What is the private sector?

[Foxfyre]

While I respect your opinion as I do all those, I would tend to disagree, because if those companies that have contracted with the Federal Govt. were to lose those contracts, those employee's are subject to the employers benefits not that Federal Govts. no less than any other "private sector" company.?

I don't think I said anything different. The taxpayer is on the hook for benefits and health coverage for vested civil service employees who leave their jobs or retire from a government job. I made a specific point to say that they are not on the hook for the same benefits for employees of the subcontractor even if the subcontractor works exclusively for the government.

The other thing that comes to mind here too, is that these companies are providing a service that they have been contracted to do no matter what that may be. In the case of those companies that depend on contracts completely , then they would cease to exist. Is this not the market sorting things out

How is what you are saying here in any way different from what I said? My point is, however, that the taxpayer will pay ALL the subcontractors costs for doing business for the govenment if that subcontractor works exclusively for the government. And that is what makes it just another government group though structured a bit differently than civil service jobs and much easier to terminate than are civil service jobs. If the government did not offer the contract, the business would not have existed in the first place. If the government terminates or does not renew the contract, the business ceases to exist.

Again, the business that contracts with government for some of its work but that does not need the government in order to exist is a private sector job. The government is not paying for the infrastructure, equipment, etc. except for whatever the employer needs to include in the contract to cover his expenses for wear and tear etc. And if there is no government work, the employer continues in business in the private sector.

What I tend to think here Fox, is that when those companies that exist just as means to fill Federal contracts ( Military, etc.), that does not seperate them from the "private sector" in that the benefits paid to it's employee's are done so by the company that is fulfilling the contract not by the taxpayer. One other thing to consider here too is that these companies may start out as Federal contractors, and then as means of increasing profits also market to the private sector. I can think of no better example of this than Space X, which was started by the founder of PayPal to fill the gap for the manned spaced flight program and now is selling lauch services to other nations as well as private companies. Lastly, when the contracts for these companies expire or run out, and if they do not win new one's they cease to exist or go on to new ventures, the company and its employee's for the most part are not supported through the taxpayers. I do see your point however.

And I see your point. But we should not try to fool ourselves that as long as that company exists solely to serve the government, the taxpayer IS paying for ALL the infrastructure, all the equipment and supplies, all costs of goods and raw materials, all the insurance, and ALL the wages, employer payroll and unimployment taxes, and health and retirement plans and all the profit associated with that business. To me, that makes it a government job.

The only distinction between that and a government job is the 'private' business has to file a tax return and the government isn't on the hook for the employee retirement and health plans once the contract is terminated. Otherwise, every penny to run that business comes from the taxpayer and thus is taken out of the economy while adding little or nothing to the economy any more than any other government job.

 

[bripat9643]

The US has the best government in the world.

That's like saying you're the least retarded troll on this forum.

It's not much of a complement.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't think I said anything different. The taxpayer is on the hook for benefits and health coverage for vested civil service employees who leave their jobs or retire from a government job. I made a specific point to say that they are not on the hook for the same benefits for employees of the subcontractor even if the subcontractor works exclusively for the government.



How is what you are saying here in any way different from what I said? My point is, however, that the taxpayer will pay ALL the subcontractors costs for doing business for the govenment if that subcontractor works exclusively for the government. And that is what makes it just another government group though structured a bit differently than civil service jobs and much easier to terminate than are civil service jobs. If the government did not offer the contract, the business would not have existed in the first place. If the government terminates or does not renew the contract, the business ceases to exist.

Again, the business that contracts with government for some of its work but that does not need the government in order to exist is a private sector job. The government is not paying for the infrastructure, equipment, etc. except for whatever the employer needs to include in the contract to cover his expenses for wear and tear etc. And if there is no government work, the employer continues in business in the private sector.

What I tend to think here Fox, is that when those companies that exist just as means to fill Federal contracts ( Military, etc.), that does not seperate them from the "private sector" in that the benefits paid to it's employee's are done so by the company that is fulfilling the contract not by the taxpayer. One other thing to consider here too is that these companies may start out as Federal contractors, and then as means of increasing profits also market to the private sector. I can think of no better example of this than Space X, which was started by the founder of PayPal to fill the gap for the manned spaced flight program and now is selling lauch services to other nations as well as private companies. Lastly, when the contracts for these companies expire or run out, and if they do not win new one's they cease to exist or go on to new ventures, the company and its employee's for the most part are not supported through the taxpayers. I do see your point however.

And I see your point. But we should not try to fool ourselves that as long as that company exists solely to serve the government, the taxpayer IS paying for ALL the infrastructure, all the equipment and supplies, all costs of goods and raw materials, all the insurance, and ALL the wages, employer payroll and unimployment taxes, and health and retirement plans and all the profit associated with that business. To me, that makes it a government job.

The only distinction between that and a government job is the 'private' business has to file a tax return and the government isn't on the hook for the employee retirement and health plans once the contract is terminated. Otherwise, every penny to run that business comes from the taxpayer and thus is taken out of the economy while adding little or nothing to the economy any more than any other government job.

You said something very interesting though, to me thats a matter of contract structure, in that what the Govt. buys for example an aircraft should be strictly monitored aand enforced. The infrastructure to build these items if it is part of the contract, fine, but it becomes the property of the US Govt. and as such is taken and sold. You see these sorts of things at least to me are a management issue on the part of the Govt. on how it manages its contracting more so than defining who it buys from. I cited an example of the comanche, one would think after 21 years a light bulb would go off, for that matter `10? I for one am sick and tired of this what I like to call mismangement of the taxpayers dollars which has gone on for so many years its become an institution. However, at least in my mind, those that supply the Govt. are still in the "private sector" and are allowed to get away with what they do only because those they purchase from allow them to do it. It's rather like this, let's say you and I decided to buy a custom computer from Dell, and Dell quoted us a price of 1000.00, we gave them our credit card. Then 3 months later they said, we changed the board we use so it will be an additional 200.00, again we pay them. 3 months later they say we changed the hard drive for 500.00 we pay that. See what I mean? We being the purchasing arm because of our inability to say NO bleed money and the contractor who just keeps adding and changing because they have no limits, just keeps charging. That does not make Dell however any less "private sector" than anyone else, and on a side note Dell is a big supplier of the Federal Govt.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Hard to think of anything that is strictly "private sector"

Anyone who relies on the transportation of any good whatsoever over roads and highways relies partially on government.

Anyone who relies on technology that relies on public funded science - like quantum mechanics - relies on government.


I could go on.

Here's my point Ooh, and it's actually quite simple, when one advocates for letting the "private sector" be the engine that creates jobs in our economy and at the same time say's such things as the Govt. cannot create jobs and the two are somehow seperate , I would disagree with that especially when it comes to such things as Govt. contracting and the small example I used. No one would argue that the Founder of PayPal as well as the Founder of Amazon would be considered "private sector" and yet here they are both in competetion for NASA's new rocket. So it would seem to me that solutions are not always "my way or the highway" as some political figures would have you think.

As for being on the hook, I would suggest that a person who works for a "private contractor" is vested in its system and it's retirement system and while working the taxes they paid while working would suggest othrewise when it comes to unemployment. My point here is these individuals are not vested for the most part in a Federal retirement and healthcare system and I am sure those on Medicaid would argue there's a big difference between the healthcare a retired Federal employee gets and they do.

I agree.

Most of the great things our society has done came from cooperation between the public and private sectors. Take the moon landing. The government led the effort, made the plans, managed it, and provided the astronauts - but it was the private contractors
who built the ship that brought them there.

 

[Navy1960]

Hard to think of anything that is strictly "private sector"

Anyone who relies on the transportation of any good whatsoever over roads and highways relies partially on government.

Anyone who relies on technology that relies on public funded science - like quantum mechanics - relies on government.


I could go on.

Here's my point Ooh, and it's actually quite simple, when one advocates for letting the "private sector" be the engine that creates jobs in our economy and at the same time say's such things as the Govt. cannot create jobs and the two are somehow seperate , I would disagree with that especially when it comes to such things as Govt. contracting and the small example I used. No one would argue that the Founder of PayPal as well as the Founder of Amazon would be considered "private sector" and yet here they are both in competetion for NASA's new rocket. So it would seem to me that solutions are not always "my way or the highway" as some political figures would have you think.

As for being on the hook, I would suggest that a person who works for a "private contractor" is vested in its system and it's retirement system and while working the taxes they paid while working would suggest othrewise when it comes to unemployment. My point here is these individuals are not vested for the most part in a Federal retirement and healthcare system and I am sure those on Medicaid would argue there's a big difference between the healthcare a retired Federal employee gets and they do.

I agree.

Most of the great things our society has done came from cooperation between the public and private sectors. Take the moon landing. The government led the effort, made the plans, managed it, and provided the astronauts - but it was the private contractors
who built the ship that brought them there.

You guys are aging me now, making me think of Rocketdyne, North American, and Douglas, all involved in the Moon program. You know why I am encouraged by the new direction at NASA, it's because NASA has gone back to the model that worked for them instead of what didn't.

 

[rightwinger]

The US has the best government in the world.

That's like saying you're the least retarded troll on this forum.

It's not much of a complement.

If you disagree, you are welcome to identify any government on earth that you prefer to the United States. I doubt if you can

From your posts it is obvious that you are a political misfit who does not fit in anywhere. You sit around and bitch about everything you hate about our government but do nothing to improve it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I tend to think here Fox, is that when those companies that exist just as means to fill Federal contracts ( Military, etc.), that does not seperate them from the "private sector" in that the benefits paid to it's employee's are done so by the company that is fulfilling the contract not by the taxpayer. One other thing to consider here too is that these companies may start out as Federal contractors, and then as means of increasing profits also market to the private sector. I can think of no better example of this than Space X, which was started by the founder of PayPal to fill the gap for the manned spaced flight program and now is selling lauch services to other nations as well as private companies. Lastly, when the contracts for these companies expire or run out, and if they do not win new one's they cease to exist or go on to new ventures, the company and its employee's for the most part are not supported through the taxpayers. I do see your point however.

And I see your point. But we should not try to fool ourselves that as long as that company exists solely to serve the government, the taxpayer IS paying for ALL the infrastructure, all the equipment and supplies, all costs of goods and raw materials, all the insurance, and ALL the wages, employer payroll and unimployment taxes, and health and retirement plans and all the profit associated with that business. To me, that makes it a government job.

The only distinction between that and a government job is the 'private' business has to file a tax return and the government isn't on the hook for the employee retirement and health plans once the contract is terminated. Otherwise, every penny to run that business comes from the taxpayer and thus is taken out of the economy while adding little or nothing to the economy any more than any other government job.

You said something very interesting though, to me thats a matter of contract structure, in that what the Govt. buys for example an aircraft should be strictly monitored aand enforced. The infrastructure to build these items if it is part of the contract, fine, but it becomes the property of the US Govt. and as such is taken and sold. You see these sorts of things at least to me are a management issue on the part of the Govt. on how it manages its contracting more so than defining who it buys from. I cited an example of the comanche, one would think after 21 years a light bulb would go off, for that matter `10? I for one am sick and tired of this what I like to call mismangement of the taxpayers dollars which has gone on for so many years its become an institution. However, at least in my mind, those that supply the Govt. are still in the "private sector" and are allowed to get away with what they do only because those they purchase from allow them to do it. It's rather like this, let's say you and I decided to buy a custom computer from Dell, and Dell quoted us a price of 1000.00, we gave them our credit card. Then 3 months later they said, we changed the board we use so it will be an additional 200.00, again we pay them. 3 months later they say we changed the hard drive for 500.00 we pay that. See what I mean? We being the purchasing arm because of our inability to say NO bleed money and the contractor who just keeps adding and changing because they have no limits, just keeps charging. That does not make Dell however any less "private sector" than anyone else, and on a side note Dell is a big supplier of the Federal Govt.

No, in my original post on this thread I mentioned those multi faceted businesses that bid on and receive government contracts as being different from those companies that exist solely to serve the government. Boeing for instance or Intel and/or many others would be a much smaller version of their current selves if they lost all their government contracts, but they all have substantial truly private sector business that they almost certainly would continue in business without government dollars.

But don't even get me started on government inefficiency and waste. For most of a decade up to the last couple of years in which we have mostly shut down and retired, our small business, among other things, audited financial records of businesses in our area. New Mexico has been made a huge dependent on government contracts so I saw the books kept on a lot of those contracts. It would boggle your mind, make you gnash your teeth, pull your hair out, beat your head on the wall. Some of it is positively insane.

The bottom line is, however, that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy and therefore does little or nothing to help the economy overall. (Some of the offshoot benefits of certain programs such as NASA, however, have definitely been a benefit to the American economy once they work their way into the private sector.)

Every dollar spent by the private sector in the private sector using private sector money adds a dollar to the economy.

That is what our more big-government-supporting friends cannot seem to comprehend. They seem to see all money and all spending as equal. It isn't.

 

[Navy1960]

And I see your point. But we should not try to fool ourselves that as long as that company exists solely to serve the government, the taxpayer IS paying for ALL the infrastructure, all the equipment and supplies, all costs of goods and raw materials, all the insurance, and ALL the wages, employer payroll and unimployment taxes, and health and retirement plans and all the profit associated with that business. To me, that makes it a government job.

The only distinction between that and a government job is the 'private' business has to file a tax return and the government isn't on the hook for the employee retirement and health plans once the contract is terminated. Otherwise, every penny to run that business comes from the taxpayer and thus is taken out of the economy while adding little or nothing to the economy any more than any other government job.

You said something very interesting though, to me thats a matter of contract structure, in that what the Govt. buys for example an aircraft should be strictly monitored aand enforced. The infrastructure to build these items if it is part of the contract, fine, but it becomes the property of the US Govt. and as such is taken and sold. You see these sorts of things at least to me are a management issue on the part of the Govt. on how it manages its contracting more so than defining who it buys from. I cited an example of the comanche, one would think after 21 years a light bulb would go off, for that matter `10? I for one am sick and tired of this what I like to call mismangement of the taxpayers dollars which has gone on for so many years its become an institution. However, at least in my mind, those that supply the Govt. are still in the "private sector" and are allowed to get away with what they do only because those they purchase from allow them to do it. It's rather like this, let's say you and I decided to buy a custom computer from Dell, and Dell quoted us a price of 1000.00, we gave them our credit card. Then 3 months later they said, we changed the board we use so it will be an additional 200.00, again we pay them. 3 months later they say we changed the hard drive for 500.00 we pay that. See what I mean? We being the purchasing arm because of our inability to say NO bleed money and the contractor who just keeps adding and changing because they have no limits, just keeps charging. That does not make Dell however any less "private sector" than anyone else, and on a side note Dell is a big supplier of the Federal Govt.

No, in my original post on this thread I mentioned those multi faceted businesses that bid on and receive government contracts as being different from those companies that exist solely to serve the government. Boeing for instance or Intel and/or many others would be a much smaller version of their current selves if they lost all their government contracts, but they all have substantial truly private sector business that they almost certainly would continue in business without government dollars.

But don't even get me started on government inefficiency and waste. For most of a decade up to the last couple of years in which we have mostly shut down and retired, our small business, among other things, audited financial records of businesses in our area. New Mexico has been made a huge dependent on government contracts so I saw the books kept on a lot of those contracts. It would boggle your mind, make you gnash your teeth, pull your hair out, beat your head on the wall. Some of it is positively insane.

The bottom line is, however, that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy and therefore does little or nothing to help the economy overall. (Some of the offshoot benefits of certain programs such as NASA, however, have definitely been a benefit to the American economy once they work their way into the private sector.)

Every dollar spent by the private sector in the private sector using private sector money adds a dollar to the economy.

That is what our more big-government-supporting friends cannot seem to comprehend. They seem to see all money and all spending as equal. It isn't.

Your going to have to explain that one too me Fox, "that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy". In my humble opinion when a contractor is paid with tax dollars they in turn are not only paying their employers and suppliers, who in turn use that money on any number of things, such as mortagages, car payments, paying for anything from parts for new aircraft both commercial and and military as well as stock holder dividends, it would seem to me that is putting money back into the economy. In fact if a person lets say works for Boeing Phantomworks and buys his kids a new laptop from Dell from money he or she earned while working on a project for the USAF, is that not taking taxpayer dollars and putting back into the economy more so the private sector? On a side note, I would add projects that the Govt. does pay for, often times find themselves into the private sector and spawn entire industries, can think of no better example than ARPANET. While I do agree that all money and all spending is not equal, frankly this odd tendency lately by some in our Govt. to dismiss all Govt. spending as simply just Govt. spending and therefor bad is a bit shortsighted.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said something very interesting though, to me thats a matter of contract structure, in that what the Govt. buys for example an aircraft should be strictly monitored aand enforced. The infrastructure to build these items if it is part of the contract, fine, but it becomes the property of the US Govt. and as such is taken and sold. You see these sorts of things at least to me are a management issue on the part of the Govt. on how it manages its contracting more so than defining who it buys from. I cited an example of the comanche, one would think after 21 years a light bulb would go off, for that matter `10? I for one am sick and tired of this what I like to call mismangement of the taxpayers dollars which has gone on for so many years its become an institution. However, at least in my mind, those that supply the Govt. are still in the "private sector" and are allowed to get away with what they do only because those they purchase from allow them to do it. It's rather like this, let's say you and I decided to buy a custom computer from Dell, and Dell quoted us a price of 1000.00, we gave them our credit card. Then 3 months later they said, we changed the board we use so it will be an additional 200.00, again we pay them. 3 months later they say we changed the hard drive for 500.00 we pay that. See what I mean? We being the purchasing arm because of our inability to say NO bleed money and the contractor who just keeps adding and changing because they have no limits, just keeps charging. That does not make Dell however any less "private sector" than anyone else, and on a side note Dell is a big supplier of the Federal Govt.

No, in my original post on this thread I mentioned those multi faceted businesses that bid on and receive government contracts as being different from those companies that exist solely to serve the government. Boeing for instance or Intel and/or many others would be a much smaller version of their current selves if they lost all their government contracts, but they all have substantial truly private sector business that they almost certainly would continue in business without government dollars.

But don't even get me started on government inefficiency and waste. For most of a decade up to the last couple of years in which we have mostly shut down and retired, our small business, among other things, audited financial records of businesses in our area. New Mexico has been made a huge dependent on government contracts so I saw the books kept on a lot of those contracts. It would boggle your mind, make you gnash your teeth, pull your hair out, beat your head on the wall. Some of it is positively insane.

The bottom line is, however, that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy and therefore does little or nothing to help the economy overall. (Some of the offshoot benefits of certain programs such as NASA, however, have definitely been a benefit to the American economy once they work their way into the private sector.)

Every dollar spent by the private sector in the private sector using private sector money adds a dollar to the economy.

That is what our more big-government-supporting friends cannot seem to comprehend. They seem to see all money and all spending as equal. It isn't.

Your going to have to explain that one too me Fox, "that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy". In my humble opinion when a contractor is paid with tax dollars they in turn are not only paying their employers and suppliers, who in turn use that money on any number of things, such as mortagages, car payments, paying for anything from parts for new aircraft both commercial and and military as well as stock holder dividends, it would seem to me that is putting money back into the economy. In fact if a person lets say works for Boeing Phantomworks and buys his kids a new laptop from Dell from money he or she earned while working on a project for the USAF, is that not taking taxpayer dollars and putting back into the economy more so the private sector? On a side note, I would add projects that the Govt. does pay for, often times find themselves into the private sector and spawn entire industries, can think of no better example than ARPANET. While I do agree that all money and all spending is not equal, frankly this odd tendency lately by some in our Govt. to dismiss all Govt. spending as simply just Govt. spending and therefor bad is a bit shortsighted.

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

Dollars generated and spent in the private sector take nothing out of the economy but only add to it. One economist I read--I honestly can't remember whch one--showed a detailed mathematical formula of how every dollar generated in and spent in the private sector will, by the time it circulates through the economy, add $5 in total economic growth. Government spending does not produce the same results because it takes as much out of the economy as it puts in.

 

[Navy1960]

No, in my original post on this thread I mentioned those multi faceted businesses that bid on and receive government contracts as being different from those companies that exist solely to serve the government. Boeing for instance or Intel and/or many others would be a much smaller version of their current selves if they lost all their government contracts, but they all have substantial truly private sector business that they almost certainly would continue in business without government dollars.

But don't even get me started on government inefficiency and waste. For most of a decade up to the last couple of years in which we have mostly shut down and retired, our small business, among other things, audited financial records of businesses in our area. New Mexico has been made a huge dependent on government contracts so I saw the books kept on a lot of those contracts. It would boggle your mind, make you gnash your teeth, pull your hair out, beat your head on the wall. Some of it is positively insane.

The bottom line is, however, that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy and therefore does little or nothing to help the economy overall. (Some of the offshoot benefits of certain programs such as NASA, however, have definitely been a benefit to the American economy once they work their way into the private sector.)

Every dollar spent by the private sector in the private sector using private sector money adds a dollar to the economy.

That is what our more big-government-supporting friends cannot seem to comprehend. They seem to see all money and all spending as equal. It isn't.

Your going to have to explain that one too me Fox, "that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy". In my humble opinion when a contractor is paid with tax dollars they in turn are not only paying their employers and suppliers, who in turn use that money on any number of things, such as mortagages, car payments, paying for anything from parts for new aircraft both commercial and and military as well as stock holder dividends, it would seem to me that is putting money back into the economy. In fact if a person lets say works for Boeing Phantomworks and buys his kids a new laptop from Dell from money he or she earned while working on a project for the USAF, is that not taking taxpayer dollars and putting back into the economy more so the private sector? On a side note, I would add projects that the Govt. does pay for, often times find themselves into the private sector and spawn entire industries, can think of no better example than ARPANET. While I do agree that all money and all spending is not equal, frankly this odd tendency lately by some in our Govt. to dismiss all Govt. spending as simply just Govt. spending and therefor bad is a bit shortsighted.

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

Dollars generated and spent in the private sector take nothing out of the economy but only add to it. One economist I read--I honestly can't remember whch one--showed a detailed mathematical formula of how every dollar generated in and spent in the private sector will, by the time it circulates through the economy, add $5 in total economic growth. Government spending does not produce the same results because it takes as much out of the economy as it puts in.

I would like to read it if you ever have a chance to come across it Fox, while I tend to think that there are no absolutes when it comes to economic issues, am sure there are many exceptions to that. I can think of one right off the top of my head, let's say for example a company outsources its factory to Pakistan therefor leaving many cities and towns economically in trouble because for the most part they depended on those employee's to keep the local economy going. Then that same company by moving offshore increases the profits to its shareholders and yet does nothing to help those Americans it displaced, leaving them to collect unemployment, adding to Govts. burden and by default the taxpayers. Again, while I won't disagree that both instances have benefits and their issues, I would tend to disagree that there is an absolute when it comes to one or the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your going to have to explain that one too me Fox, "that every dollar the government spends and/or adds to the economy, no matter how important, valuable, or necessary, has to be taken out of the economy". In my humble opinion when a contractor is paid with tax dollars they in turn are not only paying their employers and suppliers, who in turn use that money on any number of things, such as mortagages, car payments, paying for anything from parts for new aircraft both commercial and and military as well as stock holder dividends, it would seem to me that is putting money back into the economy. In fact if a person lets say works for Boeing Phantomworks and buys his kids a new laptop from Dell from money he or she earned while working on a project for the USAF, is that not taking taxpayer dollars and putting back into the economy more so the private sector? On a side note, I would add projects that the Govt. does pay for, often times find themselves into the private sector and spawn entire industries, can think of no better example than ARPANET. While I do agree that all money and all spending is not equal, frankly this odd tendency lately by some in our Govt. to dismiss all Govt. spending as simply just Govt. spending and therefor bad is a bit shortsighted.

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

Dollars generated and spent in the private sector take nothing out of the economy but only add to it. One economist I read--I honestly can't remember whch one--showed a detailed mathematical formula of how every dollar generated in and spent in the private sector will, by the time it circulates through the economy, add $5 in total economic growth. Government spending does not produce the same results because it takes as much out of the economy as it puts in.

I would like to read it if you ever have a chance to come across it Fox, while I tend to think that there are no absolutes when it comes to economic issues, am sure there are many exceptions to that. I can think of one right off the top of my head, let's say for example a company outsources its factory to Pakistan therefor leaving many cities and towns economically in trouble because for the most part they depended on those employee's to keep the local economy going. Then that same company by moving offshore increases the profits to its shareholders and yet does nothing to help those Americans it displaced, leaving them to collect unemployment, adding to Govts. burden and by default the taxpayers. Again, while I won't disagree that both instances have benefits and their issues, I would tend to disagree that there is an absolute when it comes to one or the other.

But you see, here you have added a component that is totally irrelevent to and a different issue from whether a government dollar spent nets the same value as a private sector dollar spent which, in my view, determines what is 'private sector' which was the original question in the thesis for this thread. Public sector uses government money. Private sector uses private sector money.

The different subject is whether a business has a moral obligation to provide jobs for people or whether it only has an obligation to make whatever profit it honorably can within the economy. However, the more in taxes, regulation, fees, and mandates that are heaped upon that business by government is what drives the business to seek profits elsewhere. So why wouldn't you look to government to create an economic environment that encourages that business to stay home rather than look to that business to take less in profits so it keeps the jobs at home?

But you can't get around the brutal fact that every dollar the government spends takes a dollar out of the economy. Every dollar the private sector spends takes nothing out of the economy but adds to it. THAT is where the focus needs to be if you want economic growth.

 

[Navy1960]

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

Dollars generated and spent in the private sector take nothing out of the economy but only add to it. One economist I read--I honestly can't remember whch one--showed a detailed mathematical formula of how every dollar generated in and spent in the private sector will, by the time it circulates through the economy, add $5 in total economic growth. Government spending does not produce the same results because it takes as much out of the economy as it puts in.

I would like to read it if you ever have a chance to come across it Fox, while I tend to think that there are no absolutes when it comes to economic issues, am sure there are many exceptions to that. I can think of one right off the top of my head, let's say for example a company outsources its factory to Pakistan therefor leaving many cities and towns economically in trouble because for the most part they depended on those employee's to keep the local economy going. Then that same company by moving offshore increases the profits to its shareholders and yet does nothing to help those Americans it displaced, leaving them to collect unemployment, adding to Govts. burden and by default the taxpayers. Again, while I won't disagree that both instances have benefits and their issues, I would tend to disagree that there is an absolute when it comes to one or the other.

But you see, here you have added a component that is totally irrelevent to and a different issue from whether a government dollar spent nets the same value as a private sector dollar spent which, in my view, determines what is 'private sector' which was the original question in the thesis for this thread. Public sector uses government money. Private sector uses private sector money.

The different subject is whether a business has a moral obligation to provide jobs for people or whether it only has an obligation to make whatever profit it honorably can within the economy. However, the more in taxes, regulation, fees, and mandates that are heaped upon that business by government is what drives the business to seek profits elsewhere. So why wouldn't you look to government to create an economic environment that encourages that business to stay home rather than look to that business to take less in profits so it keeps the jobs at home?

But you can't get around the brutal fact that every dollar the government spends takes a dollar out of the economy. Every dollar the private sector spends takes nothing out of the economy but adds to it. THAT is where the focus needs to be if you want economic growth.

We have to agree to disagree on this one my friend because, I submit no matter how you put it, there is an econimic component involved in the so called "private sector" only that involves the taxpayer in just about every aspect of business, if your theory was correct and taxpayer dollars rendered it "public sector" then by default almost every business in some shape or fashion would fall into that catagory. My contention is a simple one, in that business is the engine of the economy, if it has a customer be it a Govt. or a person or another business it makes no difference because the profits it makes find their way back into the economy.

While there is a lot of truth in the fact that business has not had a very friendly atmosphere in which to prosper here in this nation for almost 30 years. In fact I would submit that out nation often encourages them to go overseas. Having said that I will say as I do often ( LOL because I won't pass up the chance), that business needs to at some point realize that if they wish to call themselves American and take advantage of this nation, i.e. it's laws, it's taxes etc. then they should realize some sense of obligation to it and also be encouraged for doing so, and those who do no and wish to take advantage show them the door.

Frankly, if you were one of the several thosand Boeing employee's who are being hired or called back to the 767 line as a result of the USAF Tanker reward and the many thousand of companies that will support it, you might tend to believe thats one heck of a way to stimulate the economy.

 

[Samson]

I would like to read it if you ever have a chance to come across it Fox, while I tend to think that there are no absolutes when it comes to economic issues, am sure there are many exceptions to that. I can think of one right off the top of my head, let's say for example a company outsources its factory to Pakistan therefor leaving many cities and towns economically in trouble because for the most part they depended on those employee's to keep the local economy going. Then that same company by moving offshore increases the profits to its shareholders and yet does nothing to help those Americans it displaced, leaving them to collect unemployment, adding to Govts. burden and by default the taxpayers. Again, while I won't disagree that both instances have benefits and their issues, I would tend to disagree that there is an absolute when it comes to one or the other.

But you see, here you have added a component that is totally irrelevent to and a different issue from whether a government dollar spent nets the same value as a private sector dollar spent which, in my view, determines what is 'private sector' which was the original question in the thesis for this thread. Public sector uses government money. Private sector uses private sector money.

The different subject is whether a business has a moral obligation to provide jobs for people or whether it only has an obligation to make whatever profit it honorably can within the economy. However, the more in taxes, regulation, fees, and mandates that are heaped upon that business by government is what drives the business to seek profits elsewhere. So why wouldn't you look to government to create an economic environment that encourages that business to stay home rather than look to that business to take less in profits so it keeps the jobs at home?

But you can't get around the brutal fact that every dollar the government spends takes a dollar out of the economy. Every dollar the private sector spends takes nothing out of the economy but adds to it. THAT is where the focus needs to be if you want economic growth.

We have to agree to disagree on this one my friend because, I submit no matter how you put it, there is an econimic component involved in the so called "private sector" only that involves the taxpayer in just about every aspect of business, if your theory was correct and taxpayer dollars rendered it "public sector" then by default almost every business in some shape or fashion would fall into that catagory. My contention is a simple one, in that business is the engine of the economy, if it has a customer be it a Govt. or a person or another business it makes no difference because the profits it makes find their way back into the economy.

While there is a lot of truth in the fact that business has not had a very friendly atmosphere in which to prosper here in this nation for almost 30 years. In fact I would submit that out nation often encourages them to go overseas. Having said that I will say as I do often ( LOL because I won't pass up the chance), that business needs to at some point realize that if they wish to call themselves American and take advantage of this nation, i.e. it's laws, it's taxes etc. then they should realize some sense of obligation to it and also be encouraged for doing so, and those who do no and wish to take advantage show them the door.

Frankly, if you were one of the several thosand Boeing employee's who are being hired or called back to the 767 line as a result of the USAF Tanker reward and the many thousand of companies that will support it, you might tend to believe thats one heck of a way to stimulate the economy.

OK I'll give you two cents:

The way I see it you have two extremes: An economy that is centralized and completely dependent on government spending, and an economy that is completely decentralized and completely independent of government spending: Either extreme has historically proven unsustainable (repectively, the initial 60 years of the USSR and, just to be even handed, the initial 60 years** of the USA).

Both systems gravitate towards an equilibrium.

The question is not whether or not they should: They WILL.

The only question is HOW: Does our country really need more USAF Tankers? Could, for example, the investment in these tankers have been made more wisely, in say, biodiesel refining technology that would make the USAF independent of fossil fuels?

The main issue for me is not that the decision is being made between the two scenarios, but that NO DECISION IS MADE. The US Gov. is simply buying EVERYTHING! It appears that no grant is too ridiculous, no project is not vital, and no budget is too large!

As these Boing workers pat their US Representatives on the back for spending that will stimulate the economy, I hope they are investing wisely for retirement. In the next 20 years, the dollar they are paid today will be worth about $0.10 because this is the only way the US Government will be able to pay for today's spending.



**Yeah, some idiot will want to debate US government spending between 1780-1840, so before you start, I'm refering to RELATIVE spending, m'k?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to read it if you ever have a chance to come across it Fox, while I tend to think that there are no absolutes when it comes to economic issues, am sure there are many exceptions to that. I can think of one right off the top of my head, let's say for example a company outsources its factory to Pakistan therefor leaving many cities and towns economically in trouble because for the most part they depended on those employee's to keep the local economy going. Then that same company by moving offshore increases the profits to its shareholders and yet does nothing to help those Americans it displaced, leaving them to collect unemployment, adding to Govts. burden and by default the taxpayers. Again, while I won't disagree that both instances have benefits and their issues, I would tend to disagree that there is an absolute when it comes to one or the other.

But you see, here you have added a component that is totally irrelevent to and a different issue from whether a government dollar spent nets the same value as a private sector dollar spent which, in my view, determines what is 'private sector' which was the original question in the thesis for this thread. Public sector uses government money. Private sector uses private sector money.

The different subject is whether a business has a moral obligation to provide jobs for people or whether it only has an obligation to make whatever profit it honorably can within the economy. However, the more in taxes, regulation, fees, and mandates that are heaped upon that business by government is what drives the business to seek profits elsewhere. So why wouldn't you look to government to create an economic environment that encourages that business to stay home rather than look to that business to take less in profits so it keeps the jobs at home?

But you can't get around the brutal fact that every dollar the government spends takes a dollar out of the economy. Every dollar the private sector spends takes nothing out of the economy but adds to it. THAT is where the focus needs to be if you want economic growth.

We have to agree to disagree on this one my friend because, I submit no matter how you put it, there is an econimic component involved in the so called "private sector" only that involves the taxpayer in just about every aspect of business, if your theory was correct and taxpayer dollars rendered it "public sector" then by default almost every business in some shape or fashion would fall into that catagory. My contention is a simple one, in that business is the engine of the economy, if it has a customer be it a Govt. or a person or another business it makes no difference because the profits it makes find their way back into the economy.

While there is a lot of truth in the fact that business has not had a very friendly atmosphere in which to prosper here in this nation for almost 30 years. In fact I would submit that out nation often encourages them to go overseas. Having said that I will say as I do often ( LOL because I won't pass up the chance), that business needs to at some point realize that if they wish to call themselves American and take advantage of this nation, i.e. it's laws, it's taxes etc. then they should realize some sense of obligation to it and also be encouraged for doing so, and those who do no and wish to take advantage show them the door.

Frankly, if you were one of the several thosand Boeing employee's who are being hired or called back to the 767 line as a result of the USAF Tanker reward and the many thousand of companies that will support it, you might tend to believe thats one heck of a way to stimulate the economy.

National defense is a constitutionally mandated function of government, and in my opinion, every American or those benefitting from the American way of life should be responsible to contribute for that. And contracting with the private sector for necessary equipment, weaponry, support systems etc. is usually going to be the most economical way to provide the common defense - IF, and that is a big IF - there are sufficient checks and balances to make sure the tax payer gets every cent of value for tax payer money expended.

But you are correct that in my view ALL government expenditures are public sector expenses no matter where are through whom they are spent and that distinguishes the public sector from the private sector in all cases.

I did not suggest that all government expenditures are non beneficial or non necessary. But that wasn't the original thesis was it. The question is what is private sector.

My answer remains that private sector generates and spends money through private enterprise and by doing so adds to the economy. Public sector takes money out of the economy in order to spend it.

And yes, if you disagree with that, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Flopper]

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to the economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

 

[Foxfyre]

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

Whether minted today or borrowed against the nation's future economy, the public sector dollar is removed from the economy and is not available to produce ANY benefit to the economy. That of course diminishes if not obliterates any benefit government spending might produce and sometimes will make the government benefit cost far more than it sppears. Also, that removed from the future economy is even more costly because it requires taking more from the economy to pay the interest on the debt created.

 

[Samson]

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to the economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

Clearly you are quite naive.

 

[Navy1960]

But you see, here you have added a component that is totally irrelevent to and a different issue from whether a government dollar spent nets the same value as a private sector dollar spent which, in my view, determines what is 'private sector' which was the original question in the thesis for this thread. Public sector uses government money. Private sector uses private sector money.

The different subject is whether a business has a moral obligation to provide jobs for people or whether it only has an obligation to make whatever profit it honorably can within the economy. However, the more in taxes, regulation, fees, and mandates that are heaped upon that business by government is what drives the business to seek profits elsewhere. So why wouldn't you look to government to create an economic environment that encourages that business to stay home rather than look to that business to take less in profits so it keeps the jobs at home?

But you can't get around the brutal fact that every dollar the government spends takes a dollar out of the economy. Every dollar the private sector spends takes nothing out of the economy but adds to it. THAT is where the focus needs to be if you want economic growth.

We have to agree to disagree on this one my friend because, I submit no matter how you put it, there is an econimic component involved in the so called "private sector" only that involves the taxpayer in just about every aspect of business, if your theory was correct and taxpayer dollars rendered it "public sector" then by default almost every business in some shape or fashion would fall into that catagory. My contention is a simple one, in that business is the engine of the economy, if it has a customer be it a Govt. or a person or another business it makes no difference because the profits it makes find their way back into the economy.

While there is a lot of truth in the fact that business has not had a very friendly atmosphere in which to prosper here in this nation for almost 30 years. In fact I would submit that out nation often encourages them to go overseas. Having said that I will say as I do often ( LOL because I won't pass up the chance), that business needs to at some point realize that if they wish to call themselves American and take advantage of this nation, i.e. it's laws, it's taxes etc. then they should realize some sense of obligation to it and also be encouraged for doing so, and those who do no and wish to take advantage show them the door.

Frankly, if you were one of the several thosand Boeing employee's who are being hired or called back to the 767 line as a result of the USAF Tanker reward and the many thousand of companies that will support it, you might tend to believe thats one heck of a way to stimulate the economy.

OK I'll give you two cents:

The way I see it you have two extremes: An economy that is centralized and completely dependent on government spending, and an economy that is completely decentralized and completely independent of government spending: Either extreme has historically proven unsustainable (repectively, the initial 60 years of the USSR and, just to be even handed, the initial 60 years** of the USA).

Both systems gravitate towards an equilibrium.

The question is not whether or not they should: They WILL.

The only question is HOW: Does our country really need more USAF Tankers? Could, for example, the investment in these tankers have been made more wisely, in say, biodiesel refining technology that would make the USAF independent of fossil fuels?

The main issue for me is not that the decision is being made between the two scenarios, but that NO DECISION IS MADE. The US Gov. is simply buying EVERYTHING! It appears that no grant is too ridiculous, no project is not vital, and no budget is too large!

As these Boing workers pat their US Representatives on the back for spending that will stimulate the economy, I hope they are investing wisely for retirement. In the next 20 years, the dollar they are paid today will be worth about $0.10 because this is the only way the US Government will be able to pay for today's spending.



**Yeah, some idiot will want to debate US government spending between 1780-1840, so before you start, I'm refering to RELATIVE spending, m'k?

As pointed out, I would suggest that in the case of the USAF Tankers, a couple of thoughts on that one, one is the way in which the purchase and competetion was handled has been a 10 year long debacle. Why, well in my personal opinion it has more to do with institutionalized purchasing at DOD, in other words the inability to look beyond suppliers that are part of the inner-circle and promote healthy competetion that not only benefits the nation but the taxpayer as well. As for needing them or not, I would say that after flying for almost 50 years, the KC135 , the Govt. has gotten their monies worth out of it and there is and has been for more than 10 years a serious need to replace it if only in terms of safety alone. I do agree however, that as part of that healthy competetion thing above, factors such as bio-fuels, and other cost savings can be part of that.

I have long thought and still do , that a large degree of savings can be found simply in the way our Govt. does things such as purchasing for example. I'm sure many would agree that things such as two engines for an aircraft when one was all the Military wanted and constantly building a Aircraft the USAF says it no longer wants is not a good or prudent way to spend our money. It's things such as these, if they remain constant, all the cost cutting in world is not going to change running up the bills of you do not change that.

 

[Flopper]

The dollar paid to the contractor is a dollar taken from the taxpayer. The dollar spent by the contractor may do all the wonderful things you say it will. The dollar taken from the taxpayer isn't available to do any of that, however. So the net benefit is essentially a wash over the long haul.

If that dollar is borrowed money, it is not taken from the private sector today, so the private sector can use that dollar to expand the current economy.

If the government spends that borrowed dollar on a program such as the space program or the infrastructure, the payback to economy in the future can be far more than one dollar, making it a good investment. The fly in ointment is of course entitlements. The economic benefit here will be just one dollar.

Whether minted today or borrowed against the nation's future economy, the public sector dollar is removed from the economy and is not available to produce ANY benefit to the economy. That of course diminishes if not obliterates any benefit government spending might produce and sometimes will make the government benefit cost far more than it sppears. Also, that removed from the future economy is even more costly because it requires taking more from the economy to pay the interest on the debt created.

If you do not take that dollar from the taxpayer today that dollar still exist in the private sector today. You seem to make the assumption that all government spending does not lead to economic growth which is not so.

 

[Samson]

We have to agree to disagree on this one my friend because, I submit no matter how you put it, there is an econimic component involved in the so called "private sector" only that involves the taxpayer in just about every aspect of business, if your theory was correct and taxpayer dollars rendered it "public sector" then by default almost every business in some shape or fashion would fall into that catagory. My contention is a simple one, in that business is the engine of the economy, if it has a customer be it a Govt. or a person or another business it makes no difference because the profits it makes find their way back into the economy.

While there is a lot of truth in the fact that business has not had a very friendly atmosphere in which to prosper here in this nation for almost 30 years. In fact I would submit that out nation often encourages them to go overseas. Having said that I will say as I do often ( LOL because I won't pass up the chance), that business needs to at some point realize that if they wish to call themselves American and take advantage of this nation, i.e. it's laws, it's taxes etc. then they should realize some sense of obligation to it and also be encouraged for doing so, and those who do no and wish to take advantage show them the door.

Frankly, if you were one of the several thosand Boeing employee's who are being hired or called back to the 767 line as a result of the USAF Tanker reward and the many thousand of companies that will support it, you might tend to believe thats one heck of a way to stimulate the economy.

OK I'll give you two cents:

The way I see it you have two extremes: An economy that is centralized and completely dependent on government spending, and an economy that is completely decentralized and completely independent of government spending: Either extreme has historically proven unsustainable (repectively, the initial 60 years of the USSR and, just to be even handed, the initial 60 years** of the USA).

Both systems gravitate towards an equilibrium.

The question is not whether or not they should: They WILL.

The only question is HOW: Does our country really need more USAF Tankers? Could, for example, the investment in these tankers have been made more wisely, in say, biodiesel refining technology that would make the USAF independent of fossil fuels?

The main issue for me is not that the decision is being made between the two scenarios, but that NO DECISION IS MADE. The US Gov. is simply buying EVERYTHING! It appears that no grant is too ridiculous, no project is not vital, and no budget is too large!

As these Boing workers pat their US Representatives on the back for spending that will stimulate the economy, I hope they are investing wisely for retirement. In the next 20 years, the dollar they are paid today will be worth about $0.10 because this is the only way the US Government will be able to pay for today's spending.



**Yeah, some idiot will want to debate US government spending between 1780-1840, so before you start, I'm refering to RELATIVE spending, m'k?

As pointed out, I would suggest that in the case of the USAF Tankers, a couple of thoughts on that one, one is the way in which the purchase and competetion was handled has been a 10 year long debacle. Why, well in my personal opinion it has more to do with institutionalized purchasing at DOD, in other words the inability to look beyond suppliers that are part of the inner-circle and promote healthy competetion that not only benefits the nation but the taxpayer as well. As for needing them or not, I would say that after flying for almost 50 years, the KC135 , the Govt. has gotten their monies worth out of it and there is and has been for more than 10 years a serious need to replace it if only in terms of safety alone. I do agree however, that as part of that healthy competetion thing above, factors such as bio-fuels, and other cost savings can be part of that.

I have long thought and still do , that a large degree of savings can be found simply in the way our Govt. does things such as purchasing for example. I'm sure many would agree that thing such as two engines for an aircraft when one was all the Military wanted and constantly building a Aircraft the USAF says it no longer wants is not a good or prudent way to spend our money. It's things such as these, if they remain constant, all the cost cutting in world is not going to change running up the bills of you do not change that.

The competitive nature between suppliers is another dimension, but I'm not addressing it: I'm addressing the fact that there are many projects that need attention, and that could also benefit the public: BUT THAT WE CANNOT CHOOSE ALL OF THEM.

For example; I'd be interested to know if the contract with Boeing will replace ALL the KC135 refueling capacity, plus more, or if it will only relace SOME.

In the past 50 years, the Cold war has ended: IMHO, we should not need as much refueling capacity today as we did 50 years ago.

Of course, defense spending is based on a FUTURE threat, but there again, realistically, is there any future threat that is as great as the nuclear armed Soviet Union? This will always be debateable, which means we will always be spending $$$ on defense systems which include KC135's and the like which become obsolete.