Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
We'll start you off with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

interesting link, thanks taxed.  I had not seen that before.


I would suggest though that the period of 1929 thru 1945 especially 1941 thru 1945 when we spent in excess of 110% of our GDP and emerged from WWII with almost 100% employment, granted it was all for the war effort but that doesn't matter it was for "something" 

and the forthcoming boom of the 1950's allowed us to pay down much of that spending but the spending was vital to getting us to the point in 1950 to be able to pay down much of the debt we built up.

the key that we have not done well is to downsize and pay pack what we borrow once we spend.


we need to work on that part.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
interesting link, thanks taxed.  I had not seen that before.


I would suggest though that the period of 1929 thru 1945 especially 1941 thru 1945 when we spent in excess of 110% of our GDP and emerged from WWII with almost 100% employment, granted it was all for the war effort but that doesn't matter it was for "something" 

and the forthcoming boom of the 1950's allowed us to pay down much of that spending but the spending was vital to getting us to the point in 1950 to be able to pay down much of the debt we built up.

the key that we have not done well is to downsize and pay pack what we borrow once we spend.


we need to work on that part.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I can tell you have zero understanding of basic economics.  Therefore, understanding the economic history of that period may be a little lost on you.  We may have to work up to that conversation at some point, but you're stuck at a pre-school level of understanding economics.  I'm just being factual, so I don't mean for you to take offense.

For example, why do you believe saving money is a bad thing?

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2016, 07:05:43 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but I can tell you have zero understanding of basic economics.  Therefore, understanding the economic history of that period may be a little lost on you.  We may have to work up to that conversation at some point, but you're stuck at a pre-school level of understanding economics.  I'm just being factual, so I don't mean for you to take offense.

For example, why do you believe saving money is a bad thing?

not offended at all taxed.

I don't believe saving is bad quite the contrary but I do believe government has a purpose to serve us and we should use government for our benefit not the other way around.

I am interested in what you and others in the community have to say and I don't mean to run out  but unfortunately I am on the east coast and have to check out for tonight.

Thanks for your discussion today.  I learned a few things which is what I was looking for.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 07:31:24 PM
not offended at all taxed.

I don't believe saving is bad quite the contrary but I do believe government has a purpose to serve us and we should use government for our benefit not the other way around.

Serve us how?

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2016, 08:07:33 PM
Serve us how?

For example under Kensyian Economics during times of recession the private sector purges jobs to reduce costs, I believe the government should pump money into the system and expand to provide jobs to the displaced does not even matter what because these people will spend this money directly back into the economy which will create consumption, consumption will create demand demand will create more jobs.

Then as the private sector starts hiring again government should eliminate these gvt jobs and shrink.

I think we have seen the spending and growing does help the economy but we are terrible at the shrinking part and for Kensyian Economics to work we need gvt to shrink when gvt is supposed to shrink.  That last part never seems to happen.

That is one way to use government for the benefit of the people.  IMO.  If we do it right that is.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 18, 2016, 05:41:26 AM

For example under Kensyian Economics during times of recession the private sector purges jobs to reduce costs, I believe the government should pump money into the system and expand to provide jobs to the displaced does not even matter what because these people will spend this money directly back into the economy which will create consumption, consumption will create demand demand will create more jobs.

Then as the private sector starts hiring again government should eliminate these gvt jobs and shrink.

I think we have seen the spending and growing does help the economy but we are terrible at the shrinking part and for Kensyian Economics to work we need gvt to shrink when gvt is supposed to shrink.  That last part never seems to happen.

That is one way to use government for the benefit of the people.  IMO.  If we do it right that is.

Uggghhh, Keynesian is socialist economics, proven to be a complete failure, especially in a free capitalistic society.
Can you tell me the purpose behind the federal govt?

Quote from: Solar on July 18, 2016, 07:37:29 AM
Uggghhh, Keynesian is socialist economics, proven to be a complete failure, especially in a free capitalistic society.
Can you tell me the purpose behind the federal govt?

That to me is the interesting question of the day.

Well, as we know the Constitution says whatever power not specifically noted here goes to the states.  We will probably agree there.

What I believe is the Federal Government should stay out of everything else, EXCEPT to the extent the states fail to live up to their responsibilities.

For example, we have heard many Conservatives ask to abolish the Dept of Education.  I might even agree with that, but I would need to see some kind of standard that each state could make to measure how well they are educating their kids.

Massachusetts has been #1 or #2 in public education for several years in a row now, I ask why cant every state do that?  In my mind if we had a President who put forth a mandate to each state "You have 2 years to develop your own measurable standards (like Massachusetts did) and you can withdraw from the Dept. of Education's oversight."

I would be fine with that.  The Federal Government should only step in when a state is not serving their citizens in some mandated responsibility like providing a public education to all citizens thru 12 grade.

So a state that does these things should be able to "opt out" of these federal programs.  But for those states who are not living up to their responsibilities forced enrollment in these Federal Programs would be their fate until such time as they can do it on their own.

Frankly, IMO there is no reason why every state cannot have a strong public school system and that would make the Dept. of Education obsolete.


What do you think the role of the Federal Government is Solar?

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 18, 2016, 05:41:26 AM

For example under Kensyian Economics during times of recession the private sector purges jobs to reduce costs, I believe the government should pump money into the system and expand to provide jobs to the displaced does not even matter what because these people will spend this money directly back into the economy which will create consumption, consumption will create demand demand will create more jobs.

Then as the private sector starts hiring again government should eliminate these gvt jobs and shrink.

This is where your premise is flawed. I will even presume your statement is accurate. That being said, just when has the government ever eliminated jobs and shrunk?

I think we have seen the spending and growing does help the economy but we are terrible at the shrinking part and for Kensyian Economics to work we need gvt to shrink when gvt is supposed to shrink.  That last part never seems to happen.

That is one way to use government for the benefit of the people.  IMO.  If we do it right that is.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 18, 2016, 12:15:25 PM

That to me is the interesting question of the day.

Well, as we know the Constitution says whatever power not specifically noted here goes to the states.  We will probably agree there.

What I believe is the Federal Government should stay out of everything else, EXCEPT to the extent the states fail to live up to their responsibilities.

For example, we have heard many Conservatives ask to abolish the Dept of Education.  I might even agree with that, but I would need to see some kind of standard that each state could make to measure how well they are educating their kids.

States records speak for themselves. Look at the level of education an 8th grader had before govt mandated education, compared to the dismal record the Fed has to date.
That's all the evidence you need, aside from comparitive homeschooling graduation rates and GPA to that of any Fed mandated school in the country.

QuoteMassachusetts has been #1 or #2 in public education for several years in a row now, I ask why cant every state do that?  In my mind if we had a President who put forth a mandate to each state "You have 2 years to develop your own measurable standards (like Massachusetts did) and you can withdraw from the Dept. of Education's oversight."

I would be fine with that.  The Federal Government should only step in when a state is not serving their citizens in some mandated responsibility like providing a public education to all citizens thru 12 grade.

So a state that does these things should be able to "opt out" of these federal programs.  But for those states who are not living up to their responsibilities forced enrollment in these Federal Programs would be their fate until such time as they can do it on their own.

Frankly, IMO there is no reason why every state cannot have a strong public school system and that would make the Dept. of Education obsolete.


What do you think the role of the Federal Government is Solar?

Your final query brought it all home. Show me where in the Constitution the Fed was charged with educating the people.
Not that a standard is a bad thing, but the States don't need the Fed to come to an agreement on a scholastic measure of education.
The Fed's involvement has become a weapon/tool by the left to reign in States that refuse to succumb to the leftist agenda, that's why Congress keeps throwing money at the DOE.
Yes, both party's love growing govt.

Quote from: Solar on July 18, 2016, 12:43:10 PM
The Fed's involvement has become a weapon/tool by the left to reign in States that refuse to succumb to the leftist agenda, that's why Congress keeps throwing money at the DOE.
Yes, both party's love growing govt.

Now I could be wrong on this but I believe the Dept of Ed doesn't have much actual power over states but it does have money and if any state does not want to follow the Depts. Rules then they don't get the money.  So in that regard there isn't a violation of the constitution since the state has the final choice.

I agree the Federal Government absolutely is used as a weapon.  Anytime one party has too much control it is bad for the country.

Which is why we need a strong "stable" GOP, or whatever incarnation they are going to put up after this year to counter the other side and maintain a balance.

I  am not saying the old days were better but I remember leaders in Congress not that long ago during the 1990's and 2000's, but today I see very few leaders anymore.  Everyone is too busy grandstanding.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 18, 2016, 12:42:01 PM

Then as the private sector starts hiring again government should eliminate these gvt jobs and shrink.

This is where your premise is flawed. I will even presume your statement is accurate. That being said, just when has the government ever eliminated jobs and shrunk?

============================

That was my point.


We do the spending part we fail at the shrinking part.  we have to do all parts for anything to succeed.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 18, 2016, 01:06:29 PM

Now I could be wrong on this but I believe the Dept of Ed doesn't have much actual power over states but it does have money and if any state does not want to follow the Depts. Rules then they don't get the money.  So in that regard there isn't a violation of the constitution since the state has the final choice.

Yes there is, their entire existence is unconstitutional., but that's neither here nor there, because Congress is usurping States Rights by setting unnecessary standards and scholastic requirements by allowing the Fed to dictate what a schools curriculum is.

QuoteI agree the Federal Government absolutely is used as a weapon.  Anytime one party has too much control it is bad for the country.

The sooner you realize the GOP is just another branch of the Dim party, the sooner the picture will all make sense.

QuoteWhich is why we need a strong "stable" GOP, or whatever incarnation they are going to put up after this year to counter the other side and maintain a balance.

The counter is a facade. Look back at what little history you can recall, and try and remember one thing the Conservative base actually applauded the GOP over.
I guarantee, there is not one thing. The gOP gave the Dims everything the Dims asked for, and then some, even Fuglosi made the statement over the OMNIBUS that you didn't have to give us all this, we didn't even ask for it.

QuoteI  am not saying the old days were better but I remember leaders in Congress not that long ago during the 1990's and 2000's, but today I see very few leaders anymore.  Everyone is too busy grandstanding.

You'd be correct about history. Take Newt as Speaker, that was the last time Congress actually worked for the people.
Newt owned Congress, he dictated what Clinton did, and it was so one sided that most of the Dim party abandoned ship for the GOP, but this in truth was the GOP' downfall in that it watered the party down with leftist moderates, giving rise to the Establishments control over the party.
At the same time all this was happening, the Dim party was losing the last of it's Conservatives like Lieberman etc.
Those were the days when the Dim party adopted Fabianism/Marxism, the only thing left to do is an addendum to the moniker, finishing it out with Democratic Socialist Peoples Party.

This is all from memory and not simple opinion, this actually did happen.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 18, 2016, 12:42:01 PM

Use regular quote function, it makes it hard to read and follow when you do that..

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 18, 2016, 01:09:53 PM

Then as the private sector starts hiring again government should eliminate these gvt jobs and shrink.

This is where your premise is flawed. I will even presume your statement is accurate. That being said, just when has the government ever eliminated jobs and shrunk?

============================

That was my point.


We do the spending part we fail at the shrinking part.  we have to do all parts for anything to succeed.

Exactly! The government will never reduce its size on its own. Unfortunately, congress will not do it either as they like to give out goodies.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 18, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Exactly! The government will never reduce its size on its own. Unfortunately, congress will not do it either as they like to give out goodies.

[/color]

Themselves first!  The people should have full control of the pay for congress and all benefits.  NOT congress.