OOOps. When I pushed Control-C and Control-V, I thought it had cut and pasted the right comment. I apologize. However, my reply had to do with your statement about McCain not being born with a Silver Spoon in his mouth.
"we will have one of the most inexperienced presidents ever. "
Hah. Obama would be older than Clinton, TR and JFK when they were elected - and they were all very good Presidents. So I think you need to calm down, take a look at Obama's policies and McCain's policies, and decide based on what is best for you and for America.
And why do you have Hillary in your handle? Most Hillary voters are for Obama, and some are insulted by McCain's attempt to lure them into voting for him by putting the anti-Hillary on his ticket - McCain apparently thought all hillary voters cared about was gender and they would try to elect a VP just because she was a woman even if it meant that person would fight against everything they stand for. Oh well, have a nice night.
You wrote: Actually, no. Cutting federal spending by and large decreases the jobs available, because government jobs and contracts are made more scarce.
Raising taxes means folks have less to spend, true, but cutting the budget means someone is going to lose a job.
>Are you seriously saying that you don't want to see any of the government's spending cut?<
Nope. I'm just telling you the truth, that cutting federal spending will not result in an immediate improvement in the economy. In fact, it would result in aggravating the current situation. (Unless of course the decrease we're talking about is getting rid of all that spending in Iraq. War spending improves the economy none.)
>If getting the budget under control means a few government jobs are lost then so be it. Let the private sector grow and that person will find a better job. The government isn't in the business of employing everyone in America. That isn't their place. Smaller government and lower taxes is what will be good for the economy. <
I can tell you one job that would not be replaced by the private sector: research scientists. Why should they, when they can go to another country that continues to invest in research and development? That's what's happening by and large with embryonic stem cell research, and it's starting to happen with agriculture research. While my husband's job is very secure, we're already seeing the affects of reduced funding for such unprofitable things as the micribiology of soil after a forest fire and the benefits of farming without pesticides and chemical fertilizers. It really depends on where exactly we decrease spending--not all federal spending is from employing folks in the public sector but rather in the form of grants to private sector corporations.
So, which jobs do you feel need to be eliminated? (Don't mention the mythological $200 hammer again.)
Having worked on the Hill (for 9 horrible months), I can assure you that ALL members of Congress spend an inordinate amount of time working to get re-elected. A typical Congressman's schedule is like this: out on Monday, out Tuesday morning, in on Wednesday, out Thursday afternoon, out on Friday. Ostensibly this is so he/she can be in his/her District office, but that is not particularly likely either. The Congressman I worked for spent that extra time with one of his 2 girlfriends.
You wrote: It really depends on where exactly we decrease spending--not all federal spending is from employing folks in the public sector but rather in the form of grants to private sector corporations.
I keep hearing this on this board. Are you suggesting that the best way to strengthen our economy is just to employ more government workers or maybe increase grants? What I'm hearing from you is that we should just become dependent on the government for everything from
Pages
"we will have one of the most inexperienced presidents ever. "
Hah. Obama would be older than Clinton, TR and JFK when they were elected - and they were all very good Presidents. So I think you need to calm down, take a look at Obama's policies and McCain's policies, and decide based on what is best for you and for America.
And why do you have Hillary in your handle? Most Hillary voters are for Obama, and some are insulted by McCain's attempt to lure them into voting for him by putting the anti-Hillary on his ticket - McCain apparently thought all hillary voters cared about was gender and they would try to elect a VP just because she was a woman even if it meant that person would fight against everything they stand for. Oh well, have a nice night.
Arguably, one of the most qualified, experienced presidents we've ever had was...
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Raising taxes means folks have less to spend, true, but cutting the budget means someone is going to lose a job.
How does that work? Will the lower class create jobs? Will they hire and provide benefits
>Are you seriously saying that you don't want to see any of the government's spending cut?<
Nope. I'm just telling you the truth, that cutting federal spending will not result in an immediate improvement in the economy. In fact, it would result in aggravating the current situation. (Unless of course the decrease we're talking about is getting rid of all that spending in Iraq. War spending improves the economy none.)
>If getting the budget under control means a few government jobs are lost then so be it. Let the private sector grow and that person will find a better job. The government isn't in the business of employing everyone in America. That isn't their place. Smaller government and lower taxes is what will be good for the economy. <
I can tell you one job that would not be replaced by the private sector: research scientists. Why should they, when they can go to another country that continues to invest in research and development? That's what's happening by and large with embryonic stem cell research, and it's starting to happen with agriculture research. While my husband's job is very secure, we're already seeing the affects of reduced funding for such unprofitable things as the micribiology of soil after a forest fire and the benefits of farming without pesticides and chemical fertilizers. It really depends on where exactly we decrease spending--not all federal spending is from employing folks in the public sector but rather in the form of grants to private sector corporations.
So, which jobs do you feel need to be eliminated? (Don't mention the mythological $200 hammer again.)
And I keep hearing this "lower taxes
You wrote: Provided with funding for training and education the lower class has traditionally been the small business men and entrepreurs.
I keep hearing this on this board. Are you suggesting that the best way to strengthen our economy is just to employ more government workers or maybe increase grants? What I'm hearing from you is that we should just become dependent on the government for everything from
Pages