Obama releases $3.9T budget

pdog · Oct 14, 2015

jonny5 said:
If 1a is true, then there is no need for 1c.

I don't follow. Do you some how disagree with "People working with well paying jobs are able to buy more products"

2. There is a another option. Unemployment.

Agreed, that would fall under 2a - Unemployment dollars buys more products

You didn't comment on any of the others. Do you agree with them??

mmi · Oct 14, 2015

Gimmesometruth said:
Economist's View

Definitely.

jonny5 said:
You agree then that Obamas FY2016 does not propose to pay for the spending in it?

Not for all of it, but rather 88% of it over the ten years and 58% of it next year.

I think I may finally be getting that table right. It doesn't include any numbers from OMB; it just compares its current estimates with its baseline projections from the beginning of the year. It's now happier by $1.23T because of an expected $1.78T increase in revenues.

Absentglare · Oct 14, 2015

jonny5 said:
If 1a is true, then there is no need for 1c.

2. There is a another option. Unemployment.

Unemployment is pure inefficiency.

jonny5 · Oct 14, 2015

pdog said:
I don't follow. Do you some how disagree with "People working with well paying jobs are able to buy more products"

Agreed, that would fall under 2a - Unemployment dollars buys more products

You didn't comment on any of the others. Do you agree with them??

If companies are making record profits, then they dont need to hire more people to make more widgets. And 2, I didnt say unemployment dollars. I said unemployment. Its not my responsibility, nor the govts, nor companies to make sure everyone has job or gets welfare if they dont.

jonny5 · Oct 14, 2015

Absentglare said:
Unemployment is pure inefficiency.

Not when it costs more to employ people than you can sell the product of their labor. See GM.

Absentglare · Oct 14, 2015

jonny5 said:
Not when it costs more to employ people than you can sell the product of their labor. See GM.

Mismanagement is not relevant. We know that are managers are horribly inefficient. How? Unemployment.

mmi · Oct 14, 2015

jonny5 said:
If companies are making record profits, then they dont need to hire more people to make more widgets.

But they might want to, for a variety of reasons, e.g., to make even greater profits or to grab more market share.

pdog · Oct 14, 2015

jonny5 said:
If companies are making record profits, then they dont need to hire more people to make more widgets.

You must live in an alternate universe. You're bending the simplest ideas in order to avoid questioning your own idealology. Have you ever heard of a company that said "screw growth"??

And 2, I didnt say unemployment dollars. I said unemployment. Its not my responsibility, nor the govts, nor companies to make sure everyone has job or gets welfare if they dont.

It certainly shouldn't be the private sectors responsibility. But the government does what we want it to do. I frankly would rather the government give somebody a job to make something, research something, or teach something, then have people begging or stealing. I have no idea what you and people like you want to accomplish. It certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with a prosperous nation. Care to explain what you expect an unemployed person to do when there is no job for him?

jonny5 · Oct 15, 2015

pdog said:
You must live in an alternate universe. You're bending the simplest ideas in order to avoid questioning your own idealology. Have you ever heard of a company that said "screw growth"??

It certainly shouldn't be the private sectors responsibility. But the government does what we want it to do. I frankly would rather the government give somebody a job to make something, research something, or teach something, then have people begging or stealing. I have no idea what you and people like you want to accomplish. It certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with a prosperous nation. Care to explain what you expect an unemployed person to do when there is no job for him?

You made a simplistic argument, I made a simplistic argument. Whats the big deal? What I want to accomplish is keeping more of what I earn, and having the govt stay out of my life. What an unemployed person does with their freedom is not my concern. They can go form their own country with people who want to handout dollars. Call it california and go to town. There is no need make my state join in.

pdog · Oct 15, 2015

jonny5 said:
You made a simplistic argument, I made a simplistic argument. Whats the big deal? What I want to accomplish is keeping more of what I earn, and having the govt stay out of my life. What an unemployed person does with their freedom is not my concern. They can go form their own country with people who want to handout dollars. Call it california and go to town. There is no need make my state join in.

You didn't answer my questions in the slightest. It is clear you are not here to seriously debate anything. I find it terribly ironic that somebody from florida has the attitude you do. For every buck you pay in taxes, the federal government puts almost 4 back into your state. It's a near certainty that without the federal dollars you despise so much, you'd be one of those people looking to start your own country.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...s-biggest-net-takers-federal-tax-dollars.html

jonny5 · Oct 15, 2015

pdog said:
You didn't answer my questions in the slightest. It is clear you are not here to seriously debate anything. I find it terribly ironic that somebody from florida has the attitude you do. For every buck you pay in taxes, the federal government puts almost 4 back into your state. It's a near certainty that without the federal dollars you despise so much, you'd be one of those people looking to start your own country.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...s-biggest-net-takers-federal-tax-dollars.html

I would be perfectly fine with that, and there is no need to be rude. Furthermore that chart is meaningless. There is no way to prove the assertions made in the original analysis.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#methodology

mmi · Oct 15, 2015

jonny5 said:
that chart is meaningless. There is no way to prove the assertions made in the original analysis.

Sure there are different ways to count, but reasonable analyses will likely be similar.

These things vary over time. I'm guessing that data is for 2012. Here are some other years for FL:

2008 — 0.80
2009 — 2.49
2010 — 1.71
2011 — 4.97
2012 — 4.59
2013 — 2.04
2014 — 0.97

Gators were well-fed in 2011 and 2012; dunno what from. I expect they get a lot in contracts for Lockheed to build F-35's, part of a $1.45 trillion project, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in this graph:

I found estimates of $30 billion a year spent in FL by DOD. As usual, data that I'd expect to be easily available is difficult to find, for me at least.

The Atlantic article those charts in the OP are from concludes with this:

Alternatively, we could use the "state dependency" map as an opportunity to reflect on a different paradox—the longstanding role of the far-away federal government as an agent of community. Because of federal programs, people in places like South Carolina and Mississippi are getting a helping hand not from their neighbors a few blocks away or in the next county over, but from residents of Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska. Whether you like that idea depends, in part, on how you personally reconcile the tension between two long-cherished, core American values—our passion for individualism and our regard for community—and whether you see "community" as encompassing the whole country.

That's a far more interesting thing to think about (though perhaps less viscerally satisfying) than which states are moochers or freeloaders and which are getting fleeced. — "Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?," The Atlantic, May 5, 2014