All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment
2/27/2013 6:20 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.
So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

I'm saying that we should prioritize the economy over the deficit. Reducing the deficit slightly doesn't improve the economy. Reducing the deficit significantly hurts the economy.

If you want to cut things like the $85 million snack subsidy to Amtrak, fine. Just know that the Amtrak food budget will go down, and the companies that supply food to Amtrak will see less business and need fewer employees.

If you want to keep tax rates where they are (or lower them), I can get behind that too.

But let's not live in a fantasy world. The debt and deficit aren't hurting the economy, they shouldn't be dealt with at the expense of the economy.
What have we been doing?  Is it working?   If not, maybe something else needs to be done.  Or, more importantly SOMETHING needs to be one.   You know, other than pointing and blaming. 

We have a do nothing government right now.   They fully endorse your "hope this works" philosophy.
2/27/2013 6:34 PM
Are you arguing that we should do something just for the sake of doing something?

Would reducing the deficit improve the economy?
2/27/2013 6:36 PM
And I do think we've been doing plenty of things wrong over the last couple years. The fed's money policy has been too tight. We should have extended stimulus spending. We should not have raised taxes. We should have continued the payroll tax cut.
2/27/2013 6:43 PM
I think they should be doing something other than saying "It's their fault."   They should be meeting and not traveling to tell states what's going to happen if an agreement isn't reached.  

The economy is largely spurred by consumer confidence.  I don't think hearing "The deficit is out of control.  We have to get our spending under control" over and over again is helping consumer confidence. 
2/27/2013 6:49 PM
Ok.

You own a business.

What do we have to lower the deficit to for you to hire an employee you don't need?
What deficit amount is too high for you to not hire an employee you do need?

Consumer confidence is driven by income and job security. $14 trillion in debt and an $800 billion deficit isn't any different than $6 trillion in debt and a $50 billion dollar deficit when it comes to your day to day life.
2/27/2013 6:57 PM
Micromanaging.   I'll play.

I need to have the confidence in our government that they are working just as hard as I am to ensure that said employee will be needed in the near future. 

Unfortunately, I can read and 14t/800b is not the same as 6t/50b.  I have no confidence that our government can control spending.   Therefore, I have no confidence that my taxes won't be increased in the near future to cover their spending.    With my expected tax increase, I have no confidence to increase spending as a business or as a consumer.
2/27/2013 7:03 PM
What debt level do you need to see before you'll hire an employee you don't need?
2/27/2013 7:06 PM
You started with the micromanaging idea.   I responded to that question in my previous post.    What part confuses you?
2/27/2013 7:08 PM
You didn't answer the question.

What debt level would the government need to be at for you to hire an employee you don't need?
2/27/2013 7:10 PM
You can repeat your question over and over.  I'll repeat this:   

You started with the micromanaging idea.   I responded to that question in my previous post.    What part confuses you?
2/27/2013 7:13 PM
The part about you not actually answering the question. I admit it isn't as simple as a yes/no, but you can give a range or approximation.
2/27/2013 7:30 PM
Oh, I see what confuses you.  I didn't answer the way you wanted me to with a number.

I'll try to reword for you.

If I have the confidence in our government to not raise my taxes to create revenue for their out of control spending, I'd be more inclined to increase my expenses.  As it stands, I don't think they can do it.  I think my personal taxes and my business taxes will increase in order to increase government revenue to fund their projects. 

2/27/2013 7:30 PM
Red line spending, blue line tax revenue. When it comes to the deficit, spending isn't the problem. The ****** economy that caused tax revenues to tank, is.

Fix the economy and most of the deficit goes away.


2/27/2013 7:32 PM
Throwing more money at it hasn't fixed the economy.   That's the current plan.
2/27/2013 7:33 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Oh, I see what confuses you.  I didn't answer the way you wanted me to with a number.

I'll try to reword for you.

If I have the confidence in our government to not raise my taxes to create revenue for their out of control spending, I'd be more inclined to increase my expenses.  As it stands, I don't think they can do it.  I think my personal taxes and my business taxes will increase in order to increase government revenue to fund their projects. 

So the answer is no amount. There is no amount the government can lower the deficit that would make you want to hire someone you don't need.

So you're saying that your hiring decisions are not based on the amount of the deficit.
of 45
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.