• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government Workers are Next for layoffs & furloughs

States and localities furloughed or laid off nearly a million workers last month, new data indicate, and reports of more furloughs this month are widespread.

This is fantastic news and a real silver lining from the pandemic.

The “wait and see” approach that Senator John Thune and some other Republicans recommend for providing more state and local fiscal relief is highly unwise.

Agreed, it is unwise. The answer should be absolutely zero federal dollars to the states, with no "wait and see".
 
I know very well how things are going, and it is a direct result of both the shutdowns, and the government handout packages. Yet people like yourself want to keep on giving out handouts...because "feelings." :roll:

If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you keep giving that man a fish, he'll keep right on taking and eating as long as you are foolish enough to feed his needs.

Stop the feeding, and he either learns to fish, or starves...it's entirely up to him.




That was the same refrain back in 2016.

IMO however, many people are looking at what has been happening with Progressive-Democrat race-baiting and other grievance politics shenanigans. They are also looking at all this rioting, which IMHO is a direct result of that kind of divisive activity.

They are looking and they are not happy...but won't blame Trump.

So instead or predicting the future, I'll just shrug and see what happens in time. :coffeepap:

Dude, what I stated has Nothing to do with "feelings" my wife laughed and laughed when I told her that one. I just means you have zero idea who you are talking to. Extending the UE benefits is directly related to the FACT that thousands are still being laid off, private and public sector alike. Getting back to work is not even going to be a possibility for many. Same thing for a second round of stimulous checks, or should we say "keeping your head above water" checks, we are talking two checks total for the American People. Now we know there will be no issue getting more money, lots more money, for big and small businesses, no money for the States of-course, screw them eh.
I will put it to you this way, if McDonald was trying to lose the election in a BIG way he could not do a better job of it, the Republicans will not hold either House if Congress or the WH again for more than a decade, count on that. But yes, it is interesting to watch unfold.
 
You "said that" by both citing an article that indicates the Senate is blocking needed efforts to pick up the State tabs (apparently the Democrat House is pushing for), AND indicating your agreement "if the Senate doesn't get off their asses and help."

The question was valid. Why should State debt be added to the Federal debt?

Too big to fail.
 
Why, exactly, is transferring (converting?) state/local debt to federal debt a good idea?

Because state & local debt is real debt, while the Feds can simply make their own money.

I've been saying this for years. I don't think they even bothered to issue bonds this time. The trillions the govt. spent this spring weren't borrowed, in any sense of the word.
 
Because state & local debt is real debt, while the Feds can simply make their own money.

I've been saying this for years. I don't think they even bothered to issue bonds this time. The trillions the govt. spent this spring weren't borrowed, in any sense of the word.

So why not increase the pay and benefits for all state/local government employees and double the number of them?
 
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a progressive American think tank that promotes liberal and progressive agendas.

Their agenda in this instance is draining federal funds to make up for their poor fiscal governance.

Just weeks ago, I heard California was thinking of seceding from the nation; now they want a bailout.

How about a big bucket of Nope!
 
So why not increase the pay and benefits for all state/local government employees and double the number of them?

If the feds would pay for it, they could.

But it would be fairer if the feds just gave states/cities $1000/head. Just like they gave people money, they could give states money.
 
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a progressive American think tank that promotes liberal and progressive agendas.

Their agenda in this instance is draining federal funds to make up for their poor fiscal governance.

Just weeks ago, I heard California was thinking of seceding from the nation; now they want a bailout.

How about a big bucket of Nope!

How can you "drain" limitless funds?
 
If the feds would pay for it, they could.

But it would be fairer if the feds just gave states/cities $1000/head. Just like they gave people money, they could give states money.

That $1K/head ($330B?) is likely far less than what the states are going to be demanding.
 
That $1K/head ($330B?) is likely far less than what the states are going to be demanding.

They could give the states whatever they needed. It's money better spent than the giveaway to Big Business.
 
OK, then why have taxation at all?

In theory, it's to carve out enough fiscal space to provision the government. In practice, it's probably not necessary, because we lose so much demand to savings and the trade deficit.

If your economy produced $20 trillion, then your national income is $20 trillion. Spend 100% of that, and you can buy and consume all that you have produced. But save some of that income, and the lost demand has to be made up for, via increased credit and/or deficit spending. Assuming that your population would spend 100% of their income, the government would have to tax away enough of that income so it can provision itself. But if your population saves 10% of their income ($2 trillion), then the govt. has at least $2 trillion of fiscal space in which it can spend without stressing the economy and causing inflation. The economy is already producing $20 trillion worth; $18 for people, and $2 for the govt., and that's with no tax at all.

The govt. was able to give people and businesses trillions this spring, and the reason it isn't going to cause inflation is because so many people lost so much income that it's not even enough to replace what people would have earned and spent normally.
 
OK, then why have taxation at all?



Think your missing the point. The goal should always be to have a balanced budget during good times and deficit spend during the bad. God deficits spend during good times and end up creating huge recessions.
 
Think your missing the point. The goal should always be to have a balanced budget during good times and deficit spend during the bad. God deficits spend during good times and end up creating huge recessions.

Why have balanced budgets at all? Nobody can ever answer this with sound logic and reasoning, let alone data.

Deficit spending adds to GDP. That's a positive. Show me the negatives, if you can, that outweigh the positives.
 
Why have balanced budgets at all? Nobody can ever answer this with sound logic and reasoning, let alone data.

Deficit spending adds to GDP. That's a positive. Show me the negatives, if you can, that outweigh the positives.

I'd be okay with small deficits instead of balanced budgets.
 
States, cities, and counties are all facing HUGE deficits

Pink slips will be coming very soon

Especially if the senate doesnt get off its ass and help....

Police, fire, teachers, admin....they will ALL be cut and it seems likely in most locales

Wont just be the private sector suffering....everyone else is about to join the party

Fiscal Relief Needed Now to Stop Massive State Job Loss From Becoming Permanent | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

I told everyone that was going to happen back in March.

And since the completely hapless Trump Administration has no understanding of government at all, its not likely to change.

State and local tax revenue dried up in March, just as most states were finishing their FY 2021 budgets.

Not only will there be layoffs and furloughs now, but the trend will continue for all of the following year, and perhaps the year after.

The Federal government has so far refused to even consider borrowing to fill the gaping holes in state and local revenue losses.

So, this time next year, and sooner, get used to stories about services being cut, police getting laid off, and teachers with 45 kids in a class room.

That is what Trump has wrought.
 
I'd be okay with small deficits instead of balanced budgets.

More govt. spending = bigger GDP. We have low growth as it is, it won't be better with less govt. spending.

Do you have a good reason for smaller deficits, or does it just sound right to you?
 
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a progressive American think tank that promotes liberal and progressive agendas.

Their agenda in this instance is draining federal funds to make up for their poor fiscal governance.

Just weeks ago, I heard California was thinking of seceding from the nation; now they want a bailout.

How about a big bucket of Nope!


Oregon is facing exactly the same budget crisis, and will do for the next two years, at least.
 
So now the federal government should backstop bad management by state governments? Most of the states asking for bailouts were already in bad shape, with bloated pensions and spending. Let them raise state taxes.....again.
 
So now the federal government should backstop bad management by state governments? Most of the states asking for bailouts were already in bad shape, with bloated pensions and spending. Let them raise state taxes.....again.

What is the federal government there for anyway, if not to come to the aid of its citizens when needed?

If somebody is choking, do you criticize them for eating whatever they are choking on, then expect them to Heimlich themselves out of trouble?
 
The federal debt will need to be paid off by corporate taxes, there is no choice. If the Republicans are even remotely interested in tackling the debt they will have to bite the hand that feeds them. Will they, doubtful.
 
What is the federal government there for anyway, if not to come to the aid of its citizens when needed?

If somebody is choking, do you criticize them for eating whatever they are choking on, then expect them to Heimlich themselves out of trouble?

I expect people to eat small bites, of a size they can handle, instead of huge chunks because they are gluttons. States should act the same way. Why should I pay for a gluttonous, bloated Illinois pension scheme? Or California? I also oppose the government bailing out the big banks and corporations for the same reasons.

And there's only two ways to raise that money you want given away. Either raise taxes or borrow it. In fact, government does BOTH. I pay enough already in taxes. ALL totaled, local, state and federal, almost half my income.

And if taxes were figured all along the supply chain, the tax burden is much worse. The mining company extracts the ore (they pay taxes and maybe a royalty if it's on gov't land) then railroad ships the ore and pays taxes. Then the smelter melts it down and they pay taxes. Then the trucking company moves it to the stamping plant, they pay taxes. Then to the manufacturing plant, where it's made into something useful (that's called "value added"). That manufacturer pays taxes. Then it's shipped to a distribution center; they pay taxes. Then to a retail store, and they pay taxes. And then when you buy the item you pay maybe 10% sales tax, which is about the only tax NOT hidden along the way. And if it's a vehicle, or a boat motor, or a motorcycle, or a boat, or a 5X10 utility trailer, you will also pay property tax on top of all those other HIDDEN taxes.

When it's all said and done, most of your money ends up as taxes. The only reason it looks like we actually own anything or make progress at all is that the huge gains in productivity adds so much value to almost everything, while also making it cheaper to make.
 
The federal debt will need to be paid off by corporate taxes, there is no choice. If the Republicans are even remotely interested in tackling the debt they will have to bite the hand that feeds them. Will they, doubtful.

Govt. "debt" does not need to be paid off. Govt. debt is just financial assets in the hands of the private sector, bonds and dollars. Reducing govt. liabilities just pulls dollars out of the active economy, and that would be a disaster.
 
I expect people to eat small bites, of a size they can handle, instead of huge chunks because they are gluttons. States should act the same way. Why should I pay for a gluttonous, bloated Illinois pension scheme? Or California? I also oppose the government bailing out the big banks and corporations for the same reasons.

And there's only two ways to raise that money you want given away. Either raise taxes or borrow it. In fact, government does BOTH. I pay enough already in taxes. ALL totaled, local, state and federal, almost half my income.

And if taxes were figured all along the supply chain, the tax burden is much worse. The mining company extracts the ore (they pay taxes and maybe a royalty if it's on gov't land) then railroad ships the ore and pays taxes. Then the smelter melts it down and they pay taxes. Then the trucking company moves it to the stamping plant, they pay taxes. Then to the manufacturing plant, where it's made into something useful (that's called "value added"). That manufacturer pays taxes. Then it's shipped to a distribution center; they pay taxes. Then to a retail store, and they pay taxes. And then when you buy the item you pay maybe 10% sales tax, which is about the only tax NOT hidden along the way. And if it's a vehicle, or a boat motor, or a motorcycle, or a boat, or a 5X10 utility trailer, you will also pay property tax on top of all those other HIDDEN taxes.

When it's all said and done, most of your money ends up as taxes. The only reason it looks like we actually own anything or make progress at all is that the huge gains in productivity adds so much value to almost everything, while also making it cheaper to make.

You aren't paying for anything. We don't pay for deficit spending. The govt. creates its own money and spends it. Even when they issue bonds, the money is spent right back into the economy, and bondholders have the bonds they wanted. Who loses there? Nobody.
 
Govt. "debt" does not need to be paid off. Govt. debt is just financial assets in the hands of the private sector, bonds and dollars. Reducing govt. liabilities just pulls dollars out of the active economy, and that would be a disaster.

In a nutshell you endorse trickle down, David Stockman would be impressed.
 
Back
Top Bottom