Have another article worth reading.
When a government exists it accepts the responsibility of caring for the people who help it exist - the people who assist in maintaining and defending it. The trick for government is to determine who deserves how much of what and for how long. Once government is able to define the answers, ]i]if[/i] government is able to find these answers, entitlement will no longer be an issue.
Well, at least they've eased off the nazi germany analogies:-)
I'm inclined to disagree with him though.
As necessary as it is to reduce the size of the public sector - it is ultimately useless.
The titanic's sinking - arguing over who gets paid what only distracts from the monumental degree to which we are all (euro, dollar, yen holders) completely f*cked.
The question isn't "how much should the public sector be paid?"
It's "should the public sector exist at all?"
Oh no! Did you read the post from Krugman? The USA must spend more! Much more! A trillion dollars wasn't enough stimulation and only by spending trillions more can we insure prosperity. Trillions on health care, trillions on energy, trillions on war, trillions on medicare, unemployment, welfare, financial reform, bailouts, trillions on the new green econmomy, trillions, trillions! Keep spening, keep borrowing, keep printing money and we'll all see prosperity!
lol right on.
The future called: they want their money back.
Lee - Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who backs up his theories with facts and history. We got out of the Great Depression with the biggest federal deficit-spending jobs scheme ever undertaken. The federal debt expressed as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) went up to 120%. That means the debt was more then the country produdes in a year. The current debt as a percent of GDP is under 80%. That's high, but manageable. In that time, called World War II, unemployment went from 25% to something close to zero percent as debt skyrocketed.
Strip away the flags, battles, parades and ideology. In economic terms WWII was a HUGE deficit spending scheme that worked. Getting the debt under control was not done by slashing entitlements. Vets were educated and given housing opportunities. The war debt was paid off in the BEST of economic times (for the middle class) with high taxes for the very rich - tax rates for the top tier over 65% and it never slowed down the growth and prosperity of the 20 years that followed WWII.
Krugman is right. Massive spending in the right places Willl bring about long-term economic prosperity. The economic facts show the federal government should SPEND in bad times and drive DOWN the debt in prosperous times. The GOP wants to lower tax rates (for the rich) in ALL times and that's been the source of problems.
Look at this graph - http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Uh yeah... not! Every thing you said is simply not true! Maybe you should read what Bernacke said was the reason we got out of the depression.
This has been discussed here before. Unemployment remained in double digits throughout all of FDR's 4 terms, and it wasn't the war that got us out of depression, wuite the contrary, it extended the pain. In any case you'll never believe the truth.
The type of spending described acts as if there are no consequences to the future. The future is not considered in the equation, if for no other reason, because it can't be predicted accurately.
The theory is not incorrect, that is, to keep goods, commodities and money flowing instead of stagnating. The idea of scarcity always causes a knee-jerk reaction for the average person to save, make do, and hoard. Therein lies the rub.
I personally don't think it's all about spending, nor is it all about scarcity. It's about keeping a little aside for unexpected events and needs, and keeping the flow going by living life.
The gov't and the banks don't want us to save, according to headlines and analysts. They want it all in motion. That was never a wise idea.
The truth is that there IS enough goods and commodities for all. But until greed and power are at least partially tamed, we are going to see more of the same, regardless of Obama policy, economic forecasts, etc. The basic answer for me as an individual is to balance my finances, not to throw it all into money machines or into hoarding. Neither work.
That's the truth which both the left and the right seem to discount, that government itself promotes consumption, for the sole purpose of enriching the rich and growing itself, and that is especially touted by Keynesian economics, which tries to solve the "problem" of "under consumption".
The government should promote savings and investment, not consumption, and it should stay out of the markets. If they did markets would work efficiently the way they are supposed to and recessions would be swift and short.
You forgot the Bush tax cuts. Trillions for trillionaires.
And it's hardly trillions on welfare and unemployment...unles you mean Social Security and Medicare??
How about we do what Obama is in the process of doing...getting the hell out of the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Take our money and weapons back from Israel, let them stand on their own, and face their crimes on their own!
Get out of other countries and we will have plenty to spare.
Means test SS after you spend your input. Single-payer healthcare will cut tremendous costs.
Stop the profiteering and profit-based economy, care for our citizens before we care about a companies bottom line!!
Kill NAFTA, bring the jobs back home.
Bottom line: Cut from the top...there is PLENTY to spare.
That's right! The rich should pay for the promises the government made to us.
No there's nothing morally wrong with that. I know in the private sector that's called fruad and stealing and people go to jail for it, but when the government does it, it's justice. The logic of the left... sad really...
Here is the top that needs cutting
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2010)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400
Yeah and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the books and speaking fees, and god knows what they make on insider information, favors and connections, and then of course they transition into lobbying where they make millions while they collect their public pensions and free health care for life!
Police and firemen in my town are not that far behind.
Police chief makes $120,000. Most officers make over $90,000.
Same with Fire....$100,000 and up.
School superintendent $95,000. On and on and on.
We have millionaires still collecting social security even though their input has long been spent.
Story about seniors in Florida who make an occupation out of going from specialist to specialist...all on tax-payer dime....
Military is HUGE..even Pentagon said STOP!
Bush's tax cuts....people STILL want them protected!
7 MILLION a DAY to Israel. NOT including weapons.
Everyone wants to cut, no one wants to be cut. Same old story.
Just for comparison, we all went without a raise for 6 years at my job....taking it for the good of the business!! We need to do for the good of our country...PERIOD!
by marymootoo5 years ago
The public sector unions have threatend mass stike action over pensions, do you think that this is the right thing to do? Is it fair that in the present climate for a group of people to inflict the threat of misery for...
by karl3 years ago
There has been another round of public sector strikes here in the UK with Firefighters, local government workers and teachers (depending on which Union they belong to) amongst the 500,000 - 1,000,000 workers ( depending...
by pisean2823117 years ago
for me it is hollow talks , corruption and dividing people..
by My Esoteric2 years ago
"It was because of the self-interest of [certain] individuals or groups of producers were often at odds with the public interest that the proper task of legislatures who are concerned with the public interest to...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
I stole this from another thread, so the topic could be discussed without further hijacking the thread it was on. I hope that was OK.John, I am not putting forth criticisms for you to defend. I do not know enough...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.