The Federal Government employs quite a few people directly to accomplish the many needed programs and services of this country. However, the government is not really in the business of building or making anything. The government spends a lot of money on infrastructure and military equipment - but they don't make those things. Instead they contract with private business to accomplish those goals. If a road needs to be built, a contract is made with a private construction company who employ their own workers and use their own machinery to accomplish the task. The government does not build tanks, planes, guns or any other defense machinery. Those items are manufactured by private enterprise through government contracts. These are just a few examples of how our government works with the private sector to accomplish it's goals. So it's important to realize that when the government spends money on these types of projects it is not tax money that is spent on federal employees - it is tax money that is being paid back to the tax payers.
Problems occur, of course, if there are unethical back room deals made that grant these contracts to political supports who in turn over charge the government. Or worse, contracts are granted with no bidding that allows the contractor to easily over charge. We have all heard stories of the $500.00 hammer. These types of bad deals are likely a huge contributor to our national debt problem.
The point of this article is that government spending - done correctly- actually does support private business. That's why improving our infrastructure and encouraging innovation is a good investment strategy and will help get people back to work. Sadly, it may also be a reason why we haven't ended a couple of wars yet because those trillions of dollars are actually employing a lot of people. Ending the war will cause more job losses at a very critical time.
When the GOP - especially the Tea Party extremists say they want to cut all federal spending, they show they are ignorant about how spending affects private sector jobs. Their "solutions" are simplistic and short sighted. We can't just hash away at the budget without giving it some careful thought. What really needs to happen is that we take a look at all government contracts and cut those that are no longer needed and possibly re-negotiate those that we do need. We need to be very smart about the way the government spends money. Someone needs to take a close look at companies like Halliburton who were granted no-bid contracts under suspicious circumstances. We should be doing this first - before we lay off teachers or end critical programs like the EPA.
We all know we have a serious critical debt problem in this country right now. But wise business people also know that you need to spend money to make money. It's not too late to get this fixed but we need to do it wisely. It will take careful cuts, careful spending, and yes, careful revenue adjustments.
The Tea Party solution to a dying tree is to cut it down. A better solution is to understand why it's dying, correct the problem and watch it recover and flourish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
"What really needs to happen is that we take a look at all government contracts and cut those that are no longer needed and possibly re-negotiate those that we do need. We need to be very smart about the way the government spends money."
That pretty much sums up the Tea Party message in a nutshell.
Are you sure you really understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about? (It doesn't sound like you really do).
You start by trashing them, and then just a few lines later you start to sound just like one yourself. Weird.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, and Debbeie Wasserman have been lying to you all along about what the Tea Party Movement is really all about?
"When the GOP - especially the Tea Party extremists say they want to cut all federal spending..."
Who says that? Where and when? I've never heard anyone say that (and I've been paying attention!).
Andre - you have apparently been paying attention to Maddow, Shultz, and Wasserman and not your own candidates. They ALL say CUT and END - none of them are saying REVIEW and REVISE.
"Sadly, it may also be a reason why we haven't ended a couple of wars yet because those trillions of dollars are actually employing a lot of people."
Or...maybe the reason that we haven't "ended" those wars yet is because in the real world a war isn't like a video game that you can just turn off when it's time for dinner. In the real world we still have enemies who are commtted to our defeat and destruction.
A war only ends when your enemy is defeated, or rendered powerless to continue to engage in hostilities against you....or when you are defeated.
We could walk away from Lybia. That would be a defeat for us (and have many negative consequences), but in the grand scheme of things it would perhaps only be a flesh wound (with competent leadership, it would also be the "easiest" of our current conflicts to bring to a quick, and, if not "successful", then at leat acceptable conclusion).
Our involvement in Iraq is winding down. A prematurely abrupt pull out now would squander what has been gained (at such a heavy price), and would only preciptate further instability which would likely only draw us back in further.
Afghanistan is a frickin' tar baby. Short version: nobody gives a crap about that shit-hole. We aren't still there because of Afghanistan. We are there because of Pakistan, or rather, because of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Under NO circumstance must a Taliban-like government be allowed to take control in Pakistan. We can put up with all sorts of corrupt bastards in charge in Pakistan, but we cannot allow for the radical Islamists to take control of those nuclear weapons. A reconquest for the Taliban in Afghanistan could easily inspire and lead to a Wahhabiest takeover in Pakistan, and then all bets are off (a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India might shortly follow, if Isreal doesn't launch a preemptory nuclear strike first).
"...because those trillions of dollars are actually employing a lot of people."
Oh, if only it was as simple as that!
Yes, they are saying cut spending...when you are going broke you have to cut spending...but no one is saying to cut ALL federal spending (which is why you are unable to provide a single example of that claim, as I requested).
"...none of them are saying REVIEW and REVISE."
Have you even heard of the Ryan Plan? You should look into it, because that is exactly what it calls for.
Andre - please don't use racially offensive terms like "tar baby" in this blog or your comments will be deleted.
I am pro-life as I said before. End the wars - bring the troops back to THIS country and protect US from HERE.
Paul Ryan wants to privatize Medicare. VERY BAD MOVE. We have seen how the private sector handles health care - BADLY. The Paul Ryan plan is good for business - bad for seniors.
"tar baby", racially offensive? What the hell are you talking about?
from dictionary.com:
tar baby
noun
a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.
Get your mind out of the PC gutter.
The Left has done enough damage to our culture already, I refuse to be complicit in the ignorant revisionist destruction they are attempting on our language also.
Censure me if you will, if you are that cowardly, and so cowed by the Orwellian commissars of political correctness.
I will not submit.
Andre - You are attempting to justify the recent political use of this word.
From Wikipedia:
The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage according to Random House, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.
The expression tar baby is also used occasionally as a derogatory term for black people (in the U.S. it refers to African-Americans; in New Zealand it refers to Maori), or among blacks as a term for a particularly dark-skinned person. As a result, some people suggest avoiding the use of the term in any context.[1]
Andre - did your PAC actually ask you to use that term and defend it?! That is both sad and a little funny!
It should be quite clear ,to any honest reader, from the context in which it was used exactly what meaning I intended for that phrase to convey, and that is exactly as the definition that I supplied defines it.
The rest is pure maliciousness on your part. It is unbecoming of you, and it merely serves to weaken your credibility as a serious and thoughtful commentator.
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
You need to have more confidence in your ability to think for yourself, and not just be such a reflexive sheep in the Liberal flock.
I believe that you are better than that. Don't prove me wrong.
Andre - you have been commenting in this blog for quite a while now often discussing other such situations and have never used a term like that before. I would think a "reflexive sheep" would better describe someone who writes commentary as a paid PAC member.
I call your BS.
Busted.
Well that would be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Given that, by all appearences, there are only about four people in the entire country that are even aware of this blog's existence, or who participate in it in any way.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not an emplyee of any PAC, paid or unpaid. No, my "BS" is strictly freelance and gratis(I wish I was paid for it, though...I could use the dough!)
I suppose it could be argued that I am the sole member of my own personal Political Action Committee ("Inaction" would be more accurate; and can it still be called a "Committee" if it only has one member?).
PS: If my vocabulary is to be limited to words and phrases that I have already used in previous posts, where is the demarcation line? The first 10 posts? The first 20?
I take your point though. I shall have to endeaver to expand my regular vocabulary, if the appearence of a single new word or phrase is going to cause such a ruckus (there! I just did it: "ruckus". I don't believe I have ever used that one here before? ).
So Andre, I guess you were not able to find any supporting evidence of your Florida job claims. As for Texas - Haliburton is located in TX and as I mentioned war is a huge job creator - especially when no-bid contracts are involved. Gov. Perry has a very vested interest in this next election so he can keep those wars - and new ones going. If they end, TX will see a very devastating decline in employment figures.
It's kinda fun watching you try to wiggle your way out of the offensive word use. You know who you are and why you used that particular word just now - and so do we.
What "offensive word use"?
There was none.
There was only your silly politically correct over-reaction to a perfectly legitimate and acceptable English term.
If there was any warrant for taking "offense" it would have been on my side, for having racist motives attributed to me on such a insultingly careless and baseless manner. Compounding the insult, you then dig the whole even deeper by now accusing me of lying about it! (The decent thing would be for you to apologize...but I won't hold my breath).
I'ts become clear to me in recent years,how little regard Liberals have for Truth...I understand that; how else could they continue to maintain so many of their core positions in the face of of the overwhelming empirical evidence that argues against them?...but why does being a Liberal also entail such a complete disregard for basic Good Manners. "Fairness" is one of their favorite words, but by their observable behavior they demonstrate that to them it is but a verbal hand grenade, and that they have no actual understanding of what the word means.
I notice though, that it did serve you as a convenient ploy to change the subject and avoid dealing with the substance of the issues we had been discussing (a common, and tiresome, Liberal tactic, but one that is all too common, both here, and most other places in the Leftist blogosphere).
" I guess you were not able to find any supporting evidence of your Florida job claims"
Actually, I was giving you the opportunity to provide the evidence yourself. It was, after all, regarding a claim you had made, so it only seems fair and reasonable that the burden would be on you to provide the supporting evidence, not me (though I am curious as to the answers to the questions I posed).
RE: Texas. Are you seriously making the claim that the reason Texas is currently leading the nation in job growth is because of Haliburton?
Seriously?
That is idiotic on so many levels. Texas is the second largest state (population) in the country. It has an incredibly diverse economy (energy, ranching, and manufacturing, to high tech and advanced medical research, and on and on..). Hiliburton isn't even a blip on the radar of an economy of that size.
Besides, I thought that evil corporations only made tons of money for themselves and none of it trickled down to support and build up the local economies? At least, that has always been on of your main talking points. Haven't you just completely contradicted yourself?
Other than all that, I hope you had a nice weekend.
"War is a huge job creator"
Hmm, of course we've all heard that said forever, but I wonder if it is really true, or is it just another erroneous "modern myth"?
Military spending is still Government spending, which means that for each war related dollar the Government spends it first has to take that dollar out of the private economy through taxation (or through increased debt).
Given that Conservatives believe that resources are generally more efficiently allotted by the private sector and the free market than by Government paper pushers, then all other things being equal(with the huge caveat that all other things are rarely ever equal)then I would think that war spending is LESS of a positive job creator, than if that same money were available for private sector job creation.
Also: you spend money to create a military asset...say a bomb...you then drop that bomb on the battlefield...Kaboom! Goodbye asset. Whereas if you had spent that same money building cars, or washing machines (or even, dare I say it, high speed rail!) then you have an asset that continues to exist and be used for for many productive years. Big difference.
I have to look into this more, but I suspect that war, regardless of it's other potentially defensible justifications, is probably just as likely to be a net negative on an economy as a positive.
Of course, that is regarding the national economy overall.. you might still have a point if it was the case that a disproportionate share of the war related spending was going to one particular state or region...in effect, that would be a large transfer off wealth from one group of states to another. But is that ever the case? I get the impression (but do not know as a fact) that defense spending is fairly dispersed among the states.
(something else to research).
No - I have not contradicted myself at all. If corporations are indeed hiring more in TX - that's a good thing. It doesn't, however, imply that the wealth generated is fairly "trickling down" to those workers. We would have to examine the pay structure of said corporations to see if that is indeed true. I doubt such an examination is necessary. We already know the answer.
I mentioned that I found it sad and a bit funny that your PAC would ask you to write about that word and try to defend it. Now that you say it was all you with no outside influence - I have to really question your personal motives. Most words and phrases are just that. It is in the context that they are used that some find offense. Your word was not used in a context that would offend me but the word itself is controversial - especially right this now. Why bother to use a possibly offensive word when many other words would work just as well (quagmire)? I can't stop you from writing offensive words - but I can and will delete them if I determine them to be offensive. Or - better yet, I'll simply use your questionable choice of words (as in this case) to point out the blatant racism that the Tea Party seems to enjoy.
It's usually not the Democrats that say war is good for the economy. We are typically against war - especially those not clearly justified as in Iraq. It is the Republicans that see war as a gigantic business opportunity. That's why we have a "war" even when we don't have a war when Republicans are in control. As in the "war on drugs".
I agree with most of your post on that topic. However, just as producing food - that is eaten - isn't keeping the asset around, it still creates jobs and profit in it's production. A bomb does the same thing.
"It's usually not the Democrats that say war is good for the economy."
Careful. You are once again letting your own wishful thinking set you on a head-on collision course with reality.
If you do a little research I think you will find that it is almost EXCLUSIVELY Democrats who historically have made the claim that "war is good for the economy". It is a rally cry repeated ad nauseum by far left Chomskiest types such as Code Pink, etc. (often proclaimed sarcastically perhaps, but still passing almost exclusively from the lips of Leftists).
The meme actually originates with academic historians (not economists) writing about the Roosevelt years (Henry Steel Commager, Richard B. Morris, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., William Leuchtenburg...enthusiastically partisan Democrats, all of them) who erroneously attributed WWII for pulling America out of the great Depression.
Many prominent economists at the time, and even more today, have rejected this theory.
"Economist Henry Hazlitt, who wrote for the NY Times during the Roosevelt years, observed, "No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to rebuild it will stimulate his energies." And yet, as historians and others viewed WWII, "they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace." " -Hillsdale Professor Burton Folsom Jr. in his book: New Deal or Raw Deal; How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.
I have searched and can find no quote from ANY Republicans, certainly not from any Conservative intellectuals, who make the claim that war is good for the economy; (overwhelmingly they make the exact opposite claim...F.A.Hyeck,Milton Friedman,Thomas Sowell)...that doesn't mean they don't exist, only that I couldn't find any...if you have some, please share.
" We (Democrats) are typically against war"
Really? Lets take a look at the historical record:
The Confederate President who began the Civil War (with the initiation of military hostilities at Ft. Sumter) was Jefferson Davis, a Democrat.
The President who entered us into WWI was a Woodow Wilson, a Democrat.
The President who entered us into WWII, was Roosevelt, a Democrat.
The President who entered us into the Korean War was Truman, a Democrat.
The President introduced American soldiers into Vietnam was Kennedy, a Democrat(who also made a key element of his Presidential campaign against Nixon, the false "missle gap" with the Soviet Union, and pushed for massive increases in military spending).
The President who massively escalated our military involvement in Vietnam to it's highest level was LBJ, a Democrat.
"Hey, wait a minute! You skipped one, the Spanish American War. Wasn't McKinley a Republican?"
Yes, he was. But that is, as they say, the "exception that proves the rule"; according to Benjamin R. Beede, ed. of : The War of 1898 and U.S. Interventions, 1898–1934: An Encyclopedia (1994) p 148: "political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the government of President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war McKinley had wished to avoid"
Please note: I am not meaning to imply one way or the other as to whether or not any of these Presidents were necessarily wrong or right to enter the United States into these wars. I merely provide these examples to demonstrate that the claim that Democrats have an anti-war tradition is completely ahistorical.
Let's say then that MODERN Democrats are typically against war. The political parties have changed very much over the course of this countries history. There are times in the distant past were my political views would be more Republican than Democrat.
I remember the day President George W. Bush was "selected" the first time. I said to myself "we are going to war again". If I had this blog back then I would have written it. Modern Republicans love war - especially a good quagmire war. It's a giant money laundering business for them funneling the American tax dollars directly into their corporations. The innocent lives lost are just a cost of doing business.
OMG, did this topic actually end with Dennis having the last word??
My two cents - the tar baby remark didn't strike me as offensive when i first read it, and was surprised at Dennis' reaction. I've also noticed that republican pundits, especially tea party advocates, love to pepper their rhetoric with doublespeak.
Word. LOL
Post a Comment