Every absurd government spending program has its supporters. So lets make this easy and eliminate as much political B.S. as we possibly can. We all can agree that government wastes tons of money. How about a little tough love? Let's force them to be efficient. What the president should do is to demand that every government agency submit a budget that is ten percent lower than the year before. Don't micro manage them. Let them find their own waste and cut it.
Secondly. Ask every greedy congressman to reduce their own budgets by twenty percent. Starting with their own obscene benifit and salary package. The congressional "me first" attitude must end. Lets force them to stop serving themselves and remember who elected them.
Finally challenge congress. Ask them to stop begging for money for their districts and to start cutting spending in their districts.
Comments
Actually, spending cuts are just the opposite of what should be done in the present economy.
QUOTE: "The spending associated with World War II ultimately got us out of the depression. There is nothing magical about spending on war; spending of the same magnitude on road, schools, hospitals or anything else also would have lifted out the economy out of the depression at any point after the initial collapse in 1929-1930.
The problem was the lack of the political will to spend in these areas, whereas there was plenty of political support for fighting the war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. The lesson from this period is that the United States could have gotten out of the Great Depression any time it was prepared to spend the money to do so. - Dean Baker, economist.
Full article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/17/revisiting-the-second-great-depression/
The first thing you do is tell finance to go to hell like Argentina did at the beginning of this decade. The second thing you do is revisit the cure for the Great Depresssion. Massive stimulous. The massive deficit from that didn't break us. It led to a period of unsurpassed prosperity.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
I agree with both of you here. If there is waste then it's not actually doing much good. Cut the waste and create a little more revenue from those that can afford it. By saying those who can afford it I mean where an increase in taxes isn't going to have an impact on their livlihood. Then start spending revenues wisely and in a stimulative manner and all should be good. There should always be plenty to take care of the needs of a nation when greed is somewhat regulated.
Actually, spending cuts are just the opposite of what should be done in the present economy.
QUOTE: "The spending associated with World War II ultimately got us out of the depression. There is nothing magical about spending on war; spending of the same magnitude on road, schools, hospitals or anything else also would have lifted out the economy out of the depression at any point after the initial collapse in 1929-1930.
The problem was the lack of the political will to spend in these areas, whereas there was plenty of political support for fighting the war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. The lesson from this period is that the United States could have gotten out of the Great Depression any time it was prepared to spend the money to do so. - Dean Baker, economist.
Full article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/17/revisiting-the-second-great-depression/
The first thing you do is tell finance to go to hell like Argentina did at the beginning of this decade. The second thing you do is revisit the cure for the Great Depresssion. Massive stimulous. The massive deficit from that didn't break us. It led to a period of unsurpassed prosperity.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Wasting money does no good to the economy. There is plenty of waste. I'm sure it would be easy to come up with ten percent waste. Rather then have government spend the money on waste, why not let us spend it on what we choose?
Actually, spending cuts are just the opposite of what should be done in the present economy.
QUOTE: "The spending associated with World War II ultimately got us out of the depression. There is nothing magical about spending on war; spending of the same magnitude on road, schools, hospitals or anything else also would have lifted out the economy out of the depression at any point after the initial collapse in 1929-1930.
The problem was the lack of the political will to spend in these areas, whereas there was plenty of political support for fighting the war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. The lesson from this period is that the United States could have gotten out of the Great Depression any time it was prepared to spend the money to do so. - Dean Baker, economist.
Full article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/17/revisiting-the-second-great-depression/
The first thing you do is tell finance to go to hell like Argentina did at the beginning of this decade. The second thing you do is revisit the cure for the Great Depresssion. Massive stimulous. The massive deficit from that didn't break us. It led to a period of unsurpassed prosperity.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Wasting money does no good to the economy. There is plenty of waste. I'm sure it would be easy to come up with ten percent waste. Rather then have government spend the money on waste, why not let us spend it on what we choose?
We also need to stop trying to buy the affection of other countries. Pakistan will never love us no matter how much jack we throw at them. Lets stop wasting our money.
Actually, in a recession, 'wasting money' does do some good, since it increases demand.
But, rigel1, when the recession is over, I would be more than happy to listen to your ideas for spending cuts.
Not that you offered any here, of course.
The problem we have before us is not finding waste, it is deciding who to vote for. Do we vote for Republcians who will cut needed programs or Democrats too cowardly to cut defense and the other things that I think should be cut (and mind you, as Thom points out, the Republicans really only want to cut things when they are not in office)?
I say vote for the Democrats because I would rather have too much defense spending than to drive the elderly into poverty again.
Right after we stabilize our fragile economy through tried and true Keynesian policies, we can get to work on those spending cuts by starting with our biggest waster .... the military.
Plenty of waste? I work for the federal gov't and don't see it. We are highly scrutinized. I see plenty of stupid policies but harping on "waste" will get you nowhere. Sure, cut 10% - fire 10% of the gov't workers if it makes you feel good - suck 10% out of the economy and lower the GDP another notch - get rid of another 10% in tax revenues you would have gotten from those workers - go shoot youself in the foot again (if you have any toes left)
As long as there is stuff sitting around and doing nothing, and there are people sitting around doing nothing (usually because they can't find work, not because they are lazy, unless you believe that over the past few years 10 million people all decided separately to become lazy), as long as all this stuff and people are sitting unproductively, cutting gov't spending makes no sense whatsoever. You can argue over how wisely it is spent, how it can best be spent, but we are spending at least some of it on people who are not doing anything while the infrastructure and factories crumble around us. We are giving it to bankers who are doing nothing productive. We are sending it to foreign central banks. We are not spending it on anything productive. This is not economics or fiscal conservatism or any -ism. This is madness.
Plenty of waste? I work for the federal gov't and don't see it. We are highly scrutinized. I see plenty of stupid policies but harping on "waste" will get you nowhere. Sure, cut 10% - fire 10% of the gov't workers if it makes you feel good - suck 10% out of the economy and lower the GDP another notch - get rid of another 10% in tax revenues you would have gotten from those workers - go shoot youself in the foot again (if you have any toes left)
It won't "suck 10%" out of the economy. The money will still be there. Only it will be spent by the people who earned it rather than the people who confiscated it. Speak for yourself. You may enjoy seeing people fired, but not me.
Probably a bankster will have difficulty spending a billion dollar bonus...unless he extracts it from the economy and plows it into financial paper.
I suppose ways could be found to spend it., but after you buy a new multi-million dollar home for every day of the year, what do you do with next year's bonus?
Most probably won't build a 2,000 car garage to store extra autos in.
Governments can simply create and spend money into an economy as long as it spends it on idle productive capacity. No inflation. No debt. However, we have an aversion to taking bankers out of the mix..
If government wants to add a new dollar to the money supply, it first has to borrow the non-existent dollar from a banker. The banker credits the non-existent dollar to the government's account with fractional reserve banking. Government may then print the dollar...and pay the banker for loaning it non-existent money.
It seems to me, that's a pretty big waste. of money. Money doesn't have to be brought into existence that way.. The last Pres. to simply spend it into existence was Abe Lincoln. That worked just fine until British banksters saw the threat to banking should such an idea spread....and heavily counterfeited U.S. currency.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Right after we stabilize our fragile economy through tried and true Keynesian policies, we can get to work on those spending cuts by starting with our biggest waster .... the military.
Agreed. Ten percent from them. Same as everybody else.
Do you know that Zimbabwe Ben has declared that he will maintain ZIRP through the end of 2014? That's eleven quarters.
I think a policy we could implement immediately is a refundable tax credit for hotel stays. That would get upper middle-class people to travel around the country and spend.
Plenty of waste? I work for the federal gov't and don't see it. We are highly scrutinized. I see plenty of stupid policies but harping on "waste" will get you nowhere. Sure, cut 10% - fire 10% of the gov't workers if it makes you feel good - suck 10% out of the economy and lower the GDP another notch - get rid of another 10% in tax revenues you would have gotten from those workers - go shoot youself in the foot again (if you have any toes left)
It won't "suck 10%" out of the economy. The money will still be there. Only it will be spent by the people who earned it rather than the people who confiscated it. Speak for yourself. You may enjoy seeing people fired, but not me.
You misunderstand where the money comes from. If the govt doesn't borrow a dollar to spend, when we're below full employment gdp producation levels, that dollar doesn't come at the cost of someone else. The dollar is lent to us at close to zero %. The person with that money is frantic to find a safe investment. So, if the govt weren't spending that dollar, it would be idle wealth, producing nothing, not even interest. And would likely be at higher risk in a nearly insolvent banking system.
Until the economy has enough demand for money, represented by higher interest rates, we won't be growing fast enough to meaningfully change the unemployment situation. If we follow the advice of the rigels, and ignore the lessons of Greece, the UK, and Ireland, and have massive layoffs and cut back 10% of our govt spending, then we too will watch a further contraction of the economy. Just like the US did after the 1937 austerity measures under FDR.
Yeah, what Phadreus said. If the gov't is running a 'deficit' then they are putting more money into the system than they are taking out. That is what a gov't deficit is, by definition. (Conversely, if they are running a surplus, they are taking more out than they are putting in.) So the hypothetical 10% cut will reduce the amount of money in circulation by 10%, which would be a serious drag on the economy. As long as we are not at full employment, then new money in the system should be met with increased productivity, so that there is something for that money to buy, which means it would not be inflationary.
I think that the point is not to cut 10% and "save" it but to move that 10 % to somewhere that gets more value for the money such as infrastructure spending. I agree that the government must spend in order to keep the economy flowing or it becomes a stagnant pool. Cut 10 % from military spending and spend that money on schools or roads or even food stamps. Food stamps equal cash in the hands of the local grocery which in turn ends up in the hands or workers and creates jobs. Compare that to building a thousand bombs.
As long as we are not at full employment, then new money in the system should be met with increased productivity, so that there is something for that money to buy, which means it would not be inflationary.
"Should" being the operative word.
Increased productivity, producing what? Real estate commissions selling properties to foreigners? Buses and bus drivers shuttling them to view said properties?
Yes, this is true, the money could be spent uselessly, like on bombs that get used up when they are used. Or it could be spent on things that last for decades and increase productivity in the private sector, like infrastructure and education. I believe it was Keynes who said that you could hire someone to dig a hole and someone else to fill it up, but that was not his recommendation. It was his suggestion if you didn't know how to spend it. I think everyone has an idea how to spend it. Otherwise, there would not be so many earmarks in legislation.
The absolute worse way to put money into the economy is to put it to use speculating and driving up prices, such as the banks did with the real estate sector, or what is planned to do with all that Social Security money that the investment banks are salivating over, so they can drive up stock prices. This is not productive. It is destructive.
There are trillions of dollars of genuine needs - fixing potholes, bridges, damns and dykes, upgrading ports and rail systems, replacing school buildings, laying fibre optics, researching renewable energy, insulating and weatherizing buildings, replacing inefficient lighting systems on every street, rebuilding factories and replacing outdated equipment, etc, etc, etc. And there are 20 million people who either can't find a job or cannot find adequate work. The only thing keeping us from matching these things up, our needs and people with no work, is the space between our ears. It does not take money out of your pocket for the gov't to get unemployed or underemployed people to work on these things. They just say, "Please do this and we will enter digits into your bank account."
From Above: There are trillions of dollars of genuine needs - fixing potholes, bridges, damns and dykes, upgrading ports and rail systems, replacing school buildings, laying fibre optics, researching renewable energy, insulating and weatherizing buildings, replacing inefficient lighting systems on every street, rebuilding factories and replacing outdated equipment, etc, etc, etc. And there are 20 million people who either can't find a job or cannot find adequate work. The only thing keeping us from matching these things up, our needs and people with no work, is the space between our ears. It does not take money out of your pocket for the gov't to get unemployed or underemployed people to work on these things. They just say, "Please do this and we will enter digits into your bank account."
poly replies: It really is that simple. It utilizes idle produtive capacity. Government can simply spend the money into existence to do that... credit the accounts. It needn't borrow a penny.
When productive capacity is idle, the national government doesn't even have to raise the money from taxes to utilize it. It can simply spend the money into existence to utilize idle capacity... People can't seem to wrap their heads around that. Ideological blinders (beliefs about how things have to be done) get in the way of seeing it.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Agreed. rigel, you posted this and got a lot of intelligent replies. Are you willing to learn, or do you only come here to post crap? While we are not here to educate the ignorant and provide therapy for cons, we do welcome anyone willing to learn. I am disappointed in your continual posting of Rightwing memes without any apparent willingness to learn where they are clearly wrong. In this case, learning the difference between an investment that pays off and pissing our money away on war and the stupid idea that the rich will spend it back to us is the point. While it may offend your sense of 'fairness,' the dole happened because it served the interest of those governments that wanted to stay in power and needed to have "the economy" include those who had been left out. Progressives recommend getting work we need done for the money instead of just paying people to dig and fill holes or sit on their butts, but "the redistribution of wealth" is an essential aspect of any successful economy. This means reversing the 'redistribution of wealth upward' that happens because the wealthy rig the system to protect their power and wealth. It also means not believing the lies about "job creators" and nobody ever taxing themselves into prosperity.
Please show some evidence of learning or you will just become another red flag troll.
Rigel.............you need to do what I do and that is read everything you can from these guys and try and learn from them. There are some very smart people around here and you being a GOPimpster Con aren't going to tell these guys anything they already don't know. I get the feeling sometimes that you and several other wingnuts around here think you are smarter than the guys/gals that post here all the time. I know jonesy thinks he is smarter but he is probably the dumbest wingnut troller on this site. I like to follow the many links that are provided and learn from them. I don't have the desire to reply to every post but I do read almost every post that is made around here. This is by far the best site I've seen for Progressives and I'm pretty sure your kind is welcomed as long as you don't try and eff it up with your right wing propaganda as you certaintly do at times.
Agreed. rigel, you posted this and got a lot of intelligent replies. Are you willing to learn, or do you only come here to post crap?
Please show some evidence of learning or you will just become another red flag troll.
I usually don't tell people what they should think or believe. I express my opinion and folks can take it or leave it. Their choice.
I pose the same question to you. Are you willing to learn or are you locked into the same tired, worn out ideas?
Show me some evidence or learning or you will just become another red flag liberal lemming.
Agreed. rigel, you posted this and got a lot of intelligent replies. Are you willing to learn, or do you only come here to post crap?
Please show some evidence of learning or you will just become another red flag troll.
I usually don't tell people what they should think or believe. I express my opinion and folks can take it or leave it. Their choice.
I pose the same question to you. Are you willing to learn or are you locked into the same tired, worn out ideas?
Show me some evidence or learning or you will just become another red flag liberal lemming.
Rigel.........I think DRC is a pretty good thinker, pretty smart man too like many others around here are. You on the other hand are a troll just trolling. I told you before you can learn a lot by just reading the posts around here which is what you need to do.
Agreed. rigel, you posted this and got a lot of intelligent replies. Are you willing to learn, or do you only come here to post crap?
Please show some evidence of learning or you will just become another red flag troll.
I usually don't tell people what they should think or believe. I express my opinion and folks can take it or leave it. Their choice.
I pose the same question to you. Are you willing to learn or are you locked into the same tired, worn out ideas?
Show me some evidence or learning or you will just become another red flag liberal lemming.
Rigel.........I think DRC is a pretty good thinker, pretty smart man too like many others around here are. You on the other hand are a troll just trolling. I told you before you can learn a lot by just reading the posts around here which is what you need to do.
Nah, not really. I just offer a different opinion and since ya'll can't handle different opinions, you resort to name calling. More than a little childish.
Thanks for the advice though. I will accept yours when you start accepting mine.
Oh, go ahead and be a leader.
You can have any opinion. Your problem is you are generally wrong, actively deny facts, and spend most your time bearing false witness.
Rigel........I think it's fair to say if your opinion was based in fact instead of bullshit you might have a point but even I, the guy with no college degree unless you want to count the one I got from Penn St. for completing my Local 669 apprentinceship years ago can see your posts for what they are and that's trolling. Just about the time I think you might be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel you fall back to the dark side and resort back to your bad habits.
Seriously though......You would be a much wiser man if you did accept some of the knowledge of the majority of the posters around here have. You've got to admit that every time you come to this site you will learn something new unless your mind is closed to learning which mine at 60 isn't. The many links that are provided in posts will get you to thinking about issues in a different light you may not have thought of before. One of the reasons I like this place.
We definitely cannot pay down the debt simply by destroying the rich. If we took every dollar from every millionaire we would still be in debt and spending ourselves into oblivion. What happens when you have siezed all of the wealth from the wealthy and the spending spree continues? Who is going to pay for it when your sugar daddy is broke?
10% sounds like a pretty good start.
If I have to choose between taking anything away from those who do not have enough to live or reducing the rich to the average, I will start with the latter and avoid the former. !0% sounds like a stupid way to help address the problem. Stop repeating bad ideas when others have offered good corrections. You do not seem to want to learn anything. This makes you a pest rather than a conversation partner.
If we took every dollar from every millionaire we would still be in debt
Can you clarify what you mean? Are we taxing 100% on all taxable income of everyone making $1 million, under today's tax laws? Are we changing the tax law to tax behavior not presently taxed, like interest on municipal bonds, are we eliminating deductions for mortgage interest, etc?
Are we taxing 100% of all the assets by everyone worth more than $1 million?
Would we still have a current deficit? Would we still have the national debt? How much would we still be in deficit/debt?
We definitely cannot pay down the debt simply by destroying the rich. If we took every dollar from every millionaire we would still be in debt and spending ourselves into oblivion. What happens when you have siezed all of the wealth from the wealthy and the spending spree continues? Who is going to pay for it when your sugar daddy is broke?
10% sounds like a pretty good start.
What happens when the wealthy have seized all the wealth?
Remember, money is not wealth. It is a call on wealth. Just like the stock is not the company, but a call on it. Wealth is the Earth and what we make of it. And it is limited. The wealthiest people in this country did not make the wealth. They have used the system to confiscate it from the rest of us. That is why Goldman Sachs is different than say, GM. GM makes things. Goldman Sachs steals things. The banking system is taxing us to death, not the gov't.
The debt in this country that is the problem is the personal debt. Gov't 'debt' is not the same. The gov't has been in deficit almost constantly since Andrew Jackson. It is not a problem. When the public sector is in deficit, the private sector (that's you and me, and sometimes China) is in surplus. It is just math. When Clinton brought the gov't into surplus, everybody else started going into debt. All that private spending of this private debt made the economy look good, but it was just a bubble waiting to burst. That was the dot com bubble. (Yeah, I guess I am saying its Clinton's fault.) Everytime the gov't has gone into surplus, the country has gone into depression. Every time. The gov't does not work like your house. It is the source of money. The gov't does not tax and spend. It spends and taxes. It has to spend first before it can tax, otherwise there is no money to tax. It is impossible for the federal gov't to go broke.
We should be taxing the people who do not earn their money, who do not create wealth but claim it nonetheless. That is Wall St. It is not the businesses that have their stocks there. They are being victimized too. It is the 'investment' banking system. They do not invest, they steal.
Planetxan wrote: We should be taxing the people who do not earn their money, who do not create wealth but claim it nonetheless. That is Wall St. It is not the businesses that have their stocks there. They are being victimized too. It is the 'investment' banking system. They do not invest, they steal.
poly replies: As I keep saying, Wall Street and banksters create claims on wealth...claims on things others produce without producing anything themselves.. They are predatory.
As to government debt, people should really stop insisting government function as a business or a household. Government is neither. . National governments can simply create and spend money into existence when required. Households and private firms can't do that. Making government borrow money into existence is rather stupid. It has the Constitutitonal authority to simply create it and spend it into existence when the economy requires it. The Founding Fathers weren't twits..
We've elected to create our entire money supply through borrowing, both government and private. If all the debts were repaid, the entire money supply would disappear into bank vaults. There wouldn't be enough circulating money left to buy a piece of bubble gum.
When money is withdrawn from circulation and thrown into financial paper...someone has to borrow more into existence to replace it. That's an on-going process in our system. Currently, the only one capabe of borrowing to replace it is government. Consumers are broke and business won't borrow without customer demand. Problem: Unless the new money is used to re-generate production of goods and services, even the same money supply of ten years ago will be inflationary,
We're in a catch-22. The money supply is too large for what's actually being produced...and too small to pay for required services such as education. Unless enough "new" money is used to re-generate production of goods and services, even the same money supply of ten years ago will be inflationary. So how do we re-boot? How do we get spendable money into the economy to regenerate the circular flow of goods/service/employment?
Increasing production of green technologies, increasing production to replace rusting water systems beneath our cities, increasing production to, build public transit and repair highways/bridges is one means to do that. Government can either borrow money into existence to do it or simply spend money into existence to do it. In either event it can't borrow more into existence or spend more into existence than the productive capacity of the country can support. Currently, there is a lot of idle capacity including 27 million unemployed/underemployed workers to do the job.
Cuts in spending at this time are really self-defeating. Nearly doubling it is more in line with what's required.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".