|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 1, 2011 15:10:57 GMT -5
What did you people think would happen if we cut spending? He is only pointing out common sense, which to me isn't news worthy in the first place. I think Zandi just likes being the shiny star on top of the tree.
The only problem is that services to the middle class are being looked at. At the least, these govt workers are performing reputable work. Cuts need to be made in the social services area, which is killiing the budget.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 1, 2011 15:11:51 GMT -5
Remember after Rome fell the world slipped into the dark ages for hundreds of years so all those jobs lost didn't help pull anything up. And where do you think all that freed up money will go? To savings, pulleze, the wheels will suck up the money and say we need to get rid of more because we didn't cut enough, and ad nauseum. That's exactly what has happened with raising taxes...it's never enough, is it???
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 1, 2011 15:13:38 GMT -5
I have to dispute one statement here about "if Government jobs shrink then private sector grows". That is not a true statement and I would love to see you prove it. It would be tough to prove 100% for us since we haven't seen a serious reduction of government in my lifetime. So, let's look at a current example in progress outside the US. Government Shrinks and Private Sector Grows — in CubaThe good news: The President has kept his promises to cut the number of government employees drastically and to reduce regulations so that new small businesses can open up, leading to an almost immediate 50 percent increase in the number of self-employed persons. The bad news: That’s President Raul Castro of communist Cuba, not President Barack Obama of ostensibly capitalist America.
“Hoping to resuscitate Cuba’s crippled economy,” writes the New York Times, Castro “opened the door to a new, if limited, generation of entrepreneurs last year, after warning that the state’s ‘inflated’ payrolls could end up ‘jeopardizing the very survival of the Revolution.’” Of course, the whole idea of “the Revolution” was that everyone should work for the state, not for himself, so Castro is really the one jeopardizing the communist project by allowing private enterprise; but let us not look a gift caballo in la boca.
The government is well on its way to keeping Castro’s pledge to lay off half a million employees by March, with another half million to follow in the months ahead. With about 4.3 million workers on Havana’s payroll, that’s a reduction of nearly a quarter — not bad for a Marxist state. Back in capitalist America, Obama’s healthcare “reform” will vastly increase the number of government employees in order to staff its unwieldy bureaucracy.
ObamaCare also piles mountains of regulations on businesses, making it that much more difficult for new ones to start up. In Cuba, meanwhile, the government issued 75,000 new business licenses in 2010, granting such licenses “quickly,” according to the Times, which adds that “the government has been encouraging the bureaucracy to keep them flowing.”
The result: Cubans can once again take pride in their work, knowing that they are producing useful goods and services that their neighbors will purchase willingly. As Marisela Alvarez, who opened a small café in November, told the Times: “I feel useful; I’m independent.”
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 1, 2011 15:25:36 GMT -5
Of course the poll is probably flawed- from the sample itself, to the question. With respect to the sample, the same 12% of people who are still members of unions probably represent 100% of the people left who still have a land line, lol! Anyway- here's how you get to the truth: You poll a sample that includes business owners, a poll that limits union participants to no more than 12%- their actual representation across the population, and then the vast majority would be private sector workers-- preferably 10% of whom are unemployed as is the case. The question would be as follows:
"Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that government employee union workers can keep their pay at an average $28,500 more than their average private sector counterparts, and continue to get shorter work days, more vacation time, and superior benefits?"
See how that poll comes out. Actually- we just took that poll in November. We won. They lost. And these polls are an attempt to reverse that. These Democrat legislative tactics are an attempt to subvert the will of the voters that just delivered them that famous "shellacking" the President acknowledged.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 1, 2011 15:29:42 GMT -5
We spent far less before all this mess began, so I don't see how it would make it worse by cutting spending. Cut spending, cut regulations,cut taxes, become a country that encourages business not one that discourages it. Allow private enterprise to thrive and you will grow the economy.
I will say that public unions are not really the problem, it is the politicians that agree to the contracts, but that being said the best way to prevent it is to remove them from the equation
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 1, 2011 15:30:24 GMT -5
So his big grand idea is to "split the difference"? Wow....that's earth shattering. What kind of a degree do I need to come up with those kinds of scenarios? This guy should be "Galactic Financial Policy Minister". Did you read the report or are you shooting from the hip? He goes into detail what would work and what would not. In any case he's not the only analyst saying it will cost jobs. First to set the stage, I did NOT read the report, will get to it I promise but on the comments here, for so many here , "shoot from the hip " is the favorite way of doing things.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 1, 2011 15:33:59 GMT -5
We spent far less before all this mess began, so I don't see how it would make it worse by cutting spending. Cut spending, cut regulations,cut taxes, become a country that encourages business not one that discourages it. Allow private enterprise to thrive and you will grow the economy
Pelosi and Reid were railing about if the Bush tax cuts were not extended, it was not really a tax increase, but taxes would be at the levels in the late 90s, so it would not really be a tax increase. Suppose we roll back govt spending to the levels and funding the way it was in the 90s, including all entitlements which were growing at nearly a 9% clip during the Bush years due to mandated increases established by Clinton.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Mar 1, 2011 15:38:32 GMT -5
In sum, there is no convincing evidence that H.R. 1 will reduce economic growth or total employment. To the contrary, there is more reason to expect that it will increase economic growth and employment as the federal government begins to put its fiscal house in order and encourage job-producing private sector investment. One of America's top economists, John B. Taylor of Stanford University's Hoover Institute. johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/goldman-sachs-wrong-about-impact-of.html
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 1, 2011 15:43:23 GMT -5
Pelosi and Reid were railing about if the Bush tax cuts were not extended, it was not really a tax increase, but taxes would be at the levels in the late 90s, so it would not really be a tax increase. Suppose we roll back govt spending to the levels and funding the way it was in the 90s, including all entitlements which were growing at nearly a 9% clip during the Bush years due to mandated increases established by Clinton. Damn SF...just trying to follow PelosiLogic hurt...never mind spin it back on her.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 1, 2011 15:49:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 1, 2011 15:50:01 GMT -5
Damn SF...just trying to follow PelosiLogic hurt...never mind spin it back on her.
As the most intellectually honest poster on these forums, if we choose to roll back the tax rates to Clinton era levels, it stands to reason that fed govt spending also be rolled back to Clinton era levels. It would not be a reduction in benefits paid out.
|
|