PDA

View Full Version : What is the Limit?



road kill
05-14-2012, 08:28 AM
With the sharp divide between spending and cutting back and the growing deficit/debt, I have a question.

How much deficit/debt is too much?
When do we finally have to say STOP!!

Is there ever a point when we stop, or do we just continue until we are China west??

BonMallari
05-14-2012, 08:43 AM
its a lot like the water shortage in many states, as long as people turn the spigot and water comes out they will never believe there is a shortage of water

well the debt is the same way, they will keep providing services and funding stupid programs and keep thinking they can raise the money thru taxation...the term "fair share" is so overused..there is no such thing as "fair", life is not fair

Buzz
05-14-2012, 09:18 AM
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that austerity now could be self defeating regarding future deficits?

LokiMeister
05-14-2012, 10:05 AM
With the sharp divide between spending and cutting back and the growing deficit/debt, I have a question.

How much deficit/debt is too much?
When do we finally have to say STOP!!

Is there ever a point when we stop, or do we just continue until we are China west??

Stop increasing our debt? Why would we do that? Economist John Maynard Keynes convinced FDR that running a deficit was good for the economy. I don't he envisioned these types of deficits and debts though.

With all due respect, this question I asked in high school 20 some years ago. I didn't get an answer then either.

Marvin S
05-14-2012, 10:12 AM
Is it beyond the realm of possibility that austerity now could be self defeating regarding future deficits?

We as citizens will never know unless there is a sincere effort made to eliminate the deficits. I see many inefficiencies in my daily travels, were they eliminated there would be tremendous savings.

Too many departments exist though they have lost sight of their original mission which BTW was not accomplished. Eliminate them along with a 20% headcount cut, where would the budget sit then. Not a superficial cut, but a real serious cut.

paul young
05-14-2012, 11:18 AM
We as citizens will never know unless there is a sincere effort made to eliminate the deficits. I see many inefficiencies in my daily travels, were they eliminated there would be tremendous savings.

Too many departments exist though they have lost sight of their original mission which BTW was not accomplished. Eliminate them along with a 20% headcount cut, where would the budget sit then. Not a superficial cut, but a real serious cut.

which is all fine and dandy until it is your ox being gored.

that would really improve the unemployment situation...... and boost sales.....and stimulate economic growth......and increase tax revenue.....etc.

the knee bone's connected to the thighbone regards.-Paul

paul young
05-14-2012, 11:26 AM
With the sharp divide between spending and cutting back and the growing deficit/debt, I have a question.

How much deficit/debt is too much?
When do we finally have to say STOP!!

Is there ever a point when we stop, or do we just continue until we are China west??

i'm sure there is. i'm equally sure i don't know where that point lies.

i guess it depends on what people are willing to give up.

i would think it would vary household to household based on how well off they are now.-Paul

Gerry Clinchy
05-14-2012, 11:54 AM
which is all fine and dandy until it is your ox being gored.

that would really improve the unemployment situation...... and boost sales.....and stimulate economic growth......and increase tax revenue.....etc.

the knee bone's connected to the thighbone regards.-Paul
Would it be cheaper to pay those employees eliminated their unemployment for 99 wks ... instead of paying full wages for doing things we don't need to be done? (and accumulating more pension benefits; and paying for their health insurance).

Why can't we ask people on unemployment to do some of the stuff we really need done? Like picking up trash in parks & such? I was on unemployment once, and I would not have felt the least bit demeaned by taking one day out of a week to do some public service function that really needed doing & didn't have sufficient funding to do.

And, Nancy Pelosi says that unemployment payments are good for the economy, since the people have $ to buy things. Presumably, she doesn't make a distinction between them having a paying job making them able to buy more things?

And we'd need less tax revenue if the expenses were less? And if the change in trend were permanent, not temporary, then the private sector might be able to plan ahead for adding real jobs?

I saw an article that mentioned, since the private sector shed a lot of jobs, and those companies continued to produce & even increased profit somewhat, it could mean that those jobs they shed are gone forever; un-needed. What if we found out the same thing about govt jobs? Suppose the govt still continued to function with far fewer employees?

Govt jobs do not create new wealth ... govt only then siphons off a portion of wealth (created in the private sector) to provide services that would be uniquely best done by govt. Yet, even that notion on some services is being challenged when we compare to the USPS v. Fed Ex or UPS. And, as Newt Gingrich suggested, Am Ex or MasterCard might do a better job than govt at tracking illegal aliens. And IBM might have a better way of curtailing Medicare/Medicaid fraud?

Franco
05-14-2012, 12:03 PM
With Bernake and the Fed Reserve approving on Friday that China can now expand its banking in the USA, why worry about deficits? Old Chin saying (maybe Confusious), "Owe banks a little money you can't pay back, you are in trouble. Owe banks lots of money you can't pay back, bank is in trouble";-)

Afterall, does is really matter which country owns Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon?

Marvin S
05-14-2012, 08:57 PM
which is all fine and dandy until it is your ox being gored.

that would really improve the unemployment situation...... and boost sales.....and stimulate economic growth......and increase tax revenue.....etc.

the knee bone's connected to the thighbone regards.-Paul

Obviously your cognitive skills are diminished - so this may be above you - but for those with a logical mindset :).

When I was a young man my desire was to continue as a farmer, land was available, but financing for equipment was not. It would have taken $15K. Today where there was a 7 HS school conference there are 2 HS which share a Supt & pool students for sports teams. That means a lot of people are no longer there, probably partially due to government policy.

I left a position in the mining industry where I was slated for bigger & better things promorionally. I saw it as a dying industry & there was little potential for someone to individually control a mining property. I chose to leave, start a business outside my career field that anyone could run & work for wages.

In the late 60's the government cancelled a contract, Boeing employment went from over 100K to around 30K in 3 years. No concern by the government & those of us involved survived & prospered ;-). Things again slowed down in the early 80's, there were serious layoffs, those people found other employment - of course most had skills or settled for less than their previous salary.

The DotCom bust had many talented people unemployed around 2000 - they survived, used their wits & prospered.

So please tell me - what's so special about a bunch of government employees providing a useless product that makes them unemployably adverse???????

paul young
05-15-2012, 12:01 PM
Everything you write is above me, Marvin. in fact, everything you write is above everyone else on this sub-forum. The breadth of your knowledge is simply astounding. you have done all and done it better than anyone else. You are THE leading authority on all matters concerning training, trialing and judging retrievers, politics at all levels and anything else that might be discussed here or anywhere else.

In short, you are the Topper to end all Toppers.-Paul

Marvin S
05-15-2012, 12:35 PM
Everything you write is above me, Marvin. in fact, everything you write is above everyone else on this sub-forum. The breadth of your knowledge is simply astounding. you have done all and done it better than anyone else. You are THE leading authority on all matters concerning training, trialing and judging retrievers, politics at all levels and anything else that might be discussed here or anywhere else.

In short, you are the Topper to end all Toppers.-Paul

Paul - YOU made a comment based on what backup info? Gerry asked you a question which you failed to respond to, & I provided some examples of the real world & also asked a question.

Now you retort with a personal shot (for you) which leaves one wondering if what I said is not true - you have zero cognitive skills :-P, if it's not on your union's talking points letter.

So put up or shut up - are government employees special IYM?? Real people suffer through career changes all the time, it upgrades their outlook on life :).

menmon
05-15-2012, 01:31 PM
Obviously you are not students of history!

Japan bought and paid for us and we bought it all back for cents on the dollar.

A republican named Nixon put us deep in debt and we paid it back with cheap dollars.

Why was it ok for the last guy to run deficits and a massive large debt but if this guy does he is evil?

duckheads
05-15-2012, 02:37 PM
Obviously you are not students of history!

Japan bought and paid for us and we bought it all back for cents on the dollar.

A republican named Nixon put us deep in debt and we paid it back with cheap dollars.

Why was it ok for the last guy to run deficits and a massive large debt but if this guy does he is evil?

Hey McFly, What don't you understand about the majority of the Bush supporters on here did not like that George was not fiscally conservative. I believe this has been stated many times. So now you have been reminded again.

Of coarse the current president makes GW look like an amateur in the spending department!!!!!

paul young
05-15-2012, 02:53 PM
Obviously your cognitive skills are diminished - so this may be above you - but for those with a logical mindset :).

When I was a young man my desire was to continue as a farmer, land was available, but financing for equipment was not. It would have taken $15K. Today where there was a 7 HS school conference there are 2 HS which share a Supt & pool students for sports teams. That means a lot of people are no longer there, probably partially due to government policy.

I left a position in the mining industry where I was slated for bigger & better things promorionally. I saw it as a dying industry & there was little potential for someone to individually control a mining property. I chose to leave, start a business outside my career field that anyone could run & work for wages.

In the late 60's the government cancelled a contract, Boeing employment went from over 100K to around 30K in 3 years. No concern by the government & those of us involved survived & prospered ;-). Things again slowed down in the early 80's, there were serious layoffs, those people found other employment - of course most had skills or settled for less than their previous salary.

The DotCom bust had many talented people unemployed around 2000 - they survived, used their wits & prospered.

So please tell me - what's so special about a bunch of government employees providing a useless product that makes them unemployably adverse???????


I should know better than wrestle in the mud, BUT .......

-FIRST POINT; you start off by insulting me. VERY Marvin-ish.

-SECOND POINT; How is it anyone's else's fault that you failed to secure financing for your dream?

-THIRD POINT; People move all the time. it sounds like the local government made the right call to close some schools and save the taxpayers some money.

-FOURTH POINT; Again, you made a personal decision to switch careers. From your own posts on here, you seem to have done well. I don't see my involvement (or anyone else's, for that matter). You thought it was a dead end job and moved on.

-FIFTH POINT; Boeing has a lot of company. it has happened all over America. it happened here, at E.B., in the nineties. Some hung on and were eventually re-hired, some left the area and went to work in other yards or different industries, and some, like myself were re-trained and re-educated and moved into design and engineering within the company. Boeing is not unique in this. In fact they had headhunters come to the area to try to lure designers like myself who were fluent in CATIA to come to work for them in the late 90's and early years of this century. A few went.

SIXTH POINT; Sure,they did. They went to work for companies like Apple and Facebook who weathered the storm and prospered further.

SEVENTH POINT; I never said they were special. I pointed out that with unemployment above 8%, it may not be in the country's best interest to put hundreds of thousands more on the unemployment payroll. Especially in an arbitrary and capricious manner, such as you suggest (".....20% headcount cut".....). they will not spend nearly as much on goods and services on unemployment pay, which certainly will not help fuel any kind of economic recovery. They will still get medical care whether they can pay for it or not. The hospital emergency rooms can not turn them away. Their children will qualify for special programs administered by the State and Local government. They will certainly owe less to the government at tax time. perhaps even nothing. they may qualify for food stamps, as well.

Gerry, I think it would be likely to be a wash as far as overall cost to the Government, as long as they are unemployed, which at present is likely to be long term. They would be paid less in wages, but the other costs will close much of that gap.

Marvin, feel free to insult my cognitive skills further. I'LL JUST CONSIDER THE SOURCE AND MOVE ON.....-Paul

Gerry Clinchy
05-15-2012, 05:12 PM
Gerry, I think it would be likely to be a wash as far as overall cost to the Government, as long as they are unemployed, which at present is likely to be long term. They would be paid less in wages, but the other costs will close much of that gap.

Over the long haul, I think the savings in benefits would be quite a bit more substantial than temporary cost of unemployment benefits.

If the employees shed are not trainable for some other occupation, then that could be a poor reflection of the quality of those employees.

If the private sector could adapt to using fewer people to produce more, then govt should do so as well.

An increase in govt jobs does not create more wealth ... since they are paid for with the wealth from the private sector. Sooner or later, govt runs out of OPM.

Marvin S
05-15-2012, 05:29 PM
SEVENTH POINT; I never said they were special. I pointed out that with unemployment above 8%, it may not be in the country's best interest to put hundreds of thousands more on the unemployment payroll. Especially in an arbitrary and capricious manner, such as you suggest (".....20% headcount cut".....). they will not spend nearly as much on goods and services on unemployment pay, which certainly will not help fuel any kind of economic recovery. They will still get medical care whether they can pay for it or not. The hospital emergency rooms can not turn them away. Their children will qualify for special programs administered by the State and Local government. They will certainly owe less to the government at tax time. perhaps even nothing. they may qualify for food stamps, as well.

Gerry, I think it would be likely to be a wash as far as overall cost to the Government, as long as they are unemployed, which at present is likely to be long term. They would be paid less in wages, but the other costs will close much of that gap.



The private sector puts large groups of employees on the sidewalk at any given time - it seems to work & they go on to something more productive. the only exception seems to be the mortgage fiasco, government caused, where folks are having a hard time recuperating. Possibly through their own fault for not recognizing what was happening was not sustainable. I believe the guy from Countrywide should be wearing stripes for a long time, but doubt if he will be prosecuted. The AG's office is too busy doing things for political gain.

As to what they will qualify for - I believe there should be some sort of safety net. You insinsuate that placing them there would be a wash. Does it not strike you that benefits may be too generous in that case? For the folks with no medical - possibly a government funded clinic - I believe it presumptious of the government to dictate who receives unfunded care of any quality without picking up the tab :eek:.