It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ryan/GOP budget...what's really going on.

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikus
reply to post by meeneecat
 


The big problem with the government "creating" jobs is the complexes that are created with them.

The military-industrial complex created lots of jobs and is "good" for the economy right? Well it is actually a political resource wasting monster that serves as the preeminent example of big government run wild.

Deficit spending, due to the nature of the military industrial complex example above, becomes a permanent fixture in the economy and it is very very hard to get rid of once unnecessary.

And it will have to be paid for because the overlord bankers and the Fed want interest payments.


I agree, however there are other things the government can do that doesn't have to encourage these types of "complexes". For example, without making any decisions on how the money will be spent, the feds could give money to local governments and let them decide how to "create jobs". The states could then invest the money into infrastructure, or developing renewable energies, medicine or technology.

Also, The prison industrial complex is largely a result of the drug war and the military industrial complex is also mostly the result of America wanting to be the world's police force, various other wars and lobbying on the part of weapons firms. However, you are right in that it is hard to cut spending from either of these sectors because the first people to rise up against it will be the corrections unions etc. & employees since it would mean job losses. This is why I think it's important to implement policies that will not shrink the economy, but grow it so that there are more options for people. And as I said above, there are other ways to do that without encouraging these massive "complex" types industries.

I also agree with these other ideas which have nothing to do with spending (just policy changes)
1.Incorporate the mostly private Federal Reserve System into the US Treasury Department.
2.End the banking systems "fractional reserve" accounting privilege
3.Use the US governments money power -- creating and spending money into circulation -- to address pressing infrastructure needs such as repairing our crumbling roads, bridges, rails and highways.
Source

There's also an interesting trend going on across the country in the past few decades where our investment in science research & technology has been woefully lacking.


"Name an industry that can produce 1 million new, high-paying jobs over the next three years, challenges BusinessWeek. You can't, because there isn't one. And that's the problem. So what's the answer? Basic research can repair the broken US business model, argues BW, saying it's the key to new, high-quality job creation. Scientific research legends like Bell Labs, Sarnoff Corp, and Xerox PARC are essentially gone, or shadows of their former selves.
Source


Bell Labs, birthplace of technological breakthroughs like the transistor, the laser, and communications satellites, may have arrived at the end of its storied history. According to a recent report in Nature (subscription), the icon of industry-supported science has all but shut down basic research, with four physicists remaining at the facilities in Murray Hill, New Jersey. Company officials at Alcatel-Lucent downplay the issue, saying that research has merely shifted away from basic physics to “mathematics, computer science, networking and wireless.”

But industry-funded basic research has been on the wan for some time. In the last decade, the number of basic research papers authored by industrial researchers in peer-reviewed journals dropped 30 percent. In 1988, those researchers published almost 1000 papers on basic physics; in 2005, that number was 300.

In this climate, federal support of basic research has grown increasingly important, but it too began sliding in recent years. There have been targeted increases in federal budgets over the past few years, but during the Bell Labs heyday in the 1960s, “federal investments in R&D totaled around 2 percent of GDP, but are today about half of that,” reported Science Progress adviser John Irons earlier this year.


These companies were indeed "legendary", developing things like the transistor, lasers, semi conductors, the fax, etc. All of which lead to massive growth in industry (jobs). "Small investments that led to huge growth in industry":

www.scienceprogress.org...




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by Vikus
 


Can you please provide some evidence to back up what you are claiming.


Evidence of what?

That the U.S. got along just fine without the income tax system in the first place? The fact that the southwest U.S. isn't part of Mexico or the fact that the Confederacy isn't around should be evidence enough that the U.S. could afford and prosper even with expensive endeavors. How about the fact that the U.S. is the size that it is and survived and prospered just fine with no income tax at all (much less the farce arguments over the Bush tax cuts).

The current tax system is just a divisive form of slavery. There are entire political parties squabbling for our attention over income tax issues when such a system is proven to be not necessary. Want evidence for that too?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Well first of all our debt was started by FDR and his reckless spending at will. Up until that point every President had maintained a balanced budget but FDR spent more in his first 6 months of office than all the presidents before him combined. The following period of democratic control maintained this policy even including the republicans.

This is incorrect. Spending does not necessarily = deficit. There are 2 sides to the equation, you are forgetting revenue. The deficit in this country plummeted after FDR implemented the new deal policies and remained this way all throughout the 40's 50's & 60's. I am not saying that the new deal had any effect on decreasing the debt, I am saying that it was of little consequence. What does have a major correlation are the "neo-liberal" economic policies of the past 30 decades combined with tax policy, and recessions. Furthermore, you say this, but do you have any evidence to back this up, because this chart seems to show otherwise. (the red dots are depression/recessions)




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Actually, trickle down does work! Those voters who scream, "Obama keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Are trickled down upon, by the Corporates with their corporate welfare. It's called "golden showers". Ya know, like, "golden parachute". Their Midas touch, dont'cha know.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by kro32
Well first of all our debt was started by FDR and his reckless spending at will. Up until that point every President had maintained a balanced budget but FDR spent more in his first 6 months of office than all the presidents before him combined. The following period of democratic control maintained this policy even including the republicans.

This is incorrect. Spending does not necessarily = deficit. There are 2 sides to the equation, you are forgetting revenue. The deficit in this country plummeted after FDR implemented the new deal policies and remained this way all throughout the 40's 50's & 60's. I am not saying that the new deal had any effect on decreasing the debt, I am saying that it was of little consequence. What does have a major correlation are the "neo-liberal" economic policies of the past 30 decades combined with tax policy, and recessions. Furthermore, you say this, but do you have any evidence to back this up, because this chart seems to show otherwise. (the red dots are depression/recessions)



I can back it up easily. That chart wouldn't exist had FDR not started spending. America had no debt before the New Deal.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
As a voter, my opinion is, until they quit their wars, all their budgets are useless. Every line of it.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
Also, The prison industrial complex is largely a result of the drug war and the military industrial complex is also mostly the result of America wanting to be the world's police force, various other wars and lobbying on the part of weapons firms. However, you are right in that it is hard to cut spending from either of these sectors because the first people to rise up against it will be the corrections unions etc. & employees since it would mean job losses. This is why I think it's important to implement policies that will not shrink the economy, but grow it so that there are more options for people. And as I said above, there are other ways to do that without encouraging these massive "complex" types industries.

I also agree with these other ideas which have nothing to do with spending (just policy changes)
1.Incorporate the mostly private Federal Reserve System into the US Treasury Department.
2.End the banking systems "fractional reserve" accounting privilege
3.Use the US governments money power -- creating and spending money into circulation -- to address pressing infrastructure needs such as repairing our crumbling roads, bridges, rails and highways.
Source

There's also an interesting trend going on across the country in the past few decades where our investment in science research & technology has been woefully lacking.



Your 3 solutions actually will solve many more problems than any suggestions about left/right tax issues. If the government had direct control over money circulation (as originally intended by the founders), the government can address economic needs with direct money infusion through government spending (ex Lincoln greenbacks that helped fund the Civil War) and be able to control inflation by dollar destruction through an excise tax system. A responsive and electable political body coining money is far more sensitive to the needs of the economy than a bunch of private bankers.

All other issues would be easy to solve or would be moot.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vikus

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by Vikus
 


Can you please provide some evidence to back up what you are claiming.


Evidence of what?


Sorry, I should have quoted, instead I hit just the "reply"


If wealth is to flow back into the U.S. and support a strong economic base, the U.S. has to adopt policies that worked when there were foreign economic competitors. The U.S. needs to adopt economic policies from pre-1910 when there was strong foreign competition.


Essentially what you are arguing for is more "neo-liberal" economic policy. So, my question is what evidence is there that "pre-1910" / "increased neo-liberal" policies will "bring back wealth"...I should be specific though, "bring back wealth and jobs for the middle class" because that is what I am interested in, the majority of Americans, not the top 1%. The beginning of this century was the time of the robber baron. Problems with increasing poverty, unemployment, oligopolies and monopolies, massive wealth gaps, homelessness, child labor/horrible labor conditions, pollution/waste dumping, etc. existed then. This is my point, we are moving toward further increasing all these problems with this budget. Also, and I've said this many times before, I have no problem with balancing the budget, however, any economist will tell you that during a recession is NOT the time to do it.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOMof3
As a voter, my opinion is, until they quit their wars, all their budgets are useless. Every line of it.


Actually, this is a really good point. Billion$ go into those "wars" every week. If this country is in so much financial trouble, how come we keep having money for those senseless 'wars'?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by simone50m
 

Yup, we need to defund the wars and bring the troops home. While we are at it, close a majority of overseas bases as well.

@ meeneecat: great post man. I like the cut of your jib!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
I can back it up easily. That chart wouldn't exist had FDR not started spending. America had no debt before the New Deal.


No my dear, did you read my response? The debt where those red dots are, correlate to depressions/recessions, not spending. Debt decreased all through the 40's, 50's and 60's back to pre-depression levels, all while we had new deal policies. In fact the new deal was passed as a response to the great depression and you can see that debt had already started increasing dramatically before these programs were implemented ('33-'34). Also, the U.S. had debt before the 1930's, so that line of reasoning doesn't work. (it's just not shown on that chart) Mostly the debt throughout history corresponds to wars/depressions.


The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 surpluses and only 2 deficits. The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the War of 1812. In the first 20 years following the War of 1812, 18 surpluses were experienced and the US paid off 99.97% of its debt.

The second dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. In the following 47 years America returned to the practice of running surpluses during times of peace experiencing 36 surpluses and only 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the US national debt was paid off.

The next period of major growth in debt came during WWI reaching $25.5 billion at its conclusion. It was followed by 11 straight surpluses and saw the debt reduced by 36%. The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt (because of the Great Depression) and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.


So you are just patently wrong when you say "Up until that point every President had maintained a balanced budget"....please don't spread blatant disinfo on ATS unless you can backup what you are saying, I actually care about wanting people to know the truth.


The federal deficit has breached 10 percent of GDP four times in US history: during the Civil War, during World War I and World War II, and in aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.
Source

Also this:


Since the U.S. economy has grown nearly every year since World War 2, the size of the national debt relative to the economy (i.e., as a percentage of gross domestic product or GDP) is another key measure. Gross debt relative to GDP rose to over 100% to pay for WW2 and then declined thereafter, rising during the 1980s as part of the Cold War and again due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. During the 1970s, debt held by the public declined from 28% GDP to 26% GDP. During the 1980s, it rose to 41% GDP. During the 1990s, it rose to 50% and then was reduced to 39% by the end of the decade. From 2000-2008, it rose from 35% to 40% and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Source

And this is part of my point, that debt in and of itself is not a bad thing, that you can run deficits during a recession, and then pay them off during times of economic prosperity. And it has been this way all throughout the history of this country. Historically, times of recession/depression = deficits, times of economic growth = balanced budget. Furthermore, there is much much better argument that the FED and monetary policy dictated by the central bankers (starting in the 20's/30's) are responsible for our debt problems rather than the new deal / FDR.
edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: add

edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: add to

edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat

You must be referring to my reference to "neo-liberal" policy. I don't mean to be rude, but you should really have looked this up yourself before you assume I do not "understand the difference". Neo-liberal is also referred to in the U.S. as neo-conservative. In the rest of the world it is referred to as "neo-liberal". I use "neo-liberal" to refer to the economic philosophy of the "lazzez faire" / "chicago school" / Milton Friedman variety. Here's the first paragraph on the wiki entry:


I have been watching and participating in politics for more than 3 decades and I have never heard the term neo-liberal in relation to American politics. You also posted in the U.S. Political Madness forum and I did assume your post was about politics. My apologies for not realizing immediately that it was about an economic theory that I have not encountered.

The word neo means new. Or if you'd like a dictionary definition:
 
neo adj : (used as a combining form) recent or new; "`neo' is a combining form in words like `neocolonialism'"

Source: WordNet (r) 2.0

I have heard the term neo-con (short for neo-conservative) especially the last 10 or so years, and I thought it described the phenomenon in your post. Detracting from your well thought out post was not my objective to replying to your post; I merely wished for some clarification about the term you used. I agree with the majority of the information you presented. Therefore I posted my understanding of different political platforms hoping you would respond with your reasoning for calling it neo-liberalism. In my opinion the information in your post is not liberal or newly liberal political ideas, but they are considered to be extremely right wing conservatism (neo-conservative political policy if you please). I was thinking politics and you were thinking economic theories. My Bad. lol

As for using Wiki as a reference, it is not the most reliable source of information. Anyone and everyone can edit any page as they please to reflect their own opinions weather based on fact or not. As the OP it is your responsibility to present your ideas/concepts in a clear and precise manner. Readers shouldn't have to go look up a term in your first paragraph to grok the rest of your post. I would truly like to see a better and verifiable source; or perhaps you could have explained why you used the term neo-liberal to describe what I think most Americans would call neo-con policies.

P.S. If you didn't mean to be rude you wouldn't have been rude. LOL
 



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by kro32
I can back it up easily. That chart wouldn't exist had FDR not started spending. America had no debt before the New Deal.


No my dear, did you read my response? The debt where those red dots are, correlate to depressions/recessions, not spending. Debt decreased all through the 40's, 50's and 60's back to pre-depression levels, all while we had new deal policies. In fact the new deal was passed as a response to the great depression and you can see that debt had already started increasing dramatically before these programs were implemented ('33-'34). Also, the U.S. had debt before the 1930's, so that line of reasoning doesn't work. (it's just not shown on that chart) Mostly the debt throughout history corresponds to wars/depressions.


The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 surpluses and only 2 deficits. The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the War of 1812. In the first 20 years following the War of 1812, 18 surpluses were experienced and the US paid off 99.97% of its debt.

The second dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. In the following 47 years America returned to the practice of running surpluses during times of peace experiencing 36 surpluses and only 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the US national debt was paid off.

The next period of major growth in debt came during WWI reaching $25.5 billion at its conclusion. It was followed by 11 straight surpluses and saw the debt reduced by 36%. The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt (because of the Great Depression) and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and '40s caused a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.


So you are just patently wrong when you say "Up until that point every President had maintained a balanced budget"....please don't spread blatant disinfo on ATS unless you can backup what you are saying, I actually care about wanting people to know the truth.


The federal deficit has breached 10 percent of GDP four times in US history: during the Civil War, during World War I and World War II, and in aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.
Source

Also this:


Since the U.S. economy has grown nearly every year since World War 2, the size of the national debt relative to the economy (i.e., as a percentage of gross domestic product or GDP) is another key measure. Gross debt relative to GDP rose to over 100% to pay for WW2 and then declined thereafter, rising during the 1980s as part of the Cold War and again due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. During the 1970s, debt held by the public declined from 28% GDP to 26% GDP. During the 1980s, it rose to 41% GDP. During the 1990s, it rose to 50% and then was reduced to 39% by the end of the decade. From 2000-2008, it rose from 35% to 40% and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Source

And this is part of my point, that debt in and of itself is not a bad thing, that you can run deficits during a recession, and then pay them off during times of economic prosperity. And it has been this way all throughout the history of this country. Historically, times of recession/depression = deficits, times of economic growth = balanced budget. Furthermore, there is much much better argument that the FED and monetary policy dictated by the central bankers (starting in the 20's/30's) are responsible for our debt problems rather than the new deal / FDR.
edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: add

edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: add to

edit on 16-4-2011 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)


Ok my numbers may be off, not my area of expertise, but certainly my point is valid. It was FDR and his policies that created the policies, many of which are still here and now a very large part of the problem. Yes he was responding to the great depression but the question is still out there.

Would it have been better to not create all these programs? He, for the record, did not end the depression, world war 2 did that, but he did stop it from becoming worse. The point is that the war would have brought us out of it regardless of his huge programs that have definetly helped put us in the hole.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by meeneecat
 


I think the biggest money-muncher is war. If we got out of the wars we are illegitimately involved in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), we would have TONS o' cash. But no. Those weapons dealers need their cash cow.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by meeneecat
 


I think the biggest money-muncher is war. If we got out of the wars we are illegitimately involved in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), we would have TONS o' cash. But no. Those weapons dealers need their cash cow.


Why are the illegit?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by meeneecat
 


I think the biggest money-muncher is war. If we got out of the wars we are illegitimately involved in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), we would have TONS o' cash. But no. Those weapons dealers need their cash cow.


Why are the illegit?


They are illegitimate because we were never attacked. "Preemptive strike." Remember that? How arrogant is it to attack someone because they MIGHT attack you? (Please don't say "9/11." That was a false flag to prompt the illegitimate war.)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
all these so called facts and figures are meaningless because inflation is not taken into account.

without the the value of the dollar putting those so called facts and figures into proper context its useless.

1913 $1 has the purchasing power of $22 dollars today.

and spending is the problem.




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join