Question to all US orgahs 40+ years and older

[Lemur]

More importantly, reaching the debt limit isn't bankruptcy or insolvency - it just means the US can't keep burrowing to fund the difference between what it takes in and what it spends, like maxing a credit card. The government will still have money to fund important programs, just not all programs.

When you find yourself far, far to the right of Grover Norquist, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Kinda similar to waking up one day and realizing you're way to the left of Abbie Hoffman. Alarm bells should sound.

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move....even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

[Crazed Rabbit]

When you find yourself far, far to the right of Grover Norquist, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Kinda similar to waking up one day and realizing you're way to the left of Abbie Hoffman. Alarm bells should sound.

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move....even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

Dramatic rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm to the left of Norquist on taxes. I don't share his fear of the government only being able to spend what it collects and not burrow indefinitely, but I'm not sure that's a left-right issue.

Depends on what is being created by the government. For the most part all this money being borrowed is being spent in indirect ways to create jobs. Giving more money to those unemployed is them "creating jobs" because more money to unemployed will spur demand which will spur more production which will open more jobs. However, that isn't exactly how it works because people don't spend like they should.

Now if they had actually used all this debt to restore the nation's highway system, bridges and did an overhaul for a new electrical grid capable of handling and directing intermittent sources of renewable energy in a smart manner, we would be in a better position because we would have created something that actually has value and would actually be generating revenue for many decades.

Even with the best investments it's not as efficient as individuals spending their money on what they decide they want. Even improved infrastructure is an imposition of whatever log-rolling compromise a bunch of politicians decided on. If infrastructure improvements are needed and not just a nice thing to have, that's different. But to create jobs, a federal plan for 300 million people is not efficient.

CR

[Papewaio]

Surely there is some things that a large organisation has an advantage in doing. After all in modern economies we are more specialist's then jack of all trades. So unless you are an oddbody member it is unlikely that you belong to a community of diverse skill sets. This puts groups ie companies and government in an advantageous position. Economies of scale can also help larger organisations.

What sets the difference is the management of those large organisations to see which one makes the most benefits of the money and teams it overlooks. And it's not which corporate badge, logo or trademark, or which side of politics as much as which organisation is accountable for its actions for both reward and punishment.

If it is actually infrastructure it should have a net benefit to the economy/well being of those who paid for it ie dams, roads, hospitals. I'd look at infrastructure that is investing in the countries future. Australia at the moment is spending $42 Billion (which since we have a population of 22 million about $600 Billion in US terms of cost per person) in fibre to the home infrastructure. That will have benefits in jobs, internet speed, and then 2nd and 3rd tier economic benefits (1st Tier ISP, 2nd Tier @ home ecommerce and remote workers, 3rd Tier being those who are benefiting out of supporting that economy ie post workers shipping the physical goods etc). Could it be done by business? Yeap. Would they ignore the Outback and further polarise the city vs the bush yeap. This is Australia tax payer money paying for an egalitarian solution.

Other ways to implement infrastructure well look at the X Prizes for potential alternatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even with the best investments it's not as efficient as individuals spending their money on what they decide they want. Even improved infrastructure is an imposition of whatever log-rolling compromise a bunch of politicians decided on. If infrastructure improvements are needed and not just a nice thing to have, that's different. But to create jobs, a federal plan for 300 million people is not efficient.

CR

The federal plan isn't for 300 million people it is for a large section unemployed which is only around 10% of the population.

The first sentence is a moot point. Infrastructure isn't really something that can be handled by the private sector. No company wants to use the capital to expand infrastructure. This is why the US has some of the crappiest internet speeds in the entire western world even though the damn thing was invented here.

Infrastructure is always needed. It is impossible to build more infrastructure than there is demand for it because people quickly utilize any "extra" infrastructure by using it more.

At this point, it is not a matter of efficient, even though the efficiency is all moot for the reasons I just explained. We have people who need jobs, we have business who want more demand, we have work improving the country that needs to be done. Open these jobs up, unemployment will go down, demand will rise and when the infrastructure jobs are done, private sector will be opening their jobs back up to fulfill the demand.