Obama: We Can't Just Cut Way to Prosperity...

[CrusaderFrank]

You wanted to analogize the 2 situations to make a point, so if massive cuts in defense spending back then were followed by economic prosperity,

there's your analogy.

Right. Keynesian Economics never worked and cutting government spending rules.

Again, thank you

Frank, not long ago, Sikorsky Helicopter, down the road from me, announced layoffs of about 400 workers largely due to cutbacks in US defense spending.

Tell us where that cutting of government spending creates 400 new jobs for those guys. And that would be just to get back to even, jobwise, let alone create net new jobs.

Explain that to us in detail.

(btw, I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't have cut that spending if we don't need it, I just want you to explain to us how and where, SPECIFICALLY, that creates new jobs).

It's not just spending cuts. It's spending cuts coupled with Tax cuts coupled with repealing the economic destructive regulatory framework (Labor laws, etc.)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Right. Keynesian Economics never worked and cutting government spending rules.

Again, thank you

Frank, not long ago, Sikorsky Helicopter, down the road from me, announced layoffs of about 400 workers largely due to cutbacks in US defense spending.

Tell us where that cutting of government spending creates 400 new jobs for those guys. And that would be just to get back to even, jobwise, let alone create net new jobs.

Explain that to us in detail.

(btw, I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't have cut that spending if we don't need it, I just want you to explain to us how and where, SPECIFICALLY, that creates new jobs).

It's not just spending cuts. It's spending cuts coupled with Tax cuts coupled with repealing the economic destructive regulatory framework (Labor laws, etc.)

Oh man, you just bought yourself a sermon on 4 year olds working in bomb making plants and whatnot.

 

[Mustang]

Then so be it.

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.

There's plenty of justification. It's called SHARED sacrifice. But do you know what's happening? The rich have the kind of political influence (the influence of massive campaign contributions) to make the system work FOR them while working AGAINST you and me. The fact that some middle class conservatives buy into the arguments the rich offer to justify getting a pass is evidence that PT Barnum was on to something.

 

[oreo]

Frank, not long ago, Sikorsky Helicopter, down the road from me, announced layoffs of about 400 workers largely due to cutbacks in US defense spending.

Tell us where that cutting of government spending creates 400 new jobs for those guys. And that would be just to get back to even, jobwise, let alone create net new jobs.

Explain that to us in detail.

(btw, I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't have cut that spending if we don't need it, I just want you to explain to us how and where, SPECIFICALLY, that creates new jobs).

It's not just spending cuts. It's spending cuts coupled with Tax cuts coupled with repealing the economic destructive regulatory framework (Labor laws, etc.)

Oh man, you just bought yourself a sermon on 4 year olds working in bomb making plants and whatnot.

Ha.Ha.--you haven't been around too many 4 yr olds--have ya? Believe it or not--no one would hire a 4 year old--their attention span is very low--and all they want to do is PLAY.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's not just spending cuts. It's spending cuts coupled with Tax cuts coupled with repealing the economic destructive regulatory framework (Labor laws, etc.)

Oh man, you just bought yourself a sermon on 4 year olds working in bomb making plants and whatnot.

Ha.Ha.--you haven't been around too many 4 yr olds--have ya? Believe it or not--no one would hire a 4 year old--their attention span is very low--and all they want to do is PLAY.

Believe it or not, my 22 yo and 18 yo were once 4.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.

There's plenty of justification. It's called SHARED sacrifice. But do you know what's happening? The rich have the kind of political influence (the influence of massive campaign contributions) to make the system work FOR them while working AGAINST you and me. The fact that some middle class conservatives buy into the arguments the rich offer to justify getting a pass is evidence that PT Barnum was on to something.

Problem with this is that if you confiscated EVERY $ owned by every man, woman and child here, you still wouldn't be able to pay off the debt. And, "sacrifice" is not accomplished through confiscation.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Cutting waste (it's somewhat subject as to what constitutes waste) only gets you so far. Cutting fraud and abuse may actually require the gov't to hire MORE federal workers (as in trying to catch and prosecute people who engage in Medicare fraud). Earmarks don't actually amount to very much money relative to the entire budget. Neither does reps' pay. Ending the wars would make a dent. So would scaling back on all our military bases abroad. Of course, that might endanger some of our alliances, such as driving Japan into a closer alliance with China (as an example).

There actually IS such a thing as the law of unintended consequences when it comes to slashing the budget to the bone and laying off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers.

So, it's silly to think that cutting billions of dollars out of the federal budget is just going to somehow painlessly solve problems. Unemployment will go up. Schools will do a poorer job of educating kids (at a time when we're hard pressed to compete with other nations whose students are already outperforming ours).

Roads will be worse. Police protection will slip, likely leading to an increase of crime that will go unpunished because there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to handle the load.

Poverty, hunger, and homelessness will certainly increase. And of course, whatever services the average American relies on (without giving it that much thought) will become considerably less reliable and might even end completely. College tuition will skyrocket and be out of reach for average Americans. Public transportation costs will go way up while the availability of that transportation will diminish. Public health will be in greater jeopardy as food inspections decrease in frequency.

This is just a minor example of what to expect since cutting billions of dollars from the budget WILL have a ripple effect on both services and the economy.

You missed the point of my post. There are plenty of things that can be cut without touching government jobs. Government jobs aren't even on my radar for cuts.

And how come whenever someone even mentions spending cuts, polititcians and the left start the fear tactics about firing teachers, policeman, and firefighters?

 

[Charles_Main]

Actually, yes we can. It worked in the 1920s. it will work now.

You have no idea what your talking about! lol

You credit the Roaring 20's to Government borrowing and spending? Really? lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.

There's plenty of justification. It's called SHARED sacrifice. But do you know what's happening? The rich have the kind of political influence (the influence of massive campaign contributions) to make the system work FOR them while working AGAINST you and me. The fact that some middle class conservatives buy into the arguments the rich offer to justify getting a pass is evidence that PT Barnum was on to something.

Does Marxism ever get old? Im hearing the same stupid rambling from the Left for over 40 years and there's not a single place on the planet where this nonsense has ever worked.

Here's a hint, when your ideas fail every time they're tried it might be time for new ideas

 

[The T]

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.

There's plenty of justification. It's called SHARED sacrifice. But do you know what's happening? The rich have the kind of political influence (the influence of massive campaign contributions) to make the system work FOR them while working AGAINST you and me. The fact that some middle class conservatives buy into the arguments the rich offer to justify getting a pass is evidence that PT Barnum was on to something.

Problem with this is that if you confiscated EVERY $ owned by every man, woman and child here, you still wouldn't be able to pay off the debt. And, "sacrifice" is not accomplished through confiscation.

Problem here Soggy? These Statist creeps think the economy is a zero sum game...which we all know it isn't.

If they have their way and they succeed? It just might turn out that way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So cutting government spending works.

Thank you

The 2 periods aren't comparable. Taxes were lowered in the 20's to account for the end of the wartime spending, when taxes had been raised. During Bush, our taxes were lowered just before one war and lowered further just after the second one started,

and irrational ass-backwards fiscal policy that could only be exacerbated by lowering taxes further.

Was there a point in there?

Are you saying Bush cut government spending?

The top tax rate prior to WWI was 7%. During WWI it was raised to 77%. After the war it was cut back to 25%. That was rational tax policy. Pay for the war with higher taxes, lower the taxes after the war.

But no, tax policy did not cause the roaring twenties to roar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Right. Keynesian Economics never worked and cutting government spending rules.

Again, thank you

Frank, not long ago, Sikorsky Helicopter, down the road from me, announced layoffs of about 400 workers largely due to cutbacks in US defense spending.

Tell us where that cutting of government spending creates 400 new jobs for those guys. And that would be just to get back to even, jobwise, let alone create net new jobs.

Explain that to us in detail.

(btw, I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't have cut that spending if we don't need it, I just want you to explain to us how and where, SPECIFICALLY, that creates new jobs).

It's not just spending cuts. It's spending cuts coupled with Tax cuts coupled with repealing the economic destructive regulatory framework (Labor laws, etc.)

Do you want me to repeat the question?

So your answer so far is, if we just lower taxes even more, and get rid of labor, environment, and workplace safety laws, the guys at Sikorsky helicopter will all be able to go back to work building helicopters for the military that doesn't want them and won't pay for them?

Really?

 

[Trajan]

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.

There's plenty of justification. It's called SHARED sacrifice. But do you know what's happening? The rich have the kind of political influence (the influence of massive campaign contributions) to make the system work FOR them while working AGAINST you and me. The fact that some middle class conservatives buy into the arguments the rich offer to justify getting a pass is evidence that PT Barnum was on to something.

and the fact that you are incapable of standing on your own 2 feet sans whining about the tragedy of your own fail is evidence of something too......your life sux? own it.

 

[KissMy]

Actually, yes we can. It worked in the 1920s. it will work now.

Hmm--1920's--- I assume you meant the 1930's? No it didn't work. You can read a book called the Forgotten Man--which will tell you that we got little spurts of employment gains during the 1930's with all the road and bridge work. But as soon as those projects were completed--those jobs were gone--and unemployment rose again. The ONLY thing that brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

Obama's Director of the White House National Economic Council & Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers at 22:00 in video

"If Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in the beginning of 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15% and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed."