BEST argument I've ever heard from a left winger!

[DontBeStupid]

That means there is no measure to what you must accomplish in said job, no motivation to produce. If that job paid anything then there would suddenly be ZERO reason to go work at a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Janitorial jobs or a million other low wage jobs. The government job would be better and also have the upside of not having to actually work.

False assumption there. You are assuming that because someone works for the government they have no incentive to work hard or produce. This assumes all workers are inherently lazy, which they aren't, and that all workers will freely jeopardize being fired, which they won't. Some might, sure, but to assume ALL will behave this way is not backed by reality.

This causes a vicious cycle as all non government jobs would need to raise the pay to keep anyone causing the prices of all goods to increase again causing the government jobs wages to be to little to accomplish anything forcing them to increase the pay further forcing the private sector to....

It is a circle eventually causing zero production in a society where everyone is employed by the government and no one actually does anything. You cannot employ 100% of the population and you cannot eliminate poverty.

This would happen with 0% unemployment, yes, but as I already said, that was not my target nor should be our target, because of the problems you just mentioned. At 6%, there are still people looking and it allows for mobility between jobs so yes, someone could leave McD's to go work for the Fed, but then there are still people looking for work who would then go to McD's to fill that open spot. I don't see there being any upward pressure on wages in this scenario.

There is merit to TEMPORARY government employment in times of bad economic stress but the problem is in these modern times there is no temporary about it. We just keep INCREASING. At some point the government becomes to bloated to increase anything.

Agreed. Sadly, the former president missed his opportunity to downsize the government during a time of economic growth. That sucks, but we have what we have now and have to work with what we have now. When unemployment is under 6%, I will be the first person here on these boards talking about shrinking the government and balancing the budget. But that is not today.

 

[Ernie S.]

How 'bout the RW lets some jobs bills pass an sthu with the fearmongering? That would work too...

As soon as we see a logical "jobs bill" we'll get right on that. However, I've seen no logical proposals from the President, so I don't hold out much hope.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok. So a friend of mine is a bit of a leftie. And we all met today to do our NFL fantasy football roundup. And of course, after that and pizza, politics came up. And he is a staunch Obama supporter. He said of course the Tea Party was evil, blamed Bush for the mess we're in, then offered one whopper of an idea. Wanna hear it?

He said if only the right wing would get out of the way, Obama could fix the country and have 0% unemployment. Thats right. ZERO % unemployment. How, I asked? He says....

"The government can do two things: Hire people, and print money. There is so much that needs to be done, the government can just hire everyone who is unemployed, give them a role, and print the money to pay them. There would be no unemployment and no poverty. Of course, the Tea Party would vote to block it because for some reason they like people struggling."



How could I not have thought of that myself??????????

Of course. Just hire everyone, and print the money to pay them. No more poverty, no more unemployment!!!!!!

Left wingers, you are so brilliant

Don't you just love the old rightwing trick, invent a make-believe liberal who's stupid, and then try to make a point off it?

It never gets old.

 

[DontBeStupid]

How 'bout the RW lets some jobs bills pass an sthu with the fearmongering? That would work too...

As soon as we see a logical "jobs bill" we'll get right on that. However, I've seen no logical proposals from the President, so I don't hold out much hope.

The House can't propose their own bills any more?

 

[flacaltenn]

Since every dollar paid would be borrowed that adds at 35% to the estimate.

Why? When interest rates for borrowing are currently 2% for 10 years?

Let's stop right there for now before you pull a groin muscle.. That's 2% per YEAR compounded (maybe) interest. Probably amounts to 25% of face value of the bond at term.

And the Treasury doesn't just issue 10 yr bonds, it offers a mix to please investors and spread the debt. So you have to average the 20yr and 30yr rates as well. So my 35% "financing cost" wasn't far off. Especially when you consider that a program like this would drive investor confidence into the ground and rates would go back up..

And BTW -- the 9.1% unemployment rate doesn't include those who have given up on the job market. That does drive the rate up to 12 or 14% (haven't checked this month). That makes sense if you realize that most middle class families HAD 2 wage earners and now are trying to survive with just ONE and a lot of those are no longer in the 9.1% figure... Look up the FULL unemployment indices.. I won't do it for you...

Failure to realize these basics is why my leftist buds constantly get their asses handed to them on public forums like these. I hate to see it.. I really do.. I'd rather have CHALLENGING, MEANINGFUL arguments with fully informed political rivals. But my only conclusion is that Slate, Salon and Dem Underground are doing a much shittier job of preparing their hordes for battle than Fox News.. It's 252 on my cable service -- perhaps you should spend just 6% of your time listening to "alternative politics".. I do... I can tell you every topic that Rachael Maddow covered this week...

 

[Bfgrn]

apples and oranges.

'apples' is talking about simple printing more money, and using said newly printed money to pay the salary of everyone currently out of work, once the government gives them a job. With nothing to back that newly printed money up, it is worthless and hyper inflation will be th result, totally negating any possible positive result.

'oranges' is talking about a WPA type program that provides some jobs for some segment of the population, and is paid for in some fashion.

I am very skeptical the OP was honestly portraying what that 'liberal' said. The printing money part is the most suspect.

Conservatives have done a good job framing the issues. First, they created a debt crisis that doesn't exist, so what the economy REALLY needs is painted as impossible.

Our national debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

Don't hurt yourself with those nifty graphics.. First one only shows debt "HELD BY THE PUBLIC". Only about 1/2 the debt today is "held by the public"..

And the Second chart can't discriminate between New Deal spending and WW2 spending so it's virtually useless..

So what was your point????

The debt held by the public is the proper construct. EVERY reputable economist uses it.

Even conservative economists...

The U.S. blends two kinds of debt, and some economists say that makes little sense. Moreover, we don't even have a good way of paying back one of those types of debt. More on that later.

The first type of debt is what the government owes to outside bondholders: individuals, pension funds, other groups and foreign governments. The second type is a sizable amount of intra-governmental debt, or obligations of the Treasury Department to various trust funds — basically what we owe ourselves.

Alex Brill, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research center in Washington, said that counting external and internal debt together didn't make economic sense and blurred the real fiscal situation the U.S. faces.

"Not all of the debt is the same, and it doesn't all matter the same," Brill said. "What really matters is debt held by the public."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can view GDP growth on a yearly basis.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

 

[FA_Q2]

That means there is no measure to what you must accomplish in said job, no motivation to produce. If that job paid anything then there would suddenly be ZERO reason to go work at a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Janitorial jobs or a million other low wage jobs. The government job would be better and also have the upside of not having to actually work.

False assumption there. You are assuming that because someone works for the government they have no incentive to work hard or produce. This assumes all workers are inherently lazy, which they aren't, and that all workers will freely jeopardize being fired, which they won't. Some might, sure, but to assume ALL will behave this way is not backed by reality.

Just referring to the OP and the idea that a job is a right. Workers ARE inherently lazy WITHOUT incentive and that is a fact. My premise is based on the 100% employment and that requires that even those that do not work will have a job. If there is no reward for producing then the people will go to the lowest common denominator. I know that I would and I consider myself a hard worker. If I was paid the same as a guy sleeping on the job even if I produced then I would sleep to so I can spend my waking hours with my family instead of working my ass off for zero extra pay. I have seen this happen in many situations before, even in the workplace I have now. The ONLY thing that keeps people producing is that fact that, at some point, you can get promoted, days off or some other reward for being the go to guy. Even then, because the carrot is farther out than most jobs and laziness is tolerated to a degree (because I am in a government position) more people do not produce than do.

This causes a vicious cycle as all non government jobs would need to raise the pay to keep anyone causing the prices of all goods to increase again causing the government jobs wages to be to little to accomplish anything forcing them to increase the pay further forcing the private sector to....

It is a circle eventually causing zero production in a society where everyone is employed by the government and no one actually does anything. You cannot employ 100% of the population and you cannot eliminate poverty.

This would happen with 0% unemployment, yes, but as I already said, that was not my target nor should be our target, because of the problems you just mentioned. At 6%, there are still people looking and it allows for mobility between jobs so yes, someone could leave McD's to go work for the Fed, but then there are still people looking for work who would then go to McD's to fill that open spot. I don't see there being any upward pressure on wages in this scenario.

Again, I was not speaking of all government jobs, just the OP's premise. If you are talking about government employment then I agree as my last point showed. I disagree with using that in the current situation and I'll get that later in my post

There is merit to TEMPORARY government employment in times of bad economic stress but the problem is in these modern times there is no temporary about it. We just keep INCREASING. At some point the government becomes to bloated to increase anything.

Agreed. Sadly, the former president missed his opportunity to downsize the government during a time of economic growth. That sucks, but we have what we have now and have to work with what we have now. When unemployment is under 6%, I will be the first person here on these boards talking about shrinking the government and balancing the budget. But that is not today.

I disagree. The former president did not miss the opportunity. The greater number of presidents in the last CENTURY missed those opportunities. Where you and me will diverge is the belief that we have already grown out of proportion and adding yet more government employment will not help because there is already far too much of it. By hiring now you are effectively borrowing off future success. At some point the government is so big that immediate future successes do not cover what you need now. What we need is to let the economy readjust because we have been propping it up for so long. Each bubble burst and expansion that has followed it has gotten so bad because the economy has never been allowed to actually readjust. Not only that but we have always increased spending and never cut back causing an over reliance on governmental sector jobs. Finally, I can't support increased spending to create jobs anymore because I know that once the economy has realigned that spending will not decrease. That means the model is doomed to failure because no one is willing to actually use it. It requires that the recession lasts LONGER but does not go as deep.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am very skeptical the OP was honestly portraying what that 'liberal' said. The printing money part is the most suspect.

Conservatives have done a good job framing the issues. First, they created a debt crisis that doesn't exist, so what the economy REALLY needs is painted as impossible.

Our national debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

Don't hurt yourself with those nifty graphics.. First one only shows debt "HELD BY THE PUBLIC". Only about 1/2 the debt today is "held by the public"..

And the Second chart can't discriminate between New Deal spending and WW2 spending so it's virtually useless..

So what was your point????

The debt held by the public is the proper construct. EVERY reputable economist uses it.

Even conservative economists...

The U.S. blends two kinds of debt, and some economists say that makes little sense. Moreover, we don't even have a good way of paying back one of those types of debt. More on that later.

The first type of debt is what the government owes to outside bondholders: individuals, pension funds, other groups and foreign governments. The second type is a sizable amount of intra-governmental debt, or obligations of the Treasury Department to various trust funds &#8212; basically what we owe ourselves.

Alex Brill, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research center in Washington, said that counting external and internal debt together didn't make economic sense and blurred the real fiscal situation the U.S. faces.

"Not all of the debt is the same, and it doesn't all matter the same," Brill said. "What really matters is debt held by the public."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can view GDP growth on a yearly basis.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

The hand-waving about who holds debt doesn't interest me. Your graphic is ignoring that in Truman's day -- most US DEBT WAS held publically. Today you're leaving 1/2 of it out because the document came out of the Obama Whitehouse and their clever army of accounting nimrods left out ALL THE DEBT held by foreigners.

It's not hard to post a 50% gain in GDP in a year or two after a major recession.. Especially when you couch it as "percent change from previous period".. It's a math trick used all the time to impress the chicks.
If the GDP loses 50% it's value at the min dip than it takes 100% "growth" to get back to normal.

Gee, the stock market recovered 75% between 2008 low and Jan 2010.. What a dynamo of a recovery eh???

 

[FA_Q2]

I am very skeptical the OP was honestly portraying what that 'liberal' said. The printing money part is the most suspect.

Conservatives have done a good job framing the issues. First, they created a debt crisis that doesn't exist, so what the economy REALLY needs is painted as impossible.

Our national debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

Don't hurt yourself with those nifty graphics.. First one only shows debt "HELD BY THE PUBLIC". Only about 1/2 the debt today is "held by the public"..

And the Second chart can't discriminate between New Deal spending and WW2 spending so it's virtually useless..

So what was your point????

The debt held by the public is the proper construct. EVERY reputable economist uses it.

Even conservative economists...

The U.S. blends two kinds of debt, and some economists say that makes little sense. Moreover, we don't even have a good way of paying back one of those types of debt. More on that later.

The first type of debt is what the government owes to outside bondholders: individuals, pension funds, other groups and foreign governments. The second type is a sizable amount of intra-governmental debt, or obligations of the Treasury Department to various trust funds — basically what we owe ourselves.

Alex Brill, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research center in Washington, said that counting external and internal debt together didn't make economic sense and blurred the real fiscal situation the U.S. faces.

"Not all of the debt is the same, and it doesn't all matter the same," Brill said. "What really matters is debt held by the public."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can view GDP growth on a yearly basis.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

Again, as you failed to address this point the first time I brought it up, most of that growth in FDR's third term (all the big ones) was directly related to the war. NOT because of the expenditures involved but because the loss of life and subsequent job openings that it brought. We took thousands of people out of their jobs leaving vacancies to be filled, paid those solders and then killed them. Sure, killing a couple of million off so that the rest of us can have jobs would work but it is hardly humane.

 

[OODA_Loop]

No, but the government can put people to work through programs like the WPA. We bailed out the banks who destroyed our economy and caused the job crisis we're in. At least WORK programs create and build things that benefit everyone.

The men and women of the WPA era wanted to work at hard labor with pride if it meant providing for their families.

 

[Rozman]

Ok. So a friend of mine is a bit of a leftie. And we all met today to do our NFL fantasy football roundup. And of course, after that and pizza, politics came up. And he is a staunch Obama supporter. He said of course the Tea Party was evil, blamed Bush for the mess we're in, then offered one whopper of an idea. Wanna hear it?

He said if only the right wing would get out of the way, Obama could fix the country and have 0% unemployment. Thats right. ZERO % unemployment. How, I asked? He says....

"The government can do two things: Hire people, and print money. There is so much that needs to be done, the government can just hire everyone who is unemployed, give them a role, and print the money to pay them. There would be no unemployment and no poverty. Of course, the Tea Party would vote to block it because for some reason they like people struggling."



How could I not have thought of that myself??????????

Of course. Just hire everyone, and print the money to pay them. No more poverty, no more unemployment!!!!!!

Left wingers, you are so brilliant

The scary thing is there are a lot of them out there that believe this and they again will vote for Obama....

 

[Sundial]

A couple of points.

1. Interest rates on government debt are currently lower than inflation. What that means is that people are paying the government to borrow (rather than charging, which is how it usually works). If inflation is 3% and interest is 2%, the real interest rate is - 1%, meaning that the debt will eventually disappear, without making any payments.

2. The idea that government spending causes inflation is seemingly logical, but the historical evidence is weak or even contradictory.

(The red line is government spending, the green line is inflation.)

Most recently - if you look at the red spike near the end - government spending went up 20%+, while inflation went negative.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Let's stop right there for now before you pull a groin muscle.. That's 2% per YEAR compounded (maybe) interest. Probably amounts to 25% of face value of the bond at term.

No. It's not. Treasuries are paid out along the way and do not compound. Also, there are short term ones as well. All the way down to 1 year which have a much lower interest rate than 2%. I think 2% and 10 years is a good middle ground number to use. In that case, it would be 20% total.

And BTW -- the 9.1% unemployment rate doesn't include those who have given up on the job market. That does drive the rate up to 12 or 14% (haven't checked this month).

Yes, but you're also assuming they all want to work and would work if a job presented itself. We don't know that for certain which is why we use the 9.1% as that reflects the number who are looking and want to work.

Failure to realize these basics is why my leftist buds constantly get their asses handed to them on public forums like these. I hate to see it.. I really do.. I'd rather have CHALLENGING, MEANINGFUL arguments with fully informed political rivals. But my only conclusion is that Slate, Salon and Dem Underground are doing a much shittier job of preparing their hordes for battle than Fox News.. It's 252 on my cable service -- perhaps you should spend just 6% of your time listening to "alternative politics".. I do... I can tell you every topic that Rachael Maddow covered this week...

But yet you didn't know how bonds were paid out and you still haven't shown how you took my $111.1B number and ended with "a couple $Trill".

I'm not saying I'm perfect and I know everything, but in this thread, I'm the only person who put forth an idea and backed it up with math and real world information. If you truly want a challenging argument, I would suggest you do the same as I did. Put forth an idea, backed with facts, and lets see what you got.

 

[Ernie S.]

How 'bout the RW lets some jobs bills pass an sthu with the fearmongering? That would work too...

As soon as we see a logical "jobs bill" we'll get right on that. However, I've seen no logical proposals from the President, so I don't hold out much hope.

The House can't propose their own bills any more?

Aren't we all waiting with baited breath for obama's secret plan?
I see little point in the House passing a jobs plan of their own. Reid will bury it, and if by some stroke of luck it does get through the Senate, the boy king will veto it. With only the House, the GOP at best, can keep bad crap from passing or making it more palatable before it reaches the President.
Where is the PLAN? Why not release it before Congress returns? Will it not survive a week or 2 of scrutiny?
Or will we have to pass it before we find out what's in it?

 

[FA_Q2]

Most recently - if you look at the red spike near the end - government spending went up 20%+, while inflation went negative.

As an accounting trick. Actual inflation has SKYROCKETED. Only because of weak hosing has the government been able to cover this fact up. Your necessities have increased dramatically in prices while the government speaks of flat inflation rates. That is bogus and anyone making a trip to the grocery store knows damn well that inflation is not flat or negative.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Since every dollar paid would be borrowed that adds at 35% to the estimate.

Why? When interest rates for borrowing are currently 2% for 10 years?

Let's stop right there for now before you pull a groin muscle.. That's 2% per YEAR compounded (maybe) interest. Probably amounts to 25% of face value of the bond at term.

And the Treasury doesn't just issue 10 yr bonds, it offers a mix to please investors and spread the debt. So you have to average the 20yr and 30yr rates as well. So my 35% "financing cost" wasn't far off. Especially when you consider that a program like this would drive investor confidence into the ground and rates would go back up..

And BTW -- the 9.1% unemployment rate doesn't include those who have given up on the job market. That does drive the rate up to 12 or 14% (haven't checked this month). That makes sense if you realize that most middle class families HAD 2 wage earners and now are trying to survive with just ONE and a lot of those are no longer in the 9.1% figure... Look up the FULL unemployment indices.. I won't do it for you...

Failure to realize these basics is why my leftist buds constantly get their asses handed to them on public forums like these. I hate to see it.. I really do.. I'd rather have CHALLENGING, MEANINGFUL arguments with fully informed political rivals. But my only conclusion is that Slate, Salon and Dem Underground are doing a much shittier job of preparing their hordes for battle than Fox News.. It's 252 on my cable service -- perhaps you should spend just 6% of your time listening to "alternative politics".. I do... I can tell you every topic that Rachael Maddow covered this week...

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study

Every time, every study, Fox News viewers are the most misinformed, thanks for sharing.

 

[TheSharpCulture]

All of it is impossible.

The government hire EVERY unemployed American? 35 million people?

The government print enough money to pay them all 25-30K a year?

Neither are possible. Well, in liberal lala-land, I suppose it's technically possible. But WTF?

Which is it? Possible or not possible?

And there aren't 35 million people out of work. The work force is about 150 million, of which 9.1 % are unemployed, so that's 13.65 million.

Here; maybe this will help;
preksmarties .com/preschooldirectory/index.htm

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

How 'bout the RW lets some jobs bills pass an sthu with the fearmongering? That would work too...

As soon as we see a logical "jobs bill" we'll get right on that. However, I've seen no logical proposals from the President, so I don't hold out much hope.

Considering the ridiculousjob the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the bought off corporate media do, I'm not surprised you're clueless..

31 Bills Republicans Have Blocked in 2010
That was a good start. Yet, despite the marked improvement, Republicans continued to block dozens of job creation, business and economic development, and consumer ...
www.dailykos.com/.../27/914048/-31-Bills...Blocked-in-2010-
Small Business Jobs Bill BLOCKED By GOP
WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the last best hope of Democrats to pass legislation aimed at creating jobs before the November elections seemed to be crumbling in ...
Small Business Jobs Bill BLOCKED By GOP
Tax, jobs bill blocked in Senate
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic bill to extend jobless benefits and raise taxes on investment fund managers failed a key vote in the Senate on Thursday ...
www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/18/us-congress-tax...
GOP Stops Democratic Job Bills
With the clock winding down for Democrats’ control of Congress, many of them are trying to jam through bills at the last minute. But Republicans won’t stand for ...
www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/jobs-bills-republicans-block/...
Jobs Bill Blocked in U.S. Senate Amid Complaints Over Cost
Senator Max Baucus is expected to present a less expensive plan to substitute the blocked jobs bill.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-16/job...blocked-in-u-s...

 

[Avorysuds]

Left wingers, you are so brilliant

Just out of curiosity, which part are you claiming is impossible for us to do? Or, are you trying to say this plan is possible, you just don't like it?

Hey ReallyFuckingStupid, tell us your idea of hiring 1 million + people to build railroads and windmills.

Come on man, do it for us!

I love ideas that a 8 year old could think of, I really do… It’s even more fun trying to tell them why it won’t work and would if anything make things a lot worse, as they just struggle to understand.

 

[Charles_Main]

Left wingers, you are so brilliant

Just out of curiosity, which part are you claiming is impossible for us to do? Or, are you trying to say this plan is possible, you just don't like it?

It's Not Impossible. We clearly could Hire all the Unemployed and print money to pay them. The point is that kind of Printing money would have sever negative Effects on our Economy. Further Erode our Credit rating. In short it's Possible but it would devastate our Economy.