I don't see anyway around it, however, I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the workings of the federal govt.

What I do know, is that there are 20 million employees of the govt., so I would assume that if you cut spending by 10%, you are going to lose 2 million jobs.

Obviously this isn't true in all cases, however, just cutting the 70k pages of regulations in half is going to cost jobs because you no longer need those people who were ensuring those 35k pages of regulations are being followed.

I am an avid proponent of doing away with the Dept. of Education, which has failed miserably at strengthening our education system, however, there goes some more jobs.

Granted, these jobs are not needed, and are counter-productive in some instances, however, the last thing we need is 2 million more people out of work.

Even if we could cut regulations and corporate taxes to the point where corporations would want to invest in America again, there is going to be a void between the time we cut the federal jobs & we see the benefits of future corporate investment.

I'm sure there are a lot of cuts that could be made to the federal govt., where X% in cuts won't result in a corresponding percentage of decrease in jobs, however, once you do make all those cuts, I highly doubt the sum total of those type cuts will make a serious dent in the total budget.

To make the cuts required to balance the budget, would be like a hard core alcoholic going cold turkey, without any meds to offset the side-effects. For those of you are aware..........alcohol is the only drug, whose withdrawals can kill you.

If I could press a button and abolish government, I would. The parasites have already stolen enough wealth they will not be harmed by a brief period of unemployment.

This is true aa far as I know. If the goal was to abolish a lot I think we would want to phase it out slowly.

Bad assumption because a) less than 100% of government spending is spent on wages for workers and b) a reduction in payroll of, say, 5% can be achieved by firing every 20th person or by cutting wages by 5% for each person.

OP, one thing to remember is that cutting spending in the federal government doesn't necessarily have to involve that many cuts in jobs.

In recent years, companies, and government entities have found ways to avoid layoffs, yet still save monies.

Completely cutting jobs, for example, can cause inefficiencies that lead to higher spending.

Sometimes, across the board reduction in hours is more effective. There are other ways...also, cutting PROGRAMS actually ends up saving more money than cutting jobs. And, you might think, well if they cut a program wouldn't that lead to job loss?

Not always. There are many government entities that have had people leave or retire, and jobs have not been filled. Sometimes, when a program or area is cut, those employees just fill the areas that are desperate for resources.

I think the premise of the thread is slightly flawed that if you were to assert that cutting efficient government spending would deepen the recession it would be correct. If efficient government spending can even exist over the long term (i.e. systematically) is a whole other issue. Additionally, you would have to assume one of the two following was true: that quantitative easing does not harm an economy; or that the money saved by the government to induce this stimulus would not have been more effeciently used by the economy the time prior to the government stimulus. I guess I just don't think it is as simple as cuts = deeper. On paper stimulus seems great, but in practice (especially TARP) it seems to be inefficient and sometimes counter productive.

slow economic growth != recession

Of course cutting government spending comes right out of the GDP. Duh. Government spending is counted in the GDP. Right now government spending is a large chunk of GDP. Why do you think the Feds are furiously running 10% of GDP deficits for 1% GDP growth? Government spending at all levels is something like 40% of GDP right now. Cut it even a tiny bit = instant double dip, because there is no real growth of the productive private sector, only growth of the destructive, parasitic government-corporate sector.

"Large chunk" is a sort of subjective view - large relative to what? Historical norms? Other countries? The current level of taxes? Your vision of a libertarian world?

If they fire all the regulators, the private sector would be able to create new jobs.

Seriously - just think of all the jobs that would be created by the need to clean up toxic waste dumped in public spaces, collapsed buildings constructed in the absence of building codes, treating people that are made sick by infected food. It's an employment bonanza!

It seem simple compare it to everyday life. You racked to much debt on your credit cards and loans and you either need to create more revenue or cut back. If you cut back your going to have to give up on some luxuries. Reality is the Republicans do not. Problem is the US thinks they have a credit card with no limit

One other way to reduce cost without firing people is to make the employee take on more responsibility of their health care and retirement costs.

The limit of this analogy is that it only works if the credit card overload person cuts back but everything else stays the same. When everyone cuts back too much then the guy with the credit card might lose his job and then he's got the big debt and no job, which is even worse than a big debt and a job.

Obviously the US need serious fiscal reform, but the folksy household examples oversimplify.

In what context is 40% of something NOT a large chunk of it?

Or reduce management salaries.

Thank god for those virtuous building code regulators, without them people would obviously have a lot of financial incentive to build buildings that would collapse and presumably crush small children and some puppies.

They would indeed have financial incentives to cut corners. If they violated no building codes, on what grounds could they be sued once they sold off the property?

What do you think would happen to a building company whose buildings seemed to be collapsing all the time ? Do you think they would last long as a business ?

Secondly if I purchased a building I would want to be damn sure it was well built and would have it checked out thoroughly. Hey, I'm sure there would be plenty of companies providing building certification so I would not have to hire the engineers myself.

Also, do you really think that humanity is so sick and twisted that people are really happy to see people getting crushed in their poorly constructed building to presumably save a few short term $$$ (very short term, completely not a profitable strategy long term). If human beings are this terrible then the regulators are not a separate species..... right ?

This sounds like thoughtful consideration of a complex subject, resulting in nuanced and slightly ambiguous conclusions. I expect far less in the politics forum.

Thankfully, most replies so far deliver the stupidity I crave.

Most govt employees couldn't make it in the private sector because a real business has to make a profit or shut down,there simply isn't room for waste. If someone is incompetant and cannot hold a job in the private sector is it now the govt's obligation to employ them by creating unnecessary jobs? You say these jobs aren't needed and counter productive so why not take all the unemployed people and have the govt pay them 60k a year plus benefits to just dig giant ditches and fill them back up and keep repeating? Then we would have zero unemployment,we would get alot of people healthcare and retirement that don't have them.

Definitely. That's what happened before there were building codes. Has human nature changed much since then?

And, even with building codes, people are cutting corners right now.

^^^^^^Insane

Basically damned if we do damned if we don't at this point.

Give me a couple hours and I'll start a lovely building code thread where folks like DonkyMcDonk can rage against logic and evidence. Gotta run some errands first, tho.

LOL, you evidently, and erroneously think they wouldn't stay in business. Worst case scenario is that they change names. People just don't pay attention to anything that businesses are doing, and if you think the majority of people do, then you're nuts.

Also, when you loudly exclaim to all the people that this particular building company builds faulty buildings, it all the sudden becomes you vs. them, and people are dumb enough to side with corporations ALL the time. You know this.

Dude, please. Every single one of those building certification companies will be getting paid by the building owners because who is going to stop them? In fact, they would likely be more corrupt than the builders themselves. People wouldn't have any clue as to who to trust. (You're obviously talking about private building certifiers in a non-government world I'm assuming.)

It's not that they're sick dude...it's out of sight, out of mind to them. They care about profit. When someone comes up to them yelling, "Your building fell and killed 20 children and 40 grandmas," they hear, "Your building fell, and..." and that's it. They block the rest out.

When you refer to regulators, I'm assuming you are referring to current regulators who do not have a profit motive.

Do you see the difference? These government regulators (of whom there are too many of, I concede that) are typically (not always) in a situation where they cannot profit from their position, and can only make their salary. By profiting, they would lose their job, so they don't test that.

I'm also not trying to say all entities that work for a profit will step all over anyone, I'm just saying that when there is no one to watch them, there will be a lot more corruption than currently exists.