest on the Government's debt, each year, as deficits continue.

And that rate of increase, is set by law. Doesn't matter if they need it or not. On the other hand, if they need more than what the law says they get, they get thte higher amount.

If we weren't spending more than we bring in, we wouldn't interest payments.

[Bama13]

Apparently, that's what she meant to say.

At least according to her Deputy Communications Director. I have never, and I rarely use absolute terms, confused a thousand with a million. 170 million or 170,000,000 doesn't really resemble 170 thousand or 170,000. I don't see how the average person could confuse the two. And even if they did they would have realized it immediately and corrected it. Not have their Deputy Communications Director do it at a later time.

[AsteroidX]

At least according to her Deputy Communications Director. I have never, and I rarely use absolute terms, confused a thousand with a million. 170 million or 170,000,000 doesn't really resemble 170 thousand or 170,000. I don't see how the average person could confuse the two. And even if they did they would have realized it immediately and corrected it. Not have their Deputy Communications Director do it at a later time.

She was likely thinking of her reelection funding goal for the day when she said 170million. Politicians dont think about jobs except there own.

[Merc14]

At least according to her Deputy Communications Director. I have never, and I rarely use absolute terms, confused a thousand with a million. 170 million or 170,000,000 doesn't really resemble 170 thousand or 170,000. I don't see how the average person could confuse the two. And even if they did they would have realized it immediately and corrected it. Not have their Deputy Communications Director do it at a later time.

She is a corrupt idiot who likes to fire for effect. In her mind that number, 170M, is just as true as 170,000 because she truly hasn't a clue of what she talking about. The pres will give her a pass, just like they cut out Moochelle's little screw up and her voter base, which is solidly stupid, will ensure, sadly for us, that she stays in congress.

[Rafterman]

Broadly speaking - each department requires more money each year to deal with an increase in demand for their services as the US population continues to exponentially increase, as well as meeting any increases in their underlying costs due to inflation.

In addition, more money is required within the budget to repay the interest on the Government's debt, each year, as deficits continue.

Given that inflation is negligible and has been decreasing the past two years and US population growth is 124th in the World at .90 (CIA World Fact Book), having a roughly 2% budget cut leaving the budget still larger than it was just last year shouldn't really be that disastrous, should it?

Methinks the likes of Obama, Waters, Reid, etc. are going to get called on their bluff on this one.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

[Cradle of Fish]

At least according to her Deputy Communications Director. I have never, and I rarely use absolute terms, confused a thousand with a million. 170 million or 170,000,000 doesn't really resemble 170 thousand or 170,000. I don't see how the average person could confuse the two. And even if they did they would have realized it immediately and corrected it. Not have their Deputy Communications Director do it at a later time.

So you do a lot of public speaking without getting nervous too? Politicians are still people, they make mistakes. Look at it like any other politicians gaffes, Al Gore, GW Bush etc.

I think its kind of amusingly alarmist. Pass this law or SEVEN HUNDRED BILION people will die.

[Tiggs]

Given that inflation is negligible and has been decreasing the past two years and US population growth is 124th in the World at .90 (CIA World Fact Book), having a roughly 2% budget cut leaving the budget still larger than it was just last year shouldn't really be that disastrous, should it?

Well - the short answer is that they're not cutting Taun's pay just for giggles.

The longer answer is that Inflation is not negligible - it's currently running at just over 2%. The 2012 budget ran to 3.796 trillion. The 2013 budget incl. the cuts runs to 3.803 trillion.Two percent of 3.796 trillion is 0.076, so all things being equal, you'd need around 3.872 trillion just to cover normal inflationary increases alone.

But, regardless - The other issue is that the cuts are not being made equally across all government departments. Medicaid and social security, for example, are unaffected, and are still getting their inflationary increase. As a result, most non-defence departments that are seeing a cut are seeing an actual reduction of around 8% or so in their overall budget ( the extremely long departmental breakdown is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf )

In short - those departments are seeing a real and fairly sizeable decrease in the money that they have available to them.

[Rafterman]

Well - the short answer is that they're not cutting Taun's pay just for giggles.

The longer answer is that Inflation is not negligible - it's currently running at just over 2%. The 2012 budget ran to 3.796 trillion. The 2013 budget incl. the cuts runs to 3.803 trillion.Two percent of 3.796 trillion is 0.076, so all things being equal, you'd need around 3.872 trillion just to cover normal inflationary increases alone.

But, regardless - The other issue is that the cuts are not being made equally across all government departments. Medicaid and social security, for example, are unaffected, and are still getting their inflationary increase. As a result, most non-defence departments that are seeing a cut are seeing an actual reduction of around 8% or so in their overall budget ( the extremely long departmental breakdown is here: http://www.whitehous...s/stareport.pdf )

In short - those departments are seeing a real and fairly sizeable decrease in the money that they have available to them.

Again, why should Government be immune to the realities that the rest of us have been dealing with for the past 5 years? My budget has been cut or stayed stagnant each year since 2009. I've received a single 1.5% raise in that time as well. This idea that Government has to continue growing at all costs is a leftist myth. If there are areas that need to expand, then the leadership needs to sit down and make the hard choices to cut areas that can sustain cuts so that other areas can be maintained.

But here's the problem. No one on the let is willing to do this. Blast the Ryan budget all you want, but at least it's something to talk about, a place to begin negotiations. The Dem Senate won't even advance a budget and just this week Obama said he would veto a bill that would give him full authority to make the cuts anywhere he wanted to make them.

As with everything the last four years, this is just another example of Obama's failure as a leader. Scratch that, it's not a failure, it's exactly what he wants. If you never take a stand on anything, you can't be criticized and can just keep blaming Republicans for everything.

[Merc14]

As with everything the last four years, this is just another example of Obama's failure as a leader. Scratch that, it's not a failure, it's exactly what he wants. If you never take a stand on anything, you can't be criticized and can just keep blaming Republicans for everything.

The only fault I see with what you are saying is that Obama is a failure. Remember, he is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky and is enacting that reprobates plan to destroy the middle class and turn the US into a socialist hell hole with great success. Far more than I ever thought he could. He is a failure when measured in normal terms of a president's performance but he is a superhero if you understand his ultimate goal.