Yes the problem is most of it is wasteful spending.
Some government spending is wasteful, sure. That's no surprise. Same can be said for private sector spending as well, of course. But a lot of government spending isn't at all wasteful: paying teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc.
And those tax dollars dont come from the government they come from PRIVATE companies.
They come from private companies, individual citizens, basically everyone who pays taxes in the United States. Where did you think tax dollars came from?
SO your use a guilt laden ploy to make a bad point.
I'll get to your assessment of my point in a second, but where's the guilt???
Its funny you all always go for the guilkt emotional plea instead of plain facts.
No guilt. It's a plain fact that your tax dollars go to pay for the salaries of teachers, police officers, fire fighters and many other government workers. To claim that they don't contribute to the economy, well, that's just false.
makes one wonder. THE DIFFERENCE is there spending our money not money from private companies. Its not new money created its money relocated.
All money is money relocated. A private company doesn't create money, they take it in from their customers and use it to pay employees, bills, etc.
boy your really strecthing it.
Nope.
Millions of US jobs have been outsourced to other countries over the last decade or so.
I think your just trying to hard to make a point. their is usually a reason they leave a country, and its usually got to do with government intervention. why would they leave a country if they can make a good profit there. THEY WOULDNT.
And the drive for higher and higher profit has prompted US companies to take their money out of the US economy and pay workers in other countries for jobs that used to be done here. That is money gone out of the economy, and that's a large part of the reason we're currently in the financial mess we're in now. Not the only reason, granted, but a major part of it.
yea like GE the biggest contributer of democrates who you gladly vote for.
Yup. Keep in mind, just because I'm a Democrat and I generally vote for Democrats, that doesn't mean I agree with everything every Democrat has ever done. I have many problems with President Obama. For that matter, the last really good Democratic President we've had was FDR.
But, let's not forget, the reason why large corporations like GE have such great tax loopholes to exploit is largely because of Republican Presidents like George W. Bush. Obama hasn't done nearly enough to stop it, I grant you, but it's not like he created the problem.
Also oddly the one that looks good if we go environmental with everything. BUT thats off issue. Funny everything you said here was done alot by democrates just recently.
Such as? Did a Democratic president allow ten years of deregulation on Wall Street lead to an economic collapse?
sure you still want to vote that party line.
The Democrats aren't perfect, they're ineffectual more often than not, but for all that, they're still better than the Republican party, who has proven that they'd tank the economy and destroy everything in their path to ensure tax breaks for the rich. The Republican party represents rich people, not the rest of us. And I'm not rich, so they don't care about me or my interests.
At least the Democrats pretend to. That's better than the Republicans.
Individual CEO's spend money to. WHY do seem to think their money isnt put back into the economy.
Some is, but some isn't. Personally, I'd like to see prohibitively high tariffs on goods manufactured overseas for sale here in the US. Let's try to reverse the "giant sucking sound" of US jobs lost overseas.
Money taken out of the system. SOOO your easily say money WE GIVE to the government and sent to companies doesnt contribute to our economy
When its used to pay workers overseas to manufacture goods for sale here, yes, that money does not contribute to the US economy.
YET the same money taken from use to the government and given to other places like say teachers etc DOES contribute.
Yes, it does. Teachers who work in the US live here, buy things here, pay for services here. All of which contributes to the economy.
DOnt see how that makes sense. money is spent however you use it.
It doesn't make sense to you? Let me try to make it clearer:
When a company pays people in ANOTHER COUNTRY to make a product, that money doesn't contribute to the US economy. That money contributes to ANOTHER COUNTRY'S economy.
When the US government (or a state government) uses tax dollars to pay the salary of a teacher, a cop or a fire fighter, that money goes to workers who live, work and buy things in the US. That money contributes to the US economy.
Make sense now?
you didnt read it right. the crooks i was refering to was corporate CEOS or whatever doing things illegal. no perfect system.
Sorry. You weren't clear.
But as far as that goes, I agree. We should withhold our money from companies that are doing things illegally. Problem is, either those companies are so large and so diversified that we have no idea they're the ones doing things illegally, or the regulatory agencies who are tasked with the job of policing them are so understaffed and underbudgeted, we have no way of knowing what illegal activity is going on in the first place!
I mean, look at what the Bush administration's energy regulatory agency:
Snorting meth off a toaster oven - YouTube
And its stealing from me to take my money and give it to an unconstitutional direction.
1. Taxation isn't stealing. You agree to pay taxes by living here.
2. If you feel a law is unconstitutional, either challenge it yourself in court, or write to your represenatitive in congress.
I have no idea what law you feel is unconstitutional, so I can't argue the merits for or against.
companies should never be bailed out by governments. Its our tax dollars WASTED.
Blame George W. Bush.
Although, to be fair, President Obama's bailout of GM wasn't a waste.
It actually worked.
The Bush bailout of Wall Street, on the other hand....
Dont think i said this. you all always seem to imply much into things.
You rail on and on about wasteful government spending as if there is no other kind, at least you haven't acknowledged the necessary role government plays in society. And you praise private industry as if everything it does is wise and good, and none of it harmful or dangerous. You seem to be thinking in black and white terms: government bad, business good, without paying any attention to the nuances between them.
investment into these are fine IF they were not wasted. Its all the other things our tax dollars goes into.
I agree, some government spending is wasteful, just like some private sector spending is wasteful. That isn't the point.
You claim that government spending (particularly on things like salaries for teachers, cops, fire fighters, etc.) "doesn't go into the economy", but you're wrong.
Thing is, jobs are jobs. If the private sector isn't going to hire enough people to strengthen the economy, then the public sector must do so, until the private sector takes on its share again. This fact of economics was proven in the 1930s and 1940s, but we're ignoring the lessons of history today.
jobs that take money from use who get it from private jobs. its recycled money not newly created money.
All money is recycled. The private sector takes it from customers and pays employees, pays vendors and services, etc. The public takes it from taxpayers and pays employees, funds programs, etc.
When money is "newly created" it doesn't add to the economy, it causes inflation.
You know saying things i didnt say doesnt ACTUALLY help your arguement. And your assuming private componies couldnt do these jobs better.
So let me clarify this: are you trying to argue that privatizing jobs like teachers, police officers and fire fighters would be better than the current system?????
I don't want to misunderstand you on this.
NOt that i think it ever possible now for this to happen they will always be government employed now
Because it won't work as a private industry. There is no profit margin in teaching the children of poor people or protecting the poor from theft or fire. But these poor people are still US citizens as deserving of equal protection under the law as Bill Gates or the Koch brothers.
Well money taken through taxes is money we cannot spend.
And yet, we do spend it. Through our elected officials.
Remember, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We, the people.
Of course this money is spend by the ones we give it too.
I'd say we don't give it to them so much as entrust them with the task of spending it on our behalf. How well they do this depends on how well we've done in electing responsible representatives.
So it goes into the economy but it isnt any new money made.
Of course not. Only the federal reserve can create new money, and it doesn't do that very often, as I understand.
Would have been spend by use if not by them, so to me it comes out as nuetral.
That's how it's supposed to work.
have already. its created money verses recycled money.
Nope. Created money can only come from the Federal Reserve and you never even mentioned them.
Or private sector money creates money
Nope.
and or jobs as public sector money doesnt.
You're incorrect.
Private industry does not create money, neither does the government -- the part of it that takes in tax revenue and spends it, that is. Both "recycle" money by taking in revenue and paying expenses.
Yes they spend the money from paychecks but it was ours in the first place
The clerk at Target gets their money the same way: you pay for stuff at Target, and Target uses it to pay the clerk. In exactly the same way, the money from their paychecks was yours in the first place.
that we got from private jobs the government has STILL not created any wealth at all.
That isn't the government's job. It's there to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and all that.
Its still money from private sector jobs, when the government is to big it needs more money, but bigger is not better because when bigger they need more to get more they tax and regulate more which in turn slows private sector business. Which in turn doesnt help economy.
Some regulation does, I'll grant you that...but not all. Much of the regulation going on is necessary and vital, and we've seen the effects of too little regulation, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico a couple years back.
Plus, well, things like this:
CAN YOU DO THIS WITH YOUR TAP WATER? - YouTube
not sure what this has to do with what i said.
Here's what you said:
"We are ignorant we voted in obama, we are being robbed taxed"
It sounded like you were blaming Obama for taxes, as if he created them.
Its not there money they are spending its our money.
Well, technically, it's as much theirs as yours. It's all of our money, and your elected representative is just as much a US citizen as you are. But you are correct, it is OUR money: we, the people.
Yes they help economy by spending OUR money.
So the salaries paid to teachers, police officers and fire fighters does go into the economy, then.
Yea sure tell that to those in california and new york etc.
They know. They've been dealing with the issues of jobs lost, both from the private and public sector, same as every other state.
Tell that to our white house.
President Obama knows too. He's been trying to create jobs since he got inot office. Remember his big jobs bill a few months back? Well, it didn't pass the legislature. Want to hazard a guess as to why?
(I will grant you, however, that Obama didn't follow through on that one...he pushed for it at first, made a good effort, but eventually he gave up. He should have fought that one harder without caving or giving up...but that's another issue, really.)
its called stability. They do not see it from the white house. They do not want to grow
You base that conclusion on...what, exactly? Obama's presidency has been a never ending attempt to do things that will spur economic growth, all of which have either been blocked by a recalcitrant Republican party or weakened in a vain hope attempt at bipartisan cooperation until they were defeated anyway, even after Republicans have gotten everything they wanted.
Blame Obama for caving or being ineffectual, I'll agree with you...but you can't claim he doesn't want to create economic growth.
when they think it will all just be taken by government growth and regulations taxes etc.
Obama has cut taxes, cut regulations and even cut government.
Like i said bigger government needs more money they only get it through regulations and taxes. So why would i grow if it would only hurt me. Once obama is gone growth will start right away. If reelected it will crash or stay stagnant.
Obama recently unveiled a plan to cut the size of government. It's been criticized by Republicans.
Explain that one.
-- A2SG, whatever it is, they're against it.....
