Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 11

 

2011-03-27 05:28:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA
"According to this theory, government should stimulate demand for goods and services in order to encourage economic growth. It thus recommends tax cuts and increased government spending during recessions to reinvigorate growth; likewise, it recommends tax increases and spending cuts during economic expansion in order to combat inflation."

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
2011-03-27 05:28:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6379|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Paying companies to develop technology the govt doesn't really need because the companies bribed politicians to vote them funding - Is that a function of government?

Seems more like spreading the wealth to me, except the average person is taxed to help the rich get richer.
Never said I approved of lobbyists. and I never said I approved of bribes. If you want to make a topic on the corruption of govt. then start a thread and I will join probably on your side. However, the topic here is wasting taxpayer money, only real issue is, what is more of a waste or abuse? Some say 3 billion to a cancelled project. and I say 702 to welfare. What do you think?
I'd say funnelling a huge portion of your budget into military spending and barely anything into useful R+D, agriculture, power generation, medicine etc is money down the drain.

You can argue spin-offs, but then R+D focused on useful things has spin-offs too.
Fuck Israel
2011-03-27 05:29:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6379|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
By borrowing - that paragraph is Bushonomics in a nutshell.
Fuck Israel
2011-03-27 05:32:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Paying companies to develop technology the govt doesn't really need because the companies bribed politicians to vote them funding - Is that a function of government?

Seems more like spreading the wealth to me, except the average person is taxed to help the rich get richer.
Never said I approved of lobbyists. and I never said I approved of bribes. If you want to make a topic on the corruption of govt. then start a thread and I will join probably on your side. However, the topic here is wasting taxpayer money, only real issue is, what is more of a waste or abuse? Some say 3 billion to a cancelled project. and I say 702 to welfare. What do you think?
I'd say funnelling a huge portion of your budget into military spending and barely anything into useful R+D, agriculture, power generation, medicine etc is money down the drain.

You can argue spin-offs, but then R+D focused on useful things has spin-offs too.
You are right, I can argue spin-offs, how could you argue against it?

Yes I also agree that R and D focused on useful things has spin-offs, not sure what that point was though.
2011-03-27 05:33:39
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
By borrowing - that paragraph is Bushonomics in a nutshell.
same thing, is borrowing a sound economic practice in your household?
2011-03-27 05:34:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6379|eXtreme to the maX
The point is you can't argue funneling money into military R+D makes more sense than funneling it into other R+D.
Fuck Israel
2011-03-27 05:35:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

The point is you can't argue funneling money into military R+D makes more sense than funneling it into other R+D.
I never did argue that? Unless you are claiming welfare is some R and D project now.
2011-03-27 05:35:10
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6426|what

lowing wrote:

"According to this theory, government should stimulate demand for goods and services in order to encourage economic growth. It thus recommends tax cuts and increased government spending during recessions to reinvigorate growth; likewise, it recommends tax increases and spending cuts during economic expansion in order to combat inflation."

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
Governments are able to go into debt. The US Government has a debt of around $14 trillion. Comparing that to a household is idiotic (no offense).
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2011-03-27 05:35:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6379|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
By borrowing - that paragraph is Bushonomics in a nutshell.
same thing, is borrowing a sound economic practice in your household?
If its for a short period and 'necessary' then yes. Borrowing during boom times to give people tax cuts so they could inflate the bubble even further - as Bush did - no.
Fuck Israel
2011-03-27 05:38:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

"According to this theory, government should stimulate demand for goods and services in order to encourage economic growth. It thus recommends tax cuts and increased government spending during recessions to reinvigorate growth; likewise, it recommends tax increases and spending cuts during economic expansion in order to combat inflation."

Sounds like a bunch of absolute bullshit to me. Unless you can tell me how you can cut revenue and increase spending. I mean is that an economic practice that works in your household?
Governments are able to go into debt. The US Government has a debt of around $14 trillion. Comparing that to a household is idiotic (no offense).
Why is govt. allowed to go into debt like it has?
Why wouldn't the same economic practices apply to govt. as it does a business or a household. To me, that is like saying physics is different between the govt. and a household.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 05:43:10)

2011-03-27 05:40:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


By borrowing - that paragraph is Bushonomics in a nutshell.
same thing, is borrowing a sound economic practice in your household?
If its for a short period and 'necessary' then yes. Borrowing during boom times to give people tax cuts so they could inflate the bubble even further - as Bush did - no.
ok I can see that, so apply this to wasted taxpayer money, and the projects it is wasted on.
2011-03-27 05:46:40
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5451|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Both are actually valid spending.

Just because the outcome wasn't as expected from the engine does not mean it was a waste, I'm sure progress has been made and if GE are willing to back the project that further proves that there is a positive to be found in it all.

re: welfare, the vast majority of people on welfare spend all their money before their next pay, thus that money is basically going straight back into the economy via rent, food, schooling etc. and it raises the lowest social tier of a society. Without welfare you'd be a third world country.
If that is all it is, then tell you what, let ME keep the money I earn and I will circulate it back through the economy,ya know, since I am the one who did all the leg work for it and all. The economy doesn't care who spends it, so it would not be the deciding factor on turning us into a 3rd world country.
The point being is very little money is "kept", it is spent rather quickly, back into the economy. You might almost say it's a form of stimulus. Of course, only a minority of the population can live this way, but if you've ever lived on welfare vs. being in full employment, I would take employment every single time.

Anyway, this is kinda off topic where I'm taking the disucssion here, but I'm just illustrating a point that welfare isn't necessarily the waste of money people like to make it out to be.
2011-03-27 05:54:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Both are actually valid spending.

Just because the outcome wasn't as expected from the engine does not mean it was a waste, I'm sure progress has been made and if GE are willing to back the project that further proves that there is a positive to be found in it all.

re: welfare, the vast majority of people on welfare spend all their money before their next pay, thus that money is basically going straight back into the economy via rent, food, schooling etc. and it raises the lowest social tier of a society. Without welfare you'd be a third world country.
If that is all it is, then tell you what, let ME keep the money I earn and I will circulate it back through the economy,ya know, since I am the one who did all the leg work for it and all. The economy doesn't care who spends it, so it would not be the deciding factor on turning us into a 3rd world country.
The point being is very little money is "kept", it is spent rather quickly, back into the economy. You might almost say it's a form of stimulus. Of course, only a minority of the population can live this way, but if you've ever lived on welfare vs. being in full employment, I would take employment every single time.

Anyway, this is kinda off topic where I'm taking the disucssion here, but I'm just illustrating a point that welfare isn't necessarily the waste of money people like to make it out to be.
Believe me, if you let the earners keep their money, I would be spending it on a new car, landscaping upgrades, trips, etc.....So really it goes back to the basics. It isn't if or what the money is spent on, it is who gets to spend the money and reap the rewards from the purchases. Personally I think it should be those that worked for it and earned it. Who do you think should get to spend it?

To tie this into the topic, that 3 billion that was "wasted" was spent on employing those that R and D'ed the project, who then, not only advanced technology in the field of jet propulsion, but for their efforts was paid money which then was circulated into the economy. That is why and how the money was not wasted. Now, what did the tax payers purchase for 702 billion a year into welfare, and how are we enjoying the technoligical advances welfare brings us?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 05:57:23)

2011-03-27 05:59:50
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5451|Sydney
I think I've already answered your last question in that post.
2011-03-27 06:05:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Jaekus wrote:

I think I've already answered your last question in that post.
your argument is that people on welfare circulate the money back into the economy therefore it is not wasted and keeps us from becoming a 3rd world country.

I argued that why not let those that earn the money, spend it, circulate it  thus keeping us from becoming a 3rd world country.

We can survive just fine without the leeches in our society. We can not however survive, being left behind by not spending money on R and D. It employs people and advances technology. Hence the people ( govt.) gets something for the money and is then, not wasted.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 06:08:23)

2011-03-27 06:09:29
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5451|Sydney
People on welfare aren't leeches. That's an ignorant view that those on the politcal right cannot see past, or at best choose not to.
Sure, there are those who take advantage, but the vast majority on welfare are disadvantaged to begin with.
This is a disucssion for another thread... and clearly the technology is still finding investment from the private sector, so it's not like R&D is being neglected here.
2011-03-27 06:12:06
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5510|Cleveland, Ohio

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches.
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
2011-03-27 06:13:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches. That's an ignorant view that those on the politcal right cannot see past, or at best choose not to.
Sure, there are those who take advantage, but the vast majority on welfare are disadvantaged to begin with.
This is a disucssion for another thread... and clearly the technology is still finding investment from the private sector, so it's not like R&D is being neglected here.
We have a thread bitching about 3 billion dollars wasted. Compare that to 702 billion annually. I have shown where that 3 billion is not really wasted. You nor anyone else has shown how that 702 billion is NOT wasted. So where is the outrage?

Your argument is those on welfare are circulating money through the economy. My argument is I am more than capable and willing to circulate MY OWN money through the economy without their help.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 06:19:56)

2011-03-27 06:13:51
jord
Member
+2,382|6951|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches.
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
You can pull out personal examples from both "leeches" and the people who genuinely need welfare in the short run to survive. Personal examples like that aren't really a great argument, for both the for and against opinions.
2011-03-27 06:14:15
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5451|Sydney

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches.
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
One person out of how many who need it for the basics of scoiety?
But yeah, I agree she doesn't need to be saving $200 per month. Most of the people I work with are on a disability pension, which isn't much, though a couple really don't need the money they get. But most of them struggle to get by a lot of the time.
2011-03-27 06:15:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6924|USA

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches.
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
People need to realize that, if your lifestyle is welfare, then yes, you are a leech.
2011-03-27 06:15:31
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5510|Cleveland, Ohio

jord wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

People on welfare aren't leeches.
i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
You can pull out personal examples from both "leeches" and the people who genuinely need welfare in the short run to survive. Personal examples like that aren't really a great argument, for both the for and against opinions.
yes not going to argue the short term.  long term abuse is WAY more common than honest people.  thats a fact.
2011-03-27 06:16:25
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5510|Cleveland, Ohio

Jaekus wrote:

One person out of how many who need it for the basics of scoiety?
im talking about the US here.  sorry.  and its WAY more than one.  maybe one honest person out of 50 would be my guess.
2011-03-27 06:18:37
jord
Member
+2,382|6951|The North, beyond the wall.

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
You can pull out personal examples from both "leeches" and the people who genuinely need welfare in the short run to survive. Personal examples like that aren't really a great argument, for both the for and against opinions.
yes not going to argue the short term.  long term abuse is WAY more common than honest people.  thats a fact.
Perhaps. I don't think theres an accurate statistic out there though showing the percentage of abusers compared to those that genuinely require welfare. It'd be impossible to calculate.
2011-03-27 06:21:58
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5451|Sydney

11 Bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


i was watching something yesterday where this chick got 600 per month for welfare.  the state paid 800 for her rent.  and she got food stamps.  she was able to save 200 dollars per month lol.  ya...no leeches.
You can pull out personal examples from both "leeches" and the people who genuinely need welfare in the short run to survive. Personal examples like that aren't really a great argument, for both the for and against opinions.
yes not going to argue the short term.  long term abuse is WAY more common than honest people.  thats a fact.
Source?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard