|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 22, 2011 17:30:48 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 23, 2011 4:58:31 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? I don't believe that anyone has proposed cutting government jobs as a way to grow the economy. They have cut jobs because local and state governments are so close to bankruptcy that they can no longer afford to pay their employees. Unlike the Federal Government, which can theoretically print money if they need more, local governments face more-or-less the same budget constraints that businesses and families face. They are over-extended as respects their current, reduced, income levels -- and they have no way to increase their income. Their only option is to reduce their expenses. Just like you and me, if you can't afford it then you have to cut back. It's not an economic policy; it's an economic fact of life. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 23, 2011 6:57:51 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? I don't believe that anyone has proposed cutting government jobs as a way to grow the economy. They have cut jobs because local and state governments are so close to bankruptcy that they can no longer afford to pay their employees. Unlike the Federal Government, which can theoretically print money if they need more, local governments face more-or-less the same budget constraints that businesses and families face. They are over-extended as respects their current, reduced, income levels -- and they have no way to increase their income. Their only option is to reduce their expenses. Just like you and me, if you can't afford it then you have to cut back. It's not an economic policy; it's an economic fact of life. Yoda out... . Ah, but Yoda, the clamor is for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to reign in spending and there is lots of support for that among the conservatives. (Most of whom are Republicans.) It is so convenient for the Republicans that they can call for these cuts now that Unemployment Insurance claims have found a new low level of about 390,000 claims a week. That appears to be the new normal in a strong service sector society. You can work for six months for In&Out Burger, take a multi month paid break and then work for Carl's Burger for six months and then take a multi month paid break and then work for Mikki Dees. The young people know how to milk the system, and they do it very well. Sort of like these Fafsa Grants (Spelling?) and Pell Grants have created professional students who get grants every semester to attend Junior College. There are kids who are in their sixth year of Junior College who still can not read, but they are getting paid by the Government to go to school. (Let's hear it for America. We have some of the best educated idiots in the world, and they still can not read.) There is no oversight or supervision of the program. Just free money for stupid people who can have somebody fill out the form for them. Well, at least it is not welfare. I say cut the program now but do not cut jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 23, 2011 7:35:32 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? Places that are doing the worst will be the places most likely to have to cut jobs. So they have their cause and effect switched. When the local economy is great, government jobs will be increased significantly. So when does government get reigned in? "Never" is the sad answer. Wealth is not created by having a government hire people. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 23, 2011 12:13:44 GMT -8
Common sense seems to be in short supply! It defies even beginning to explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 23, 2011 17:39:16 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? Places that are doing the worst will be the places most likely to have to cut jobs. So they have their cause and effect switched. When the local economy is great, government jobs will be increased significantly. So when does government get reigned in? "Never" is the sad answer. Wealth is not created by having a government hire people. "Wealth is not created by having a government hire people." Prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 23, 2011 17:51:03 GMT -8
Cut jobs during a recession and your economy gets worse. According to the Brookings institution localities loosing government jobs lost economically as well. money.cnn.com/2011/06/22/news/economy/government_jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4But the Republicans don't care about the economy, or they would not call to reduce demand when demand is already stunted. Republicans care about no taxes and Republicans care about regaining power. The only other explanation is that they are stupid. Guess which I believe? I don't believe that anyone has proposed cutting government jobs as a way to grow the economy. They have cut jobs because local and state governments are so close to bankruptcy that they can no longer afford to pay their employees. Unlike the Federal Government, which can theoretically print money if they need more, local governments face more-or-less the same budget constraints that businesses and families face. They are over-extended as respects their current, reduced, income levels -- and they have no way to increase their income. Their only option is to reduce their expenses. Just like you and me, if you can't afford it then you have to cut back. It's not an economic policy; it's an economic fact of life. Yoda out... . "Their only option is to reduce their expenses." That is the only option, huh, smart guy? And I guess the logical extension of your logic, Bulldog, is that you get a downward spiral that screws everyone. Right? Families also try to find new income sources, do they not? When they cannot afford things, do they not take action to increase their income? Why do you ignore increasing income? Or, is the thought of raising income only useful in other universes? Raising a tax never caused a recession. Only cutting expenses and jobs does that. You cannot cut your way out of a recession. It does not work. A high school sophomore can intuit that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 0:29:39 GMT -8
Places that are doing the worst will be the places most likely to have to cut jobs. So they have their cause and effect switched. When the local economy is great, government jobs will be increased significantly. So when does government get reigned in? "Never" is the sad answer. Wealth is not created by having a government hire people. "Wealth is not created by having a government hire people." Prove it. OK. If the government collects NO taxes of any kind, how much money would it have to spend? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 24, 2011 4:38:59 GMT -8
...Their only option is to reduce their expenses. Yoda out... . That is the only option, huh, smart guy? And I guess the logical extension of your logic, Bulldog, is that you get a downward spiral that screws everyone. Right? Families also try to find new income sources, do they not? When they cannot afford things, do they not take action to increase their income? Why do you ignore increasing income? Or, is the thought of raising income only useful in other universes? Raising a tax never caused a recession. Only cutting expenses and jobs does that. You cannot cut your way out of a recession. It does not work. A high school sophomore can intuit that. I'm not quite sure where the animosity is coming from. I've agreed with you as much as I've disagreed with you around these parts. Keep in mind that the article is about municipal governments and their ability to raise taxes is quite limited. And even if it were not, I think you underestimate the severity of the situation that we face. Meredith Whitney, who specializes in muni-bonds, said on CNBC earlier this month that we face the prospect of 50 to 100 municipal bankruptcies, costing this country hundreds of billions of dollars. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43323425; See also: www.cnbc.com/id/43076458) Most analysts think she overestimates the problem but the point is, it's bad. And you can't solve this one by just raising taxes. I didn't forget about the possibility of raising taxes; that's kind of a no-brainer. However, at the local level, taxes are as high as the electorate will allow. And more importantly, for many munis, bondholders won't buy any more debt without charging rates that the munis can't afford to pay. The fat has already been cut from the budgets. We are down to cutting meat and bone. We're already in "a downward spiral that screws everyone". And, as an aside, turning to high school sophomores for economic advice is probably a bad idea. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 24, 2011 5:40:22 GMT -8
For Municipalities and States, INCOME must equal EXPENSES. When you do not have the income to meet the expenses you either do not incur the expense or you issue bonds to cover the expense with the reasoning that the city will grow and the next generation will be able to pay the bonds off.
Sadly most cities have bond issuances up the ying yang and cannot issue any more as they know they can not pay for them. Now they have a choice. Either they can cut expenses (employees especially) or they can default on their existing bonds. Tain't a pretty picture either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 24, 2011 15:32:09 GMT -8
That is the only option, huh, smart guy? And I guess the logical extension of your logic, Bulldog, is that you get a downward spiral that screws everyone. Right? Families also try to find new income sources, do they not? When they cannot afford things, do they not take action to increase their income? Why do you ignore increasing income? Or, is the thought of raising income only useful in other universes? Raising a tax never caused a recession. Only cutting expenses and jobs does that. You cannot cut your way out of a recession. It does not work. A high school sophomore can intuit that. I'm not quite sure where the animosity is coming from. I've agreed with you as much as I've disagreed with you around these parts. Keep in mind that the article is about municipal governments and their ability to raise taxes is quite limited. And even if it were not, I think you underestimate the severity of the situation that we face. Meredith Whitney, who specializes in muni-bonds, said on CNBC earlier this month that we face the prospect of 50 to 100 municipal bankruptcies, costing this country hundreds of billions of dollars. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43323425; See also: www.cnbc.com/id/43076458) Most analysts think she overestimates the problem but the point is, it's bad. And you can't solve this one by just raising taxes. I didn't forget about the possibility of raising taxes; that's kind of a no-brainer. However, at the local level, taxes are as high as the electorate will allow. And more importantly, for many munis, bondholders won't buy any more debt without charging rates that the munis can't afford to pay. The fat has already been cut from the budgets. We are down to cutting meat and bone. We're already in "a downward spiral that screws everyone". And, as an aside, turning to high school sophomores for economic advice is probably a bad idea. Yoda out... . I can remember recently defending you on another forum. I do not find myself in agreement with you that often. But, getting back to the point; you didn't mention the "no-brainer" in your post. Without mention of increased revenue any deficit talk is too one sided and unrealistic. The single minded intransigence of Republicans and their refusal to acknowledge a logical argument irritates me occasionally. The downside result of reduced spending is clear. It exacerbates economic difficulties. Any discussion of fiscal responsibility with out mentioning income is facetious. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 24, 2011 15:39:23 GMT -8
"Wealth is not created by having a government hire people." Prove it. OK. If the government collects NO taxes of any kind, how much money would it have to spend? I'll bet you had a peak experience writing that. But, your pithy comment does not answer the question, nor does it prove AztecBill's assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 24, 2011 15:50:22 GMT -8
Once again, common sense seems to be in short supply! It defies even beginning to explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 24, 2011 17:08:50 GMT -8
We are in a very serious situation, a situation that is very grim and headed rapidly on the road to desperation. The immediate problem is that the economy is extremely weak and shows no signs of improving any time soon.
Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable.
The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 24, 2011 21:13:34 GMT -8
We are in a very serious situation, a situation that is very grim and headed rapidly on the road to desperation. The immediate problem is that the economy is extremely weak and shows no signs of improving any time soon. Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable. The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing. AzWm "The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing." In 1999 we had a budget surplus. In 2001 Bush cut the tax rates. Later Bush started a war that Robert Gates said was poorly justified just last Sunday. Get out of the war let the tax rates go back to what they were in 1999, which was already historically low by any standard and PRESTO!!! most of the problem disappears. Dire, my rear! Come on! Come on! |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 24, 2011 21:15:42 GMT -8
Once again, common sense seems to be in short supply! It defies even beginning to explain. But you do not specify, clarify or refute what you insist makes no sense. Blathering about common sense does not make your case. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 25, 2011 3:27:46 GMT -8
In 1999 we had a budget surplus. In 2001 Bush cut the tax rates. Later Bush started a war that Robert Gates said was poorly justified just last Sunday. Get out of the war let the tax rates go back to what they were in 1999, which was already historically low by any standard and PRESTO!!! most of the problem disappears. Dire, my rear! Again, you are providing an answer as to what to do about the federal budget issue when the thread and the article that the first post referenced were concerned with local budget issues. Ending a war or increasing incremental federal income tax rates won't solve massive shortfalls at the city or county government level. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 25, 2011 7:06:52 GMT -8
In 1999 we had a budget surplus. In 2001 Bush cut the tax rates. Later Bush started a war that Robert Gates said was poorly justified just last Sunday. Get out of the war let the tax rates go back to what they were in 1999, which was already historically low by any standard and PRESTO!!! most of the problem disappears. Dire, my rear! Again, you are providing an answer as to what to do about the federal budget issue when the thread and the article that the first post referenced were concerned with local budget issues. Ending a war or increasing incremental federal income tax rates won't solve massive shortfalls at the city or county government level. Yoda out... . I responded to this, if you will go back and look: "Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable.
The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing."
I think I responded with a sufficient understanding of the meaning of that post don't you think? I started the thread. I know what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk the larger effect of job losses on an economy-any economy, not just the localities in the article. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2011 9:37:29 GMT -8
Again, you are providing an answer as to what to do about the federal budget issue when the thread and the article that the first post referenced were concerned with local budget issues. Ending a war or increasing incremental federal income tax rates won't solve massive shortfalls at the city or county government level. Yoda out... . I responded to this, if you will go back and look: "Beyond that, the mounting national debt, which is unbelievably large compared with what it was just a few years ago, is a very nasty land mine waiting for us just down the road. If it is not reduced soon it will cause half or more of Federal outlays to go just to service our indebtedness. That is just not sustainable.
The only way you can reduce the debt is to spend less each year than what you bring in by way of taxation. You can either raise tax rates to ruinous levels or cut spending drastically. There is no painless remedy in this case. Whatever is done will hurt. The one thing we can't do is nothing."
I think I responded with a sufficient understanding of the meaning of that post don't you think? I started the thread. I know what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk the larger effect of job losses on an economy-any economy, not just the localities in the article. No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 25, 2011 11:01:39 GMT -8
No, what you did is jump on an opportunity to wrongly blame Bush for the inability of Congress to spend within the limits of it's resources. We tax too much and tax the wrong things. We could fix our tax code and cut way back on spending to the point we had a modest surplus without breaking a sweat. It's not that easy. So much of our budget is now dedicated to debt servicing, that cutbacks require a sweat. That's not to say that they are not doable, just that they require a sweat. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Dems don't recapture the tax argument by arguing for a 10% across the board tax cut -- together with the elimination of special treatment for capital gains. Hey, the Republicans want tax cuts and they want to close loopholes -- that does both. How could they argue? Yoda out... |
|
