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.
If we cut Fed spending by 70%, as that one poster suggested, how many jobs would that necessarily eliminate? How many of those eliminated jobs could reasonably be absorbed by the private sector?
Eventually all of them. Need proof? Just go back in time to 100+ years ago when the federal government was a fraction of the size it is today...and we did just fine. More people working in the private sector = economic growth...if all else is equal.
I'll put you down for "I want to force people to continue paying into a system that is or will become insolvent knowing that it is or will become insolvent before they're eligible to draw from it even though it's creating more poor people than it helps"
Since you care so much about poor people, why don't YOU cut them a check then out of your own pocket? Put your money where your mouth is.
Continuing to dump money into a failed ponzi scheme, one with ****ty returns at that, in perpetuity is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
Right, so you want low wage earners to starve to death when they can no longer work. Got it. It ain't all about you, dude.
Right, so you want low wage earners to starve to death when they can no longer work. Got it. It ain't all about you, dude.
It IS all about me. It's like when United Airlines tells you to put your own goddamn oxygen mask on first before helping others. I need to secure my own financial future first before helping anyone.
I can't afford to feed every irresponsible Tom, Dick and Harry. Sorry.
You're more than welcome to cut them a check out of your own pocket though.
Eventually all of them. Need proof? Just go back in time to 100+ years ago when the federal government was a fraction of the size it is today...and we did just fine. More people working in the private sector = economic growth...if all else is equal.
Keep in mind that in 1920, 30 percent of Americans lived on farms as opposed to about 2% today. Industrial jobs were mostly menial, with little automation, and lots of injuries and deaths. Government was also less complicated then, since no one cared if an industry dumped toxic chemicals in waterways, or poured thousands of tones of pollution into the air. I do not want to return to those days.
Keep in mind that in 1920, 30 percent of Americans lived on farms as opposed to about 2% today. Industrial jobs were mostly menial, with little automation, and lots of injuries and deaths. Government was also less complicated then, since no one cared if an industry dumped toxic chemicals in waterways, or poured thousands of tones of pollution into the air. I do not want to return to those days.
It's about how there was less involvement by our Federal government and not about technology.
Of course they cared. We didn't have the knowledge that we have now. And New York City started getting cleaned up in 1895. No problem when government is protecting rights like this.
Around 2019, one could purchase a tax medallion in order to be a cabbie, for just ~135k. 2013 it got to 1 million. That's a problem imo.
Keep in mind that in 1920, 30 percent of Americans lived on farms as opposed to about 2% today. Industrial jobs were mostly menial, with little automation, and lots of injuries and deaths. Government was also less complicated then, since no one cared if an industry dumped toxic chemicals in waterways, or poured thousands of tones of pollution into the air. I do not want to return to those days.
We are $30T in debt due to overbloated government. Is that what you want?
Very few of America's Superfund toxic sites have been cleaned up, so what did the $30T do for dumped toxic chemical clean-up?
The fed will raise interest rates by some small amount, & it will have a short term effect, that the media will hype, and then inflation will re-start, & we'll be Billions moe in debt dueto higher interest on our natonal debt.
If Putin invades Ukraine, energy price will skyrocket and inflation will soar into hyper-drive.
The Fed has raised interest rates many times before without anybody else having to do anything else, and the sky has not fallen. Why should this time be any different?
Our debt is much bigger now. That is what is different.
We are $30T in debt due to overbloated government. Is that what you want?
Very few of America's Superfund toxic sites have been cleaned up, so what did the $30T do for dumped toxic chemical clean-up?
The fed will raise interest rates by some small amount, & it will have a short term effect, that the media will hype, and then inflation will re-start, & we'll be Billions moe in debt dueto higher interest on our natonal debt.
If Putin invades Ukraine, energy price will skyrocket and inflation will soar into hyper-drive.
I assume that will happen. Putin wants to bring back all the countries that made up the USSR. Putin is smart and Russia is 10% of the world oil production. They will cash in on that. We have too much debt. Both by private individuals and the government. I think this will be a big mess for us. Its our governments and individuals fault. I am totally debt free. Let interest rates go to 20%. I will make money on that. And my debt free house will go up in value. Here is to hyper drive inflation!
5% rates in 2018 hit the brakes on the mortgage market.
60% of all mortgages today are at a rate below 3.75%. If mortgage rates return to 5%, you will see very few existing homes for sale for a long time to come as people will have a huge disincentive to abandon those sub 4% rates. There are people in rates under 3%. Who would ever move unless for a huge raise or because you are about forced to do so by life circumstances such as divorce.
5% would completely jam up the housing market, especially given the terrible housing affordability as it is based merely on prices. Raise rates along with those high home prices, and the housing market is going to shut down temporarily. Like, until rates fall again.
If we cut Fed spending by 70%, as that one poster suggested, how many jobs would that necessarily eliminate? How many of those eliminated jobs could reasonably be absorbed by the private sector?
In the short term there would be severe pain, but the fact is tax spending does not grow the economy. The private sector is the only thing that grows the economy. The more money government spends, the more it sucks out of the productive economy. Shrink government and you will more than make up for it on the private side. Much more.
This is Econ 101. Government does not create wealth. Amazon, Walmart, McDontalds, and Tesla do. The more money government steals from the private sector, the more disproportionatly worse GDP is.
Please don't mistake deficit spending for growth. Of course if you go from $6 trillion in national debt in 2000 to $30 trillion national debt in 2022, you are going to add a few government jobs here ant there. That is not growth. That is disaster. That debt will bite you hard in the rear sooner or later. Look at Japan.
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.
2013 it got to 1 million. That's a problem imo.
