Just a couple of charts here to try and clarify what seems to be apples and oranges in the discussion:

Total Debt:

Government Debt Chart: United States 1900-2018 - Federal State Local Data

This is the primary concern. It's what we owe.

The annual deficit:

Government Spending Chart: United States 1900-2018 - Federal State Local Data

This the rate of change in the above chart. The administration claims the far right portion of this chart is accurate. Others question this.

The dollar in 2008 has the same value as $1.085 today. Yet the total debt has risen about 70% since.

"You know, based on personal experience and just my general speculation, I think X, Y and Z."

"Well, that's interesting, but it seem X is disproven by LINK, Y is disproven by CHART and Z is disproven by TABLE. But do you have something else which backs up what you're saying?"

"OMG STOP ATTACKING ME!!!"

Is there any indication in those charts what debt is 'real' in terms of being a debt to an outside force (as a lot of government debt is frequently borrowed from another aspect of the government itself in a lot of cases) and also any indication of how this balances against assets owned in debts to other governments.

I thought this was interesting btw:

If I remember correctly, the 2008 budget deficit was projected to be around $200m at the beginning of the year. It ended up being about $450m. At the time, the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs were not included in the deficit numbers under Bush (they were "special appropriations") whereas they were with Obama. So add in another $150m to that number.

Also, the Federal Government fiscal year starts in October. Between October 2008 and January 2009 Bush approved TARP and part of the GM bailout, which cost over another $100B. So when Obama took office in January 2009, the 2009 Federal fiscal year was already 1/3rd over. Given the 2008 budget deficit + war spending + TARP costs + declining revenues, the 2009 budget deficit was easily going to hit $1T without any stimulus spending under any President - Obama, McCain, Ron Paul or Jesus Christ.

Those intra-governmental holdings (more than half consists of borrowing against social security tax revenue) amount to 25-30% of the debt. Since we don't pay interest on that debt, it's not as bad. However, it represents an obligation that we could find troubling if we were counting on it being paid out.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that Obama hasn't done anything unusual here - it's been a practice for the last several presidents. The run-up in the debt is almost all to public debt-holders. So the percentage was a lot higher.

I thought we've argued for reducing military spending? I'm all for spending on roads, but the spending tends to go towards pork, special interest spending, and expanding entitlement programs. Food stamps are okay, but should they be a time-limited program? Isn't putting more money back in the hands of individuals a better way to get private sector job growth?


But you can't spend yourself silly doing it. You either pay for it now, or pay more later.


We did it with low-paying and or part-time jobs. Not exactly a great recovery...and we aren't accounting those who have gone on disability, retired, and or drop of the workforce/job market all together. The real problem with the job recovery is man is being replaced with technology, and more can done with less. What happens when the ratio of number of people in this country (or world) grows, yet the private sector jobs needed decreases continues to widen?

Facts.

Didn't this start with the cotton gin? You can't stop progress, nor do you want to, as it makes the economy more efficient. The only thing you can do is invest in education (and hope that investment is efficient as well), and make the next class of new products that continually push efficiency forward.

People have been screaming that inflation is right around the corner for years. I'll stick with the data.

Yes, labor participation has dropped, but there's not an economist alive that would say the stimulus caused that.

We could create tons of low skilled jobs (just the type we need) if we had the will to do it. Schools need repaired as do roads and bridges. Lead abatement would be the best education/anti-crime policy we could implement. Painting the roofs white in cities would reduce energy consumption. I bet I could come up with a dozen more ideas pretty quickly.

Lots of people need jobs and lots of stuff needs doing, but we're more concerned about the debt than alleviating suffering.

In other news...

Sen. Lamar Alexander's Chief of Staff was just arrested fro child porn.

A need for these jobs plus a need to repair our crumbling infrastructure seems like a stimulus match made in heaven, to be honest.

We could start by employing those (capable) on unemployment/welfare. We don't even need a stimulus for that, they are already getting paid a stipend.

The trick with this is to get rid of the corruption. One of the stimulus bills tried to do this, and it led to very little actual job creation. I agree it is something that should certainly be worked on, and is much better to me than straight-up welfare. We just need to make sure the money ends up creating jobs, not lining the pockets of construction owners and municipal leaders.

I honestly thought that's what the first stimulus was going to be mostly, but it turned out to be such a small part of it as to be almost negligible. I guess I am just naive.

I never thought I'd see the day when you'd agree with the concept of a "works program" (because that's essentially what I'm describing).

I'm going to go fall over now.

Yep, it's a significant issue. I'd honestly like to see a bill passed that required a full account of money spent, and on what, and have that information be posted publically, when these kind of appropriations are made.

It's a cause & effect, really. If we are saying that the rich (and really, the middle class) have additional obligation to the state to give back, then we should say that of all Americans. But let's fairly quantify and articulate those obligations. I'd rather our taxes subsidize new (safer) roads and bridges, cleaner cities, growing plants and trees, and cut grass than uncontrolled taxes subsidize a lifetime supply of McDonalds, cigarettes and beer in our current welfare state. Obviously, if people choose those things after they put in few hours of work, I'm less likely to be offended by where our tax dollars go.

You're bottom point is how the standard of living rises. It's no different than at any other point in history. I'd also point out the unemployment rate for tech jobs in cities like SF has been around 2% before and through the recession. So the jobs are there, but people need to retrain. Just as they had to when industry moved overseas. I don't see anyone pining to slave away in a steel mill.

Yet people are still in college getting types of degrees that are effectively worthless then bitching because they can't get a job.

The story of the "interpreter" at Mandela's funeral is incredible. It really sounds like it could have been a tragedy.

For the overwhelming number of jobs that don't need certification I don't think the type of degree matters much. As long as you gain transferable skills you'll be fine. Look at the degrees of corporate CEOs, they cover a wide range of disciplines.

I see South Carolina is going down the nullification route on Obamacare.

Silly rebs, never learn their lesson.

Most of the stimulus bill was tax cuts. Not really what the economy needed at the time.

The problem is that most Americans don't want to do them. We've gone decades now teaching kids that manual labor is beneath them and not a respectable job. I think if you posted a sign in each city saying "We're hiring 250,000 people to do construction", you'd sadly find that a lot of unemployed folks wouldn't bother.

There are a lot of skilled jobs involved in infrastructure development too that we just don't have. Plumbers, electricians, engineers, people who can handle heavy machinery. These are jobs we scared people away from over the last few decades and now have a shortage.

I'm all for infrastructure projects, but a bunch of Sociology majors without jobs aren't going to rush to fill them, and if they do they'll be woefully unqualified for the work.

I'd argue that things are very different than at other points of history because there is basically no where for jobs to head eventually as technology evolves and removes them.

Initially jobs were subsistence/agriculture based in the main
Then moved towards manufacturing
Then moved towards retail and suchlike

Retail is now being replaced at an increasing pace by online stores meaning delivery will be one of the last bastions - however automated cars and 'drone delivery' is already on the radar to replace those.

If you combine that with an increasing simplicity with regards to many formerly complicated tech jobs and all that remains are niche positions which haven't been automated yet (programmers, plumbers, electricians, etc.) and jobs which require specific human interaction or intuition (psychiatrist, teacher etc.).

It'll be a while yet before this reaches 'crisis point' - however it'd be nice if we anticipate it and stop looking down on people if they are not employed long before it reaches that crisis.

According to the latest stats, the unemployment rate for college grads is 3.4%. The high unemployment rate is driven by less educated workers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Under 25 it is just under 9%. Underemployment was at like 19% in that demographic too.

But college grads are largely fine in this economy. It takes a while to find a job, but almost all of them work, even if it is outside their chosen field. The problem is people without a college degree.

When you say 'outside their chosen field' do you mean a professional job - or is it that the less educated are struggling to find employment because the people with degrees are now taking their positions in order to find any employment at all?

I'd guess it's some of both. So many jobs that don't really need higher education now use a degree as a sort of entrance exam as it proves the applicant is at least responsible enough to finish college.

I think eventually we're going to have problems with a more automated economy, but I don't think that's the problem right now. We could put lots of people to work, but we choose not to.

But doesn't technology tend to solve this problem as well as cause it? For instance, as farming was dying, modern manufacturing was born so those jobs were created that didn't exist before. As manufacturing got more automated, more items were created and thus retail went from a general store with a few items to a retail empire that needed to be staffed. As that started going away, we had a use for all sorts of white collar service industries: there were no computer programmers, project managers, or public relations workers before there were computers, business projects, or large scale public relations.

It's certainly no perfect system and I'm certainly not an unfettered invisible hand advocate (and this reasoning has some flaws much like the "well, don't worry about pollution as we'll technology our way out of it!"). But at some point, an industry or group of industries says "hey, there's a lot of cheap labor out there, let's soak it up". The next major set of jobs out there is something we haven't even thought of yet. Either that or we head towards a more automated society where working 60 hours a week isn't required for a person to maintain a standard living.

SI

Hopefully Boehner and Ryan will bring the core GOP back into line. Not sure if Boehner can survive if this escalates but good to see him trying.

Don't expect Boehner to totally change his tune - CNN.com

First his ex-girlfriend, now his uncle. Too bad there is not someone in the NK military willing to knock him off. When NK finally joins the real world it'll be fascinating to hear all the stories.

Kerry weighs in on North Korea execution, Bob Levinson in Iran – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Well, we'll start by going after our veteran's pensions. I mean really...what have you done for us lately Gulf War, Iraq War, and Afghan War vets?

These go into effect December 2015.

Military pensions "screwed" in budget deal - Dec. 18, 2013

Bipartisan agreement that this is fucking ridiculously shitty.

I'm sure we have different ideas about where the money should come from so that this didn't have to happen, but I think we can all agree this is shitty.

Then again - I'd say the same about any pensions that were previously agreed upon - not sure if you would say the same or not.

Am I the only person who thinks a 38 year old doesn't need to be drawing a pension?

Well yeah - they retire from the military and then are still young enough to start working in the private sector (some on the civilian side of the government or as gov't contractors...where they can get another pension if they stay long enough :) ). Very few people can get by after having only worked for 20 years. I've been working "real" jobs for almost 19, and I feel like I'm barely started.

And most of them have continue to work somewhere after 20 years unless they're able to get by on 50% of their former salary.

But if you wanted to retire younger and have some kind of pension, maybe you should have tried to be in the military, or tried to be a police officer, or a firefighter. This isn't like a new thing they made up yesterday. Different jobs have different salaries and benefits.

Fair point - I wouldn't trade where I am just for a military/police/fire pension. 20 years seems like a short window for a career however -- it's a length that may have been in line with other pension plans and retirement ages as they existed years ago before being bumped either to higher ages or eliminated altogether but might be reevaluated now.

I think there might also be an argument for differentiating between pensions for the enlisted vs officers. If you were enlisted for 20 years, I'd imagine you would not be in the same position for continued employment as an officer, who I assume would have picked up skills with higher earning potentials.

Does the "Well you should've been one too" apply to all over-paid public servants?

Nobody wants the government to cut spending on themselves, they want government spending on others cut.

That's very true

I think the same goes for raising taxes too.

It's not necessarily a window for a career, it's just now long you have to serve in the military before you get some pension benefit. Some start earlier, some start later, many have other careers (especially if they only put 20 years in).

There's certain kinds of jobs where it's not necessarily advantageous to the employer (or taxpayer), to have lots of old people around on active duty pulling full salaries. At the same time, they're pretty important jobs, and it'd be harder to obtain more qualified applicants if people were just cut loose entirely in mid-life and forced to fend for themselves in a private sector for the first time as an older person. It's a fair debate what salaries and pension benefits are appropriate for these different kinds of jobs to a point, but I'm not sure they they deserve the hostility and microscopic scrutiny some like to shell out for any government employee. Pension changes should be phased in at least so they're not done to the detriment of people who have planned their careers and lives around them. Especially when it's the federal government and they're not facing bankruptcy any time soon. Personnel salaries really aren't what's breaking the bank of public budgets.

If you're complaining about the concepts of partial pensions benefits generally after less than 35-year career or whatever, then probably yes. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's arguing that they should go away entirely. It's like complaining that teachers don't work in the summers, or that construction workers get to work outside.

They should just keep doing what they are doing?

That's two years away. Given the constituency in question, I'd be pretty surprised if it isn't somehow "fixed" by then, to be honest.


I'm going to assume you're excepting those who were injured in the course of their service, right? Especially those injured to the point where obtaining and keeping a well-paying job would be challenging, right?

They get disability.

They get compensated for their losses which is an even-sum game...at best, so yes, they get disability.

I think the problem here is that for the most part, the general public only see's "The Hero's" portion of the military. The reality is that the military is a lot like Logan's Run. It's a young man's game and once you hit 40...you are done. So an Army infantry or tanker or artilleryman gets out at 40...and assuming good health...he or she is going to do what exactly? Get a job as an expert tankman? Probably not. Join a construction crew as a rookie? Probably not. So how do you entice somebody to join an all-volunteer military if you are really only planning on shafting them if they serve 20 years? The answer to that question was a pension. It's not a lot actually, it's not "retirement" from working, it's retirement from the military. It's just compensation for somebody who served the government for a long time and made themselves available to do the job that you won't be conscripted to do.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of post-military careers and a lot of success stories, but there are no guarantees, lots of folks get shafted hard when leaving, so if you want to avoid military service, which America typically does (and the reason we have an all-volunteer force vs. the draft), then give these folks a fair shot when leaving the military...and a modest pension.

That's why I would consider differing policies for the rank-and-file and officers (if there isn't one already - I admittedly don't know much about how these are structured). One seems like more of a use and discard scenario, where the other one can prep you with valuable skills (my B-I-L is a retired Lt. Col who has a good deal of IT experience; between that and contacts he made while in, he had a lot of options post-Marines).

There's always the GI Bill when you get out of the service and Tuition Assistance (at least for Air Force) while you're in. I think 20+ years is plenty of time for career planning.

On another note I don't see why a person who has been in the military for 20 years and never deployed should get an immediate pension while another person who serves 4 years and spends half of it in a combat zone gets absolutely zilch as far as retirement goes.

Is your desire to send 40- and 50-something people off to college with a handshake wishing them the best in job market for the first time with no backup or supplemental income based on a desire to save money or a dislike for those in the military generally?

Edit: On the latter point, do you feel the same way about, say, Forest Service Smoke Jumpers? That's another job that tends to be pretty tough to do too far into your 40s. As a result, they get some compensation beyond that for their service, though, like with 20-30 year military careers, not necessarily enough to retire on. Should they instead be entirely cut off as soon as they're not useful anymore?