Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Conservatives don't want to believe this, but if the government fires people that means more people unemployed.
Hard to believe, I know.
No, that actually means in the long run that more people are employed in real jobs. Putting more parasites on the payroll does not help anyone who produces something of value make a living.
How long is "in the long run" ?
Or we could raise revenue, right? I mean, that is an option. Even if you guys don't like it, we could "take the hit" by raising revenue.
With a weak economy and a weak job market, there is simply no logical reason to cut government spending at this time. And no one seems to want to provide one.
Wait 5 years. Get the economy growing. Get the job market booming again. THEN we can cut spending and lay off workers and they'll actually have some place to go.
Government is always too big until somebody tries to cut something. Then it's EXCEPT for Social Security, EXCEPT for Medicare, EXCEPT for defense...
I am for cutting defense, though.
Well great. Now it's official.
You're an ass hole.
Why, because I state a simple fact? I know imbeciles like you want to cast any criticism of teachers as beyond the pale. Sorry, but only hacks and toadies accept that characterization. Unionized government teachers are essentially thugs who hold our children for ransom to extort cash from us.
Government school teachers know with absolute certainty that if parents had the option of spending their money elsewhere, they would be out of a job.
That's why they lobby so hard to defeat any voucher initiative. That makes them parasites. Their services are not wanted. We pay for them at gunpoint.
The fact is that people vote overwhelming to support public education because it does work. People like you are the minority - a tiny, itsy bitsy insignificant minority. You pay taxes at gunpoint because otherwise freeloaders like you wouldn't pay at all.
You complain, but the truth is you enjoy the advantages and privileges of being an American. You just don't want to have to pay your share.
Let's start with a simple formula-
GDP = C + I + G (+ or - Net Exports)
C= Consumption (normally the largest component of GDP)
I= Investment or Savings
G= Government spending
If we cut G (Government spending) we are going to have lower GDP, obviously. But is that going to cost jobs? Probably. But it doesn't matter. Obama's and Krugman's idea of "new jobs" is to create more Government jobs. The problem is Government jobs are non-productive. Government already consumes about 44 percent of GDP. This means the average American worker has to produce enough goods and services to support himselfand the overpaid, non-productive government worker.
First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.
Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.
Third, Krugman is a proven moron.
Third, Krugman has a Nobel Prize.
With a weak economy and a weak job market, there is simply no logical reason to cut government spending at this time. And no one seems to want to provide one.
Wait 5 years. Get the economy growing. Get the job market booming again. THEN we can cut spending and lay off workers and they'll actually have some place to go.
Government school teachers most definitely are parasites. They don't teach our children. They keep them ignorant and they indoctrinate them with leftist propaganda. People who provide a service you aren't willing to pay for are not productive. They are leaches.
The bureaucrats who rule us are also parasites. The department of Education does nothing I would pay for voluntarily.
It's "leech," not "leach". Leach is a verb.
No income tax at all and have instead a single flat national sales tax of about 16% except on food... That way all of the those working off the books would have to contribute as well. Close tax loopholes and do away with capital gains tax; people should not be punished for what they can earn on their own money.
all personal income.
Otherwise you give the haves an advantage in the tax code.
And if ALL income was condiered the rate may be as low as 10%.
Income tax is not nearly as profitable as a consumption tax would be to our GDP. Imagine being able to do away with the IRS and the myriad and expensive need for enforcement, if we did away with an income tax! As I said a flat national consumption tax would be just and fair as EVERYONE living and doing business in the US would have to pay. There would be no need to have tax shelters- money would stay in the US etc...oh and imagine the special interest lobbies that would disappear from our political landscape!
Your problem is that you think government spending leads to jobs. Currently, government spending tends to kill jobs.
Actually it's closer to 20%. And government doesn't consume GDP, it creates it. And the average government worker creates value not just for himself, but for everyone who benefits from his services - whether they're students, drivers, people who just enjoy living in a free, democratic country.
So, pretty much everything you said was wrong.
Actually it's closer to 20%. And government doesn't consume GDP, it creates it. And the average government worker creates value not just for himself, but for everyone who benefits from his services - whether they're students, drivers, people who just enjoy living in a free, democratic country.
So, pretty much everything you said was wrong.
Is everything you know wrong? The federal government alone consumes 25% of GDP. Throw in state and local government, and you are easily pushing 50%.
The claim the government creates wealth is absolutely hysterical. What "wealth" does the EPA create? Social Security? Medicare? Welfare?
Please, I'm dying to know.
all personal income.
Otherwise you give the haves an advantage in the tax code.
And if ALL income was condiered the rate may be as low as 10%.
Income tax is not nearly as profitable as a consumption tax would be to our GDP. Imagine being able to do away with the IRS and the myriad and expensive need for enforcement, if we did away with an income tax! As I said a flat national consumption tax would be just and fair as EVERYONE living and doing business in the US would have to pay. There would be no need to have tax shelters- money would stay in the US etc...oh and imagine the special interest lobbies that would disappear from our political landscape!
propping the housing market is not a rep virtue nor should it be, this is lasting longer and not shaking out, becasue we are carrying it ala F&F etc.
We are borrowing 3 billion a DAY, so until that is cut AND THEN we reduce outs we have not cut Net to revenue spending, we are just trying to apply a tourniquet. we are caught, if we stop borrowing we cannot fund everything we have OVER committed to, and the debt just keeps going up, if we cut we have to take the hit, and we both know Toro, we are going to have to take the hit NO MATTER what happens...its just now or later and I don't mean a lot later either, like 3-4 years IF that.
Thi$ year, Obama'$ caregiver$ are targeting one billion for hi$ re-$election $campaign.or the 100 million presidential election?
Let's start with a simple formula-
GDP = C + I + G (+ or - Net Exports)
C= Consumption (normally the largest component of GDP)
I= Investment or Savings
G= Government spending
If we cut G (Government spending) we are going to have lower GDP, obviously. But is that going to cost jobs? Probably. But it doesn't matter. Obama's and Krugman's idea of "new jobs" is to create more Government jobs. The problem is Government jobs are non-productive. Government already consumes about 44 percent of GDP. This means the average American worker has to produce enough goods and services to support himselfand the overpaid, non-productive government worker.
Actually it's closer to 20%. And government doesn't consume GDP, it creates it. And the average government worker creates value not just for himself, but for everyone who benefits from his services - whether they're students, drivers, people who just enjoy living in a free, democratic country.
So, pretty much everything you said was wrong.
How does the government create GDP? Keynesian theory treats private sector and public sector spending separately because the private sector spending supports public sector spending. Every dollar the government spends comes from the private sector, the government does not create GDP.
This can be clearly seen if we use the production method to determine GDP, government actually figures in as an expense in this model. If we use GDP(I) government subsidies actually factor in as a negative.
This chart shows yearly changes in government spending for goods and services.
As you can see, the numbers crossed over to the negative at the beginning of the year, and have been declining ever since. According to Krugman, the numbers correspond to slower job growth.
If government spending is necessary to sustain the recovery, is it crazy to pursuing cuts in spending now, while unemployment is still about 9%?
First, the source of your chart isn't clear. Government spending is exploding, so I fail to see how government spending on goods and services could be declining.
Second, the empirical evidence has destroyed the theory that government spending improves the economy several times. Keynesian economics is dead. Only idiots and demagogues continue to espouse it. Which brings us to the third point.
Third, Krugman is a proven moron.
