when the automatic budget cuts hit, is the metro DC economy going to go to hell in a handbasket?

[Anonymous]

Between government workers and contractors losing their jobs, is the area's economy going to collapse?

[Anonymous]

Think of it as wealth redistribution. You are for making things more fair, right?

All of those folks in flyover country will get keep some more of that wealth that they produced, you know, maybe go out dinner, buy some clothes for their kids and pay off their mortgages...

Unemployment in the suburbs of DC is 4% while in the rest of the country it is over 9%. The three wealthiest counties in the US are the City of Falls Church, Loudoun and Fairfax.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Think of it as wealth redistribution. You are for making things more fair, right?

All of those folks in flyover country will get keep some more of that wealth that they produced, you know, maybe go out dinner, buy some clothes for their kids and pay off their mortgages...

So less government spending will cause them to suddenly be employed? What's the mechanism for that?

Anonymous wrote:Unemployment in the suburbs of DC is 4% while in the rest of the country it is over 9%. The three wealthiest counties in the US are the City of Falls Church, Loudoun and Fairfax.

I share your interest in fairer distribution - which interest is shared by over 90% of Republicans, when no one is distracting them by shouting about how the U.S. is #1. I would favor taking a small fraction of the wealth of the uberrich and getting it to the poor in the form of jobs.

Of course, I can't deny that your plan to take jobs from those who have them is another way to level the unemployment field.

[Anonymous]

The hardest hit places will be the towns that live off of the business created by the local military base. Unfortunately, the defense cuts will hit red states hardest.

[Anonymous]

So less government spending will cause them to suddenly be employed? What's the mechanism for that?

Sounds silly, I know. Perhaps, tax payers keep more of their hard earned money resulting in them spending more of it locally and regionally resulting in local and regional businesses hiring more people, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So less government spending will cause them to suddenly be employed? What's the mechanism for that?

Sounds silly, I know. Perhaps, tax payers keep more of their hard earned money resulting in them spending more of it locally and regionally resulting in local and regional businesses hiring more people, etc.?

How does less government spending mean taxpayerss keeping more money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So less government spending will cause them to suddenly be employed? What's the mechanism for that?

Sounds silly, I know. Perhaps, tax payers keep more of their hard earned money resulting in them spending more of it locally and regionally resulting in local and regional businesses hiring more people, etc.?

How does less government spending mean taxpayerss keeping more money?

It doesn't. It means we pay down debt or accrue less new debt. Tax cuts allow taxpayers to keep more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So less government spending will cause them to suddenly be employed? What's the mechanism for that?

Sounds silly, I know. Perhaps, tax payers keep more of their hard earned money resulting in them spending more of it locally and regionally resulting in local and regional businesses hiring more people, etc.?

Really? Tax cuts will be enacted when the automatic budget cuts are implemented?

Oops, you forgot to turn the page on the talking points they distributed, didn't you?

[Anonymous]

Yes. You are correct without actually cutting taxes. It only means we pay down our debt or accrue less new debt.

This would be a good thing. With the US debt soaring near 15 trillion, I'd be more excited about cutting down the 131K debt per taxpayer that we all face rather than cutting taxes. We can start by spending less federal dollars right here in the DC area.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. You are correct without actually cutting taxes. It only means we pay down our debt or accrue less new debt.

This would be a good thing. With the US debt soaring near 15 trillion, I'd be more excited about cutting down the 131K debt per taxpayer that we all face rather than cutting taxes. We can start by spending less federal dollars right here in the DC area.

You didn't say it "would be a good thing." You said that they would have more money to go out. Now you seem to acknowledge that they won't.

I see that you're still really excited about the prospect of people in the D.C. area losing their jobs. Keep dreaming big.

[Anonymous]

You didn't say it "would be a good thing." You said that they would have more money to go out. Now you seem to acknowledge that they won't. You didn't say it "would be a good thing." You said that they would have more money to go out. Now you seem to acknowledge that they won't.

Do I agree that the average American won't have more money ("spending power") if we reduce the debt? No I absolutely do not agree with that statement.

Reducing the debt would be huge, in my opinion it would put much more money in the hands of average Americans by reducing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and restoring confidence in businesses, much more so than lowering taxes would. It would be the best possible thing we can do and we can start reducing the debt right now by cutting back on federal spending.

I see that you're still really excited about the prospect of people in the D.C. area losing their jobs. Keep dreaming big.

Actually, I am kind of hoping that entire country climb out of the worst recession in my lifetime.

Scratch beneath the surface of a typical so called compassionate liberal on the other hand and you'll find that what they are really about is protecting their own. Cut spending, nope. Increase taxes, yes sure let's do that it is only fair...

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Do I agree that the average American won't have more money ("spending power") if we reduce the debt? No I absolutely do not agree with that statement.

Reducing the debt would be huge, in my opinion it would put much more money in the hands of average Americans by reducing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and restoring confidence in businesses, much more so than lowering taxes would. It would be the best possible thing we can do and we can start reducing the debt right now by cutting back on federal spending.

I see that you're still really excited about the prospect of people in the D.C. area losing their jobs. Keep dreaming big.

Actually, I am kind of hoping that entire country climb out of the worst recession in my lifetime.

Scratch beneath the surface of a typical so called compassionate liberal on the other hand and you'll find that what they are really about is protecting their own. Cut spending, nope. Increase taxes, yes sure let's do that it is only fair...

Here's an idea: think about stuff before you write or speak about it. Then you're less likely to have to completely revise your statements when people point out how stupid and mean-spirited they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Reducing the debt would be huge, in my opinion it would put much more money in the hands of average Americans by reducing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and restoring confidence in businesses, much more so than lowering taxes would. It would be the best possible thing

There's no inflation because of the debt. It never happened the way the Right said it would. We're dangerously close to deflation.

What we need to focus on now is jobs. Should have been the real focus for the past 3 years. Deal with the debt later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You didn't say it "would be a good thing." You said that they would have more money to go out. Now you seem to acknowledge that they won't. You didn't say it "would be a good thing." You said that they would have more money to go out. Now you seem to acknowledge that they won't.

Do I agree that the average American won't have more money ("spending power") if we reduce the debt? No I absolutely do not agree with that statement.

Reducing the debt would be huge, in my opinion it would put much more money in the hands of average Americans by reducing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and restoring confidence in businesses, much more so than lowering taxes would. It would be the best possible thing we can do and we can start reducing the debt right now by cutting back on federal spending.

I see that you're still really excited about the prospect of people in the D.C. area losing their jobs. Keep dreaming big.

Actually, I am kind of hoping that entire country climb out of the worst recession in my lifetime.

Scratch beneath the surface of a typical so called compassionate liberal on the other hand and you'll find that what they are really about is protecting their own. Cut spending, nope. Increase taxes, yes sure let's do that it is only fair...

The sad fact of Republicans is that they always think of the world in terms of "our own" and "other people". It is the only filter they have. This is why racism and religious discrimination figure so prominently in the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Reducing the debt would be huge, in my opinion it would put much more money in the hands of average Americans by reducing inflation, devaluation of the dollar and restoring confidence in businesses, much more so than lowering taxes would. It would be the best possible thing

There's no inflation because of the debt. It never happened the way the Right said it would. We're dangerously close to deflation.

What we need to focus on now is jobs. Should have been the real focus for the past 3 years. Deal with the debt later.

Actually, we're just starting to see signs of inflation. It's small news at the moment, but wait...