[besson3c]

There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.

What does a company do when it is bleeding money? It cuts back, lays people off, looks for ways to save money, but it also makes *changes* to prevent whatever it was that put them there in the first place from happening again. Chances are, that thing was fundamentally broken. It doesn't make sense to just keep on doing the same thing.

Change and transition is always expensive. It will cost us to move to a new energy source, it will cost us to move to a new health care system or reform what we have, and it will cost us to reform education as well. However, these are the sort of things that will truly strengthen the economy in the long run. We are in this crisis because the banks run the show and we are too tethered to their corporate practices and their effects. Yes, we will always need credit, but our economic engine needs to be diverse enough so that we have many businesses creating jobs and generating revenue, and in order to do that we need educated workers that can compete in the global market, we need to reduce health care expenses for both employers and employees, etc.

So, again, the way I see it is that there is little sense in *only* focusing on cut backs and trying to stop the bleeding this way. We need to be taking steps to ensure that we are on a sustainable path earning more than we spend, and the cruel irony of all of this is that these changes are going to cost us money in the short-term.

The extent to which this is true is obviously debatable, but nobody seems to be talking about the cost of change in all of this (particularly in the areas that the Obama administration has been emphasizing: health, energy, education), so I thought I would bring it up here.

Lets try to be thoughtful and not simply reactionary and knee jerky.

[ironknee]

"You have to spend money to make money." Lenin

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The extent to which this is true is obviously debatable, but nobody seems to be talking about the cost of change in all of this (particularly in the areas that the Obama administration has been emphasizing: health, energy, education), so I thought I would bring it up here.

We're either going to have to raise taxes significantly, or we're going to have hyper-inflation, neither of which most people want to see. They'd rather bury their heads in the sand, and pretend the problem doesn't exist until it affects them directly, and then they'll wail and moan. People don't want to talk about this, because we, as a nation, never want to face reality. We've had a past where we always got what we wanted, when we wanted it, at very little cost, and now we're facing one of the biggest crises of our country's existence, because the rest of the global economy is in the same boat, and we, once again, don't like reality.

Lets try to be thoughtful and not simply reactionary and knee jerky.

You do remember where you're posting this?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.

This is assuming we haven't spent enough already and what the "right track" is.

What does a company do when it is bleeding money? It cuts back, lays people off, looks for ways to save money, but it also makes *changes* to prevent whatever it was that put them there in the first place from happening again. Chances are, that thing was fundamentally broken. It doesn't make sense to just keep on doing the same thing.

"The same thing" has become somewhat of a meaningless platitude at this point. The proper thing to do might be to address what is fundamentally broken.

Change and transition is always expensive. It will cost us to move to a new energy source, it will cost us to move to a new health care system or reform what we have, and it will cost us to reform education as well. However, these are the sort of things that will truly strengthen the economy in the long run. We are in this crisis because the banks run the show and we are too tethered to their corporate practices and their effects. Yes, we will always need credit, but our economic engine needs to be diverse enough so that we have many businesses creating jobs and generating revenue, and in order to do that we need educated workers that can compete in the global market, we need to reduce health care expenses for both employers and employees, etc.

Status quo has likewise been expensive. What you're really saying here is that we need to spend more. I want to make sure we're clear on this. You must be implying that we haven't spent enough. This is the crux of the disagreement. No one is arguing that money can't help solve anything, they're arguing whether the money spent has been spent effectively and whether any of these resources are going to the root cause instead of simply easing symptoms while the problems remain and grow. Moving to new sources of energy is one issue that I think most people can agree on. What source is the crux of the disagreement. For example, I'd like to use domestic sources of energy over paying hostile regimes for their source of energy. This requires reopening refineries here, drilling here, keeping the money here, and reinvesting in new sources of energy that are actually cost-effective. Sometimes you might have to spend political capital, but too often our representatives aren't willing to pay anything more than lipservice to their constituents. These are all problems that can and will be solved, but they have to be solved in such a way as to not hamstring prosperity, hamper ingenuity, and harm working families. Ideas like cap and trade may sound good on paper, but they do not meet the root cause of the problems we face and may cause new ones that dwarf our energy concerns.

So, again, the way I see it is that there is little sense in *only* focusing on cut backs and trying to stop the bleeding this way. We need to be taking steps to ensure that we are on a sustainable path earning more than we spend, and the cruel irony of all of this is that these changes are going to cost us money in the short-term.

Credit and a handshake used to mean something. As long as we continue to spend (notice I didn't enter the name of any cigar-chomping corporate exec because this is as meaningless as mentioning the congressmen who received kickbacks from them) more on eating out and entertainment than we spend on healthcare, you can't convince me we're in a "crisis". Crisis is too often used to manipulate the masses. For all those quick to compare the Iraq War with the stimulus, I'm surprised the "fear for sale" tactic is all of a sudden acceptable. We spend more on education than any 3 countries outperforming us combined. How we spend our money is the question, not why we should spend more.

The extent to which this is true is obviously debatable, but nobody seems to be talking about the cost of change in all of this (particularly in the areas that the Obama administration has been emphasizing: health, energy, education), so I thought I would bring it up here.

Can you indicate what the Obama Administration is emphasizing via health care, energy, and education that actually corrects the state of these issues over simply spending more money on them. If spending is necessary, tell us why. You've already got OldMan talking about tax increases, but I'd like to see why they're justified and how the recipients of this money have been good stewards of it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is assuming we haven't spent enough already and what the "right track" is.

I don't know if we have spent enough money already or not. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious but doesn't seem to be to some, and that's that *some* amount of new money needs to be spent to change what is broken. The argument against the stimulus package et all seems to have been that we should not spend *any* new money that we don't have. If we want to change what is broken, what choice do we have? I"d argue that we *have* to change what is broken.

"The same thing" has become somewhat of a meaningless platitude at this point. The proper thing to do might be to address what is fundamentally broken.

So we're on the same page, despite my choice of words?

Status quo has likewise been expensive. What you're really saying here is that we need to spend more. I want to make sure we're clear on this. You must be implying that we haven't spent enough. This is the crux of the disagreement. No one is arguing that money can't help solve anything, they're arguing whether the money spent has been spent effectively and whether any of these resources are going to the root cause instead of simply easing symptoms while the problems remain and grow. Moving to new sources of energy is one issue that I think most people can agree on. What source is the crux of the disagreement. For example, I'd like to use domestic sources of energy over paying hostile regimes for their source of energy. This requires reopening refineries here, drilling here, keeping the money here, and reinvesting in new sources of energy that are actually cost-effective. Sometimes you might have to spend political capital, but too often our representatives aren't willing to pay anything more than lipservice to their constituents. These are all problems that can and will be solved, but they have to be solved in such a way as to not hamstring prosperity, hamper ingenuity, and harm working families. Ideas like cap and trade may sound good on paper, but they do not meet the root cause of the problems we face and may cause new ones that dwarf our energy concerns.

I'm not sure how spending *more* entered the picture, see above. I'll leave the actual quantities and debate of numbers up to people that know more than I, but again, my point is that some amount of money is necessary to change things, even though it is deficit spending.

Credit and a handshake used to mean something. As long as we continue to spend (notice I didn't enter the name of any cigar-chomping corporate exec because this is as meaningless as mentioning the congressmen who received kickbacks from them) more on eating out and entertainment than we spend on healthcare, you can't convince me we're in a "crisis". Crisis is too often used to manipulate the masses. For all those quick to compare the Iraq War with the stimulus, I'm surprised the "fear for sale" tactic is all of a sudden acceptable. We spend more on education than any 3 countries outperforming us combined. How we spend our money is the question, not why we should spend more.

I agree with you about education. No Child Left Behind may have worked better if it were actually funded as originally promised, and as it stands I think it has done more harm than good. I agree that we are being pumped full of all sorts of economic fear right now in general.

Can you indicate what the Obama Administration is emphasizing via health care, energy, and education that actually corrects the state of these issues over simply spending more money on them. If spending is necessary, tell us why. You've already got OldMan talking about tax increases, but I'd like to see why they're justified and how the recipients of this money have been good stewards of it.

Nothing, just yet. I hope that he will unveil these plans soon, this is why he was elected. I'll cut him a little slack right now since his hands are pretty tied with just getting the mechanics of our economy working again as all of this stuff is dependent on a semi-healthy market, and surely trying to ask for the money that will be needed to change these things right now while our markets are hosed would ensure that these plans do not move forward. However, truthfully, I don't have a whole lot of faith that we'll get the reform that we actually need under any administration anyway.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.

One of my (college) students asked last week why it seemed that government never got smaller, while businesses ended up out of business all the time. I'm not sure I have an answer other than "politics". At least not a polite, non-tinfoil-hat one.

Spending to "invest" only works if it's necessary infrastructure, or things that will pay back later. Keynesian spending for spending sake has pretty much been discredited altogether.

Unfortunately, your "right track" is seen by many on the Left as the nanny state, with guaranteed, bought and paid for voting blocks so Congress doesn't have compete for votes every few years.

The title of this thread implies that one's returns are greater than one's cost of money. That only happens by cutting out waste. Adding a governmental layer to everything (Medicare being a good, current, observable example) only raises costs for everyone and requires private solutions to compete with government in many cases.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

We're either going to have to raise taxes significantly, or we're going to have hyper-inflation, neither of which most people want to see.

Is this a false dichotomy? Can't we raise taxes significantly AND have hyper-inflation?

And, are those the only two options possible? Isn't cutting taxes and the services those taxes are collected to spend on also possible? Isn't doing that and avoiding hyper-inflation also possible?

Are you artificially limiting the range of possibilities to an unnecessarily narrow view?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I"d argue that we *have* to change what is broken.

And how has Obama throwing money at bad business to preserve it and help it compete with smaller better business models changing what is broken for the better?

You mentioned reforming health care and education. How do you propose we reform these other than just spending money on them. So far it looks like everything the dems are doing is actually more destructive. Such as trying to prop up the housing bubble. This collapse was actually a good thing before the dems effed it all up.


(ps on a side note: Goldman sachs reported good earnings today from bailout money they recieved...and the market went soaring because of it, this means we're on our way back up! god people couldn't be more stupid.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know if we have spent enough money already or not. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious but doesn't seem to be to some, and that's that *some* amount of new money needs to be spent to change what is broken. The argument against the stimulus package et all seems to have been that we should not spend *any* new money that we don't have. If we want to change what is broken, what choice do we have? I"d argue that we *have* to change what is broken.

You say in this statement "new" money, then imply you haven't a clue how "more" money entered the equation? What is "new" money if not "new" money besson3c? Let me reiterate; status quo has likewise been expensive. Example given-education; we spend more than any three countries outperforming us combined. Money is clearly not the problem yet you maintain that we need to spend more. You give no reason why spending "new"="more" money is necessary as if we're supposed to buy into the philosophy a priori. I want to make sure we're clear on this. You must be implying that we haven't spent enough.

This is the crux of the disagreement. People don't understand it perhaps because it's not really defensible.

Nothing, just yet. I hope that he will unveil these plans soon, this is why he was elected. I'll cut him a little slack right now...

We've already committed billions and you're hoping he will unveil the plans soon? How about before you commit billions. Not everybody is on the "you have to spend money to make money" bandwagon because they can't see where the expenditures are going to earn. It's more than a little ancillary thing, it is the crux of the disagreement. IMO it's much easier to make the argument that you need to spend less to solve an economic crisis, not more. More spending is why we're here. More government spending having squandered the fruits of your labor and our spending more on everything, but what we now want the government to provide for us. If it weren't for fear of political fall-out, those who invested in homes they couldn't afford and the loan-sharks who thought it'd be fun to try need to go bankrupt. Period. The problem should only cost those who caused it.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

[BadKosh]

Its more about WHAT you are spending it on that fixes the current problems. Spending on ACORN is obviously a waste. Throwing good money after bad (GM) is also stupid. The Management and the Unions are both to blame there.

[smacintush]

No, that's all wrong.

We are just supposed to give our President and our congress free reign to spend the next several generations into debt, and to spend US into hyper-inflation without questioning what they are spending it on, why they are doing it or whether there is ANY evidence whatsoever that spending of this sort has ANY positive long term value at all.

All people like you are doing is muddying the waters and standing in the way of the people that are trying to save our country from certain DOOM and save our planet from its impending destruction. Stand back, close your eyes, plug your ears, bend over and let them do their job!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Stand back, close your eyes, plug your ears, bend over and let them do their job...

... or be comfortable with being labeled a "right-wing extremist" per Homeland Security. Dissent by virtue of its contrarian view is now hostile, dangerous, and must be monitored by a Federal agency.

It's no wonder Obama did a complete 180 on warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping.

[andi*pandi]

Annnnnd rewind, hit play:

Are you with us or against us? The innocent have nothing to fear from surveillance. It's to protect you and America. Don't you love America?

[Rumor]

I'd have to agree with eBuddy on this. It isn't that we need to spend more, we just need to make what we currently spend more efficient.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

One of my (college) students asked last week why it seemed that government never got smaller, while businesses ended up out of business all the time. I'm not sure I have an answer other than "politics". At least not a polite, non-tinfoil-hat one.

Spending to "invest" only works if it's necessary infrastructure, or things that will pay back later. Keynesian spending for spending sake has pretty much been discredited altogether.

Unfortunately, your "right track" is seen by many on the Left as the nanny state, with guaranteed, bought and paid for voting blocks so Congress doesn't have compete for votes every few years.

The title of this thread implies that one's returns are greater than one's cost of money. That only happens by cutting out waste. Adding a governmental layer to everything (Medicare being a good, current, observable example) only raises costs for everyone and requires private solutions to compete with government in many cases.

I'm not sure exactly how this relates? To me, it's fairly simple: some things work better in the public sector, some in the private. I'm not for moving "everything" to the public sector, but I'm open to this option where it makes sense. Unfortunately, it seems like we cannot really evaluate where it makes sense without getting into philosophical differences and assumptions, such as that I wish for everything to be moved to the public sector.

However, isn't all of this an aside? How does this relate to my original argument? Are you saying that the solutions to our economic problems now should be solved in the private sector?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

And how has Obama throwing money at bad business to preserve it and help it compete with smaller better business models changing what is broken for the better?

If you're referring to the bank bailout, I don't know exactly how I feel about this. My original post was more a philosophical thing than anything this specific. I'm sure you're aware of the arguments that "we have no choice", but again, I don't know whether I agree with this or not.

You mentioned reforming health care and education. How do you propose we reform these other than just spending money on them. So far it looks like everything the dems are doing is actually more destructive. Such as trying to prop up the housing bubble. This collapse was actually a good thing before the dems effed it all up.

I'm in favor of sweeping reform of both. I hope that we'll see this, but I don't have high hopes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You say in this statement "new" money, then imply you haven't a clue how "more" money entered the equation? What is "new" money if not "new" money besson3c? Let me reiterate; status quo has likewise been expensive. Example given-education; we spend more than any three countries outperforming us combined. Money is clearly not the problem yet you maintain that we need to spend more. You give no reason why spending "new"="more" money is necessary as if we're supposed to buy into the philosophy a priori. I want to make sure we're clear on this. You must be implying that we haven't spent enough.

This is the crux of the disagreement. People don't understand it perhaps because it's not really defensible.


We've already committed billions and you're hoping he will unveil the plans soon? How about before you commit billions. Not everybody is on the "you have to spend money to make money" bandwagon because they can't see where the expenditures are going to earn. It's more than a little ancillary thing, it is the crux of the disagreement. IMO it's much easier to make the argument that you need to spend less to solve an economic crisis, not more. More spending is why we're here. More government spending having squandered the fruits of your labor and our spending more on everything, but what we now want the government to provide for us. If it weren't for fear of political fall-out, those who invested in homes they couldn't afford and the loan-sharks who thought it'd be fun to try need to go bankrupt. Period. The problem should only cost those who caused it.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

ebuddy, again, we are discussing several things. I'm not addressing the idea of whether or not we should be spending new money. I'm saying that if the slate were wiped clean, there was hypothetically no stimulus bill, there was no bailout, etc. or anything else to complicate the context that change costs money, and that we shouldn't necessarily resist deficit spending if it is an investment that is designed to fix what is broken and ultimately put money back into the economy.

That's it. Don't jump the gun into any specific issues of the day, I'm not using any of them as examples. My point is simply a fundamental and pretty basic point, although one that I don't think we are all on the same page with. It's no wonder we can't agree on anything if we don't agree on something this fundamental.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.

Well, you know, this is government bullsh!t and has nothing to do with prudent economics and business administration.

In times of crisis, you need to do two things:

1) cut back spending
2) find more efficient uses of the money you have

Why ?

Because (unlike the government) all companies will bleed through their cash quickly, and need to carefully balance their cash flow.

The government doesn't care at all about cash flow, because they can print their own money, or just levy higher taxes.
But that doesn't make the government's approach (savings and fixing by spending) right or good. It will only delay the inevitable.

-t

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you saying that the solutions to our economic problems now should be solved in the private sector?

I don't know if all of them can be solved by ANY sector, but I think that it's fairly obvious that throwing money into government "infrastructure" won't help things long-term. If nothing else, it creates the expectation of higher tax rates and curtails private sector investment. It also creates expectations of entitlement from the populace that cannot be maintained long-term.

If "investment" means doing the same thing, only spending more, then I'm not sure govt. is going to help. Education is a good example. Now we're testing more under NCLB, but basically we have the same infrastructure in education that we had 30 years ago, plus a whole bunch of non-teachers. If it hasn't worked up until now, throwing money at it in its current form is stupid. BUT it makes a great works program for liberal teachers, counselors, principals, etc. That's my fear, and I've seen nothing to contradict it.

[besson3c]

finboy: I guess I wasn't completely clear then. I agree that throwing money at existing programs and basically doing the same thing is stupid. The point I was trying to make was that allocating money to *overhaul* and change a program costs money, and we should *not* continue to spend money on stuff that is broken.

I know there is a lot of disagreement over what the government should be in the business to provide, but let's say that we disband Medicare tomorrow... That *still* costs money, but if doing this is going to put us on the right back in the long run, would you be in support of deficit spending towards these goals in the short term, hypothetically speaking?

[BadKosh]

Why not go back to the original concept of States Rights, and ditch many of the FDR and later created wasteful departments? I'd keep the Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, NASA, Treasury, Commerce and maybe State, but most all the rest can be run by states. We are after all the United States of America, not the federal BS tax n spend America. The feds do a crappy job of everything, and history as proven it time and again. Each state can either be efficient and serve it's citizens or go broke like the Liberal state of CA, IL, and the rest of the states where entrenched liberals have taxed and regulated the population too much. Taxing the populace doesn't bring prosperity. Free enterprise does. The Actions of bailing out private businesses by Congress was never allowed, and should never have happened. The firing of private citizens from privately owned companies by the current Fascist administration should never have happened. The irresponsible actions of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest should never have been allowed, but the checks and balances are broken.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point is simply a fundamental and pretty basic point, although one that I don't think we are all on the same page with. It's no wonder we can't agree on anything if we don't agree on something this fundamental.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to break your fundamental point down into three basic statements;

- There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.
The crux of the disagreement is not that we're spending to stimulate the economy. It is that our current rate of spending is unprecedented and it is much easier to see the political intent than it is the economic intent. "The right track" is the crux of the disagreement. You see it as unavoidable, I see it as wholly avoidable and putting us on the wrong track.

- Change and transition is always expensive.
So are BMWs. I would easily say a family already mired in debt is on the wrong track by shopping for one.

- Nobody seems to be talking about the cost of change in all of this (particularly in the areas that the Obama administration has been emphasizing: health, energy, education), so I thought I would bring it up here.
Everybody's talking about health, energy, and education. I gave education as an example of our having spent more than any three countries outperforming us combined. Status quo is expensive. Change and transition from rampant, wasteful spending to prudent financial stewardship is not expensive.

So... when you say no wonder we can't agree on anything because we can't agree on something this fundamental, you've not provided anything agreeable. I'm not trying to be a prick besson, I'm honestly trying to get an idea of why you think change and transition need to be expensive or why we even need to address them your (Obama's) way. It's not near as fundamental as you seem to think IMO.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to break your fundamental point down into three basic statements;

- There are a lot of people upset about our current rate of spending, but I see it as unavoidable if you really want to put us on the right track.
The crux of the disagreement is not that we're spending to stimulate the economy. It is that our current rate of spending is unprecedented and it is much easier to see the political intent than it is the economic intent. "The right track" is the crux of the disagreement. You see it as unavoidable, I see it as wholly avoidable and putting us on the wrong track.

- Change and transition is always expensive.
So are BMWs. I would easily say a family already mired in debt is on the wrong track by shopping for one.

- Nobody seems to be talking about the cost of change in all of this (particularly in the areas that the Obama administration has been emphasizing: health, energy, education), so I thought I would bring it up here.
Everybody's talking about health, energy, and education. I gave education as an example of our having spent more than any three countries outperforming us combined. Status quo is expensive. Change and transition from rampant, wasteful spending to prudent financial stewardship is not expensive.

So... when you say no wonder we can't agree on anything because we can't agree on something this fundamental, you've not provided anything agreeable. I'm not trying to be a prick besson, I'm honestly trying to get an idea of why you think change and transition need to be expensive or why we even need to address them your (Obama's) way. It's not near as fundamental as you seem to think IMO.

ebuddy, again, you are making an argument that is a departure from the point I've been trying to make. I just wish to be understood and my point acknowledged, so let me try again...

What you are arguing is whether we are spending money wisely. That is a whole other argument. Do you recognize the disconnect here?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What you are arguing is whether we are spending money wisely. That is a whole other argument. Do you recognize the disconnect here?

No disconnect. You are like Obama.

What matters is only that money flows. What doesn't matter at all is if it's spend wisely, if it will yield a return, if it will produce any good.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy, again, you are making an argument that is a departure from the point I've been trying to make. I just wish to be understood and my point acknowledged, so let me try again...

What you are arguing is whether we are spending money wisely. That is a whole other argument. Do you recognize the disconnect here?

You're saying you have to spend money to make money. I'm saying no you don't. The fundamentals of making money in this country do not and cannot begin with government payouts. This type of spending and the type of growth being targeted with it are not sustainable. I explained to you why it's not necessary using one of the three examples you claim no one wants to talk about only to be told that that's not really what you wanted to talk about.

I recognized a disconnect out of the gate besson. That's why I'm posting in here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Are you with us or against us? The innocent have nothing to fear from surveillance. It's to protect you and America. Don't you love America?

This was before guilt was defined as opposition to lax immigration policy, support for the 2nd Amendment, concern for America's sovereignty and unprecedented Federal growth, special focus of suspicion on those having returned from serving their country overseas, and those with a Ron Paul bumper sticker. Point taken though. You should not fear giving a family member the key to your house, but then... the Obama Administration is not family.

I should've known it wouldn't be long before dissent was viewed as the precursor to terror and a Federal agency under the watch of one who claimed staunch opposition to warrant-less wiretapping only months ago would do a complete about-face. Do you support them now?

[andi*pandi]

No, I don't support warrantless wiretapping... but I'm glad you got my point. Was the Bush Administration anyone's family? Is the government ever your family? No.

[el chupacabra]

No I don't think it's necessary to spend yourself into massive amounts of dept to make money. What ever happened to saving money then spending money that was yours to make money?

No offense I like you besson I really do. But if we're just debating the philosophy of spending money to make money, this reminds me of Bush's attempted cliche of "You fool me once shame on...." The weirdest part to me wasn't that he fouled it up...but that he actually thought it was a good thing to say to crowds of grown adults; to provoke thought. To teach a lesson? I don't know. "you have to spend money to make money" isn't the formula for a successful business model (or government), it's something you tell kids to prepare them for their first bake sale, or lemonade stand.

They say 4 out of 5 businesses fail. The ones that succeed are the ones that had no original investment to start with. The formula would go like this:
1. start your business out of your home. Only buy and buy and sell what you can afford until you've tested your market for, demand, your ability to make connections, your ability to supply.

2. expand/spend only as needed, don't predict what your market might be or could be.

3 when you have already created a proven successful business move your business into a store, shop, or high riser office whatever...

The government has never done anything like that. They only create layer after layer of giant bureaucracies that never get removed...and the only product their business has ever produced is rolls of red tape and rhetoric. Just like with a corporation nobody cares about the final product they produce. They only care about keeping their jobs. This is why the government will just get bigger and bigger, their employees are fighting for bureaucracy because thats their primary job which they stand to lose if paperwork and red tape was eliminated...
Generally an agency will try to make their job as complicated as possible so that nobody else can figure it out, hence making them a more valuable employee.

They have only doubled their debt with every term. If this were a person how many chances would we be willing to give them?

By the way besson long term loans should be illegal. if they were limited to 5-10 years, prices would have to drop across the board.
Loans have done nothing to help the economy they only increase demand by allowing people who can't afford overpriced things they don't need to obtain those things, which drives up prices into industry "bubbles".
Look at the housing market, the lot size has gone down over the years, house size has gone down... So why do people need to go into dept for 30 years just to live in something slightly bigger than an apartment?

[besson3c]

These sorts of arguments always seem to result in people trying to emphasize the perceived problems of government, and others trying to emphasize the perceived problems of private business. To me, each has its strengths and weaknesses. The private sector, for instance, is great at picking winners and losers, but it doesn't make sense to think of capitalizing on every conceivable service (take education, for example, or foreign aid). All of the bloat and inefficiencies of government listed here also hold true in many areas.

But we are conflating issues again. In the case of these times, the bailouts are being discussed because the private sector is not in a great position to be bailing itself out, so the government is it by default (the other option being that we do nothing). In the case of my point, I'm still waiting for somebody to acknowledge my point. Let's say that we agree that the government should be providing us with public education, for instance. If we all agree this, and we agree that education is broken, do you support deficit spending if you could be convinced that this would fix the problems that brought education down, hypothetically speaking, even if this meant deficit spending?

Before we get into all of this other stuff about what the government should be doing and everything else that warrants all sorts of additional discussion, can we acknowledge my original point? Are there feasibly some circumstances where you have to spend money to make money in government, or at least make something much less of a glaring liability? Again, I ask this in a very broad way, not taking into account any of the specifics of our economic climate today. Let's start here.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let's say that we agree that the government should be providing us with public education, for instance. If we all agree this, and we agree that education is broken, do you support deficit spending if you could be convinced that this would fix the problems that brought education down, hypothetically speaking, even if this meant deficit spending?

Probably not. I'd have to think about it and know all the details. I thought I addressed your point went I said I don't think debt is required most of the time.
But if it is, it should only be in small amounts if an emergency requires it.
So with your example of education; no we don't need to go into debt trying to overhaul this since other countries with much less money than us; way less spending have been shown to have better education systems. The government draws trillions of tax dollars every year. why can't it just use some of that to change education, or whatever it needs to change? We dont need to go into debt there is plenty of money going into the government all the time; were's it being spent since nothing seems to be getting overhauled for the better, or overhauled periond?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But we are conflating issues again. In the case of these times, the bailouts are being discussed because the private sector is not in a great position to be bailing itself out, so the government is it by default (the other option being that we do nothing).

There shouldn't be a bailout in the first place. Mismanaged companies need to fail. All the government will achieve is that a failed company is kept alive, you will have zombie companies. What's the point of that ?

-t

[BadKosh]

The STATES should be providing your education, welfare, and such.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

There shouldn't be a bailout in the first place. Mismanaged companies need to fail. All the government will achieve is that a failed company is kept alive, you will have zombie companies. What's the point of that ?

-t

That's a whole other argument that is tangential to the point that I was trying to make. Just want to make this clear.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are there feasibly some circumstances where you have to spend money to make money in government, or at least make something much less of a glaring liability?

No. Show ANY time in our past where raising taxes to 'spend' on government programs has produced acceptable results. Only capitalism, with minimum restrictions has produced economic success.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Probably not. I'd have to think about it and know all the details. I thought I addressed your point went I said I don't think debt is required most of the time.
But if it is, it should only be in small amounts if an emergency requires it.
So with your example of education; no we don't need to go into debt trying to overhaul this since other countries with much less money than us; way less spending have been shown to have better education systems. The government draws trillions of tax dollars every year. why can't it just use some of that to change education, or whatever it needs to change? We dont need to go into debt there is plenty of money going into the government all the time; were's it being spent since nothing seems to be getting overhauled for the better, or overhauled periond?

Well, debt is required for everything right now, as long as we are in the red. Yes, you can take money that was earmarked for other stuff and reallocate funds, but as long as we are in the red, it's still all deficit spending. If we can get to a place where we make more money than we spend, I don't know if this technically would classify as deficit spending or not (I'd have to Google the semantic meaning of this term), but it would still require new money ("new money" meaning money that was not allocated in the past) to make the changes that are necessary so that an area is solvent again.

That's my point. You can't just cut back on everything and hope that problems will go away. Sometimes you actually have to change stuff, and that change costs money. It could be money that you already have, money that was not allocated in the past that you are just adjusting from within your current budget, or money for a new transition project designed to phase out the old one. The point is, there *are* times when you have to spend money to make money. I think the real debate is on the specifics of this money and its origin, but I think that this fundamental truth remains.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No. Show ANY time in our past where raising taxes to 'spend' on government programs has produced acceptable results. Only capitalism, with minimum restrictions has produced economic success.

I don't know whether you are intentionally skewing my argument or whether you have generally misunderstood it, but I'm not talking about raising taxes. Read my last post to el chupacabra, perhaps that will clarify.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a whole other argument that is tangential to the point that I was trying to make. Just want to make this clear.

You mingled together bailouts and education, which have nothing to do with each other.

I responded to the bailouts.

I do agree that education needs to be treated differently, and that this should not be managed purely by private companies. On the other hand, government goes hand in hand with waste, fraud and abuse, not to mention inefficiencies and interest groups that demand crazy things.

I view governments as a necessary evil that we can't do without.
To view it as the solution and place of last resort is foolish and dangerous. That's definitely NOT the view the founding fathers had in mind when they created the constitution and formed the subsequent governmental structures.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

These sorts of arguments always seem to result in people trying to emphasize the perceived problems of government, and others trying to emphasize the perceived problems of private business.

An unavoidable aspect of any debate beginning with "you have to spend money to make money" because this is a long-standing, failed tradition given most thrust by government philosophy.

To me, each has its strengths and weaknesses. The private sector, for instance, is great at picking winners and losers, but it doesn't make sense to think of capitalizing on every conceivable service (take education, for example, or foreign aid). All of the bloat and inefficiencies of government listed here also hold true in many areas.

But we are conflating issues again. In the case of these times, the bailouts are being discussed because the private sector is not in a great position to be bailing itself out, so the government is it by default.

i.e. AIG wins, Lehman Bros. wins, GM and Chrysler win. Who pays for this? You and I. The losers. Any private sector industry that can't "bail itself out" of a mess it got itself into falls prey to evolution naturally. What is being proposed is nothing more than artificial resuscitation evidenced by the fact that this is Chrysler's second time at the table and numerous insurance companies buying up worthless bank assets to position themselves for bailout money.

In the case of my point, I'm still waiting for somebody to acknowledge my point.

besson, what we're telling you is that you've yet to really make a point and I'll again use your example below.

Let's say that we agree that the government should be providing us with public education, for instance.

Okay.

If we all agree this, and we agree that education is broken, do you support deficit spending if you could be convinced that this would fix the problems that brought education down, hypothetically speaking, even if this meant deficit spending?

No and why would I? Because of a philosophy "you have to spend money to make money"? Again, we already spend more than any three countries outperforming us combined. Why is more money or new money or deficit spending necessary? Would you accept the premise that perhaps money is not the problem?

Before we get into all of this other stuff about what the government should be doing and everything else that warrants all sorts of additional discussion, can we acknowledge my original point?

No because the point is apparently not a suitable foundation for discourse. It has nothing to do with political differences, it has everything to do with historical precedent of this philosophy in action having failed us repeatedly.

Are there feasibly some circumstances where you have to spend money to make money in government, or at least make something much less of a glaring liability? Again, I ask this in a very broad way, not taking into account any of the specifics of our economic climate today. Let's start here.

If it can be established empirically that a lack of money is the root cause of the problem then yes, there are times when spending money would be the most effective solution. If you're willing to accept that money may not always be the solution then we're really back to square one on any given issue with one-off philosophical differences for each. i.e. there's no point.

[besson3c]

Okay ebuddy, I see what you're saying now, and I agree.

I agree completely that money is not always the solution, and would go as far to say that it often isn't. I'm glad we cleared this up, I think my correcting and clarifying the term "new money" helped here - again, it doesn't have to be money that didn't exist before, it could be simply reallocating existing funds, or taking the money that would otherwise be spent on a transitional project to move us towards a new system. My point was, either way you look at it, you still have to spend some sort of money to dig yourself out of a hole regardless of its source. I agree though that simply throwing money at something is not necessarily a worthy fix.

I appreciate you letting me string you along a little bit with the sorts of questions I was asking. The reason I did so was because like I said before, there is a lot of bitching and moaning on all political sides about our deficit spending. However, the issue seems to be framed as "should we be spending money at all", unless I'm just out in left field on this one. While that is a worthwhile question, I don't see us asking about what sort of changes will be necessary to make certain programs solvent again (or to replace them with new ones - public or private sector), and what the costs of these changes are. All government tries to sell us on the virtues of reform, but reform has a cost. It gets complicated to evaluate these costs because many of them are only theoretically worthwhile in the long run, and in the short term it is difficult enough just to sell people on the idea that we need change. We are generally resistant to change.

However, the way I see it is that we absolutely *have* to change. Medicare/Medicaid is not sustainable, social security is not sustainable, our students are not performing well for whatever reason, and we are being threatened by the costs of gas going up with no solid energy plan. As far as I'm concerned, we need to be making serious changes in each of these respective areas, and I believe in this so strongly (to varying extents) that I think we have no choice but to take on the costs of reform even though this would end up being deficit spending.

In the long run, if these changes work out in our favor (and that's a big hypothetical "if"), we will stand to make money either directly or indirectly - hence my subject of this thread.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know whether you are intentionally skewing my argument or whether you have generally misunderstood it, but I'm not talking about raising taxes. Read my last post to el chupacabra, perhaps that will clarify.

I still disagree with your assumptions. Your strawman is poorly constructed. The only bailout of any kind I have agreed with is the one to Lockheed in the US and Rolls Royce in the UK due to problems getting the engines for the L1011 so they could sell them. The rest of your vague points make the whole exercise pointless.

[besson3c]

Since I don't know why you feel I"m strawmanning or why you disagree with my assumptions, I guess I have nothing to say in response...

[Doofy]

Bob has an opinion on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvtbE_aBaq8

[besson3c]

Heh, Bob is very loud.... Kind of like Lewis Black?

As attractive as a flat tax may seem, I just don't see us successfully making the transition from lower income people earning tax credits and getting money back to their taxes being increased so that the government makes what it needs in tax revenue. If this dude thinks that the government sucks at spending tax dollars (and although he didn't provide any actual concrete sources, I'm sure that there is a ton of mismanaged money), I don't understand how having lower income people pick up some slack and pay more into their taxes would make him happier, unless his income was in an upper income bracket where he would stand to gain.

[Doofy]

Did you watch the vid, Bess? Do you remember the bit of it where he said TAXES AREN'T THE FREAKING PROBLEM?

[besson3c]

I did, but it's circular and dizzying. Government sucks at spending our tax dollars and are the problem, so therefore a flax tax might be more fair, except for the fact that government sucks at spending our tax dollars. No concrete examples provided.

[andi*pandi]

I like the bit where he sits back and catches his breath.

And everything is too complex now. Tax code, insurance, laws.

[besson3c]

Yeah, that part was pretty funny... Sort of Lewis Black on steroids!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I did, but it's circular and dizzying. Government sucks at spending our tax dollars and are the problem

That was the message - government sucks at spending. That's why the video title is "Taxes are NOT the problem".
He simply mentioned flat tax as an aside because he thinks that's the way tax should be done. True to form, you ignore the actual message and complicate it.

And I have no idea who Lewis Black is.

[Kerrigan]

Besson, the phenomenon you are grasping for is called the Keynesian multiplier.

It should be noted that there is no consensus as to whether or not the multiplier is supported by economic data.

It should also be noted that micro-economic principles, such as those governing the operation of individual firms, tend not to apply on the macro-economic level.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the US has a relatively low savings rate, and in the macro-economy savings is about equal to investment. When it comes to providing much needed investments in infrastructure, increasing the savings rate might be more effective. The option of printing money to spend on infrastructure can lead to very dangerous consequences if the next generation is unable to repay those debts.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That was the message - government sucks at spending. That's why the video title is "Taxes are NOT the problem".
He simply mentioned flat tax as an aside because he thinks that's the way tax should be done. True to form, you ignore the actual message and complicate it.

And I have no idea who Lewis Black is.

This is a complicated subject that warrants this complexity. It was a very entertaining bitching session where he emoted what he thought was the problem without offering any concrete examples or offering any solutions. For what it was it was funny, but this sort of hit you over the head with my feelings without attempting to go the extra distance to make a solid argument stuff irritates me, regardless of what the argument is and who is making it.