RE: US federal budget

RE: US federal budget (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 6:37:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Federal revenues for treasury and savings bonds seem to be unavailable, or I did not word the search right. I am curious as to how much it is though The entire amount of federal borrowing every year is in various Treasury securities. T bonds are the most common.

vincentML -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 4:59:47 AM)
~FR~ Cut Federal spending. Not so fast. A different view: "The story, at this point, is fairly straightforward. The financial crisis led, through several channels, to a sharp fall in private spending: residential investment plunged as the housing bubble burst; consumers began saving more as the illusory wealth created by the bubble vanished, while the mortgage debt remained. And this fall in private spending led, inevitably, to a global recession. For an economy is not like a household. A family can decide to spend less and try to earn more. But in the economy as a whole, spending and earning go together: my spending is your income; your spending is my income. If everyone tries to slash spending at the same time, incomes will fall — and unemployment will soar. So what can be done? A smaller financial shock, like the dot-com bust at the end of the 1990s, can be met by cutting interest rates. But the crisis of 2008 was far bigger, and even cutting rates all the way to zero wasn’t nearly enough. At that point governments needed to step in, spending to support their economies while the private sector regained its balance. And to some extent that did happen: revenue dropped sharply in the slump, but spending actually rose as programs like unemployment insurance expanded and temporary economic stimulus went into effect. Budget deficits rose, but this was actually a good thing, probably the most important reason we didn’t have a full replay of the Great Depression. (SNIP) And here in America, Republicans insist that they’ll use a confrontation over the debt ceiling — a deeply illegitimate action in itself — to demand spending cuts that would drive us back into recession. The truth is that we’ve just experienced a colossal failure of economic policy — and far too many of those responsible for that failure both retain power and refuse to learn from experience." SOURCE

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 5:35:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl We are speaking about those who lose their jobs as a result of downsizing the different departments. Pink slips are eligible for unemployment.. even at the federal level.. along with a host of other services. I see. So, if they aren't doing a job that is meaningful without Government contracts, take some fuckitol and don't stop those contracts! We can't have that!!! At some point, we'll be stopping those contracts and the people who aren't essential to the scaled down operations will be out of work. What is wrong with that? Unemployment is paid by....? Oh, that's right, employers pay unemployment insurance... This goes back to the whole idea that when you find yourself in a hole, one of the first things you do is stop digging. Thats not what I said. I asked a question... its a simple question... one based upon other responses. If you want to be part of a discussion with me, you dont have to be belligerent. I knew what you were talking about. I have been following the entire thread. There is smart business in keeping the best of the best regardless of whether they are currently employed in a soon-to-be shuttered plant/division. Smart business owners will find spots for those they want within their employ. If you don't want to answer the questions posed to you, just let me know that. quote: quote: Oh, that's right, employers pay unemployment insurance... For how long? I think Aylee posted some actual numbers of unemployment in her list.. and that got me to thinking about other areas. It would be a massive law off as I see it. I was curious to the extent people were thinking their proposals through. 1. It doesn't matter how long. Is there a law out there that mandates how long an employer must fund unemployment insurance for an employee? Then, right there it is. States and the Federal Government don't have to extend unemployment. In general, they do, which is all well and good, provided it isn't giving incentive to people to not work. What is the purpose of a business?

vincentML -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 6:36:23 AM)
quote: 1. It doesn't matter how long. Is there a law out there that mandates how long an employer must fund unemployment insurance for an employee? Then, right there it is. States and the Federal Government don't have to extend unemployment. In general, they do, which is all well and good, provided it isn't giving incentive to people to not work. What is the purpose of a business? Does a business have social and communal responsibility? Or is it an island onto itself? Did you (Mr Businessman/woman) really build that all by yourself? Do you (businessdude) not depend on the community to spend and buy your wares and services? Rhetorical questions is all.

mnottertail -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:17:29 AM)
one could uncap social security payin, and it would be solvent forever in just a few years. Cut defense considerably, in the toy budget specifically, retire alot of top brass. Clean up medicare medicaid and make it single payer universal.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 11:08:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail one could uncap social security payin, and it would be solvent forever in just a few years. I'm thinking it wouldn't take a few years to get it solvent. I wonder how much more revenue that would bring in.

mnottertail -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 11:10:33 AM)
take anyone who makes over like 112K and multiply that leftover times like 6.2% X 2 and there you have it.

mnottertail -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 11:15:29 AM)
You could remove carried interest for millionaire money guys as well, that is welfare at its most socialistic for the rich.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 11:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: 1. It doesn't matter how long. Is there a law out there that mandates how long an employer must fund unemployment insurance for an employee? Then, right there it is. States and the Federal Government don't have to extend unemployment. In general, they do, which is all well and good, provided it isn't giving incentive to people to not work. What is the purpose of a business? Does a business have social and communal responsibility? Pay its taxes. quote: Or is it an island onto itself? Nope. quote: Did you (Mr Businessman/woman) really build that all by yourself? That is such a BS topic put forth by a woman to whip up her electoral base. Everybody was paid for their services rendered. quote: Do you (businessdude) not depend on the community to spend and buy your wares and services? Rhetorical questions is all. Depends on the wares/services produced. The consumer of ones wares/services are only owed what they pay for.

tazzygirl -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 12:02:23 PM)
quote: I knew what you were talking about. I have been following the entire thread. There is smart business in keeping the best of the best regardless of whether they are currently employed in a soon-to-be shuttered plant/division. Smart business owners will find spots for those they want within their employ. If you don't want to answer the questions posed to you, just let me know that. And I was speaking about across the board cuts affecting every part of government, which would affect almost every industry, which also affects employment, which affects more industry

vincentML -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 4:15:22 PM)
quote: Depends on the wares/services produced. The consumer of ones wares/services are only owed what they pay for. Doesn't matter the goods and services. The Great Depression was caused by a vicious cycle of unemployment, reduced aggregate demand, and more unemployment. Hoover pleaded with Business to keep people working. They just laughed or shrugged and dug their hole deeper. What a wonderful life!![8\|]

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 4:25:41 PM)
quote: one could uncap social security payin, and it would be solvent forever in just a few years. I didn't think of this...good idea. I wonder why this particular option to save SS has not been in the news? Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 4:54:37 PM)
Hell a lot of taxes could be raised by closing the tax loopholes for corporations.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I knew what you were talking about. I have been following the entire thread. There is smart business in keeping the best of the best regardless of whether they are currently employed in a soon-to-be shuttered plant/division. Smart business owners will find spots for those they want within their employ. If you don't want to answer the questions posed to you, just let me know that. And I was speaking about across the board cuts affecting every part of government, which would affect almost every industry, which also affects employment, which affects more industry Yep, and those that industry considers of high enough quality to keep under their employ, will. But, it's up to the employee to prove himself or herself a valuable employee. If that employee can't impress upon the decision-makers enough, then, it's not the employers fault for the employee being let go. The same goes for Government jobs. If you have 100,000 CPA's in the IRS (numbers being made up for the sake of example) and decide to cut it to 50,000, which 50k do you cut? Do you cut the best performing CPA's, the worst performing CPA's, a random sample of the whole, or what? In the private sector, more often than not, the employee that provides the most value will be kept on while those of lesser value would be let go.

tazzygirl -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:09:08 PM)
I am not placing blame on employees or employers... doesnt matter if they keep the best or the worse... doesnt matter if they fire everyone and hire a whole new crew.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Depends on the wares/services produced. The consumer of ones wares/services are only owed what they pay for. Doesn't matter the goods and services. The Great Depression was caused by a vicious cycle of unemployment, reduced aggregate demand, and more unemployment. Hoover pleaded with Business to keep people working. They just laughed or shrugged and dug their hole deeper. What a wonderful life!![8\|] quote: You: Do you (businessdude) not depend on the community to spend and buy your wares and services? Me: Depends on the wares/services produced. The consumer of ones wares/services are only owed what they pay for. Totally depends on what you're defining as "the community." Does Boeing depend on the Everett, WA community to purchase their 747's?

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:13:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Hell a lot of taxes could be raised by closing the tax loopholes for corporations. Helluva lot of tax revenues could be raised by closing all tax loopholes. Period.

tazzygirl -> RE: US federal budget (1/7/2013 7:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail one could uncap social security payin, and it would be solvent forever in just a few years. Cut defense considerably, in the toy budget specifically, retire alot of top brass. Clean up medicare medicaid and make it single payer universal. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/10/uncapping-social-security-payroll-tax-is-hardly-a-panacea/ Why is it peaking by 2014 then heading south again?

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/8/2013 5:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail one could uncap social security payin, and it would be solvent forever in just a few years. Cut defense considerably, in the toy budget specifically, retire alot of top brass. Clean up medicare medicaid and make it single payer universal. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/10/uncapping-social-security-payroll-tax-is-hardly-a-panacea/ Why is it peaking by 2014 then heading south again? My guess would be estimates on the # of workers compared to the number of retirees as baby boomers keep retiring. Quick search on Google shows the headlines that the US birth rate has hit the lowest since the 1920's. There has been a general decline for years now, too. So, my guess is that baby boomers increasing the retiree pool and overwhelming the current worker pools. Plus, as those baby boomers retire, they aren't necessarily replaced with someone making the same amount of money, so the overall pay of employees may also be dropping.

mnottertail -> RE: US federal budget (1/8/2013 7:20:32 AM)
My guess would be the robberies. I don't buy those assumptions so I don't buy the deal. I see nothing but untutored opinion and unexplicable inumeracy. If lifting the cap would meet 100 and some odd percent (mostly until 2082) how would the trust fund be going down when it is solvent at this time until 2023 and under the uncap would be funded 100% plus? I imagine that you could make some rather peckish and foolish proposition that since T-Bill interest is so low, we would be loosing money on interest, but it is money we have never had, and is probably a joke in the first place since it will only be funded with more debt. I am up to the tangerine column on my abacus, and cannot fathom even yet the equations for this foolishness.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875