Who would you not pay? (debt)

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

With the US about to run out of money, I'm curious, if you were in charge, which group would you refuse to pay?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Me: The Sick. As they are the most likely group to be near someone else (IE Hospitals) who can help.

[Lief 🗽]

Let's start with groups that support the Republicans, as they are the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Defense contractors, big agriculture, old people. Grants to states should be cut off in order of how red a state is; Idaho and Wyoming would obviously not get any money, and then we work down from there.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

AOTA (about as sensible as Lief's answer)

[Hash]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

[BigSkyBob]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Let's start with the President, all of his advisors, and Congress.  % of federal budget......nada, but it's still #1 on my list.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Let's start with the President, all of his advisors, and Congress.  % of federal budget......nada, but it's still #1 on my list.

I could support that.

[BigSkyBob]

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter.

Great idea, Bob!  We really don't need anyone overseeing our nuclear weapons, or U.S. Navy nuclear reactor production, or radioactive waste disposal, or the reliability of electricity grids, or anything like that. 

By the way, The Department of Energy in its entirety costs about $29.5 billion out of a federal budget of $3.4 trillion, representing around .8% of all federal expenditures. 

It's always good to know that you deficit-hawks are serious. 

Yours is another example of why the political class isn't serious about cutting deficits. Seems that that our nuclear weapons, waste, etc., were taken care of long before the DOE, and will continue to be taken care of after the DOE joins the ash heap of history. Scare rhetoric like yours was used to justify yet another bureaucracy dedicated to promoting subeconomic forms of power generation.

Yours is a denial position: each step in the path to austerity is just a drop in the bucket, so it is pointless in aggregate. Ten billion, here, ten billion there, and someday we are talking about serious money.

I would also note the hypocrisy concerning one provision in the tax code passed by Democrats to accelerated depreciation of corporate assets, including jets. Slowing the depreciation of corporate jets would lower the deficit less than abolishing the DOE, but, somehow, that provision is not being trivialized.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

[BigSkyBob]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

People in the private sector whom engage in subeconomic actions go out of business and lose their jobs. I am all for  the subeconomic losing their jobs. It is the creative destruction process in action. Unfortunately, that market discipline has not extended to governmental workers,yet.

[Beet]

Start with Federal Employees and Government Contractors.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

People in the private sector whom engage in subeconomic actions go out of business and lose their jobs. I am all for  the subeconomic losing their jobs. It is the creative destruction process in action. Unfortunately, that market discipline has not extended to governmental workers,yet.

What in God's name is a 'subeconomic action'?

[anvi]

"Subeconomic" means activities that are not justifiable on purely economic grounds.  I think BigSky believes Department of Energy policies undermine real economic growth, and therefore deserve elimination.

I deleted the following before, because it occurred to me that this might not be a serious thread, and I don't have much of a sense of humor today.  But I'm going to put it back up.

The Department of Energy has primary jurisdiction over the country's nuclear weapons, as well as oversees the production of U.S. Navy nuclear reactors, oversees the management of nuclear waste disposal and ensures that the country's electric grids are reliable. The budget of the entire Department of Energy is about $29.5 billion out of a whole federal budget of $3.4 trillion, which represents about .8% of all federal expenditures.  "Laying off the entire staff" of the Department would both put the country in several forms of immediate risk and save almost no money.    

[BigSkyBob]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

People in the private sector whom engage in subeconomic actions go out of business and lose their jobs. I am all for  the subeconomic losing their jobs. It is the creative destruction process in action. Unfortunately, that market discipline has not extended to governmental workers,yet.

What in God's name is a 'subeconomic action'?

People with an inadequate understanding of basic economics ought not be deciding public policy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

People in the private sector whom engage in subeconomic actions go out of business and lose their jobs. I am all for  the subeconomic losing their jobs. It is the creative destruction process in action. Unfortunately, that market discipline has not extended to governmental workers,yet.

What in God's name is a 'subeconomic action'?

People with an inadequate understanding of basic economics ought not be deciding public policy.

I'm tempted to make a snide comment to the effect that it's a good thing that I'm a Japanese literature scholar, then, but instead I'll just point out that the term that I've always heard used for that is 'ancillary' or sometimes 'unproductive', not 'subeconomic'.

Also, even though I'm not an economist, I'm getting an increasing creeping sense that there is something just ineluctably wrong about your analyses, possibly because you're analysing from a standpoint of hate rather than a compassionate or rational one.

[BigSkyBob]

"Subeconomic" means activities that are not justifiable on purely economic grounds.  I think BigSky believes Department of Energy policies undermine real economic growth, and therefore deserve elimination.

Why not simply read what I wrote? The DOE is pursuing subeconomic forms of enery production. This does not merely "undermind real economic growth," it wastes money and it jeopardizes the nation's energy security by chasing pipe dreams rather than economically feasible alternatives [aka "natural gas," and/or "clean coal."]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[anvi]

Yes, indeed, because fossil fuels will last forever, especially now that automobiles are in more and more demand in the most populous Asian countries.  The deficit is not the only thing that will effect our children and grandchildren.  Besides, new energy research represents only a fraction of the spending at the Department of Energy, which oversees lots of vital things about the county's and military's energy use; these functions are not redundant.  And, as mentioned, the Department of energy as a whole represents an extremely tiny portion of the federal budget, so singling it out as the first thing you want to cut proves that you care far less about the deficit than you do about grinding political axes. 

[Bacon King]

If the debt ceiling gets reached, if I was Obama, I'd first impound the wages of the President and all Members of Congress, to symbolically punish all government desicionmakers for their collective failure. Beyond that, it really depends on whether I would be trying to minimize the damage the cuts would cause or if I was making them as noticible as possible to force Congress to reach a damn deal ASAP. 

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I'm surprised that the most popular option is the group with the biggest guns

[BigSkyBob]

If the debt ceiling gets reached, if I was Obama, I'd first impound the wages of the President and all Members of Congress, to symbolically punish all government desicionmakers for their collective failure. Beyond that, it really depends on whether I would be trying to minimize the damage the cuts would cause or if I was making them as noticible as possible to force Congress to reach a damn deal ASAP. 

I don't think the Constitution would stand for it. Certainly, judges salaries cannot be impounded.

However, the staffs on capitol hill are completely fair game. Don't impound their salaries, furlough them off immediately.

[tpfkaw]

AOTA

[BigSkyBob]

Do oil companies, big business, big banks and so forth get subsidies in the US? If so, the answer is obvious.

The alleged "subsidies" aren't payments, but, rather, tax treatments that are subject to impoundment.

I'd layoff the entire staff of the Department of Energy for a starter. That isn't "failing to pay them." It is terminating their employment, while paying them in full for services rendered.

You know that that, uh, increases unemployment, right?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Public sector employment doesn't count because government employees aren't people. Silly me.

People in the private sector whom engage in subeconomic actions go out of business and lose their jobs. I am all for  the subeconomic losing their jobs. It is the creative destruction process in action. Unfortunately, that market discipline has not extended to governmental workers,yet.

What in God's name is a 'subeconomic action'?

People with an inadequate understanding of basic economics ought not be deciding public policy.

I'm tempted to make a snide comment to the effect that it's a good thing that I'm a Japanese literature scholar, then, but instead I'll just point out that the term that I've always heard used for that is 'ancillary' or sometimes 'unproductive', not 'subeconomic'.

Also, even though I'm not an economist, I'm getting an increasing creeping sense that there is something just ineluctably wrong about your analyses, possibly because you're analysing from a standpoint of hate rather than a compassionate or rational one.

Well, is it more than just a coincidence that your feelings just happen allow to dismiss ad hominem someone whom happens to disagree with you?

P.S. Economists use "subeconomic" because it has a particular meaning.

On the scale there is

productive

subeconomic

unproductive

destructive

They mean, roughly:


Produce more value than they consume.
Consume more value than they produce.
Consume value without producing anything.
Consume value to destroy value.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would be a little more draconian than simply not paying one of these groups.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Maybe the soldiers, if unpaid, will revolt and overthrow the government and install a military dictatorship. Then get this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv5m4hTMuWU

to come in and fix everything up.