Keep in mind, this is fiscal policy that influences the economy, it cannot drive the economy ( unless you are talking about a communist or socialist economy).

The US Treasury with the 111th congress and POTUS backing it, have already tried to use Gov spending as a means to drive the economy with the Pave America Beautify program. The congress and POTUS were more worried about passing the Health Care Law, than working on the economy, to actually develop economic policy for growth, it was a side show to them. Now they want to use the blame game for the topic of the economy.

That was $ 780 B, and what was the long term economic benefit of that project ?
It temporarily took unemployed union workers off the bench, and put them to work earning the state minimum ( IL case I think is 10K ) to restart unemployment benefits.
My opinion, those workers had already used up the benefits, and all this did was restart the clock for them and depending on the state unemployment rate have the Fed Govt pumping in additional money that was collected from ? That's right a loan from China.

The US is not a communist or socialist structure, and gov spending cannot carry the economy like China is doing.
Given China has a ton of cash reserves to make up the short fall of 8% yr/yr growth in the economy for quite a while ( heck they have enough to make an entire year of 8% growth if the private sector comes to a stand still ).

The only way to get job creation going it to remove the burden on small and medium business. This is where job creation comes from. This is not an individual tax item, it is a business tax item.

The budget agreement as it stands is a blank check, per major spending category. The House wanted the full plan spelled out in advance to raise the debit ceiling, the best the Senate would offer is to cap the spending in major areas.
This means Defense as a whole has a spending cap, but the individual items within that spending category are to be decided at a later date by committee. the fed govt won't shut down, but there can be the same pissing match over how much money goes to the UN ( not part of OCO ) for Libya vs how much goes to the VA for medical care & pension payments.
The same thing repeats for each major cost center, so you can have multiple little stalemates vs 1 large 1.
Expect to see this making headlines in 2012, come election time.
I can see it now "Republicans want to shut off Medicare payments to health providers..... "

 

You are aware there are other kinds of taxes besides personal income taxes, right?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...Increases1.pdf


You want to see more jobs? Repeal Obamacare.

Just curious, are you a teacher?

 

He's a logger - just up from Coos Bay, Oregon. Been toppin' trees - quite possibly the toughest man in the entire world.

Key word in that snippet is coos 'cause that what pigeons do when their "holed".

 

Where's the facepalm smiley when you need it?

 

Oh Frank - didn't I acknowledge it was a "cheap shot"? If you love her, that's fine, I just don't share your opinion.

One viewpoint that seems extreme to me is supporting a position that would put our Country into default. If this Country cannot pay its debts, then it joins the ranks of "failed states". And, if it's all right for the Country to default on its debts, then it must be fine for all of us individuals to do the same. I believe you said once you are a contractor? Don't you expect to get paid for your services?

There are other views we don't share, among them: Her attitude towards the support of education for our youth, her opposition to the requirement for improved lighting efficiency, her view that climate change is a "hoax", etc. etc.

As I said, YOU may love her - I don't.

- Jack

 

Frank, isn't the US Military a Government funded operation? Isn't it largely responsible for the current debt? Who do you want to see take over that function in the "private sector"? Halliburton?

What would be next on your list Frank? The police? Let's see, rent-a-cops in every city. Sounds exactly what we need.

What other Government jobs would you like to give over to an unregulated private sector?

- Jack

 

Frank needs to speak for himself, but if I remember correctly, he thinks as many of us more conservative folk. We would like to return to a smaller Federal government whose main function is military. interstate activities such as highways, etc instead of a government that intrudes into nearly every phase of our lives. There are hundreds of government agencies out there that their main function is try to justify their purpose and continue their existance. These could be eliminated and save a tremendous amount of taxes.

 

Watch it Frank, he posts stupid stuff, to get the "exact" reply you gave him. You are now a puppet that he controls, it has nothing to do with pointing out the obvious flaw in the post.
Word are used to get an intended reply now days, not like in the old days when they were used to communicate...

Someone finished their degree from the close cover before striking on back school of Psychology.

 

Thats so extreme!

 

I would have to disagree with this.

ARRP ( alone ) was ~ $ 780 B "one time" direct cost ( no accounting on how much clock restarts on unemployment benefits cost the states, and for the states with high enough Unemployment rates, the Fed kicker ).

This is $ 20B less than the time value of money adjusted amount that cost the country to gain it's freedom from England.
or
$ 9B less than the cost of the Iraq war from start to today.
or
$ 110 B less than the Fed and state gov paid for Education for FY2010.

The cost of all wars since 2001 as of today is ~ $ 1.3T, Oddly enough almost exact amount of deficit spending in FY2010 alone.
or
~ $ 250B more than the Fed and state gov paid for Health Care for FY2010.

The cost ( monetary alone, not accounting for costs that cannot have a value attached to them ) of the wars is not the sole source of the deficit, there is other spending going on that make the wars ( taken as OCO ) look like the 6th or 7th largest line item spending per FY.

Given the wars should be over, the country cannot afford them, and it is time, pull back and use the money for protection at home - for those treats that are now going to come up for leaving the country in the state it is in ( if you take the analysis that is done on exiting now )
It is not working, then again I think Russia proved that point some time ago...

 

Steve, you know I appreciate your opinion, but do the figures you quote for "wars" include ALL costs? I somehow can't see the cost of the Defense Department (procurement, training, R&D, O&M, fighting, logistics, salaries, medical care, retirement, etc.) as being that low. Not when a single fighter plane costs in the billions. I don't even want to think what an aircraft carrier costs.

And Jim, I appreciate your comment too. Trust me, there are many places I want to see the Government out of our "business". I don't think you have to be a "conservative" to feel this way.

But, Frank seems to always put his arguments in binary form. It also seems to be the approach followed by the Tea Party. And, I submit our human society is much more nuanced and complex than that. There are no easy answers! Anyone who claims to have the easy answer is selling snake oil, that unfortunately, gullible people will eagerly buy as a cure for everything.

- Jack

 

Jack,

The war costs are monetary costs for the wars specifically, as in OCO ( which I do not think includes the UN action in Libya ).

This is not taking into account the items that are part of the Defense budget as normal course of operations ( i.e. peace time military ), nor the VA specific items like operating the hospitals, medical care, etc.

EDIT
Just got a chance to look, CVN-77 cost ~ 5B ( numbers range from 4.6B to 6.2 B ).

The project was approved in 1998, funded for 345 M in FY98 to start building parts for it, in FY00 695 M of it was paid for, ( and if the total of 4.6B is correct ) in FY2002, 4.5B is due. CVN-77 was scheduled to be completed in 2008, so from 2002 to 2008, there were no additional costs ( again if the 4.6B number is correct ).

The new Ford class, CVN-78 is estimated to cost $ 9B, which out of the 872B FY10 budget is ~ 1.2% or in terms of the cost of all wars since 2001, ~ 0.85%

 

As usual, you go from one extreme to the other. No one is saying abolish the police!

The military only makes up 17% of the total federal budget. Keep in mind that in 2011, our military force/Navy/Air Force/Corp is less than half the size it was in 1990.

Medicare, medicaid, and SS makes up 52%. The democrats know that that is their cash cow and for political reasons (their political base/offending their voters that are addicted to taxpayer handouts), they won't touch it.

No serious discussion can be made about cutting spending without considering ALL of these programs. Americans should be given the option of opting out of SS and being paid back the money that has been taken from them under the threat of imprisonment.

Police should be funded exclusively by the states/local governments. Obviously this does not include the FBI, CIA, etc. Federal funds are well spent on these programs and their covert intelligence gathering operations.

 

Things aren't always what they seem. That's the problem with the left. They believe they are at another intelligence level and they are the only ones that understand "human society."

 

This is correct, to a point. One thing you have to remember is the majority of employees in America are at or nearing retirement age. This is no different in the federal government. Many employees will be retired within the next 5 years. These people are at the highest end of the pay scale. Even if all of these people were replaced on a one for one basis, the personnel cost will go down. If leadership uses a little common sense and wisdom the workforce can be cut, without harming the economy. If the government goes out and cuts the same way private industry does then yes the economy will be harmed. Going about things that was is not necessary.

My wife works for the government in an industry that has been battered recently. Her job is one of the required positions for her agency, so the odds of her being cut is low, unless government is restructured. To make things worse I can count about 8 agencies that do very similar jobs as hers. If this were the private sector those 8 agencies wold be rolled into one. Since there are so many senior people looking to retire in the near future, now is a good time to cut those jobs and restructure. It won't happen though, because the agencies don't want to be rolled up and face the possibility of losing people and they believe they have to be specialized. The fallacy is that private sector easily uses and manages 10-15 different programs to provide products for people. Even if all of the agencies were rolled into one it would still be well within the capabilities of employees to be considered a subject matter expert on each of the programs.