Enemies, not Opponents

[fskimospy]

I don't have time to respond to all of that at the moment, but your last paragraph is sheer nonsense. Any deal Reid and Boehner might have had was in response to Republicans threatening the worldwide financial system. Regardless of what deals might have happened you have implicitly acknowledged that Republicans threatened to cause a catastrophic debt default and then in exchange for not doing that accepted something they didn't even want.

You are either simply wrong about how they view those cuts or they are almost cartoonishly evil. Which one is it? Do the Republicans view their side of that deal as something real they achieved or not?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Only in Washington can a "cut" be both an increase and a decrease in spending. ...

We see that complaint a lot and it's really pretty hollow. It is, in fact, quite common in any growing business. "Cutting expenses" in such growing businesses does not usually mean reducing total dollars spent, but rather cutting the growth in expenses relative to the growth in revenue.

For example, in my world (IT in a Fortune 100-sized corp.), we are tasked each year with cutting our cost by x%. (The target varies from year to year. but is generally 3-5%). We are faced with inflation, however, and the demand for our services grows each year as volumes increase and the business finds ever more creative ways to use IT. How do we reconcile these conflicting needs?

We track expenses as the cost per unit. We are tasked with cutting our unit cost each year, even as our volumes and total dollars spent increase. We deliver and support more servers, JVMs, function points, nodes, TBs of storage, etc., but must cut the cost per server (JVM, function point, ...) each year. Our "cuts" are quite real, yet they are also often an increase in total dollars spent.

The same principle applies to government. Demand for government services continually grows because America continually grows. It is often unrealistic to demand that the total dollars spent on 'x' decrease when the number of "units" of 'x' provided greatly increases. Nonetheless, if government can cut the rate of growth in those expenses, it is increasing efficiency and cutting costs below what they would have been by default. That is a legitimate business practice.

 

[chucky2]

Except a Corp. is supposed to grow by as much as it can while maximizing profits. Where as a Fed and State gov should be as small as they can possibly be and still provide necessary Gov services. Two completely different things. And then there's the pesky thing where a company doing poorly does...what? Trims.

Using your example we'd have an engine manufacturer decide to get into the mayo business, along with the kitchen cabinet business, along with the fabric business, along with the endlessexamplehere business, and then when that business that would have been doing fine had it just stuck with engines blossoms into an insanely big monstrosity, and it actually cannot sustain itself on its profits (in Fed and State govspeak, that's tax revenues), it decides not to cut or get out of businesses it should never be in, but rather, expand into the ocean liner tour business, frog hunting business, etc. which again in Fed/State speak is raise taxes.

Somehow never does it enter into the Boards mind that just possibly if they got back to just making engines, maybe the Co. would get back to profitability.

Now just imagine this business didn't have to worry about profits, it could just borrow money into infinity and print money as needed, and actually just set its profit level at whatever it wanted to be at. What Board wouldn't just go crazy and get into everything they could possibly think of? Shoot, when money has no meaning, anything is possible.

You now have our Fed/State "businesses"...

Chuck

P.S. I work for a big company in IT also. What's amazing is we actually have a budget we're held to, and there are consequences for going over it. Projects/Programs high on the priority list get funded, while, gasp!, things lower on the priority list don't. All to stay inside this thing called: Budget. It's a crazy concept that our Senate Majority leader seems to not quite grasp...

 

[Craig234]

Except a Corp. is supposed to grow by as much as it can while maximizing profits. Where as a Fed and State gov should be as small as they can possibly be and still provide necessary Gov services. Two completely different things. And then there's the pesky thing where a company doing poorly does...what? Trims.

Using your example we'd have an engine manufacturer decide to get into the mayo business, along with the kitchen cabinet business, along with the fabric business, along with the endlessexamplehere business, and then when that business that would have been doing fine had it just stuck with engines blossoms into an insanely big monstrosity, and it actually cannot sustain itself on its profits (in Fed and State govspeak, that's tax revenues), it decides not to cut or get out of businesses it should never be in, but rather, expand into the ocean liner tour business, frog hunting business, etc. which again in Fed/State speak is raise taxes.

Somehow never does it enter into the Boards mind that just possibly if they got back to just making engines, maybe the Co. would get back to profitability.

Now just imagine this business didn't have to worry about profits, it could just borrow money into infinity and print money as needed, and actually just set its profit level at whatever it wanted to be at. What Board wouldn't just go crazy and get into everything they could possibly think of? Shoot, when money has no meaning, anything is possible.

Spoiler alert: you will find a consistent pattern of better growth of the private economy under the Democrats, very consistent and pretty large.
You now have our Fed/State "businesses"...

Chuck

P.S. I work for a big company in IT also. What's amazing is we actually have a budget we're held to, and there are consequences for going over it. Projects/Programs high on the priority list get funded, while, gasp!, things lower on the priority list don't. All to stay inside this thing called: Budget. It's a crazy concept that our Senate Majority leader seems to not quite grasp...

Your analogy has nothing to do with how things work in government.

There are two types of limiting government spending on good things.

One is a plague hits the country and causes economic devastation - in light of fewer resources, cuts have to be made to service. That's totally legitimate.

Second is when the pressure for cutting good service that, say, feed children who can't afford food, is the artifical political pressure of some rich guys saying 'we want more for us'.

That's analogous to a business owner saying 'I want to buy another $100 million mansion so we're going to cut everyone's pay 25% and sell off assets to pay for it'.

It has the same rhetoric - 'in these tight economic times we all have to sacrifice' - but it's bull because that's what sells and justifies the greedy policy.

As the economy has recovered since 2008, all of the money has gone to the corporations - who are setting profits records and hoarding the money - and the top 1% of people.

Profits and the top 1% have skyrocketed while the middle class has lost 40% of their wealth. That's a huge transfer of wealth, an increase in inequality.

But they'll push the 'fiscal responsibility' and 'sacrifice' line all day to cut any money for YOU so they can have even more. It's BS. It's greed. And you're a sucker to fall for it.

It has their money behind big marketing and media campaigns to 'sell' the story that will get people to fall for it, as they take control of our democracy.

By the way, you still don't understand the positive role much government spending plays in the economy. Short-sighted wealthy people always want the simple policy of austerity to cut for others to grab more for themselves, not understanding they're going to shrink the pie. Compare the economic growth under Democrats and Republicans, and get back to me.

Spoiler alert: the economy grows consistently more under Democrats, and by a big amount.

 

[Bowfinger]

Except a Corp. is supposed to grow by as much as it can while maximizing profits. Where as a Fed and State gov should be as small as they can possibly be and still provide necessary Gov services. Two completely different things. And then there's the pesky thing where a company doing poorly does...what? Trims.

Using your example we'd have an engine manufacturer decide to get into the mayo business, along with the kitchen cabinet business, along with the fabric business, along with the endlessexamplehere business, and then when that business that would have been doing fine had it just stuck with engines blossoms into an insanely big monstrosity, and it actually cannot sustain itself on its profits (in Fed and State govspeak, that's tax revenues), it decides not to cut or get out of businesses it should never be in, but rather, expand into the ocean liner tour business, frog hunting business, etc. which again in Fed/State speak is raise taxes.

Somehow never does it enter into the Boards mind that just possibly if they got back to just making engines, maybe the Co. would get back to profitability.

Now just imagine this business didn't have to worry about profits, it could just borrow money into infinity and print money as needed, and actually just set its profit level at whatever it wanted to be at. What Board wouldn't just go crazy and get into everything they could possibly think of? Shoot, when money has no meaning, anything is possible.

You now have our Fed/State "businesses"...

Chuck

P.S. I work for a big company in IT also. What's amazing is we actually have a budget we're held to, and there are consequences for going over it. Projects/Programs high on the priority list get funded, while, gasp!, things lower on the priority list don't. All to stay inside this thing called: Budget. It's a crazy concept that our Senate Majority leader seems to not quite grasp...

This has virtually nothing to do with my comment and the point I was addressing. It is a legitimate business practice to refer to "cuts" when one reduces the growth in expenses below the growth in demand, even if the net result is increased expenses.

The appropriate role of government is a very different, and very subjective discussion in a democracy where the government is tasked with doing what its citizens want it to do. Addressing that topic seems like a subject for a different thread. I would suggest that if you want to make that discussion productive, it would help to dial back the hyperbole and the overt partisanship. Singling out the "Senate Majority leader" for fiscal irresponsibility is unjustified given the equally dismal performance of Republicans over the last 30+ years.

 

[chucky2]

Your analogy has nothing to do with how things work in government. snip

No, it really does. The problem isn't the Fed spends money. Everyone (that matters at least, there are a few insane people that think the Fed gov should be abolished but I think we can all agree these wackos are so small in number and so extreme in view as to be discounted) understands that we not only need a Fed gov but also want a Fed gov. The question is not that the Fed spends money, but, how much the Fed spends. If the Fed spent $500B a year in totality I really don't think the subject of Fed spending would ever come up (except for the Spenders, whose policy is more, and, more again). Since the vast bulk of Fed spending is for services rendered (even if that service is providing grants, "giving back" SS money to eligible receivers, providing a standing military, etc.), what the Fed does to accumulate the "how much" is the point. It is the TOTAL point.

Thus my analogy is accurate, and does address Fern's point (which Bowfinger was responding to). We simply have a Fed that has involved itself, completely, into Everything. We have a BoD and CEO, from both sides of the aisle, sharing equal blame (despite certain peoples ideologies that will claim otherwise), that has not limited the Fed to things the Fed could help best with and let the States handle the rest. These BoD and CEOs have simply yearly, over the course of decades, entrenched Fed involvement more and more. And, surprise surprise, real Fed spending (not the BS %/GDP number that allows continued increased spending almost into perpetuity) has gone up, year after year.

This isn't because of sustainment type activities that cost more each year for necessary Fed services (military, money printing supply, Fed parks), this is because the Fed has - by design - done exactly my analogy. If the Fed was at a $500B a year spending level and said taxes on Everyone need to go up to cover our $50M budget increase due to salary and benefit inflation costs, people would not bitch...they'd understand. When the Fed is spending $2.somethingT/$3T, and has the audacity to say taxes - on anyone - need to go up to cover spending, that is a massive red flag. That tells us (really, getting anywhere close to that spending amount told us this, but with the crash, at least some people are finally taking real notice and caring) that the BoD and CEO have now added a scented candle business, a flooring business, light bulb making business, etc. etc.

Reign in the madness.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

This has virtually nothing to do with my comment and the point I was addressing. It is a legitimate business practice to refer to "cuts" when one reduces the growth in expenses below the growth in demand, even if the net result is increased expenses.

The appropriate role of government is a very different, and very subjective discussion in a democracy where the government is tasked with doing what its citizens want it to do. Addressing that topic seems like a subject for a different thread. I would suggest that if you want to make that discussion productive, it would help to dial back the hyperbole and the overt partisanship. Singling out the "Senate Majority leader" for fiscal irresponsibility is unjustified given the equally dismal performance of Republicans over the last 30+ years.

Yes, I understood exactly what you are saying. See above to Craig. What you are saying is happening (sustainment costs) is not what the Fed is doing (well, it is of course to some small degree, but not anywhere close to the levels in the context Fern is talking about driving Fed budget to get to $2T+). Budget increase due to sustainment is radically different than budget increase due to enhancing. One you actually need to do, one you chose to do but don't have to.

Chuck

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

We simply have a Fed that has involved itself, completely, into Everything.

No, they haven't. But you have whipped yourself into a frenzy and think they have.

Let's say I open a Taco Bell. I pick the franchise, I pick where to open it, I pick my financing, I pick who to hire while unable to use things like race as a factor, I pick the wages to pay as long as it's above the minimum wage, I pick the vendors to service things, I pick how and where to advertise locally, I pick what charity to sponsor, I pay a tax.

Now, that's not some terribly repressive government role. It's not Cuba, where I pick nothing and sell only tortillas (to exagerrate the point).

The things the government does play a role in I'm glad they do. I'm glad I can't tell black people 'I don't hire blacks'. Even if in some places I can say 'I don't hire gays'. I'm glad the competition doesn't force cost cutting where I pay 25 cents an hour. I'm glad the government helps keep the food supply safe. And I'm glad to pay a reasonable tax that helps our country function well creating a good environment.

If there's a robbery the federal government doesn't play a role, the local government does. The local government provides education for workers, the federal role is small. The federal government provides the currency that's used - which is pretty stable and useful, good. The federal and state governments have some worker safety rules, good.

People who are hungry come and buy a burrito and pay for it and eat it. No tyranny.

I didn't even get in to the safe cars the people drive on roads the government built and how I buy energy at a reasonable price from a government regulated source.

Sorry, I just see your position as paranoid, imagined. It'd be like saying the illuminati are controlling our society and are a big threat to us all.

When you scratch a tea partier ranting about government tyranny and ask, they tell you how they have to buy far more efficient light bulbs. Oh, the terrible tyranny.

We're just not going to agree I think.

I'm happy to cut government spending and lower the deficit. People like you vote for people who defend bad spending priorities who prevent that.

We did it under Clinton (including with a Democratic House and Sentate). It was the Republicans who preceded and followed him you vote for who shot the deficit up.

You don't like to hear that, so it's not easy to talk about. You like to think all government spending is the same and you buy into the auterity myth instead of understanding that those at the top are screwing you and taking your money. You fall for the myth you need to protect them from the bad mean government. It's hard to get through.

Out of the proposed budgets - Obama, Paul Ryan, the progressive caucus - the budget that balances the budget the fastest is the progressive caucus. You fight them.

You know, during FDR's New Deal programs to do big things from the government, during the Great Society, even with the cold war and creation of programs, the deficts weren't that terribly large. We don't need austerity, which is nothing but moving the country to poverty for most and giving the people's wealth to a few at the top.

Let's look at the Great Depression. You had huge new government spending programs.

First, in the period after WWI up to the Great Depression, we had what you like, surplises.

1920 - 291 million

1921 - 509 million

1922 - 736 million

1923 - 713 million

1924 - 963 million

1925 - 717 million

1926 - 865 million

1927 - 1.15 billion

1928 - 939 million

1929 - 734 million

1930 - 738 million

Now how well did that work for putting the country on a strong long-term economic footing? Oh that's right, it led to the Great Depression and massive poverty.

No big guarantee of utopia and a wonderful economy there.

So, the deficits started after the Great Crash, even before FDR:

1931 - 462 million

1932 - 2.76 billion

1933 - 2.6 billion

Now with all the huge FDR programs, they didn't skyrocket much until WWII:

1934 - 3.59 billion

1935 - 2.8 billion

1936 - 4.3 billion

1937 - 2.2 billion

1938 - 89 million

1939 - 2.85 billion

Funny, that.

You aren't basing your opinions, going by your posts, on what's good for the economy, but just an ideology you follow where you whip yourself into an anti-government hysteria.

You are playing into the hands of people who don't want to help the economy, they want to take everything for themselves, but use propaganda to mislead you.

When we've followed your approach more - the 'laissez-faire', 'pro-business' 1920's - it led to a phony prosperity where the rich took more and more until it crashed badly.

But you are saying let's do it some more.

When the liberal policies have been in power, more and more has been done for the people, raisng productivity and the growth of the economy, making our nation much greater.

You call that tyranny.