PDA

View Full Version : More government cuts on the agenda



pooltchr
02-18-2011, 09:27 PM
I hear the Reps are talking about defunding all of Obama's Czars. Eliminating them and their staffs would be a great example of cutting waste out of our government.

Steve

Sev
02-18-2011, 10:17 PM
OH boy that would be fantastic.

LWW
02-19-2011, 05:32 AM
I believe that already passed.

LWW

pooltchr
02-19-2011, 08:38 AM
NBC reported on this morning's news that the house passed $61B in spending cuts. Of course, the Dem controlled Senate will probably block the cuts. And if their refusal to work with the house causes a government shut down, the Dems will blame the Reps.

Of course, a government shut down is not the end of the world. We have had them before and survived. In fact, the government shut down earlier this year due to extreme winter weather, and somehow, we managed to get along just fine.

I'm just watching the politics of all of this. Reps heard the call of the people last November to cut spending. They are trying to do just that. Now we will see if the Dems got the message sent by the voters.

Steve

LWW
02-19-2011, 11:24 AM
The democrooks see "THE PEOPLE" as subjects.

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-19-2011, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hear the Reps are talking about defunding all of Obama's Czars. Eliminating them and their staffs would be a great example of cutting waste out of our government. Steve</div></div>Steve -- U will havta explain to me how one dollar of gov waste iz worse than one dollar of private waste.
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2011, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hear the Reps are talking about defunding all of Obama's Czars. Eliminating them and their staffs would be a great example of cutting waste out of our government.

</div></div>

I think it would rather be an admission of failure of nerve.

Micromanaging the executive budget doesn't yield probably any more savings than the pitifully small 'cuts' in the House's own budget that amount of less than $40 million a year.

However, if they were to abolish the drug czar AND the war on drugs, that would indeed be a welcome step that could save a ton of money.

pooltchr
02-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Mac
Waste is waste, and it is never good. But if it happens in a private company, it is the owners and stockholders who ultimately pay the price. When it happens in government, we all pay the price. And the private companies would essentially be wasting their own assets. The government doesn't have any assets, so what they waste actually belongs to someone else.

Look at it this way. If I waste something that I have earned, it only hurts me. If I am entrusted to handly your money for you, and I waste it, it hurts you.

That's the difference. The government doesn't waste their money, because they have none. They are using my money, and when they waste it, they just end up taking more from me to cover it.

Steve

LWW
02-20-2011, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hear the Reps are talking about defunding all of Obama's Czars. Eliminating them and their staffs would be a great example of cutting waste out of our government. Steve</div></div>Steve -- U will havta explain to me how one dollar of gov waste iz worse than one dollar of private waste.
mac. </div></div>

Excessive private sector waste leads to loss of profit and eventually either corporate failure or a board which installs less wasteful management.

Waste in the gubmint sector has no such remedy as the money is printed to saddle future generations with the dilemma.

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-20-2011, 07:21 AM
Steve & dubb.
But any waste affekts the (big) cake in some way, ie it affekts everyone.
In a way, all wastage affects all, ie wastage in china affects the world cake -- if u think about it.
Wastage in china might rezult in the usofa citizens getting a bigger slice of the world cake, true, but that bigger slice iz a slice of a smaller cake -- if u think about it.
Just thinking.
mac.

LWW
02-20-2011, 07:22 AM
Nobody denied they are both bad.

You asked what the difference was between them.

LWW

pooltchr
02-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Mac,
There is an assumption with your cake analogy that is flawed. It assumes that there is a limited amount of wealth that must be shared by everyone. One person's gain is another person's loss.

But history tells us that your cake can and does get bigger. What do you suppose the total amount of cake was 200 years ago? Do you think the cake is still the same size?

Economic expansion does not come at anyone's expense. Growth simply means that there is more cake to go around for everyone. All the bakers (producers) keep generating more and more. The only way the cake stays the same is if global productivity stagnates. That's why capitalism works so well. The more cake people make, the more cake they get to keep. (Until the government decides they want to take more cake from everybody)

Steve

LWW
02-20-2011, 08:36 AM
Excellent post.

One of the many flaws in leftist logic is that we live in a static world.

LWW