cutting spending is a tricky thing and will have mixed impacts on our economy....


#1

I understand that most of the people on this board are for small taxes and small state. They believe if you cut most of all the social welfare and support systems and shrink government by laying off hundreds of thousands of “over-paid” government workers we can turn the nation around.
The results of such spending cuts are not as clean “cut” as many may think.

-If we lay-off hundreds of thousands of government workers they will be added to our unemployed. How quickly will the “private sector” turn things around to get these unemployed government workers back to work?

-Every dollar paid by the government to government workers, gets spent by the worker’s family to buy “private-sector” goods and services.

-every dollar given in the form of public assistents and welfare to people who otherwise would live in the street unproductivly gets spent on private sector goods and services.

So it appears that the government does contribute to private-sector success through wages spent by government paid workers to buy private-sector goods and services. With unemployment, underemployment, and shrinking wages the private sector needs as many consumers as they can find to remain profitable…even government consumers. Lets not forget all the private-sector government contracts the private sector fights hard to win (everything from floor cleaner to buildings to paper etc.)

So there has to be a balance here. I think a medium sized government and government spending is healthy as such spending creates jobs through spending on wages and government support that eventually contribute to the profits of private sector companies.

We in some ways learned from history by using government as a vehicle to recharge the economy. Look as far back as Caeser Augustus. he came into a empire that was nearly bankrupt and falling appart at the seams do to a poor economy. He ushered the empire into a new golden age by spening governmetn money on public works and putting people back to work. The money from the govenment to the workers cycled back into the economy and that was the begining of the Roman Empires golden age. He funded these public owrks projects by increasing taxes on the wealthy nobels. The nobels fought at first but in the end the nobels and the rest of the Roman society enjoyed a golden age of prosparity.

Public schools really need to take history education much more seriously.


#2

I WISH I could agree, but its really a ‘Pelosi’ arguement, she too has stated the more on welfare the better off we are as a nation. In fact the govt has upped the cash and benefits to the point you make more on welfare than working…about $30 per hour on welfare vs $25 per hr working.

Does this work? Well yes it does, but then so do the ocean level rise when I walked out in front of my house and take a pizz in the ocean…except no one in Japan is yelling where are the life vests.

You CANNOT feed the economy from the bottom up, in fact its impossible. In your example, which by the way is valid except that its not a parallel to our situation. Rome RAISED the level of the economy, meaning the state of the economy was below where they were at. Another example is the public works in the depression era, which lasted from 1929 - 1942. All the money the govt pumped into the economy did not raise it…perhaps in localized areas, sure, but infrastructure is a POOR way to make things happen in a modern society. Rome took hundreds of years to build, but with a Cat D9 I do the work of a 1000 Romans and when the work is done, what happens to the people that were employed??? They get laid off and things get worse in fact. Now you have laid off workers with good roads and damns.

The way you feed a society is “trickle down” and its the only that that works. Economy works based upon what is known as the “multiplier effect” of money that circulates. When I give a family $30,000 dollars they use 100% of the money to provide for the family and they spend at the very bottom of the food chain. Money goes for food, clothing and shelter. There is very little if any left. Feed the economy and society at that level and you will have a society that ONLY has the very basics of living.

Now feed it at the top and insure your regulations force the money to be invested and spent in the economy. Lets look at an example:

I go buy a Harley. It is STRICTLY a sunny, blue sky weekend toy. Cost is about $17,000 and I put about $55,000 into it. This is a $72,000 investment. HD employes people to build the Harley, I paid $1200 to have guy paint my tank, I put 80 spoke stainless wire wheels on it, SS engine, Python Headers, new saddle seat and I can go on and on. All this creates jobs, they take my money and they spend it and it continues to trickle down creating enormous economic activity thru jobs.

People at the bottom do not generate anything but “needs” buying and will NEVER rise above the squalor of govt housing, food stamps and free living cradle to grave. Their ONLY escape is drugs and alcohol. You can never rise as long as bread and circuses are given to you, which is what the Romans did and it collapsed the greatest empire the world has ever known…and Italy has NEVER recovered from it…


#3

There will be a temporary shock but it is necessary to do it before it gets any worse.


#4

Your example of Caesar Augustus is quite an interesting one as, yes he did indeed invigorated the Roman Economy, he also collapsed the democratic state of the Republic and ushered in the position of Praetor, an absolute monarchy. This led to emperors like Nero who burnt Rome to ground, murdered on a whim, raped on a whim, and all that jazz. It also led to a corrupt government where only the few, those of the high class status, prospered. Is that what you are advocating? Because one final policy was panem et circutus. Bread and Circuses. Control the food source and keep the people distracted, you can rule any way you want and they will not stop you. Is that the future you want for this country?


#5

quoted for truth

x2


#6

They are if you look at the problem through non-rose colored glasses.

A lot of those services will need to be picked up by the states, that means hiring there. More hiring when spread out over all fifty states.

Every dollar spent by government workers is money taken from others that more than likely would have spent it or invested it themselves. Zero sum here.

This statement presumes that all on welfare would be sitting around dying in the streets without the support. How many on welfare are perfectly capable of working but do not because someone is paying them to sit around? The money taken from productive people and given away to the unproductive is laundered first to pay those salaries spoken of above. That takes away from those that “need” it. Yes those that truly can not work need help, but the closer you are to the need the better it is served. DC is to isolated to see the abuse and waste they themselves create.

The taxes levied on business to pay for the Washington monster retards the growth in the private sector which is much more capable of creating jobs than government. The money spent by Washington goes to friends instead more efficient companies that can do the best job while saving money.

I agree. So long as it’s at the state level where the government is more accountable for it’s actions.

And what happened to Rome when it overextended it’s self and tried to take on to much?


#7

First: His economic approach to success has very little to do with his accumulation of power. One is not tethered to the other, though one could argue the success of his economic policies made it easier for him to accumulate power.

Secondly, you are partly right concerning Caesers accumulation of power, Julius Caeser userped more power from the senate then Augustus ever did…thats why the nobles in the senate killed him. Augustus actually restored allot of the power to the Senate his predacessor took away. He even introduced a system where a non-nobel had a veto power over senate legislation that balanced out the nobels similar position in the senate to insure there was equal representation among both classes.

Third: all governments have corruption, surely you are not suggesting that our own government doesn’t have a healthy amount of corruption itself. Democracy has had its share of poor and corrupt governments that ended badly…there are many examples but one example would be the German democracy that allowed the likes of Hitler’s party to come to power. There is good democracy governments and bad ones, there are good Empirors and bad ones. Government will always be that way. Both forms of Govenment can raise a country to the Golden Age like Augustus/Reagan/Clinton era era or be disasterous Nero/Hoover/Carter.