joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Time and again, I keep hearing conservatives say that cutting budget spending will improve the economy. Of course not one of them can explain that in any logical, economic sense. Once you shatter the mirrors and blow away the smoke of the arguements, you left with a huge amount of total bull droppings. Cutting that budget spending during a recession with high unemployment is silly at best and lunatic-ish at worst.
Consider the question: "How much does a $100 Billion in Budget Spending Buy/Maintain in US Jobs"? How much does $100 Billion actually pay in terms of US Jobs? Many people that I've had to educated on this particular subject can not give the basic answer to the question: "What does the United States buy with $3.2 Trillion dollars?" The country buys three general concepts: People, Finished Goods, Raw Materials. In order for the US Military to have all those yummy MRE's for disasters and the like, how did those packages get created? They didnt just *POOF* into existance, did they? Of course not! People had to package them up, and other people had to make sure the food got into those packages. Still another group of people has to deliver both the raw materials (to be made into food) and the finished product to its destinations. And of course the people that actually harvest the food to be send by trucks to be turned into MREs. That's alot of people? And that's just MRE's!
The figure I've heard thrown around over the last few years by economists points to between 750,000 to 950,000 US Jobs that are created/maintained by budget spending. These jobs are broken down into three seperate groups (from most numberous to least): Private Sector, 'Down Stream', and finally Public Sector. The 'Down Stream' jobs are the result of private and public sector jobs. People have to buy food, cloths, gas, etc, in order to maintain their daily lives; this stuff doesnt just *POOF* into existance....it has to come from some where, right?
Likewise, the goverment money being spent in the private sector is not a 'one salary fits all' sort of deal. People are paid at different salary/contract ranges. Some are paid at $60K/year and others (like upper management) net $300K/year. So if we consider $100 Billion in Budget Spending buys 'us' 800,000 US Jobs; than buying 32 units of $100 Billion (we bought $3.2 Trillion worth of 'stuff'), is the same as buying/maintaining 25.6 million jobs. If what Fellow states is correct, that number should be much higher.
So, cutting budget spending translates literally into jobs being cut. But these jobs are not cut immediately when Congress cuts the budget. Contracts the US Goverment holds with private business owners would have to be worked out, those cuts either eliminating business profits or dropping them significantly. The lost jobs would not be felt until later in the financial year for those companies. The laid off, may not even know that their pushing for Congress to cut the deficit ended up costing them their own job (that's whats called ironic politics). In order to cut the current deficit of $1.2 Trillion, would mean cutting budget spending by 12 units of $100 Billion or 9.6 million jobs being lost.
So how does tossing 9.6 million Americans to the unemployment line (and the numbers I give are conservative), DURING a recession with ALREADY high unemployment....HELP...the US Economy as Republicans state it would? The real answer is, it doesnt. Less people employed, means less money in 'circulation' of the money market machine (its a macro economics concept...), resulting in less need for jobs 'down stream', and less in taxes (resulting in a deeper deficit). Its a really vicious circle of events the Republicans have been trying to brainwash Americans on for a decade now. In the last few years since the recession started in 2006-2007, that brainwashing has gone into high gear. Not surprisingly, many uneducated types have listen to it and agree without ever once checking if the information is value and credible.
In my opinion, the removing the Bush Era Tax Cuts on the rich would be a wise idea. Since they in effect play lower taxes than most 'middle class' Americans (Mr. Romeny is a good example of this). Economists place the amount of revenue generated by this group to be $800-950 billion/year. In theory, that number too is conservative; so it may very well even out the deficit we currently are experiencing. You wish to cut budget spending? Wait until the economy is roaring and we have a herd of bulls....THEN...make some spending cuts.
So as funny as it may sound, Mr. Romeny is correct in standing budget cuts in the present or near future would slow the economy down. I just find it amusing that he got boo'd by the very morons he's trying to get votes from in the next election.
|
Romney gets chewed for trying fiscal sanity. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread