Washington Post Article today says that the economy could lose 2 million jobs and increase the unemployment rate by 1.5% if automatic spending cuts kick in. This is going to devastate Fairfax.

Why do the Republicans hate America so much that they would do this?

GovCon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington Post Article today says that the
> economy could lose 2 million jobs and increase the
> unemployment rate by 1.5% if automatic spending
> cuts kick in. This is going to devastate
> Fairfax.
>
> Why do the Republicans hate America so much that
> they would do this?

Because they are fucking-ass-big blobs. Didn't you read the other thread?

I think you need to read up on the issue a bit more. Democrats are also holding up the debate which may force the cliff to occur.

R's want continuation of Bush tax cuts and cuts to domestic spending (social and entitlement programs). They oppose cuts to defense spending (Pentagon and Government contractors) which will happen is the fiscal cliff cuts occur.

D's want a tax increase and no cuts to domestic spending. They want to avoid cuts to domestic spending (social programs, entitlements, Obamacare and public employee unions).

THey both need to get their act together and compromise.

Don't worry about it, it's just political games as usual.

Everything will be fine and Uncle Sam will just keep printing money until it is worth absolutely nothing and nobody will take it. Maybe 10-20 more years and then it's over, regardless of the party in power.

Beans and bullets are all that will matter then.

Nothing will happen until after the election and all those RIF notices go out to a few million people. After the election dust settles they'll pass some bandaid package that doesn't really fix anything. Kick the can down the road.
Attachments:

Actually @What?

You are perverting the discussion with your completely false summary of the debate.

Democrats proposed a 10:1 cut in cost vs tax revenue modification at the end of the debate (raised from the original 4:1 ratio that they wanted). They said they would be fine cutting plenty back from entitlement and programs but the republicans due to their pledge to ass bag and political fuck face Grover Norquist and his "pledge to americas extremely wealthy" that republican teabaggers signed promising to not raise taxes EVER AGAIN.

Take into context that our tax rates were FAR greater during both Reagan and Clinton on the top tier of the wealthy and you get a proper context. During both of those presidents we saw unprecedented economic growth, so why NOW do republicans say that a partial increase in taxes to PRE GW levels (GW who we know made tons of fucking mistakes like waging 2 wars with debt to China without any revenue backing) will cause an economic hardship on "job creators"

They had plenty of job creation when the tax rates werent so out of whack.

Most democrats agree that spending is out of control, part of that was the trillion dollar per year double wars we were waging and part of it was bloat in the government.

TEN TO ONE RATIO, cuts to revenue and the douchebags in the house still couldnt let the American people succeed in moving forward. Almost every economist blames this brinksmanship for the plateauing of our economy right now, uncertainty kills.

THAT is the proper context DOUCHE

Is this what you're talking about?
Attachments:

You know dumbass "businessmen" GOP can't read charts.

Der gays and immigrants are bad mk?

Sorry I disagree with all of you. Neither side has a solution to the problem. Cut taxes but bigger government or Smaller government and cut taxes. Neither are able to work together and they sure don't know what it is like to be living paycheck to paycheck. The Dem's put the defense cut in effect in the hopes to blame it on the Reps. Fire them all and start over.

Can somebody please explain this?
Attachments:

Whats to explain, 2007 through 2008 sucked because no one was paying attention to the financial markets including the SEC, Treasury and yes the president and congress at the time.

Obama took over a fucking mess with people being laid off in the hundreds of thousands. It couldnt get worse, so it finally started getting better.

Now to the point of explaining it, no I can't explain the chart because the y-axis is bullshit and not labeled. What is it? GDP (I suspect as GDP is about 15 trillion)

Big Dog Lite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can somebody please explain this?


Sure, it shows that given Obama's complete ineptitude as far as the economy is concerned, increased costs and uncertainty for businesses, and continual villainization, the markets still are about 20% below where they were and should be if we'd had a more competent President and a typical recovery.

Here are the numbers in context instead of the cropped cherry-picked chart that you posted.

You're welcome.
Attachments:

Y Axis is the DJIA.
It's up over 60% since Obama that socialist, muslim, kenyan took over.

The pooch can't read his own graphics which clearly show the following
Attachments:

Nice chart above, now can anyone find a chart that shows housing prices and lay it over the same one above. No expert here ( I'm asking a question ) didn't much of of the underlying housing markets start with legislation related to banking laws under Clinton ?

About as much as I could find on US Housing over the same period.
Attachments:

>Washington Post Article today says that the economy could lose 2 million jobs and >increase the unemployment rate by 1.5% if automatic spending cuts kick in. This is >going to devastate Fairfax.
>
>Why do the Republicans hate America so much that they would do this?

Why do the Democrats hate America so much that they would do this?

I hope the thing happens and a few hundred thousand local folks lose their jobs.

Hopefully, when their unemployment runs out, they'll climb into their BMWs and SUVs and go the fuck back where they came from. That would be great.

^Huey - do you realize the havoc and pain and turmoil this will cause for the GOP? They are screwed and the balance of power will shift. Pelosi might even get a cabinet level post. Then we are truly, deeply screwed.

@youarealyingdouchbaggery

You and your ilk are the problem with this country. You blindly defend one party and only point to those facts that support your party. You ignore all other facts. (not opinions but facts).

Truth is, neither party's policies if adopted in total would work. We need balance and the current polarized political system doesn't allow us to get it. Nordquist is wrong because one size doesn't fit all forever and ever. But the left is equally wrong for not realizing that IN ADDITION TO REVENUE RAISERS, we also need to control federal spending or we'll never get out of this hole.

We need common sense leadership not blind followers on one party or the other.

What part of a 10 to 1 ratio of cost cutting to revenue raised do you not understand douchebag

THAT IS FUCKING COMPROMISE

The problem was that the republicans kept pretending they wanted to compromise but frankly would not budge a SINGLE FUCKING CENT on taxing people a little bit more who make more than 250,000 because of the Norquist pledge. Not a fucking cent.

If Tax revenue was increased 1.5% on this well off demographic BACK to Clinton and Reagan levels btw, it would amount to 250 billion dollars in revenue. For this small concession which would amount to a $100 tax increase on paychecks every two weeks of $10,000 (nothing that the rich would even fucking notice frankly) the democrats were willing to cut 2.5 trillion dollars out of our federal budget.

It was an order of magnitude concession, and the norquist crowd still shouted it down.

You still dont fucking understand that compromise means both sides concede not one side caves in douche bag

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

StillaDoucheBag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What part of a 10 to 1 ratio of cost cutting to
> revenue raised do you not understand douchebag
>
> THAT IS FUCKING COMPROMISE
>
> The problem was that the republicans kept
> pretending they wanted to compromise but frankly
> would not budge a SINGLE FUCKING CENT on taxing
> people a little bit more who make more than
> 250,000 because of the Norquist pledge. Not a
> fucking cent.
>
> If Tax revenue was increased 1.5% on this well off
> demographic BACK to Clinton and Reagan levels btw,
> it would amount to 250 billion dollars in revenue.
> For this small concession which would amount to a
> $100 tax increase on paychecks every two weeks of
> $10,000 (nothing that the rich would even fucking
> notice frankly) the democrats were willing to cut
> 2.5 trillion dollars out of our federal budget.
>
> It was an order of magnitude concession, and the
> norquist crowd still shouted it down.
>
> You still dont fucking understand that compromise
> means both sides concede not one side caves in
> douche bag


This!


Republicans put themselves in a corner with their bullshit tax pledge & their obstructionist agenda.

Now, after they hope people won't be able to find the news articles anymore, they're going to try to pin it all on Democrats as a talking point to hopefully shift Va to the right for the general election.

They fucked us last year & are now trying to do their best Shaggy impersonation...

"it wasn't me"

GovCon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington Post Article today says that the
> economy could lose 2 million jobs and increase the
> unemployment rate by 1.5% if automatic spending
> cuts kick in. This is going to devastate
> Fairfax.
>
> Why do the Republicans hate America so much that
> they would do this?

They're exaggerating. The sequester is only 100 billion dollars. That would mean the average job only produces less than $50,000 in income before factoring out benefits and other overhead. $50,000 are far below what the average government employee, contractor, or supplier makes. Also, 50% of the sequester applies to discretionary benefits programs and won't directly affect jobs.

Won't happen.

The leaders in congress (Reid, Bonner and Mullah McConnell) are huge pussies.

They'll kill their children before they kill the defense industry.

Most of the above posts were posted by the same person.
Much of the "data" presented is wrong or taken out of context.

It's the old guns vs. butter argument. But in this election year, the politicians want to promise guns AND butter.

And on a partisan note, the trillions wasted during the first two-plus years of Obama's presidency, when Democrats had veto-proof majorities in the house and senate, can not be recovered. Rewriting the health care law is a good start at reducing spending, but it will not be enough.

What will be interesting is how they react when General Motors runs out of money again in 2013.

Provide data on why "GM is going under" in 2013 or STFU

They seem to be raising their earnings forecasts the past 2 years by promising low and beating expectations.