- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm #780525
WorldCitizenParticipantRight, people took on the “money’s never been cheaper” thing a few years ago and “invested” it in an unsustainable way. I would be willing to bet inflated housing values, or heroin for that matter (both short-term and unsustainable by nature) are not equivalent to infrastructure upgrades (sustainable and vital for competing in the 21st century.)
I’m not just talking about roads either. I think we should be well on our way to upgrading our electrical grid and wastewater capabilities as well. These major upgrades, the cost of which are staggering, will not get any cheaper. Our ability to procure money at historically (and unsustainable rates) should be taken advantage of. I’d like our government to be paying 0% of a trillion dollars vs. even 1% of that same trillion.
Maybe I’m missing something…
*****************************************************************
By the way, is DP and DBP the same person? I remember some switch in monikers some time back, but see both posted above.
February 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm #780526
JanSParticipantyes, both the same person :)
February 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm #780527
WorldCitizenParticipantDP = Dual Personalities?
February 6, 2013 at 7:22 pm #780528
DBPMemberAgreed, WC, but there’s something important that people may be overlooking on the infrastructure thing. And I’ve discussed this before in relation to the South Park Bridge (8th Wonder of the World), but I wouldn’t be surprised if people forgot, because, after all, I’ve discussed so MANY things. ;-)
Infrastructure replacement projects cannot be compared 1:1 to new projects in terms of job propagation, increase in sustainable GDP, and so on. Yes infrastructure replacment is good, and yes, it is necessary. But is there as much bang for the buck as with brand new infrastructure projects? No. Why? Because it doesn’t serve the same function.
[Huh?]
Let me ‘splain, using Jo’s example of the Eisenhower era interstate highway project. (No, Jo, I’m not picking on you. Just looks that way.)
The interstate system, when it was new, brought with it lots of brand-new economic activity. Now, for the first time, Americans could easily go anywhere they wanted in their country. And go they did, spending their money, building new cities, and expanding the old ones as they went. So there was a huge ripple effect there.
As we patch up those same highways, however, no new cities will be built alongside them, and few people will travel on them who weren’t already traveling. When the repairs are done, the road workers will have more money in their pockets, but that’s about all that will change, besides the fact that there will be fewer potholes on the road (which will actually be bad for the auto-repair industry — wink!)
Same for water treatment plants, bridges, and so on. They’re all good things to have, but you actually get MUCH more GDP bang for the buck by investing in private-public business partnerships (like biotech, say) than you get from bridge repair.
And before you say anything . . . I know . . . I KNOW . . . that if the bridge is broke, you cain’t get to your high-tech job anyhow. I know that. All I’m saying is don’t look for the same boost we got when we were building the Interstate system.
On the DP vs. DBP thing, see below
February 6, 2013 at 7:34 pm #780529
WorldCitizenParticipantBelow?
February 6, 2013 at 7:35 pm #780530
JoBParticipantDBP
without infrastructure there is no bang for your buck investing in biotech etc…
think about it.
February 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm #780531
DBPMemberSo . . . DBP vs. DP. What’s the scoop?
I’m not proud of this, but several years ago, when the heroin market was very different than it is today, I sold the rights to the “DP” name on eBay, thinking it would get bought by some tech nerd who’d never heard of the Blog.
How was I supposed to know that the “DP” brand would get resold to a Bulgarian crime syndicate that would then turn it over to the first pscyhopath who could come up with a cool million?
Long story short: This putz is now making my life a nightmare. Hounding me on the Blog, hitting my parents up for money, doing Hollywood movie deals for my life story.
If he was actually funny or smart . . . or good-looking . . . I wouldn’t mind so much.
But have you seen this guy?
February 6, 2013 at 7:45 pm #780532
DBPMemberDBP sed:
And before you say anything . . . I know . . . I KNOW . . . that if the bridge is broke, you cain’t get to your high-tech job anyhow. I know that.
And then, just minutes later, Jo sed:
DBP
without infrastructure there is no bang for your buck investing in biotech etc…
think about it.
Now how did I know Jo would say exactly the thing I said someone would say?
Dude! Am I psychic? Or what?
February 6, 2013 at 7:47 pm #780533
DPMemberFebruary 7, 2013 at 1:53 am #780534
dobroParticipantProof that two heads are not necessarily better than one.
February 9, 2013 at 7:47 pm #780535
JoBParticipantDBP..
and if the power grid fails …
and if the water doesn’t run.. and run out..
and if there are no clerks to process the regulatory paperwork..
and if there is no public transportation …
and if..
infrastructure is about a lot more than bridges.
February 11, 2013 at 6:42 am #780536
HMC RichParticipantJanS. I do blame Democrats and Republicans. Democrats spend more. They don’t keep promises on cutting budgets usually. Republicans are not much better, but overall they do spend less in certain areas.
I am abandoning the views of the Republicans because they are too close to the same old spend spend spend with no accountability DC Senators and Congressmen.
The Federal Government was never meant to be this large.
It has been for some time now. The proof.
Easy. the Budget Deficit, The National Debt.
Redblack makes the point that pulling funds from the needy is cruel. Maybe so, but Our elected Politicians who do not live under the same rules as us have caused this.
So please, when our current President’s term is over in four more years, he will have outspent every other President combined. He and Congress along with the Congressional fiscal sinners of the past will have put our country in jeopardy because this is not sustainable.
We do not have projects like the interstate system to turn to. Even if we did, the Environmental lobby would postpone building for at least 10 years on lawsuits.
Our greatest asset is our fellow citizens. Unleash them. But I fear the Politician in Washington only cares about who is going to finance their next campaign.
Oh Thomas Jefferson, I wish your words did not ring true, but I have to believe the seeds that have been planted in the past and currently will come to fruition in the distant future.
If America cannot limit its spending, it will perish just like other countries have. Not now, but some day in the future.
And JanS, I will blame both parties, but your party more. But it will not do much good.
February 11, 2013 at 7:38 am #780537
dobroParticipant“Republicans are not much better, but overall they do spend less in certain areas.”
This is a demonstrably false statement. Republican presidents have created the largest deficits and the largest gov’t bureaucracies in our history(see DHS). The last President to deliver a balanced budget was a Democrat.When you begin from a false premise it casts a shadow on the rest of your pronouncements.
February 11, 2013 at 8:19 am #780538
JanSParticipantOf course more money has been spent…everything also costs more…but no one wants to mention that. And then we have people like John Boehner wasting millions “defending” DOMA, etc. HMC Rich, I think you’re wrong…but, hey, disagreement makes the world go round, right? If we all agreed, how boring would that be?
February 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm #780539
redblackParticipantrich: the government needs to be large enough to regulate anything that moves within our borders. can we agree on that? in other words, when capitalism creates a $16 trillion GDP, that’s a lot of business to watch after so that corporate america isn’t pillaging the citizenry, or becoming so large that it can simply buy the federal entities that regulate it – or buy entire cities’ and states’ heavily-indebted governments, for that matter.
spending versus revenue is a perennial argument between democrats and republicans.
the problem is, as dobro pointed out, that republicans are hypocritical. now, i hear you calling past republicans “fiscal sinners.” but what you should realize is that you’re talking about your entire republican leadership – tea party millionaires included. on monday morning, they’re taking the pork that they decried on friday afternoon.
i’m with you on cutting the fat. but when the economy blows chunks, social spending should be maintained – if not increased. like i’ve been telling you for three years, let’s look at corporate subsidy and defense contracting first.
and i’ll ask this revenue-related question again: our “fellow citizens'” taxes are still low. so where is the economic growth for the bottom 90% that supply-side economics is supposed to produce? yeah, i see the top 10% benefiting. but what about the rest of us – including our bloated, socialist government?
February 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm #780540
wakefloodParticipantHere, here, Dobro, R/B.
Time for the Conservatives – and that term certainly doesn’t apply to fiscal policy – to finally admit that they don’t spend less, they spend at least as much, just on the stuff THEY think is super neato. They’re Weaponized Keynesians. This isn’t an opinion, as Dobro says, it’s a demonstrable fact. Has been for generations, at least.
But when the facts don’t support your case, lie, obfuscate, and deny.
February 11, 2013 at 6:10 pm #780541
wakefloodParticipantOh, yeah, I forgot that “super serious fiscal hawk”, Paul Ryan’s proposed budget didn’t balance the budget for 14 yrs. Or did ya’ll miss that in the fine print?
February 11, 2013 at 6:18 pm #780542
WorldCitizenParticipantThe main difference I see between Dem Vs. Repub. spending is the Democrats at least keep it all “on the books” so to speak. The last administration was very careful not to do so….then POOF! the perceived spending of the Democrats looks outrageous wen the current administration came in and started including the cost of past decisions.
Other than that, there’s no real effort I see to restrain spending on either side. They just want to spend on what they see as important.
February 11, 2013 at 8:23 pm #780543
wakefloodParticipantWC, it goes back beyond the last administration. The moniker “tax and spend” that was used pejoratively for years against Dems wasn’t necessarily untrue, if you didn’t delve into the details or matters of scale and priority and progressivity of the taxed and spent dollars. Dems do tax (hopefully but not always, progressively) and they do spend (hopefully but not always, on investments in our future).
This differs from the “max out the card” Republicans who spend profligately on whatever serves their corporate overlords in the Military and Medical Industrial Complexes, and cut taxes so as to never even attempt to pay for it.
Let’s just stop the farce of calling the Republicans fiscal conservatives, shall we mainstream media?
February 11, 2013 at 8:29 pm #780544
WorldCitizenParticipantI’m fine with that. Let’s also agree that both major parties running our government spend wildly without enough revenue to support it, regardless of the perceived value in their respective programs.
Also, for the record, I’m in favor of increasing revenues and tweaking (cutting and re-apportioning) spending to help with this problem.
February 12, 2013 at 5:15 am #780545
JoBParticipantFebruary 12, 2013 at 5:19 am #780546
kgdlgParticipantAren’t things kinda boring without Kootch/hoop/bike rider/etc etc…
February 12, 2013 at 6:23 am #780547
HMC RichParticipantWakeflood, you are right. Republicans are not as fiscally conservative as some profess or should be. Neither is the opposition party.
Dobro, it is not false. Reagan, Democrats agreed to cut expenses and reneged. Clinton got a minor tax increase but because of Gingrich and crew he declared the Era of Big Government is over. So, you are partially wrong. Admit it.
Obama and congress are spending 3 times as much as Bush.
In fact spending has increased under all of the presidents in the modern era except for a few minor exceptions. Why you demonize the right while championing your sides failed policies amazes me.
February 12, 2013 at 6:47 am #780548
HMC RichParticipantAs far as defense goes, I should really do more research, But, Defense is mandated by the constitution. As long as we have armies and fleets spread all over the world, we will have major expenditures. With Mrs. Murray as the Budget Committee chair, I seem to think that she will be cutting some areas, but not as much as others might like. She has been a friend to our local bases as far as I can tell.
Of course for her to be in charge of a budget when the Democrats have broken the rules of the Congress and Senate and have not passed a budget is ridiculous.
Why haven’t they passed a budget? So people can’t see how much they are overspending. But why aren’t people upset over this? Because the Democrats just blame the Republicans and the Main Stream Media doesn’t make waves about it.
Oh.
February 12, 2013 at 7:22 am #780549
dobroParticipant“So, you are partially wrong. Admit it.”
this is what I said in post 288…
“Republican presidents have created the largest deficits and the largest gov’t bureaucracies in our history(see DHS). The last President to deliver a balanced budget was a Democrat.”
There is nothing in that statement that is wrong.
“As far as defense goes, I should really do more research”
There are some other subjects on which you could use more research as well. The budget for instance. Check this out…
“If Congress fails to pass an annual budget (as has been the case since 2009), a series of Appropriations bills must be passed as “stop gap” measures. After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it (as he would a budget when passed by the Congress). A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.”
So, you ask, why aren’t people upset about this “no budget” thing? Because, if you read how the process occurs, they’re doing the exact same thing to appropriate money to run the country, it requires the exact same process to pass and sign, it just doesn’t have a big red BUDGET sign on it. Democrats have not broken any rules. If you
think they have, please give a link to such rules.
edit-wow, 300 posts on this malarkey.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.