Republicans 2013: Damn... Gov't actually does create jobs & wealth (dollar, party, economic)
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.
No, but you are the one acting as though a slogan is the totality of the argument. I guess there are people that are swayed by sound bites. Your stance makes you look like the stereotype of the modern electorate.
Okay... here's your chance to show that you're not one of the lemmings I like to pick on.
If we cut gov't spending right now, what would be the most immediate impact of that?
Of course the government builds wealth. The government builds infrastructure, educates citizens, and provides the environment for entrepreneurs to take risks. Countries with large public investments do better than countries with little public investments.
Providing the environment where wealth is created is not the same thing as creating wealth.
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...
If you take money from one person and give it to another person of course the recipient becomes wealthier. That does not mean that society as a whole has become wealthier. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
When government "invests" money into the economy, it first removes that money from the same economy. There are no jobs, no wealth, no prosperity created - merely shifted from the private to the public sector. Increasing public sector spending doesn't happen by magic. It happens by reducing the resources available to the private sector. Do you understand what opportunity costs are?
And when Democrats, for example, want to cut the military they do not want the base in their district to be the one that closes. Cuts may have to be made for the health of the nation, but it's only natural that representatives try to minimize the impact of those cuts on their own constituents. That doesn't mean they are against cuts.
Instead of claiming all the Republicans are hypocrites and liars, you should gain a better understanding of the situation.
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?
Oh, please if the OP doesn't care to be shred to pieces I am more than up for the challenge.
In this particular economy, 1 trillion dollars in expenditures goes directly towards paying for goods and services. It doesn't get socked way in treasuries, or investments that do not increase industrial capacity do to depressed demand. The problem with THIS economy is that not enough private money is being expended in the purchase of goods and services. Investment in new ventures is down, capital expansion is down, not because of taxes, or government diverting private dollars out of capital markets (see record low interest rates) but because of continued stagnant demand which leaves only one big spender standing, dear old Uncle Sam. Clip your sugar uncles spending habits... then please tell us who is going to pick up the slack.
The Red States have to most to lose in sequestration. Republican districts receive the bulk of government spending - both defense and welfare. The Conservative trick has always been about talking up spending cuts but never offering anything specific. This created a cognitive dissonance between what they say (cut spending!) and what they do (except medicare, defense, VA benefits, agriculture and oil subsidies...).
With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
Hopefully this does happen. You nearly always have to artificially create recessionary conditions to stabilize economies. We NEED to force such a recession, take the hit for a few years and move towards a healthy long term economic system.
The Red States have to most to lose in sequestration. Republican districts receive the bulk of government spending - both defense and welfare. The Conservative trick has always been about talking up spending cuts but never offering anything specific. This created a cognitive dissonance between what they say (cut spending!) and what they do (except medicare, defense, VA benefits, agriculture and oil subsidies...).
With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
Hopefully this does happen. You nearly always have to artificially create recessionary conditions to stabilize economies. We NEED to force such a recession, take the hit for a few years and move towards a healthy long term economic system.
It's too bad we didn't do this in late 2008. We could be well on our way today.
It's too bad we didn't do this in late 2008. We could be well on our way today.
The tech crash in 1999 gave us the recession that we needed. The problem is the Fed accelerated growth too aggressively to try and bring the economy back online, when they should have stagnated growth from 2000 - 2005. Unfortunately politics got in the way of economics at the Fed. Any president who pushes for such action guarantees to only serve one term. See Carter and Voulker as an example, Carter gave Voulker the autonomy to fix the economy, but it cost him his second term.
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.
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.
