If they can't actually answer the issues of revenue vs spending then they resort to meaningless rhetoric. The republicans are actually engaged in a war on math.....
Cutting through all the tax collection nonsense, we need to address one thing.
- Thread starter Dino
- Start date
The tax rate is down....what are you talking about the "tax burden"?
The spending has gone up as a result of the Bush recession. Unemployment benefits. medicaid and food stamps. The deficit is up because of the decline in revenue from the number of people who are out of work, the tax cuts that Obama is hoping will push the economy into recovery and the spending increases.....
As far as your understanding about who is out of work....you are wrong. I know a lot of IT workers and management types who are out of work....not just the unskilled. Try to get out from time to time....
The spending has gone up as a result of the Bush recession. Unemployment benefits. medicaid and food stamps. The deficit is up because of the decline in revenue from the number of people who are out of work, the tax cuts that Obama is hoping will push the economy into recovery and the spending increases.....
As far as your understanding about who is out of work....you are wrong. I know a lot of IT workers and management types who are out of work....not just the unskilled. Try to get out from time to time....
I don't just want to be an echo chamber but that is an excellent point.
How many people would end up unemployed because of a 25% cut? There are currently about 2 million federal employees. If you cut 25% wouldn't that mean 500,000 unemployed civilian workers? How about the military? How many unemployed do we create from currently active duty soldiers?
Alinvegas
FJB
Lefty keeps saying that OG. What programs would you cut in order to be able to cut defense by 50%
And are you talking about the $964 Bil defense budget, or the $768 Bil military budget. If you are speaking about the military budget you would have to cut it by $384 Bil.
The military budget is already smaller than the part of the budget that pays pensions. Surely you knew that. Or did you?
And are you talking about the $964 Bil defense budget, or the $768 Bil military budget. If you are speaking about the military budget you would have to cut it by $384 Bil.
The military budget is already smaller than the part of the budget that pays pensions. Surely you knew that. Or did you?
Corruptbuddha
Governor
Actually, you're wrong, Dino.
What we need to address, first and foremost, is the loss of good paying jobs for the middle class.
Without those, we're finished.
What we need to address, first and foremost, is the loss of good paying jobs for the middle class.
Without those, we're finished.
OldGaffer
Governor
You are the one wanting to cut spending, you tell me?
Dino
Russian Asset
It's NOT an excellent point, it's just laziness. Look it up, it's the absolute truth.
A large body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment and keeps people out of work longer.
This is because workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.
That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment, or that unemployed people are lazy. But it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as a check is coming in.
Who says so? Well, among others, no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberal icon Paul Krugman. He wrote in Microeconomics:
"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. ... In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."
In fact, roughly a third of those unemployed in the United States find work almost immediately when their benefits expire, according to a study by Stepan Jurajda and Frederick Tannery in Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Most find jobs in a matter of weeks.
Jurajda and Tannery also conclude that current extensions of unemployment benefits have lengthened the average stretch of unemployment by three weeks or more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11915
Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job.[9] Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.[10]
Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.[11] Prolonged unemployment increases the unemployment rate.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/extended-unemployment-insurance-no-economic-stimulus
A large body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment and keeps people out of work longer.
This is because workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.
That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment, or that unemployed people are lazy. But it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as a check is coming in.
Who says so? Well, among others, no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberal icon Paul Krugman. He wrote in Microeconomics:
"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. ... In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."
In fact, roughly a third of those unemployed in the United States find work almost immediately when their benefits expire, according to a study by Stepan Jurajda and Frederick Tannery in Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Most find jobs in a matter of weeks.
Jurajda and Tannery also conclude that current extensions of unemployment benefits have lengthened the average stretch of unemployment by three weeks or more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11915
Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job.[9] Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.[10]
Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.[11] Prolonged unemployment increases the unemployment rate.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/extended-unemployment-insurance-no-economic-stimulus
I don't agree with the 50% number. Any cuts anywhere in the budget must be carefully evaluated for the overall impact on employment. The $39 billion cut last summer meant an immediate cut of 18,500 federal employees.
I think we should bring all troops stationed in South Korea, Japan and Germany home to bases in the US. If those countries want to pay the entire cost of the deployment then the troops can stay there....otherwise those countries can add to their own active duty forces. That would have an economic impact on the countries that we currently have those troops in, but that isn't our priority. An influx of 100,000 or so new consumers to communties near those bases would be good for local economies.
We should focus on leveling the playing field with China. They have a 25% import tariff on goods imported from the US. Why do we tolerate that? That is on top of what their manipulation of the yuan has on the value of the exports....
I think we should bring all troops stationed in South Korea, Japan and Germany home to bases in the US. If those countries want to pay the entire cost of the deployment then the troops can stay there....otherwise those countries can add to their own active duty forces. That would have an economic impact on the countries that we currently have those troops in, but that isn't our priority. An influx of 100,000 or so new consumers to communties near those bases would be good for local economies.
We should focus on leveling the playing field with China. They have a 25% import tariff on goods imported from the US. Why do we tolerate that? That is on top of what their manipulation of the yuan has on the value of the exports....
Dino
Russian Asset
Studies have proven, yes.... even Paul Krugman agrees
A large body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment and keeps people out of work longer.
This is because workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.
That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment, or that unemployed people are lazy. But it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as a check is coming in.
Who says so? Well, among others, no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberal icon Paul Krugman. He wrote in Microeconomics:
"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. ... In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."
In fact, roughly a third of those unemployed in the United States find work almost immediately when their benefits expire, according to a study by Stepan Jurajda and Frederick Tannery in Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Most find jobs in a matter of weeks.
Jurajda and Tannery also conclude that current extensions of unemployment benefits have lengthened the average stretch of unemployment by three weeks or more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11915
Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job.[9] Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.[10]
Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.[11] Prolonged unemployment increases the unemployment rate.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...nomic-stimulus
A large body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment and keeps people out of work longer.
This is because workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.
That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment, or that unemployed people are lazy. But it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as a check is coming in.
Who says so? Well, among others, no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberal icon Paul Krugman. He wrote in Microeconomics:
"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. ... In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."
In fact, roughly a third of those unemployed in the United States find work almost immediately when their benefits expire, according to a study by Stepan Jurajda and Frederick Tannery in Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Most find jobs in a matter of weeks.
Jurajda and Tannery also conclude that current extensions of unemployment benefits have lengthened the average stretch of unemployment by three weeks or more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11915
Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job.[9] Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.[10]
Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.[11] Prolonged unemployment increases the unemployment rate.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...nomic-stimulus
Ok, so tell me where you'd cut $1 trillion from the budget.
So you want to limit federal spending cuts to what you call waste? How much do you think you'll actually cut spending? We need a trillion.....
Dino
Russian Asset
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/03/01/billions-wasted-each-year-by-redundant-federal-programs/
15% of the way right there.
Another 40-60 billion can come straight out of Pentagon expenditures
21% in that case.
10% cuts in health care and the highly wasteful Dept of Education yields an additional 20B.
In two minutes of research I just saved the U.S. 220 billion dollars.
15% of the way right there.
Another 40-60 billion can come straight out of Pentagon expenditures
21% in that case.
10% cuts in health care and the highly wasteful Dept of Education yields an additional 20B.
In two minutes of research I just saved the U.S. 220 billion dollars.
