joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
This is a bit of a 'simpleton' exercise in macro economics. And I say that respectfully, KenDckey. The US Budget is not like the local high school's theater budget. With about $3.2 trillion its the largest budget on planet Earth! Likewise, most people do not understand what it means to play around with number this big. So 'fucking around' could have some seriously damaging effects on the nation. Not just for the short term either!
Its easier to understand the functional dynamics of the budget by putting it into tangible concepts. $100 Billion is just 1/10th of a Trillion dollars. 10 unites of $100 Billion are worth $1 Trillion. So the budget is simple 32 units of $100 Billion. What does the United States buy for $3.2 trillion in a year?
The answer is just 'yes'.
From pencils on up to nuclear powered aircraft carriers. That its work force is not just those in the public sector by many times that in the private sector. That it does effect the nation's economy on local scales and the national. It even effects international economies. That was shown when the government was partial shutdown thanks to Republicans led by Ted Cruz. So what the nation pays and how it effects people at all levels again, is not to take lightly.
So here is the old phrase: Power Requires Responsibility, Great Power Requires Great Responsibility.
Anyone that does not fully understand the concept should not have even a tiny bit of power over deciding the budget. There are many people in this nation that would like to drop the budget in half, immediately. Some (about 10% of the previous group mentioned) would desire to do it over 5-10 years. Both groups are completely insane and should NOT be listen to under any circumstance.
It has been shown when the budget was dropped by just $500 Billion (or 5 units of $100 Billion), the nation's economy went from 'pretty stable' to 'sinking towards a recession'. Dropping $200-300 Billion should only be done in good economic times. And not just from any one group either.
If you watch Democrats and Republicans they will tell you they are dropping funding over a period of 'x' years. They understand what happens if you drop everything immediately. Its to bad most Americans can not understand this concept to any decent degree. Would make explaining the specifics much easier!
Likewise, each sub department head of each department understands fully what it means to stay in budget. And to try to save on costs were possible. These are US Citizens that understand all to well, how the budget operates under different US Presidents and Congresses. Most people in public sector jobs do not see 'raising taxes' as a viable option to handle costs the same as some private citizens.
If we want to handle the budget, then do it line by line, rather than as a whole. Putting the idea that 'no new taxes or additions' is just as real of an option as anything else. You can argue until your blue in the face, but reasonable people understand its there for a purpose. No one likes to raise taxes either, not even liberals!
Also, as you go about this process try to keep one thing in mind: the people employed. According the the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), each $100 Billion in government spending either creates and/or maintains about 700,000-950,000 jobs. The majority of these jobs is in the private sector, with the next biggest group called 'down stream jobs', followed by the smallest of the three groups, public sector. That when this money has been cut in the past, those in the public and private sector feel it first, and those in the 'down stream' feel it 3-6 months afterward. Dropping the majority of that money out of just one area on the budget (as you pointed out KenDckey), could have severe effects on the industries effected.
|
The Budget - 
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