Wacka Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 An example of the above is at the Kennedy Space Center. They privatized a lot of jobs in the mid 90s, but it's still government money paying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 On "net number of government employees:" Moving jobs from GS/GM/SES and DoD to contractor positions via the "Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994" made services the largest percentage of government procurement. They cut the obvious workforce so GAO and OMB could report smaller government, all the while increasing the number of people actually paid with taxpayer money. Agreed. But it's not simply a shell game. Reducing the federal workforce by contracting out positions has a real benefit in terms of the ability to draw down programs when you no longer want them, and not having to worry about retraining your workforce or paying into their pensions. It is a positive and real reform, not merely cosmetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Really?.... According to the CBO, we actually had surpluses in the late 90's, which effectively halted the growth of the national debt; hence, the the term net. But apparently, that's not good enough because we don't like the way we got the surplus and stopped adding to our debt. OK. This is why we get "soundbytes" instead of news - because people like you are unable to think for themselves and instead gleen only what they want. Try concentrating on: "The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance." That is the most salient point of the quoted text. It's also the reason we should all be worrying about the government spending more money it doesn't have. A continuing theme that will eventually end America. Actually, I ascertained exactly what you were trying to say. I simply used a little hyperbole in a failed attempt to make a point. You're point seems to be that governmental policies have little effect on benefiting the economy but often hurt it. So, can I assume you'd just prefer the government to do nothing? At least that way they're not hurting anything? Interesting though that through the debate, I don't recall seeing your detailed fix for the mess we're currently in. My original point of this thread was to ask about tax cuts, because I wanted additional insight from individuals that favor tax cuts. See, in my world, I don't have the answers, I don't even always understand all the questions, but I do try to gain perspective and insight. We currently have 2 primary theories as to how to get the economy going - tax cuts or federal spending. Maybe neither of those will work, but the reality is we're going to do primarily one or the other because those are the only 2 ideas on the table. Therefore, it seems relevant to discuss those two ideas. On the other hand, I suppose we could just sit here and say I don't like any of it, government is bad, everyone is stupid, I'm right - despite the fact that I don't know what I'm right about because I've never articulated constructive alternatives. I think we can all agree that the government spending more than it has is a bad idea. However, we've done that for decades and, yes, it's one of the facets to this problem. So what do we do now? Cut all spending, raise taxes, get out of debt? Or just do nothing at all? Perhaps we should introduce the bird flu, kill the 1.6 million that just lost their jobs and let the rest sort itself out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 According to the CBO, we actually had surpluses in the late 90's, which effectively halted the growth of the national debt; hence, the the term net. But apparently, that's not good enough because we don't like the way we got the surplus and stopped adding to our debt. OK. Actually, I ascertained exactly what you were trying to say. I simply used a little hyperbole in a failed attempt to make a point. You're point seems to be that governmental policies have little effect on benefiting the economy but often hurt it. So, can I assume you'd just prefer the government to do nothing? At least that way they're not hurting anything? Interesting though that through the debate, I don't recall seeing your detailed fix for the mess we're currently in. My original point of this thread was to ask about tax cuts, because I wanted additional insight from individuals that favor tax cuts. See, in my world, I don't have the answers, I don't even always understand all the questions, but I do try to gain perspective and insight. We currently have 2 primary theories as to how to get the economy going - tax cuts or federal spending. Maybe neither of those will work, but the reality is we're going to do primarily one or the other because those are the only 2 ideas on the table. Therefore, it seems relevant to discuss those two ideas. On the other hand, I suppose we could just sit here and say I don't like any of it, government is bad, everyone is stupid, I'm right - despite the fact that I don't know what I'm right about because I've never articulated constructive alternatives. I think we can all agree that the government spending more than it has is a bad idea. However, we've done that for decades and, yes, it's one of the facets to this problem. So what do we do now? Cut all spending, raise taxes, get out of debt? Or just do nothing at all? Perhaps we should introduce the bird flu, kill the 1.6 million that just lost their jobs and let the rest sort itself out? No we didn't. The only way we had surpluses was by including monies going into social security. Monies which have already been allocated for other, future, spending. That was the point of Al Gore's "lock box." It's like taking out a mortgage for $100k, having after tax income of $50K, and spending $140k, knowing your after tax income will be $50k for the foreseeable future as well, and then believing you are $10k in the black that year. You aren't, you are $90k in the hole. If you spend another $140k the next year, you are in deep doo doo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Somebody has to do the jobs, extended hours means either more staff or overtime for existing staff, and you need construction/plumbing/carpentry type workers to redo the restrooms. You're either insuring the current providers of the services stay employed, or are hiring new workers for the increased workload. So think now, just really think for a second... How does that produce anything to make an economy work? Where does that money come from and how does moving money on credit that is not self-sustaining without means of producing something actually stimulate anything other than increase the amount of debt we have? Or are you saying we stimulate 2009 and screw our children over with more debt because we can't live within our means? I know to liberals it's very hard to grasp basic economic principles, but I implore you to use the brain that our wonderful education system that needs MORE MONEY to help us think, without teaching formal logic anymore, to come to an intelligent conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Really? From "Table 8.1 — Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act Category: 1962–2013" 1992: 1,381.6 1993: 1,409.5 1994: 1,461.9 1995: 1,515.9 1996: 1,560.6 1997: 1,601.3 1998: 1,652.7 1999: 1,702.0 Looks to me like overall spending increased each and every year. So then I looked at Discretionary Spending: 1992: 533.8 1993: 539.4 1994: 541.4 1995: 544.9 1996: 532.7 1997: 547.2 1998: 552.1 1999: 572.0 Increased 7 out of 8 years. Facts suck. On "net number of government employees:" Moving jobs from GS/GM/SES and DoD to contractor positions via the "Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994" made services the largest percentage of government procurement. They cut the obvious workforce so GAO and OMB could report smaller government, all the while increasing the number of people actually paid with taxpayer money. The Brookings Institution estimated that "off the books" employment by the Fed was over 5.6 million in 1999, a number roughly equivalent to the number of people "on the books". But you keep repeating the folly. Your comedic acumen is as acute as your political. Deep. This is why we get "soundbytes" instead of news - because people like you are unable to think for themselves and instead gleen only what they want. Try concentrating on: "The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance." That is the most salient point of the quoted text. It's also the reason we should all be worrying about the government spending more money it doesn't have. A continuing theme that will eventually end America. Ah, nice cookie cutter description of numbers Darin yourself...., but I admire the effort. Federal Employees were cut under Clinton, your numbers prove it, but you can't take that part. Outlays increased OK, but Government employees didn't. Contracts let did increase, largely because of the transportation bill, but it was not because of bureaucratic hires, these so called employees were the result of those companies hiring people to fullfill the contracts they were paid to do, but they were not government employees receiving government benefits. Also those increase in outlays were at less of a rate than under Reagan or Bush 1 and was part of a move to contract out led by Republicans and Clinton.... Pissed off the Unions to no end. Bush II continued this trend of contracting out and I could probably find the numbers again, but he did so at an exponentially increasing rate while restoring and exceeding the number federal employees cut during the Clinton administration. The last part is and interesting postulate. The government being a hindrance is not always a bad thing... some time it is and it is not as clean cut as you would have it, is because government in US context is often an arbiter of how business allocates resources or doesn't allocate them. Sometimes they are mutually beneficial and sometimes they are not. We can all find things to gripe about, but the other things we couldn't afford to do without if the government did not insure those resources were provided. Of course, if you live in a cave in AK by yourself, maybe I can understand the perspective, but that not how the 360 million people in the lower 48 have to relate to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 An example of the above is at the Kennedy Space Center. They privatized a lot of jobs in the mid 90s, but it's still government money paying them. True, but they were hired as part of contracts and these folks did not receive government benefits... any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts