Budget Things

[sd'sker]

Every single private company in America has had to make drastic changes and cuts to survive through a pathetic economy that Washington caused. There is no reason why government employees shouldn't be forced to do the same thing.

you do understand that less money in the hands of the consumers will only prolong the recession?

 

in a well-reasoned economy, companies would be ran by employees and part of the profit would go into a fund to keep employees on during times of economic hardships. that way people could keep their jobs and the companies could operate at a loss, softening the affects and shortening the duration of the recession or times of economic downturns.

[carlfense]

Please show me a democratic candidate that has talked extensively about cutting spending. Not just some pet project of the right. I'm talking drastic cutting of spending.

Sure. Exhibit 1. Barack Obama. There was a certain "grand bargain" that was all over the news a few months back. Something like $3 trillion in spending reductions . . . and rejected by the GOP because they would not agree to the rich paying a cent more in taxes.

[carlfense]

I know for a fact that Obama won't do it.

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? The suspense about this football season is killing me.

[BigRedBuster]

Every single private company in America has had to make drastic changes and cuts to survive through a pathetic economy that Washington caused. There is no reason why government employees shouldn't be forced to do the same thing.

you do understand that less money in the hands of the consumers will only prolong the recession?

 

So, now we are in such a situation that we can't cut government because so many people work for it that the economy will suffer? If that is the case then we are so far gone we are beyond fixing it. That is a pathetic situation to be in.

 

in a well-reasoned economy, companies would be ran by employees and part of the profit would go into a fund to keep employees on during times of economic hardships. that way people could keep their jobs and the companies could operate at a loss, softening the affects and shortening the duration of the recession or times of economic downturns.

 

Really??? News flash....as much as liberals thing companies love to lay off people, they don't. Our company actually kept people on too long and it ended up in us losing money probably an extra two years. There is a limit to what you can do with this. We kept thinking the economy was going to come back and we can keep the employees. That decision just about did us in. Now, nobody remembers that, we are just the evil corporation that lays off people.

[carlfense]

Look at the chart of government spending since Obama came into office.

Obama's first budget was in 2010. Why are you trying to blame him for Bush's spending?

 

Obamacare is an albatross that piles on top of that.

Actually . . . Obamacare reduces the deficit. That's an inconvenient fact . . . but a fact nonetheless. Repealing the law would increase the deficit.

[sd'sker]

Every single private company in America has had to make drastic changes and cuts to survive through a pathetic economy that Washington caused. There is no reason why government employees shouldn't be forced to do the same thing.

you do understand that less money in the hands of the consumers will only prolong the recession?

 

So, now we are in such a situation that we can't cut government because so many people work for it that the economy will suffer? If that is the case then we are so far gone we are beyond fixing it. That is a pathetic situation to be in.

 

in a well-reasoned economy, companies would be ran by employees and part of the profit would go into a fund to keep employees on during times of economic hardships. that way people could keep their jobs and the companies could operate at a loss, softening the affects and shortening the duration of the recession or times of economic downturns.

 

Really??? News flash....as much as liberals thing companies love to lay off people, they don't. Our company actually kept people on too long and it ended up in us losing money probably an extra two years. There is a limit to what you can do with this. We kept thinking the economy was going to come back and we can keep the employees. That decision just about did us in. Now, nobody remembers that, we are just the evil corporation that lays off people.

did you keep them on from a fund of discretionary cash the company saved for that very purpose? as i proposed.

 

just as you blame us for only thinking taxing the rich will fix the economy, you seem to believe only cuts will. the point is to jump start the economy, only the gov't can do that. then more people will spend, more jobs, more tax revenue, more freedom to reconstruct the economy as you see fit. when everyone is tightening their belts is not the time the gov't should cut spending and put even more pressure on the economy.

[BigRedBuster]

I know for a fact that Obama won't do it.

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? The suspense about this football season is killing me.

 

 

Show me where he has proven he will do it. Look at any graph on government spending while he is in office.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts

 

No reason to expect him to all of a sudden fight to cut spending when all he has proposed since office is more major government programs.

[krill]

Please show me a democratic candidate that has talked extensively about cutting spending. Not just some pet project of the right. I'm talking drastic cutting of spending.

 

You should start with what you'd cut, from what programs, and how much it would save.

 

Fact is it's not popular to talk about changes to Social Security and Medicare, which along with Medicaid are dwarf all other projected outlays (revenues are the other half) that are driving the deficit. People over 55 are the most active and influential voting block and get extremely nervous about any talk of changing their retirement benefits. Even a hint of changing benefits is the quickest way for a politician to be backpedaling the rest of their career.

 

I think it's also worth noting that if taxes as a share of GDP has been collected as they were in the year 2000 @ 20.6%, the last time we had a balanced budget, the federal deficit in 2011 would have been approximately $400-500 billion instead a whopping $1.56 trillion. $400-500 billion is still a large figure, but completely manageable in the long term particularly in consideration of the slow GDP growth.

 

I don't know how anyone can be serious about the cutting the deficit without talking about tax revenue; even the controversial Ryan budget calls for a rise in tax revenue to 19% of GDP by 2028, which is 1.6% less than the Clinton peak. The question is how we get there. Do we slash taxes on capital gains and the highest bracket while eliminating deductions for the middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy, or a combination of raising some taxes while lowering others?

[carlfense]

So, now we are in such a situation that we can't cut government because so many people work for it that the economy will suffer? If that is the case then we are so far gone we are beyond fixing it. That is a pathetic situation to be in.

I think that you're an Obama fan and you just don't know it yet. Contrary to popular belief, the government workforce has dramatically decreased during his years in office.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

My dad sent me this video. I watched a fair portion of it, and it seemed to make sense to my feeble brain. Note that I'm the furthest thing from an economist you can get. Anyone know where this guy is wrong, or is he right and we're screwed?

 

 

 

I would say this guy is right to a point. While our debt is border line Greece like, we do not have the same level of entitlements, and controls over the economy (well not yet at least). The thing we have going for us, is the ability to grow the economy, no matter the tax structure that will increase cash flow. Taxes must be addressed, loop hole closed, defense trimmed, entitlement spending put on a long term course towards sustainable levels (yes this is code for cuts, but that is the truth) trim now and hold the line.

 

Defense: Our over seas footprint should be reduced, as BRB said, we dont need 700 installations overseas (although looking into this number, it is highly debatable how many we have, it seems the DOD doesn't even know). IMO we need a strong Navy and Air force. We DO need to maintain a leadership role in the world, or China will be more than happy to jump in a fill the void. I for one am not comfortable with a country like China being the worlds cop, and just so you know, I dont like our roll in that either, but until things overseas change drastically, we need to maintain that roll, possibly with NATO's help, or at least the UK. Also maintain our Nuclear deterrence, focus on Special forces, and weapons platforms that are force multipliers, that can cut long term troop levels, and still maintain a strong defensive posture.

 

SS: Long term cuts need to be made. I like the idea of a cap on income. While this is tremendously unfair, I liken it to unemployment insurance, everyone pays, only a few collect. We need to start on this now and have the changes slowly come in starting in 10-15 years.

 

Medicare: Same as above. You have a couple of million in the bank, sorry, you get reduced benefits, unfair yes, needed, absolutely. Again a long term implementation of this, and the ability for private companies to get involved.

 

Welfare: Set limits to its use. End the ability of people to have another child to reset the clock. Focus incentives for people to go back to school, and get training in sectors that are lacking trained people i.e. RN's and many other medical areas, good paying, sold jobs. I dont mind helping people get on their feet, but I am not here to support you forever, better yourself then give back.

 

End corporate welfare. We hand out billions to massively profitable companies (oil, food, farms, on and on), we pay farmers to not grow food, we pay oil companies to drill in the gulf. Exxon does $400+ billion a year, I dont think they need our help (full disclosure they are currently paying for my house), and corn is over $8 a bushel.

 

End big government : Big Gov makes for Big companies, the more we try to regulate, the more companies become "partners" with the Feds. Who do they call on banking reform, the President of Dorcester State bank, or the guy running Wells Fargo? Of course the input they give will benefit the large banks, and stifle the little guy. The game is rigged.

 

Tax reform: Close loop holes, level the playing field, the middle class plays more % wise than the rich, cut middle class taxes. Get more people on the tax rolls, to many people take and give zero, you need to have some sort of vested interest in your Government besides "babies mama" checks.

 

Now, since we are asking, things that I think we need, but will never happen: Balanced budget amendment. If I recall we were ONE VOTE short of this in the 90's. Thank you Bob Kerry. I cant remember how this was written, but we need to handcuff these guys (and the reason why we will never get this passed now). Balance the budget, bt with limits on how they do it. No pulling an Illinois and just raise taxes, limits on how fast budgets can grow, and tag the total Budget to GDP, 10% for example. Once this is done enact a debt reduction tax, this will work like a European style VAT, make it 10%, and we would make around $1.4 Trillion in debt reduction a year. Yeah it would suck, I dont know the long term impact it would have on the economy, but I think the long term effects is worse.

 

Lastly, this is a little off track, I think we need to rethink what the Federal Government should do. How arrogant is it to think a few hundred people know what is best for 300+ million of us. No single bill can cover and adapt to every single one of us. For the most part these people are no more intelligent than many of the posters in this forum, the idea that they have some voodoo power on figuring out these problems is laughable. Anyway I'm tired of typing.

 

Edit: I love how in the time it took me to type this, the thread has fallen into Liberals suck, Conservatives suck, good job guys...

[carlfense]

Show me where he has proven he will do it.

I never said that I know for a fact that he WOULD do it. You said that you know for a fact that he won't. See the difference?

 

Look at any graph on government spending while he is in office.

 

http://www.usgovernm...ding.com/charts

Uhhhh . . . BigRedBuster? From your own link:

 

See that first red line? That's Obama's first budget year.

[BigRedBuster]

Every single private company in America has had to make drastic changes and cuts to survive through a pathetic economy that Washington caused. There is no reason why government employees shouldn't be forced to do the same thing.

you do understand that less money in the hands of the consumers will only prolong the recession?

 

So, now we are in such a situation that we can't cut government because so many people work for it that the economy will suffer? If that is the case then we are so far gone we are beyond fixing it. That is a pathetic situation to be in.

 

in a well-reasoned economy, companies would be ran by employees and part of the profit would go into a fund to keep employees on during times of economic hardships. that way people could keep their jobs and the companies could operate at a loss, softening the affects and shortening the duration of the recession or times of economic downturns.

 

Really??? News flash....as much as liberals thing companies love to lay off people, they don't. Our company actually kept people on too long and it ended up in us losing money probably an extra two years. There is a limit to what you can do with this. We kept thinking the economy was going to come back and we can keep the employees. That decision just about did us in. Now, nobody remembers that, we are just the evil corporation that lays off people.

did you keep them on from a fund of discretionary cash the company saved for that very purpose? as i proposed.

 

just as you blame us for only thinking taxing the rich will fix the economy, you seem to believe only cuts will. the point is to jump start the economy, only the gov't can do that. then more people will spend, more jobs, more tax revenue, more freedom to reconstruct the economy as you see fit. when everyone is tightening their belts is not the time the gov't should cut spending and put even more pressure on the economy.

 

I think right there you summed up the entire problem. Too many people believe government is the only savior for everything.

 

Turn loose the private sector and watch what will happen? Government spending has put such a HUGE weight on the shoulders of Americans that it is almost impossible to grow. Listen very closely to the video you posted. That right there should scare the hell out of you.

 

As for our company, your idea is imossible for most companies. like most of us out here, we aren't this company that is making huge margins out here that can just stash away millions and millions of dollars. We work on very small margins and volume. We are going on our 5th year right now in this economy. We are right in line with our industry and our sales are down almost 50%. It is absolutely insane to think that we should just still have the same level of employment so people can sit around and pick their noses. We simply don't have the work for them. That sucks. It really does but it's reality. When sales drop, there is less work for people to do and people ge laid off. We waited as long as we possibly could but it had to happen.

[BigRedBuster]

Please show me a democratic candidate that has talked extensively about cutting spending. Not just some pet project of the right. I'm talking drastic cutting of spending.

 

You should start with what you'd cut, from what programs, and how much it would save.

 

Fact is it's not popular to talk about changes to Social Security and Medicare, which along with Medicaid are dwarf all other projected outlays (revenues are the other half) that are driving the deficit. People over 55 are the most active and influential voting block and get extremely nervous about any talk of changing their retirement benefits. Even a hint of changing benefits is the quickest way for a politician to be backpedaling the rest of their career.

 

I think it's also worth noting that if taxes as a share of GDP has been collected as they were in the year 2000 @ 20.6%, the last time we had a balanced budget, the federal deficit in 2011 would have been approximately $400-500 billion instead a whopping $1.56 trillion. $400-500 billion is still a large figure, but completely manageable in the long term particularly in consideration of the slow GDP growth.

 

I don't know how anyone can be serious about the cutting the deficit without talking about tax revenue; even the controversial Ryan budget calls for a rise in tax revenue to 19% of GDP by 2028, which is 1.6% less than the Clinton peak. The question is how we get there. Do we slash taxes on capital gains and the highest bracket while eliminating deductions for the middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy, or a combination of raising some taxes while lowering others?

 

Read my first post in this thread.

[sd'sker]

Turn loose the private sector and watch what will happen?

2007–2012 global financial crisis

 

Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds

The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

[sd'sker]

When sales drop, there is less work for people to do and people ge laid off. We waited as long as we possibly could but it had to happen.

you do not think that is cyclical?