So...In the Macroeconomic View, What Federal Taxes Are Really Wasted? [W:226]

[Glen Contrarian]

It's wasted by overpaying employees, overpaying for contracts, overpaying for products...

When you pay 2-10x more on a product/labor than what the private sector spends on a product you're wasting money. Not to mention it costs more than a dollar to spend a dollar.

Remember the federal government gets money, then the federal government has to pay someone to spend that money (congress) then they have to pay someone again to spend that money (agencies) then those agencies have to actually spend that money.. That's not even counting corruption..

In all essence the public sector has its own economy and the private sector has its own economy and the two cannot mesh.

Gee, if that's the case, then America's economy should never have recovered from the Great Depression...but it did, and it BOOMED in the 1950's when taxes were much higher than now - and that was with a major war going on.

What you're not addressing is the fact that when people aren't paid a living wage, then they have to go on the government dole just to put food on the table. The Walton family - owners of this firm called "Wal-Mart" (you may have heard of it) - literally have more money than the bottom 40% of the entire American population...yet many of their workers are on food stamps because the Waltons don't pay them enough (even at full-time wages) for a breadwinner to keep his or her family fed, clothed, and sheltered...

...and so that family goes on government assistance. In other words, we, the taxpayers, have to SUBSIDIZE the owners of Wal-Mart because they won't pay their workers enough.

And when it comes to the public sector, sure, you'll ALWAYS be able to find examples here or there of waste...but it's NOT because it's in the public sector, but because HUMAN BEINGS are involved. There's every bit as much waste and corruption in the private sector as in the public sector, and anyone who thinks otherwise is incredibly naive.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No responsibilities have been shirked. What has happened is that our government continued/continues to expand entitlements in a search for votes, so no, I'm not in. Now, if you want to advocate for policies to decrease these programs or those depending on them and growing the economy, then I'm in...

Hmm....lets break it down. We understand that mandatory spending has paid for itself, funded via FICA, and has actually had a surplus that various budgets have "borrowed" from to make the numbers look better. So the issue is really on the discretionary side of the budget.

Let's look at the budget numbers since like, oh I don't know, how about 2001?

"Let’s recall that when Bush came to office in 2001, the government’s budget was in the black. Washington was actually paying down the national debt. Back then, the Congressional Budget Office projected that America would have amassed a war chest of more than $2 trillion by this year — money that could be used to strengthen the country or provide for baby boomers’ retirement. But the Bush administration, and Karl Rove chief among them, wanted to return that projected surplus back to the people, and especially to the wealthy.

Bush’s tax cuts — along with a rapid increase in defense spending, a prescription drug plan for the elderly and other big-government policies — saddled the country with some $8 trillion in publicly-held debt by 2009 (the current figure has risen to $10.4 trillion, according to the Washington Post, not including several trillion dollars the government effectively owes itself). A separate analysis by the NY Times tallies Bush’s contribution to the debt at $5.07 trillion, and Obama’s (including projections through 2017) at $1.44 trillion."

Huh...contributions to the debt since 2001 are mainly due to tax cuts and unfunded war spending.
Who woulda thunk?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The $17T is the result of giveaways by Congress that were not funded. I contribute to the charities I support and resent someone telling me I should pay to support any cause other than those which I choose. Let me ask you a question, why is it necessary to provide school feeding programs when the purpose of SNAP is to provide for that food already?

Hmmm...so the idea you have is that school lunches are the driving force of debt (lunches for all elementary kids, not just SNAP recipients)? Really?

Let me correct this....you think the driving force of debt in the US is subsidized school food programs for children whose household income is 185% below poverty level?

It never ceases to amaze me how you want to focus on SNAP and school lunch programs.

 

[Sisyphus]

Arguing semantics on a message board? Brave soul you are.

Huh? What part of what you quoted was about semantics?

 

[blaxshep]

Ah. So THAT's why all our first-world nations are now third-world nations, and all the third-world nations with weak governments, low taxes, and little or no regulation are all first-world nations now!

Oh, wait - you mean the first-world nations are STILL first-world nations, and they STILL have the best standards of living in the world? And the third-world nations with weak governments, low taxes, and little or no regulation are STILL third-world nations?

Gee, wonder why that is? I mean, you're libertarian, and you CAN'T be wrong...so...what happened?

So then all 3rd world nations need to do to become 1st world nations is print or borrow $17,000,000,000,000 they don't have and they too can be the liberal utopia that we are. Gee I wonder why they haven't thought of that? You mean to tell me all Greece has to do is print or borrow more money that it doesn't have and spend it like drunken sailors and they can end the austerity and be a 1st world country just like us? Wow you liberals sure are smart! Your argument is devoid of any intelligence or common sense. Third world nations are in the crapper because they have always been poor... but thanks to liberal economic morons our country will eventually go broke and end up in the crapper just like all the others.

BTW - All the signs say we are well on our way.

Activist Post: 10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So then all 3rd world nations need to do to become 1st world nations is print or borrow $17,000,000,000,000 they don't have and they too can be the liberal utopia that we are. Gee I wonder why they haven't thought of that? You mean to tell me all Greece has to do is print or borrow more money that it doesn't have and spend it like drunken sailors and they can end the austerity and be a 1st world country just like us? Wow you liberals sure are smart! Your argument is devoid of any intelligence or common sense. Third world nations are in the crapper because they have always been poor... but thanks to liberal economic morons our country will eventually go broke and end up in the crapper just like all the others.

BTW - All the signs say we are well on our way.

Activist Post: 10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country

so what is the role model of conservative economic policy?

 

[blaxshep]

so what is the role model of conservative economic policy?

A Federal government that abides by its 18 enumerated constitutional powers would be a good start.

Submitting a budget based on available revenue and sticking to it, making cuts when needed rather than spending it anyways and then raising the debt or increasing taxes to pay for things we can not afford. Staying out of the free market and not having a private banking cartel running our economy or printing money or bailing them out.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

A Federal government that abides by its 18 enumerated constitutional powers would be a good start.

Submitting a budget based on available revenue and sticking to it, making cuts when needed rather than spending it anyways and then raising the debt or increasing taxes to pay for things we can not afford. Staying out of the free market and not having a private banking cartel running our economy or printing money or bailing them out.

i am asking for what you consider should be our role model as a country that is using the economic policy you believe will solve our economic woes. if greece is your example of economic failure what is your example of a sucess?

 

[Sisyphus]

A Federal government that abides by its 18 enumerated constitutional powers would be a good start.

Submitting a budget based on available revenue and sticking to it, making cuts when needed rather than spending it anyways and then raising the debt or increasing taxes to pay for things we can not afford. Staying out of the free market and not having a private banking cartel running our economy or printing money or bailing them out.

We've tried that. It sent Gingrich looking for a day job, once an actual shutdown occurred and people learned what it was like without government services. And then Boehner, no doubt fearing being a Newt Redux, rattled his saber but dared not repeat the foolishness.

And to put this on-topic, every Dollar you cut in Federal, State or Local spending = -$1 in the private sector. So make cuts, and see revenue and the business economy suffer. So you cut some more. And the business economy suffers a bit more, requiring more cuts still, until we've shrunk this economy to about that of Chinas, and praise babyjesus, we can get manufacturing back, paying our peasant middle class a wage that undercuts the Chinese.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So then all 3rd world nations need to do to become 1st world nations is print or borrow $17,000,000,000,000 they don't have and they too can be the liberal utopia that we are. Gee I wonder why they haven't thought of that? You mean to tell me all Greece has to do is print or borrow more money that it doesn't have and spend it like drunken sailors and they can end the austerity and be a 1st world country just like us? Wow you liberals sure are smart! Your argument is devoid of any intelligence or common sense. Third world nations are in the crapper because they have always been poor... but thanks to liberal economic morons our country will eventually go broke and end up in the crapper just like all the others.

BTW - All the signs say we are well on our way.

Activist Post: 10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country

Yeah, yeah. The same old arguments we were hearing fifty years ago, too. If your way worked, we'd see it already. Why? Because nearly all major economies WERE libertarian in fact if not in name before the Industrial Revolution. Low taxes, everybody had to pay their own way for everything including school and medical care, extremely loose regulations, the whole shmear. But what happened? Why is it that the libertarian functionality of the past gave way to socialized democracy?

The answer lay in market theory, in evolutionary theory - those systems which are stronger and more adaptable to a changing environment will survive and thrive. Those which aren't, won't.

This is why the developed world is no longer libertarian.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

...and praise babyjesus, we can get manufacturing back, paying our peasant middle class a wage that undercuts the Chinese.

But that's REAL freedom! Just ask the Chinese - the Party bosses and the CEO's who own them will tell you with a smile that their workers are all freer than anybody in the West. And they'll light another cigar and gripe to each other about the cost of the nets put around their factories to catch those trying to commit suicide by jumping out the windows....

 

[blaxshep]

Yeah, yeah. The same old arguments we were hearing fifty years ago, too. If your way worked, we'd see it already. Why? Because nearly all major economies WERE libertarian in fact if not in name before the Industrial Revolution. Low taxes, everybody had to pay their own way for everything including school and medical care, extremely loose regulations, the whole shmear. But what happened? Why is it that the libertarian functionality of the past gave way to socialized democracy?

The answer lay in market theory, in evolutionary theory - those systems which are stronger and more adaptable to a changing environment will survive and thrive. Those which aren't, won't.

This is why the developed world is no longer libertarian.

That is also why the the devolved world is going bankrupt lock stock and barrel. Why did the libertarian functionality of the past gave way to socialized democracy? Gee let me think .... what would I rather have fiscal responsibility or unlimited credit? Hmmm .....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That is also why the the devolved world is going bankrupt lock stock and barrel. Why did the libertarian functionality of the past gave way to socialized democracy? Gee let me think .... what would I rather have fiscal responsibility or unlimited credit? Hmmm .....

Really? The developed world is going bankrupt? Perhaps you should check the debt levels of the nations that are still working with largely libertarian economies - they're all in debt, too, and often to a greater degree than the socialized democracies of the world. In fact, if you'll check the first-world nations that adopted austerity measures in response to the Great Recession, they're ALL worse off...whereas the ones that adopted stimulus measures (like the U.S.) are largely better off than they were, even if they haven't fully recovered.

That's just it, blax - your libertarian economics sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in the real world. You cannot show me a single instance of a nation in serious economic trouble that made its way back to having a good economy through austerity measures. Not. a. single. one. On the other hand, I can show you lots of examples of economies rebounding after taxpayer-funded stimulus measures.

So that begs the question - if your way is so right, then why can't you show examples that prove it works? And if Keynesian economics is so wrong, why are the first-world nations still first-world nations even after sixty, seventy years of socialized democracy? If you can't back up your theory with real world examples, it's time to reexamine your theory, don't you think?

 

[Sisyphus]

Really? The developed world is going bankrupt? Perhaps you should check the debt levels of the nations that are still working with largely libertarian economies - they're all in debt, too, and often to a greater degree than the socialized democracies of the world. In fact, if you'll check the first-world nations that adopted austerity measures in response to the Great Recession, they're ALL worse off...whereas the ones that adopted stimulus measures (like the U.S.) are largely better off than they were, even if they haven't fully recovered.

That's just it, blax - your libertarian economics sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in the real world. You cannot show me a single instance of a nation in serious economic trouble that made its way back to having a good economy through austerity measures. Not. a. single. one. On the other hand, I can show you lots of examples of economies rebounding after taxpayer-funded stimulus measures.

So that begs the question - if your way is so right, then why can't you show examples that prove it works? And if Keynesian economics is so wrong, why are the first-world nations still first-world nations even after sixty, seventy years of socialized democracy? If you can't back up your theory with real world examples, it's time to reexamine your theory, don't you think?

My new god. Truth bordering on the divine.

 

[blaxshep]

Really? The developed world is going bankrupt? Perhaps you should check the debt levels of the nations that are still working with largely libertarian economies - they're all in debt, too, and often to a greater degree than the socialized democracies of the world. In fact, if you'll check the first-world nations that adopted austerity measures in response to the Great Recession, they're ALL worse off...whereas the ones that adopted stimulus measures (like the U.S.) are largely better off than they were, even if they haven't fully recovered.

That's just it, blax - your libertarian economics sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in the real world. You cannot show me a single instance of a nation in serious economic trouble that made its way back to having a good economy through austerity measures. Not. a. single. one. On the other hand, I can show you lots of examples of economies rebounding after taxpayer-funded stimulus measures.

So that begs the question - if your way is so right, then why can't you show examples that prove it works? And if Keynesian economics is so wrong, why are the first-world nations still first-world nations even after sixty, seventy years of socialized democracy? If you can't back up your theory with real world examples, it's time to reexamine your theory, don't you think?

So creating a false economy on $17,000,000,000,000 debt is your brilliant idea of Keynesian prosperity? Apparently debt is inconsequential. Since we can prosper by simply spending money we don't have indefinitely and without consequence why should we even bother collecting taxes? Seriously your argument is that countries that don't have to pay their bills, they just put it all on endless credit, are better off financially then those that actually pay their bills. Well hell yea they are. I would be much better off if all my bills just went on an endless credit card that I never have to pay back and I get to keep all my money to spend how ever I want. The free ride will never end, the bill is never going to come do.