[Knight]

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.

[Knight]

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!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally Posted by Knight

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]

Originally Posted by Frank Ernest

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?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Mkay so you want this again I guess?]

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.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Frank Ernest

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

That wasn't government Frank, that was private industry. There was no government oversight of toxic waste sites at the time.

The Valley of the Drums is a 23 acre (9.3 hectare) toxic waste site in northern Bullitt County, Kentucky, near Louisville, named after the waste-containing drums strewn across the area. It is known as one of the primary motivations for the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund Act of 1980. While the widely publicized Love Canal disaster is often credited as reason the Superfund law was passed, Love Canal activist Lois Gibbs has said that Love Canal looked like a suburban community, while "Valley of the Drums became the visualization of the problem."[1] The site became a collection point for toxic wastes starting sometime in the 1960s. It caught the attention of state officials when some of the drums caught fire and burned for more than a week in 1966. However, at that time there were no laws to address the storage or containment of toxic wastes, and the site continued to be unregulated for another decade. In 1979 conditions at the site became so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency initiated an emergency clean-up of the worst of the leaking drums. Workers on the ground quickly realized that the scope of the problem was far beyond their abilities at the time, and after news of the problems there became public the site was used by members of Congress as one of the reasons the proposed Superfund law was needed. Cleanup began at the site in 1983 and officially ended in 1990, although problems continued to be reported for many years. An environmental audit of the site in 2003 found PCBs in the sediment surrounding the area, and further testing was ordered. In December, 2008, EPA inspectors found about four dozen rusted metal drums on land just outside the part of the dump that it capped and fenced in the 1980s, including a portion of Jefferson Memorial Forest. New cleanup work is being considered at the site as of December 15, 2008.

Explain why government regulation of toxic waste and pollution is unnecessary.

Please do!

So will you leave if Obama wins a second term?

Answer is contained in question.

No, it isn't. You're assuming the truth of your answer. I explained why spending will increase job growth. Explain why cutting spending will.

Companies are currently sitting on record amounts of cash. Do you think giving them MORE cash through tax cuts is going to magically make them invest?

[eameece]

Originally Posted by Frank Ernest

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.

Everything the opposite of what Frank said, and put down the accelerator!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally Posted by eameece

Everything the opposite of what Frank said, and put down the accelerator!

eememe advocates the "Thelma and Louise" solution.

[eameece]

Originally Posted by Frank Ernest

eememe advocates the "Thelma and Louise" solution.

I think it was YOU GUYS I saw riding off that cliff!

[Lazy afternoon]

Originally Posted by Knight

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.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by Knight

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

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.

[Ted L Glines]

Originally Posted by some other dude

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.