Republicans 2013: Damn... Gov't actually does create jobs & wealth

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

So you don't advocate an immediate large cut... So how do you feel about the fact every year since Obama took over he's reduced the budget deficit? Or that he's slowed the growth of gov't spending to the lowest it's been in decades? Or that's he's cut almost 3T to future spending?

From Obama, you've had immediate small cuts AND long term large cuts.

Lowering the rate of increase in spending is not a cut. If I spent $5 this year and planned to spend $10 next year and I spend $7 instead, I have not reduced expenses. I'm still spending more. A cut would be spending less than $5. Anything more than that is an increase, not a cut.

I don't need to be specific since I'm not the one that spews the "gov't doesn't create jobs" line. That's Republicans. I'm just pointing out the irony of how quickly Republicans fight to save the non-existent gov't jobs that the sequester will cut...

As you've been told multiple times on this thread, that isn't irony, because supporting cuts in general does not necessitate supporting any one particular cut. You have yet to actually refute this, you simply ignore it and keep saying the same things.

Well I don't disagree that we should & can cut gov't waste. Too bad that's not on the Republican agenda.

The recent bill S 253 from a Democrat to establish a committee on reducing government waste was cosponsored by two Republicans. So peddle this misinformed claim elsewhere.

They want to cut teachers, firefighters, paramedics, etc. b/c that gov't spending is somehow hurting the economy or unicorns or something.

Tell you what - name a Republican who has advocated cutting teachers, firefighters, or paramedics. Not a Democrat claiming that Republicans want to do this. Name an actual Republican advocating cutting teachers, firefighters, or paramedics.

Remember how Obama streamlined Medicare by $500B? How did Republicans treat that?

They treated it honestly, which is more than Democrats did. Remember how Obama allocated that money to Obamacare? Remember how he counted it both as a spending cut and simultaneously used the same money as funding for Obamacare to reduce its cost?

Honestly, I don't know how much the politicians believe their talking points. What I do know is that the gullible saps in real life do, and repeat that talking point, so it's for them I point out how full of ch!t a MASSIVE segment of the Republican agenda is.

You say this right after you show you demonstrated that you swallowed the false Medicare cut talking point yourself. You were talking about irony earlier. Well there's an example of it for you.

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Rggr

I think there are some creative numbers being tossed around. First, increasing spending at a slower rate than you planned is not cutting spending. Second, nobody has increased the debt as much as it has under Mr. Obama. If I spend $20 one week and spend $30 the next, I have increased by 50%. When it snowlballs and I get to 100, I have to spend $150 to increase by 50% but if I spend $140, I increased it much more than the $10 increase. As far as how those numbers were calculated regarding Mr. Obama, the methodology was questionable at best regarding what was attributed to him.

I love the argument that we now hear about how cutting would be so damaging because you can't cut during a weak economy. All I've heard up until now is that we were doing great despite the fact that the economy contracted in the past quarter.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...nfographic.pdf
The federal government’s budget deficit for fiscal year
2011 was $1.3 trillion; at 8.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit was the third-largest shortfall in the past 40 years.(GDP is the sum of all income earned in the domestic production of goods and services. In 2011, it totaled $15.0 trillion.)
In 2011, federal spending (outlays) exceeded 24% of GDP, the third-highest level in the past 40 years, while federal revenues
were just over 15% of GDP, the third-lowest level during that period. If economic conditions improve, spending will decline relative
to GDP and revenues will rise. But even so, under current policies, a large gap between spending and revenues will persist.

CBO | An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012

The deficit under the President's proposals would fall to 4.1 percent of GDP by 2015 but would generally rise thereafter. Compared with CBO's current—law baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 0.5 percentage points of GDP higher in 2012, 1.3 percentage points higher in 2013, and 1 to 2 percentage points higher thereafter. By 2021, the deficit would reach 4.9 percent of GDP, compared with 3.1 percent under CBO's baseline projections. Over the 2012–2021 period, deficits under the President's budget would total $9.5 trillion, compared with $6.7 trillion under those baseline projections.


Under the President's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $10.4 trillion (69 percent of GDP) at the end of 2011 to $20.8 trillion (87 percent of GDP) at the end of 2021, about $2.8 trillion more than the amount under CBO's baseline projections. Outlays for net interest would nearly quadruple between 2012 and 2021 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); they would swell from 1.7 percent of GDP in 2012 to 3.9 percent in 2021.


Revenues under the President's proposals would be a total of $2.3 trillion (or 6 percent) below CBO's baseline projections from 2012 to 2021, largely because of the President's proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for inflation starting at their 2011 levels and to continue many of the tax reductions originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 that were extended in the 2010 tax act (the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010). Under current law, which CBO's baseline projections reflect, the parameters of the AMT will revert to earlier levels, and the reductions in the 2010 tax act will expire at the end of December 2012.

So while the country and the costs to service the country grow, you want to cut the spending? If a program services 10 people for $10, you want it to service 12 people for $8 next year? At least Obama is being reasonable when he says let's see if we can service 12 people for $11.50 instead of $12.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Lowering the rate of increase in spending is not a cut. If I spent $5 this year and planned to spend $10 next year and I spend $7 instead, I have not reduced expenses. I'm still spending more. A cut would be spending less than $5. Anything more than that is an increase, not a cut.

This weekend you spend 10% of a $100 budget to feed 10 people on drinks. Next weekend you spend 9% of $120 budget to feed 12 people on drinks. Did you cut your spending?

As you've been told multiple times on this thread, that isn't irony, because supporting cuts in general does not necessitate supporting any one particular cut. You have yet to actually refute this, you simply ignore it and keep saying the same things.

Of course. Republicans saying to cut 20% of gov't is okay as long as they don't actually say what 20% we should cut. Got it...

The recent bill S 253 from a Democrat to establish a committee on reducing government waste was cosponsored by two Republicans. So peddle this misinformed claim elsewhere.

Your last PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE made "Gov't doesn't create jobs" part of his campaign stump speech. You have nothing.

Tell you what - name a Republican who has advocated cutting teachers, firefighters, or paramedics. Not a Democrat claiming that Republicans want to do this. Name an actual Republican advocating cutting teachers, firefighters, or paramedics.

How about that guy named Romney? He was a big deal for a minute. How about that other guy... Ry-something.

They treated it honestly, which is more than Democrats did. Remember how Obama allocated that money to Obamacare? Remember how he counted it both as a spending cut and simultaneously used the same money as funding for Obamacare to reduce its cost?

So claiming credit for a net increase of $0 instead of $500B is a bad thing now?

You say this right after you show you demonstrated that you swallowed the false Medicare cut talking point yourself. You were talking about irony earlier. Well there's an example of it for you.

See above.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

So while the country and the costs to service the country grow, you want to cut the spending? If a program services 10 people for $10, you want it to service 12 people for $8 next year? At least Obama is being reasonable when he says let's see if we can service 12 people for $11.50 instead of $12.

No, I would rather serve 8 for $8 and have the other four provide for themselves under a better economy.

[artisan4]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

This sequester drama should be the nail in the coffin for a core Republican talking point: gov't doesn't create jobs.

Almost every Republican in Congress is begging, pleading, negotiating, doing everything in their power to try to be exempted from the sequester cuts for both defense spending AND social programs. Why? B/c it will cost their district jobs, money, wealth, prosperity... pretty much EVERYTHING that Republicans said gov't CAN'T create.

It seems Republicans new party motto should be "Spending Cuts? NIMBY." Looks like all the bluster from Republicans for the last 30 years is being exposed as just that, b/c at the end of the day, they're just as Keynesian as Democrats...

They are being forced to accept reality which flies in the face of their ideology. Good to see.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

I'll shut you down quick so others don't tear you to shreds.
Ask yourself this question. The government spends 1 Trillion Dollars where does that money come from?
Now think about this question. If the government took 1 trillion dollars from A and gave it to B what is the net effect of the transaction?

Finally the last question is. Was wealth really created?

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? The issue is government's interaction with the marketplace, and whether or not this affects jobs.
Government is inseparable from the marketplace and it has a huge influence there via tax structure, subsidies, and its own hiring. It should be obvious that government "interference" has an effect on the "free market" since taxes and subsidies automatically make govt part of the game.
Let's start with the right-wing whipping boy first, government jobs. Not only are these jobs necessary, but the wages go back into the economy.

Government and Creating Jobs
"...a soldier draws a paycheck, pays taxes, and buys things in the broader economy that, in turn, helps to maintain (and even create!) private sector jobs."

That's what makes an economy work. A privatization of government functions would result in an oligarchy separated from the citizen - a fascist "corporatocracy". Great idea.
What's left is the private sector, and here is where the right-wing view breaks down - they, first of all, love those tax breaks, subsidies, and legal tax shelters, and want more and more.
Behind the right-wing rhetoric is demonization of government in order to promote the idea of corporate control without describing it as such.

There is no such thing as a free market separate from government. That concept is only good for occasional analyses.