Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: With the economy on the edge of collapse, should we cut?
Yes, we should cut 2.5 trillion, it will help the economy 21 16.54%
We should cut 6 trillion 28 22.05%
Not good enough, we need to cut 9 trillion, that will definitely help our economy 49 38.58%
Actually we need a 3 trillion dollar stimulus 29 22.83%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2011, 08:45 PM
 
5,546 posts, read 9,974,558 times
Reputation: 2799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Your analogy is completely wrong.

Cutting spending at this time is like cutting up your credit cards and not writing hot checks any more.
Hmm, I thought I posted a response. I forgot to mention it would be like an unemployed person (as in no income) spending their last $100 to pay off their credit card. We need people to spend money (drives economy and without jobs no can do), but we also need taxes raised. If you cut off people's ability to spend, you have no spending. Well, it makes sense if you stop to think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2011, 08:46 PM
 
1,230 posts, read 1,036,488 times
Reputation: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Hey, the $800 billion we spent worked wonders, why not spend $3trillion?
Why the leap to 3T? Why not another few hundred B?- USED WISELY- and that is the problem here, there is no will or consensus to use it wisely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,750,844 times
Reputation: 6663
Roosevelt's New Deal focused predominantly on a program of providing work and stimulating the economy through public spending on projects, rather than on cash payment.

Cost of Welfare:
1960 $3B
1970 10.1B
1980 59.9B
1990 96B
2000 176B
2010 502B

Spending has gone up 18,000% in just 50 years. That would have been a grand slam to any investor. I think that's right about where Buffet is over the same period.

The more we stimulate the less it seems to help. We have generations of perpetual welfare families. Getting a welfare check to them is what a job is to the rest of us. I live in LA and I've seen how the system is worked by these people. Some of them I called friends. Create work programs just like Roosevelt did. Why ignore history and the programs that work, instead opting for waste and unsustainable debt?

What happens when 50% of the population are living off the other 50%?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,174,808 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Hard right conservatives, do you think it's really a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion out of the economy? Or do you think its not good enough, that we should cut even more, and that will help the economy?
I saw no choices I could vote for so I will just have to say that we should have had the Senate study the CC&B bill and see if they would have voted for it. I think they would have and this abortion law would never have passed to screw things up as it will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 09:39 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
8,182 posts, read 9,179,921 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Hard right conservatives, do you think it's really a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion out of the economy? Or do you think its not good enough, that we should cut even more, and that will help the economy?

They didn't cut a thing, maybe a few billion this year. They made fantasy projections of cuts of the rate of growth 5-10 years out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 08:48 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,691,502 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Congress can pass laws making it illegal for U.S. businesses to move out of the country, and I'd be all for that. Someone has to stop unethical businesses from strangling our economy and putting Americans out of work.
oh yeah, etsw just make this country COMPLETELY communist shall we? congress can certainly pass said laws, but the courts would slap them down hard as such laws would in fact be unconstitutional. and it wouldnt matter anyway, because US companies could just decide to close down their business here. what is to stop them? and then after the business is closed, the people that owned them just move to say canada and start up a new business.

you complain about unethical businesses, but you dont complain about unethical government. sorry but business operates to make money, not provide jobs. a business will need employees as it grows however. and if a business does something unethical, there is recourse through the court system to address the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,073,042 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
So am I to assume you believe we should cut 9 trillion? Or is that not even enough?
It's simple 5th Grade Math.

You take in [currently] $2.17 TRILLION in revenues.

The government's budget should be $1.5 TRILLION and the balanced used to pay off the non-public portion of the National Debt, of which about 95% is IOUs from the Social Security Trust Fund (the remaining 5% is budget surplus from Department of Education, HUD and Department of Defense shuffled around to cover each other's losses and budget over-runs).

If you did that, your non-public debt would be $0 by 2018.

Unfortunately, the public part of the National Debt would then be $12.1 TRILLION.

It would then take you until 2034 to reduce the public part of the National Debt to 3% of GDP.

At that time, you would have to cut $93.5 TRILLION in benefits and payments over a space of 16 years, because you won't have the money to pay $108 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

If you chose not to pay down the public portion of the public debt, and instead work on paying down your $108 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, then you still must cut $82 TRILLION.

However, this is pointless.

Let's cut to the chase and I'll prove to everyone you how uninformed you really are.

Assume that the GDP grows 2.5% every single quarter through 2050; and

Assume that a 2.5% increase in GDP translates into a 2.5% increase in tax revenues (it DOES NOT, but let's assume for the sake of argument to destroy your drug-induced hallucinogenic fantasy that it does); and

Assume that you have the moral courage to elect responsible legislators who will stick to the program and limit government spending to 75% of tax revenues; then...

...you have no choice but to cut $76.7 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

To demonstrate further that you are totally clueless, let's assume an economy on Steroids and Starsux and your GDP grows at 6% every single quarter through 2050 and let's assume that an increase of 6% GDP equals a 6% increase in tax revenues (it doesn't but we'll go out on a limb here) and so....

...you still have to cut $62.7 TRILLION.

Now, is there anyone who still does not understand that you cannot pay for your fantasies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
We don't need to cut spending, we need another stimulus, and an even bigger one this time.
Obama spent $12 TRILLION in 3 years and all you got was a $500 Billion increase in GDP.

That's a ratio of 24:1

Again, I ask, who on this Earth is going to fund your spending spree?

The EU has its own problems and cannot. Japan is buried in nuclear waste. Russia is laughing at you. China has said they refuse. The Swiss don't wanna.

Zimbabwe to the rescue? Is that what you thought?

Libya? Is Libya gonna buy up the $1.5 TRILLION in junk bonds you're about to dump on the market?

Are you one of those Hollow Earth freaks? You know, the Earth is hollow and Shangri La is there with its streets paved of gold and they're going to come to your rescue?

Dream on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke View Post
Stocks are plummeting today. The Dow fell 300pts.

{snippet}" Investors are increasingly worried about economic weakness in the U.S. and a debt crisis in Europe."
Yes, yes, of course, because it begs the question who is going to buy your junk bonds over the next several years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Those born today, have no SS into the system and tomorrow you don't get SS unless your 80.

It will fix itself in 80 years.
It will be a lot sooner than that.

As I have correctly predicted every year for the last 4 years, Social Security keeps moving the default date up. This year's report says 2016 and the June 2012 report will say 2014 and the June 2013 will say default is imminent.

Your payroll declined in the 2nd Quarter and Social Security may default on benefit payments this Quarter and have to borrow from the federal budget.

If payroll declines 3rd Quarter then Social Security will default in the 4th Quarter.

Your economy is flat and will continue to be flat or recessionary the rest of the decade, and the only way to convert the IOUs from the Trust Fund (that's the non-public portion of the National Debt I mentioned earlier) then the system is bankrupt.

The only possible way to convert those IOUs is with a budget surplus. The reason that is non-public debt is because law prevents it from being converted to treasury securities.

The last I saw was that Social Security is $42 TRILLION of your $108 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Great post. The only way to bring back outsourced jobs would be to enact protectionist trade policies -- repeal all free trade agreements, place high tariffs on all imported goods (high enough to make U.S.-made products cheaper) and levy penalty taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Congress can pass laws making it illegal for U.S. businesses to move out of the country, and I'd be all for that. Someone has to stop unethical businesses from strangling our economy and putting Americans out of work.
You are the least competent economist. What a great way to guarantee a major economic depression and a permanent contraction of your economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,449 posts, read 14,431,534 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Hard right conservatives, do you think it's really a good idea to cut 2.5 trillion out of the economy? Or do you think its not good enough, that we should cut even more, and that will help the economy?
It's good for the GOP if they'd like to wreck the economy which apparently they do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2011, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,719 posts, read 5,677,004 times
Reputation: 1480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It's simple 5th Grade Math.
That is more like 9th grade math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 05:55 AM
 
3,728 posts, read 4,857,351 times
Reputation: 2293
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Great post. The only way to bring back outsourced jobs would be to enact protectionist trade policies -- repeal all free trade agreements, place high tariffs on all imported goods (high enough to make U.S.-made products cheaper) and levy penalty taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas. While I would love to see that happen, it's not possible in this political climate. Our politicians (both Republican and Democrat) are the property of Wall Street and big business, and they serve their masters. Another stimulus is the best we can hope for, given the circumstances.
So you want to start trade wars too?

You are just a bastion of horrible ideas. The fact is that there are a lot of products that the US imports that are vital to the economy and a lot of what it exports can be purchased from Europe, Japan, China, or Canada. So your idea is to **** off America's trading partners and lead them to enact their own hefty tariffs while raising taxes, spending even more money, AND enacting even more regulations.

Why don't you just suggest that the US government bulldoze every remaining factory while you're at it?

"Hey, that's a great idea. Then the government can rebuild them using green technology which will further stimulate the economy!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top