Gloom And Doom Hits Home.

[Jerry Rapp]

like I said in a previous post on this thread, the govt can cut 20% of every agency. If done with common sense, no people would lose their jobs (see Las Vegas GSA boondoggle). It is just common sense. Been there done that, glad I don't have to do that anymore.

[ness]

Lots of stuff to discuss here. I'll start with one of what I think are myths about government assistance, and that is that the government assistance itself keeps people on the dole, permitting them to not work and just live "comfortably" on the government benefits. Did you ever try to live "comfortably" on government benefits? Especially if you are in a place like much of America, where you see the "other half" living REALLY comfortably. People are in a welfare "way of life" not because welfare allowed them to do so, but because they come from family and community situations where they are simply not equipped to do anything else. There was poverty long before FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society, and people living VERY uncomfortably. The descendants of those people are STILL living in poverty, but now they are getting some government assistance to help. If you cut off the government assistance, do you think they are magically going to go out and get a job? Are they physically or mentally or economically equipped to go out and get one of the few good jobs available?

I'm ok with taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. But as with everything government -- it starts out as a good idea and then they keep adding layers. And with a system that bloated you obviously can't turn it off immediately. There certainly are people in the system who don't need our help. Those are the ones I think we need to weed out. Like my brother's friend who has soaked up 2 years worth of unemployment without really trying to get a job. His wife's a teacher, so they get by. She gets benefits and a state guaranteed retirement when she's 50-something. But he sits on the couch waiting for high-paying employer to come knock on the door and offer him a job.

Heck, they aren't even equipped to move from Podunk, Missouri, to southern California and take a job picking lettuce away from an illegal Mexican.

Yet the 'illegal Mexican' finds his way to California. Were they better equipped with their backpack and water bottle? Or is it that those substandard jobs should go to others, so we can keep our kind nice and comfy? Kinda harsh, I know. But when you're basic needs are taken care of, there's really not much incentive for Podunkians to go west.

Now personally, I'm okay with cutting the lazy people off welfare. But how do you pick which ones are lazy, and which ones are just not able to get and keep any kind of living wage job? And even with the lazy ones, what do you then do about their kids, who by no fault of their own are stuck with lazy and disfunctional parents? And what do you do with the ones who, once cut off, simply can't get and keep a job? Let them starve or else steal to eat?

I think you're sensationalizing a bit, but I'll take a stab at it: You take care of the ones that can't take care of themselves. That includes kids, handicapped, disabled, whatever. But there needs to be a rigorous review process that includes exploring what family or private resources are available as an alternative.

Now, about government not being like a business...Nope, government is NOT like a business. Nor is it like a family. You can't use either economic model for government. Government doesn't produce goods for profit, government produces services to benefit the citizenry. To do so, it relies on tax money from you and me. When we feel like we are getting our money's worth, we grudgingly agree to pay those taxes without much complaint. So while government isn't a business, like a business, it is giving the consumer something they want. And don't kid yourself that government spending isn't a VERY necessary part of the economy. Cut the military by 20%, and you probably lose 20% of the jobs of private companies that are working under government contracts. And all those laid off people then go into the private job market, which is already saturated for good paying jobs like they had before. And when they can't get a job, they don't spend money. And when they don't spend money, the companies that used to provide them goods and services when they had money have to lay off workers.

Right, it's not exactly a business, but it needs to practice sound financial management nonetheless. There's a few thousand years of history to draw from to see what happens when you get that wrong. I'm not against government spending, and certainly don't think shutting it off is anywhere near possible. But like a business, the government should spend wisely, and operate within boundaries. It's abundantly clear to me that the current spending and borrowing patterns cannot continue on this trajectory. Everything, and I mean literally everything, is dependent on confidence in our fiscal stability. If that goes, we're gonna have problems that make the current ones seem tame in comparison.

When a country like Greece spends vast amounts of money just to keep its citizens in truly comfortable circumstances, it does nothing to stimulate the economy, it only attempts to keep things from sliding further downhill, with poor results.

But.......only difference is we just keep them barely comfortable?

But spending money to actually keep too big to fail companies from failing, while really aggravating to those of us who don't want to see companies benefiting from their own stupid mistakes and corruption, keeps the economy from really going down the tubes. And spending money to develop new technologies, to improve education, to give American companies a leg up on foreign competition, actually has a good chance of growing the economy. That's what I meant by intelligent spending. You don't just throw money everywhere willy nilly, which is what both parties are good at with all the pork barrel spending, you carefully target where you're going to spend and where you're going to cut, always looking at costs and benefits, and what will best get the economy moving. There are plenty of smart people capable of making those decisions, but apparently Congress doesn't ever listen to them.

Well, protecting too-big-to-fail companies comes in several flavors. Banks and the financial markets run on credit. If it dries up -- like it nearly did in the fall of 2008 -- you're facing problems of a magnitude that are almost unimaginable. Picture this: you've got money in the bank, but the bank can't clear your check, so the grocery store won't take it. Or your paycheck bounces. Not saying it's always justified, but it's a big one.

Saving Chrysler, GM, GMAC, whatever: I've got mixed feelings. Chrysler and GM were so shaky that they went from business as usual to insolvent in a matter of a few months. No politician anywhere is gonna thumb his nose at the UAW and say you're on your own. But, in the long run it might have been best to let them fail and let things readjust to equilibrium. That may have meant some pain for a lot of folks, but a brighter future. As it is, the pensions are still a mess with no fix in sight. Kinda like their new partner's.

[hank franklin]

Cut the entire federal payroll by 10 percent.

If you want to get your blood pressure up try this database: http://php.app.com/fed_employees11/search.php

[Al Agnew]

like I said in a previous post on this thread, the govt can cut 20% of every agency. If done with common sense, no people would lose their jobs (see Las Vegas GSA boondoggle). It is just common sense. Been there done that, glad I don't have to do that anymore.

In an ideal world...no, just a sane world, you could get all the waste and corruption out of all the government programs, do things more efficiently, and make up that 20%. I've always said that what we should all be demanding is not less government or more government, but BETTER government. We need somebody to come in and appoint people who have no fear of telling the management under them in every government program that, either you cut costs by that 20% WITHOUT cutting the goals of the programs, or you get fired with no benefits. And then those people tell the people under them that are really in charge of the implementation of the programs the same thing. Policy would be, "here's what the goals are. Here's how much money we're going to be able to spend on those goals. Anybody who can't do it will be replaced by somebody who can."

[knuck]

I thought this was an interesting read. Disregard it if you don't like it, but I thought it fit this conversation.

Wal-Mart vs. The Government Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 237 years

to get it right and it is broke.

b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 77 years to get it

right and it is broke.

c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 74 years to get it right

and it is broke.

d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 48 years to get it right;

$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the

poor" and they only want more.

e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 47 years

to get it right and they are broke.

f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 42 years to get it right

and it is broke.

g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence

on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion

a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 35 years to get it right

and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

And Stan Kroenke has municipalities fighting each other to give him TIF money to build walmarts. And he is holding Rams fans in STL hostage, threatening to move the team unless we the people build him a new stadium. How much money flows to the very rich in this country all in the name of job creation. Right now we are watching a boom in gas and oil production in large part due to fracking, after the powers that be make their billions and move on who will clean up the mess left behind, you all know who,we the people.

We're all stuck with the lousy choices we make every 4 years, where the hell is Harry Truman when you need him. I'm with Agnew and a rising chorus in the country, vote em all out.

[jdmidwest]

Go gettum Ness. I sure am glad the indians are being quiet on this one or it would have been canned by now.

The Government should be compared to a business. Going into each year, they have an expectation of what kind of income they should expect based on tax history. A business would call that a business plan.

They should then create a budget to deal with that amount and expect to have some surplus at the end of the year.

They should monitor and adjust throughout the year to achieve that goal, ie, the budget.

They should not give to charity, ie foreign countries, if they are not on budget.

They should not spend excessively on things that are not essential, luxury vacations, grand balls, un-essential travel, etc if they are not on budget.

If they did not make the last budget, they should cut back and get back in the black the next year. Or they should figure out how to grow the economy and the country, ie their business, to the point that it can generate more income.

If a business went to a bank and asked for more money without any regards to the above, they would be denied. But the Federal Government keeps borrowing without any recourse.

The Congress and the President of the USA have failed at creating budgets the past few years. The lack of leadership is what is driving the country into what we have today. Someone needs to take charge.

[mixermarkb]

Al, if you ever run for office, you have my vote. That was one of the clearest, most well written political statements I've seen in a long time.

Thank you.

[joeD]

I think America would be better off with more lawyers. We need more laws to keep people in line, to keep America "lawful." To do the "right" thing. Therefore, the need for more attorneys is of utmost importance. Who will legislate, if not lawyers? Who will decide societal issues, if not the Supreme Court (lawyers)? Who will govern our towns, our cities (lawyers)? Who will monitor our professional sports leagues (lawyers)? Who will decide where we want to buried, and where our hard earned money will go (lawyers)? Surely, and luckily, the welfare of our children will be decided by, you guessed it, lawyers.

In sum, the answers to most societal and governmental issues can be solved with...lawyers.

We're in good hands my brothers. No gloom and doom in America. As long as we have our army of lawyers to fight fights, right wrongs, legislate and administrate, and generally, make work for themselves, and get paid, we should be happy.

It's the American way.

[Quillback]

In an ideal world...no, just a sane world, you could get all the waste and corruption out of all the government programs, do things more efficiently, and make up that 20%. I've always said that what we should all be demanding is not less government or more government, but BETTER government. We need somebody to come in and appoint people who have no fear of telling the management under them in every government program that, either you cut costs by that 20% WITHOUT cutting the goals of the programs, or you get fired with no benefits. And then those people tell the people under them that are really in charge of the implementation of the programs the same thing. Policy would be, "here's what the goals are. Here's how much money we're going to be able to spend on those goals. Anybody who can't do it will be replaced by somebody who can."

I do agree with you on this, we need better government, without a doubt. But that also leads to another point, if our government is so inefficent, why would we want to throw more money at it?

[hank franklin]

Go gettum Ness. I sure am glad the indians are being quiet on this one or it would have been canned by now.

The Government should be compared to a business. Going into each year, they have an expectation of what kind of income they should expect based on tax history. A business would call that a business plan.

They should then create a budget to deal with that amount and expect to have some surplus at the end of the year.

They should monitor and adjust throughout the year to achieve that goal, ie, the budget.

They should not give to charity, ie foreign countries, if they are not on budget.

They should not spend excessively on things that are not essential, luxury vacations, grand balls, un-essential travel, etc if they are not on budget.

If they did not make the last budget, they should cut back and get back in the black the next year. Or they should figure out how to grow the economy and the country, ie their business, to the point that it can generate more income.

If a business went to a bank and asked for more money without any regards to the above, they would be denied. But the Federal Government keeps borrowing without any recourse.

The Congress and the President of the USA have failed at creating budgets the past few years. The lack of leadership is what is driving the country into what we have today. Someone needs to take charge.

What he said. I agree 100 percent.

I know this is a fine point, but what JD describes here is actually state law. State government and local governments BY LAW must run on balanced budgets. It's one reason Missouri has a AAA bond rating and that you rarely hear local govts completely out of whack.

The federal govt of course has no such law. JD's bottom line, "lack of leadership" IS the bottom line.