5 ms·

Future America will understand that you don't treat government like a company. The money government spends on salaries is money directly injected back into the

Future America will understand that you don't treat government like a company. The money government spends on salaries is money directly injected back into the economy, it could be seen as a form of social welfare.

compass_copium 2y ago
Yes, but they can get the same effect by buying military hardware--and that has the added benefit of making Raytheon management and shareholders richer. When you just directly pay an employee with government money, there's no way to do that!
- thwarted 2y ago
  The military industrial complex in the United States is a socialist jobs program (with the added benefit of making the management and shareholders of contractors richer).
jfengel 2y ago
"Future America" is sounding increasingly oxymoronic.
Hatchback7599 2y ago
You know what else injects money back into the economy? Letting tax payers keep more of their tax dollars.
- smcin 2y ago
  But still less than if the federal employee was providing any ROI whatsoever on their salary. Why not instead talk about which federal departments (or agencies) provide an ROI, and how that can be measured in a nonpartisan way. (In any case, US federal debt interest payments will be ~$952b in 2025, out of $7.5 trillion budget. That's >> more than the $271b on total salaries for all civilian employees (or the $4.7 trillion tax cuts which expire end 2025). So, intentionally crippling the federal govt still wouldn't touch either the debt or interest payments; except as a blunt instrument to kill govt programs and bypass Congress.)
- compass_copium 2y ago
  For low-wage employees who spend almost all of their income on goods and services, yes. For highly compensated employees who save the majority of their money, no.
  - thatguy0900 2y ago
    The solution is simple, crash the economy so there are more people spending their whole paycheck every month
    - compass_copium 2y ago
      Looks to be the plan.
  - nickpp 2y ago
    Saved money are also injected back into the economy. They aren’t stored under the mattress. They are in banks, where they are lent out, spent and invested, creating jobs, buying goods and services.
    - orwin 2y ago
      You're only 1/3 right. Saved money isn't lent, nor spent (lending is just creating money). It's invested, 95% in the secondary market (probably more in the US). If the secondary market isn't correlated to actual production (and nowadays, it actually isn't, even in mining, prospecting and future are the main beneficiaries, which to me is crazy. One of the only exceptions is the energy sector), that money won't create real jobs.
      - nickpp 2y ago
        What do you think those sellers on the secondary markets do with the money they get? At the end of the investing chain it’s always jobs, products and services - or bank deposits. Any money not physically hidden in a cash vault or under a mattress takes part in the economy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hedora 2y ago
  My retirement account already has a big hole in it from Trump’s first round of tax hikes and tariffs. I seriously doubt it’ll be any different this time around.
- calrain 2y ago
  Lowering government expenses will not reduce the tax burden of the majority of Americans. Trumps original tax plan benefits the higher income earners at the expense of lower and middle income earners. Source: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-tax-plan-2024/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-...
bigstrat2003 2y ago
Much like Hatchback said, I don't see why it is a good thing to inject money into the economy versus not taking it in the first place. I'm not saying that these efforts are going to work to make the bureaucracy more efficient (I simply don't have the expertise to judge that), but I think any attempted solution is better than deliberately allowing inefficiency to fester as a form of social welfare. The federal bureaucracy has been a literal joke for longer than I've been alive because of how much it wastes resources. Something has to change, even if these current steps don't turn out to be the right ones. By all means, we should be critical and say "this plan isn't going to work because xyz". That's an important part of the process. But at some point we do have to try something and see how it pans out, then try to adjust the plan based on the results.
- nxobject 2y ago
  That presumes that the intent of this effort – regardless of how it's spun – is to make government more efficient. It's hard to take spin like this at face value: voluntary departures may equally make programs less efficient since understaffed or more reliant on contractors, for example.

compass_copium 2y ago

Yes, but they can get the same effect by buying military hardware--and that has the added benefit of making Raytheon management and shareholders richer. When you just directly pay an employee with government money, there's no way to do that!

thwarted 2y ago
The military industrial complex in the United States is a socialist jobs program (with the added benefit of making the management and shareholders of contractors richer).

jfengel 2y ago

"Future America" is sounding increasingly oxymoronic.

Hatchback7599 2y ago

You know what else injects money back into the economy? Letting tax payers keep more of their tax dollars.

smcin 2y ago
But still less than if the federal employee was providing any ROI whatsoever on their salary. Why not instead talk about which federal departments (or agencies) provide an ROI, and how that can be measured in a nonpartisan way. (In any case, US federal debt interest payments will be ~$952b in 2025, out of $7.5 trillion budget. That's >> more than the $271b on total salaries for all civilian employees (or the $4.7 trillion tax cuts which expire end 2025). So, intentionally crippling the federal govt still wouldn't touch either the debt or interest payments; except as a blunt instrument to kill govt programs and bypass Congress.)
compass_copium 2y ago
For low-wage employees who spend almost all of their income on goods and services, yes. For highly compensated employees who save the majority of their money, no.
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  The solution is simple, crash the economy so there are more people spending their whole paycheck every month
  - compass_copium 2y ago
    Looks to be the plan.
- nickpp 2y ago
  Saved money are also injected back into the economy. They aren’t stored under the mattress. They are in banks, where they are lent out, spent and invested, creating jobs, buying goods and services.
  - orwin 2y ago
    You're only 1/3 right. Saved money isn't lent, nor spent (lending is just creating money). It's invested, 95% in the secondary market (probably more in the US). If the secondary market isn't correlated to actual production (and nowadays, it actually isn't, even in mining, prospecting and future are the main beneficiaries, which to me is crazy. One of the only exceptions is the energy sector), that money won't create real jobs.
    - nickpp 2y ago
      What do you think those sellers on the secondary markets do with the money they get? At the end of the investing chain it’s always jobs, products and services - or bank deposits. Any money not physically hidden in a cash vault or under a mattress takes part in the economy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hedora 2y ago
My retirement account already has a big hole in it from Trump’s first round of tax hikes and tariffs. I seriously doubt it’ll be any different this time around.
calrain 2y ago
Lowering government expenses will not reduce the tax burden of the majority of Americans. Trumps original tax plan benefits the higher income earners at the expense of lower and middle income earners. Source: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-tax-plan-2024/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/donald-trump-...

bigstrat2003 2y ago

Much like Hatchback said, I don't see why it is a good thing to inject money into the economy versus not taking it in the first place. I'm not saying that these efforts are going to work to make the bureaucracy more efficient (I simply don't have the expertise to judge that), but I think any attempted solution is better than deliberately allowing inefficiency to fester as a form of social welfare. The federal bureaucracy has been a literal joke for longer than I've been alive because of how much it wastes resources. Something has to change, even if these current steps don't turn out to be the right ones. By all means, we should be critical and say "this plan isn't going to work because xyz". That's an important part of the process. But at some point we do have to try something and see how it pans out, then try to adjust the plan based on the results.

nxobject 2y ago
That presumes that the intent of this effort – regardless of how it's spun – is to make government more efficient. It's hard to take spin like this at face value: voluntary departures may equally make programs less efficient since understaffed or more reliant on contractors, for example.