Re: It is still in the definition stage. -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:12:31 11/01/02 Fri
Author: Kafka
Author Host/IP: gatekeeper.ngrid.com / 192.146.145.219
Subject: Re: It is still in the definition stage.
In reply to: Richard 's message, "It is still in the definition stage." on 21:08:07 10/31/02 Thu

Interesting. Personally, I don't think there are any solid conclusions one can draw about absolute levels of spending. The important questions, I would think, would be spending vs. revenues, and how much is spent on non-productive programs (thing like defense, where positive economic fallout is incidental, as opposed to things like education, where positive economic fallout is a prime purpose). I'd admit that if spending gets above a certain share of GDP, we'll run into problems, but I assume that percentage is pretty high. I wouldn't want to see much more than a quarter of our GDP going towards federal spending, but I doubt anything less than that is necessarily a problem (so long as the spending is fairly productive).

Another interesting issue is the federal/state/local issue. If you cut federal spending 10% but that means you need to spend much more on state and local (maybe 200% of your "savings"), thanks to the loss of the economy of scale, you're not doing your economy much good.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]