See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Why they WON'T cut Gov't Spending
Source:
Self
URL Source: http://http:None
Published: Jul 24, 2011
Author: ndcorup
Post Date: 2011-07-24 13:43:16 by ndcorup
Keywords: None
Views: 876
Comments: 6
I've been watching for a post that simplifies that topic. Haven't seen it so far. I hope some will chip in and give their ideas. Here's mine: The Dems won't offer ANY Spending Cuts because it will radically increase UnEmployment Number, with no possibility of alternate jobs available for unemployable government "people". The Repubs are offering good serious program cuts, which will increase the UnEmployment radically while Obama is in. And the Dems Know it. We all know there has been substantial gov't employment increase under both Bush AND Obama. It was compensation for off-shoring.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ndcorup (#0)
They won't cut spending for the same reason Amy didn't stop using cocaine.
Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson I'm all for government spending as long as it's spent on me. A few billion will suffice.
*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I invite you to compare the number of Irish, Italian, German, and Scandinavian political philosophers who have written on liberty and limited government with the number of English philosophers who published works on the subject" - Vox Day
Don't forget the "stimulus" money by and large went to support union employees of all type on an On-Going basis. Now the "On-Going" is over. The chart shows the changes in government employment in these time periods. (Note: Numbers are for January of each year for consistency and to avoid the inclusion of temporary federal decennial census workers that show up in later months.) Growth in Government Employment The 1990s were a decade of rapid private sector expansion and federal government restraint. The 2000s are a decade of government expansion at all levels and private sector retrenchment. From 1990 to 2000, private sector employment soared 21 percent. Then, remarkably, private sector employment actually fell during the 2000s and was 3 percent lower in 2010 than it was in 2000. The chart shows the changes in government employment in these time periods. (Note: Numbers are for January of each year for consistency and to avoid the inclusion of temporary federal decennial census workers that show up in later months.) Federal employment declined during the 1990s, when we mainly had Clinton in the White House and Republican control of Congress. However, federal employment increased under the Bush administration and the Obama administration is pursuing further growth. As a Cato essay on overpaid federal employees shows, growth in federal employment will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. >
Any other thoughts Why they "CAN'T" cut spending?
BTW, caught a part of Limbaugh yesterday and he brought up this same item. His researchers are Good!
All I know to do is trade paper promises for silver and gold. Plenty of lead, and I don't believe people will easily give up their PM's this time.
Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson
#2. To: ndcorup (#0)
#3. To: Lod, turtle (#1)
#4. To: All (#0)
#5. To: Lod, turtle (#1)
#6. To: ndcorup, Turtle, 4 (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest