Congress to lay off 240,000

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]

I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.

If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?

I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]

I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.

If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?

I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]

I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.

If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?

I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]

I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.

If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?

I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]

The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]

I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.

If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?

I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).[/quote]

CAR: You got me there. I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

For the record, I was not singling the French out, as Brian implied, but rather pointing out that their model was creaking heavily and about to go “boom”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).[/quote]

CAR: You got me there. I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

For the record, I was not singling the French out, as Brian implied, but rather pointing out that their model was creaking heavily and about to go “boom”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).[/quote]

CAR: You got me there. I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

For the record, I was not singling the French out, as Brian implied, but rather pointing out that their model was creaking heavily and about to go “boom”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).[/quote]

CAR: You got me there. I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

For the record, I was not singling the French out, as Brian implied, but rather pointing out that their model was creaking heavily and about to go “boom”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

…France, which is in the throes of dealing with the economic fallout related to “enjoying” several decades of exactly the type of programs we’re debating here, is finding herself in the unenviable position of having to overhaul everything from retirement ages, to dealing with massive unfunded pension liabilities, to increasing working week hours.

[/quote]

Are we any different? At least the French got to enjoy a more egalitarian society, and it’s entirely possible that their problems will end up looking rather tame compared to what lies ahead for us (IMHO).[/quote]

CAR: You got me there. I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

For the record, I was not singling the French out, as Brian implied, but rather pointing out that their model was creaking heavily and about to go “boom”.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

[/quote]

Exactly.

(Though we ladies get Pierre and Jean-Paul.)

😉

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

[/quote]

Exactly.

(Though we ladies get Pierre and Jean-Paul.)

😉

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

[/quote]

Exactly.

(Though we ladies get Pierre and Jean-Paul.)

😉

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I cannot disagree with a 35 hour working week, a full month’s vacation in the South of France in August, and retiring with a generous benefits package at 60. Plus, some of the best cuisine in the world and beautiful women named Lysette and Danielle thick on the ground.

[/quote]

Exactly.

(Though we ladies get Pierre and Jean-Paul.)

😉

[Author]

Posts