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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:19 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,674,750 times
Reputation: 4254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
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?
You are arguing under the basis that all government functions and programs are legitimate, and essential. Our federal government has long ago expanded into spending that goes well beyond the essential and critical functions of government.

We could save over one hundred billion if we just streamlined government. Instead of crying that the sky will fall over $45 billion, cut $120 billion.

Cutting Duplication, Fragmentation, and Waste

GAO Details Billions in Federal Waste

The point is, we could, and should cut government spending, because not all government spending is legitimate or needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:22 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,674,750 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Oh, I agree completely. I was just giving what could have (in the short term) helped to avoid 2008. In a perfect world the Friedman/Voulker way of thinking would have run the Fed since it started to right the ship in the late 70's.
We could have kept Glass-Steagal in place too, then we would not have have monsters like CitiGroup gambling away our money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,666,120 times
Reputation: 9174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600 View Post
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?
Posters 1 and 2 will never get it. They think if their government entitlement check is bigger, the government created their new wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 09:42 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,201,832 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
We could have kept Glass-Steagal in place too, then we would not have have monsters like CitiGroup gambling away our money.
I don't fault CitiGroup in the least. They are a profit center and should rightly pursue any profits they can. What we saw a pretty resound failure in monetary policy by both congress as well as the Fed over the last two decades. Minimizing downside risk is pretty important, and the Fed created a system which allowed massive bubbles to form. With decent monetary policy, entities such as CitiGroup would not have been able to take advantage of the growth phase of a bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,110,249 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
It would depend on where you made the cuts and the amount of the cuts. I don't advocate an immediate large cut, but we have to make cuts. Any cuts are going to cause some pain unfortunately. That's the problem of letting things get out of hand. However, not making cuts because there will be some pain now just creates more later. If Congress would pass a budget they could plan the cuts that make the most sense, but sequestration cuts across the board which is a bad way to do it.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
You could try being a little more specific, it's tough to comment when you are so vague.

There are some legitimate functions to government, and in some cases government can take over a small part of the economy and create a monopoly. The military and national security apparatus is one area I think most of us would agree the federal government controls. It's not as if we have civilians with tanks and jet fighters.

So if Obama decides to cause as much damage and pain as possible, yes, he could cut funding in ways that cause the most damage to people, communities, and local economies.
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
You are arguing under the basis that all government functions and programs are legitimate, and essential. Our federal government has long ago expanded into spending that goes well beyond the essential and critical functions of government.

We could save over one hundred billion if we just streamlined government. Instead of crying that the sky will fall over $45 billion, cut $120 billion.

Cutting Duplication, Fragmentation, and Waste

GAO Details Billions in Federal Waste

The point is, we could, and should cut government spending, because not all government spending is legitimate or needed.
Well I don't disagree that we should & can cut gov't waste. Too bad that's not on the Republican agenda. They want to cut teachers, firefighters, paramedics, etc. b/c that gov't spending is somehow hurting the economy or unicorns or something.

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

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 02:32 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,910,188 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
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.
the government provides nothing that it doesn't take from the private sector first.

when you understand that, you will understand how to fix the economy.

until then, our trajectory continues downward.

tell me how good it is going in europe, by the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 03:20 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,582,024 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
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?
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 03:26 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,674,750 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I don't fault CitiGroup in the least. They are a profit center and should rightly pursue any profits they can. What we saw a pretty resound failure in monetary policy by both congress as well as the Fed over the last two decades. Minimizing downside risk is pretty important, and the Fed created a system which allowed massive bubbles to form. With decent monetary policy, entities such as CitiGroup would not have been able to take advantage of the growth phase of a bubble.
I think you missed the point, CitiGroup should not exist in the first place. We should have never allowed commercial and investment banks to merge. This how they were able to risk our money, and and then lose it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 03:27 PM
 
1,724 posts, read 1,470,963 times
Reputation: 780
It is funny watching Republicans trying to land the austerity measures solely on Obama. They have been championing for more austerity measures, but when the time comes, they want to find a scapegoat for the detrimental effect they will have on the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,568 posts, read 18,147,060 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
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.
The real source of wealth is from the private sector.. Big government will implode without the private sector building a tax base to fund the government.

All private sector jobs don't deplete the tax base , they build it.. the government depletes the tax base that funds the government jobs.. the tax base of government jobs cannot sustain itself. It will go broke without the private sector remaining strong.
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. The time now is 11:57 PM.

© 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