toldailytopic: Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more l

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 3rd, 2011 10:43 AM

toldailytopic: Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more likely to help the USA avoid a major recession?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Liberals want the government to spend more, conservatives want the government to spend less. That's a monumental difference in opinion.

What do you think is the best strategy moving forward?

 

[Tambora]

Since we are already spending what we don't have, the responsible action would be to spend less. Much less!

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 3rd, 2011 10:43 AM

toldailytopic: Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more likely to help the USA avoid a major recession?

I think it depends on what the spending is on. I think some of the government spending only provides short-term growth and makes things look better right now but won't really do much for the future. Public works projects may provide some jobs, but are they sustainable jobs or just temporary until the project is over and then the company will be forced to lay people off? Give people money to buy things now which helps business but will it provide long-term buying power so that the increased sales remain?

Whether we spend money or not, I think the question shouldn't be about preventing a recession now, it should be about future economic health. I'd rather go through a recession now and put in some changes that will provide longer term growth than put a band-aid on the issues now just to make next quarter GDP look good.

 

[some other dude]

Match expenditures with income. Any business that did not do this would surely fail.

 

[Buzzword]

How about spend BETTER instead of "more" or "less"?

Less on military, AFTER bringing every single soldier home AND shutting down every single foreign-soil base.

Less on corporations, AFTER increasing taxes on the topmost earners in the country.

More on border security, AFTER tearing down and rebuilding TSA to do something besides physically violate American citizens and visiting citizens of other countries.

Less on politicians.
Everybody in Congress and SCOTUS and POTUS takes a major pay cut, while their aids, secretaries, interns, etc. get a raise.
Too many of our "leaders" came into the position rich.
No reason to make them richer while they pander to the wealthy.

More on debt.
God forbid we try to pay it off instead of make it bigger.
I don't want American kids three generations from now to be enslaved to China because the federal government of 2011 couldn't get its financial act together.

Of course, these are all just the federal budget.

 

[Sherman]

Spend less. Our government is currently spending what it doesn't have. The rising debt will eventually lead to a collapse. What needs to be done is the cut out the fluff programs. Our country spends a lot of money on things it really does not need.

The problem started when the Government began to take jobs once filled by the Church, charities and the family. The government's job should solely be the enforcing of laws meant to protect the citizens from criminals, enemies abroad, and from themselves (self destructive behaviors like drug abuse and other self harmful acts). It shouldn't be waiting tables so to speak. That needs to be left to the private sector, church organizations and charities. The US has become addicted to dependency on the Government. To get rid of debt the US needs to be weaned off that dependency. People need to learn to take care of each other and not wait for the Government to take care of them. It is as if Government has taken the place of God, Church and Family and now America is reaping the consequences of it.

Let the Government get too big and put its hands into too many pots it becomes a costly boondoggle that squelches the economy. Spending will go down with firmer laws and less bureaucracy. Shrink government and simplify taxes, then the economy would take off.

 

[chrysostom]

the best government control is in how and what it taxes

the worst thing it can do is tax labor which restricts job growth

the last thing we need is more government jobs

I am all for spending on roads, bridges, buses, and trains
but
not on high speed rail

 

[PureX]

Spend more or spend less? Which governmental fiscal strategy is more likely to help the USA avoid a major recession?

Normally, the answer is to spend money on infrastructure, to help get some cash into people's pockets and flowing in the economy, as they did during the last economic collapse and the "New Deal" public works projects. However, if we end up covering the enormous debt this creates by printing more money, then we devalue the dollar and the cost of everything goes up so much it cancels out any positive effect of the stimulus spending.

This situation is different from the last economic collapse because we had already just spent billions and billions of dollars on a useless war, and then gave billions and billions more dollars to Wall Street banks trying to stave off a collapse that should have been allowed to run it's course. So going into the crisis, we were already so deep in debt that to spend even more money on public infrastructure as an economic stimulus, in the amounts that would actually do some good, would seriously endanger the value of the dollar. So we have ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, now.

The truth is that I don't think we can afford to spend what we would need to spend as an economic stimulus for it to have a positive effect. We're already too deep in debt, and the value of the dollar is already weak. Not to mention that the political climate is now so toxic that there would be no way for the government to agree to engage in such a major undertaking, anyway. So what will happen is basically nothing, and all we can do is hope that the economy doesn't further collapse.

 

[Quincy]

I'm no where near qualified enough to say much about this but I do like what Buzzword said. Spend better and be more responsible. Spend on things we need instead of things that we don't.

 

[PyramidHead]

We pretty obviously have to spend less, but the tricky part is nobody wants what benefits them to be cut. But here's some things that probably won't be cut:

1. Defense and Nuclear Weapons (yay, more weapons we can't use without starting mutually assured destruction, that's great)
2. The salaries of those debating on who in America is gonna get the shaft
3. The number of times Obama is going to get the Firefly series on Netflix and pretend he's Mal

 

[Ted L Glines]

Match expenditures with income. Any business that did not do this would surely fail.

Yes. Simple Accounting 101. The US is way deep into the loss-ledger, with a Treasury P & L Statement which looks like bankruptcy. There are only two ways to turn that back up toward the breakeven point: (1) Increase Revenue through sales or taxes, and/or (2) Decrease Expenditures.

Over the past several years, retail businesses and service sector businesses have noted two marked changes in consumer spending. Overall, consumers are spending less. But consumers are also changing the way they handle their expenditures. We used to see over 90% of the transactions made with credit cards; spending right up to their ever-increasing credit limits and only making the minimum monthly payments. Now we are seeing close to 80% of those same transactions made with debit cards; consumers are now controlling their expenditures and staying within their bank account limits.

In short, consumers have been frightened into living within their means, as SOD said. Too bad that common sense must be activated by fear.

The alternative, whether on the federal or consumer level, is bankruptcy.

 

[Alate_One]

We should be spending more not less.

It's simple. Government spending cycles through the economy and creates profits for private businesses and potential for hiring as it does so.

Cutting spending generally means losing jobs either directly or indirectly.

For example . . . . . As a person involved in higher education my salary comes from a private institution. But, many of the students that come to said institution pay their tuition through government backed loans. Nearly all private colleges are in a similar situation.

That means government money pays my salary and that of the administrative staff and maintenance. That means they can pay their bills and buy food supporting local businesses. The students come in and spend their money at local businesses too. They support textbook manufacturers, notebook and pen manufacturers and even cell phone service providers. All this private enterprise from a government program.

If the government spends MORE money on higher education that means more money flows into all of those businesses and they can hire . . . more people. Those people then can in turn spend more money in the economy stimulating other businesses.

If you cut that money, there are fewer students that can afford college, less money flowing into the system. Cut government spending anywhere else and the same thing happens. People lose jobs and less money flows into the economy.

The problem is governments are not businesses, they're not individuals. One of Government's purposes is to try and smooth out rough parts of the business cycle. Currently in the US there's very low consumer demand because so many consumers are unemployed and underemployed, they have little money to spend. Government can do something or it can sit back and twiddle it's thumbs and hope that the private sector magically invests when there is no profit to be made. Companies are currently making plenty of money by downsizing their workforce, cutting salaries by outsourcing and demanding that workers work longer hours just to stay employed. You can cut their taxes and cut spending all you like, it won't change the problem of consumer demand. In fact, it will make the problem worse and it's not very hard to see why. And you know what? If the economy doesn't grow the debt will keep getting worse no matter how much you cut because taxes will keep shrinking.

 

[Ted L Glines]

"If the economy doesn't grow the debt will keep getting worse no matter how much you cut because taxes will keep shrinking." ~Alate_One

And increased deficit spending will increase the debt until we are even more bankrupted in the world market. The bailouts showed that this type of a solution mainly fattens the banks and some manufacturers -- who have failed to put people back to work. To be bankrupted in the world market means that our exports will be sanctioned and this will have a devestating effect on our manufacturers (tons of pink slips in that box). No, it is time for the US to tighten its economic belt, just like our people are already doing. Uncomfortable? Necessary? Yes and Yes.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The best thing the government could do is to work on eliminating debt for the government and the citizens.

I heard this plan on a radio program, and thought it was a good idea. I can't remember who said it, but would give them credit if I could.

The first thing is to stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank that charges interest on the money it prints for the US government.
The next thing to do is to print US notes and declare that they are legal tender with the same value as a Federal Reserve note.
The third thing to do is to loan US notes to American citizens in a mortgage refinance program. The US government would pay off the current mortgages held by private banks through a new mortgage owned by the US government. The money would be loaned at 1.5% interest with a payback length of 10 years.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Liberals want the government to spend more, conservatives want the government to spend less. That's a monumental difference in opinion.

What do you think is the best strategy moving forward?

Repeal Dodd-Frank, Obamacare. Lower tax rates. Get rid of EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy. Modify Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs with free-market incentives.

For starters.

 

[Alate_One]

Repeal Dodd-Frank, Obamacare. Lower tax rates. Get rid of EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy. Modify Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs with free-market incentives.

For starters.

Mkay so you want this again I guess?

If you guys get your way I'm moving to somewhere sane. I don't want my kids growing up in the hell hole the above ideas will create.

Would you or someone else that thinks this works explain to me how reducing government spending and eliminating regulation is going to increase economic growth?

 

[kmoney]

The best thing the government could do is to work on eliminating debt for the government and the citizens.

I heard this plan on a radio program, and thought it was a good idea. I can't remember who said it, but would give them credit if I could.

The first thing is to stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank that charges interest on the money it prints for the US government.
The next thing to do is to print US notes and declare that they are legal tender with the same value as a Federal Reserve note.
The third thing to do is to loan US notes to American citizens in a mortgage refinance program. The US government would pay off the current mortgages held by private banks through a new mortgage owned by the US government. The money would be loaned at 1.5% interest with a payback length of 10 years.

I'm not sure how the 3rd thing would work but I'm fully on board with #1 and #2. :thumb:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Liberals want the government to spend more, conservatives want the government to spend less. That's a monumental difference in opinion.

What do you think is the best strategy moving forward?

Neither method will be successful.

Only the pattern set down in the Bible will be successful and it is highly unlikely that it will be used these days, except in a personal level.

The successful method involves producing and consuming locally and sharing ones excess with others (with true love) who would hopefully learn to do the same.

(with true love) means that one should not try to own or control others or use others cheaper labor to produce goods cheap in order to sell to their own people, while their own people being out of work.

It just can not work among the wicked who control most of governments presently, but the saved have a responsibility to put these things into action where possible now.

Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.

Even most all Christians do not believe this verse.(yet)

LA.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Mkay so you want this again I guess?]

:darwinsm: A beautiful picture of what happened when "set-it-and-forget-it" government takes over.

If you guys get your way I'm moving to somewhere sane. I don't want my kids growing up in the hell hole the above ideas will create.

Please do!

Would you or someone else that thinks this works explain to me how reducing government spending and eliminating regulation is going to increase economic growth?

Answer is contained in question.