Republican Spending Blueprint Contains ?No Detail.?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I'll try to dig up a link fer yah, Fern. I believe it was part of a CBO study - 'voluminous' stuff. I think it's the reason the Cons didn't jump all over a reduction in the corporate rate.

Around the globe it seemed that higher (or lower) corporate tax rates were balanced out by lower (or higher) depreciation rates, credits, incentives, etc.

Yeah, all those typ differences make just looking at rates pretty meaningless (or mis-leading).

Fern

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fern


1. Our corporate income tax rate is the second highest in the world. Only companies without net income don't mind being here. With a lower rate we may more profitable businesses remain (or come) here, that's more revenue.

Except, as you know, the effective tax rate when factoring in all loopholes is far, far less.

2. We still have a lot of individuals employed. A tax cut for them allows them to spend more, increasing demand for products and all that brings with it.

Except a 5 year spending freeze in other programs will create huge job losses in sectors that absolutely require stimulus. It's insanely stupid to depend on tax cuts, even conservative economists that worked with Bush, like Mankiw, think this budget is essentially a political ploy with no basis in reality.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Fern

Except a 5 year spending freeze in other programs will create huge job losses in sectors that absolutely require stimulus. It's insanely stupid to depend on tax cuts, even conservative economists that worked with Bush, like Mankiw, think this budget is essentially a political ploy with no basis in reality.

I understand some increases, like additional unemployment benefits and more Medicaid funds will be required.

Otherwise I prefer the government to hold the line. It annoys me to no end, for example, that businesses in the area I live are suffering a 30% drop reveue but the county/city governments are still looking at a spending increase? The parasite is gonna kill the host if this keeps up.

WE fund government, if we've gotta take less income, so do they IMO.

I noticed that they were in a g@d D@mned hurring to reappraise real estate values here, but now that they've dropped to realistic levels our property tax amounts have remained the same (the appraisors have suddenly vanished?)

I don't know what "huge job losses in other sectors" you refer to. But if they're govenment jobs too bad. Government jobs don't produce any GDP. And more GDP is what we need.

We're not getting out of recession by borrowing huge amounts of money and inflating the government's payroll, it's GDP that will do it.

Fern

 

[First]

Fern, I hate to break it to you, but gov't jobs are an extremely significant portion of GDP. This has been the case for many decades now. A freeze in gov't spending doesn't just mean job losses in gov't (local, state, federal), it means no ability to fund programs of critical need in the sciences, a vast amount of lost R&D in chemistry, photovoltaics, physics, etc. is insanely stupid when they return $4-$9 for every dollar spent. That includes NASA funding, which contrary to popular belief is not a waste of money, it's just the opposite. A freeze sounds nice in theory but it's fringe garbage, batshit crazy stuff.

There's simply no way a spending freeze makes sense unless you want to stall technological progress and, yes, stall the economy. No amount of tax cuts is going to spur enough investment to make up for the massive drop in GDP from gov't programs.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Evan
Fern, I hate to break it to you, but gov't jobs are an extremely significant portion of GDP. This has been the case for many decades now. A freeze in gov't spending doesn't just mean job losses in gov't (local, state, federal), it means no ability to fund programs of critical need in the sciences, a vast amount of lost R&D in chemistry, photovoltaics, physics, etc. is insanely stupid when they return $4-$9 for every dollar spent. That includes NASA funding, which contrary to popular belief is not a waste of money, it's just the opposite. A freeze sounds nice in theory but it's fringe garbage, batshit crazy stuff.

There's simply no way a spending freeze makes sense unless you want to stall technological progress and, yes, stall the economy. No amount of tax cuts is going to spur enough investment to make up for the massive drop in GDP from gov't programs.

What good is that technology when the government finally goes bankrupt or has to resort to hyper inflation. That will be the situation in the very near future if something is not done to get spending under control. The current government spends way to much and it is time to trim the fat. I can see increasing spending on a few programs but you must cut else where to make up for it. This run away spending started under Bush it is time we stop it now.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Evan
Fern, I hate to break it to you, but gov't jobs are an extremely significant portion of GDP. This has been the case for many decades now. A freeze in gov't spending doesn't just mean job losses in gov't (local, state, federal), it means no ability to fund programs of critical need in the sciences, a vast amount of lost R&D in chemistry, photovoltaics, physics, etc. is insanely stupid when they return $4-$9 for every dollar spent. That includes NASA funding, which contrary to popular belief is not a waste of money, it's just the opposite. A freeze sounds nice in theory but it's fringe garbage, batshit crazy stuff.

There's simply no way a spending freeze makes sense unless you want to stall technological progress and, yes, stall the economy. No amount of tax cuts is going to spur enough investment to make up for the massive drop in GDP from gov't programs.

Why do we talk about a spending freeze like it's spending $0? It isn't. It means if you made $100k last year, you're not getting your 6% raise this year. So instead of $106k, you're still at $100k. That means if you were planning to spend extra and buy an ultimate gaming rig, you dont' get it. This doesn't mean you don't get money to pay your mortgage or credit cards. $100k is still fine. You just don't get MORE.

A spending freeze in the government is a way to stop spending more ACROSS the board. Obama talks about trimming fat where it makes sense (scalpel analogy during the debate) and increasing spending on things that do need increases. On principle, I agree, but with the way Washington is run today, do you really think everyone's going to cut back? Spending freezes may be drastic, but it's what we need in this hole.

We still will fund NASA, we still will fund chemistry, photovoltaics, sciences, etc. You just don't get any increases. What's there to get. You act like everything we spend money on needs increases in spending. Tell me, do we need more on defense, social security, and medicare? Photovoltaics, green energy, R&D, NASA are all great to spend on, and I'd be glad to pump more money into it.... IF WE HAD an explosion of cash flowing. No, that's not the case, so let's cut back.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Evan
Fern, I hate to break it to you, but gov't jobs are an extremely significant portion of GDP. This has been the case for many decades now. A freeze in gov't spending doesn't just mean job losses in gov't (local, state, federal), it means no ability to fund programs of critical need in the sciences, a vast amount of lost R&D in chemistry, photovoltaics, physics, etc. is insanely stupid when they return $4-$9 for every dollar spent. That includes NASA funding, which contrary to popular belief is not a waste of money, it's just the opposite. A freeze sounds nice in theory but it's fringe garbage, batshit crazy stuff.

There's simply no way a spending freeze makes sense unless you want to stall technological progress and, yes, stall the economy. No amount of tax cuts is going to spur enough investment to make up for the massive drop in GDP from gov't programs.

Why do we talk about a spending freeze like it's spending $0? It isn't. It means if you made $100k last year, you're not getting your 6% raise this year. So instead of $106k, you're still at $100k. That means if you were planning to spend extra and buy an ultimate gaming rig, you dont' get it. This doesn't mean you don't get money to pay your mortgage or credit cards. $100k is still fine. You just don't get MORE.

I'm well aware spending freeze /= $0. The problem is the gov't stops hiring, keeping only current employees. And since we know for a fact the gov't increases its base of employees every single year (on the aggregate), a sudden spending freeze means a boatload of jobs that aren't created and a substantial increase in unemployment. This budget calls for 5 years of it. Insane stuff, as if the gov't has no need for additional local, state and federal employees? FBI, Secret Service, CIA, etc. are hiring like gangbusters because they're desperate for qualified personnel. There are thousands of school renovation and teachers needed around the country. Are we seriously going to let them crumble?

A spending freeze in the government is a way to stop spending more ACROSS the board. Obama talks about trimming fat where it makes sense (scalpel analogy during the debate) and increasing spending on things that do need increases. On principle, I agree, but with the way Washington is run today, do you really think everyone's going to cut back? Spending freezes may be drastic, but it's what we need in this hole.

We still will fund NASA, we still will fund chemistry, photovoltaics, sciences, etc. You just don't get any increases. What's there to get. You act like everything we spend money on needs increases in spending. Tell me, do we need more on defense, social security, and medicare? Photovoltaics, green energy, R&D, NASA are all great to spend on, and I'd be glad to pump more money into it.... IF WE HAD an explosion of cash flowing. No, that's not the case, so let's cut back.

I don't think you quite understand how it works; you're under the impression that these agencies don't need additional funding. I have literally talked to and worked with JPL scientists that have said that, in theory, you can never have enough funding at NASA because the amount of exploration and discovery requires dollars and put plainly and simply, there is no way around it. To stall spending for 5 years is akin to stalling progress for 5 years because not only can you not increase spending in common sense areas like the sciences, but you can't hire more people as the population increases and you can't raise wages as inflation takes hold, meaning gov't workers have no motivation to be productive when expectations have been set that they aren't getting raises no matter how good they are at their job. Meaning that as population increases and gov't services are invariably called upon at a higher percentage, a spending freeze makes it impossible to meet the demand caused by population increase with a similar increase in gov't employees.

It's batshit crazy to propose spending freezes, plain and simple, unless their "freeze" somehow makes it possible to increase wages with inflation, hire additional workers and give pay raises to gov't employees who earn it, continue to increase funding for the sciences, etc. In which case it obviously doesn't become a freeze anymore.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yawn. Maybe the whining liberals can go pound sand now.

*sniff* We can't help it. *sob* We're sorry. We just love our country. *gulp* And we fear for it. *crai*

You're crying over a non-existent budget plan, eh?

Zero wanted a alternative plan, he got it. Now he can go back to running up the deficit as planned and as you wanted.