The BEST Question Ever:Who can answer it?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SiliconMagician, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, someone distilled the problem down into one simple Question:

    So what is the answer?
     
  2. Awryly

    Awryly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you are not spending trillions invading other peoples' countries and outliving your means?
     
  3. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's a question distilled into over-simplicity. It's not as easy as the overall amount of spending - you need to look at areas of spending individually to determine 'value for money' and spending efficiency.

    Creating a habit of overspending in the 'good times' is obviously a very bad habit to get in to - it's not going to help when the times arent so great. You can, though, still look at targetting spending into areas where it will have a positive effect on the economy in the 'bad times', and reduce spending in other areas to reduce the overall cost.

    Everyone needs to cut their spending when times are hard. The key to doing that is to look at every area of spending to work out what money is actually being spent usefully and productively, and what money is effectively being wasted. Some of that is about a fairly micro-level examination of individual budgets (especially in the biggest areas of spending, such as defense) to make relatively small savings that add up to make a big one overall. That's how we would all, I would think, treat things at the household level, and it's no different at the government level.

    It isn't just about 'austerity' the 'bad times', and making huge cuts in areas that will produce an economic effect that certainly doesn't help the economy as a whole (by cutting lots of jobs, for example), but about ensuring efficiency and cost effectiveness at all times (so the problem of getting used to over-spending doesn't build up), and making sure that spending is prioritised and targetted correctly over the whole scope of government spending.
     
  4. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The answer lies here in the use of the word "can't". It shouldn't be used. It should have read "didn't".

    Leffe: Which means it cannot happen, simply cannot.

    But this rationale in brackets) is not a "can't" cationale, it's a rationale for "didn't" and these are two very different things.
     
    cenydd and (deleted member) like this.
  5. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You obviously haven't read liberal punditry and listen to their politicians, they are always saying "can't" because "it's cruel", "it'll raise unemployment", "it's greedy", "what about the children??"

    It's always "can't" in good times or bad.


    Exactly, the democrats are constantly making emotional arguments for why it cannot happen and pulling on enough heart strings, or using abject fear to ensure it never happens. with these people's jobs on the line, do you think they are going to vote for the party that is calling for cuts? hell no.



    Again, we have one side of the debate who absolutely refuses to put people out of work, no matter what the economic consequences may be and demonizing the other side as evil greedy people who just want to put people out of work 'because their greedy and don't want to pay taxes'
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the problem with that is, democrats want to constantly expand social programs, but never do anything to shrink those rolls when times are good,because every single person on the dole is another vote for democrats at the poll, and their only solution is to cut defense and raise taxes.

    We are the target of a sustained, multi-generational terrorist war against our people, sustained militaristic expansion of an Asian "frenemy" with 3-4 times our numbers, a hostile leftist European elite doing its best to economically and diplomatically cripple or embarrass us for their own enrichment, and a subversive movement within our borders trying to force leftist "third way" socialism on the nation.

    If that isn't a rationale for healthy defense spending I don't know what is.

    The leftwing solution is appeasement of all of these parties and outright surrender so that we have the money to dump into social programs that will never shrink and succeed in reducing no poverty, but only increasing the voter rolls of the democrat party. At some point there will be so many people who rely on the government just to eat and have a home and provides their job, that Democrats will have complete and total control and permanent single party rule.

    We're not stupid, we see these long term plans and goals as they were laid out decades ago by Cloward and Piven who are the American versions of Marx and Engels.
     
  7. Leffe

    Leffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    11,726
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can say that most Westrn nations in a similar boat and I did not ever hear what you said from anyone in the Blair government during it's terms in office.

    Nonetheless, there is no "can't" in the context of your OP, if there was a possibility, previous governments (Bush for you and Blair for the UK) would have done it.

    The reality is that they didn't act, probably due to voter reaction.... or voter bribary as it should be called.
     
  8. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And therein lies the problem. It isn't one of how much is being spend so much as it is a matter of what the spending is on. Some believe that spending on 'welfare programs', and associated 'beaurocracy', should be virtually limitless, where some others believe it should be virtually eliminated. Likewise, some believe that spending on the military should be virtually limitless, and others that it should be virtually eliminated. Most people, in reality, probably fall somewhere in between, so it's a question of balances.

    However, complaining that one 'side' is spending far too much on one area while refusing to acknowledge that spending should be reducing in anther significant area aswell isn't exactly the same thing as recognising that the overall spend should be sensibly reduced so that the country can live within its means. It's dogmatic and ideological, which is something almost invariable impractical!

    The fact is that the USA (like many other countries, including the UK) is overspending in hard times because it was overspending when times were better. Spending needs to be reduced. The question, then, is how to prioritise spending and cuts in order to produce the required cost savings, and the best answer to that is usually to make sensible cuts and efficiency savings across the board rather than simply cutting one kind of thing (which, in that particular case, will then dent thealready fairly fragile economy in other ways, which might not be sensible at the moment) while leaving the other kind of thing spending money like water as it did in the better times.

    From the point of view of both 'sides', in my opinion, ideology should be guiding principle which places an emphasis on the decisions that are made (between which the people decide at the ballot box). However, applying ideology (of any kind) without considering the practicalities is not a good way to run a country, especially when times are hard.

    At a basic level, if the USA can't afford its current level of 'welfare' and 'beaurocracy' spending, then it also can't afford its current level of military spending - the two sets of money come from the same pot, and if the income/outgoing of the pot isn't sustainable it applies to everything. With times being as they are, it is a question of priority - is it better at the moment to consider cutting military spending (which would have little effect on the economy and the lives of people, particularly those in the most need), or to cut spending on civilian jobs and so on (which would damage the economy, potential tax revenue, and so on)? That's a matter of opinion, obviously, but it isn't a case of one being 'sustainable' while the other isn't - both together are not sustainable, and it's the overall cost that needs to come down.

    Of course, it isn't a straight either/or choice - there are other areas of spending to consider, and there are savings that can be made in all of them. The point is that nothing can afford to be 'ring-fenced', but also nothing can afford to be totally decimated to protect 'ring-fenced' areas, in the current economic situation.
     
  9. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The answer is, "Let's go shopping." Actually, as we all know, everything is free. Free healthcare, free education, free pensions, free maternity leave, free housing, free food, and on and on and on/
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Raise revenues is one.
     
  11. jhffmn

    jhffmn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To pay for the government which must constantly increase to care for the poverty created by too much government. And then keep raising taxes until we are all slaves to the government.

    I was watching the history channel the other night. It dawned on me that the left's economic policies aren't all that different from the pharaohs building pyramids. If they had unlimited power, they'd hire every unemployed person to build something useless or inefficient and provide them with 3 hots and a cot. The economy would falter even faster due to all the malinvestment of labor and capital. Money would pour into DC as lobbyists tried to direct that spending. Eventually we'd have the impoverished masses enslaved to the ruling pharaohs building pyramids in the midwest.
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Federal revenue collections over the past three years have been the lowest in 60 years. We are a long way from being slaves to the government. Back in the 1950s and 1960s the top rates were up to 91%. We were positively in chains back then, and the economy kicked ass.

    The OP asked for an answer. Raising revenues is one. Had the government collected the same proportion of revenues in 2010 as in 2000, revenues would have been $800 billion higher, reducing the deficit by more than half.
     
  13. jhffmn

    jhffmn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. jhffmn

    jhffmn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can also see that raising taxes on the top income bracket won't raise revenues. You'd have to hit up the 47% who pay no federal income tax.

    Also, to be fair that chart is based on GDP which is a terribly flawed measure of the size of the economy because it includes both government and private spending.

    The reality is, the real economy as of late has been shrinking while the parasitical public sector has increased in size distorting that graph. I wouldn't be surprised if revenue as a % of the private economy has remained much more constant.
     
  16. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still at it, I see.....

    Typical collectivist....confiscation first and foremost.

    Absurd overspending? Meh....no worries.
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's right, the economy has basically sucked over the last decade and the deficits have been even worse. About the time Bush and the Republicans passed their tax cuts promising it wouldn't cause deficits and make the economy grow faster.

    "fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again."
     
  18. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think spending should be cut as well and have said so many times. The OP asked for an answer. I gave one.
     
  19. Buzz62

    Buzz62 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Au Contraire mon sachet de the...

    Ever wonder what your population has been doing?
    Here mon petit sachet...

    1820 - 9,638,453
    1830 - 12,866,020
    1840 - 17,069,453
    1850 - 23,191,876
    1860 - 31,443,321
    1870 - 38,558,371
    1880 - 50,189,209
    1890 - 62,979,766
    1900 - 76,212,168
    1910 - 92,228,496
    1920 - 106,021,537
    1930 - 123,202,624
    1940 - 132,164,569
    1950 - 151,325,798
    1960 - 179,323,175
    1970 - 203,302,031
    1980 - 226,542,199
    1990 - 248,709,873
    2000 - 281,421,906
    2010 - 307,745,538

    :omg: It GROWING!!!

    Gee whiz, think the government might need to grow in order to accommodate this population growth?

    Now let me introduce you to another concept called DEMOGRAPHICS. As the Baby-Boomers retire...the USA and indeed all western countries...are finding that they are beginning to have more retired people than working people. This is a problem because there may not be enough money to support these retired people.

    Now...you can try to convince these retired people to give up SS, but that's not gonna win anyone votes now is it?

    You people really do need to GET REAL.
     
  20. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no right or wrong answer.Liberals feel that is their power.
    They decide things ... EVERYTHING.
    Republicans like to let the Markets or Demand handle these things like
    on Wall Street where Bear abd Bull markets are cyclically determined.
    Like the Depression of 1920 a resulting sharp deflationary recession
    that came about after WWI and all the returning soldiers and no jobs
    to offer them.That Depression was handled totally different than what
    F.D.R. pushed for { New Deal }.Instead President Harding soundly
    used a laissez-faire approach with a balance of Cutting the Governments
    budget nearly in half and Slashed tax Rates for ALL groups.
    Exactly what is needed now.
    But Obama has this willing partner in the form of a friendly Mainstream
    media who refuse to report the real truth and challenge Obama's refusal
    to heed any advice the Republicans and Mitch McConnell consistently
    offer.The kind of advice that President Harding implemented and helped
    solve the Depression of 1920-21.Where by the summer of 1921 signs of
    recovery were already visible.The following year Unemployment was back
    down to 6.7 % from a high of nearly 12% in 1920.
     
  21. Pokerface

    Pokerface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You cant cut the govt spending in good or bad times. The parasites wont allow it. 50% of the spending is for handouts/entitlements. Good luck getting those people to give up their govt checks!!!

    Sure we can cut discretionary spending but thats such a small amount. Until people arr NOT allowed to vote themselves a govt check anymore your little fantasy question is moot.
     
  22. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  23. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How does "raising revenues" (are you leftists so 'fraid to just say RAISE TAXES??) shrink Government?
     
  24. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know. How?
     
  25. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No they don't. Perhaps in representation, nothing more.
     

Share This Page