State of the Union

[JackoliciousLegs]

Btw - I havent had internet since I moved to herndon til today, but I recently read that the war costs 3% of GDP. That's not much. Socialist programs are what drive the deficit.

How did I miss this one... You may be correct. 2 billion/week (according to congress) could hardly fuel the trillions of dollars of deficit we have now. 100 billion /year is more than 3% of it though. Wash Post today

I understand that it's larger macroeconomic conditions that are causing it but you can't say that it's social programs that are causing it. If it were true that social programs cause the deficit, wouldn't it be true that Dems would inflate the deficit more than Repubs?

This is my uneducated overall opinion... I think that our economy is like an over-valued stock. Sure, it's in good shape now (and I'm not complaining) but that doesn't mean we should solely rely on the health of our markets. We need to invest in infrastructure so we can maintain our position. (Then again, you could argue that the reason we are where we are is because we care about economic growth way more than infrastructure establishment and the low overhead drives our economic prosperity).

I hate economics.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Oh, watch colbert's section. It's priceless.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/01/sunday_funnies_4.html">http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2 ... ies_4.html</a><!-- m -->

Kind of along the lines of a quote I heard on NPR this morning: [random republican presidential candidate]'s economic policy is well understood, but his social policy is still unclear.

[Feersty]

Oh, watch colbert's section. It's priceless.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/01/sunday_funnies_4.html">http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2 ... ies_4.html</a><!-- m -->

Kind of along the lines of a quote I heard on NPR this morning: [random republican presidential candidate]'s economic policy is well understood, but his social policy is still unclear.

Speaking of NPR, my friend works there doing corporate research. He helped to coordinate the first interview with the President post State of the Union. Should be interesting.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7056082">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=7056082</a><!-- m -->

[Scrubber]

I go over in early spring. Persian rugs anyone?

[JackoliciousLegs]

I know I missed something....

[HAULN-SS]

Btw - I havent had internet since I moved to herndon til today, but I recently read that the war costs 3% of GDP. That's not much. Socialist programs are what drive the deficit.

How did I miss this one... You may be correct. 2 billion/week (according to congress) could hardly fuel the trillions of dollars of deficit we have now. 100 billion /year is more than 3% of it though. Wash Post today

I understand that it's larger macroeconomic conditions that are causing it but you can't say that it's social programs that are causing it. If it were true that social programs cause the deficit, wouldn't it be true that Dems would inflate the deficit more than Repubs?

This is my uneducated overall opinion... I think that our economy is like an over-valued stock. Sure, it's in good shape now (and I'm not complaining) but that doesn't mean we should solely rely on the health of our markets. We need to invest in infrastructure so we can maintain our position. (Then again, you could argue that the reason we are where we are is because we care about economic growth way more than infrastructure establishment and the low overhead drives our economic prosperity).

I hate economics.

I guess I missed this response - but anyway...nobody buys roads. There is no money in it - this is the same reason we dont invest in infrastructure, there is no instant return. And, if you fuck it up, you'll lose your ass...kind of like how we're all going to collectively lose our asses in about 40 years when we start trying to retire.

[Andy]

but anyway...nobody buys roads. There is no money in it - this is the same reason we dont invest in infrastructure, there is no instant return. And, if you fuck it up, you'll lose your ass...kind of like how we're all going to collectively lose our asses in about 40 years when we start trying to retire.

:?:

[HAULN-SS]

road = infrastructure..just giving a real world example.

[HAULN-SS]

If that example doesnt work for you, consider how much money was lost by companies building communications infrastructure..information "roads". Nobody that wants to make any money is going to be building roads, which is why the government does it. The people that make money are the ones who make use of the infrastructure. So if you look at the goverment as a business trying to make money - who is going to build their infrastructure?

[JackoliciousLegs]

telecom = infrastructure, by infrastructure i mean't investing in our future, i.e. education

[HAULN-SS]

yeah - investing in education now takes a long time to reap the returns of it. People can't just learn somethign overnight. You have to train the trainers, then train the actual people - it takes a while to propogate through the system - you have to actually have some foresight - a thing governments typically lack because everything they do is typically a reaction to something.

[JackoliciousLegs]

agreed

[Andy]

Governments building roads help economic growth both in terms of helping commercials shipments and transactions but also give people well paid jobs who otherwise wouldn't be making as much. It's called an economic prop which is why the annual Congressional transportation funding bill is always so important and contested over.

Government investment in infrastructure also is a key indicator of economic viability that the IMF and World Bank in particular and economists in general, use to gauge economic progress and growth.

[HAULN-SS]

Also - in reference to my orignal post and jacks reply - it's that the republicans are inflating it now, and its a pretty small bill (the war + various other thigns), and the things democrats are pushing back are not only costing X amount now, but will leave a massive bill for their heirs to foot. Right now, most of your money goes to defense when you pay your taxes, and right on it's heels are Health Care - and if you include income security and housing in that - you're about dead even. This is probably only going to go up as all these people start collecting retirement AND further, they wont be working, so they wont be contributing anymore either.