Found a 5 min. youtube video posted on the Loose Nuts Forum that brings the dilemma of balancing the Federal Budge into sharp focus. Take a look and see if you get your eyes opened.


youtube video

This has been posted already inside of a discussion.........its really dry but informing.

However it (video) should get its own spotlight..........it should concern all.

Not being a mod in this forum I have no idea in how you would "spotlight" a video. I must agree that this has been the most eye opening one I've seen in regards to the problems with the Federal Budget.

Lets see what I can do for you PP
                                                               

United States Budget Dilemma.wmv


                                       

Thanks walkstall!

PP

See, 'round here all you gotta do is make the slightest of suggestions and the staff will make it happen.....

What I really meant is it should have its own thread. I posted it the first time however I should have done what PP did...gave it its own thread. That's the spotlight I meant. 

The flood lights are a nice tounch though.

One thing the accountant missed in his evaluation is the benefits of growth.  He chose fiscal year 2012 as a single year to analyze.  Revenue in 2012 is forecast to be lower than actual revenue in 2007 so there is a lot of upside on the revenue side if we can get the economy growing again. If the economy grew at a more normal 3.5% per year between 2007 and 2012, the deficit would be about 1/2 the current amount. Coming out the deep recession in the early 80's the economy grew as much as 7% in a single year and averaged 4.5% during the rest of the decade.

Secondly while revenue was down by $100 billion from 2007 to 2012, annual spending increased by $1 trillion. Half of this increase occurred from 2008 to 2009 when the budget increased from $3 trillion to $3.5 trillion largely due to items like TARP and the "Stimulus."  These were supposed to be one time events but spending continued to grow from the $3.5 trillion level.  By not budgeting a specific line item called "Stimulus" the government effectively hid where this money went.

I agree that we need to address entitlements but we can do that without killing Grandma or forcing her to eat dog food.   With reasonable growth going forward and understanding that the budget increases over the last 5 years have been unconscionable, the challenge while still difficult is not quite as daunting.

Both major parties and election candidates of all levels are seeking this mythical item called growth. Where is it going to come from? We've allowed the vast majority of manufacturing to leave this country. There have been a few bright spots recently where some small pieces of manufacturing has returned to the states, but not enough. When we spend the money to buy the materials and finished products we need for our homes, businesses, governmental affairs and infrastructure we are paying for growth in other countries.

You're are not going to get growth in a service economy. At best you keep a level playing field. The only growth industry in this country at the present is in finances. Between the banks and the stock market it's a race to see who can inflate which bubble the fastest. All paid for with money the government is borrowing from foreigners and then printing more dollars.

So tell me, just what growth are we counting on? Searching for more energy sources within the states?

Absolutely energy plus technology, e-commerce, finance, healthcare, transportation, distribution, pharmaceuticals, entertainment etc, etc, etc.

In the 1960's traditional manufacturing was about 25% of the economy, it is now less than 10%. During this time while manufacturing steadily declined the economy had periods of very high growth and much smaller deficits than we have now. In the 90's we even had a surplus. So I don't see any reason that we need to revive heavy manufacturing to grow. When we import material and finished products at a lower cost than we can do it ourselves that just frees up money to be used else where.

There are energy resources all over this country that can be tapped if the government will just allow it. Two examples of where federal government was not able to get in the way are the natural gas boom in Texas where I live and the Bakken Formation in North Dakota where there is an oil based gold rush underway with drilling and exploration.  The unemployment rate in Texas is 6.9% and in ND 3.0% and both states have growing workforces, not decreasing like the country as a whole.

In the 70's growth sucked under the former worst President in the Modern History of the United States Jimmah Cahter but then revived under Ronald Reagan. At the same time, manufacturing declined. When we get rid of the current worst President in the Modern History of United States the same thing can happen again.

It appears to me that moving money, that depreciates in value with every day, around, benefits a few but causes no real 'growth'. The median income of people has been steadily dropping. The other alternative is moving slabs of hamburger around on a grill and calling that growth.

I would also suggest that growth, historically funded by savers loaning money, at a healthy return to entrepreneurs , fueled that growth under Reagan. He still managed to almost triple the debt, but he put Paul Volcker in charge of the FED and he immediately began to raise interest rates, which encouraged savings again.

With rates at basically zero, the savers are focked, and are forced to find some other safe haven for their money. Inflation is rampant, stealing from the older and poorer inhabitants, and money just gets moved around making for some poor investments.

Quote from: bob long on May 29, 2012, 01:42:17 AM
Absolutely energy plus technology, e-commerce, finance, healthcare, transportation, distribution, pharmaceuticals, entertainment etc, etc, etc.

In the 1960's traditional manufacturing was about 25% of the economy, it is now less than 10%. During this time while manufacturing steadily declined the economy had periods of very high growth and much smaller deficits than we have now. In the 90's we even had a surplus. So I don't see any reason that we need to revive heavy manufacturing to grow. When we import material and finished products at a lower cost than we can do it ourselves that just frees up money to be used else where.

There are energy resources all over this country that can be tapped if the government will just allow it. Two examples of where federal government was not able to get in the way are the natural gas boom in Texas where I live and the Bakken Formation in North Dakota where there is an oil based gold rush underway with drilling and exploration.  The unemployment rate in Texas is 6.9% and in ND 3.0% and both states have growing workforces, not decreasing like the country as a whole.

In the 70's growth sucked under the former worst President in the Modern History of the United States Jimmah Cahter but then revived under Ronald Reagan. At the same time, manufacturing declined. When we get rid of the current worst President in the Modern History of United States the same thing can happen again.

True Bob, the smart money is champing at the bit waiting for the Marxist to leave office.

Quote from: bob long on May 29, 2012, 01:42:17 AM
Absolutely energy plus technology, e-commerce, finance, healthcare, transportation, distribution, pharmaceuticals, entertainment etc, etc, etc.

In the 1960's traditional manufacturing was about 25% of the economy, it is now less than 10%. During this time while manufacturing steadily declined the economy had periods of very high growth and much smaller deficits than we have now. In the 90's we even had a surplus. So I don't see any reason that we need to revive heavy manufacturing to grow. When we import material and finished products at a lower cost than we can do it ourselves that just frees up money to be used else where.

There are energy resources all over this country that can be tapped if the government will just allow it. Two examples of where federal government was not able to get in the way are the natural gas boom in Texas where I live and the Bakken Formation in North Dakota where there is an oil based gold rush underway with drilling and exploration.  The unemployment rate in Texas is 6.9% and in ND 3.0% and both states have growing workforces, not decreasing like the country as a whole.

In the 70's growth sucked under the former worst President in the Modern History of the United States Jimmah Cahter but then revived under Ronald Reagan. At the same time, manufacturing declined. When we get rid of the current worst President in the Modern History of United States the same thing can happen again.

We are now in a jobless recovery. The government talks a good story about creating new jobs but the truth is they can't. Without manufacturing they're screwed. Because of unemployment and flat lined wages housing, is in the tank and still sinking.

Your premise that we don't need heavy manufacturing is wrong. Manufacturing is the hing pin on growth. When people start buying, manufacturing puts out new good paying jobs. That was/is the basis for the sought for growth. Without it, any growth is in the service economy and those aren't the good paying jobs. Loss of manufacturing and debt load are the changes in the growth equation that eliminates some of the old solutions.

So we expand energy in this country. Are we buying American made equipment, pipe, etc. to find that energy? If not, we grown someone else's economy. We must learn how to bring manufacturing back home and make it competitive with low wages else where. One bright light was the announcement that one industry came back home when management realized that Americans could produce their product in three hours at a higher quality then overseas at 15 hours. We need more of that.

Quote from: Possumpoint on May 30, 2012, 06:36:43 AM
We are now in a jobless recovery. The government talks a good story about creating new jobs but the truth is they can't. Without manufacturing they're screwed. Because of unemployment and flat lined wages housing, is in the tank and still sinking.

Your premise that we don't need heavy manufacturing is wrong. Manufacturing is the hing pin on growth. When people start buying, manufacturing puts out new good paying jobs. That was/is the basis for the sought for growth. Without it, any growth is in the service economy and those aren't the good paying jobs. Loss of manufacturing and debt load are the changes in the growth equation that eliminates some of the old solutions.

So we expand energy in this country. Are we buying American made equipment, pipe, etc. to find that energy? If not, we grown someone else's economy. We must learn how to bring manufacturing back home and make it competitive with low wages else where. One bright light was the announcement that one industry came back home when management realized that Americans could produce their product in three hours at a higher quality then overseas at 15 hours. We need more of that.

Ya know PP, I'm not even sure this is any kind of recovery as the talking heads try to infer.
Personally, I think when the dust settles, historians will rightfully call this a depression.

Now I have seen where some manufacturing that left under Clinton, is starting to return, though the wages are no where what they used to be, they are inline with skilled labor of China.
With that trend in mind, and say we got all our lost base jobs back.
Would a serious cut in wages make it a useless return of industry?

Personally I don't think it matters as long as they return, because high paying jobs have always shifted with the growth of change.
The only thing that can save this country IMO is to get rid of the socialists and let the country return to it's roots.

Quote from: Possumpoint on May 30, 2012, 06:36:43 AM
We are now in a jobless recovery. The government talks a good story about creating new jobs but the truth is they can't. Without manufacturing they're screwed. Because of unemployment and flat lined wages housing, is in the tank and still sinking.

Your premise that we don't need heavy manufacturing is wrong. Manufacturing is the hing pin on growth. When people start buying, manufacturing puts out new good paying jobs. That was/is the basis for the sought for growth. Without it, any growth is in the service economy and those aren't the good paying jobs. Loss of manufacturing and debt load are the changes in the growth equation that eliminates some of the old solutions.

So we expand energy in this country. Are we buying American made equipment, pipe, etc. to find that energy? If not, we grown someone else's economy. We must learn how to bring manufacturing back home and make it competitive with low wages else where. One bright light was the announcement that one industry came back home when management realized that Americans could produce their product in three hours at a higher quality then overseas at 15 hours. We need more of that.

PP, I'll look for the supporting data when I get a sec, but I do believe manufacturing has been growing under non-union manufacturing companies, and a decline in union companies.  It was heritage.org data, but I'll hunt it down.

Quote from: bob long on May 27, 2012, 10:16:56 PM
Secondly while revenue was down by $100 billion from 2007 to 2012, annual spending increased by $1 trillion. Half of this increase occurred from 2008 to 2009 when the budget increased from $3 trillion to $3.5 trillion largely due to items like TARP and the "Stimulus."  These were supposed to be one time events but spending continued to grow from the $3.5 trillion level.  By not budgeting a specific line item called "Stimulus" the government effectively hid where this money went.

Um, I think the "government" budgeted NOTHING AT ALL.