The white house and the senate have been after Boehner and house repugnicans to act since at least September, if not earlier. Boehner had his chance to craft the appropriate legislation months ago; he refused.
Boehner and the GOP/Tea party have been ****ing around at every turn, trying to extend the recession, trying to maintain financial uncertainty and for no reason other than to be able to point at a poor economy and say "Obama did it"
Boehner has been extorting concessions from the White House since he became speaker. This time, it backfired. The American public, by and large, is fed up with his obstructionist antics.
Let's hope you're wrong for the sake of the nation. Running up debt is not working.
Let's hope you're wrong for the sake of the nation. Running up debt is not working.
Preventing a consumer as large as the federal government from purchasing even highly discounted products and services on the open market is a surefire way to create or deepen a recession.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Preventing a consumer as large as the federal government from purchasing even highly discounted products and services on the open market is a surefire way to create or deepen a recession.
I would love a link on all this RepubbblicAn destruction "legend"
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Preventing a consumer as large as the federal government from purchasing even highly discounted products and services on the open market is a surefire way to create or deepen a recession.
Government employees are rewarded in rank and numbers for the size of their budgets. They will purchase anything with end of year money to keep from losing it. Then there's the 1.69 X revenue spending rate.
The government sold $10 billion worth of the bonds Monday. Investors paid $105.50 for every $100 of bonds they bought, effectively agreeing to pay the government for the privilege of lending it money.
When you can get negative interest rates on your credit cards, you can tell me that consumer-grade debt is analogous to the federal government's debt. Until then, no.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
All government agencies should do zero-based budgeting.
Why?
Why should they be required to buy marked-up services when the economy is booming and they have a lot of money and prohibited from buying discounted goods when the economy is stagnant? That doesn't make sense from either an efficiency or an economic standpoint. It's better to borrow and spend a billion on what is typically 1.25 billion worth of contractor services, marked down because of the ****ty economy. The time for the government to slow its buying habits and reduce its debt load is when the economy is booming and prices are marked up. Better to pay down a billion in debt than spend a billion on what is typically 750 million worth of contractor services, marked up due to inflated demand.
Government spending already has massive influence in the marketplace. It can and should be used as a tool to moderate the boom-bust cycles and provide a measure of market stability, which is essential for big-ticket manufacturing and long-term prosperity.
Instead of that, though, ya'll are recommending the exact opposite - that the government do the same thing as the typical consumer. When Construction slows down (typical consumers order fewer construction projects), for instance, the government should put off repairing roads, building bridges, even as construction contractors bid lower and lower and roads and bridges fall into worse and worse disrepair. Why? Because you feel it is more important for the government to show a balanced budget in an arbitrary annual time frame than it is for the government to efficiently conduct its business.
You feel that the time for the government to build roads and bridges is when contractors are already in demand, working on private-sector projects. The government should pay a premium for construction services, enticing more construction companies and crews to form, inflating the number of construction workers beyond levels that the economy can sustain in the long-term, and driving up construction costs for the private sector.
No. The government should follow the laws of supply and demand. When it sees construction services "on sale" and discounted, it should act like anyone would when they see a needed product on sale - it should stock up, accelerate maintenance schedules, and build new projects.
The federal government should make purchasing decisions based on relative market costs. If construction costs are lower than the long-term, inflation-adjusted average, it should increase spending on construction. If automotive costs are higher than normal, it should slow down replacement schedules for government vehicles.
The only feasible way for this to happen is to tolerate deficit spending during lean times and institute austerity measures during boom times - the exact opposite of what ya'll have been recommending.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Zero-based budgeting means that they don't automatically get the same amount they spent last year. For example, the way things work now, if they spent a million for new equipment last year and don't need to replace it this year, that amount is in their budget anyway. And they will find somewhere to spend it. In zero-based, they start at nothing and have to justify what they need. Many economists say that it would reduce the deficit by 1/3.
Zero-based budgeting means that they don't automatically get the same amount they spent last year. For example, the way things work now, if they spent a million for new equipment last year and don't need to replace it this year, that amount is in their budget anyway. And they will find somewhere to spend it. In zero-based, they start at nothing and have to justify what they need. Many economists say that it would reduce the deficit by 1/3.
Excellent point, at present they just add to what's already on the books.
What RA says may sound good in theory, but when controlled by politicians of dubious character it just doesn't work. Never has, never will!
What RA says may sound good in theory, but when controlled by politicians of dubious character it just doesn't work. Never has, never will!
This might surprise you, but I agree fully. It can't be implemented perfectly efficiently; it can't even come close to ideal. To do so would require absolute guidelines on exactly when to buy and when to conserve, and if that information is known, it can be manipulated in the market.
Still, a good idea, implemented poorly, will always give better results than a bad idea, implemented perfectly. Cutting government spending during a recession - as has been championed by conservative pundits far and wide - is a bad idea. Government spending should be cut during economic booms, not busts. When operating in a consumer marketplace, the government should act like a savvy shopper, splurging on its needs and wants when the prices are low, and tightening the purse strings when prices are high.
Apparently, I misunderstood what samfloor was referring to. Aside from being INCREDIBLY skeptical about the purported 33% savings (which seems to reek of bull****, but I'll reserve judgement while you explain how it's actually a hot fudge sundae), I have no opinion on the topic.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
