Congratulations, House Republicans!

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I think you are confused. One needs to consider the total impact of any policy action to determine its net effect. New taxes reduce consumer spending, so the effect of new government taxes & spending involve little or no net change in consumer demand - the government removes as much money from the economy as it adds.

I think you are the one confused. You make an assumption and then declare it is true without determining the impact at all. Not all taxes reduce consumer spending. If you tax the rich who save money and give to the needy who spend it you are increasing consumer demand.

Quote:

That's standard Keynesian economic theory. Unfortunately governments only rarely operate at a surplus - even in good times. Don't discount the Democrats in the throwing money away department.

Yes, the government rarely does do that which is a shame. The problem has been around for a long time and I pointed out that both parties are at fault. The difference is in where the parties spend that borrowed money. You seem to be arguing that a person that spends $20,000 to fix his roof is the same thing as a person that spends $20,000 for a new car and they will both see the same benefit in 10 years time.

Quote:

Consider the ill famed "war on Poverty" and what it accomplished.

You mean the fact that we have reduced poverty? Did you really think we would eliminate it?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, I did a career in the Navy, serving mostly on aircraft carriers. Later I got into the Engineering construction business and did a few years as general manager of corporations operating former Atomic Energy Commission sites (Hanford Washington and Rocky Flats Colorado), and running various contract programs for Federal Clients, including the Corps of Engineers, EPA and others. I've seen the bureaucracies up close and extensively; done work for them, etc

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Well, I did a career in the Navy, serving mostly on aircraft carriers. Later I got into the Engineering construction business and did a few years as general manager of corporations operating former Atomic Energy Commission sites (Hanford Washington and Rocky Flats Colorado), and running various contract programs for Federal Clients, including the Corps of Engineers, EPA and others. I've seen the bureaucracies up close and extensively; done work for them, etc

We all observe bureaucracies up close and extensively, George...and I have not been able to use those observations to do a reasonable comparison of whether or not the government is generally less efficient than private producers.

We all know the dangers of anecdotal input into these questions.

And a bias may dispose you to see what the government is doing as defective (and less efficient than industry)...when it actually may not be.

I cannot think of an objective way to measure...and I am disposed to see the government as being more efficient than many are willing to give it credit for being.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Actually you're right, but it seems wrong to include Social Security as an expenditure since it is already funded and to the point that Congress has been dipping into it as "petty cash" since LBJ, though Ronnie Reagan and W really tured it into an art.

Still at $775 billion, there's too much waste not to halve it. Solved your little problem. The President did get you conservative to rein in your piggery with the last Ted Cruz shut the Gov't downery. There were "poison pill" cuts defense was forced to accept.

Also: this is Obama's spending. Want to be what W's spending was like? Go on. Bet me. Guess what piece of the pie W's Defense spending got. Bet me.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/

Well according to this website, it looks like military spending spiked since Obama took office. Here is the amount spent in the last year of Bush's term:
Year: 2008
Military Spending: $594,662,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $2,982,554,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 19.94%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $600,609,000,000

Here is the military spending after Bush left office:

Year: 2009
Military Spending: $636,775,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $3,517,681,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 18.10%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $643,143,000,000

Year: 2010
Military Spending: $692,031,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $3,720,701,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 18.60%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $692,031,000,000

Year: 2011
Military Spending: $721,285,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $3,833,861,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 18.81%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $721,285,000,000

Year: 2012
Military Spending: $653,424,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $3,754,852,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 17.40%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $653,424,000,000

Year: 2013
Military Spending: $633,918,000,000
Total Agency Outlays: $3,915,443,000,000
Military Spending vs Total Agency Outlays: 16.19%
Inflation Adjusted Military Spending: $633,918,000,000

So what #'s do you have?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

So you don't like the bubble heads in the silent service? If you think we were rank, you ought to meet some SEALs or some pig boaters. Those diesel boat submariners are a whole different class of being. Sort of like if the Hell's Angels had a WWII submarine.

My point is like one of my favorites Senators, Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking about some real money."

I want my party back.

They decommissioned my billion dollar sub with its theoretic 16 MIRV'd missile in the early eighties. It wasn't at sea for 15 years. They've only added more and in a new class since then with allegedly a different missile system -theoretically twice as many as we may or may not have carried. How many trillions here alone the the whole package is considered?

You want to cut budget? Cut defense. Quit sending perfectly good vehicles and weapons to police departments, colleges and school systems. Think how many payoffs would stop if we just stop over arming our cops! Your tax dollars would go down or maybe be spent on roads.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I don't get it either. Its a right that doesn't impede my freedom either way regardless how I feel the institution. Its only right for so many ways and changes no one others life.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

A lot of that attitude is held by people who have no clue how government works. And corporations do everything to foster it. It suits their purposes to get people to defeat themselves and accept their lot as inferior to wealth and corporations.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George. What would YOU do without the taxpayers and their paid taxes!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Glad you looked it up. I get tired of doing all the looking up. Notice, though that the numbers themselves went down with Obama.

1 Reply

New 'Bluegrass Poll' Grimes leads McConnell in Senate Race 46-44
After two polls in his favor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell again has slipped behind Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, according to the latest Bluegrass Poll.

Grimes, Kentucky's secretary of state, now leads the veteran five-term senator 46 percent to 44 percent among likely voters, the survey found. While that advantage is within the poll's margin of error, it represents a 6-point swing to the Democrat since the last survey in late August.

Libertarian candidate David Patterson had 3 percent support in the poll, while 7 percent of likely voters said they were undecided.

Whereas the Aug. 28 poll, showing McConnell leading by 4 points, suggested he might be slowly pulling away from Grimes, "today, McConnell suddenly and unexpectedly looks wobbly," said SurveyUSA, which conducted the poll for The Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, WHAS-TV in Louisville and WKYT-TV in Lexington.

McConnell likewise has had difficulty making his case for a sixth term, as he also suffers from upside-down job approval numbers: 48 percent of registered voters viewed him unfavorably, while 35 percent viewed him favorably.

Kentuckians' opinions of Grimes are divided: 40 percent viewed her favorably, while 39 percent viewed her unfavorably.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/kentucky/2014/10/06/mcconnell-grimes-bluegrass-poll-due-tonight/16798721/

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

You are looking at the wrong #'s. Military spending under Obama has actually increased and hasn't come down to lower than Bush's military spending. It still doesn't change the fact that military spending is 20% of the budget, which is far less then the 50% you claimed.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

We all observe bureaucracies up close and extensively, George...and I have not been able to use those observations to do a reasonable comparison of whether or not the government is generally less efficient than private producers.

I don't accept that "we all" have equal direct contact with a variety of them. I have very significant contact managing operations involving thousands of people in direct support of a variety of Federal government agencies.

Frank Apisa wrote:

We all know the dangers of anecdotal input into these questions.

Please elaborate. What are the dangers? Is a total lack of specific experience any better? There are many way for people to err in their judgments, and some folks can be knowingly deceptive. However I don't think that specific information or knowledge makes any of that worse.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And a bias may dispose you to see what the government is doing as defective (and less efficient than industry)...when it actually may not be.

I'll admit I am biased, but that bias is based on broad experience in a fairly wide variety of situations with multiple agencies.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I cannot think of an objective way to measure...and I am disposed to see the government as being more efficient than many are willing to give it credit for being. [/b]

Well, that's at least honest, and you can believe what you wish. How do you feel about the CDC's readiness for the ongoing Ebola epidemic in Africa, and the incidents that have occurred here? How well did HHS do in preparing for the rollout of ACA? Have you read about issues in the VA? GAO? etc.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

We all observe bureaucracies up close and extensively, George...and I have not been able to use those observations to do a reasonable comparison of whether or not the government is generally less efficient than private producers.
I don't accept that "we all" have equal direct contact with a variety of them. I have very significant contact managing operations involving thousands of people in direct support of a variety of Federal government agencies.

Okay, I'll change that to "I observe bureaucracies up close and extensively, George...and I have not been able to use those observations to do a reasonable comparison of whether or not the government is generally less efficient than private producers.

Frankly, I doubt you have either. IT is a very tough comparison to make...and it may well be an impossible one.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
We all know the dangers of anecdotal input into these questions.
Please elaborate. What are the dangers? Is a total lack of specific experience any better? There are many way for people to err in their judgments, and some folks can be knowingly deceptive. However I don't think that specific information or knowledge makes any of that worse.

People like you are liable to see the government as less efficient than industry...because of a personal bias in that direction...and then state it as though it were a settled fact.

That is what I suspect you are doing, George...and that is part of the "danger" I perceive.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And a bias may dispose you to see what the government is doing as defective (and less efficient than industry)...when it actually may not be.
I'll admit I am biased, but that bias is based on broad experience in a fairly wide variety of situations with multiple agencies.

I am not as interested in how the bias came into being...as I am that there is a bias...and one which may be tainting your appraisal.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I cannot think of an objective way to measure...and I am disposed to see the government as being more efficient than many are willing to give it credit for being. [/b]
Well, that's at least honest, and you can believe what you wish. How do you feel about the CDC's readiness for the ongoing Ebola epidemic in Africa, and the incidents that have occurred here? How well did HHS do in preparing for the rollout of ACA? Have you read about issues in the VA? GAO? etc.

And???

Do you honestly think private enterprise could make a more efficient Navy?

Do you think private enterprise could run a gigantic industry like government more efficiently than the people doing it now?

1 Reply

And remember that it was PRIVATE ENTERPRISE that the government went to to create the software that fucked up the rollout of the ACA.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It DESERVED to be fucked up and fucked DOWN.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It DESERVED to be fucked up and fucked DOWN.

I'm sure you meant..."in your opinion", David.

In my opinion...and in the opinion of many people...it deserved to get as decent a reception as possible.

Only the dupes who support the rights of the Barons to run roughshod over them...think it deserved what you say it deserves.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It DESERVED to be fucked up and fucked DOWN.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm sure you meant..."in your opinion", David.

Your certainty is un-justified, Frank.
It is un-Constitutional; it is starkly, shockingly against the philosophy of the Founders.
I dunno, but I suspect that obama blackmailed John Roberts,
tho I have no evidence, other than this result itself.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In my opinion...and in the opinion of many people...
it deserved to get as decent a reception as possible.

Only those who want to rape the Constitution.
The statute is indecent because it un-Constitutionally violates the freedom of the citizens.

The statute USURPS fake authority, robbing the citizens of their liberty.
The government has no more authority than the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club to make anyone buy insurance.
No citizen has any duty to buy anything against his will.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Only the dupes who support the rights of the Barons to run roughshod over them...
think it deserved what you say it deserves.

I do not support that "roughshod"
stuff that u mentioned. I take little notice of footwear.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It DESERVED to be fucked up and fucked DOWN.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm sure you meant..."in your opinion", David.
Your certainty is un-justified, Frank.
It is un-Constitutional; it is starkly, shockingly against the philosophy of the Founders.
I dunno, but I suspect that obama blackmailed John Roberts,
tho I have no evidence, other than this result itself.

Frank Apisa wrote:
In my opinion...and in the opinion of many people...
it deserved to get as decent a reception as possible.
Only those who want to rape the Constitution.
The statute is indecent because it un-Constitutionally violates the freedom of the citizens.

The statute USURPS fake authority, robbing the citizens of their liberty.
The government has no more authority than the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club to make anyone buy insurance.
No citizen has any duty to buy anything against his will.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Only the dupes who support the rights of the Barons to run roughshod over them...
think it deserved what you say it deserves.
I do not support that "roughshod"
stuff that u mentioned. I take little notice of footwear.

David

Well...if you didn't mean "in your opinion"...you are dead wrong.

I love the fact that when it is shown to be one of the most successful safety net programs ever initiated...

...because of the Republicans, it will be known as Obamacare.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you honestly think private enterprise could make a more efficient Navy?

In some areas, yes. The pirates of the 17th and 18th centuries kept the Royal Navy very busy far out of proportion to their numbers for a very long time.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you think private enterprise could run a gigantic industry like government more efficiently than the people doing it now?[/b]

I don't think that question has an answer. If a private industry attempted to run the government, it would become the government and behave just as government does. Both use the same human material, but government is of necessity interested primarily in preserving its own power and authority and only secondarily in the efficiency of its operations. That's why the government should generally stay out of tasks that are well-defined and for which the the results are easily measurable. Business is much better at such things.

1 Reply

Congratulations, House Republicans!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know