What I keep reading is, it's not that jobs have gone over seas or there's been some shift in technology, but, that because of downsizing and companies just not doing the same things they've done in the past or changing their business practices, those old jobs are just gone and not coming back. How much that affects that 9%, I don't know, but, it definitely seems that there's going to be a group of those people that will probably never find work in their career field ever again.

Hence why the Dems in 2009 should have focused on getting those people to work and not simply giving them more unemployment and aid.

We'd be on our way (slowly albeit) to seeing domestic & intl investors piling on the energy bandwagon to get in on the ground level of investments & new companies popping up to specifically solve the energy independence mandate that the President should have pushed.

If you are going to randomly print money and/or borrow it just to hand it out...do it by solving an outgoing expense problem, the largest of which is energy-based and wars to maintain stability in energy-producing countries. Just think about it.:banghead:

Instead, here we are...in a bi-partisan fashion...arguing over 3% in tax rates at the highest bracket, whether teachers are overpaid, and whether Anthony Weiner should step down...instead of "how are we going to maintain our society & way of life?"...or even [gulp] improve it.

Game of chicken continues ... Obama's getting hit from both sides.

House Democrats: No dice on Medicare, Social Security cuts - CNN.com

Good for them.

How? The Dems won't do anything with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Secruity. They are the big three (along with Defense) that needs to be dramatically reformed. Especially Medicare/Medicaid. Both sides need to give up their special interests for anything with real substance to get solved.

Setting himself up as the moderate and the adult-in-the-room going into 2012.

The policy of this notwithstanding, I think that the politics are shaping up in favor of the President.

I still think that the Tea Party is putting a huge millstone around the neck of the GOP by not letting them just vote for a debt increase and get it out of the way.

NO ONE HAS A FUCKING JOB! This is GOOD for the party out of power. Why, why, why are they going to force a gamechanger? Stupid politics.

I'm fine with a grand bargain as long as both parties are giving up their sacred cows. I'm against any cuts in Medicare/SS if the GOP isn't also losing something. Politically the Dems can't provide cover for massive entitlement cuts without getting something in return.

Why wasn't this the focus then when the party not currently in power (the Dems) were actually in power? Instead, they focused on tax cuts & medical coverage for people who cant even find a job(certainly others as well...but I'm focusing on the people out of work). Not that the latter isn't important...but its not nearly as important as the ability to sustain oneself with food.

Sorry...these 2 parties are still pulling the same crap as always. We know the Repubs are going to tout a particular line...we know the Dems will tout another...but in the end both wind up doing whatever is politically expedient.

Wouldn't that be weakening their base?

If you knew what an idiot Cleaver was, you'd never be saying this. Guy lead the city of Kansas City into an economic downturn that we hadn't seen since the great Depression and lead our city school system into a laughing stock and a mass exodus to the suburbs. The city is now thriving and growing again after years of failed economic policies under his watch were finally rolled back. Only problem now is that his district (most of whom received his handouts) has now put him in a position to screw up the country as well.

So let me get this straight. We spend out of a moral obligation and as a result, we end up putting those people we were 'helping' into a worse position by running up the federal debt even higher?

Religion, Rangel and the Debt Ceiling - FoxNews.com

Someone in the House hurry up and indict this idiot.

Without getting into a defense of Rangel, the debt isn't hurting my mother who survives largely on Social Security.

And that won't change for under the cost cutting measures being suggested for things like SS and Medicare. So why do we continue to use your mother's situation (and others like her) to defend the stupidity of the current system?

Obama is such a fail.

We need to start producing as a country again... well producing a tangible asset instead of debt.

You said this:



For a lot of people that simply isn't true.

I propose that tangible asset to be energy. :)

I have to say...while I was not an Obama supporter at all...I honestly thought he was smart enough to "figure it out', and I am disappointed in him for it. Not that energy is the only thing we could produce & even potentially export...but it sure is a massive part of our way of life & kinda vital to it.

We do have to start making some things again though. Whether that be new technology, toys, shoes, appliances, or high tech manufacturing for energy initiatives.

It most definitely is. Those checks are going to get cut into going forward if we don't make the hard decisions now for the younger generation. Better to cut on those who still have time to save than to put the retirement age people in a similar pickle with no alternatives for income.

Then show me how my 77 yr old mother would be in better shape with less Social Security and a smaller deficit.

We need to get our long term debt situation in order, but a deal won't be better for everyone.

The deficit can be reduced by a large amount by doing cuts to the 50 and under crowd while not touching the 50+ crowd. But if this continues on much longer without some sort of realistic changes to SS, the 50+ crowd is going to get hit as well. Best to reform now while the 50+ crowd can still keep their SS. That's not going to be a choice much longer.

SS is fine with small changes. According to the trustess the worst case scenario pays out 78% in 75 years. There's no need to gut SS now unless it's about more than solvency. The real problems are Medicare/Medicaid and health care spending as a percentage of GDP.

But that's really not where we started. You said spending put people in a worse condition and it many cases that simply isn't true. Can't you just admit that?

No, I totally disagree with that. Your assessment is a very short term view of the situation. If we continue to run up the debt, the bill keeps expanding. What isn't a problem now can easily become a big problem in the near future if things aren't restructured now. Now is not the time to quibble over bits and pieces. We need heavy cuts now. It's obvious from the continuing bad news that status quo is not an option.

So when you said "those people" you really meant "other people".

Didn't catch the Sunday political pundits but seems to me as if Obama is willing to put some sacred cows on the table but Boehner is playing games?

Geithner urges GOP not to 'walk away' on talks - politics - White House - msnbc.com

I would support this if they didn't have a bunch of nukes and a significant number of crazies who hate us. Won't help stability/relationship in the short term but maybe in the long term.

U.S. Looking to Suspend Millions in Military Aid to Pakistan - FoxNews.com

That's because the GOP doesn't care about the deficit. They want to remake government and if that reduces the deficit great, but they'll sacrifice deficit reduction to keep any tax from increasing. They'll just wait for the next "crisis".

The last part from our libertarian-minded OpEd:

I think 19% is too low given the increase in retiree spending on medicine, but we can probably get to 20-21%. But even to get to 19% will require tax increases if we want to balance the budget.

The Dems don't seem willing to put any sacred cows on the table either. Typical B.S. political crap from both sides.

Why is increasing taxes automatically going in increase revenue by x amount? I never understood that theory.

It won't automatically, but how else do you think revenues can be raised as a percentage of GDP?

Anybody else starting to think that it is about time to start over and create a new government?

Serious question:

So if the Bush administration gave tax rebates or whatever you wanted to call them and the Obama administration lets those expire, can that really be considered a tax hike? I mean, if the law says: "Taxes are X%" and an administration temporarily lowers that percentage for a period of time and then that period of time is over and goes back to its originally mandated by law levels, how can that be considered raising taxes?

EDIT: Other than semantically it is 'raising' taxes, but, technically, it's not.

It can't be. The semantical (and yes I know that's not a word) argument is the only one there is.

Now the GOP has a contingency plan.


So we could do this three times over the next year with the GOP getting all the cuts they want and no tax increases, and each time it's up to the President to make the cuts and the Congress only has to say yes or no.

We're actually going to waste time with this idea?

I like that word. :)

Ok, I was wondering if it was just me or I was just not quite understanding it (which when it comes to taxes, I understand quantum physics more) and maybe was missing something.

Nothing Congress ever does is temporary. But yeah, just like they can "cut" the budget by reducing the increases over the prior year.

I just reminds me of the insurance industry. They profit 20 in year 1 and then profit 18 in year 2, but, claim they lost money. Huh? How do you lose money if you're making a profit? A profit is a profit is a profit. Yea, it might not be 'as' much as it was the previous year, but, you didn't lose money, unless you're playing the semantics game.

Here are outlines of what the Dems have proposed according to GOP staffers telling National Review.


Anybody still want to say the Dems aren't giving on anything?

$300 billion in interest savings is considered part of deficit reduction? That's debt reduction and the whole reason we need to get the budget in line. That's some shady accounting.

But yeah, I could go for Option 2 as a start. I'll go with Option 3 if "Comprehensive Tax Reform" means either "Fair Tax" or "Income Tax with very few deductions". But I hate having that open-ended option in there.

So in 2010, the military budget for the US was 4.06% of GDP compared to France at 2.6%. I admit, I don't really understand what GDP is other than maybe a cursory understanding, but, that really doesn't seem like much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's plenty of waste figured into that budget, but, not sure how much of a dent cutting military spending is really going to make to be honest.

If my decimals are right...

US GDP: 14-15 trillion * 4% == roughly 600 billion.
France GDP: 2-3 trillion * 2.5% == roughly 60 billion.

And I'm assuming that's not counting the metric fuckton we're wasting on our various wars.

Those calculations are pretty close to correct. Yes, I do believe that 4.06% did not include the various wars. I'm still stumped though. Even if you completely got rid of funding for the military, 600 billion isn't going to do much to that 14 to 15 trillion. Maybe I'm missing something here?

If our deficit is close to 100% of our GDP (I don't know if the two are tied together), then how would slashing the military budget 50% even come close to balancing the budget? I honestly don't know much about this as, in all honesty, it's a pretty boring/dry subject and part of it is I normally just don't care. So we have: GDP, a federal budget, a federal deficit, what else? Are all 3 tied to together. Is the debt ceiling considered part of the federal budget? How much do we have to cut in order to get a balanced budget or in the black? I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, I really don't know much about this and maybe me trying to simplify it, is not helping.

The deficit is going to be @1.5 trillion for this fiscal year. The fourteen billion is the total national debt.

The debt ceiling is interesting. It may or may not be constitutional and if it is there are still serious legal issues when we reach the limit. The debt ceiling is statutory as are all federal spending outlays. Which takes precedence? If the debt ceiling takes precedence how does the budget get to balanced immediately? The President will start to make those decisions, but eliminating spending items on his own is also arguably unconstitutional.

It's all a big fucking mess unless they can find a way to raise the ceiling.

Thank you!

The 1.5 trillion was what I was looking for. So yes, cut some military funding and that would actually go along way in reducing the deficit. I'm former military and really, I think a lot should be put into unmanned technologies. I just don't think we need as many human soldiers anymore, so you can reduce payroll and dependent expenses, by automating more stuff.


Can't the president cut funding to things that were presidential orders though? For example, Bush cut federal funding for stem cell research. I could be wrong, but, I don't remember that being something voted on by the house and senate. I'm sure the arguments from both sides will continue up until the day it's resolved.


Indeed it is a huge mess. Both sides need to quit bickering and solve the problem.

What Obama is going to have to do if we hit the ceiling is akin to a line item veto. He'll have to cut @40% of federal spending instantly. There is no precedent for that and the Constitution makes it clear that spending has to originate in the House. Under normal circumstances the President has no right to make that level of funding decisions on his own, so it's a real open question as to how he can do it if the ceiling isn't raised.

I think just shutting down everything but debt payments is more likely to be legal, but that would be catastrophic for the country and for Obama politically.

I'm not sure the cut to stem cell research saves any money. It just means the money that the NIH gives out can't go to stem cell research (but that was a fairly big stretch...it actually meant research could continue with existing stem cell lines, labs just couldn't generate new human lines). I would think most presidential orders fall into this category...they don't change the amount of money spent, just where it can go.

That makes sense to me. Just wasn't sure. :)

I'm guessing you mistyped...but our current debt is ~$14 trillion(not billion) and the GDP (just so) happens to be ~$14 trillion as well.

Those numbers look ballpark on par to me. But yes, they definitely don't account for the wars which are probably about the same figure currently (give or take).

We spend a shitload of money on a shitload of public programs. Many of them are good programs such as military/defense(peace times), public schooling (put aside the laughter for a moment), financial aid & healthcare for the indigent & incapable (as well as capable arguably), civic services, general infrastructure, emergency response...and the list goes on.

But what we have a hard time doing it seems, is realizing that those programs will NEVER pay for themselves...just like giving money to my starving kid will not increase my ability to increase my salary at work. The 2 are drastically different issues at hand...but you solve the salary issue and you have solved the starvation issue.

So...the only way you can even pay for such programs, or maintain the lifestyle that we have come to feel entitled to here, is to continue increasing our salary as a country...and stop paying other countries for things that we can innovate ourselves.

From States court California companies - Jul. 12, 2011


And then an excerpt from TIME on yet another attempt at splitting the state Politician Campaigns to Make ‘South California’ Into Our 51st State - TIME NewsFeed


Mr. Newsom doesn't need to spend millions on a task force and $250/hour consultants (he will anyways). All he needs to do is to listen to his own administration that is pretty much encouraging businesses to move a red state.

Over the past two days, I've heard Obama tell the American public that they don't have a clue what a default will do to the government and that he can't guarantee SS checks go out on August 3rd without a deal.

Fear mongering and insulting the intelligence of the public. I thought this was the 'change' president?

Does it matter that both of those statements are true?

Not a good week for the Republicans. They're starting to break on the debt ceiling, as the Tea Party-types have basically guaranteed that no plan can pass the House, so either they twist enough arms that whatever passes is going to be Democrat sponsored (and thus not going to save the country anything), everyone's beginning to snipe at each other..

and then today, President Obama announces he's raised $86 million for re-election, which is more than the entire republican field.

Businesses have been leaving California in droves since at least 2004/2005. Old news.

Except that it has accelerated the past two years and since 2004/2005, California has been ranked last in business climate. It may be old news but it has gotten worse.

And the thing is, unless I've missed it, I haven't heard anything on what's going to be done about it.

It will really have a big impact when a big-time company decides to pull up their headquarters and a key base of employees.

And yet, from a startup perspective, no one does anything in ... oh... Alabama. Out here in the Bay Area, startups are having a grand time - there's no recession out here.

I'm pretty sure California has the highest unemployment rate for a state. The Amazon Tax they passed which will not bring in any revenue will cost the state a lot of jobs too.

This game of chicken is getting old too. Sit in a room and make a fucking deal that makes sense. Enough with the political posturing. I can't believe we're even sitting here arguing about defaulting on our debt.

Yeah, California still has the talent base which is conducive to technology startups. And in my experience, most of that talent base tends to be more socially liberal, which means there isn't a host of people there wishing they lived in Alabama (for instance), so that concept is not even explored very far.

It's a (very) slow process really. One large company relocates at some point(or expands an existing office in say, Atlanta)...brings some of the talent with it...then supporting/affiliated companies follow or sprout up to work with them. Then they close offices in the less friendly area (or reduce to very small presence). This is why businesses have offices all over the place...it's to hedge not only the talent bases in important areas, but also to hold as leverage against local governments that might not be as favorable in the future.

Sure, but according to CNN Money, next-door Georgia is tied with Nevada with the highest startup rate in the country.

I don't think it has nothing to do with being "socially liberal". It has to do with being the No. 1 cluster for tech and where the financial capital is (VCs). It's like people who want to be in the entertainment industry. You go to LA. That's where the action is at.

If Alabama was home to "Silicon Valley", people would still flock their regardless of political views. Austin is becoming a tech hub. So is the Research Triangle.

Yep. People sit on here and say that it's all about the money but then are shocked when a company would leave California for a place with much lower taxes. Sorry either the rich are greedy or they aren't can't frame your arguement both ways.

Good lord. Does Obama seriously have to hold all these 'we're in panic mode' news conferences during 'The Price is Right' every single time? I've lost four episodes of happiness production in exchange for Obama telling me about 500+ politicians who can't act like grown adults, himself included. I'll be glad when the faux panic is over.

Right...but its a chicken or egg thing. And my point is that because the talent trends more socially liberal(obviously not everybody is), they aren't exactly sitting around in a socially conservative area awaiting the arrival of business. It's a slow process of attrition, in other words.

VCs go where talent to innovate is located. Talent groups together where businesses are located but businesses also want talent bases to pull from. So, while I agree that businesses will migrate to more business friendly environments, the fact is the high tech talent is located where they exist already. So, its a bit like...one large business locates to the area, then another couple of supporting businesses, then other business relocates, etc. But it isn't a quick process primarily because the extent of (high caliber) talent base doesn't exist in the more business friendly environment.

I think we're saying something similar, but for 2 different reasons.

Hmm ... that started me pondering this a little more.

Do VC's really "go" anywhere? Or do they simply travel as needed to find marketable/profitable talent?

What I'm trying to get at is this vague notion that struck me that "money" at the serious VC level seems to be wherever it is and operates from that spot. We're mobile enough now that it doesn't have to cluster itself except to the extent that it was already in certain places (mostly CA & NY). The VC's don't have to be where the talent is, nor where the businesses ultimately end up. And aren't most VC's largely hands-off anyway, i.e. they aren't involved in operations except to the extent of being the controlling hand behind the curtain?

Not sure I'm explaining my thought very well, maybe I managed to get it across though.

While you are right with the money, Jon, it is a lot easier to build your company in the valley. I know of at least 3 startups founded by college classmates here in Boston that moved to SF solely because it's easier to get funding out there.

I think that kind of helps me crystalize what I was trying to say with less clarity before.

Talent goes where the money is ... but that doesn't necessarily = the money being where the talent is to begin with. It really goes back to what SteveMax said about "chicken & egg" I think, I may just be looking at a different chicken & egg.

Looks like the crisis is coming even if they raise the debt ceiling if they don't also fix the deficit issues, as several of us mentioned when being chastised for being okay with the crisis hitting now since it was coming anyway if they don't drastically change the way things are done:

U.S. credit: Raising the ceiling isn't enough - Jul. 15, 2011

There is another option. If the GOP would agree to raising some taxes they could get a deficit reduction package worth over 4 trillion. We don't have to have a crisis.

Raising taxes one iota more IS a crisis as far as many Americans are concerned.
Needs to become the new "third rail" of politics at every level.

I think I'm in agreement that the VC isn't necessarily "living" or necessarily located in the location where the talent resides...only that it is where the VC will most typically associate funding a tech startup (for instance). No different than that same VC will go to a more traditional (i.e. rural) location to invest in a farming opportunity for the next cash-crop (if inclined to invest in such things).

By contrast...if you told the VC you were starting a new tech startup in Sebastian, FL (example...just trying to not pick on Alabama all the time) because the business climate is favorable...the VC is not likely to see your talent base being overly vast to sustain anything beyond a couple of "smart guys".

...could also simply let previous unfunded tax cuts expire {shrug}

VCs go where the brains are. It's not crazy that some of the best Universities in the country are in CA and MA, hence why everyone flocks to these places. There is also a lot of infrastructure already in place. I think the "favorable" business climate has a smaller impact in these sort of decisions. I mean, Mississippi could make the most awesomest tax laws and such tomorrow and people will not flock there to open their businesses (except maybe to rent a room in a building and call it headquarters for tax purposes).

That just means you can't realistically solve the deficit problem. Which is more important?

Richard Florida has covered all of this in Rise of the Creative Class. His conclusions are a bit more than he can prove, but the basic idea is that tolerant, educated cities with lots of activities(arts/sports/dining/etc) are where creative people want to live and creative industries naturally spring where the creative people are.

4 trillion in one year, amazing!

I know, I know, but unless you specify a timeframe, numbers like "4 trillion" are worthless. Plus we need a 14 trillion debt reduction package.

But the point remains, if prior to this fight over the debt ceiling they had just blindly raised it, we were ready to drive off a cliff anyway. Yes, Dems are finally willing to discuss real spending cuts for the first time ever, so that's worked out finally. Without the fight over the debt ceiling, would anyone be seriously talking about these cuts.

If that's actually the case then let it crash & we'll start over (with something that actually works this time around).

Additional taxation is not an option under any current scenario I can come up with, most damned sure not an option when existing revenue isn't applied to appropriate priorities first.

Yep...its also worth noting a difference between Angel-VC funding(or the more serious players & entities), business investment(i.e. investing their own money into their own business), and then the smaller VCs who could also be the talent in some cases.

That's why I believe mass migrations usually start by business investment which has an established presence(and the larger one's at that), followed by smaller VCs, followed by the larger VCs eventually. Obviously there are loads of variables & these aren't quite that linear but the key to me is that it can and does happen...just very slowly.

Nice bumper sticker "America - Love It and Destroy It"

Why are the republicans not wanting to raise the debt ceiling? Or am I reading it wrong? The ceiling has been raised 10 times since 2001. Why is this 11th attempt causing such a ruckuss? I'd say because of an election cycle, but, I don't seem to remember such a big stink about any of the previous ten.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to what he writes but I'm not sure I agree with how he seems to think it happens(or at least in part).

I think it's more about the income earnings of younger people today driving things more vs previous generations due to technology breakthroughs & enabling. So, with that comes a different preferred lifestyle of people in that age/demographic vs the traditional 30/40 yr old couple with 2.5 kids.

There has never been anything more than token opposition to raising the debt ceiling. It's different this time, 1) Because Obama is the President, and 2) The GOP wants to tear down as much of the New Deal as possible and they think the debt crisis may allow them to do so if they threaten to blow up the world's economy.

Ah, the 'Needs of the few, out weigh the needs of the many' game plan. Never let the suffering of the citizens get in the way of putting the party's interests first.

I think its a catch-22 though. If you dont speak up on the 11th, then you're questioned when you do on the 12th, etc.

Not that I think we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling...but at some point, it does have to stop going up. I still think this is the Repubs' playing hardball to lower spending. Let's hope it works and as a compromise they close the loopholes for some of the big corps that apparently profit without paying taxes.

We don't need a 14 trillion debt reduction package - that's a nice bonus. We need a deficit reduction package that stops the debt from growing. If the debt stayed at 14 trillion, the U.S. just keeps paying the same interest payments and renews the debt when it reaches maturity (i.e. borrow another dollar to pay off a dollar). The debt as a % of GDP is not at crisis levels today (but it is heading that way). As GDP grows and debt stays constant (or even if it grows at less than the GDP rate), any problem with the level of debt goes away with time.

The corporation tax "loophole" will be hard to fix. (If anything, I think it needs to reduce significantly or eliminated).

That does make sense and I agree, it does have to stop going up. I just think if both sides were actually committed to reducing spending and getting the deficit/debt under control, they would have not had to raise the debt ceiling 10 times since 2001. Quite frankly, this is making both sides look very bad.

If there is a third party contender that actually has a chance to win, right now, that's where I'm leaning.

It's a democrat in office and it helps them mobilize their base. I mean, these 3 (McConnell, Boehner, Cantor) voted for every debt ceiling increase under Bush. They also voted for the unfunded tax cuts, the wars, and Medicare expansion, but now spending is out of control.

So what you're saying is...this is nothing more than rallying the lemmings?

Of course...no different than the same game the Dems are playing by being against the debt ceiling raising under Bush but now the world will end if it doesn't raise just one more time...and oh btw we should not pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq immediately any more.

It's a game, but I think both sides will compromise in the end. Though...the Repubs will naturally get more of what they want because they are in a little more control.

Have the Democrats or Obama actually put forth a budget plan? I keep seeing that they are doing the same thing that they're accusing the Republicans: Not willing to give up their sacred cows (GOP=Taxes; Democrats=Medicare/Medicaid, SS).

Good point.

Not true.

I posted this on the previous page. This is a summary of various Dem plans according to a GOP staffer talking to National Review.


Even the Dem congress folk are careful to say they are opposed to "benefit cuts" which would seem to imply other cost control measures would be acceptable.

One side is willing to compromise and the other isn't.

Honestly, this is BS. I work in VC and am speaking from experience - I'll tell you the social liberal atmosphere and tech conglomeration go together.

One who is of a clear political persuasion only tends to see what they know or at least, care to see. In my town, lots of VC going to the military tech complex and defense contractors.

A raise in taxation <> raise in revenues. There is a clear relationship between taxation and behaviorial changes. For many, esp. those with expensive CPA can find more ways to not pay more in net taxations.

Regardless of who is right or wrong etc. I think Obama is winning the PR war. Not being able to agree on the "grand bargain" implies the other team is unreasonable etc.

Interesting if Cantor does lead us into "Armageddon".

Obama renews push for grand bargain on debt - CNN.com