Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I know you don't understand this stuff, mike, so I'll try to be clear. But don't blame me if you don't understand it again.
Our economy is slow.
The fed govt is running a deficit.
The fed govt is paying $85 for a $4 hammer. That's wasteful. That money could and should be put to use in a better way and it would be better if they bought one $4 hammer and put the rest towards infrastructure or medicare or defense.
But if the alternative to buying that $85 hammer is that they don't spend the $85 dollars at all, it's better if they buy the hammer.
Since the "solution" is to spend, why doesn't the govt lease all vacant buildings?
Or give businesses 10% of last year's revenue for further investment?
Or simply write each American a 10K check for spending?
Surely all of the above is a better solution than overpaying for a hammer, right?
All of those things are stimulative. None are viable.
Yet overpaying for a hammer is viable?
Perhaps, by paying the market price for a hammer, the govt could do something more constructive, maybe a variation of the listed things, with the excess money.
1) How many hammers do you think the government is buying?
2) Yeah. I've said that. Several times.
1. No idea. That was just the example used for wasteful govt spending. Which you said was a good thing.
2. So, if he govt could, and should, do something more constructive than overpaying for items, why is overpaying for items a good thing?
If the alternative is to not spend the money (cut the deficit) it's better to spend it when the economy is suffering from lack of demand. Even on wasteful ****.
Tax cuts and spending it on less wasteful things are preferable options.
I'll disagree and explain why.
Even though I believe our government has limitless funds(they just raise the debt ceiling and don't bother with budgets), wasteful spending isn't productive as they need the "appearance" of caring about spending. That $85 will get spent. They can buy one hammer and benefit one company or they can buy a hammer, a toilet seat, a set of brakes, a folding chair, etc, etc, and provide revenue to several companies.
IIRC, the libs got their panties in a big ol' wad because Bush's cronies at Halliburton made of fortune off the Gulf War. Well, the govt was just putting money into the economy, right?