$6.2 Trillion dollar budget cuts - Thoughts?

Paul Ryan unveiled his new $6.2 Trillion dollar budget cut over the next 10 years. Unlike the budget cuts proposed earlier this year by Republicans (which cut very little, and didn't touch entitlement programs), Ryan seems to hit everything that is needed to make meaningful change to our deficit and to put this country back on top.

What are your thoughts on the plan? I don't think anything close to what he is proposing will happen as the American people don't want to face the reality of what is actually needed to control the debt (most want it controlled, but they better not touch their entitment programs or they will inform you that you hate the poor, minorities, old people, or whatever - this goes for both sides of the aisle).

Shit needs to change, and change ASAP or we are in a world of hurt. Love that Ryan is willing to go out there and lay it all out.

"We're talking about shrinking the Federal workforce by 10% over the next three years through attrition, pay freezes in the Federal workforce," he explained to Beck. "We're talking about cutting discretionary spending on government agencies below 2008 levels. We're talking about entitlement reform, block granting Medicaid to the states, and doing welfare reform 2.0 which is food stamps, housing programs."

We want to "get people into a system where they don't become complacent and dependent upon government," he added.

According to analysis done by the Heritage Foundation, he said, the new plan "kicks out about a million new jobs next year alone, brings unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and producing about 2.5 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a thousand dollars in extra family income...a year, and $1.1 trillion in higher wages, and $1.5 trillion in faster economic growth."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE&feature...

Comments (68)

Apr 5, 2011

Comment deleted

Apr 5, 2011

I think some cutting of entitlements is in order.

Apr 5, 2011

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus

Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!

Apr 5, 2011
El_Mono:

This, all else is sub-optimal: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/0...

The US does not have a 'health care' system, it's a 'disease management' apparatus. I too lost a parent to it, and is why I like the fact that it's becomming such an issue: the system as it stands is nowhere close to what it could easily be. I fail to see why 100K people a year die from disease caught in hospitals, why healthcare is so fucking expensive, why preventive medicine isn't an integral part of the system, and why everyone TALKS about it, but nothing has changed substantially in decades.

I see it as a matter of people having the WILL to do something about it, and all the technical fixes emanate from there.

Apr 5, 2011

Brilliant idea, and it mirrors much of the austerity cuts that are being introduced in Europe.

Apr 5, 2011

"Will this create jobs?" - Middle America

"No." - Vadremc

"Cut the burger into thirds, place it on the fries, roll one up homey..." - Epic Meal Time

Apr 5, 2011
vadremc:

"Will this create jobs?" - Middle America

"No." - Vadremc

Lmao

Apr 5, 2011

It won't immediately create jobs, but reigning in the budget will benefit this nation over the long term.

@UFO - I agree than an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Problem is you can't legislate healthy living to people. This is why I don't think nationalized healthcare is a good thing. People need to be responsible for themselves (with a safety net in place).

Apr 6, 2011
heister:

The dems are the hypocrites.

Dude, they all are.

While I'm in favor of reducing the MASSIVE amount of waste in the government, conservatives who support cutting a million state jobs right before an election year are simply playing politics. It's a good idea, but it would have been better to deal with this last year, or perhaps push it the first year after the 2012 elections [regardless of who wins]. At this time, it's unlikely to pass.

ANT:

@UFO - I agree than an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Problem is you can't legislate healthy living to people. This is why I don't think nationalized healthcare is a good thing. People need to be responsible for themselves (with a safety net in place).

We don't need to 'legislate' preventive medicine, just make it more accessible. I'm in favor of all inclusive healthcare for minors: I had the benefit of gold plated health insurance provided by my parents, and was shocked when I learned that other children my age.....didn't. I don't care if they get what they asked for on Christmas, nor do I care how they finance college, but children growing up with conditions that can be dealt with relatively cheaply vs very expensive fixes later on is the right thing to do, good for the nation...and saves money in the long term.

They don't have any 'free choice' because they don't have any resources or know better, and if the parents aren't doing the basics, I'm all for someone else taking over. Public debate that contradicts this is just plain old irresponsible, and if someone doesn't want to deal with this, then they don't belong in politics. The cautionary tale is India, where they didn't upgrade the public systems and are now facing sever problems that are generational in nature.....and will be VERY expensive to fix.

Apr 5, 2011

I'm glad Paul Ryan is championing this. Judging by what I've heard from him, his understanding of economics is limited at best but he's one of the few people who are taking the idea of cuts seriously. Perhaps the most unpalatable cuts could be traded for the end of the Bush tax cuts, giving the US more legroom down the line to either cut spending or cut taxes to slow down/stimulate the economy as needed. Also, the importance of simplifying the tax code can not be understated. I'm all for a low corporate tax as long as companies are actually paying it..

I wouldn't put any stock in the Heritage Foundation study however, they're just short of being as brain-damaged by their political views as the goons over at AEI. A million new jobs next year thanks to this plan? Yeah right. More likely the private sector keeps printing out +200k jobs a month for the coming year and we're lucky if all the umenployed from the public sector don't drag NFPs way down.

Apr 5, 2011
GoodBread:

I'm glad Paul Ryan is championing this. Judging by what I've heard from him, his understanding of economics is limited at best but he's one of the few people who are taking the idea of cuts seriously. Perhaps the most unpalatable cuts could be traded for the end of the Bush tax cuts, giving the US more legroom down the line to either cut spending or cut taxes to slow down/stimulate the economy as needed. Also, the importance of simplifying the tax code can not be understated. I'm all for a low corporate tax as long as companies are actually paying it..

I wouldn't put any stock in the Heritage Foundation study however, they're just short of being as brain-damaged by their political views as the goons over at AEI. A million new jobs next year thanks to this plan? Yeah right. More likely the private sector keeps printing out +200k jobs a month for the coming year and we're lucky if all the umenployed from the public sector don't drag NFPs way down.

I think you are totally wrong about the job creation, jobs are not being created not because the economy sucks but because no one wants to hire anyone while obama runs shit. He is irratic, anti capitalistc, anti business, and pretty much anti growth (unless its government growth) and that scares businesses. No one wants to hire someone when they are uncertian about the future.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 5, 2011
heister:
GoodBread:

I'm glad Paul Ryan is championing this. Judging by what I've heard from him, his understanding of economics is limited at best but he's one of the few people who are taking the idea of cuts seriously. Perhaps the most unpalatable cuts could be traded for the end of the Bush tax cuts, giving the US more legroom down the line to either cut spending or cut taxes to slow down/stimulate the economy as needed. Also, the importance of simplifying the tax code can not be understated. I'm all for a low corporate tax as long as companies are actually paying it..

I wouldn't put any stock in the Heritage Foundation study however, they're just short of being as brain-damaged by their political views as the goons over at AEI. A million new jobs next year thanks to this plan? Yeah right. More likely the private sector keeps printing out +200k jobs a month for the coming year and we're lucky if all the umenployed from the public sector don't drag NFPs way down.

I think you are totally wrong about the job creation, jobs are not being created not because the economy sucks but because no one wants to hire anyone while obama runs shit. He is irratic, anti capitalistc, anti business, and pretty much anti growth (unless its government growth) and that scares businesses. No one wants to hire someone when they are uncertian about the future.

I haven't heard Obama bashing comments like these in at least six months. 2010 Throwback.

Apr 6, 2011
heister:
GoodBread:

I'm glad Paul Ryan is championing this. Judging by what I've heard from him, his understanding of economics is limited at best but he's one of the few people who are taking the idea of cuts seriously. Perhaps the most unpalatable cuts could be traded for the end of the Bush tax cuts, giving the US more legroom down the line to either cut spending or cut taxes to slow down/stimulate the economy as needed. Also, the importance of simplifying the tax code can not be understated. I'm all for a low corporate tax as long as companies are actually paying it..

I wouldn't put any stock in the Heritage Foundation study however, they're just short of being as brain-damaged by their political views as the goons over at AEI. A million new jobs next year thanks to this plan? Yeah right. More likely the private sector keeps printing out +200k jobs a month for the coming year and we're lucky if all the umenployed from the public sector don't drag NFPs way down.

I think you are totally wrong about the job creation, jobs are not being created not because the economy sucks but because no one wants to hire anyone while obama runs shit. He is irratic, anti capitalistc, anti business, and pretty much anti growth (unless its government growth) and that scares businesses. No one wants to hire someone when they are uncertian about the future.

You're a goddamn moron. As is anyone who actually tries to equate economic performance to any Presidential administration. Not only that, big business is by far the biggest hitter behind this administration. You are a terd and in no way sound intelligent.

Adapt, evolve, compete, or die.

-PTJ

Apr 5, 2011

Read a little more about Ryan's budget here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/paul-ryan...
Here are a few highlights:

Ryan's plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan's plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that's less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed.

Discretionary spending on domestic programs is also reduced by $923 billion.

Two exceptions are security and defense spending and spending on Social Security, the public pension program for the elderly. Both are kept steady and relatively unchanged from Obama's proposed budget.

A draft proposal from Ryan's House Budget Committee says that under his plan, the national debt would be $1.1 trillion less than it would be over the next five years under Obama's budget, and would add $3 trillion less to the debt than Obama's budget proposal over the next decade. Ryan's budget proposal would bring the debt held by the public to $13.9 trillion by 2016 and $16 trillion by 2021, compared to $15 trillion in 2016 and $19 trillion in 2021 under the president's proposal. (The full national debt of just over $14 trillion also includes money owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but the public figure is the one normally used for budget forecasts.)

So under Ryan, we are looking at a national debt of 16 trillion by 2021 as compared to 19 trillion in 2021 under Obama.

In 1980, the national debt was 987 billion.....in 40 years, under the best circumstances, it would be 16 trillion.

What kind of world is my kid going to grow up in?

Apr 5, 2011

1) Three trillion is a start

2) Future benefit is never guaranteed. Spending cuts right now are.

3) As the wars wind down and the economy pics up you will see expenses decline and revenues increase. Couple this is some nice cuts and a more prudent fiscal attitude and I think you will see us go in the right direction.

Apr 5, 2011

Thanks for the article DZX.

There is a lot of work to do and some serious decisions need to be made. Just read those HP comments. People are delusional about how the world works and thinks that these entitlement programs are Gods gift to them and their right. The reality is that those entitlements will drown the government they so desperately depend on. We need someone in office who is going to tell the HP crowd to fuck off and do what is needed. This country is seriously fucked (in all of our lifetimes) if we do not do something drastic now.

Apr 5, 2011

It amazes me that there are people out there doing everything possible to resist budget cuts when it is so incredibly obvious that we need them. If people wanna argue about where the cuts come from..fine. But to argue against cuts?? These people are childish. I honestly think some of them do not even think about the consequences of their decisions other than the political effects.

This is the sad part of our government now--everything is done to be reelected, not to govern effectively. As a result, we have one side of the gov't fiercly fighting something that appears 100% necessary to ensure this country's future.

This is an issue that could legit decide the fate of our country. The way I look at it there are two options: 1) Cut budget drastically to eliminate risk of future collapse. 2) Maintain budget in order to keep entitlement programs for a certain section of the population, wile risking the future downfall of the entire country.
In other words 1) Benefit the whole country, or 2) Benefit a small group while risking entire nation's downfall (including that small group).

Apr 5, 2011

I think some realize we need cuts - just not from what benefits them.

The solution is ALWAYS to take the money from the rich - even though we could tax the top 5% 100% of their income and come nowhere near what we need. If you call for the cuts of the entitlements, the response is always you just want to make the rich richer and hate poor/old people.

Apr 5, 2011

Why cut entitlements? Just tax them, tax the poor, tax the people who use social services. Its insane that people who actually pay for these programs are not the ones who use them. I saw an article one time and I think it said something like the people who use 85% of the social services pay for something like 5% of the bill for these services. Last time I checked if I want a candy bar I cant get away with paying for 5% of it yet eating all of it.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 5, 2011

This isn't my ideal plan. However, I will support any plan that calls for reduction of the deficit. Call me crazy but I am for spending less and bringing in more money - proportionately bc taking advantage of any one group of society never ends well - until the deficit is within reason

  • gnicholas
  •  Apr 5, 2011

Coming from someone in Wisconsin, we need substantially less people like Scott Walker. If you have followed recently, Walker broke up "the bill" and how now passed the part that restricts public unions from bargaining (which goes against free market principles) and has yet to touch the budget deficit part of the bill. He is a hypocrite, is sleazy, and has a very poor grasp on economics.

With that rant being over, I would definitely like to see a President who can tackle this issue effectively, and since it doesn't look like Bloomberg will run, my next best choice would be Mitt Romney. He has the experience, pragmatism, intelligence, and ability to work across the aisle necessary to really change the budget.

Oh, and as someone pointed out before, the Heritage Foundation is one of the worst place available to get information. I'm sure you wouldn't pull numbers from the Huffington Post, so why would you think it's appropriate to cite an equally biased source?

Apr 5, 2011
gnicholas:

Coming from someone in Wisconsin, we need substantially less people like Scott Walker. If you have followed recently, Walker broke up "the bill" and how now passed the part that restricts public unions from bargaining (which goes against free market principles) and has yet to touch the budget deficit part of the bill. He is a hypocrite, is sleazy, and has a very poor grasp on economics.

With that rant being over, I would definitely like to see a President who can tackle this issue effectively, and since it doesn't look like Bloomberg will run, my next best choice would be Mitt Romney. He has the experience, pragmatism, intelligence, and ability to work across the aisle necessary to really change the budget.

Oh, and as someone pointed out before, the Heritage Foundation is one of the worst place available to get information. I'm sure you wouldn't pull numbers from the Huffington Post, so why would you think it's appropriate to cite an equally biased source?

He broke the bill up because the dems in the senate were being whinny little bitches and decided to pull what they called a "democratic" move by fleeing the state instead of debating the matter at hand. So to say he is sleazy and a hypocrite, is just ludacris. Besides how do you think he has a poor grasp on economics? Its easy to say things but harder to back them up.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • gnicholas
  •  Apr 6, 2011
heister:
gnicholas:

Coming from someone in Wisconsin, we need substantially less people like Scott Walker. If you have followed recently, Walker broke up "the bill" and how now passed the part that restricts public unions from bargaining (which goes against free market principles) and has yet to touch the budget deficit part of the bill. He is a hypocrite, is sleazy, and has a very poor grasp on economics.

With that rant being over, I would definitely like to see a President who can tackle this issue effectively, and since it doesn't look like Bloomberg will run, my next best choice would be Mitt Romney. He has the experience, pragmatism, intelligence, and ability to work across the aisle necessary to really change the budget.

Oh, and as someone pointed out before, the Heritage Foundation is one of the worst place available to get information. I'm sure you wouldn't pull numbers from the Huffington Post, so why would you think it's appropriate to cite an equally biased source?

He broke the bill up because the dems in the senate were being whinny little bitches and decided to pull what they called a "democratic" move by fleeing the state instead of debating the matter at hand. So to say he is sleazy and a hypocrite, is just ludacris. Besides how do you think he has a poor grasp on economics? Its easy to say things but harder to back them up.

He's a hypocrite because he promised this bill would lower the deficit, but instead he broke up the bill and only passed the part restricting negotiations, and has done nothing for the deficit. He has a poor grasp of economics because unions are a free market creation that arise when labor pools its resources, and he used the government to artificially restrict their negotiating power. To me this just shows how hypocritical the Tea Party is as a whole, why aren't they complaining about this extension of government power, just the same as I question where the Tea Party was during the Bush era.

Apr 5, 2011

From my understanding, it seems like Ryan's bill doesn't touch defense spending and social security - the other big chunks of the deficit. Can anybody explain why he would have targeted Medicare/Medicaid? I'm sure a lot of money can be cut from defense. Sure you won't get to see any cool new fighter planes like the F-22 but I'd rather see some of that money allocated to medical needs of the poor and elderly.

Apr 6, 2011
djr:

From my understanding, it seems like Ryan's bill doesn't touch defense spending and social security - the other big chunks of the deficit. Can anybody explain why he would have targeted Medicare/Medicaid? I'm sure a lot of money can be cut from defense. Sure you won't get to see any cool new fighter planes like the F-22 but I'd rather see some of that money allocated to medical needs of the poor and elderly.

Thats actually not true, Ryans proposal cuts almost 80 billion in defense spending.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011

Security and social security spending are lower under Ryan's bill than Obama's, although you are right that it isn't the bulk of the difference. I would guess that there is a reason neither one made bigger cuts there though.

Interesting comparison here (scroll down and click on the picture/chart on the left)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038...

Apr 6, 2011

Fixing the budget crisis is as easy as one-two-three:

1) Cut our share of defense spending by 50% (to 25% of world spending) over the next decade. America can't be the world's police - every nation needs to contribute.

2) Introduce full school vouchers. Our current public system is not efficient - public schools have been favoring quantity over quality when it comes to teachers, at the expense of both our students and taxpayers (we have way more teachers per student than three decades ago). Over time, this is lead to lower cost, higher quality education as fewer, better teachers are hired. This allows lower state, local taxes. This is also indirect union busting because it empowers private schools where teachers are not unionized.

3) Reform entitlements to a lump sum payment of 8k per 18+. This includes the employed, the unemployed, the retired and replaces social security, medicare. This is a nice incentive neutral entitlement that should cover some basic living expenses.

This should also cut spending enough to implement a flat tax with a much lower marginal tax rate (~15%). Also implement some pigovian taxes like $1 per gallon of gas and eliminate all tax deductions (especially the housing one).

Apr 6, 2011
absinthe:

Fixing the budget crisis is as easy as one-two-three:

1) Cut our share of defense spending by 50% (to 25% of world spending) over the next decade. America can't be the world's police - every nation needs to contribute.

2) Introduce full school vouchers. Our current public system is not efficient - public schools have been favoring quantity over quality when it comes to teachers, at the expense of both our students and taxpayers (we have way more teachers per student than three decades ago). Over time, this is lead to lower cost, higher quality education as fewer, better teachers are hired. This allows lower state, local taxes. This is also indirect union busting because it empowers private schools where teachers are not unionized.

3) Reform entitlements to a lump sum payment of 8k per 18+. This includes the employed, the unemployed, the retired and replaces social security, medicare. This is a nice incentive neutral entitlement that should cover some basic living expenses.

This should also cut spending enough to implement a flat tax with a much lower marginal tax rate (~15%). Also implement some pigovian taxes like $1 per gallon of gas and eliminate all tax deductions (especially the housing one).

Agreed.
1) A large part of this could come from removing most bases/troops out of Europe and S. Korea. The hawks will still have plenty of money to bomb backwater countries and maintain a powerful military.

2) A good start would be to attach the money to the kid and allow the parents to decide which school he/she goes to instead of forcing them into whatever shit school they live next to.

3) Or just allow insurance companies to compete in all states and let employers/employees decide exactly what they want covered instead of one size fits all crap.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

Apr 6, 2011

djr, he targeted Medicare because there is a $90 trillion unfunded Medicare liability. Without reform to Medicare, it would literally turn the United States into a banana republic.

gnicholas, to say that the right of PUBLIC employees to collectively bargain is a free market principle is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on WSO. Since you are allegedly an "informed" resident of Wisconsin, you recognize that this is the process:

1) To work as a public employee in the state of Wisconsin, a worker is basically REQUIRED to join a union
2) The state deducts required union dues from public employee pay checks just as it deducts tax withholdings
3) The state of Wisconsin sends the deducted union dues to the public employees' unions
4) Unions take this public money and give virtually all of it to Democrats and to efforts to elect Democrats
5) Democrat politicians, in turn, get elected disproportionately
6) Democrat politicians "negotiate" favorable (and unaffordable) and NON-MARKET wages, benefits and pensions for public employees that are paid for by tax payers

In sum, you really need to pull your head out of your ass if you believe the right of public employees to hold a gun to the head of tax payers is a fundamental principle of a free market. As it currently stands, public employees are required to join a union and pay union dues. The state of Wisconsin is required to aid the unions in collecting and disbursing union dues. There's nothing FREE about that at all.

Apr 6, 2011

Btw, on the graph i just linked, does anyone know what "Other mandatory" spending is? That is where the big difference in the Ryan Plan comes from. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038...)

Apr 6, 2011

$6 trillion is a good start. If they want to actually balance it long term there is still much more to shed. The current debt to GDP ratio is 63% and is projected to hit 87% in 2020. And thats with defense spending dropping by a third.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

Apr 6, 2011

Didn't Michael Douglas balance the budget in the movie, "The American President"? Maybe we should elect him President next term? (Can't find the clip or would have posted)

On a serious note, I hear from my parents all of the time that they would be terrified raising kids in this day and age, not just for the economic situation, just the current progression of the country they've seen over the past 15 years or so. There was a comment above that I'm not sure I agree with - having less teachers:students - as I would think more teachers per students potentially leads to a better learning environment, especially given that many kids from poorer/less affluent areas don't get much in the way of help at home with their studies; not to say wealthier families are any better, but they might be able to afford tutors if their children are struggling. I hear stories every day from friends that are teachers in both public and private schools that they're constantly fighting an uphill battle at all levels of education (most of my friends teach grades between 3rd - high school). It's no secret that kids are pushed along to get them out of their class and kick the proverbial can down the road. I was just talking with a friend yesterday who has a 4th grader who barely reads at a Kindergarten level. It's just sad really.

Hopefully some of the VCs in the crowd can find some innovative educational entrepreneurs with some new thought on the education system. There was a post by Eddie about Shark Tank talking about the Netflix of toys idea - maybe that can be supplemented with learning-oriented toys/games? (didn't watch the clip so not sure if that's the angle they already have).

Back to the grind...

Apr 6, 2011

The New York Times criticized the Ryan plan this morning; strangely, their chief objection was that it didn't place enough burden on the elderly. Honestly, they are right.

The elderly are going to receive more benefits from social programs than they paid in. But, even if you cut benefits now, we (the sub-55 crowd) would still end up footing the bill. The over 55's will still end up needing that medical care, and have likely budgeted with medicare in mind. Instead of a tax, we would just end up paying for our parents' healthcare directly.

We could immediately raise the retirement age, something I think would be both economically productive and fair. If anything, it gives those older employees time to replenish their 401k plans before they begin drawing from the state. But, as the article pointed out, extracting sacrifice from the baby boomers is almost a political impossibility.

50% of the country does not pay (net) federal income taxes. When you have no skin in the game, why would you want to reduce benefits? And why not vote higher taxes on the other 50%? It is clearly beneficial for long term growth to curb both entitlement growth and taxation, but those benefits are abstract and in the distant future. Besides, the group not paying taxes is probably not littered with people familiar with economics.

Apr 6, 2011

If you talk the talk, walk the walk

Apr 6, 2011

On the Walker issue, I think the situation wasn't handled right from a tactical standpoint. Making the push on collective bargaining rather than simply the deficit was a costly political move that probably could have been avoided. Consider that when the chips were down, the UAW made concessions. Likewise, there's going to be an NFL season next year. When workers have to choose between less pay and not having a job, they will always choose the former if they are in a situation precarious enough to be in a union in the first place. By pushing so hard on the collective bargaining issue, Walker somewhat poisoned the debate for other states and the Republican party. Many independents were alienated by the move and the political costs for states soon to face muni crisises were ratcheted up by the whole incident. Definitely not the blueprint we should have been shooting for.

Apr 6, 2011
GoodBread:

On the Walker issue, I think the situation wasn't handled right from a tactical standpoint. Making the push on collective bargaining rather than simply the deficit was a costly political move that probably could have been avoided. Consider that when the chips were down, the UAW made concessions. Likewise, there's going to be an NFL season next year. When workers have to choose between less pay and not having a job, they will always choose the former if they are in a situation precarious enough to be in a union in the first place. By pushing so hard on the collective bargaining issue, Walker somewhat poisoned the debate for other states and the Republican party. Many independents were alienated by the move and the political costs for states soon to face muni crisises were ratcheted up by the whole incident. Definitely not the blueprint we should have been shooting for.

For the last fucking time, he couldnt do anything about the deficit measures because the dems in the senate fled the state. In WI you have to have 20 members present to bring up a budgetary measure in the senate but only need a majority to pass it. The Republican majority is 18. Walker gave them 3 weeks to come back and debate the measure, the dems didnt come back. If they had worked a normal job their asses would have been fired. Now on to the CBA part of the bill. He didnt out law CBAs permantly, he basicly stripped the unions of their ability to do a CBA in emergency budgtary situations.

Now how do I personally feel about this? I for one think that all public unions need to be abolished. Public employees need to be put on a performance based system. Say you are working on a team that is building a road in a local community, if your team hits its weekly progress marks and the construction is up to specs you should get paid the pre determined ammount, like wise if you are ahead of schedule and up to specs you get paid more and if you are behind schedule or not up to specs you get paid less. While you are on an active job you get paid at one rate and while you are in lingo between jobs you get paid at another, thats how the rest of the construction industy does it thats how public works employees should do it.

I dont discount the work unions have done for all workers in the sense of conditions, hours ect ect. But this isnt 1900 we dont have 8 year olds working in factories, we dont have adults that are forced to work 18 hour days in the factories either. The time of the union is over the time of the free market performance system is here.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011

Tell your dad to hire them as contract employees under a 1099. If demand sours by then, they were on a contract. If demand keeps growing, they can extend the contract. With unemployment so high, I'm sure people will jump on any sort of opportunity.

Apr 6, 2011
djr:

Tell your dad to hire them as contract employees under a 1099. If demand sours by then, they were on a contract. If demand keeps growing, they can extend the contract. With unemployment so high, I'm sure people will jump on any sort of opportunity.

He has plenty of ads for 1099 contract employees out, unemployed people come in and find out they will make about 10 bucks an hour and dont even bother coming back. They all want 20 plus an hour with insurance and perks. So my dad tells them to fuck off, its not even a true term contract that he offers them. Basicly its a trial period if they dont get fired before the end of their contract and demand is still there they get a full time offer. His shop forman has interviewed close to 100 people this year alone on that offer and they have had 2 people take them up on it. Of these 100 people I think something like 80 to 85% were unemployed and the 2 that took the job had only been out of work for I think 3 weeks and 1 month.

If we had a situation that was business friendly or even neutral the recovery would be much farther along, it is impossible for the recovery to really gain steam when every other week new powers are given to regulators, new agencies are created to make it harder and harder to do business. It doesnt matter if you think this is the reason for the slow recovery or not. The fact of the matter is that this is hampering the recovery.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011
heister:

He has plenty of ads for 1099 contract employees out, unemployed people come in and find out they will make about 10 bucks an hour and dont even bother coming back. They all want 20 plus an hour with insurance and perks. So my dad tells them to fuck off, its not even a true term contract that he offers them. Basicly its a trial period if they dont get fired before the end of their contract and demand is still there they get a full time offer. His shop forman has interviewed close to 100 people this year alone on that offer and they have had 2 people take them up on it. Of these 100 people I think something like 80 to 85% were unemployed and the 2 that took the job had only been out of work for I think 3 weeks and 1 month.

If we had a situation that was business friendly or even neutral the recovery would be much farther along, it is impossible for the recovery to really gain steam when every other week new powers are given to regulators, new agencies are created to make it harder and harder to do business. It doesnt matter if you think this is the reason for the slow recovery or not. The fact of the matter is that this is hampering the recovery.

Would you work for 10/hr with no benefits?

Apr 6, 2011

It seems to me more like a supply demand issue. I don't know the specifics of your dad's industry but if 2 out of 100 people have accepted the job, I'm assuming 98 people think there are better opportunities elsewhere.

You stated earlier Obama "is irratic, anti capitalistc, anti business, and pretty much anti growth." The uncertainty you state is natural becaues our economy has taken such a massive hit in the last 3 years. And regulations and changes will be an onging part of politics no matter who is president. Can you cite specific things Obama has done that are anti-business and pretty much anti-growth?

I'm failing to see why progressives hate on him for not being progressive enough and conservatives hate on him for being too progressive.

Apr 6, 2011

For example, in the finance reform he gave a group of appointed not elected people the authority to make regualtions on a whim with out the approval of the congress. That is one example, it might not seem that bad but when you have a very liberal person appointing his "pals" who are basicly a bunch of yes men it causes alot of nervousness in the industry. In my dads industry, manufacturing, the epa has authority to come in and change the rules any time they want. When you have to spend millions of dollars to comply with current regulations its not exactly helpful when a non elected agency has the authority to come in and change shit when ever they want. While this has been true in the past now the EPA doesnt have congressional oversight like they used to. Obama hasnt come out and done any one thing that is blantly anti business, he has done lots of little things that make business very nervous.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011
heister:

For example, in the finance reform he gave a group of appointed not elected people the authority to make regualtions on a whim with out the approval of the congress. That is one example, it might not seem that bad but when you have a very liberal person appointing his "pals" who are basicly a bunch of yes men it causes alot of nervousness in the industry. In my dads industry, manufacturing, the epa has authority to come in and change the rules any time they want. When you have to spend millions of dollars to comply with current regulations its not exactly helpful when a non elected agency has the authority to come in and change shit when ever they want. While this has been true in the past now the EPA doesnt have congressional oversight like they used to. Obama hasnt come out and done any one thing that is blantly anti business, he has done lots of little things that make business very nervous.

You should be far more worried about decisions made by elected politicians who have to bow down to Tea Partiers and the overweight uneducated American population than those whos decisions reflect on technocracy and efficacy.
And sorry bro, but your committing academic treason here by making sweeping generalizations based off your own experiences in manufacturing. If you are as you say a small business than you also get a payroll tax credit and a general business tax credit for every single new hire. Not to mention youf Dad is probably enjoying an extension of his income tax credit and a very large upswing in demand in the materials sector, not to mention cheap credit, oh and not to mention stable asset prices on which to make capital allocation decisions and reasonable rates on which to refinance thanks to your old friend QE & QE II.

As far as the EPA; it is an executive agency and therefore its actions are completely within the lines as far as its regulatory powers. The worst the EPA can do is force YOU to internalize costs that you have managed to pass on to consumers and communities

Adapt, evolve, compete, or die.

-PTJ

Apr 6, 2011
CAPM21:

stable asset prices on which to make capital allocation decisions

Depends on the assets these days.

Apr 6, 2011
CAPM21:
heister:

For example, in the finance reform he gave a group of appointed not elected people the authority to make regualtions on a whim with out the approval of the congress. That is one example, it might not seem that bad but when you have a very liberal person appointing his "pals" who are basicly a bunch of yes men it causes alot of nervousness in the industry. In my dads industry, manufacturing, the epa has authority to come in and change the rules any time they want. When you have to spend millions of dollars to comply with current regulations its not exactly helpful when a non elected agency has the authority to come in and change shit when ever they want. While this has been true in the past now the EPA doesnt have congressional oversight like they used to. Obama hasnt come out and done any one thing that is blantly anti business, he has done lots of little things that make business very nervous.

You should be far more worried about decisions made by elected politicians who have to bow down to Tea Partiers and the overweight uneducated American population than those whos decisions reflect on technocracy and efficacy.
And sorry bro, but your committing academic treason here by making sweeping generalizations based off your own experiences in manufacturing. If you are as you say a small business than you also get a payroll tax credit and a general business tax credit for every single new hire. Not to mention youf Dad is probably enjoying an extension of his income tax credit and a very large upswing in demand in the materials sector, not to mention cheap credit, oh and not to mention stable asset prices on which to make capital allocation decisions and reasonable rates on which to refinance thanks to your old friend QE & QE II.

As far as the EPA; it is an executive agency and therefore its actions are completely within the lines as far as its regulatory powers. The worst the EPA can do is force YOU to internalize costs that you have managed to pass on to consumers and communities

Why would anyone be worried about elected officials bowing down to Tea Partiers and the overweight uneducated population when it is their fucking job to bow down to their constituents? Or are you calling Tea Partiers overweight and uneducated?

Apr 6, 2011
CAPM21:
heister:

For example, in the finance reform he gave a group of appointed not elected people the authority to make regualtions on a whim with out the approval of the congress. That is one example, it might not seem that bad but when you have a very liberal person appointing his "pals" who are basicly a bunch of yes men it causes alot of nervousness in the industry. In my dads industry, manufacturing, the epa has authority to come in and change the rules any time they want. When you have to spend millions of dollars to comply with current regulations its not exactly helpful when a non elected agency has the authority to come in and change shit when ever they want. While this has been true in the past now the EPA doesnt have congressional oversight like they used to. Obama hasnt come out and done any one thing that is blantly anti business, he has done lots of little things that make business very nervous.

You should be far more worried about decisions made by elected politicians who have to bow down to Tea Partiers and the overweight uneducated American population than those whos decisions reflect on technocracy and efficacy.
And sorry bro, but your committing academic treason here by making sweeping generalizations based off your own experiences in manufacturing. If you are as you say a small business than you also get a payroll tax credit and a general business tax credit for every single new hire. Not to mention youf Dad is probably enjoying an extension of his income tax credit and a very large upswing in demand in the materials sector, not to mention cheap credit, oh and not to mention stable asset prices on which to make capital allocation decisions and reasonable rates on which to refinance thanks to your old friend QE & QE II.

As far as the EPA; it is an executive agency and therefore its actions are completely within the lines as far as its regulatory powers. The worst the EPA can do is force YOU to internalize costs that you have managed to pass on to consumers and communities

How could he possibly enjoy tax credits for hiring people when no one will take a job? Materials prices are anything but stable in any sector. QE & QEII are have done jack shit for refinancing abilities, let alone origional financing.

You act like its a bad thing that for the first time in 50 years that politicans have to actually worry about people paying attention to what they are doing is a bad thing, if you truely believe that then there is little hope for you.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011

You're not giving any concrete examples. The Dodd-Frank bill is about as "pro-business" as it could have been considering the crisis we just went through. Furthermore, Obama's "pals" are people like Timmy Geithner, Summers and Bob Rubin who are about as pro-finance as they make them. The impact of the Volcker rule on unenmployment isn't even worth mentioning.

Apr 6, 2011
GoodBread:

You're not giving any concrete examples. The Dodd-Frank bill is about as "pro-business" as it could have been considering the crisis we just went through. Furthermore, Obama's "pals" are people like Timmy Geithner, Summers and Bob Rubin who are about as pro-finance as they make them. The impact of the Volcker rule on unenmployment isn't even worth mentioning.

Pro-finance and pro-business are two very different things. As shocking as it may seem the banks dont employ the entire world.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011

Sure, so how is the Dodd-Frank bill anti-business? (I'm legitimately curious btw, I'm not trying to start a pissing contest).

  • gnicholas
  •  Apr 6, 2011

You are misunderstanding the situation in WI. I go to school at UW and live in Madison, so I can tell you exactly what's happening. The dems fled the state so there could be no vote, Walker then broke up the bill and voted on the CBA part because non-budgetary issues don't need everyone to be present. The dems have since returned for the budget part, and yet in the month since nothing has been passed. Meaning Walker has passed the government interference part, but not done anyhing about the budget.

Apr 6, 2011

txjustin, there's reason to worry precisely because it's elected officials' jobs to represent tea partiers.

Apr 6, 2011
GoodBread:

txjustin, there's reason to worry precisely because it's elected officials' jobs to represent tea partiers.

It is the elected officials job to repersent the people who elected them. Im not sure what you thought there job was before.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 6, 2011
heister:
GoodBread:

txjustin, there's reason to worry precisely because it's elected officials' jobs to represent tea partiers.

It is the elected officials job to repersent the people who elected them. Im not sure what you thought there job was before.

Whoever said I thought the contrary?

Apr 6, 2011
GoodBread:

txjustin, there's reason to worry precisely because it's elected officials' jobs to represent tea partiers.

Hence, their constituents, whether that be Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, etc.

Apr 6, 2011

I don't know where the breakdown in logic is happening when you read that sentence you are quoting, but there's no reason to deduce that I at one time believed representation was not a part of an elected official's duties. My concern lies with the demands of Tea Partiers, and the logic or absence thereof behind them.

Apr 6, 2011
Comment
Apr 6, 2011