Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #21
you can not generate enough funds with a flat tax
Do Mittens and Ryan realize cutting programs will add to unemployment?
- Thread starter courseofhistory
- Start date
you can not generate enough funds with a flat tax
The unfortunate result of giving the poor money is that when they spend that money, they will invariably make someone else very rich.
If giving the poor money solved the problem of continued poverty than certainly winning millions of dollars in a lottery or powerball would take them out of poverty for the rest of their lives. In actuality, they are right back where they started in five years or less.
I'm sure they're not getting rid of programs that help kids in education, training etc....there may be changes, but they're not getting rid of them!
What needs to be stopped is all the waste on other programs that does NOTHING to help our country, especially now when we don't have it to spend.
Here are a few examples of the governmentÂ’s manic spending spree this year. It wasted $12 million on a failed energy-saving project in Pakistan, according to the report, and gave China $18 million for social services and environmental programs even though its economy is doing much better than ours.
Two million dollars helped pay for a wine exhibition and culinary center in Washington State and $765,000 were blown on a pancake franchise that was supposed to get built in an underserved community of Washington D.C. but instead went to an upscale neighborhood known as a shopping hotspot for well-to-do yuppies. A video game preservation center in New York got $113,000 and $550,000 financed a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Report Lists Over $6.5 Bil In Wasteful Govt. Spending | Judicial Watch
What needs to be stopped is all the waste on other programs that does NOTHING to help our country, especially now when we don't have it to spend.
Here are a few examples of the governmentÂ’s manic spending spree this year. It wasted $12 million on a failed energy-saving project in Pakistan, according to the report, and gave China $18 million for social services and environmental programs even though its economy is doing much better than ours.
Two million dollars helped pay for a wine exhibition and culinary center in Washington State and $765,000 were blown on a pancake franchise that was supposed to get built in an underserved community of Washington D.C. but instead went to an upscale neighborhood known as a shopping hotspot for well-to-do yuppies. A video game preservation center in New York got $113,000 and $550,000 financed a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Report Lists Over $6.5 Bil In Wasteful Govt. Spending | Judicial Watch
Yep the golden age is past.
Live with it.
but I have yet to see our govt on either side realize this.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #25
Its the old Ford theory and has been proven to work in the past
they do according to the official figures the govt uses to figure GDP.
I suppose building aircraft carriers, subs bombs, planes, etc do not add to the GDP?
Roads, bridges, govt buildings, etc?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #27
Henry Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Labor philosophy
The five-dollar workday
Time Magazine, January 14, 1935.
Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[23]
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[24] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[25] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[26][27] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[28] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[29] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[30] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[31] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[32]
Labor philosophy
The five-dollar workday
Time Magazine, January 14, 1935.
Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[23]
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[24] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[25] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[26][27] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[28] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[29] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)
Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[30] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[31] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[32]
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,360
- 1,830
We can never confiscate enough via taxes to satisfy you leftists fuckwits... that's why we must make sure the leftists are relegated to the trash heap of time... right where you belong.
SniperFire
Senior Member
naturegirl
Gold Member
You cannot generate enough funds if you spend it faster than it comes in, just ask the Obama Campaign.
DiamondDave
Army Vet
Oh yeah.. the private sector would NEVER expand to cover things that would still be in demand if the government stops providing them 
DiamondDave
Army Vet
Already debunked, numerous times.. you lying sack of shit *****
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #33
its was competition for the best workers and the savings that come from an efficeint workforce.
It resulted with MORE cusotmers to buy his product.
Its was a win win win decision
It resulted with MORE cusotmers to buy his product.
Its was a win win win decision
Last edited:
- Banned
- #34
Unemployment will rise due to the cuts in programs this team (who doesn't need to worry about employment) proposes. This will especially affect women and minorities who are employed in planned parenthood programs, social services, etc. Way to go Mittens!
You do realize that taxpayers are paying for those govt jobs.
Yep and the income from those govt jobs/subsidies, etc supports about 1/3 of the economy too.
Where does all that money come from?
DiamondDave
Army Vet
They fully know it comes OUT of the economy and is then passed thru lay upon layer of government.. thus wasting more in the process
courseofhistory
Rookie
- Aug 7, 2012
- 1,230
- 179
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #36
And your response has nothing to do with the OP. If programs are cut or defunded many women and minorities will be unemployed and that INCLUDES private sector jobs that are within these programs (some of which are not "government" per se) and it will cause the related businesses/jobs to suffer unemployment also. As an example, Planned Parenthood spends millions on condoms, birth control pills and related items. If they are defunded they won't be buying many of these and other things and those industries who make them and provide them will suffer unemployment. See if you can wrap your head around the simple concept of supply and demand.
DGS49
Diamond Member
There is more than a bit of truth in this complaint.
U.S. governments at various levels employ millions of Americans in jobs that could be eliminated without compromising the ability of those governments to fulfill their legitimate functions. As much as I hate to say it, the DoD budget could be slashed by at least a third without compromising our abilityto defend ourselves. Why are we in Germany, Korea, or Okinawa? Why do we have hundreds of bases in the U.S. and around the world - bases that were thought necessary during the Cold War, but are utterly without value today. The ONLY reason they continue to exist is because the people who work there - military and civilian - cry crocodile tears to their respective Congresspersons any time their need is questioned, and somehow the closures are stopped.
Operation Head Start has been PROVEN to provide nothing more than expensive babysitting to poor children; any conceivable academic advantage is completely evaporated by the end of second grade. Yet it employs tens of thousands of child care workers (or whatever they are called), who would be unemployed if the program were stopped.
So trying to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level would of necessity result in hundreds of thousands of government workers and military people and government contractors losing their jobs.
But there are two compelling reasons to do it: (1) we are BORROWING the money to pay them, and the American taxpayers will have to pay the direct costs as well as the interest costs over the coming years, and (2) the Federal Government HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY on anything other than those functions that are outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and to pay for those functions at the lowest possible cost.
The concept is "Fiscal Responsibility."
In other countries, where the government has cut its costs significantly (NOTE: "Austerity" in Europe is generally a myth; they are spending as much as ever, but TALKING ABOUT cutting back), the business community responds by making the kinds of investments that result in general prosperity and significant increases in private sector employment.
And let us not forget that PUBLIC SECTOR employment represents a COST to the society which must be repaid with interest, but PRIVATE SECTOR employment is a benefit to society that requires no "repayment."
To mention an axiom that is apropos: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" When your government is broke and going broker every day, you do what is necessary to stop borrowing more money.
U.S. governments at various levels employ millions of Americans in jobs that could be eliminated without compromising the ability of those governments to fulfill their legitimate functions. As much as I hate to say it, the DoD budget could be slashed by at least a third without compromising our abilityto defend ourselves. Why are we in Germany, Korea, or Okinawa? Why do we have hundreds of bases in the U.S. and around the world - bases that were thought necessary during the Cold War, but are utterly without value today. The ONLY reason they continue to exist is because the people who work there - military and civilian - cry crocodile tears to their respective Congresspersons any time their need is questioned, and somehow the closures are stopped.
Operation Head Start has been PROVEN to provide nothing more than expensive babysitting to poor children; any conceivable academic advantage is completely evaporated by the end of second grade. Yet it employs tens of thousands of child care workers (or whatever they are called), who would be unemployed if the program were stopped.
So trying to restore fiscal sanity at the Federal level would of necessity result in hundreds of thousands of government workers and military people and government contractors losing their jobs.
But there are two compelling reasons to do it: (1) we are BORROWING the money to pay them, and the American taxpayers will have to pay the direct costs as well as the interest costs over the coming years, and (2) the Federal Government HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY on anything other than those functions that are outlined in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and to pay for those functions at the lowest possible cost.
The concept is "Fiscal Responsibility."
In other countries, where the government has cut its costs significantly (NOTE: "Austerity" in Europe is generally a myth; they are spending as much as ever, but TALKING ABOUT cutting back), the business community responds by making the kinds of investments that result in general prosperity and significant increases in private sector employment.
And let us not forget that PUBLIC SECTOR employment represents a COST to the society which must be repaid with interest, but PRIVATE SECTOR employment is a benefit to society that requires no "repayment."
To mention an axiom that is apropos: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" When your government is broke and going broker every day, you do what is necessary to stop borrowing more money.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
Government jobs are a drain on the economy. They do not produce tax revenue. The exception would be state and local.
I thought I would add that because i have had this conversation with many empty headed democrats.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #39
You cannot generate enough funds if you spend it faster than it comes in, just ask the Obama Campaign.
Bush waged two wars and cut taxes and then crashed the entire world economy.
your plan has failed already
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #40
FDRs plan worked.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Iran is both the richest and poorest of Middle Eastern countries.- Started by Votto
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
