http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2cha..._blog.html

Quote:If Congress doesn’t act to stop roughly $100 billion in spending cuts set to take effect in January, Virginia could take one of the biggest economic hits of any state, potentially losing up to 123,000 jobs, according to some estimates.
...
“You’re putting hundreds of thousands of jobs in my state at risk and you’re putting the United States military in a very bad circumstance when they’re fighting a war abroad and trying to figure out how they’re going to govern themselves,” McDonnell said. “It’s not responsible governing. They need to act, they need to act now, and it’s not just Republican governors, Democrat governors as well share this belief that this horrific and unprecedented uncertainty created by the United States Congress.”

So the Chairman of the Republican Governors Association is coming out against federal spending cuts? There goes what little consideration he had left for Romney's VP spot.

Whose jobs are at risk? I'm okay with less government jobs.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(07-19-2012 08:34 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2cha..._blog.html

Quote:If Congress doesn’t act to stop roughly $100 billion in spending cuts set to take effect in January, Virginia could take one of the biggest economic hits of any state, potentially losing up to 123,000 jobs, according to some estimates.
...
“You’re putting hundreds of thousands of jobs in my state at risk and you’re putting the United States military in a very bad circumstance when they’re fighting a war abroad and trying to figure out how they’re going to govern themselves,” McDonnell said. “It’s not responsible governing. They need to act, they need to act now, and it’s not just Republican governors, Democrat governors as well share this belief that this horrific and unprecedented uncertainty created by the United States Congress.”

So the Chairman of the Republican Governors Association is coming out against federal spending cuts? There goes what little consideration he had left for Romney's VP spot.

Not quite. These are the automatic cuts that are the result of the supercommittee not reaching an agreement last year. Everyone knew that the consequences would be terrible, it was supposed to be an incentive to reach an agreement. I won't call it playing politics, but both sides have played a part in this impending situation and now there may not be a way to avoid these potential job losses. It's shortsightedness on the part of congress.
Not the best way of wording it, but as the Gov and somone not responsible for these particular potential job losses, he is just voicing his displeasure with the system that lead to this. It's going to happen more and more often if problems are just kicked down the road and not handled as they should be.

(07-19-2012 08:41 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Whose jobs are at risk? I'm okay with less government jobs.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

I would guess a large portion of them would be from the military industrial complex but that "trickles down" to mom and pop stores and even chain stores that rely on those workers for their incomes.

It should be noted he was talking about military cuts, primarily affecting Hampton Roads and NoVA. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say Republicans have always supported a stong military as it is the Federal Govt's main Constitutional responsibility.

So, he's saying that cutting military funding to pay Solyndra donors back and increase the welfare rolls is irresponsible and will only lead to more on the welfare rolls.

Good try though.

(07-19-2012 09:36 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  It should be noted he was talking about military cuts, primarily affecting Hampton Roads and NoVA. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say Republicans have always supported a stong military as it is the Federal Govt's main Constitutional responsibility.

So, he's saying that cutting military funding to pay Solyndra donors back and increase the welfare rolls is irresponsible and will only lead to more on the welfare rolls.

Good try though.

1) the quote clearly mentions the military
2) last time I checked, military spending is federal spending and DoD employees (uniformed or otherwise) are government employees with a paycheck funded by tax payers.

Is Gov. McDonnell pushing back against federal spending cuts? Yes.
Is he doing so on the grounds that it would result in job losses? Yes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to disagree with.

(07-19-2012 10:31 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 09:36 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  It should be noted he was talking about military cuts, primarily affecting Hampton Roads and NoVA. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say Republicans have always supported a stong military as it is the Federal Govt's main Constitutional responsibility.

So, he's saying that cutting military funding to pay Solyndra donors back and increase the welfare rolls is irresponsible and will only lead to more on the welfare rolls.

Good try though.

1) the quote clearly mentions the military
2) last time I checked, military spending is federal spending and DoD employees (uniformed or otherwise) are government employees with a paycheck funded by tax payers.

Is Gov. McDonnell pushing back against federal spending cuts? Yes.
Is he doing so on the grounds that it would result in job losses? Yes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to disagree with.

I was just clarifying what your OP intentially left out...

If I was trying to disagree I would mention China's new aircraft carrier, or Russia's long range missile capability. The government is good at killing people, and shooting things into space... not much else.

We could
A. Kill people who are threats or
B. Have homos butt plugging each other in the barracks and hand them billy clubs like London police instead of AK47s, all while expanding welfare rolls with the military money

Similarly, we could
C. shoot things into space, explore, and devolop technologies OR
D. Pay private Obama donors to launch things halfway to space before they explode and crash back to earth, while expanding welfare rolls.




Do you REALLY believe cuts from the military won't be spent elsewhere (gay porn and cheetos)? I pray you aren't that dumb.

(07-19-2012 11:29 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  If I was trying to disagree I would mention China's new aircraft carrier, or Russia's long range missile capability. The government is good at killing people, and shooting things into space... not much else.

That's still not disagreeing with Gov. McDonnell.

Whether or not the cuts are appropriate (your point) has nothing to do with whether or not they will result in job losses (the governor's point).

(07-19-2012 11:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 11:29 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  If I was trying to disagree I would mention China's new aircraft carrier, or Russia's long range missile capability. The government is good at killing people, and shooting things into space... not much else.

That's still not disagreeing with Gov. McDonnell.

Whether or not the cuts are appropriate (your point) has nothing to do with whether or not they will result in job losses (the governor's point).

Um I DON'T disagree with Bobby on this one. Appropriation of funds has EVERYTHING to do with appropriate allocations. If it wasn't appropriate expenditures, I would disagree with him here... and he wouldn't have even said it.

(07-19-2012 11:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 11:29 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  If I was trying to disagree I would mention China's new aircraft carrier, or Russia's long range missile capability. The government is good at killing people, and shooting things into space... not much else.

That's still not disagreeing with Gov. McDonnell.

Whether or not the cuts are appropriate (your point) has nothing to do with whether or not they will result in job losses (the governor's point).

Yes, but let's be clear where those jobs are. They're in the government, not private sector. Dems argue spending cuts leads to job losses in the private sector. Nothing really to support that. It's common sense that if you cut federal funds to federal agencies federal jobs will be lost.

That's the point here, Niner. The jobs that will be lost in Virginia if the federal government cuts spending are federal government jobs around DC, particularly the Pentagon, and to a lesser extent in the Norfolk area.

Considering that the top two counties for per capita income, and three of the top five, are in the suburban DC area, perhaps we'd all be better off if a lot of those jobs were lost.

Think about it, that's an area that produces little wealth, it just redistributes what the rest of the country produces (and obviously redistributes a lot of it into their own pockets). Is that really a useful or helpful thing?

(07-19-2012 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point here, Niner. The jobs that will be lost in Virginia if the federal government cuts spending are federal government jobs around DC, particularly the Pentagon, and to a lesser extent in the Norfolk area.

Considering that the top two counties for per capita income, and three of the top five, are in the suburban DC area, perhaps we'd all be better off if a lot of those jobs were lost.

Think about it, that's an area that produces little wealth, it just redistributes what the rest of the country produces (and obviously redistributes a lot of it into their own pockets). Is that really a useful or helpful thing?

But that doesn't fit the narrative.

(07-19-2012 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point here, Niner. The jobs that will be lost in Virginia if the federal government cuts spending are federal government jobs around DC, particularly the Pentagon, and to a lesser extent in the Norfolk area.

Considering that the top two counties for per capita income, and three of the top five, are in the suburban DC area, perhaps we'd all be better off if a lot of those jobs were lost.

Think about it, that's an area that produces little wealth, it just redistributes what the rest of the country produces (and obviously redistributes a lot of it into their own pockets). Is that really a useful or helpful thing?

Well stated.

(07-19-2012 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point here, Niner. The jobs that will be lost in Virginia if the federal government cuts spending are federal government jobs around DC, particularly the Pentagon, and to a lesser extent in the Norfolk area.

Considering that the top two counties for per capita income, and three of the top five, are in the suburban DC area, perhaps we'd all be better off if a lot of those jobs were lost.

Think about it, that's an area that produces little wealth, it just redistributes what the rest of the country produces (and obviously redistributes a lot of it into their own pockets). Is that really a useful or helpful thing?

Actually, I would guess most would not be actual "government jobs" but rather contractors(you know people like Rebel when he was working for a private company doing government work).

Why shouldn't defense be cut? It's as prone to graft and waste and incompetency as any other government agency?

(07-19-2012 01:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point here, Niner. The jobs that will be lost in Virginia if the federal government cuts spending are federal government jobs around DC, particularly the Pentagon, and to a lesser extent in the Norfolk area.

Considering that the top two counties for per capita income, and three of the top five, are in the suburban DC area, perhaps we'd all be better off if a lot of those jobs were lost.

Think about it, that's an area that produces little wealth, it just redistributes what the rest of the country produces (and obviously redistributes a lot of it into their own pockets). Is that really a useful or helpful thing?

Actually, I would guess most would not be actual "government jobs" but rather contractors(you know people like Rebel when he was working for a private company doing government work).

Exactly what I was going to say. No matter how anyone spins it, contractors (like myself) will lose their jobs first, then government employees. Absolutely no one can tell me that the private sector will not be hit HARD. Government contractors ARE private sector. I'm already lining up different opportunities to brace for the worst.

(07-19-2012 12:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 11:59 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 11:29 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  If I was trying to disagree I would mention China's new aircraft carrier, or Russia's long range missile capability. The government is good at killing people, and shooting things into space... not much else.

That's still not disagreeing with Gov. McDonnell.

Whether or not the cuts are appropriate (your point) has nothing to do with whether or not they will result in job losses (the governor's point).

Yes, but let's be clear where those jobs are. They're in the government, not private sector. Dems argue spending cuts leads to job losses in the private sector. Nothing really to support that. It's common sense that if you cut federal funds to federal agencies federal jobs will be lost.

As I stated earlier PRIVATE government contractors will lose their jobs first. It's not common sense, in fact it's purely idiotic to think there will be no impact to the private sector.

Contractors are hired to do the work for less money than the government can do it for themselves. Why would they let the contractors go?

(07-19-2012 02:30 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Contractors are hired to do the work for less money than the government can do it for themselves. Why would they let the contractors go?

They are easily disposable. It's easier to cut an entire government contract than it is to eliminate one federal employee. There is almost a feeling of having tenure if you're a government employee.

(07-19-2012 02:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(07-19-2012 02:30 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Contractors are hired to do the work for less money than the government can do it for themselves. Why would they let the contractors go?

They are easily disposable. It's easier to cut an entire government contract than it is to eliminate one federal employee.

Most federal employees are easily disposable. Few do any valuable work and almost all can be replaced with a cheaper government contractor. We could probably cut 1/2 of them and still get the necessary work done.