I Don't Think the Stimulus is Working

[MaggieMae]

I really don't care if I win you over or not..

Clearly, since you offer nothing to prove your outrageously foolish, and dogmatically partisan froth.

Hi MaggieMae, I need to warn you, I've managed to cut off Samson's hair too many times and the sissy "Red Stopped" me (I don't know what it means either, I'm assuming it's good so I'll wear it proudly). He will also ignore me, "Wry gasps, and with a tear forming in his his eye stuggles to go on...I...ah...I dah..dah...don't know what I'll da da do without his...ah...glib gibberish. Wry, clearly upset and emotional, sobs amd sobs.

Oh I really don't mind. He's only the latest warrior to try to bring me down with his insults (which I'm fully capable of returning!). By now, it rolls off my back. I'll continue to post opinions, facts, and links to those facts, which Sammie can counter only by labeling "outrageously foolish."

 

[MaggieMae]

Excess profit????? I thought we were coming out of a recession? Or, some suggest that we are still in a recession. Nobody is sitting on profits in the small business world, Maggie.
These businesses that aren't hiring are doing so because of your man in the oval office. Most small businesses aren't going be able to afford to add to the roster. Healthcare, and the sunset of the Bush tax cuts are having a huge impact in our economy, Maggie....you can't dodge the facts.

Productivity is up, so somebody must be selling something. If a company has a product or service that has been successful in the past, there is no reason to believe that should change. Of course people have to start buying again, which is where I think the problem really is. I don't think wise businessmen who know anything about financial forecasting become scared just because the company might have to pay higher taxes. Over time, that's inevitable. Taxes never remain the same. You could cut taxes on them, but they're not going to hire just because they have the extra cash; they already have the extra cash.

Your still claiming they have "extra cash"? Now productivity is up? Geeze, Maggie.....there was 5% growth in the first quarter, and now we are down to 2.4% in the latest quarter. But, please keep spinning about the wise businessmen, maybe a deaf and blind person will believe you.

Wise businessmen will not allow their companies to go down the drain just because they don't particularly like the "political" climate.

Productivity falls 0.9 percent in second quarter
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER,
AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer
Tue Aug 10, 11:03 am ET

WASHINGTON – Worker productivity dropped this spring for the first time in more than a year, a sign that companies may need to step up hiring if they hope to grow.

Productivity declined at an annual rate of 0.9 percent in the April-to-June quarter after posting large gains throughout 2009, the Labor Department said Tuesday. Unit labor costs edged up 0.2 percent in the second quarter, the first increase since the spring of 2009.

Output of U.S. workers is the key ingredient to boosting living standards. It allows companies to pay workers more because of the increased production without being forced to raise the cost of their goods, which sparks inflation.

In most cases a slip in productivity would be a troubling sign for the economy. But some analysts believe a short-term drop is needed to boost the recovery. That's because it could be a signal that employers can no longer squeeze extra output out of leaner staffs.

"This could be a turning point as far as hiring goes," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors

Companies cut their payrolls during the recession and relied on fewer workers. For all of 2009, productivity shot up 3.5 percent, the best performance in six years.
However, over the two years of the recession, 8.4 million jobs were lost. Unemployment hit a high of 10.1 percent last fall and is now at 9.5 percent.

Economists believe companies need to stop slashing their work forces and start rehiring laid off workers. That will boost incomes and give households the support they need to increase consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. And that would ultimately lead to more demand for those companies' products.

"Economists often tout the long-run benefits of strong productivity growth, but given the precarious state of the economy, a little more employment, even at the expense of productivity, would likely be helpful in the near term," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Stocks retreated Tuesday as investors grew more cautious ahead of an announcement on interest rate policies later Tuesday by the Federal Reserve.

A second economic report Tuesday showed that inventories held by wholesale businesses edged up only a slight 0.1 percent in June while sales fell 0.7 percent.

It was the second consecutive drop in sales at the wholesale level and the biggest decline in 15 months. It raised worries about whether demand may be faltering, a development which could cause businesses to cutback on their restocking and act as a further drag on the economy.

A slowing in productivity and a rise in unit labor costs will not raise worries about inflation in the current environment because inflation pressures at the moment are nonexistent.

In fact, some analysts believe the bigger threat is the possibility of deflation, a destabilizing bout of falling prices and wages.

The 0.9 percent drop in productivity in the second quarter was the first decline since a 0.1 percent dip in the fourth quarter of 2008. It was the biggest fall since a 1.3 percent decrease in the third quarter of 2008.

The 0.2 percent rise in unit labor costs followed a 3.7 percent plunge in labor costs in the first quarter. It was the first increase since a 0.6 percent rise in the second quarter of last year.

Productivity falls 0.9 percent in second quarter - Yahoo! News

With no one able to buy their products, they will go out of business. It's really that simple.

 

[Foxfyre]

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the markers for the effect the healthcare legislation will have keeps moving. Until they know exactly what effect it will have on them, they are not going to gamble precious resources.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when regulatory initiatives continue to be decidedly business unfriendly.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the tax structure remains fluid and uncertain, but there is little or no hope that it will ultimately be favorable to them.

Employers are not going to step up hiring as long as the Cap and Trade initiative remains on the table as there is nothing other than pain in that for most American commerce and industry.

I agree that we won't have recovery from the recession until employers start hiring. But this Administration continues to be the most business unfriendly administration in my memory and seem to go out of their way to discourage employers from having confidence to move forward. Meanwhile they seem determined to continue to spend us into oblivion.

The stimulus isn't working.

We deserve better.

 

[Douger]

Gold at 1209.
It's working like a champ !

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course you wouldn't blame the president, Sky. Fact is, all the money we have thrown at the economy and it's still tanking.....what has Barry done to stop the hemorage that has worked?

Nothing. Nothing's worked. We are paying for mistakes of the past.

Too bad you added your last remark, I had to remove my thanks, Sky.
If barry isn't getting the job done, then he and the democrats becomes part of the problem, Sky.
If his policies aren't doing the job and actually are making it worse, perhaps he should try another direction

They aren't making it worse. From the outset, every economist on the planet has said that recovery would be a long slog (the actual words most of them used) and that decreasing unemployment numbers for at least two quarters is the LAST measurement that we're out from under the recession.

What exactly should Obama do? What would any president do in this situation? Only people who don't do any fact-checking think that small businesses won't benefit from health care reform (they will), and there have been a plethora of tax credits and perks thrown at businesses for over a year, many of which have been extended for another year. What are the alternatives? A decision not to hire isn't illegal, so there's no way to force them to hire.

 

[MaggieMae]

The author also says:



New Deal innovation's worked WONDERS huh?
Yes, they did. The TVA is but one example. Here's an example of its influence on private enterprise development today:
TVA Economic Development

This is a college student's thesis that presents no opposing POV.
So? Finding a counterpoint is your job. But I don't think you'll find one.

It would fail anywhere outside of NYC, where he no doubt got an "A" from Socialist Professors. I bet he's now working at Burger King Flipping Hambugers

Right. Yoshi Tsurumi was one of George W. Bush's economics professors at Harvard. I seriously doubt he's doing anything now but perhaps enjoying retirement.

We can only hope.

Finding a counterpoint to the obviously bias professor's rosey OPINION?

The Real Lesson Of The New Deal - Forbes.com

Successes and failures of Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs imposing military socialism of Edward Bellamy, Francis Bellamy, the Pledge of Allegiance. by Dr. Rex Curry

Was the New Deal a success

BBC - GCSE Bitesize - Was the New Deal a success or failure?

Yeah, I had to search for "Failures of the New Deal"

There were 55,000,000 results: Making you look foolish should really be more challenging.

Next.

Yay!! You can Google. Funny, though, when I Googled "Failures of the New Deal," I got a different number and each page was about 50-50 of articles with some variation titled "Failures AND Successes of the New Deal."

Why don't you take a stab at just the TVA project, since the volumes of material debating the New Deal probably fill a football stadium or two. Unless you plan to argue each one, in which case you won't maintain my interest or anyone else's, I can guarantee.

 

[saveliberty]

The government seems hellbent on providing me lots of competition in my landscape business. Illegals who can be underpaid, underinsured, and untaxed are really making me want to go out and provide benefits, higher pay and more jobs.

 

[Samson]

The government seems hellbent on providing me lots of competition in my landscape business. Illegals who can be underpaid, underinsured, and untaxed are really making me want to go out and provide benefits, higher pay and more jobs.

Perhaps if we raise the minimum wage, that would help?

 

[Foxfyre]

Small business is already NOT benefitting from healthcare reform. Most importantly many employees of small business are already NOT benefitting from healthcare reform. Many insurance companies are already jacking up premiums now in anticipation of higher costs when the new requirements kick in and that is hurting a lot of folks.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK AUGUST 7, 2010
It Isn't Working
Three years of spending and monetary stimulus haven't helped jobs.

Another month, another mediocre jobs report from the Department of Labor. This is consistent with the rest of the economic evidence that this is a lackluster recovery that so far is not turning into a durable expansion.

The economy shed 131,000 jobs in July and the number of jobs created in May and June were revised downward to 221,000 lost jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% but that does not reflect the fact that the number of discouraged workers is also up 389,000 from a year ago. . . .
It Isn't Working - WSJ.com

You don't get good steady jobs from projects like this that the stimulus package has been buying:

$554,763 to replace windows in visitor center that was closed indefinitely three years ago.

$762,372 for a software program for interactive dance performances with real-time audiences.

$677,462 to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity and unfairness.

$1.9 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa to capture, photograph and analyze thousands of exotic ants.

$62 million for a connector to Pittsburgh professional sports stadiums, although Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called the connector “a tragic mistake.”

$7.3 million for two Texas fire stations that have become so mired in red tape it is not clear when they will be built.

$1.2 million for an abandoned train station converted into a museum in Glassboro, New Jersey.

$357,710 for an old abandoned iron furnace for a facelift after money was squandered on the same project years before.

$308 million for power plant construction that won’t start for a least two years.

$89,298 to replace a sidewalk that was replaced only five years ago and that leads to a ditch.
http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/why-the-stimulus-money-isn’t-working/

In July 2009, Robert Samuelson wrote in Newsweek:

It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.

As a result, much of the stimulus's potential benefit has been squandered. Spending increases and tax cuts are sprinkled in too many places and, all too often, are too delayed to do much good now. Nor do they concentrate on reviving the economy's most depressed sectors: state and local governments; the housing and auto industries.
Samuelson: Why Obama?s Stimulus Isn?t Stimulating - Newsweek

Obama could have been a hero and been applauded as the most constructive President in a crisis in history had he simply delayed costly programs that we couldn't afford in favor of eliminating all unnecessary regulation and creating a long term tax structure and business friendly environment that would allow business to look forward, take risks, and start hiring again.

What he has done has not helped much of anybody other than special interest groups and it has definitely been hurting most everybody else.

We deserve better.

 

[MaggieMae]

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the markers for the effect the healthcare legislation will have keeps moving. Until they know exactly what effect it will have on them, they are not going to gamble precious resources.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when regulatory initiatives continue to be decidedly business unfriendly.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the tax structure remains fluid and uncertain, but there is little or no hope that it will ultimately be favorable to them.

Employers are not going to step up hiring as long as the Cap and Trade initiative remains on the table as there is nothing other than pain in that for most American commerce and industry.

I agree that we won't have recovery from the recession until employers start hiring. But this Administration continues to be the most business unfriendly administration in my memory and seem to go out of their way to discourage employers from having confidence to move forward. Meanwhile they seem determined to continue to spend us into oblivion.

The stimulus isn't working.

We deserve better.

Then they'll die. And yes, we do deserve better!! Unless a company genuinely got tossed into the dumpster as a result of Wall Street PRIVATE INVESTORS making bad decisions that nearly brought down the entire global economy, I for one am all through feeling sorry for them as they decide to shift profits solely back into market investments instead of their own businesses.

You continue to blanket assertions, which I absolutely HATE. "This administration continues to go out of their way to discourage employers from having confidence to move forward"... What is that supposed to mean? And I would ask you for some proof, please. Because I know it is simply NOT true. This administration has decided to crack down on tax loopholes, on outsourcing (hiding) profits, and to adjust the tax rates upward for businesses and private individuals to the rates held when Clinton left office. The administration has demanded that there be better oversight by the SEC, that corporations and financial institutions start adhering to existing regulations as well as new ones intended to be PROACTIVE in the event another series of "bailouts" are on the horizon. If the new rules are your idea of "discouraging employers from having confidence to move forward," then I suggest your "free market" principle is warped. We DO deserve better than having the Chamber of Commerce write all the rules so that the fat cats can stay fat.

 

[MaggieMae]

The government seems hellbent on providing me lots of competition in my landscape business. Illegals who can be underpaid, underinsured, and untaxed are really making me want to go out and provide benefits, higher pay and more jobs.

How is that "the government's" fault today anymore than it was four years ago? I have a suggestion: If you KNOW some of your competitors are hiring illegals, REPORT IT. With today's public mood on illegal immigration, I'm sure your complaints would get results.

 

[MaggieMae]

Small business is already NOT benefitting from healthcare reform. Most importantly many employees of small business are already NOT benefitting from healthcare reform. Many insurance companies are already jacking up premiums now in anticipation of higher costs when the new requirements kick in and that is hurting a lot of folks.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK AUGUST 7, 2010
It Isn't Working
Three years of spending and monetary stimulus haven't helped jobs.

Another month, another mediocre jobs report from the Department of Labor. This is consistent with the rest of the economic evidence that this is a lackluster recovery that so far is not turning into a durable expansion.

The economy shed 131,000 jobs in July and the number of jobs created in May and June were revised downward to 221,000 lost jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% but that does not reflect the fact that the number of discouraged workers is also up 389,000 from a year ago. . . .
It Isn't Working - WSJ.com

You don't get good steady jobs from projects like this that the stimulus package has been buying:

$554,763 to replace windows in visitor center that was closed indefinitely three years ago.

$762,372 for a software program for interactive dance performances with real-time audiences.

$677,462 to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity and unfairness.

$1.9 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa to capture, photograph and analyze thousands of exotic ants.

$62 million for a connector to Pittsburgh professional sports stadiums, although Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called the connector “a tragic mistake.”

$7.3 million for two Texas fire stations that have become so mired in red tape it is not clear when they will be built.

$1.2 million for an abandoned train station converted into a museum in Glassboro, New Jersey.

$357,710 for an old abandoned iron furnace for a facelift after money was squandered on the same project years before.

$308 million for power plant construction that won’t start for a least two years.

$89,298 to replace a sidewalk that was replaced only five years ago and that leads to a ditch.
http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/why-the-stimulus-money-isn’t-working/

In July 2009, Robert Samuelson wrote in Newsweek:

It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.

As a result, much of the stimulus's potential benefit has been squandered. Spending increases and tax cuts are sprinkled in too many places and, all too often, are too delayed to do much good now. Nor do they concentrate on reviving the economy's most depressed sectors: state and local governments; the housing and auto industries.
Samuelson: Why Obama?s Stimulus Isn?t Stimulating - Newsweek

Obama could have been a hero and been applauded as the most constructive President in a crisis in history had he simply delayed costly programs that we couldn't afford in favor of eliminating all unnecessary regulation and creating a long term tax structure and business friendly environment that would allow business to look forward, take risks, and start hiring again.

What he has done has not helped much of anybody other than special interest groups and it has definitely been hurting most everybody else.

We deserve better.

Please stop posting your silly itemizations. You've made your point, and I don't think anyone would argue that there weren't some pretty dumb projects BY STATES that took stimulus funds. I'm also curious if you ever read anything OTHER THAN some right-wing opinions, or quote from any national publication other than the extremely biased Wall Street Journal. If I dared post anything from the New York Times, there would be all hell to pay, and you know it. Therefore, I don't.

Finally (and I do mean finally, because as usual, I get so tired of seeing your Randian attempts at proving everything would be fine if there were no taxes and everyone just went about their business with no laws or regulations), since you seem to know zero about how the health care reform bill will affect businesses, here's a very brief analysis in a very unbiased report in INC. magazine. Of course you can find hundreds of sites on the Internet with more detailed information and no political slant, but you choose not to do so.

What Obama's Health Care Reform Means for Small Businesses

 

[Foxfyre]

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the markers for the effect the healthcare legislation will have keeps moving. Until they know exactly what effect it will have on them, they are not going to gamble precious resources.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when regulatory initiatives continue to be decidedly business unfriendly.

Employers are not going to step up hiring when the tax structure remains fluid and uncertain, but there is little or no hope that it will ultimately be favorable to them.

Employers are not going to step up hiring as long as the Cap and Trade initiative remains on the table as there is nothing other than pain in that for most American commerce and industry.

I agree that we won't have recovery from the recession until employers start hiring. But this Administration continues to be the most business unfriendly administration in my memory and seem to go out of their way to discourage employers from having confidence to move forward. Meanwhile they seem determined to continue to spend us into oblivion.

The stimulus isn't working.

We deserve better.

Then they'll die. And yes, we do deserve better!! Unless a company genuinely got tossed into the dumpster as a result of Wall Street PRIVATE INVESTORS making bad decisions that nearly brought down the entire global economy, I for one am all through feeling sorry for them as they decide to shift profits solely back into market investments instead of their own businesses.

You continue to blanket assertions, which I absolutely HATE. "This administration continues to go out of their way to discourage employers from having confidence to move forward"... What is that supposed to mean? And I would ask you for some proof, please. Because I know it is simply NOT true. This administration has decided to crack down on tax loopholes, on outsourcing (hiding) profits, and to adjust the tax rates upward for businesses and private individuals to the rates held when Clinton left office. The administration has demanded that there be better oversight by the SEC, that corporations and financial institutions start adhering to existing regulations as well as new ones intended to be PROACTIVE in the event another series of "bailouts" are on the horizon. If the new rules are your idea of "discouraging employers from having confidence to move forward," then I suggest your "free market" principle is warped. We DO deserve better than having the Chamber of Commerce write all the rules so that the fat cats can stay fat.

The proof is in the legislation that has been passed and that has been in the news for months and months now and that has been discussed and commentaried extensively and in the most minute detail ad nauseum including here on USMB. Among examples are healthcare reform, letting most of the existing tax structure die, keeping targets of who will be affected by what constantly moving so nobody knows what's coming, Cap & Trade, and more and more regulation.

You say this is speaking in generalities while your assertion that outsourcing, better oversight, cracking down on tax loopholes, etc. etc. etc. without spelling out specifically what you mean or providing examples is NOT speaking in generalities? Are you familiar with the Bible verse that advises folks to remove the log from their own eye before complaining about the mote in their neighbor's eye?

The fact is that millions of Americans are out of work who didn't need to be out of work. The fact is that the government has bankrupted us and continues to dig that hole deeper and deeper while not producing much in the way of results with all that money and while not providing much hope that it will get better any time soon.

Maybe you can ignore the glowing promises of what this will do or that will accomplish, and then have them backing down on the promises after it is a done deal and the money is committed.

I'm not that accommodating.

We deserve better.

 

[Sky Dancer]

We're going bankrupt because we are fighting unnecessary wars. We have a 13 trillion dollar debt. We borrowed from the Chinese to pay for the wars rather than raise a war tax. Bush gave out tax cuts and then led us into war. We have to take strong measures, tax and cut.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's watch any progress on HR Bill 5029 cited below. It will probably have to wait until after the November election to gain any legs, but it does contain at least some of the solution for the problem.

The Obama Jobs Gap ( ō-ˈbä-mə - jäbzˈ- gap): The number of jobs President Obama's economic policies are not creating each month extending the Obama Recession and leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The wider the Obama Jobs Gap the longer it will take for the U.S. economy to return to a 5% unemployment rate, a level most economist consider full-employment.

American Solutions small business owners continue to give the Obama Administration poor marks on the economy. When asked in the most recent American Solutions Small Business survey what Washington should be doing to help create jobs, small business owners said:




Cypress, Texas small business owner William Barnett: "Get rid of the Health Care bill and all the other things that have been dreamed up by this Congress in the last year and a half."


Sandy, Utah small business owner Dawn Gordon: "Get out of our way. Stop spending and passing laws that are in favor of big government and against business."


Yakima, Washington small business owner Bill Kramer: "Reduce regulation, lower taxes, reduce the size of the Federal Government by at least seventy-five percent."


Clermont, Florida small business owner Boyd Cochrane: "Cut taxes, cut red tape, cut governmental control, eliminate the 'managed economy' objective of this government, restore free markets."


American Solutions is proposing a series of tax cuts to spur small business. Introduced in the U.S. House as H.R. 5029, the Economic Freedom Act, the legislation has the support of forty-eight Members of Congress.
Obama Jobs Gap surpasses 1 Million in July | Press Releases | American Solutions

 

[Sky Dancer]

How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut
If Congress fails to increase tax revenues and cut costly programs, the federal deficit promises to be more than $1 trillion a year for the next decade.


By David R. Francis / August 9, 2010

Americans aren't paying nearly enough federal taxes to afford the government they have. To bring the budget closer to balance, Congress will have to raise taxes, cut spending, or both.

In recent decades, federal tax revenues usually have totaled about 18 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services. They got up to 21 percent when President Clinton balanced the budget. This year, after the Bush tax cuts and a deep recession, they are only about 14 percent of GDP.

"No wonder we are broke," says Robert McIntyre, director of the liberal think tank Citizens for Tax Justice. "We need a tax increase. Revenues are ridiculously low."

That kind of talk probably wouldn't get Mr. McIntyre elected to Congress. Cutting programs can also be politically risky, especially with an economy that's fragile and vulnerable to a pullback in government spending. But something clearly must be done.

The White House has just projected a deficit for fiscal 2010 of $1.47 trillion, 10 percent of GDP. That's a bit more than the fiscal 2009 deficit, which already was the largest relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II.

Before the November midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans will be too focused on politics to do anything. What happens after November is anybody's guess.

The Republicans' stated remedy would be budget cuts.

That's a bit ironic, because under President Bush, total federal outlays rose more than 6 percent a year in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, making him one of the biggest spending presidents ever. That compares with an annual average increase of 1.7 percent over the past 40 years, notes Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in testimony for President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Trying to raise taxes sufficiently "to even begin to address" the future budget gaps "would hinder economic growth and thereby make the crisis even worse," she holds. "Our fiscal problem is a spending problem, not a revenue one."

McIntyre agrees that most taxes shouldn't be raised until the economy has recovered.

Where to cut? One place to look is defense.

Mr. Obama proposes spending $708 billion on the military (including the wars) in fiscal 2011, making it the biggest military budget since World War II. That sum, notes Ms. de Rugy, is 33 percent higher than the budget at the peak of the Vietnam War and 23 percent higher than that at the peak of the cold war under President Reagan, even after adjusting for inflation.

Another potential source for slashing the budget is what Washington calls "tax expenditures." These are special tax breaks that cost the United States Treasury an estimated $1 trillion a year. Some of the biggest breaks are also the most popular, such as income tax deductions for property taxes and for interest on home mortgages.

Finding politically vulnerable tax breaks could be hard. That's why, eventually, Congress will have to raise taxes, McIntyre figures.

Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 a year, thereby protecting 80 percent of the cuts. McIntyre suggests setting the expiry level at $150,000, raising an extra $3.5 trillion over 10 years.

If Congress doesn't act, and soon, the deficit promises to be more than $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut - CSMonitor.com

 

[Samson]

How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut
If Congress fails to increase tax revenues and cut costly programs, the federal deficit

Where to cut? One place to look is defense.

Mr. Obama proposes spending $708 billion on the military (including the wars) in fiscal 2011, making it the biggest military budget since World War II. That sum, notes Ms. de Rugy, is 33 percent higher than the budget at the peak of the Vietnam War and 23 percent higher than that at the peak of the cold war under President Reagan, even after adjusting for inflation.

Another potential source for slashing the budget is what Washington calls "tax expenditures." These are special tax breaks that cost the United States Treasury an estimated $1 trillion a year. Some of the biggest breaks are also the most popular, such as income tax deductions for property taxes and for interest on home mortgages.

While I agree that the military budget could be cut, I don't consider "slashing the budget" = collecting more taxes, even if Washington calls them "tax expenditures."

I also find it astonishing that the ONLY government enterprise whose budget could stand to be trimmed is the Military Budget?

 

[Foxfyre]

How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut
If Congress fails to increase tax revenues and cut costly programs, the federal deficit

Where to cut? One place to look is defense.

Mr. Obama proposes spending $708 billion on the military (including the wars) in fiscal 2011, making it the biggest military budget since World War II. That sum, notes Ms. de Rugy, is 33 percent higher than the budget at the peak of the Vietnam War and 23 percent higher than that at the peak of the cold war under President Reagan, even after adjusting for inflation.

Another potential source for slashing the budget is what Washington calls "tax expenditures." These are special tax breaks that cost the United States Treasury an estimated $1 trillion a year. Some of the biggest breaks are also the most popular, such as income tax deductions for property taxes and for interest on home mortgages.

While I agree that the military budget could be cut, I don't consider "slashing the budget" = collecting more taxes, even if Washington calls them "tax expenditures."

I also find it astonishing that the ONLY government enterprise whose budget could stand to be trimmed is the Military Budget?

Looking at it from a purely conservative pespective, I think there is a lot that could be cut from military spending without weakening the military's capability one penny.

First there should be a complete audit of military spending with an eye to eliminate ALL pork barrel spending that doesn't have to be spent. That alone would cut tens of billions out of the budget.

There should be strict procurement processes in place to be sure that the lowest competent bidder gets contracts to do necessary tasks and any competent supplies will be eligible to bid instead of mostly union shops as it is now. All unnecessary tasks should be eliminated.

The audit should note unnecessary duplication and, wherever possible, practical, and efficient, promote use of ordinary everyday materials and supplies rather than spend extra to invent something unique to the Army. I read awile back that the military saved $100,000 when it decided ordinary saltines that most Americans ate were not that much different from Army issue saltines and stopped having them special made.

That makes you wonder how many such savings could be had just by using some common sense.

Just cutting spending across the board with no consideration for consequences or efficient use of the monies should not be recommended by anybody.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut
If Congress fails to increase tax revenues and cut costly programs, the federal deficit

Where to cut? One place to look is defense.

Mr. Obama proposes spending $708 billion on the military (including the wars) in fiscal 2011, making it the biggest military budget since World War II. That sum, notes Ms. de Rugy, is 33 percent higher than the budget at the peak of the Vietnam War and 23 percent higher than that at the peak of the cold war under President Reagan, even after adjusting for inflation.

Another potential source for slashing the budget is what Washington calls "tax expenditures." These are special tax breaks that cost the United States Treasury an estimated $1 trillion a year. Some of the biggest breaks are also the most popular, such as income tax deductions for property taxes and for interest on home mortgages.

While I agree that the military budget could be cut, I don't consider "slashing the budget" = collecting more taxes, even if Washington calls them "tax expenditures."

I also find it astonishing that the ONLY government enterprise whose budget could stand to be trimmed is the Military Budget?

The military is not the only place where the budget needs to be cut. It's the one I'm most passionate about cutting.


"On the one hand, we need to reject the revisionist history that frames the 2008 collapse as unforeseeable (Greenspan’s line) and portrays Wall Street monopoly capitalism as requiring only minor regulation (Summers’ line). We also need to reject right-wing narratives framing “big government” and “the left” as responsible for the current economic mess. It makes no sense to talk about this country’s political economic system (as conservatives do) as if there’s a sovereign “government” on one side of the equation, and victimized “business” on the other. Washington is increasingly controlled by the very same people who own Wall Street, so any attempts to separate the two are impossible, undesirable, and manipulative. Some examples of public-private incest further drive this point home:

Many of the most prominent individuals in the Obama administration who are responsible for regulating Wall Street are former investment and banking executives themselves (see my previous piece: “Larry Summers and the Jobless Recovery&#8221. To talk of the Obama administration as a group of raving “Marxists” (as Glenn Beck and other statist reactionaries do) only makes sense if we recognize them as corporate socialists, committed to the redistribution of taxpayer dollars from the masses to the wealthy, privileged few. This basic point is lost in propaganda disseminated on right-wing radio and Fox News, and beyond the comprehension of those attacking Obama for “taking over” the private sector.

Increasingly, members of Congress, along with most presidential candidates, are part of the corporate class. Most all the candidates running for president in 2008 were millionaires. Nearly half of the members of Congress are in the millionaires club, and many more will join their ranks when they retire from office. It makes little sense, then, to speak of “government imposition” on business when the very officials running government are part of the same clique controlling the private economy.

The bureaucratic-regulatory community is also increasingly subject to “capture” by the private economy. A “revolving door” between public and private institutions has long existed, and it is getting worse. A recent study by CBS News finds that nearly fifty former employees of Goldman Sachs alone have held major positions in the federal government as members of Congress, Congressional committee members and staffers, state and national Treasury Department officials, heads of non-profit government corporations, members of state and national Federal Reserves, as Presidential advisors, and as members of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Commerce.

Democratic officials, contemptuously attacked on the right for stifling “laissez faire” capitalism, are themselves inextricably linked to corporate America and deregulation. Democratic Congressmen Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are favorite targets of the right (as they’re demonized for allegedly pushing through government initiatives that “forced” unwilling banks to lend to the poor). However, a close look at these two figures demonstrates their intimate relations with corporate America. Both voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that deregulated derivatives. Dodd’s new legislation calling of financial “reform” contains no provision to restore Glass Steagall.

Electoral support for Dodd and Frank is heavily corporatized. Four of their top eleven campaign contributors include the securities and investment, real estate, insurance, and commercial banking industries. Dodd and Frank also voted for the 2008 TARP bailout, solidifying their status among the strongest supporters of failed Wall Street bankers and speculators. Dodd is the all time largest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG, one of the many firms that shares major responsibility for creating the toxic derivatives mess. Dodd was also responsible for an amendment to the 2009 federal stimulus that exempted AIG (upon the request of Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers) from government regulation of executive bonuses. The gift was the least Dodd could do for a company that gave so generously to his campaigns over the years.

Regulatory agencies like HUD are also attacked by the right for allegedly pushing unsustainable lending policies for the benefit of poor homeowners. A closer look at those who run HUD, however, demonstrates that they are an integral part of the corporate power elite. All of the most recent heads of HUD retain strong ties to the industries responsible for the 2008 economic collapse. Henry Cisneros, the head of HUD under Clinton, sat on the board of the housing builder KB Home, as well as on the board of Countrywide Financial, both of which were major participants in the feeding of the housing bubble. Andrew Cuomo, another secretary of HUD, has relied primarily on the real estate industry to finance his candidacy for governor of New York. One of every five dollars of the total $18 million raised by Cuomo in the last few years came from real estate interests. Bush’s HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson also enjoyed incestuous relations with the subprime industry. Jackson, along with Cisneros, was one of a number of government officials who benefitted from below-rate home loans from Countrywide Financial, as two of the “friends of Angelo” (Countrywide corporate executive Angelo Mozilo). In short, both HUD officials directly benefitted monetarily from the subprime mortgage fiasco, securing sweetheart deals from an industry they were supposed to be overseeing.

It should come as no surprise that government and corporate officials who caused the economic collapse are seeking to obscure their roles in the crisis. What’s most disturbing is that they appear to be succeeding. The recent efforts of conservative commentators to direct public anger at “the government” and progressive activists, while exonerating corporate America appear to have had a significant effect on public opinion.
CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Samson]

How to fix the deficit: Tax and cut
If Congress fails to increase tax revenues and cut costly programs, the federal deficit

Where to cut? One place to look is defense.

Mr. Obama proposes spending $708 billion on the military (including the wars) in fiscal 2011, making it the biggest military budget since World War II. That sum, notes Ms. de Rugy, is 33 percent higher than the budget at the peak of the Vietnam War and 23 percent higher than that at the peak of the cold war under President Reagan, even after adjusting for inflation.

Another potential source for slashing the budget is what Washington calls "tax expenditures." These are special tax breaks that cost the United States Treasury an estimated $1 trillion a year. Some of the biggest breaks are also the most popular, such as income tax deductions for property taxes and for interest on home mortgages.

While I agree that the military budget could be cut, I don't consider "slashing the budget" = collecting more taxes, even if Washington calls them "tax expenditures."

I also find it astonishing that the ONLY government enterprise whose budget could stand to be trimmed is the Military Budget?

The military is not the only place where the budget needs to be cut. It's the one I'm most passionate about cutting.

.....

Indeed: then why not simply state which other budgets need to be cut?

The previous post is unrelated to this subject.

I see a 10%/year reduction in all federal budgets, and a freeze in tax revenues (no change in Federal Revenues) for the next 7 years as a positive step toward economic stability without sacrificing critical federal services.