Budget Things

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

 

Face plant yourself.

 

You are looking at a percentage of GDP. I'm talking about total spending.

 

Why can't I post a picture on this board?

 

If you go to this link, it will show spending and the estimated spending in the future from the programs that are in place now.

[BigRedBuster]

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?

 

That is what we thought. A year or two is cyclical. 5 years of it has caused drastic changes in what we have done and how many employees we have. When work picks back up, we will hire more. We wouldn't be here right now if we had the employee level we had 5 years ago.

[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?

 

That is what we thought. A year or two is cyclical. 5 years of it has caused drastic changes in what we have done and how many employees we have. When work picks back up, we will hire more. We wouldn't be here right now if we had the employee level we had 5 years ago.

that is what i mean. people spend less, people loss their incomes, more people spend even less... so on and so forth. how else does that end other than gov't spending? a war? that is still gov't spending.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

The 2007–2012 global financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s

 

And you expect companies to just be able to pay employees no matter what? This is a problem none of us on this board have ever been through. Drastic measures are required and the government needs to take part in that.

[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.

 

The 2007–2012 global financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s

 

And you expect companies to just be able to pay employees no matter what? This is a problem none of us on this board have ever been through. Drastic measures are required and the government needs to take part in that.

no, that was not my point at all. my point was that there would be contingency plans for such time of economic downturn, which there were not. and that companies would be ran by employees, rather than a managerial class.

[BigRedBuster]

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?

 

That is what we thought. A year or two is cyclical. 5 years of it has caused drastic changes in what we have done and how many employees we have. When work picks back up, we will hire more. We wouldn't be here right now if we had the employee level we had 5 years ago.

that is what i mean. people spend less, people loss their incomes, more people spend even less... so on and so forth. how else does that end other than gov't spending? a war? that is still gov't spending.

 

Take the burden off of companies the government puts on them.

 

Here is an example:

 

I do been doing business in Puerto Rico for the last probably 6 years. I have a customer down there that is large enough that he is well informed in Puerto Rican politics and economy. When I first started working with him, he explained that PR was in the middle of a very bad economy. This was before 2007 so nothign had happened in the continental US yet.

 

The next time I went down he explained that PR had a tax policy where if you are a manufacturer, you pay no taxes. You know what? Very LARGE industries are moving there. People are being employed and their economy is getting better while ours is just slopping along.

 

I firmly believe that we need to draw manufacturing back to the US. But, that isn't going to happen with the attitude that many have had in this country that they are nothing more than big mean corporations and we need to punish them and they should pay. Have ZERO corporate tax if you are a manufacturer of a product.

 

That is just a start of how getting government out, it helps the economy.

[knapplc]

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.

How does this underlined phrase correspond with this phrase?

 

Drastic measures are required and the government needs to take part in that.

 

 

Is it simply the government spending less that will "unleash the private sector?" How does the government unleash them? If you're talking about deregulation, lack of oversight is what got us into this mess a few years ago. It was a major contributor to LIBOR.

 

You seem to want the government to be involved but in very intricate ways, yet you're not explaining those ways very well.

 

What's coming across is that you're very upset with this government. But to date there has been no plan put forth by any party, person or platform that economists can look at and say, "Yep - this will work."

[zoogs]

The thing that strikes me about the spending discussions is in any one of these projections, we have two big behemoths: Medicare and Social Security, which range from close to 70 to close to 80% of all federal government spending. As a % of GDP, we have ranges from roughly 12% to 18%.

 

If we are to reign in spending, we cannot do it by scrimping the other 30%, in my opinion. The Ryan model where all discretionary spending comprises 3.75% of the GDP is far too drastic a cut to be realistic. It's not a matter of scaling back our foreign military presence. It would be more like hardly fielding a military at all, or giving up wholesale funding for science, roads, bridges, schools, and so on.

 

I think there is no way around having to fix the runaway spending on medicare & social security. Is there really a worthwhile solution that doesn't involve a fundamental addressing of those two programs? I feel it is critical to find some way of reigning that health care # in to that 5.75%, 6% figure outlined by the Ryan plan. I don't know if that is possible. But if something doesn't change, those costs are going to balloon.

 

I find it interesting that all three projections have the same path for social security. Lots of talk about how important it is to address soc sec spending, although by the numbers it seems like they are generally resigned that there isn't anything to change there. By these numbers, it also appears to be a tiny problem compared to the looming medicare spending hikes.

[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.

You are looking at a percentage of GDP. I'm talking about total spending.

 

You said this (emphasis added):

 

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

 

 

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

 

You provided a link with several graphs and I posted one graph from that link.

 

I guess by "any graph" you actually meant "look at any graph that supports my argument." I think that deserves a facepalm. You're free to disagree.

[carlfense]

The thing that strikes me about the spending discussions is in any one of these projections, we have two big behemoths: Medicare and Social Security, which range from close to 70 to close to 80% of all federal government spending. As a % of GDP, we have ranges from roughly 12% to 18%.

 

If we are to reign in spending, we cannot do it by scrimping the other 30%, in my opinion. The Ryan model where all discretionary spending comprises 3.75% of the GDP is far too drastic a cut to be realistic. It's not a matter of scaling back our foreign military presence. It would be more like hardly fielding a military at all, or giving up wholesale funding for science, roads, bridges, schools, and so on.

 

I think there is no way around having to fix the runaway spending on medicare & social security. Is there really a worthwhile solution that doesn't involve a fundamental addressing of those two programs? I feel it is critical to find some way of reigning that health care # in to that 5.75%, 6% figure outlined by the Ryan plan. I don't know if that is possible. But if something doesn't change, those costs are going to balloon.

 

I find it interesting that all three projections have the same path for social security. Lots of talk about how important it is to address soc sec spending, although by the numbers it seems like they are generally resigned that there isn't anything to change there. By these numbers, it also appears to be a tiny problem compared to the looming medicare spending hikes.

Good post. +1

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

 

And after everyone wiped themselves with $100 bills after their morning movement they would ride their unicorns to work.

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

 

Ending Glass-Steagall Act

Ending Uptick Rule

[Mavric]

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.

A fact which Obama constantly bemoans.

[Mavric]

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.

That sounds good on a message board but is not accurate.

 

This is an extremely long read but very informative. It seems to me that the writer hails from the left side of the isle so a couple of his conclusions may have some bias but overall it is very interesting.

 

Who Killed the Debt Deal?

[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.

A fact which Obama constantly bemoans.

Link to Obama bemoaning? Also . . . it's still a fact.