Aug 8th 2011, 23:09:05
I absolutely believe he's requested spending increases. I'm just questioning the numbers CK's throwing around, as he continually refuses to provide any sort of reference for them.
Well, that and an administration putting together an actual budget that spans 10 years is not likely - fiscal plans, planned spending summaries, budget forecasts, sure...but I'm not aware of an actual budget spanning that far into the future - and even if it did, it would probably be modified over time as any budget made now would have to assume no legislative/tax/revenue change over the span of its intended use.
Also - I've been told that the 3.8 trillion doesn't give credit for the 780 billion that has since been paid back from bailout funds. Actual spending is closer to 3.2, as I understand it. I'm no economist/accountant though, so I won't claim to know if that's accurate or not.
CK - no one is saying that politicians are ALWAYS looking out for the public's best interest first. That would just be ludicrous, and downright naive. I have worked in governments with corruption beyond anything you could even begin to imagine, and know first had just how fluffty politicians can be - but you have to understand that despite how prolific they seem in mass media, they are a small minority. For every 1 Rod Blagojevic or Rahm Emanuel, there are 100 other folks who go to work, do their job, and try to put in an honest day's work to make government work better. You just don't hear about those other 100, because they don't pull the ratings that the 1% does.
With that said though, it is also a matter of priorities. No one expects a CEO to be socially responsible. His one and only job is to ensure continued increasing revenue for his company - he only answers to his share holders and board of directors, and has no obligation to uphold any sort of social well being. There are good CEO's who do this out of a sense of obligation, and there are terrible CEO's who would check-raise their own grandmother if given the opportunity - the point is, they are under no obligation to do so, and therefore are not able to guarantee social well being on a level that a government which is obliged with that task can. Government risks favor being sold to the highest bidder....but privatization guarantees it.
Well, that and an administration putting together an actual budget that spans 10 years is not likely - fiscal plans, planned spending summaries, budget forecasts, sure...but I'm not aware of an actual budget spanning that far into the future - and even if it did, it would probably be modified over time as any budget made now would have to assume no legislative/tax/revenue change over the span of its intended use.
Also - I've been told that the 3.8 trillion doesn't give credit for the 780 billion that has since been paid back from bailout funds. Actual spending is closer to 3.2, as I understand it. I'm no economist/accountant though, so I won't claim to know if that's accurate or not.
CK - no one is saying that politicians are ALWAYS looking out for the public's best interest first. That would just be ludicrous, and downright naive. I have worked in governments with corruption beyond anything you could even begin to imagine, and know first had just how fluffty politicians can be - but you have to understand that despite how prolific they seem in mass media, they are a small minority. For every 1 Rod Blagojevic or Rahm Emanuel, there are 100 other folks who go to work, do their job, and try to put in an honest day's work to make government work better. You just don't hear about those other 100, because they don't pull the ratings that the 1% does.
With that said though, it is also a matter of priorities. No one expects a CEO to be socially responsible. His one and only job is to ensure continued increasing revenue for his company - he only answers to his share holders and board of directors, and has no obligation to uphold any sort of social well being. There are good CEO's who do this out of a sense of obligation, and there are terrible CEO's who would check-raise their own grandmother if given the opportunity - the point is, they are under no obligation to do so, and therefore are not able to guarantee social well being on a level that a government which is obliged with that task can. Government risks favor being sold to the highest bidder....but privatization guarantees it.
