[Quag]

Basically what do you people think should be done about the Debt/Deficit problems facing the USA toady?

[gvg]

Well, here's my plan:

First, I think we need to raise taxes. That one is just common sense. Reducing it or leaving it the same won't bring in as much revenue.

Second, close tax loopholes, both for people and corporations, that aren't necessary, which would allow the corporate tax rate to actually be lowered (35% is a bit much)

Then, capital gains tax cannot stay at 15%. That is just too low.

Now, for the cuts:

Defense in half, by ending the wars, whatever.

Cutting SS or Medicare won't do anything, that is out of the question (Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JlK6k29uQ)

Then we move to Senatorial pay. For instance, the speaker of the house makes something like 150K a year. That's ridiculous. there's no reason for it to be more than, say, 100K.

Then, just find some more waste.

By the way, I need someone to explain to me the difference between the Deficit and the debt. From what I get, the Debt is to foreign places while the deficit is to domestic places (like the Fed and SS, which the government has been taking the surplus from for years).

If this is true, why does anyone care about the deficit? It's debt that doesn't leave the country. i don't see what the big deal is.

[Quag]

well I dont have time to reply to my own thread im going on vacation but the deficit debt thing is easy

Deficit is the $ spent every year above and beyond what the govt takes in.

Ie say govt makes 100k a year but spends 150k. the terms used would be 100k revenues 150k budget 50k deficit.

the debt is the total amount owed. so add up all past deficits and surpluses (assuming surplus goes to pay debt) and you get debt.

Us budget is somethign like 3.4 trillion, deficit about 1.5trillion, debt is about 14 trillion. ie the debt will grow by 1.5 trillion and be 15.5 trillion next year.

The foreign domestic thing has nothing to do with it.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Quag

[Guest]

my father put the problem like this. imagine you owe 100k on a house. the bank approved the loan for 10 years. after 10 years, not only have you not made any payments, you've aquired more debt. now what? at this point you have 3 choices.a) convice the bank to extend the length of the loan. b) borrow from a different bank and pay the loan to the first. c) declare bankruptcy.

translated to the options the government has:

a) raise the debt ceiling.

b) take out more money to pay off the original amount.

c) refuse to pay anything. (liquidate government assets.)

[gvg]

Or this:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[gvg]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=bktj45ny I solved the deficit apparently =)

I have to do this again though, when I actually pay attention more. But anyway, here's the link for the rest of ya: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

[Quag]

Interesting that link, my only question is how did the deficit get cut from 1.5 trillion today to 400 billion by 2015?

I'm no expert on the US budget but seems to me if nothing gets done between now and 2015 the deficit will likely grow not shrink. However I'm trying to use the calculator. gotta admit the 2015 deficit wasnt to hard but getting rid of the 2030 was difficult. here is my solution (no im not super pleased with it but what can ya do)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zztsq1qj

Also I'm pretty sure they havent included the inevetable cost of servicing the US debt that will come when the US gets its credit rating downgraded. I cant see how that can be avoided at this point, with over 100% debt/GDP ratio.

[gvg]

1. Well, definitely more equal then mine. By what's with the foreign aid cuts? You're one of many. Is it that big of a deal?

2. Couldn't a credit downgrade be avoided with an actual deal, involving both revenue increases (tax raises, loophole fill-ins, etc.) and cuts, that adds up to 4 trillion? I thought i read that somewhere. And i think it's possible. IF no tea partiers are put on the bipartisan thingy of course. Then we're screwed. But i doubt Boehner (who I assume is going to appoint the people) is that stupid. He knows the tea partiers are crazy, i hope.

[Quag]

Well the way i see it you guys are so far in debt you need to recieve foreign aid not give it. Also if your foreign aid is as messed up as ours is it wouldnt be such a bad idea to target it better. FYI for some strange reason we give foreign aid to China.

yes a downgrade could technically be avoided, but i really doubt that it will be. It isnt just tea party people who want to cut with no revenue increases there are EXTREME left wing nutjob democrats who want only to increase taxes. Mix the 2 together and you get problems. »From what i can tell the debt ceiling deal did nothing to decrease spending or really increase taxes (aside from letting bush rates expire) i mean seriously cuts over 10 years, does anyone believe that any of that plan will exist after the next elections? I would be willing to bet that the plan will be compeltely ignored by both sides before the election.

The way I see it is you guys just increased your debt ceiling with no real plan on how to deal with the deficit or the debt. that is why I believe the downgrade is inevitable. If there was some actual immediate concrete stuff in there perhaps the downgrade could be avoided but as it is....

[plainglazed]

Been enjoying this discussion and links. thanks guys. wanted to comment on the pending US debt downgrade. am not convinced it's a certainty though maybe likely. I think the more telling metric is deficit/GDP (9% in 2010 and about 11% est for 2011) than the debt to GDP number. I know I owe more on my house than my annual income and my monthly note is more than 9-11% of my adjusted net income and yet have what would be comparable to a AAA credit rating. Also, with the economic conditions throughout the world at present (due in no small part to US investment banking practices in particular) there is still no better place to park long term cash as in US gov. bonds. This was evident after the continued strength in the measly yield of the 10 year treasury note in the last several weeks despite the debt ceiling issue. thirdly, those credit agencies are private US companies who spend a great deal of resources lobbying Washington. Dont think they will bite the hand of those that feed them.

[Quag]

oh yeah ill try and explain my choices:

foreign aid: read last post

earmarks : seems like a no brainer you guys have been trying to get rid of them forever

farm subsidies: well wast so keen on this but everyoen shoudl learn the real cost of food i guess

5% govt paycut: if liek canada most are overpaid, and that is what happens to people in real world when company is in trouble

10% worforce cut: you could probably cut more, ive worked in govt its increadibly over staffed escpecially management.

250k contractors: come on you like us have way way to many and im guessing liek here contracts tend to go to "friends" of politicians.

other cuts: not sure what this is exactly but i needed for the 30 year

cut aid to states: they gotta cut waste as well sorry but as a country you are broke and so are your states giving money liek this leads them to act innefeciantly.

reduce nuclear arsenal : no like nukes!

reduce troops: ya still have a kick A$$ army

reduce navy/air force fleets: actually tried to avoid this as if needed buildup takes way to long but needed for 30 year

cancel/delay weapons: ya got no $$ ya gotta be frugal

noncombat compensation: seems cruel and hartless so i no touch

reducing troop levels: seemed obvious

medical malpractice: cant believe it would save so little, but it needs be done yesterday!

medicare age to 68: sorry retirement age is gonna increase as well, no way around it

medicare to 70: lets not go too fast here!

tax break for employer health: yeah make it harder for company funded programs no thank you!

cap medicare growth: seems this will just reduce service not force efficiencies(well that is what always has happened) so im against this one

social security to 68: gotta happen we are living longer and using a system based on much shorter life expectancies.

SS70: lets not go too fast yet

reduce SS benefits for rich: its gonna happen anyways so just admit it!

tighten eligibility for disability: really didnt want ot do this but needed more cuts and you keep hearing those stores about person X who abuses system (i personally know some)

Alternate accounting: yeah i avoided this as accounting trickery always seems liek a bad idea

Estate taxes: Avoided all of these as the money earned was already taxed it is just a money grab on grieving families. also the richest of the rich would transfer money out of USA to avoid paying anyway.

Investment taxes: didnt liek this one either as it slows investment but needed the cash and i am against estate taxes so raise had to come somewhere.

bush tax rates: picked the lesser of 2 evils ya need more income but dont liek hitting the middle class so over 250k you pay more

payroll tax: was confused payroll tax here in canada means somethign else apparently, so i picked it without understanding what it was (again needed more $$)

millionaires tax: think that without loopholes there shoudl be no need but there was for this exercise so i added it

eliminate loopholes: picked the one with higher taxes as again ya need $$$$$

reduce mortgage reductions: yeah your economy fell apart with the collapse of the real estate market i think this is a no go zone ATM.

national sales tax: well not 100% against but you must realize it will exlode your underground economy liek it has here in canada resultin in much less $$ than projectiosn show so i said no thanx

carbon tax: this is a ridicoulous tax that gives the appearance of helping the environment without doing anythign but inceasing the cost of everything. please people do stuff that actually helps, not just shuffle money around!

bank tax: seems like a lets tax anyone we think is rich tax but seems to me will decourage investments by banks. a better approach would be to look at our canadian regulations as we were barely affected by your banking disaster. only banks that invested in the USA got slightly singed as our system avoided lending to people who had no $ to pay.

well that is a very very quick explanation of my thinking on this exercise, i didnt actually try and keep the cuts and taxes to be roughly equal but it turned out that way.

[gvg]

Quag: Ok, i can see foreign aid reform for sure. (i don't think we send it to china though. Good job with that =)) But cutting it outright- I don't know about that. For instance, although I don't completely agree with everything it does, Israel does rely on us. And since we (and England, but from what I know we encouraged them) created it, to get rid of it would be, well, not fair really.

And we don't need foreign aid just yet, ya know, with our huge economy and all that. We're still, to my knowledge, the biggest.

Those nutjob dems. have much less of a say than the tea party, and are much less paid attention to. And I don't think Obama (again, this is an assumption), or whoever, would put dems. on there that wouldn't negotiate. Even just talking political advantage, they have the republicans cornered due to the stuff that just happened. I'm much more hopeful than you seem to be.

And I disagree with the plan being ignored- 1. because it isn't really possible. You can't just ignore a law. 2. That would be political suicide. Too many people, unlike usual here, care about this for it to be forgotten by the public.

Also, I think it's a good start. We did finally begin cutting, and hopefully the bipartisan thing that's being developed would be good. And it kinda has to be over a ten or so year period. If too much is taken out at once, well, we'd be screwed. And the credit rating would be catastrophic for everyone from what ive read. I am sure something would be created to help us if the need arise. If they busted out greece, they'll bust out us.

And by the way, I don't like the debt ceiling exactly because of this thing that happened. No other major nation has it (from what ive read), and really there's no need. It's not worth what just almost heppened. The debt ceiling, after all, is to be able to pay the bills we already owe, not to increase spending.

Now, plain:

1. Congrats on becoming a moderator =)

2. I agree with the second half of what you wrote. i don't know enough about the first half to say yes or no, so, yeah...

And I found out that the US basically is Europe's military. Is there any further sense in this? It isn't the 50's. Europe is no longer a bomb-filled continent.

ill answer your other post later tonight, QUag.

Edited August 4, 2011 by gvg

[Guest]

I've been sort of following along, but I do just want to point out a few things:

gvg already said it, but the whole Debt Ceiling debacle was a completely made up crisis that shouldn't have had to happen. Congress already told the President that we needed to pay for certain things (plus our long-term obligations), so the ceiling is arbitrary and unnecessary. The fight wasn't over providing new purchasing authority, it was simply to be allowed to raise the money necessary to pay the bills we've already promised to pay.

Earmarks are similar. It sounds good to say you are banning earmarks, but it doesn't actually change how much money is appropriated. It just changes who gets to decide how to appropriate the money. So it has almost no effect on the debt/deficit.

The vast majority of Farm Subsidies go to mega-corps that are making money hand-over-fist already, so the original impetus for them has long passed. Very few poor corn farmers are collecting anything from the government to encourage them to grow corn.

Part of the issue with downgrading the US credit-rating is that the intractability that almost led the US to default is still structurally there. So credit agencies have a reason to worry that the Congress will wind up missing their next major obligation due to partisan intransigence. If there was a degree of certainty that the risk of default wasn't going to come up again anytime soon, the ratings agencies probably wouldn't be worried, but considering how close things became before a deal could be passed, they aren't terribly reassured just because a deal was passed.

And gvg's right that the ideologues on the Right are currently holding far more sway than the ones on the Left. The ones on the Left are routinely ignored and marginalized by the mainstream Left, while the radical Right is repeatedly legitimized in the media and by party elites. As long as they are treated differently by the more mainstream factions of their sides, there's not too much to compare.

[gvg]

Dawh: About the earmarks: According to the link I put up, the NY Times thing, earmarks do conribute something. Granted, it wasn't much, but from what I understand, all they do is allow for useless pet projects by politicians, and so since it's useless, and might help, I see no reason to get rid of it. Now, i may have gotten what an earmark is wrong, but i don't think so.

And for Quag:

My response is in red

oh yeah ill try and explain my choices:

foreign aid: read last post

Got to this

earmarks : seems like a no brainer you guys have been trying to get rid of them forever

Yeah, i see no reason for them.

farm subsidies: well wast so keen on this but everyoen shoudl learn the real cost of food i guess

If what Dawh says is true, i see no reason to keep these. Isn't this a leftover from the Great Depression or something like that? When the farmers needed a price boost? I'm a little shady on my New Deal history, but...

5% govt paycut: if liek canada most are overpaid, and that is what happens to people in real world when company is in trouble

Well, the average senator makes 80k. Yeah, pay cut. Let's see how they act when they get a more... middle class wage

10% worforce cut: you could probably cut more, ive worked in govt its increadibly over staffed escpecially management.

With the unemployment rate, i dunno about this. Seems like we need people to work, after all they put money into the economy and what not.

250k contractors: come on you like us have way way to many and im guessing liek here contracts tend to go to "friends" of politicians.

Agreed. Especially war ones. We basically hire mercenaries- there's the same number of private guys in Afghan. as US Army guys. i find that to be insulting to our armed forces, quite frankly.

other cuts: not sure what this is exactly but i needed for the 30 year

Eh... I stayed away from this. Too vague.

cut aid to states: they gotta cut waste as well sorry but as a country you are broke and so are your states giving money liek this leads them to act innefeciantly.

I didn't put this. i still think the Federal gov. has to help out the states. Some are worse off than others.

reduce nuclear arsenal : no like nukes!

i agree.... but i wouldn't get rid of em all, honestly, til Russia does. I know the cold war is over, but still...

reduce troops: ya still have a kick A$$ army

Oh believe me, i say cut the army in half. It'd still be more. And most of the cutting would come from ending the wars and bringing home our European/Asian troops. (i don't get this. They don't need them anymore.)

reduce navy/air force fleets: actually tried to avoid this as if needed buildup takes way to long but needed for 30 year

We have 12 carriers... vs 2 in the next biggest. our navy, like our army, is too obese.

cancel/delay weapons: ya got no $$ ya gotta be frugal

Depends what it is. There was an article in the NY Post (I'm holding it in my hand actually, can't find it online though) saying that China is catching up with us technology wise in the military, while Iran is doing the same with precision guided missles. They are comparing the Chinese thing with 'Finlandization' (says here that it has to do with maintaining military balance with the enemy, originally the USSR).

Now, should we go and build AI Fighter robots that can do kung fu and fires missles from their wrists? No, that's ridiculous and unnecessary. But there's certain things I feel we need to work on, like more drone technology so we use fewer people and more anti-missle stuff (kinda like what Reagan wanted with the Star Wars defense system (one of the few times I'll agree with him =)). If we get that going, we don't need nukes.

Oh, and we also need it so they don't shoot out military satellites out of the sky. That would screw us over.

noncombat compensation: seems cruel and hartless so i no touch

I agree. The veterans served us, leave em alone.

reducing troop levels: seemed obvious

Hell's yeah. Not that they'll do this one, but I think the faster we leave the better. it's the 21st century equivalent of Vietnman in Afghanistan (and has lasted longer at that), and iraq- well, we f***** up Iraq. Both are failed, time to leave.

medical malpractice: cant believe it would save so little, but it needs be done yesterday!

After reading it over I had to agree. in fact, i one book I read (Nudge by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein) suggested adding an option to eliminate your 'right' to a malpractice suit altogether, which, if selected by the person, would end up saving them money.

medicare age to 68: sorry retirement age is gonna increase as well, no way around it

On one condition will I accept this- it doesn't affect anyone who is right now over thirty. me being fifteen, by the time I turn 68, we'll have a life expectancy well above what we have now. it's no big deal. But for my Dad and Mom's generation- hell's no. We don't need this yet.

medicare to 70: lets not go too fast here!

Agreed.

tax break for employer health: yeah make it harder for company funded programs no thank you!

i forget what this one is, but i don't think i selected it.

cap medicare growth: seems this will just reduce service not force efficiencies(well that is what always has happened) so im against this one

Yep. You know what else: How's about universal healthcare? *Fends off tea partiers*

But seriously, I dunno about Canada (I've heard conflicting opinions, what do you think of it), but from what i know about Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html), there's is much better. And costs less. And makes sure people who have the sniffles don't clog the whole damn thing up.

Saving money, covering everyone- sounds lovely to me.

social security to 68: gotta happen we are living longer and using a system based on much shorter life expectancies.

Same as above

SS70: lets not go too fast yet

Yep

reduce SS benefits for rich: its gonna happen anyways so just admit it!

I find the fact that the rich can have unemployment, food stamps (i think, not sure about that one), and SS to be ridiculous. Warren buffet and Bill Gates, and even someone who made 1 or so million a year (that's my rich cut-off line for what it's worth) doesn't need it.

tighten eligibility for disability: really didnt want ot do this but needed more cuts and you keep hearing those stores about person X who abuses system (i personally know some)

And person y who was saved by it. Abuses can be dealt with in other ways.

Alternate accounting: yeah i avoided this as accounting trickery always seems liek a bad idea

I might have missed this one. I don't remember it.

Estate taxes: Avoided all of these as the money earned was already taxed it is just a money grab on grieving families. also the richest of the rich would transfer money out of USA to avoid paying anyway.

Nope nope nope. Cue bill Maher:

Put it to the Clinton Era. Seriously. I'm sorry, but complaining that 'OMG now I'm getting 5 million instead of 6!' or whatever- i feel no pity. Most people don't get that. They should seriously stop complaining.

Investment taxes: didnt liek this one either as it slows investment but needed the cash and i am against estate taxes so raise had to come somewhere.

Ah the capital gains tax. Cue politifact (One of my favorite websites): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/19/grover-norquist/grover-norquist-said-economy-has-grown-or-been-dam/ It does nothing to investment, and if people don't invest because they have to pay 35% instead of 15%- I mean seriously, it's not 90%. They had to deal with it before. And who usually is affected by this? The rich, the people who invest. It won't hurt them.

bush tax rates: picked the lesser of 2 evils ya need more income but dont liek hitting the middle class so over 250k you pay more

I picked this, but for the record, the tax system I want is: 1mil+, 60% (if you cant live on 400k or so a year, with the average family being two kids, and my family has 6 people, plus helping one set of grandparents out, with about 100k between my dad and my mom, somebody done f'd up.), something like 250k to under 1 mil: 50%, middle 40% (it is a raise, but not much), poor 30%, poverty zero. I'll even put it 50, 40, 35, 30, 0. But it needs a boost. it's inevitable.

payroll tax: was confused payroll tax here in canada means somethign else apparently, so i picked it without understanding what it was (again needed more $$)

This tax adds to SS. it's from... well, a person's payroll. This option (which i selected) would push up the cap on the amount the payroll tax affects to whatever it said, thus bringing some of the wealthier Americans into the pot.

millionaires tax: think that without loopholes there shoudl be no need but there was for this exercise so i added it

I wasn't too sure what this meant, so i left it alone.

eliminate loopholes: picked the one with higher taxes as again ya need $$$$$

Yep.

reduce mortgage reductions: yeah your economy fell apart with the collapse of the real estate market i think this is a no go zone ATM.

i don't really get what this means. An explanation would be wonderful =)

national sales tax: well not 100% against but you must realize it will exlode your underground economy liek it has here in canada resultin in much less $$ than projectiosn show so i said no thanx

Here's an idea. Ready... Legalize drugs and prostitution, tax them. Well. That seems simple. Saves on police, adds revenue, increases safety. Yep.

I said no to this anyway =)

carbon tax: this is a ridicoulous tax that gives the appearance of helping the environment without doing anythign but inceasing the cost of everything. please people do stuff that actually helps, not just shuffle money around!

Couldn't really get what this was, so despite my feeling (apparantly false, then) that it would help the enviornment- i didn't o it. Now, another thing i've heard is a big gas tax. just a thing on this- i would, normally, say yes. (What they have in Europe. It's like 9$ a gallon due to tax, though maybe i wouldn't go that extreme) however, due to the state of the economy, the lack of a true alternative yet (though i say add more funding to research alternative energy), and the fact that there would be riots in the streets, i disagree with it.

bank tax: seems like a lets tax anyone we think is rich tax but seems to me will decourage investments by banks. a better approach would be to look at our canadian regulations as we were barely affected by your banking disaster. only banks that invested in the USA got slightly singed as our system avoided lending to people who had no $ to pay.

Explain you regulations then. This is one of the things that I decided i wanted to include when i went back to do it again. but tell me what Canada does.

Oh, and maybe something else that would help would be to 1. Make sure they understand- NO MORE BAILOUTS. At least, i'd rather there not be. For those wonderful free marketiers out there- let em fail =)

And if their too big to fail, well, i go by the words of one of my political heros, Bernie Sanders:

"if they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist." (Something like that)

Break em up if they're too big to fail.

well that is a very very quick explanation of my thinking on this exercise, i didnt actually try and keep the cuts and taxes to be roughly equal but it turned out that way.

There were some things that I think could have been added (indeed, they say politicians have more stuff), but 'm very glad to have found this exercise. Very enlightening. And it makes you wonder why we, normal people, seem to be able to do this (and compromise)... and not our officials.

[Quag]

Dawh:

pretty much agree with most of what you said. on the downgrade debt is 100% GDP and deficit accounts for 40% of budget. these were not adressed by the debt ceiling deal so problems still exist (yeah yeah a few trillion over 10 years but trust me the deal wont last. anything over 4 years is just dreaming)

earmarks are used as campaign slush fund so even if they dont help deficit/budget they should go.

On the extreme right/left, i get 2 radio stations here from the US. one is right wing one is left wing. they are both pretty extreme at times, though often they are fairly moderate even with their different stances. I liek to listen when they talk on the same issue and switch back and forth to see the opposite spins they give. however this is just 2 samplings so i'll defer to you on the power each side wields in the us political landscape.

[Quag]

Gvg:

Yeah I agree it is a good exercise. Though the choices are necessarily limited. Lets face it the solutions are infinite. I am assuming the are limiting themselves to propositions already made by either side. Lets face it without this you and I could never have as good a discussion on the issue as we would both be talking in much much vaguer terms.

OK I’ll try and respond to your post only where we differ or to clarify some of my points. Where we agree no comment is necessary

Foreign aid: your link didn’t work but I’ll just point out it is 50% cut not 100% I will just hope they cut the $ that goes directly into some corrupt persons Swiss bank account. Still as you guys are on the precipice you need to start to help yourselves before you can do too much to help others. And yeah the China thing sucks but i think they have finally ended it (after huge public outrage), either that or buried it.

10% workforce cut: private companies do this all the time. Govt is massively over staffed. This is true in the USA and Canada. Especially management, where i hope most cuts would come (though being a cynic i doubt it) as an example when we privatized ATC here we went from 7 to 3 levels of management or a ratio of 1 manager per 3-4 workers to 1 manager per 10-12. as managers make more than regular staff savings is even better Also yes you need people to work but govt work does not produce anything and is mostly a drain on the economy, though much work is necessary to allow private companies to be able to do their work. Eg infrastructure, regulatory bodies, IRS(no taxes no govt) etc.

Other cuts : yes vague but i needed the $ for the exercise perhaps if more detailed I would be against it.

Cut aid to states: well back in the 90's when we had our deficit crunch this is what the feds did. The provinces complained but mostly they managed to get along without the money. Basically any level of govt will spend any cash it can get. That is one of the reasons you are in this mess.

Reduce nukes: yeah i agree getting rid of all of them would not be a good idea ATM.

Reduce navy air force fleets: The USA is the only country with global commitments (the Brits are a shadow of what they used to be, hong-kong is gone etc) you are attached by land to only 2 neighbours Canada/Mexico, neither of which there is much chance of physical force being required in. Russia is basically on the same continent and very close to most potential hot spots, china also but less so and they are expanding rapidly! Again build up takes time and gettign caught with pants down is bad. Look at Falklands war. Britain was in the process of decommissioning their fixed wing carriers. Decision was reversed and ships were hurriedly put back in operation. If they had kept up navy war would have been shorter and probably cost less in lives and $ (yes war want long but shorter is always better) Argentina might even have decided not to invade thus avoiding war. Still having said all this i reduced as again i needed the $$$.

cancel/delay programs: agree with you 100% but it said cancel/delay only some so I will assume they will get rid of the molecular destabilization ray programs and not the valid/reasonable/feasible ones.

Medical malpractice: just a note you guys are the most litigious society in history i don’t think just medical malpractice but a whole overhaul of your civil justice system is in order.

Medicare age 68: disagree with the age 30 but it should be fazed in IE those 60 go to 66 those 55 to 68 or something like that, 30 is too far off.

Medicare growth: DO NOT expect costs to decrease because of universal health care, that will only happen if health care is severely degraded. Now i am in favour of universal health care, we have it here in Canada. It has its limits and you need to allow a private health care on the side. We technically do not allow private health care( for stuff covered under public) but we actually do allow it. Yes the 6 month wait for cancer diagnostics exist here. Sometimes is faster sometimes is slower but usually if you are afraid you can get it done privately. Often the private is covered by health care and if not your private insurance usually covers it. YES we have private insurance as well here. Not everything is covered. Example my knee brace (after my rugby injury, torn ACL/MCL) was not covered. Drugs arent usually covered, dentist are not (except young children and then not for everything) its all rather complex. Another example My daughter needs 4 teeth removes, the dentist could not do it as she refused to open her mouth. She referred us to either another dentist who has more anaesthetic options or the hospital. The hospital was free the dentist covered mostly by my health insurance (90% i believe). Hospital would be 4-8 month wait dentist i could see right away. I chose dentist we visited, he explained the options (oral anaesthetic or go through the hospital for general anaesthetic. As it was rather obvious that there was little chance we would be able to get here to drink the anaesthetic I chose the hospital. Now because of the way the system works she is having the teeth removed this Friday (about 1 month after we were referred to him) instead of November at best if we went directly to the hospital. I know the system is crazy but that is how it works. I will reiterate anyone who says health care costs will shrink under universal health care is lying through their teeth!

Reduce SS benefits: actually i have no problem with rich collecting unemployment insurance. They paid into the INSURANCE system it should be there if they lose their jobs. Food stamps for rich is silly and SS well if your rich you have means to plan for retirement, if you don't then i have no sympathy for you. I would like someone who pays into SS to get money back as i think it is fair but the system at least here in Canada is untenable (and from what I understand in the USA as well)so what ya gonna do reduce everyone or only those that don't actually require the money?

Estate taxes: Bill Maher is a comedian. He doesn’t give a reason why estate taxes are justified only that rich people shouldn't complain that they are rich. Honestly those that accumulated the estate paid the taxes as they did so. Thus i believe it is just taxing money that has already been taxed. I don’t care if your estate is 10$ or 10 billion$ the taxes were already paid and to tax it is just a money grab by the govt. BTW look at the Kennedys when Ethel died they went through the estate process in Florida not Massachusetts to avoid estate taxes you don’t think other mega rich people wont do runarounds like this as well?

Investment taxes: I went for this, remember I don’t like taxes in general but accept them as necessary. I am sorry however, I do not accept the argument that the rich are rich and should pay because they are rich. That seems like class warfare to me. Taxes should be fair and justifiable for all, they shouldn’t be based on Bill Maher's silly sketches on complaining that the rich are rich. Still ya need $ so taxes go up.

Bush tax rates: as already discussed in another thread, I don’t think taxes should ever be over 50%

Payroll tax: here in Canada the payroll tax is a tax on a company based on their total payroll. An insane tax that reduces a companies desire to hire extra personnel. Like I said seems to mean something completely different in the USA

Millionaires tax: As i understood it it was just an extra tax on those making over 1kk or in other words another way of increasing the tax rate on income over 1kk without calling it that. If I am wrong in this assessment i could change my mind. But again ya need $$$.

reduce mortgage deductions: OK not sure 100% how it works in the USA but as i understand it you can deduct a percentage the interest you pay on a mortgage from your income tax. This is a measure to try and help people purchase their own homes. Again if I am wrong on this and it works completely differently than in Canada I could change my mind.

National sales tax: yup legalize and tax the vices I'm with you on that.

Carbon tax: the idea is that if you make things that create CO2 more expensive people will use them less. The truth is it only slows the CO2 emissions by the amount that it slows the economy. The big difference you must remember between the USA and Europe( and even more so Canada and Europe) is size. Europe is tiny and everything is close in comparison. If gas gets too expensive transport of people/goods gets insane compared to the relative closeness of Europe.

Bank tax: Ok here are a few things we had you guys didn't (as i understand it). Mortgages were a max 35 years (now dropped to 30). No interest only mortgages, min 5% deposit was lowest amount (needed to qualify), next level was 10% again needed to qualify (note requirements are very strict vis a vis USA. Regular is 20% down-payment. You have 0% of getting a mortgage if you have no job. Many jobs automatically make it harder and discount you from 5% or 10% down-payments (these are jobs where the income is not stable, ie varies from week/week month/month. For example a waiter(i was one for a while is how i know) they will accept your salary but will only accept a % of what you declare as your income from tips as this can vary wildly and drastically depending on season/economy and other factors. There are much more I am sure but I only have had to deal with these regulations in my life. I am not a banking expert just know that all reports without exception claim our regulations were the reason our banks didn’t fail. Oh yeah one more thing as to personal banks (not investment) We have far far fewer banks than you guys (even when your 10X population is taken in account). But the vast majority of our banks are on a national scale not small local or provincial banks

As to too big to fail I agree with you if they are too big to fail they are too big to exist.

Now i gotta go fix my motorcycle

[gvg]

Gvg:

Yeah I agree it is a good exercise. Though the choices are necessarily limited. Lets face it the solutions are infinite. I am assuming the are limiting themselves to propositions already made by either side. Lets face it without this you and I could never have as good a discussion on the issue as we would both be talking in much much vaguer terms.

OK I’ll try and respond to your post only where we differ or to clarify some of my points. Where we agree no comment is necessary

Foreign aid: your link didn’t work but I’ll just point out it is 50% cut not 100% I will just hope they cut the $ that goes directly into some corrupt persons Swiss bank account. Still as you guys are on the precipice you need to start to help yourselves before you can do too much to help others. And yeah the China thing sucks but i think they have finally ended it (after huge public outrage), either that or buried it.

I suppose. Seems fair enough.

10% workforce cut: private companies do this all the time. Govt is massively over staffed. This is true in the USA and Canada. Especially management, where i hope most cuts would come (though being a cynic i doubt it) as an example when we privatized ATC here we went from 7 to 3 levels of management or a ratio of 1 manager per 3-4 workers to 1 manager per 10-12. as managers make more than regular staff savings is even better Also yes you need people to work but govt work does not produce anything and is mostly a drain on the economy, though much work is necessary to allow private companies to be able to do their work. Eg infrastructure, regulatory bodies, IRS(no taxes no govt) etc.

Well, when our businesses aren't hiring people who have been unemployed for 6 months (many have), and thus those people aren't making any money that can be put into the economy, well, I don't think a workforce cut would go well. At least they're working. now, should the government go and hire everyone? No, obviously not. But getting rid of people who are already working- i dunno, seems like it would hurt.

Other cuts : yes vague but i needed the $ for the exercise perhaps if more detailed I would be against it.

Alrighty, fair enough.

Cut aid to states: well back in the 90's when we had our deficit crunch this is what the feds did. The provinces complained but mostly they managed to get along without the money. Basically any level of govt will spend any cash it can get. That is one of the reasons you are in this mess.

I do think it depends on the state. But i could understand this. Just seems like taking money from Michigan, where Detroit is located, would be bad.

Reduce nukes: yeah i agree getting rid of all of them would not be a good idea ATM.

Yep. Sadly so.

Reduce navy air force fleets: The USA is the only country with global commitments (the Brits are a shadow of what they used to be, hong-kong is gone etc) you are attached by land to only 2 neighbours Canada/Mexico, neither of which there is much chance of physical force being required in. Russia is basically on the same continent and very close to most potential hot spots, china also but less so and they are expanding rapidly! Again build up takes time and gettign caught with pants down is bad. Look at Falklands war. Britain was in the process of decommissioning their fixed wing carriers. Decision was reversed and ships were hurriedly put back in operation. If they had kept up navy war would have been shorter and probably cost less in lives and $ (yes war want long but shorter is always better) Argentina might even have decided not to invade thus avoiding war. Still having said all this i reduced as again i needed the $$$.

Well, if we have 12, and the next biggest is 2, i think we can reduce it to 8 (maybe 6) and be fine. 8 on two is still tipped in our favor.

cancel/delay programs: agree with you 100% but it said cancel/delay only some so I will assume they will get rid of the molecular destabilization ray programs and not the valid/reasonable/feasible ones.

Hopefully.

Medical malpractice: just a note you guys are the most litigious society in history i don’t think just medical malpractice but a whole overhaul of your civil justice system is in order.

America: Land of the lawsuit =) Well, some Judges take ridiculous law suits, throw them out, and fine those involved (the lawyer usually for being moronic enough to help a stupid lawsuit). But mostly, i'd say something has to be done when people can sue McDonald's for not saying their coffee is hot.

Medicare age 68: disagree with the age 30 but it should be fazed in IE those 60 go to 66 those 55 to 68 or something like that, 30 is too far off.

Again, if it needs to be, then yes. if it can be prevented, wait. But I guess we need it, huh?

Medicare growth: DO NOT expect costs to decrease because of universal health care, that will only happen if health care is severely degraded. Now i am in favour of universal health care, we have it here in Canada. It has its limits and you need to allow a private health care on the side. We technically do not allow private health care( for stuff covered under public) but we actually do allow it. Yes the 6 month wait for cancer diagnostics exist here. Sometimes is faster sometimes is slower but usually if you are afraid you can get it done privately. Often the private is covered by health care and if not your private insurance usually covers it. YES we have private insurance as well here. Not everything is covered. Example my knee brace (after my rugby injury, torn ACL/MCL) was not covered. Drugs arent usually covered, dentist are not (except young children and then not for everything) its all rather complex. Another example My daughter needs 4 teeth removes, the dentist could not do it as she refused to open her mouth. She referred us to either another dentist who has more anaesthetic options or the hospital. The hospital was free the dentist covered mostly by my health insurance (90% i believe). Hospital would be 4-8 month wait dentist i could see right away. I chose dentist we visited, he explained the options (oral anaesthetic or go through the hospital for general anaesthetic. As it was rather obvious that there was little chance we would be able to get here to drink the anaesthetic I chose the hospital. Now because of the way the system works she is having the teeth removed this Friday (about 1 month after we were referred to him) instead of November at best if we went directly to the hospital. I know the system is crazy but that is how it works. I will reiterate anyone who says health care costs will shrink under universal health care is lying through their teeth!

The reason they say this is a big one: people here currently wait to the last minute to visit the doctor or a hospital because, well, they don't have insurance. Thus, when they finally hit the emergency room, a huge bill emerges. Also, we currently spend twice as much per person as countries with universal healthcare, so it could very well go down. But i dunno fully.

Reduce SS benefits: actually i have no problem with rich collecting unemployment insurance. They paid into the INSURANCE system it should be there if they lose their jobs. Food stamps for rich is silly and SS well if your rich you have means to plan for retirement, if you don't then i have no sympathy for you. I would like someone who pays into SS to get money back as i think it is fair but the system at least here in Canada is untenable (and from what I understand in the USA as well)so what ya gonna do reduce everyone or only those that don't actually require the money?

Well, for the UI insurance: In a time where we need money, giving billionaires unemployment insurance isn't exactly helpful. but i could accept it.

Now, for the SS: SS is actually fine, and doesn't add to the deficit (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=U8JlK6k29uQ). The fund it has (i was wrong, it isn't the payroll tax, it's FICA. (payroll taxes here: http://www.alllaw.co...ax/article5.asp)) actually helps a lot, and the only reason anything is wrong with social security is because our government has borrowed something like 2 trillion from social security. That's why; we owe it money. it is actually solvent for a while.

Estate taxes: Bill Maher is a comedian. He doesn’t give a reason why estate taxes are justified only that rich people shouldn't complain that they are rich. Honestly those that accumulated the estate paid the taxes as they did so. Thus i believe it is just taxing money that has already been taxed. I don’t care if your estate is 10$ or 10 billion$ the taxes were already paid and to tax it is just a money grab by the govt. BTW look at the Kennedys when Ethel died they went through the estate process in Florida not Massachusetts to avoid estate taxes you don’t think other mega rich people wont do runarounds like this as well?

Oh i know he's a comedian. I just thought he brought up a good point: people complain about getting 7 instead of 8 million dollars (and that money, after all, goes to our defense, our other stuff, etc.) as if it's the end of the world. it really isn't. And why is it justified? Well, here's one thing: http://www.commondre...s06/1226-25.htm And plus, isn't it tachnically income? The person receiving it is making 7 million dollars, or whatever.

And maybe having a universal standard in all 50 states will change the avoiding thing. I dunno.

Investment taxes: I went for this, remember I don’t like taxes in general but accept them as necessary. I am sorry however, I do not accept the argument that the rich are rich and should pay because they are rich. That seems like class warfare to me. Taxes should be fair and justifiable for all, they shouldn’t be based on Bill Maher's silly sketches on complaining that the rich are rich. Still ya need $ so taxes go up.

I never said they should pay because they are rich. unless that statement also includes the fact that because the rich benefit more from society, they should give more back to society. Then, I suppose I accept the statement.

And Bill Maher, while he is a comedian, does bring up good points. Especially considering he is rich, and is pushing for all of these things. t's not like he's on welfare asking the rich to pay 100% in taxes. bill is loaded, he knows it, and yet he fights for increasing tax on the rich and what not. I like him.

Oh, and the class war thingy: Bill has actually called for it. Even though he's rich (odd, actually. Here's the video:

And another:

) And plus, he does bring up good points that people don't think about. For instance, is he wrong here?

But anyway, I know he's a comedian. I just think he has good points.

Bush tax rates: as already discussed in another thread, I don’t think taxes should ever be over 50%

I am willing to put it at 50%, as long as the loopholes disapear.

Payroll tax: here in Canada the payroll tax is a tax on a company based on their total payroll. An insane tax that reduces a companies desire to hire extra personnel. Like I said seems to mean something completely different in the USA

See above.

Millionaires tax: As i understood it it was just an extra tax on those making over 1kk or in other words another way of increasing the tax rate on income over 1kk without calling it that. If I am wrong in this assessment i could change my mind. But again ya need $$$.

Yeah, I agree.

reduce mortgage deductions: OK not sure 100% how it works in the USA but as i understand it you can deduct a percentage the interest you pay on a mortgage from your income tax. This is a measure to try and help people purchase their own homes. Again if I am wrong on this and it works completely differently than in Canada I could change my mind.

Well, why is this a bad thing? OK, maybe some rich guy will take advantage and use it to cut his taxes, but why shouldn't a middle or working class person be able to do this?

National sales tax: yup legalize and tax the vices I'm with you on that.

Woot. Weed for all

Carbon tax: the idea is that if you make things that create CO2 more expensive people will use them less. The truth is it only slows the CO2 emissions by the amount that it slows the economy. The big difference you must remember between the USA and Europe( and even more so Canada and Europe) is size. Europe is tiny and everything is close in comparison. If gas gets too expensive transport of people/goods gets insane compared to the relative closeness of Europe.

What you say makes sense. Indeed, Europe is very small. i can see why it's different.

Bank tax: Ok here are a few things we had you guys didn't (as i understand it). Mortgages were a max 35 years (now dropped to 30). No interest only mortgages, min 5% deposit was lowest amount (needed to qualify), next level was 10% again needed to qualify (note requirements are very strict vis a vis USA. Regular is 20% down-payment. You have 0% of getting a mortgage if you have no job. Many jobs automatically make it harder and discount you from 5% or 10% down-payments (these are jobs where the income is not stable, ie varies from week/week month/month. For example a waiter(i was one for a while is how i know) they will accept your salary but will only accept a % of what you declare as your income from tips as this can vary wildly and drastically depending on season/economy and other factors. There are much more I am sure but I only have had to deal with these regulations in my life. I am not a banking expert just know that all reports without exception claim our regulations were the reason our banks didn’t fail. Oh yeah one more thing as to personal banks (not investment) We have far far fewer banks than you guys (even when your 10X population is taken in account). But the vast majority of our banks are on a national scale not small local or provincial banks

So, reasonable things that prevent meltdowns? No wonder we didn't have it =) But yeah, we need more regulations for sure. The deregulation under Bush screwed up majorly.

As to too big to fail I agree with you if they are too big to fail they are too big to exist.

I mean seriously, if a few banks decide the fate of Wall ZStreet, something is very wrong.

Now i gotta go fix my motorcycle

Have fun with that =)

Oh, and i don' tthink it included corporate taxes. This is one of the things (one of the FEW things) i agree with lowering taxes on. i see no reason that lowering it to 28% from 35% (much too high for those who follow the rules) while closing loopholes to increase revenue wouldn't work beautifully. And maybe we should use the Citizens United ruling to our advantage: If a corporation is a person, than I guess they can be charged for tax evasion, and we can punish them more severely for their enviormental mistakes (BP executives i'm looking at you) and such.

just a thought. if they're a person, they have all the responsibilities of one too =)

Edited August 4, 2011 by gvg

[Quag]

Well, when our businesses aren't hiring people who have been unemployed for 6 months (many have), and thus those people aren't making any money that can be put into the economy, well, I don't think a workforce cut would go well. At least they're working. now, should the government go and hire everyone? No, obviously not. But getting rid of people who are already working- i dunno, seems like it would hurt.

yes it would hurt. lets face it any cut/tax increasse will hurt. point is govt doesnt produce anything and is a drain on the economy, it is overstaffed escpecially in management this seems liek a great excuse to clean house and create a stonger country for ALL to live in not just those who manage to get a cozy govt job with lets face it overpaid and extra benefits compared wiuth the private sector. I said i wanted management to take the most cuts in this.

Well, if we have 12, and the next biggest is 2, i think we can reduce it to 8 (maybe 6) and be fine. 8 on two is still tipped in our favor.

liek i said global commitments. russia has 2 oceans but limited need and china has 1 to worry about. most of russias potential targets are within striking distance of land based planes same with china. the USA must maintain carriers in atlantic N/S/pacificN/S/medteranian/indian ocean. it takes time to move these resources around that may not be available when needed. Also I stress again in war you fight with what ya got not what will be built in 5 years. I said yes because ya need the cash but perhaps you are righht 8 carriers would do.

The reason they say this is a big one: people here currently wait to the last minute to visit the doctor or a hospital because, well, they don't have insurance. Thus, when they finally hit the emergency room, a huge bill emerges. Also, we currently spend twice as much per person as countries with universal healthcare, so it could very well go down. But i dunno fully.

here people go to emergency whenever they have a cold plugging up the system. I spent 12hrs at the hospital last year because i had a pulled muscle in my chest and couldnt breath, it was midnight when i went so no regular doctor available. i had to go to emergency. I told them what was wrong and that i needed muscle relaxant. but of course they ignored me (and i guess teh should as im not a doctor) but after they decided i wasnt having a heart attack (left side hurts cant breath they check that out quick) i sat alone forever in a small room with no way to contact wife and say im ok just waiting around. The govt doesnt ration health care per say but they pay only so many doctors so it is pretty much impossibel to get a family doctor if you dont have one already (i am lucky i got one) and after they see x number of patients/month they reduce the amount the doctors recieve to a point where most lose money if they keep seeing patients so many work only 3 weeks max/month. In the hospitals here you are lucky o get a room and not sit in a hallway for days as there is not enough staff to have beds open. dont ask me why a guy ion a hall requires less staff than in a room but that is what they say is the reason. So ill say it again if you get govt health care the only way to reduce costs is to reduce services. if they dont your costs will increase. I know it sounds like i am against our health care system but i am not i think everyone should have health care my problem is that we have and trust me you will have if you dont watch out more people woorking in offices pushing paper than providing health care. that is the problem with govt health care the beurocrats take over and they never ever ever cut the number of beaurocrats just the nurses and doctors who actually do the work.

Now, for the SS: SS is actually fine, and doesn't add to the deficit (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=U8JlK6k29uQ). The fund it has (i was wrong, it isn't the payroll tax, it's FICA. (payroll taxes here: http://www.alllaw.co...ax/article5.asp)) actually helps a lot, and the only reason anything is wrong with social security is because our government has borrowed something like 2 trillion from social security. That's why; we owe it money. it is actually solvent for a while.

will take more time to deal with this later as it could be long.

Oh i know he's a comedian. I just thought he brought up a good point: people complain about getting 7 instead of 8 million dollars (and that money, after all, goes to our defense, our other stuff, etc.) as if it's the end of the world. it really isn't. And why is it justified? Well, here's one thing: http://www.commondre...s06/1226-25.htm And plus, isn't it tachnically income? The person receiving it is making 7 million dollars, or whatever.

i didnt see any point in the video except he felt the rich do not have the right to be rich. i take that as an absurd statement. the article doesnt seem to state why it is ok to have estate taxes only that you need money. I still think it is double taxation and am against that, and no your folks GIVING you cash is not the same as income which you earn. FYI in canada there is no estate tax and we dont have any problems caused by thet lack of this source of income for the govt.

will continue later as the man child next to me is whining to use the puter.

motorcycle fixed and seems to be runnign smoothly, well aside from the glass on the tacho which i managed to smash while trying to repair other things.

[Quag]

I never said they should pay because they are rich. unless that statement also includes the fact that because the rich benefit more from society, they should give more back to society. Then, I suppose I accept the statement.

And Bill Maher, while he is a comedian, does bring up good points. Especially considering he is rich, and is pushing for all of these things. t's not like he's on welfare asking the rich to pay 100% in taxes. bill is loaded, he knows it, and yet he fights for increasing tax on the rich and what not. I like him.

Oh, and the class war thingy: Bill has actually called for it. Even though he's rich (odd, actually. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=sWFcjl2Qo6g And another: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related) And plus, he does bring up good points that people don't think about. For instance, is he wrong here? http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

On investment taxes, corporations already pay tax on profits (well aside from GE) they use those profits to pay investors through dicedends or reinvest to make company gorw increasinf companies net worth. one of the reasons for lower investement taxes is that it really is taxing the same money 2X.

As to Bill Maher he has made himself rich by bashing the rich, although he can be funny I really havent seen any real intelligent points from him he is more interested in making comedy that intelligent political discussion.

Bush tax rates: as already discussed in another thread, I don’t think taxes should ever be over 50%

I am willing to put it at 50%, as long as the loopholes disapear

yes end loopholes, but being a cynic i think most of them are there for politicians and their "friends" ie contributors can keep mor emoney so i doubt this will happen.

reduce mortgage deductions: OK not sure 100% how it works in the USA but as i understand it you can deduct a percentage the interest you pay on a mortgage from your income tax. This is a measure to try and help people purchase their own homes. Again if I am wrong on this and it works completely differently than in Canada I could change my mind.

Well, why is this a bad thing? OK, maybe some rich guy will take advantage and use it to cut his taxes, but why shouldn't a middle or working class person be able to do this?

umm i beleive i am in agreement with you here.

Oh, and i don' tthink it included corporate taxes. This is one of the things (one of the FEW things) i agree with lowering taxes on. i see no reason that lowering it to 28% from 35% (much too high for those who follow the rules) while closing loopholes to increase revenue wouldn't work beautifully. And maybe we should use the Citizens United ruling to our advantage: If a corporation is a person, than I guess they can be charged for tax evasion, and we can punish them more severely for their enviormental mistakes (BP executives i'm looking at you) and such.

just a thought. if they're a person, they have all the responsibilities of one too =)

cant really disagree with you here either.

Wow we had pretty different results for the exercise but we really arent that far apart. i am finding this more interesting as it goes along.

[Quag]

okay now the big one Social security:

it isnt short ATM it will be short later. According to SSA site itself it is in trouble long term. Yeah ya can go on for a while and pretend nothing is wrong or you can adress the issue right now and make it less painful later on. I Think the latter option is the wiser one

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

http://www.ssa.gov/budget/

I honestly thought i would take more time on this but as i found the info on the SSA site i dont feel i need to continue looking for opposing points.

[gvg]

Ah shoot. i had a whole big thing, and then because I forgot to sign in first, I lost it. ARGH!

I did select all first, like usual, but it says quote tags are uneven.

And it looks all weird.

Ah well. i don't have time to redo it now. I'll do it later i suppose =)

[gvg]

Well, here's some good news: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/july_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1

[Quag]

Yes this is good news, we had similar news here in Canada, this part was troubling though. Hopefully the good outweighs the bad.

So far, the economy has recovered only 1.9 million of the 8.7 million jobs lost since the recession began. Two years after it officially ended, 13.9 million Americans remain unemployed, 44% of which have been out of work for six months or longer. About 1.1 million people have become so discouraged they've stopped looking for work altogether and are no longer counted as unemployed.

The drop in the number of people in the labor force is what produced the slight improvement in unemployment, not the pick-up in hiring. In fact the complement to the unemployment rate -- percentage of the population with a job -- fell to 58.1%, a 28-year low for that reading.

yes thsi is some good news we had similar news here in canada. this part of the article was troubling though

[Quag]

Well i knew it was coming but i didnt expect it so soon.

S&P has lowered the debt rating for the USA, this will just add to the problems

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/us-debt-downgraded-by-sp.html

[gvg]

But that's just one. The others haven't. And people still say that America is still viewed as the best bet, so an AA+ rating won't kill us. Especially from one company.

however, maybe this will get the tea party and similar people to STFU so we can get something done. Hopefully that something won't kill jobs though. Which everyone seems to be forgetting about: jobs. How about working for some of those? Maybe a job creating thing included in one of these cuts? A second stimulus maybe? (One that isnt 40% tax cuts. The last stimulus was considered too small. http://krugman.blogs...-was-too-small/ And here's some others: http://economistsvie...-too-small.html http://www.economy.c...andi-011310.pdf ("This says nothing about the efficacy of the fiscal stimulus. If anything, it suggests the $787 billion fiscal stimulus was too small given the severity of the financial crisis." http://www.politico....0211/48586.html (Humtsman- a SMART Republican. never thought I'd see the day. But he brings up the third thing I linked.)

And i promise I'll answer all of your points- i just haven't had a chance to do so yet.

Edited August 6, 2011 by gvg

[Guest]

But that's just one. The others haven't. And people still say that America is still viewed as the best bet, so an AA+ rating won't kill us. Especially from one company.

however, maybe this will get the tea party and similar people to STFU so we can get something done. Hopefully that something won't kill jobs though. Which everyone seems to be forgetting about: jobs.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party is already using the S&P downgrade to say that we clearly didn't do enough austerity. Rather than more stimulus, they want to cut even more government spending as they say that "getting America's fiscal ship back on course" will cause the ratings agencies to regain confidence in the "full faith and credit of the US of A." Nevermind about jobs. If the private sector isn't hiring, that's not the Tea Party's fault.

The Republican Party came in to power in the House on the platform of "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" and so far they haven't passed a single jobs related bill. HR1 for the 112th Congress was an antiabortion bill that will never pass the Senate. So despite jobs being their stated primary interest, their first priority in the House was a symbolic vote to defund abortions that are already not being funded.