Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

[NYcarbineer]

Where did I ever blame Bam Bam for slow job growth?

And government is not smaller as it is costing us more.

If you have 600,000 fewer government employees than you had 3 years ago your government is smaller.

If you can't agree to that simple fact than don't respond to my posts because we won't get anywhere.

Smaller does not only mean less in appearance...

Do you say your debt is smaller because last year you owed $50000 on 4 credit cards and this year you owe $75000 on 2 credit cards??

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I believe Bill Clinton's very unpopular cuts to Welfare did in fact help to spur Economic growth -if memory serves.

It did, when you are cut off the Teet, you are forced to own up to your own personal responsibility and get a job....

No lie. That's why there are so many unemployed people. Folks just decided to stop taking personal responsibility. If the 8.2% unemployed would just "get a job", we'd all be better for it.


Social Security Retirement isn't welfare. To call it so is an insult to the millions of hard working retired Americans who have paid into the system their entire lives and earned the benefit they receive. SSDI isn't welfare, either. Its an insurance product paid for by the insured to offset the risk of being disabled from the work force.

if you are young and able bodied, get off your couch and do community service in return for the Taxpayer Money you are given, this includes Community Service in return for Free Cellphones, Section 8, Food Stamps.

Most of the folks in those programs that are able to work already work and don't have time for your fake government jobs. BTW, the cellphones are paid for by private corporations. Universal Service has been national policy since 1934. Odd you would use it as an excuse to pick on the least of us, but then again, I guess we'd expect nothing less. Its a good thing those private companies provide those cell phones, or else my wife's disabled homeless war veteran clients would have no way of calling her. In case you hadn't noticed there aren't really any pay phones anymore, and if you do find one, chances are it's out of order.

If the Government spends less, the debt goes down, taxes can go down, money is left over to work on infrastructure which brings more jobs, less taxes mean more people spend money, Economy goes up....

Infrastructure which brings more jobs? I thought people just had to stop being lazy and "get a job". You're contradicting yourself. Which is it?

Lack of Personal responsibility is a big reason the Economy is the way it is.

Social Security is not Welfare, where did you get the idea I ever said that? Your wife's disabled Veteran? Two times you ignored my post about Old and Sick are deserving of Help and not included per my post. Only able bodied people were mentioned in my post.

SSI is not Welfare, it is something working people have earned !!!!!!!

Contradicting? How is that, if Tax Payer Money is used more wisely there is more money available to help the economy.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It did, when you are cut off the Teet, you are forced to own up to your own personal responsibility and get a job....

No lie. That's why there are so many unemployed people. Folks just decided to stop taking personal responsibility. If the 8.2% unemployed would just "get a job", we'd all be better for it.


Social Security Retirement isn't welfare. To call it so is an insult to the millions of hard working retired Americans who have paid into the system their entire lives and earned the benefit they receive. SSDI isn't welfare, either. Its an insurance product paid for by the insured to offset the risk of being disabled from the work force.



Most of the folks in those programs that are able to work already work and don't have time for your fake government jobs. BTW, the cellphones are paid for by private corporations. Universal Service has been national policy since 1934. Odd you would use it as an excuse to pick on the least of us, but then again, I guess we'd expect nothing less. Its a good thing those private companies provide those cell phones, or else my wife's disabled homeless war veteran clients would have no way of calling her. In case you hadn't noticed there aren't really any pay phones anymore, and if you do find one, chances are it's out of order.

If the Government spends less, the debt goes down, taxes can go down, money is left over to work on infrastructure which brings more jobs, less taxes mean more people spend money, Economy goes up....

Infrastructure which brings more jobs? I thought people just had to stop being lazy and "get a job". You're contradicting yourself. Which is it?

Lack of Personal responsibility is a big reason the Economy is the way it is.

Its 100% the reason. All those folks without jobs just need to go get a job.

SSI is not Welfare, it is something working people have earned !!!!!!!

Actually SSI is welfare. Its Social Security Retirement and Disability that's not welfare.

Contradicting? How is that, if Tax Payer Money is used more wisely there is more money available to help the economy.

Newsflash: Those with extra capital are not investing it. They are side lining it in bank accounts who themselves sideline it in bank vaults or federal reserve accounts, where it sits and does nothing. Given those who have the money more money in the form of tax cuts just isn't going to help anything. If you want to help the economy there needs to be more SPENDING, not more wealthy people with fat depository accounts. Either the government can spend the money or the middle and lower class can get tax cuts and themselves spend it. Or we can just sit and pray the all-powerful "Job Creators" will one day decide to take their money out the bank and spend it - but its unlikely they will. They've already gotten rich - why risk it?

 

[Claudette]

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

USA, 1920s

Canada, mid 90s

Yup. The Roaring Twenties ini the US and Canada grabbed the bull by the horns and pulled that country out of the red.

We should try it again here in the US.

I'd like the roaring twenties once again. How bout you??

 

[dblack]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

 

[dblack]

I'd like the roaring twenties once again. How bout you??

Seriously?? Do you recall what followed the 'Roaring Twenties'?

 

[DiamondDave]

If you have 600,000 fewer government employees than you had 3 years ago your government is smaller.

If you can't agree to that simple fact than don't respond to my posts because we won't get anywhere.

Smaller does not only mean less in appearance...

Do you say your debt is smaller because last year you owed $50000 on 4 credit cards and this year you owe $75000 on 2 credit cards??

You don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry son.. I just exposed your faulty logic...

You don't get to say government is smaller because of a few less employees all the while expanding influence and spending more

 

[JoeNormal]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

 

[DiamondDave]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

And that power is granted where??

 

[JoeNormal]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

And that power is granted where??

In the 'promote the general welfare' clause of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

Government causes the boom-bust cycle. "Smoothing them out" is just an excuse the government uses to control us and loot us.

 

[peach174]

I'd like the roaring twenties once again. How bout you??

Seriously?? Do you recall what followed the 'Roaring Twenties'?

Do you recall why it happed? It wasn't President Coolidge's policies.
It was the Federal Reserve Bank giving out too much credit. Something that Coolidge was very much against.
Once again government interference in business.

 

[DiamondDave]

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

And that power is granted where??

In the 'promote the general welfare' clause of the Constitution.

Sorry... it is not.. perhaps you should learn to understand English

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Powers of congress then SPECIFICALLY listed below that

And idiot.. "promote the general welfare" is in the preamble

The constitution was not written with all powers given and then listing powers to take away.... for additional specific power to be granted in addition to what is already granted, we have such a thing as an amendment process...

So in short.. there is no power granted in the constitution that gives the government domain over controlling the outcomes in economic issues

 

[Gremlin-USA]

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

And that power is granted where??

In the 'promote the general welfare' clause of the Constitution.

So how far do you want to use your interpretation of that clause?

We should lock everyone one in their homes, they would be safer, correct?

I would intemperate that clause to mean the Government protect it's Citizens from harm of foreign sources, I do not think it means to be our Nanny or to take away our Freedom of Choice, as long as that choice hurts/injures no other person.

.

 

[dblack]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

Well opinions differ on that. Many are convinced the boom and bust cycles are made much worse by government policy, and attempts to "smooth" them are just the "hair of the dog". I tend to think they're right.

Regardless, I don't think we should be monkeying with the economy in either case. It's not safe to concentrate too much power in any one institution - especially when that institution is also vested with the power to use force to achieve its ends. We want to keep the government out of the economy for the same kinds of reasons we want to keep it out of religion.

 

[dblack]

I'd like the roaring twenties once again. How bout you??

Seriously?? Do you recall what followed the 'Roaring Twenties'?

Do you recall why it happed? It wasn't President Coolidge's policies.
It was the Federal Reserve Bank giving out too much credit. Something that Coolidge was very much against.
Once again government interference in business.

Exactly. We indulged in the temptation to tweak government policy to 'super-charge' the economy. Pretty much what put us in our current hole. The moral is that we shouldn't do that.

 

[Wiseacre]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again. We shouldn't be using government to manipulate the economy.

The purpose of government is to protect our rights and dispense justice - not make us rich. Decisions of policy, of how 'big' or 'small' to make government, should not be resolved based on how they will affect GDP. They should be decided on how they affect the state's ability to perform its legitimate functions. Indulging the urge to tweak the economy with government policy is what gets us into these screwed up cycles in the first place.

You had me then you lost me. The boom and bust cycles in pure capitalism are severe. That's why the government started trying to smooth them out in the first place.

a. we don't have pure capitalism.

b. it's not gov'ts job to smooth out anything.

c. I do think the gov't should be trying to ensure more competition and transparency and fair business practices. But I think the gov't cannot get into the business of providing safety nets for those who make mistakes, or for poorly run companies. Market ebbs and flows are a fact of life, and gov't needs to stay the hell out of it.

 

[JoeNormal]

Let me make a general comment about government intervention and the effects of boom and bust in an advanced technological society. Many of the products we enjoy today come as a result of a long chain of processes, parts, assembly, and delivery. Upset one part of that chain and all hell breaks loose. I think you could justifiably argue that maybe this house of cards has gone too far but if not and we want to keep it going, there needs to be a stabilizing force of some kind. It has become obvious that our business and financial leaders are much more keen on competition than cooperation and on short term gain than long term preparation so that stability isn't going to come from them.

 

[dblack]

Let me make a general comment about government intervention and the effects of boom and bust in an advanced technological society. Many of the products we enjoy today come as a result of a long chain of processes, parts, assembly, and delivery. Upset one part of that chain and all hell breaks loose. I think you could justifiably argue that maybe this house of cards has gone too far but if not and we want to keep it going, there needs to be a stabilizing force of some kind. It has become obvious that our business and financial leaders are much more keen on competition than cooperation and on short term gain than long term preparation so that stability isn't going to come from them.

Freedom isn't stable. No doubt about it. If what we want is maximum stability, maximum cooperation, maximum efficiency, maximum performance - we should probably consider a full-blown fascist state with a strong central government running the show. Of course, if 'we' do decide to go there, I'll be considering some other place to be.

 

[JoeNormal]

Let me make a general comment about government intervention and the effects of boom and bust in an advanced technological society. Many of the products we enjoy today come as a result of a long chain of processes, parts, assembly, and delivery. Upset one part of that chain and all hell breaks loose. I think you could justifiably argue that maybe this house of cards has gone too far but if not and we want to keep it going, there needs to be a stabilizing force of some kind. It has become obvious that our business and financial leaders are much more keen on competition than cooperation and on short term gain than long term preparation so that stability isn't going to come from them.

Freedom isn't stable. No doubt about it. If what we want is maximum cooperation, maximum efficiency, maximum performance - we should probably consider a full-blown fascist state with a strong central government running the show. Of course, if 'we' do decide to go there, I'll be considering some other place to be.

There's a broad spectrum between fascism and anarchy. Maybe the political disagreements in this country amount to the difference between yellow and yellow-green.