patrick.net

.

You can't just cut off someone who is fat from sugar. You go to ween them off slowly to an acceptable level of intake.

The same goes with the federal government and California state government, as it takes weening off

Cut spending increases to 1% below annual inflation for the first year, and then 2% the second year, and 2.5% the third year.

Evaluate how well that help with reducing the deficit and debt to GDP ratio and make adjustments for the fourth year.

.

Tough to ween them off when they have mandatory spending increases greater than the rate of inflation.

On top of that government spending must increase if there is a recession (the government has never put one of these into any economic forecast they have ever made).

Government spending is now 37% of GDP. Drop government spending without a pickup in private sector spending (unlikely unless the private sector credit expansion is even higher than it is today), and blamo instant recession.

The way our economic system is created, there must be an ever expanding amount of cash and/or credit. If not the system cannibalizes itself.

The big problem is all those goof-balls trying to save money. The savings rate in this country is about 4.1%. Then people want to earn a rate of return greater than inflation (it's running about 3%). Say they wanna earn 2% over the rate of inflation so today that would be about 5%. Now this savings and earnings on savings has been going around for quite a few decades by now. Suddenly it is 2024 and US household assets are about $188 trillion. So, 5% of that would be about $9.5 trillion. The country's GDP is only about $28 trillion. So, the magic money Faries have to come up with an increase of about 37.5% of GDP with only 4% of that being savings.

People today are living in such a state of mind bending unreality it is unfathomable.

People should really view the statements from their financial institutions with the same disdain as any other Wall Street propaganda.

Misc says

mandatory spending increases greater than the rate of inflation

I copied below from CBO. So maybe cut the half of mandatory spending and not Social Security and Medicare.

How about cut back on student loans for starters ?

Maybe reducing disability pay for veterans by a 3% across the board for a one time cut, and then increase it at 1% below inflation for 4 consecutive years.

I wonder how the current state of immigration due to Biden policies is impacting mandatory spending such as major health programs.

*******

Mandatory outlays by the federal government totaled $4.1 trillion in 2022; nearly half was for Social Security and Medicare. The largest increases over the past 20 years have been for the major health care programs and student loans.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/23/budget-turned-its-earmark-millions-woke-items-incl/

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/jock-itch-saturday-march-31-2024

Would you agree with an employment law requiring the federal government to hire only the best qualified, cheapest person who applies for any particular federal job? In other words, it would become illegal to use any other criteria for hiring, apart from merit and cost. Maybe the law could even be broader than that. Maybe it could require the government to regularly re-advertise every position, and replace incumbents with better qualified or cheaper alternatives.

Isn’t that just good stewardship of the collective treasury?

The reason I ask is the stable, continuous unelected government workforce used to protect the public from the worst side-effects caused by unqualified or incompetent elected public officials like Mayor Adams or Governor Hochul. But unfortunately, the government workforce has now been diluted or partly replaced, maybe by DEI, with people just as incompetent and unqualified as are the elected officials.

So we are now flying the national airplane without a political parachute.

And why should government hire anyone for any reason besides merit and cost anyway?

Patrick says

Would you agree with an employment law requiring the federal government to hire only the best qualified, cheapest person who applies for any particular federal job? In other words, it would become illegal to use any other criteria for hiring, apart from merit and cost. Maybe the law could even be broader than that. Maybe it could require the government to regularly re-advertise every position, and replace incumbents with better qualified or cheaper alternatives.

Maybe that's why the wokest parts of NSA which I ever saw were the HR and the Policy departments. I gathered it was the same at every other agency. These are people who cannot perform the purported functions of their respective agencies, but the get to speak for everyone at their agencies, and create the echo chamber effect. Either most people parrot the Party Line, or learn to ignore most internal corporate messaging and just try to concentrate on doing the work of the purported job of their agency. While the wokest get the highest praise and the most promotions.

Patrick says

Would you agree with an employment law requiring the federal government to hire only the best qualified, cheapest person who applies for any particular federal job?

Absolutely not! My disagreement starts at allowing government to hire...

Patrick says

You can drive your car without a license all you want on your own property and private roads. You just need a license to drive on public roads.

What the fuck makes a road "public"? Oh yeah, the uniformed armed guards who arrest you if you don't pay their bosses. Isn't that called armed robbery?

NuttBoxer says

What the fuck makes a road "public"? Oh yeah, the uniformed armed guards who arrest you if you don't pay their bosses. Isn't that called armed robbery?

What makes it "public" is that the road was build and maintained at taxpayer expense. Licensing is not a big money maker for the government but a method of enforcing competency to drive. Do you really think all roads should be free for alls, driving as fast as one likes, in whatever lane one likes, with traffic control lights and signs as optional? Nobody should get a speeding ticket? Even if all roads were privately owned turnpikes, there would still be rules by the owners. I do not like intrusive government, but a comprehensive road system with easy and cheap driver's licenses is not an example of overbearing government.

HeadSet says

What makes it "public" is that the road was build and maintained at taxpayer expense.

In regards to taxes, I refer you to my previous comment...

HeadSet says

Do you really think all roads should be free for alls, driving as fast as one likes, in whatever lane one likes, with traffic control lights and signs as optional? Nobody should get a speeding ticket?

YES!! Everything you're concerned about is covered in Minority Report. How did it work out in that simulation? Now of course you'll refer to cities where controls like this have the most obvious benefits. I'm still fine without them. I have stated my opinion on cities many times here...

I've also referenced driving in Tijuana many, many times to demonstrate why your argument is bullshit. Look, just because you can't imagine people living responsibly and free doesn't have shit to do with reality.

And on your comment about it not being over-bearing, I'll refer you to the 4th Amendment. Seems again free people disagree with you.

Patrick says

Yep. Both IntSoc and NatSoc are socialism, and the "Tell" of a Socialist is them claiming their form of Socialism "Isn't like the other kinds of Socialism, it's better" Another tell is that they deny their atrocities or claim it was absolutely necessary for that government to survive.