@Double_R
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.
Which is 150 billion dollars per year.
Which is still 2%. Which still means gutting the federal workforce does nothing to address 98% of government spending, which means the benefit to all of this upheaval is minimal at best.
But some services shut down too, which saves more money.
That's not the way it works. The money that goes out is codified into law. That obligation doesn't disappear because there are no workers, it only gets delayed. So in effect we're still paying for the services, we just aren't getting the full benefit of them.
Government services are always more expensive and of lower quality than private services
The whole point of government services is that these are things which are needed that the private sector does not have incentive to offer.
Do you think private businesses will just regulate themselves?
Who do you think is going to look out for the poor and elderly? They can't afford private services, that's the whole point.
Who do you think is going to build roads and bridges? Where's the profit in that? The isn't any, that's why government does it.
If the private sector was the solution to these issue then the private sector would already be solving them.
Economy is about production, and re-distribution only costs money and produces nothing
The economy is about spending, it doesn't matter what you produce if there's no one to buy it. Government services and "redistribution" help to ensure everyone can be a part of that which has a positive impact on spending, not negative.
This has been studied. Looking only based on economic impact, the least stimulative thing the government can do is give tax breaks to the rich. The most stimulative? Food stamps.
Would you say that about all religions?
I didn't say anything about anyone's religion, I was talking about your world view. But again, when you have no responses of any value to offer you have to troll.
Which is still 2%. Which still means gutting the federal workforce does nothing to address 98% of government spending, which means the benefit to all of this upheaval is minimal at best.
I think you dont understand. the goal isnt to reduce government spending to zero. Just to reduce it.
That's not the way it works. The money that goes out is codified into law. That obligation doesn't disappear because there are no workers, it only gets delayed
If there is no one to pay for services or deliver them, then services arent payed for. Delayed services save money too.
The whole point of government services is that these are things which are needed that the private sector does not have incentive to offer.
Every profitable thing, private sector has incentive to offer. Now, if you say we should do non profitable things, then that just reduces profit and slows down economy and buisnesses and reduces wealth and production because resources are wasted on non-profitable things. this is true a priori, you dont need any observation to know this. It is basic logic.
Reason why private sector doesnt offer what you want it to offer is because: 1. People have no obligation to give you free stuff. 2. Government prevented private sector from acting.
So if you argue people have obligation to give you free stuff, I am afraid that is not true. Property rights just like body rights are true a priori. No one can steal property whenever he feels like being charitable with other people's money.
Who do you think is going to look out for the poor and elderly? They can't afford private services, that's the whole point.
If they worked properly and made savings, they could afford everything. If they chose to be wasteful and lazy, I dont see why you would want to reward or encourage that.
Who do you think is going to build roads and bridges? Where's the profit in that? The isn't any, that's why government does it.
Government doesnt build roads. Private workers build roads. Government just takes money from people and gives it to private workers so they build roads.
So if you say people wouldn't want to pay for roads otherwise, you are conceding that such service by government is unwanted.
Home Owner Associations (HOA) already build and maintain roads. Way faster and cheaper than the city does, I imagine.
It's amazing how good a service you can get when you don't have to pay a finder's fee to the least qualified person.
I'm not giving the President, any president, an extra term.If we're going to change the way terms work, then there should be limits on Congress, and I also think the Supreme Court.
I think you dont understand. the goal isnt to reduce government spending to zero. Just to reduce it.
Then fire one federal worker and voila... Mission accomplished.
If there is no one to pay for services or deliver them, then services arent payed for.
Not the way it works. The services aren't happening but the thing the services were slated to be distributed are still owed. Take social security for example - not having employees to disperse the checks doesn't mean America saves on social security payments, it just means the recipients have to wait longer to get them.
Now, if you say we should do non profitable things, then that just reduces profit and slows down economy and buisnesses
Again, the government isn't a business. You really just don't get it.
There is no profit in educating children in poor neighborhoods, yet no one in their right mind would argue it is not beneficial for society to do so.
Again, the entire point of government is to solve the problems the private sector can't or won't. The private sector is not going to invest in things that the contributing individuals will not benefit from personally. That means every venture which doesn't yield a reasonable ROI will not happen. And that means no one would be investing in the things our economy will need to grow in the first place.
People have no obligation to give you free stuff
This conversation has nothing to do with "free stuff". We're talking about what is good for society and why only government can and will fill that role.
If they worked properly and made savings, they could afford everything. If they chose to be wasteful and lazy, I dont see why you would want to reward or encourage that.
Being poor =/= being wasteful or lazy. Many people end up there because of unwise choices they made, bad investments, bad fortune, etc. One of the biggest dividing lines in politics is in the way the political right see's money as a true measurement of an individual's efforts and abilities. That's not the way the real world works.
But whatever your views are on individual poor people and whether it is right to subsidize their lifestyles in any way with other people's tax dollars, that is hardly the point. Again, we're talking about what is good for society. Every society will have poor people, the question is what do we do about it?
To do nothing means the homeless population will skyrocket, along with crime. In a purely capitalistic society these people will just fall out of the system, which means less contributors and less consumers. Eventually, the poor population will become so numerous our system itself will fall apart.
That's why we prop up people who are struggling. It's not about giving things away, it's about creating a society where everyone is incentivized to contribute and given the means to be able to do so.
Government doesnt build roads. Private workers build roads. Government just takes money from people and gives it to private workers so they build roads.
Yeah, that's called government spending. If the government wasn't paying the tab, you think someone else will?
So if you say people wouldn't want to pay for roads otherwise, you are conceding that such service by government is unwanted.
Roads are unwanted. Wow Lucy, great point.
Whether something is wanted and whether something is profitable are two different things.
Whether something is wanted and whether something is profitable are two different things.
People dont pay for only profitable things, but I guess not much point in debating someone who thinks firing 1 federal worker will reduce government expenses enough.
That’s how Trump puts his numbers together.