BoatShoes;1396820 wrote:So...when the sequester happens and even the meager cuts of $85 billion slow gdp and raise unemployment when there is no confidence-inspired private sector increase in spending and our fiscal outlook s only marginally better...if at all...what then?

BoatShoes;1396820 wrote:So...when the sequester happens and even the meager cuts of $85 billion slow gdp and raise unemployment when there is no confidence-inspired private sector increase in spending and our fiscal outlook s only marginally better...if at all...what then?

stlouiedipalma;1396845 wrote:Of course, if there are massive job losses they won't claim that, will they?

stlouiedipalma;1396845 wrote:If all that happens, the tea party will have claimed a victory of sorts. This seems to be what they want and, by their holding the Republican Party hostage, they have achieved it. Of course, if there are massive job losses they won't claim that, will they?

BoatShoes;1396820 wrote:So...when the sequester happens and even the meager cuts of $85 billion slow gdp and raise unemployment when there is no confidence-inspired private sector increase in spending and our fiscal outlook s only marginally better...if at all...what then?

stlouiedipalma;1396845 wrote:...Of course, if there are massive job losses they won't claim that, will they?

Con_Alma;1396879 wrote:I'm not a Tea Party member but if you wold like to influence my view of them by attaching job losses to them, I would be OK with that. If millions of jobs are lost to get to a more balanced spending approach in line with the federal revenue, that's the route I want to see taken.

gut;1396858 wrote:You guys crack me up. Trillion dollar deficits can't create enough jobs to keep pace with population growth, but $85B is going to cause massive unemployment? Wow.

BoatShoes;1396900 wrote:Sigh.. we already have massive unemployment and slow growth. The question is what will make it better? Weve been told hat cutting spending will. I'm hopeful he sequester goes through so we can see the results

majorspark;1396855 wrote:Old people will go hungry. Illegals will pour across the border at will. Children will lack adequate education. Children will not be immunized against horrible diseases. Criminals will be released to the streets. Terrorists will infiltrate the nation. Air travel will be delayed and unsafe. Unemployment will rise. Bridges could collapse. Federal crimes could go unprosecuted. The list goes on and on. The end is near. God save the republic.

believer;1396880 wrote:This. Why should the private sector shoulder all the burden?

BoatShoes;1396962 wrote:This kind of thinking is what really misses the point. This is not a morality play wherein because the private sector experiences pain the public sector must therefore experience pain at the same time. The public sector in the aggregate cannot be in balance at the same time as the private sector is in balance. Spending by public employees or from public contracts are income to the private sector and consequently reductions in spending by the public sector in times like these when the private sector will not offset these reductions, means overall lower income, including in the private sector and continual depression.

The only thing we can hope for is that conservatives are right and that private firms and individuals will see the reduction in government spending and say "Hey, that is inspiring that Washington is finally cutting spending! I'm going to head to Best Buy and/or hire a new employee because I think other firms will be similarly inspired and there will be more customers at my store when they start spending too!"

Con_Alma;1396878 wrote:then, we are closer to spending what we should. It's a first step.

Con_Alma;1396963 wrote:It's not a "because we hurt , they should hurt". issue. It's an issue of not providing services at an increasing level when the private sector isn't ble to fund them. Combine that with the compensation increases of public sector employees when the market for employment services is stagnant or lowering.

BoatShoes;1396966 wrote:The budget deficit has decreased in all of the last 3 years...so it is false that we are providing services at an increasing level that is not matched taxation...in fact it is decreasing every year as the unemployment rate and employment/population ratio slowly creep down. Halting this trend will create the outcome you claim to be against.

Worrying about the compensation of public employees vs. private employees is indeed making it a moral issue. As normative matter they ought not because private sector wages are depressed. Nevermind that spending by public employees is income to the private sector and consequently halting the income of public employees, halts the spending power of public employees and therefore the incomes of the private sector (unless private sector firms and individuals are inspired to spend by the firing of public employees or reductions in their pay).

The public and private sector are inextricably intertwined.

BoatShoes;1396900 wrote:The question is what will make it better?

Con_Alma;1396971 wrote:If deficits have decreased, that is good. Efforts to continue such a trend should be embraced.

I don't worry about compensation of others. I hope people make millions no mater what my income levels is. I do not, however, support increases in labor compensation funded by tax dollars when the market labor pool is experiencing lower wages.

BoatShoes;1396998 wrote:1). So reducing the deficit more is desirable even if it increases unemployment, slows economic growth and worsens our actual debt problem as our growth rate approaches being lower than the awesomely low interest rates at which we can borrow, as was the case in the UK? So even if those are the consequences, you still think deficit reduction is desirable?

...

BoatShoes;1396998 wrote:...2). Well the government doesn't rely on taxes per se to pay their employees but that is another issue. The guy at the NY Fed who debits the Treasury's account when it spends can do so whether or not the guy who credits the Treasury's Account at the FED does so or not....

BoatShoes;1396998 wrote:...Not supporting increases is not the same as supporting decreases....

BoatShoes;1396998 wrote:...either way, it's almost moot because you do see by now how depressed, cut or not increasing public sector wages can exacerbate the problem of declining private sector wages in the event that the private sector will not make up the difference in that decline in spending? It is a deflationary spiral.

BoatShoes;1396953 wrote:Well I realize you're probably making fun of the hyperbole being used to try to stop the sequester but more level-headed people have suggested that, althought Republic will not end and we will surely survive, it will cause slower growth and at the very least, will not help the already drastically bad unemployment situation; just like the payroll tax cut expiration has slowed growth and halted employment gains.