US deficit crisis: the clock ticks

[arora]

To be clear, the real problem isn’t paying for our current spending. The real problem is paying for the 78 million baby boomers as they retire and claim their promised Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, and as spending on the new health-care exchanges expands far beyond what’s been projected.

Laurence Kotlikoff can write op-ed's too.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

Who gives a damn about the deficit? It's really a bogus number as the accounting used to come to whatever number is skewed b/c offshore assets are not taken into account.

Now spending & the welfare state...take a guess which party has almost a complete monopoly of that?

The problem isn't the deficit, the problem is how much $$$ the US Gov't have promised in the way of welfare into the future. The world knows the US has cash today...tomorrow is a different story.

Socialism never ends well, history tells us this.

Selected social democratic policies on certain issues /= socialism. Despite what Glenn tells you.

 

[FoolKiller]

You mean a whopping 117,000 jobs and still 9.1% unemployment? Ya I read that. 117,000 jobs only dropped the unemployment rate 0.1%. You still have at least 6 million people unemployed for 27+ weeks, 1 million discouraged workers, 1 million with reduced employment and at least 8 million on part time because of an economic down turn.

In comparison to "when the wealthy do create jobs, it is typically in other countries" it is a bright signal.

Also, I think that you should stop and look at what your percentages mean.

In the late 1950s unemplyment was 6.1% = 168 million people with jobs.
Today unemployment is 9.1% = 279 million people with jobs, more than the entire US population in 1960.

Now, please explain to me how jobs have not been created when population has nearly doubled in 60 years and the market has managed to keep roughly the same percentage of that population employed. And that is with outsourcing going on. Are all the jobs a living wage? No, but then you could make less than $1 a hour in 1960. That isn't something that has really changed, or will change, or can change.

I'm looking for a glimmering ray of hope there but I can't find it. 31,000 of the 117,000 jobs were created in healthcare, more specifically in the clinical healthcare sector. Clinical healthcare jobs typically are contingent, so it very well could be that those people hired could be out of a job by Xmas. 26,000 of the jobs were retail, so people making minimum wage more or less. 24,000 manufacturing jobs is a little more promising since they come with decent pay and benefits as does the 9,000 mining jobs.

Don't get your hopes up on the mining jobs. The ever progressive and concerned EPA has put new regulations on coal power plants that will possibly shut a number of them down. When Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia begin struggling to keep their main economic engine going we can thank the Obama administration and eco-hippies for those lost jobs, not the wealthy.

So yes, the lower and middle class have responsibility, but their actions have far less weight on the country then the wealthy.

85% of the voting public have far less weight than the other 15%? That must explain why the other 15% are paying for nearly half the taxes in this country. They have so much power and greed they elected to have their money taken and handed to those who do very little to support the economy or make a real effort to get out of their current situation.

Class warfare exists because of a percentage of wealthy people simply not giving a 🤬 about the plebs beneath them (note I said a certain percent, not all), in my opinion. They will do whatever it takes to make more money without thinking about the long term consequences.

It started because of some belief by the non-wealthy that the wealthy should care about them. If people put half the effort into bettering themselves that they put into protesting the rich and complaining they could be successful too. It happens with work and effort. It doesn't just happen over night. The most successful people in the world aren't the ones that sat around complaining. They are the ones that got stuff done.

If the government reinvests that money into the country through building projects, society improvements and whatever else, then there wouldn't be an issue.

You are seriously saying this after the stimulus showed how this is not the case.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_timeline_of_events031362.php

Republicans will be the end of America.

With those kind of blinders on I can show that Democrats are predominantly warmongers.

 

[Dotini]

It started because of some belief by the non-wealthy that the wealthy should care about them.

At the Great Depression, there came a widespread belief among the wealthy that the suffering of elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged Americans could be relieved by a system of social security payments then easily afforded by working Americans.

Now, time and demographics have turned against the suffering classes. It has long, long since passed that families should take care of their own sick, disabled and elderly, and now the time is passing that society in general is financially able to care about them. What to do? Put the elderly, disabled and sick to work in the mines so they can lift themselves up by their bootstraps? Offer them hemlock? Liquidate them into soylent green? Of course it's unthinkable that family should ever again be responsible for its offspring or parents.

Once you've made a social contract, it seems you must see it through, but only up until the time you don't want to anymore. This is the triumph of the individual. Triumph over family, over society, over history itself. Is this Ayn Rand's dream, or is it our nightmare?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Joey D]

Now, please explain to me how jobs have not been created when population has nearly doubled in 60 years and the market has managed to keep roughly the same percentage of that population employed. And that is with outsourcing going on. Are all the jobs a living wage? No, but then you could make less than $1 a hour in 1960. That isn't something that has really changed, or will change, or can change.

Jobs were created at one time, they just aren't being created any more, which is why I don't think they wealthy should be credited. One could say that they used to create jobs and I would believe it, but saying they currently create jobs is something I just don't see.

Don't get your hopes up on the mining jobs. The ever progressive and concerned EPA has put new regulations on coal power plants that will possibly shut a number of them down. When Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia begin struggling to keep their main economic engine going we can thank the Obama administration and eco-hippies for those lost jobs, not the wealthy.

I don't place all the blame the eco-hippies for that though, I still blame the wealthy who funded the mining operations to begin with for the most part. Stripping the natural resources out of the earth without any respect to the land surrounding the mine has destroyed quite a few things. I just look at how industry has ruined Michigan's Great Lakes, I have to imagine it's the same else where, just with different chunks of land and bodies of water.

I believe regulations are needed to keep our environment some what pollution free. I don't believe a business person will put the environment over their drive to get more money and higher profits. If they would have regulated themselves they wouldn't be in this mess.

85% of the voting public have far less weight than the other 15%? That must explain why the other 15% are paying for nearly half the taxes in this country. They have so much power and greed they elected to have their money taken and handed to those who do very little to support the economy or make a real effort to get out of their current situation.

When middle class or lower class people vote someone in they have very little power to influence that politician to do something to work for them. Who ever has the biggest cheque book and can make campaign contributions will typically get the most influence. I don't know about you but I don't have the kind of funds to throw around to have a politicians support a cause.

Sure you can say I could write a letter, protest, or bitch on the internet, but all that does is make you the individual feel better. Politicians don't care unless you come waving money or leading a huge group of voters...and even then I'm guessing the money trumps the group.

It started because of some belief by the non-wealthy that the wealthy should care about them. If people put half the effort into bettering themselves that they put into protesting the rich and complaining they could be successful too. It happens with work and effort. It doesn't just happen over night. The most successful people in the world aren't the ones that sat around complaining. They are the ones that got stuff done.

The wealthy should care about the plebs though, whether they want to or not. What is it, like the top 1% of the population in the USA owns like 40% of the wealth? And if you drill down deeper it ends up being the top 10% owning 70% of the wealth? When you control the wealth you inherited the control of the economy.

How can I better myself though? The wealthy have ruined the stock market which have resulted in companies not growing and thus not hiring. Finding a job that offers a pay I can live on is quite difficult, they basically want you to work for free. So I can't better myself there. I can't start up a business because I don't have the required capital and investors are coming up short. I can't go back to school because I'll be saddled with so much debt I'll never be able to make something of myself.

I agree that there are a lot of people doing nothing, but I can honestly say I know more people trying to make something of themselves then not and all they are doing is spinning their wheels, racking up more debt.

And I disagree that the wealthy aren't the ones would sat around complain, I believe they were the ones complaining the loudest till they got their way and managed to break through and succeed, no matter who they ran down in the process.

You are seriously saying this after the stimulus showed how this is not the case.

The stimulus was a joke. If the government actually invested in people working in America it would be better. All the stimulus did was allow people to syphon off the top and by the time the money trickled down it was hardly anything to do anything with.

Do it right and it'll work.

 

[disinfected]

Got to hate those rich people that earned their money.

 

[Dapper]

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

You are seriously saying this after the stimulus showed how this is not the case.

Republicans always weasel themselves into a corner. Foolkiller, you know that a lot of the stimulus was tax cuts? What you are saying is that tax cuts don't help! that Republican ideology is wrong! You said it this time, not me.

Selected social democratic policies on certain issues /= socialism. Despite what Glenn tells you.

Not to mention even the Tea Party is for our most Socialist-esque programs.

 

[Keef]

Joey, if you were a wealthy employer in today's economy you probably wouldn't be hiring people either. The climate sucks. Like I said before, there is little to no confidence in the current government's ability to fix this (because they can't). The forecast is nothing but worse for years to come. This is a time to be spending conservatively. If you have a business and it is running well right now, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Just keep doing what you're doing, keep improving the things you have now, keep doing cost analyses, keep analyzing the economy and where it's going, keep reviewing financial disaster procedures or whatever. If our current trend of central economic planning continues, things are going to fall apart a lot sooner than you think they are. This is not a time to be expanding your business rapidly because that will come back to bite you within a few years.

 

[Joey D]

Joey, if you were a wealthy employer in today's economy you probably wouldn't be hiring people either. The climate sucks. Like I said before, there is little to no confidence in the current government's ability to fix this (because they can't). The forecast is nothing but worse for years to come. This is a time to be spending conservatively. If you have a business and it is running well right now, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Just keep doing what you're doing, keep improving the things you have now, keep doing cost analyses, keep analyzing the economy and where it's going, keep reviewing financial disaster procedures or whatever. If our current trend of central economic planning continues, things are going to fall apart a lot sooner than you think they are. This is not a time to be expanding your business rapidly because that will come back to bite you within a few years.

No I probably wouldn't be hiring people.

However, the climate sucks because they wealthy made it suck. Whether through outsourcing or influencing politicians to support policies that helped them, as the wealthy business owner, succeed. They also have started pulling money out of the market and sitting on it which does choke growth and stifle the economy.

In my opinion they basically shot themselves in the foot and made everything come to a head. Now the wealthy business owner has stopped growth because they've created an economy that is broken. They don't care because they are wealthy and the rest of us are left to fight through it.

===

In other news, I read an interesting piece on CNN that suggests that the S&P told some clients that the credit downgrade was coming so they could do a massive sell off. Then it came out that the Treasury Dept made a math error and a downgrade wasn't necessary, but in order not to piss off the investors the S&P downgraded the credit rating anyway. So essentially a bunch of rich idiots told a bunch of other rich idiots that excrement was going to hit the fan because a bunch of bean counters can't actually count.

So basically you have the wealthy and the government who ruined the market, so I wasn't complete right in placing all the blame on rich people.

 

[disinfected]

Joey D is the kind of person, that for the most part, I hate to admit I kind of agree with.

 

[Joey D]

Joey D is the kind of person, that for the most part, I hate to admit I kind of agree with.

I'm not that bad

 

[disinfected]

And I'm not sure if I hate to agree with you because I believe rich people earn their money, or I hate to agree with you because you're from Michigan and I'm from Ohio.

 

[FoolKiller]

Jobs were created at one time, they just aren't being created any more, which is why I don't think they wealthy should be credited. One could say that they used to create jobs and I would believe it, but saying they currently create jobs is something I just don't see.

At what point do you believe that this job creation stopped? There are more people employed in the US today than lived in the US in 1990. And that is with 9.1% unemployment. The number of people working today is almost equal to the population in 2000 (281 million pop). Heck, in 2000 the unemployment rate was 4%. That means there are 10 million more jobs today than there were ten years ago.

I don't place all the blame the eco-hippies for that though, I still blame the wealthy who funded the mining operations to begin with for the most part. Stripping the natural resources out of the earth without any respect to the land surrounding the mine has destroyed quite a few things. I just look at how industry has ruined Michigan's Great Lakes, I have to imagine it's the same else where, just with different chunks of land and bodies of water.

Coal is the cheapest and most abundant form on energy. You need to pick whether the wealthy don't care about how they effect the economy (cheap energy = good economy) or don't care about how they effect the environment. You can't have both, especially since you are complaining about practices that are centuries old and still proven to be the cheapest energy. Imagine if they had a crystal ball and had been multiple generations forward thinking, as you somehow believe they should have been. They would have not dug up coal, not burned oil, and 90% of the things you have today wouldn't exist.

I believe regulations are needed to keep our environment some what pollution free. I don't believe a business person will put the environment over their drive to get more money and higher profits. If they would have regulated themselves they wouldn't be in this mess.

But you want to complain about jobs when these regulations and incentives are forcing manufacturing out of the country, giving tax money to foreign automakers, and shutting down multiple industries. If your main problem is jobs, these regulations are part of the problem.

When middle class or lower class people vote someone in they have very little power to influence that politician to do something to work for them. Who ever has the biggest cheque book and can make campaign contributions will typically get the most influence. I don't know about you but I don't have the kind of funds to throw around to have a politicians support a cause.

That must explain the much higher tax rates on the wealthy then. Or that the policies that hurt the middle and lower class are why they voted politicians in, unaware of what the ultimate outcome would be. Don't forget that people wanted Obama to do things like the stimulus.

The wealthy should care about the plebs though, whether they want to or not. What is it, like the top 1% of the population in the USA owns like 40% of the wealth? And if you drill down deeper it ends up being the top 10% owning 70% of the wealth? When you control the wealth you inherited the control of the economy.

If they have that much of their wealth tied to how the economy runs they absolutely shouldn't care about other people, rather how to best keep the economy going, which is best done by being concerned with how your business performs, which does not mean hiring people just because.

How can I better myself though? The wealthy have ruined the stock market which have resulted in companies not growing and thus not hiring. Finding a job that offers a pay I can live on is quite difficult, they basically want you to work for free. So I can't better myself there. I can't start up a business because I don't have the required capital and investors are coming up short. I can't go back to school because I'll be saddled with so much debt I'll never be able to make something of myself.

To quote ICP on today's Adam Carolla Show, "You got to get out there every 🤬 day."

I agree that there are a lot of people doing nothing, but I can honestly say I know more people trying to make something of themselves then not and all they are doing is spinning their wheels, racking up more debt.

I see a lot of people saying they are putting forth effort, but I see them spend more time talking about not getting a break than trying to make something happen.

And I disagree that the wealthy aren't the ones would sat around complain, I believe they were the ones complaining the loudest till they got their way and managed to break through and succeed, no matter who they ran down in the process.

Yes, I am sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got to where they are by sitting around complaining. I have personally found that all my own success comes from not saying "That's not my job" or "I'm trying my best," but rather by doing. Sure, some people get breaks or have family to lean on, but that just means I need to work that much harder to prove myself. My friend just got a new job at a new company that basically gave him a 40% increase in pay. While working he was looking for jobs nearly every day for the last year, getting PMP certified, and attending organizational meetings for managers. And he did all that with two kids and a wife who also works.

Do it right and it'll work.

How does taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people to do jobs we don't need/want done work to do anything?

 

[Bones Brigade]

(Photo provided for amusement. I am not an Obama apologist or a Democrat.)


1. Class warfare does exist because of envy. The rich envy the cheap labor of their competitors and use whatever means possible to glean whatever they can from the working class. To say the poor envy the rich and therefore class warfare exists is seriously one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. Poor people didn't create the ghetto, the don't matter on Wall Street, they don't control interest rates, set the rules for credit, etc. Money is power. It's really simple.


2. Bringing up race when talking about the presidents downfalls makes you a racist. Deal with it. People have been racists for centuries. There are others like you. It's not the worst thing in the world; you could be a rapist or a murderer. But you're only a racist, so it's not that bad.


3. The budget absolutely needs to be cut. I can think of a nice large program that currently gets about 663 trillion that could use a bit of trimming. Say...to the tune of 500 trillion? Although, if we did that, the US would only have the largest military budget in the world by a mere 80 trillion.


4. Lets have a tax rate right around where they were in the Reagan era. Oh, we'd have to raise taxes? Well then I guess I'm stumped.


Also, Obama is a corporatist moderate. Let him do what he wants and the Republicans would probably come out pretty pleased, if not for the fact that they want the power and glory, regardless if they like another persons ideas.

 

[Danoff]

(Photo provided for amusement. I am not an Obama apologist or a Democrat.)

It's accurate if the firehose is full of gasoline.

1. Class warfare does exist because of envy. The rich envy the cheap labor of their competitors and use whatever means possible to glean whatever they can from the working class. To say the poor envy the rich and therefore class warfare exists is seriously one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. Poor people didn't create the ghetto, the don't matter on Wall Street, they don't control interest rates, set the rules for credit, etc. Money is power. It's really simple.

Poor people actually did create the ghetto. They don't matter to wall street, but that means nothing when it comes to government policy - where they do make a huge difference. There are more voters than people who pay income tax... what does that say to you about the direction the country will head? What does it say to you about the likelihood of cutting government spending?

Money is not power in the United States - our country was set up that way intentionally. Your vote is all the lawmakers want, and the way things are currently set up they can buy it by offering handouts paid for by the rich (universal healthcare?).

The only reason class warfare exists is because of envy/greed on the part of the poor.

3. The budget absolutely needs to be cut. I can think of a nice large program that currently gets about 663 trillion that could use a bit of trimming. Say...to the tune of 500 trillion? Although, if we did that, the US would only have the largest military budget in the world by a mere 80 trillion.

You meant billion right? I want you to think about the influence that a large American military has on other parts of the world... like Korea for example. Do you think China would stay as peaceful if the US military were more the size of... say... France's?

4. Lets have a tax rate right around where they were in the Reagan era. Oh, we'd have to raise taxes? Well then I guess I'm stumped.

It wasn't the rate during the Reagan era, it was the direction. Remember what happened prior to Reagan?

Also, Obama is a corporatist moderate. Let him do what he wants and the Republicans would probably come out pretty pleased, if not for the fact that they want the power and glory, regardless if they like another persons ideas.

Obama is not a moderate. I have no love for the republicans, but Obama is definitely not moderate. He's done a fantastic job of picking up where Bush left off. More pathetic Keynesian economic policy that doesn't work.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Everyone needs to stop for a second and get some perspective in what's going on. What's happening now isn't new nor is it something that is inevitable. Budgets, deficits, taxes, regulations, rich v. poor...it's all a play-out record.

Watch the vids on this website and ask yourself if anything sounds familiar or relevant;

http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

 

[FoolKiller]

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html


Republicans always weasel themselves into a corner. Foolkiller, you know that a lot of the stimulus was tax cuts? What you are saying is that tax cuts don't help! that Republican ideology is wrong! You said it this time, not me.

<Checks voter registration>

I could go on and on and on about how I have never said I agree with Republicans, or how when you blame Republicans I say that Democrats and Republicans share the blame, not that Republicans are innocent and I could even mention how the only Republican I have voted for in a national election in the last 11 years was Rand Paul.

But, I'll let you keep talking because you just make yourself look silly in front of the people who actually know anything about me.


Here's a hint: Get rid of the two-party pissing contest BS and something might actually get done in this country. As long as people want to fight over Republicans or Democrats all they will do is to continue to allow the government to continue their system of destruction in this country.

1. Class warfare does exist because of envy. The rich envy the cheap labor of their competitors and use whatever means possible to glean whatever they can from the working class.

Wait, you think it is because of competition in business? Am I reading that right?

To say the poor envy the rich and therefore class warfare exists is seriously one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. Poor people didn't create the ghetto, the don't matter on Wall Street, they don't control interest rates, set the rules for credit, etc. Money is power. It's really simple.

Government controls the rules for credit and essentially controls the interest rates. But you are right, it is ignorant to say the poor envying teh rich is what caused class warfare. It was the government, pretending to represent the poor vilifying the rich which created it.

3. The budget absolutely needs to be cut. I can think of a nice large program that currently gets about 663 trillion that could use a bit of trimming. Say...to the tune of 500 trillion? Although, if we did that, the US would only have the largest military budget in the world by a mere 80 trillion.

I agree with you, it is hard to argue for that when whoever is in power bombs the holy hell out of somebody new.

4. Lets have a tax rate right around where they were in the Reagan era. Oh, we'd have to raise taxes? Well then I guess I'm stumped.

Let's have a tax rate that treats everyone equally.

Also, Obama is a corporatist moderate. Let him do what he wants and the Republicans would probably come out pretty pleased, if not for the fact that they want the power and glory, regardless if they like another persons ideas.

So Republicans in Congress under Obama are doing what Obama did in Congress under Bush? CHANGE!!!

 

[Joey D]

At what point do you believe that this job creation stopped? There are more people employed in the US today than lived in the US in 1990. And that is with 9.1% unemployment. The number of people working today is almost equal to the population in 2000 (281 million pop). Heck, in 2000 the unemployment rate was 4%. That means there are 10 million more jobs today than there were ten years ago.

September 11th, 2001. America was shown as vulnerable and that made people scared to do anything till whatever happened was resolved. Obviously we are still fighting what, five wars? Ya so still no resolution.

Coal is the cheapest and most abundant form on energy. You need to pick whether the wealthy don't care about how they effect the economy (cheap energy = good economy) or don't care about how they effect the environment. You can't have both, especially since you are complaining about practices that are centuries old and still proven to be the cheapest energy. Imagine if they had a crystal ball and had been multiple generations forward thinking, as you somehow believe they should have been. They would have not dug up coal, not burned oil, and 90% of the things you have today wouldn't exist.

You need both, you can't just rape the Earth in the name of profit. Mother Nature will win every time, that's been proven time and time again. Being so fixated on the bottom line and being very short sighted isn't going to benefit anyone in the long run.

We've known for a long time that coal is a pollutant, we also know mining hurts the environment by dumping all sorts of crap into the water table. It's not like we didn't have time to develop a different source of energy. But since coal and oil tycoons had a ton of money and could use that wealth to shape policies that favoured their industry and make propaganda against alternative sources.

But you want to complain about jobs when these regulations and incentives are forcing manufacturing out of the country, giving tax money to foreign automakers, and shutting down multiple industries. If your main problem is jobs, these regulations are part of the problem.

Companies will always have profit trump anything else, this is why I believe regulations need to exist. If companies were allowed to get away with dumping whatever they wanted into the Great Lakes, our water ways would be completely gone now instead of almost completely gone. Same thing goes for the air in many cities.

I don't believe people can be trusted to do the right thing when large sums of money are on the line, this is why I keep blaming the rich for so much. They caused many of the problems on their road to being wealthy.

If they have that much of their wealth tied to how the economy runs they absolutely shouldn't care about other people, rather how to best keep the economy going, which is best done by being concerned with how your business performs, which does not mean hiring people just because.

Caring about people and caring about the economy go hand in hand.

And I'm not suggesting they hire people just because, but if they don't have people working for them how can they expect anyone to buy the goods they produce? By stifling their own growth they are just going to hurt their business in the long run. People need jobs to buy the good other people make, if people don't have jobs they aren't going to buy goods and thus more people will lose their jobs. It's a downward spiral.

To quote ICP on today's Adam Carolla Show, "You got to get out there every 🤬 day."

And I do, a little hard to squeeze blood from a turnip though. My choices now are to go back to school or start a business. School will cause a monumental debt do to an overinflated university system, and starting a business requires capital which I don't have.

I see a lot of people saying they are putting forth effort, but I see them spend more time talking about not getting a break than trying to make something happen.

I'm just curious but have you ever been in a situation where you can't find a job despite putting out over 100 applications in 3 months?

When you are doing alright it's easy to say others should try harder, I was the same way when I was working, but now that my life has flipped upside down I can related to what others in a similar and worse situation are feeling.

Yes, I am sure Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got to where they are by sitting around complaining. I have personally found that all my own success comes from not saying "That's not my job" or "I'm trying my best," but rather by doing. Sure, some people get breaks or have family to lean on, but that just means I need to work that much harder to prove myself. My friend just got a new job at a new company that basically gave him a 40% increase in pay. While working he was looking for jobs nearly every day for the last year, getting PMP certified, and attending organizational meetings for managers. And he did all that with two kids and a wife who also works.

I did quite a bit at my job, I managed an entire computer network of over 500 units by myself, on top of doing a ton of other jobs that weren't even remotely in my job descriptions. I just did it and rarely worked less than 10 hours per day, despite getting paid for 8 and I never took a lunch. I also looked and applied for positions every day while working knowing that nothing is ever concrete, even though I was repeatedly assured my job was safe.

Well due to a long string of circumstances I was laid off, despite hard work and the willingness to do whatever was asked of me. Same thing happened when I worked at the art gallery and a bookstore. Forgive me for being cynical but I don't believe hardwork gets you very far, all it does it make you a doormat and when whatever place has gotten their use out of you they lay you off, reduce your hours or just phase you out of the picture totally with 2 hour shifts per week.

How does taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people to do jobs we don't need/want done work to do anything?

Giving money to people for doing work to better society through better infrastructure is a helluva lot better then taking money from people to support third world nations, endless wars, and politician expense accounts.

 

[DK]

Obviously we are still fighting what, five wars?

Off the top of my head I can think of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Where are the other two?

 

[Joey D]

Off the top of my head I can think of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Where are the other two?

Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan
Operation Enduring Freedom Philippines
Operation Enduring Freedom Trans Sahara
War in North-West Pakistan
Yemeni al-Qaeda crackdown
Operation Odyssey Dawn

That's six, but the Yemeni one is linked to Enduring Freedom.

There is also the Global War on Terrorism and Operation Ocean Shield, which we are in as part of NATO to blow up Somali pirates.

 

[FoolKiller]

September 11th, 2001. America was shown as vulnerable and that made people scared to do anything till whatever happened was resolved. Obviously we are still fighting what, five wars? Ya so still no resolution.

But all the things you blame for the "loss" of jobs were going on before 9/11. Why pick that date? Outsourcing began in the 70s and 80s. We headed toward a service based economy in the 90s.

The simple fact is that there are more jobs now than ever. What those jobs are have changed as the society has changed. You want less pollution in your country but all the same goods and products? Send industry elsewhere and have cleaner local jobs. That's how it works.

You need both, you can't just rape the Earth in the name of profit. Mother Nature will win every time, that's been proven time and time again. Being so fixated on the bottom line and being very short sighted isn't going to benefit anyone in the long run.

We've known for a long time that coal is a pollutant, we also know mining hurts the environment by dumping all sorts of crap into the water table. It's not like we didn't have time to develop a different source of energy. But since coal and oil tycoons had a ton of money and could use that wealth to shape policies that favoured their industry and make propaganda against alternative sources.

Yet, even when we attempt to use alternative energy sources those same nannies come out and whine again. Dams destroy wetlands. Nuclear power plants create nuclear waste. Wind turbines might kill birds and create noise pollution. And any form of gas from drilling is just a huge no-no. There is a point where you have to say something has to give, and the powers that be chose that something to be jobs and the economy.

Companies will always have profit trump anything else, this is why I believe regulations need to exist. If companies were allowed to get away with dumping whatever they wanted into the Great Lakes, our water ways would be completely gone now instead of almost completely gone. Same thing goes for the air in many cities.

You have to find balance. Or stop the whining. You want two things that conflict. Pick one and suck it up or deal with a little of both.

Caring about people and caring about the economy go hand in hand.

And I'm not suggesting they hire people just because, but if they don't have people working for them how can they expect anyone to buy the goods they produce? By stifling their own growth they are just going to hurt their business in the long run. People need jobs to buy the good other people make, if people don't have jobs they aren't going to buy goods and thus more people will lose their jobs. It's a downward spiral.

I don't know how many times I need to explain that your math is backward here. 279 million people have jobs. When they start buying more stuff again then companies will hire. Those people are still working but spending less. Looks like just not the rich are hording their money. Just giving people jobs in hopes that they will by your good or service doesn't work if there isn't a demand. When more people buy more McDonald's then they hire more employees. When less people by then they let people go. They don't hire people and then get more business. That is not how it works. Never has and never will.

I can tell you our business didn't slow down after we had lay offs. We had lay offs because our business slowed down. We don't plan to hire more people until after business speeds up.

And I do, a little hard to squeeze blood from a turnip though. My choices now are to go back to school or start a business. School will cause a monumental debt do to an overinflated university system, and starting a business requires capital which I don't have.

I'm going to guess you have other options.

I'm just curious but have you ever been in a situation where you can't find a job despite putting out over 100 applications in 3 months?

Not since college, but I have been with this one company since then and just been trekking up the ladder. During college I was applying for jobs two years before I graduated hoping to get internships that would lead to jobs and before then I worked two internships with GE and one with National Processing Company as summer jobs simply for the job experience and connections. I also took the Psychology of Business Behavior class where the top ten students in class got to have dinner at the professor's home with the state attorney general and business leaders from around the state.

I also never limited myself to one regional location. It is why I live 40 miles from where I work and none of my family lives near me.

When you are doing alright it's easy to say others should try harder, I was the same way when I was working, but now that my life has flipped upside down I can related to what others in a similar and worse situation are feeling.

When you live in the worst economic region in the country, which relies on one major business where bad decisions occurred at the top to the point of near bankruptcy is is easy to blame the wealthy for near everything.

Well due to a long string of circumstances I was laid off, despite hard work and the willingness to do whatever was asked of me. Same thing happened when I worked at the art gallery and a bookstore. Forgive me for being cynical but I don't believe hardwork gets you very far, all it does it make you a doormat and when whatever place has gotten their use out of you they lay you off, reduce your hours or just phase you out of the picture totally with 2 hour shifts per week.

It could be the local economy is in the crapper and they no longer have the money to pay you. Maybe you should have used some of your pay to buy whatever they were selling. I mean, that's why they hired you right, so you could buy their stuff?

Giving money to people for doing work to better society through better infrastructure is a helluva lot better then taking money from people to support third world nations, endless wars, and politician expense accounts.

Lesser of two evils...

New idea: Quit taking other people's money.

 

[Joey D]

But all the things you blame for the "loss" of jobs were going on before 9/11. Why pick that date? Outsourcing began in the 70s and 80s. We headed toward a service based economy in the 90s.

I pick 9/11 because it accelerated it and made people wake up and see what was going on.

You have to find balance. Or stop the whining. You want two things that conflict. Pick one and suck it up or deal with a little of both.

I'll deal with a little of both but for the most part industry ignores the environment completely in the name of profit. I'm fine with dealing with both, I just don't see both happening.

I don't know how many times I need to explain that your math is backward here. 279 million people have jobs. When they start buying more stuff again then companies will hire. Those people are still working but spending less. Looks like just not the rich are hording their money. Just giving people jobs in hopes that they will by your good or service doesn't work if there isn't a demand. When more people buy more McDonald's then they hire more employees. When less people by then they let people go. They don't hire people and then get more business. That is not how it works. Never has and never will.

I don't agree with this though, the reason people are spending less is because they are fearful of their jobs being terminated. Until the economy gets stable again they aren't going to spend like they used to, which it won't unless people start back working again. You need people working to show a strong economy, to make people spend more money.

Hoarding money solves nothing.

I'm going to guess you have other options.

Find a job that doesn't exist, go back to school to learn a new skill or start a business...I can't think of many other options past joining the military, which I can't because of health issues.

Not since college, but I have been with this one company since then and just been trekking up the ladder. During college I was applying for jobs two years before I graduated hoping to get internships that would lead to jobs and before then I worked two internships with GE and one with National Processing Company as summer jobs simply for the job experience and connections. I also took the Psychology of Business Behavior class where the top ten students in class got to have dinner at the professor's home with the state attorney general and business leaders from around the state.

I also never limited myself to one regional location. It is why I live 40 miles from where I work and none of my family lives near me.

I'm not going to dive into my personal life to much but I was applying for jobs my junior year as well and even had an internship that lead to decent a job when I graduated. However, that company had financial troubles and I was laid off, rehired, laid off, then rehired with reduced hours and pay. Eventually I found a new job. I don't limit myself either, I've been looking at and applying for position as far away Seattle ever since I got close to graduation.

My point is though, you have job which you've held onto for various circumstances. When you aren't in a position of unemployment and struggling to find a job, it's easy to tell someone to try harder...I did the exact same thing with all my friends who I thought were doing nothing. I, however, was wrong.

It could be the local economy is in the crapper and they no longer have the money to pay you. Maybe you should have used some of your pay to buy whatever they were selling. I mean, that's why they hired you right, so you could buy their stuff?

I used a lot of my pay to buy what we were selling, healthcare. All six of my doctors were employed by the hospital I worked at...and I'm not talking practised in the network either. Two of my doctors I saw every week. I also ate in our cafeteria, used our medical supply and pharmacy for my healthcare needs, and even bought coffee at our little coffee shop.

Healthcare is the largest industry in Michigan and has beat out automotive, and we all know that healthcare is needed now more than ever due to all the Baby Boomers.

Lesser of two evils...

New idea: Quit taking other people's money.

I don't have a problem with taking money though as long as it's invested into the country. I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes if it meant the roads were good, our schools were good and our emergency services didn't fail.

 

[Omnis]

Joey, PIMCO was getting out of treasuries long before the downgrade because they didn't want to buy from a AA+ source and make AAA returns. Nobody in their right mind believes the USG is actually AAA. All of this bickering over things that don't even touch the problem and the President's reluctance to stop spending any money or lead towards a solution to the issue have shown investors all they need to know. It's a disgrace.

Re: 9/11... 9/11 catalyzed government super-growth. The Greenspan Put series, one of which coincidentally happened just before 9/11, papered over the recession of 2000/2001. You can only sweep so much dirt under the rug before you have a pile of dirt with a rug on top as we have today.

 

[arora]

Anything less then a AAA rating suggests it's possible for the U.S. to default on it's debt. Many economists disagree, here are a few(not to mention again the other rating agencies)

Richard Portes, professor of economics at the London Business School

The downgrade is absurd in that default ratings are supposed to result in default… It's not possible that the US will default on its debt.

Paul Krugman, Princeton economist

everything I’ve heard about S&P’s demands suggests that it’s talking nonsense about the US fiscal situation. The agency has suggested that the downgrade depended on the size of agreed deficit reduction over the next decade, with $4 trillion apparently the magic number. Yet US solvency depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term: an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to future interest costs, so a couple of trillion more or less barely signifies in the long term.

In short, S&P is just making stuff up — and after the mortgage debacle, they really don’t have that right.
------
I’m fairly sure that if and when we get the whole story here, it will turn out that S&P was being political here, trying to do someone a favor — and it just wasn’t going to let facts get in the way of the downgrade it wanted.
----
Apparently we’re supposed to care about what some idiots at some corrupt organization think about anything.

Also notable; the downgrades of both Canada in 1994 and Japan in 2002.

I don't think China needs the S&P to tell them whether they should continue buying T-bonds or not anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I think it is possible that the US will default on its debt, and our current trajectory makes that more likely.

 

[Typhoon Joe]

I think it's a fair point to make that the United States of America has been in debt since January 1835 when President Andrew Jackson paid it all off. Yes, it has been that long.

Then, we were without debt for 2 years until the Depression of 1837 hit and lasted until 1844 which increased spending and put us back into debt again. No president no matter how hard they tried has been able to break even.

AP US History summer homework is finally paying off!

I think that since we have been sinking further and further into debt for the past 150 years that it isn't possible for one president to pay it off in one term. Therefore, the president probably won't be the one to organize a plan capable enough to eliminate the debt.

Btw, I hate politics.

 

[Keef]

2. Bringing up race when talking about the presidents downfalls makes you a racist. Deal with it. People have been racists for centuries. There are others like you. It's not the worst thing in the world; you could be a rapist or a murderer. But you're only a racist, so it's not that bad.

👍

3. The budget absolutely needs to be cut. I can think of a nice large program that currently gets about 663 trillion that could use a bit of trimming. Say...to the tune of 500 trillion? Although, if we did that, the US would only have the largest military budget in the world by a mere 80 trillion.

Billion, but we get the point. Still, I'm hesitant. Never know what those conniving Germans have up their sleeves!

4. Lets have a tax rate right around where they were in the Reagan era. Oh, we'd have to raise taxes? Well then I guess I'm stumped.

Taxes shouldn't even be in the equation at this point. It's a universally understood (and by understood I mean ignored on purpose because it hurts your political agenda) fact that raising taxes on an already stressed populace only increases stress, and through many factors actually decreases revenues. What should be done is cut, cut, cut. Everything. Especially the military. Come up with plans to gradually lessen the entitlement burden over a decade or so. Get rid of domestic agencies that don't accomplish anything at all, like most of them. Then, once you've cut all that you'll realize that you're raking in some serious cash, and at that point the public will wonder why taxes are so high (despite never being raised) because you're rolling in dough, and you'll be pressured to lower them even further.

And then I'll finally shut up about all this crap.

Also, Obama is a corporatist moderate. Let him do what he wants and the Republicans would probably come out pretty pleased, if not for the fact that they want the power and glory, regardless if they like another persons ideas.

Obama is a member of the Chicago School of Political Tomfoolery, and by that I mean he will confidently and charismatically massage your feet into generations of undereducation and poverty. Mmm, yeah, that feels good baby.

 

[FoolKiller]

I pick 9/11 because it accelerated it and made people wake up and see what was going on.

So, that is when you realized what was going on, not when it actually started, which is what I was asking.

I'll deal with a little of both but for the most part industry ignores the environment completely in the name of profit. I'm fine with dealing with both, I just don't see both happening.

If you want more jobs then why don't you ask regulators to slow down a bit instead of supporting every job killing program they introduce? Like, maybe instead of making it so that it is illegal to sell basically any incandescent (American made) lightbulb after 2014 in order to force CFL (Chinese made) on the market that 60 watts are still allowed so that GE can keep half its US workforce working instead of shuttering their factory last year. Or instead of making such drastic coal plant regulations in such a short time that it forces many to close their doors before any alternative form can be built that we make the changes incremental over a decade so that it is affordable or gives us time to get a new type of plant built.

But you are supporting job killing programs, and then complaining about jobs.

I don't agree with this though, the reason people are spending less is because they are fearful of their jobs being terminated. Until the economy gets stable again they aren't going to spend like they used to, which it won't unless people start back working again. You need people working to show a strong economy, to make people spend more money.

Just hiring does little for job security when you make more than the new employees and a sudden economic downturn can lead management to make a decision based on dollars and cents, as opposed to seniority. It's not the hiring that brings confidence. Confidence is generated before long-term hiring, the phase where your current employees are asked to work more hours and given raises and bonuses. That shows you have a loyalty to them and what they do. Then you begin hiring new employees when even extended hours of your current staff cannot meet demand.

Hoarding money solves nothing.

It protects individual income from market forces. Its a bad decision long-term, but if someone focuses on the short term it makes sense to them. It is not something I would normally suggest, but considering that we have now hit a time in our economy where our personal wealth has been measured by our individual debt instead of actual asset value I think the hoarding now is basically a very hard correction that our entire society needed to make. We need to return to a point of buying things with money instead of credit. There should be very few exceptions to that rule.

The entire country could use a lesson in budgeting.

Find a job that doesn't exist, go back to school to learn a new skill or start a business...I can't think of many other options past joining the military, which I can't because of health issues.

I don't know what to tell you then. I've had three job offers from other companies without applying since taking this job, four if you count that one of the offers from three years ago left a voicemail the other day with an offer for a different position. I see that and way too many people who work for my company that move to other companies for me to believe that nothing is out there.

My point is though, you have job which you've held onto for various circumstances.

Technically, I haven't held the same job. I have held five different positions, three from promotions, in eight years.

When you aren't in a position of unemployment and struggling to find a job, it's easy to tell someone to try harder...I did the exact same thing with all my friends who I thought were doing nothing. I, however, was wrong.

I still believe there is a lot to regional location. You tell the same story I hear from Western Kentucky, but here in the urban triangle I know people having trouble getting their job interviews scheduled.

That said, I have had former employees call me after a couple of years still looking, but they were also let go for not being the best of employees. You have to stand out today. The competition is stiffer and unless you bring something more to the table you will not get a second glance. I could teach a college course on the mistakes I see people make.

I used a lot of my pay to buy what we were selling, healthcare. All six of my doctors were employed by the hospital I worked at...and I'm not talking practised in the network either. Two of my doctors I saw every week. I also ate in our cafeteria, used our medical supply and pharmacy for my healthcare needs, and even bought coffee at our little coffee shop.

But I thought hiring more people helped you make more money. Why would they let such a loyal customer go?

Healthcare is the largest industry in Michigan and has beat out automotive, and we all know that healthcare is needed now more than ever due to all the Baby Boomers.

I am aware of the growth of the healthcare industry in Michigan. I am also aware that one of them is asking employees to live in downtown Detroit and offering incentives to do so.

I don't have a problem with taking money though as long as it's invested into the country. I'd gladly pay a bit more in taxes if it meant the roads were good, our schools were good and our emergency services didn't fail.

It is very nice that you are willing to give your dollars. But why is it OK to involuntarily take money from people for things you support, but you complain when it is things you don't support?

 

[Keef]

Or instead of making such drastic coal plant regulations in such a short time that it forces many to close their doors before any alternative form can be built that we make the changes incremental over a decade so that it is affordable or gives us time to get a new type of plant built.

But you are supporting job killing programs, and then complaining about jobs.

Besides the emissions regulations, many coal plants around here already use clean tech. Recently there's been a heavy corrosion problem discovered with their exhaust scrubbers though. The part-time plant just south of Dayton will have to be closed because the repairs are cost prohibitive. I read that Duke is planning on shuttering an active plant east of Cincinnati on the Ohio river. Numerous plants here in the Midwest, a few of them on the Ohio, might be getting the axe. If that happens imagine what will happen to the local price of electricity, with our companies having to buy from elsewhere. That, and all the people that operate these plants being out of jobs.

The fact is that the coal power industry, trucking industry, and aviation industry separately contribute much more to pollution than the automotive industry does. The only problem is that we all depend on the coal power industry, the trucking industry, and aviation industry in order to get the power we demand, and get our goods from where they are to where they need to be. When the cost of basic infrastructure goes up, the cost of everything down the line goes up.

The Obama administration recently introduced new efficiency and emissions standards that will affect semi trucks built after 2014. What will be the result of this? The market for less efficient but less expensive used trucks will probably go up, and sales of these new and more expensive trucks will probably go down. Despite that, the cost of the goods they transport will generally go up as a result.

 

[Joey D]

If you want more jobs then why don't you ask regulators to slow down a bit instead of supporting every job killing program they introduce? Like, maybe instead of making it so that it is illegal to sell basically any incandescent (American made) lightbulb after 2014 in order to force CFL (Chinese made) on the market that 60 watts are still allowed so that GE can keep half its US workforce working instead of shuttering their factory last year. Or instead of making such drastic coal plant regulations in such a short time that it forces many to close their doors before any alternative form can be built that we make the changes incremental over a decade so that it is affordable or gives us time to get a new type of plant built.

But you are supporting job killing programs, and then complaining about jobs.

I don't support job killing programs and I don't believe environmental regulations have to kill jobs. I believe that executives allow it to kill jobs because they'd rather focus on the bottom line number then anything else. They'd rather reduce the work force cost so their profits stay up rather than investing some of the profits into new, more eco-friendly, technology. I'm not saying they should go into the red, but energy companies make a hefty profit, I think they could use some of that.

And with the CFL thing, it's just the executives and investors (ie the wealthy) that want a better bottom line. So instead of having a less profitable year and investing in American jobs, they ship it overseas and continue to keep the wealthy happy with the worker is left on the side of road with no job because all he knows is making light bulbs.

It protects individual income from market forces. Its a bad decision long-term, but if someone focuses on the short term it makes sense to them. It is not something I would normally suggest, but considering that we have now hit a time in our economy where our personal wealth has been measured by our individual debt instead of actual asset value I think the hoarding now is basically a very hard correction that our entire society needed to make. We need to return to a point of buying things with money instead of credit. There should be very few exceptions to that rule.

The entire country could use a lesson in budgeting.

You need to buy things on credit though, I could never afford a car let alone a house outright. Most people couldn't. I agree people, as well as the country itself, need to learn budgeting better.

I don't know what to tell you then. I've had three job offers from other companies without applying since taking this job, four if you count that one of the offers from three years ago left a voicemail the other day with an offer for a different position. I see that and way too many people who work for my company that move to other companies for me to believe that nothing is out there.

They rejection letters/e-mails/calls I get daily suggest to me that there is nothing out there. I agree it's a regional thing but without a job how can I move? That would just perpetuate the problem by me moving to a location and getting into debt do to relocation costs.

You also need experience to get jobs, so many people are out of work that companies would rather hire the person who has 10-15 year work experience over the kid who had 3 or 4 years. Granted I've worked since I've been 16, but I didn't get a "real" job till I was 20. That's 4 year of experience with only a year in the corporate setting.

It's very easy to get discourage when you've face nothing but rejection over and over again with no real lead. I think quite a few people feel that same way. I keep at it though because I know I defiantly won't find a job if I don't submit applications.

Technically, I haven't held the same job. I have held five different positions, three from promotions, in eight years.

My point was you've held a job, not been laid off or fired.

But I thought hiring more people helped you make more money. Why would they let such a loyal customer go?

The hospital stopped hiring shortly after I was hired in and began to lay off. I'm not going to get into the nuts and bolts of what actually happened, but there were things I didn't agree after learning about the entire scale of things. I don't feel comfortable going into detail though.

I am aware of the growth of the healthcare industry in Michigan. I am also aware that one of them is asking employees to live in downtown Detroit and offering incentives to do so.

That's the DMC, and no one wants to live in Detroit because it's the murder capital of the US (or at least it was). Even our former mayor served time in a federal prison for a laundry list of things, and probably killed a stripper. It's promoting growth of the city, but it's not actually happening.

It is very nice that you are willing to give your dollars. But why is it OK to involuntarily take money from people for things you support, but you complain when it is things you don't support?

Isn't that government in a nutshell? They take money and spend it on things whether I want them to or not? Everyone complain about where and how their money is being spent by the government, it's a national pastime like baseball.

And I believe that the public should pay taxes for government services like the roads, emergency crews, weather service and so on. We all use that stuff in one way or another so I don't mind supporting it.