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.