Where is the US economy headed?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your so-called example doesn't exist in the real world; only in your imagination. So, you bragged about having a million bucks by investing $5,000/year into a savings account. That's total ignorance from ignoring facts. $5,000 from a $13,000 income shows you were able to save 38% of your income. Where did this come from? It's plain stupid!

One other point, when I got out of college, my first professional job paid $9,000 per year, and it was considered very good pay by the way. My housing rent was only $65 per month where I started work, and I lived well on almost nothing. I bought a new car for less than $3,000 and it was paid off in less than 6 months.

So yes, I might have been able to save close to $5,000 in that year, although it was probably less than that. But the interest rates were higher as well. If you don't have a defeatist attitude as you do, much more is possible.

Another point, the first house my wife and I bought soon after we married, it only cost us $17,500.

As promised, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) unveiled Friday a short-term spending resolution to cut federal spending by $4 billion and keep the government funded through March 18 while a longer-term compromise can be negotiated. Government funding must be extended before the current continuing resolution expires on March 4, otherwise the government will shut down. Also as promised, in an effort to attract Democratic support for the measure, nearly all of the proposed savings are achieved through recommendations included in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, for instance, by terminating funding for a number of federal grant and subsidy programs, mostly in transportation and education, and by eliminating earmarks left over from the 2010 spending package.

And it seems to have worked. The response from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was surprisingly supportive, considering that just two days ago Reid had dismissed the GOP proposal as “extreme” and a “non-starter.” Now, not only are Democrats “encouraged” by the proposal, they’re trying to take credit for the bill. “The plan Republicans are floating today sounds like a modified version of what Democrats were talking about,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement. “We’re glad they think it’s a good idea.” Still, as of today, Democrats have yet to put down on paper any specific spending cuts they would support, and continue to insist, falsely, that they have “already cut” $41 billion form the federal budget

A closer look at what the short-term CR would cut:

— Terminates/cuts funding for eight federal programs, all of them singled out in President Obama’s 2012 budget as wasteful or unnecessary:

•Election Assistance Grants ($75 million).
•Broadband Direct Loan Subsidy ($29 million).
•Smithsonian Institution Legacy Fund ($30 million).
•Striving Readers program ($250 million).
•LEAP student grant program ($64 million).
•Even Start literacy program ($66 million.
•Smaller Learning Communities program ($88 billion).
•Highways – Additional General Fund spending ($650 million).

A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html

Quote:

A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.

Heck of a jobs plan, Boehner.
When asked about this, he responded 'So what?'
I don't believe this guy's motivations and goals match that of the majority of the country at this point.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html

Quote:

A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.

Heck of a jobs plan, Boehner.
When asked about this, he responded 'So what?'
I don't believe this guy's motivations and goals match that of the majority of the country at this point.
Cycloptichorn

It all depends upon whether you believe government jobs are the road to prosperity, cyclops.

I think Boehner knows that the private sector is the real and lasting driving force behind a healthy economy, not more and more government spending to support relatively unproductive bureaucracies and government jobs. Therefore, the government shedding jobs is a necessary minor shock to the economy that must be undertaken if there will ever be any hope for more productive jobs in the private sector that will produce a more healthy economy.

If everyone worked for the government, who would actually produce anything in this country, and who would support the government bureaucracies with their taxes?

Quote:

It all depends upon whether you believe government jobs are the road to prosperity, cyclops.

No, it doesn't depend on that, Okie. Because we can all agree that cutting the better part of a million jobs during a recession is an absolutely terrible move. Those folks won't simply find jobs elsewhere; there are already dozens or hundreds of applicants for every job opening these days. You want to basically dump another 700k people on the Dole. How will that help our economy?
It won't.

Quote:

I think Boehner knows that the private sector is the real and lasting driving force behind a healthy economy, not more and more government spending to support relatively unproductive bureaucracies and government jobs. Therefore, the government shedding jobs is a necessary minor shock to the economy that must be undertaken if there will ever be any hope for more productive jobs in the private sector that will produce a more healthy economy.

I understand that you have Ideology, Okie; but little practicality.

Pursuing ideological bullshit during the middle of a crisis is a ridiculous plan. In fact, it's not even a 'plan.' You have no actual clue how any of those folks would even GET jobs or how any of the functions that used to be handled by these folks would get done. At all. That's why I can't take stuff like this seriously.
.......
Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argument. What you describe would be a fundamentally different situation than our current one.

Boehner and the Republicans ran on, in part, 'restoring Jobs to America.' It was a plank of their platform in 2010. But they have no plan to do so at all, and no intentions of presenting a plan. Just ideology.

Cycloptichorn

As an alternate plan, I would propose great cuts in wages for government employees, rather than cutting the jobs. What do you think of that idea, cyclops?

Well, I agree that your 'plans' are 'faith-based.' You want to cut jobs and pray that things get better. There are zero details presented as to how this will happen. That isn't a plan. It's a hope.

You are assuming that all these jobs you want to cut are 'unproductive.' That's a ridiculous thing to say or assume. You don't know the first thing about how 'productive' those jobs are. You just don't care about any of the details about anything, as long as you have low taxes. Because that's what this always boils down to, isn't it? Your own personal avarice.

Quote:

As an alternate plan, I would propose great cuts in wages for government employees, rather than cutting the jobs. What do you think of that idea, cyclops?

Let's save money by cutting YOUR job and the services YOU rely on. Seriously. If you suggested cutting things that would negatively affect yourself, I'd take you more seriously. But you never do.Cycloptichorn

I do not have a government job. In fact, the industry I have been involved in has suffered due to the economy, but it still has been productive and profitable. Essentially I have economized by selling some unnecessary equipment as well as wages slightly among other things, and I have taken a profit reduction. Meanwhile, I see government employees still maintain their cushy lifestyle without regard to the economy.

okie wrote:

I do not have a government job. In fact, the industry I have been involved in has suffered due to the economy, but it still has been productive and profitable. Essentially I have economized by selling some unnecessary equipment as well as wages slightly among other things, and I have taken a profit reduction. Meanwhile, I see government employees still maintain their cushy lifestyle without regard to the economy.

Okay, so let's cut all the money for keeping up the roads to your house and business. Let's cut your police and fire budgets drastically.

Let's cut SS, so it takes a lot longer for your relatives who are on it to get their checks or make changes. Same with medicare and medicaid that people you know rely on. Cut local services to the bone, so that when you need something - you don't get it quick.

Don't think any of that stuff would make a difference in your life or that of those people around you? You're kidding yourself.
Cycloptichorn

It will make a bigger difference if the government goes bankrupt.

Quote:

It will make a bigger difference if the government goes bankrupt.

The government can't go 'bankrupt.' That's a fundamental feature of a sovereign currency.
Not doing yourself any real favors here with the level of arguments.
Cycloptichorn