I didn't realize basic subtraction is now an equation; let's start by saying you don't understand the difference basic math and Algebra, to start the running total of what all you got wrong in this post. Next, we agree $6.3 Trillion is current spending, and $5.1 Trillion is the spending you calculated would be left after your cuts. $25.46 Trillion is the total U.S. GDP. These numbers weren't pulled out of thin air, and you even cited them yourself in this post.
Yes, subtraction and multiplication are, in fact, equations. So one of us certainly doesn't understand even first-grade math, but feels qualified to talk about how they understand the entire US economy. I'd suggest you go look up Dunning-Kreuger, but your reading comprehension has proven just as poor so I doubt you'd get much out of it.
You invented a figure out of thin air in your 25%; none of your citations claim that figure as a general number. Second, for someone that cites Keynes, it's odd how you ignore he entirely talks about what the ramifications of belt tightening means; he directly said it would cause exactly the issue I said by destroying demand. What does that mean? Tax income goes down and thus you still can't pay off that debt because the budget isn't balanced.
If you feel otherwise, please explain how eliminating several million Federal workers doesn't hurt tax receipts alone?
First how about you establish the existence of these several million workers? How many people were employed to spend $118,000 on checking if Thanos could snap his fingers? How many people got employment out of making a hamster fight club?
'Cause here's the thing, these grift projects? They're about taking money and not giving it back. They don't want to employ lots of people gainfully, that just dilutes their personal slice of the pie. They're about taking ungodly amounts of cash, putting out as little effort as possible, and keeping it all for themselves, not spreading it around by giving lots of people jobs. We know from my sources already provided, f'rex, that the operation of marking up pliers to $999.20 and selling them to the military was the work of a single dude.
Here's where it gets funny. There are only 2.85 million Federal employees in the first place. Assuming your cutoff for "several" is 3, we can't actually cut several million jobs because there
aren't even several million jobs in the first place.
In 2021, around 18.28 million people were working for state and local governments in the United States.
www.statista.com
If we look at everybody who has a "contract" with the government, we get about five million as of 2020.
As the federal government has hovered close to two million employees for decades, the size of its grant and contract workforce has grown.
www.brookings.edu
Well at least we're reaching the point where "several" million is at least
theoretically possible. Still, it beggars belief that cutting the 25 most wasteful, bloated percent is going to gut the contract industry entirely. Will Boeing have to tighten its belt and fire three-fifths of its employees because some grifter in a Boston University isn't getting Thee Million Dollars to drug hamsters and make them fight in tournaments? Would the post office need to let most of the mail carriers go if Fauci didn't spend half a million dollars on trying to create transgender monkeys? Is the highway system going to get rid of its maintenance workers because we're not paying one dude in the NIS 75K to put lizards on a stick and shoot a leaf blower at them? Of course not.
This is why you fail, you don't comprehend the actual scale we're working with or remotely understand the system you loudly proclaim has an incredibly limited array of options. You pull numbers like "several million" out of your ass without realizing that's actually physically impossible. In reality the number thus unemployed would be tiny, most of them already have other jobs, and in an ideal world they would all be going to jail anyway.
Or maybe you think that would hurt the economy too, because people in jail aren't buying stuff and paying sales tax so for the good of the economy, we need to let all the prisoners out.
And none of said sources state your claimed figure as a general rule. You took it in one case and assumed it could be applied in all. Please do try to keep up with what the actual point is.
You're not very good at this:
The only individuals you named in your post were Keynes and Lenin, but you claim you cited economists. Either you don't understand the difference between Singular and Plural nouns, or you were citing Lenin in addition to Keynes when you referred to economists. If you meant otherwise, please specific who those others besides Keynes are?
You continue to fail at basic reading comprehension, but others have already pointed out how badly you misread that sentence so I won't continue to beat the dead horse.
Reveal Trap Card. I chose Keynes specifically because
he'd disagree with my assessment. The thing is, even somebody like Keynes, who would hate my position, still hates yours more. That's the thing, you can find economists arguing about a lot of different areas, but economists saying "yeah, 20% inflation for years on end will help the economy" are mighty thin on the ground. That's why I can fairly say that Economics generally disagrees with you.
Except you've made several claims, failed to back them up and then can't back up your objections to my own points. I've provided all my figures and links, you haven't.
“A lie repeated often enough, eventually gains acceptance”-Josef Goebbels, maybe
"But not on a message board where everybody can go back and read the previous posts." -Bear Ribs, certainly
nypost.com
