General Political Thread

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I was amazed at all the bad press this morning about the December jobs numbers. It's being treated like a disaster that the economy gained "only" 74K jobs last month..."the worst in 3 years." Economists were "expecting over 200K."

 

I thought, Oh, how quickly we forget. You want to know what a bad jobs number is? How about 432K lost in Sept. '08, then 489K lost in Oct., 803K in Nov., 661K in Dec....Those are bad numbers. Damn, if the economy showed a net loss of any jobs next month, you would think it's the apocalypse or something. I'm not saying the recovery has been stellar, but look at the number of consecutive months of job growth and it's pretty damn good.

[KevinG]

I was amazed at all the bad press this morning about the December jobs numbers. It's being treated like a disaster that the economy gained "only" 74K jobs last month..."the worst in 3 years." Economists were "expecting over 200K."

 

I thought, Oh, how quickly we forget. You want to know what a bad jobs number is? How about 432K lost in Sept. '08, then 489K lost in Oct., 803K in Nov., 661K in Dec....Those are bad numbers. Damn, if the economy showed a net loss of any jobs next month, you would think it's the apocalypse or something. I'm not saying the recovery has been stellar, but look at the number of consecutive months of job growth and it's pretty damn good.

 

While we are not hemorrhaging jobs like we did 5 - 6 years ago, we are supposed to be in a recovery.  So the 74K new jobs is pretty bad.  

 

But lets take this to the next logical step.  The US is not producing the number of jobs that it should be, so there are not enough jobs out there for people.  Thus making it hard for people to find work.  So you know what Congress does?  They cut off the unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans.  

 

If the unemployment rate was 3% and US is creating a 300K new jobs a month, I would be all for cutting unemployment benefits.  But as these numbers show we simply do not have enough jobs.  We are taking money out of the economy.  Ending unemployment benefits are not going to put more money back to employers who pay for the insurance (their payments are predetermined by the number of layoffs they have had), and Unemployment is not a taxpayer funded program.  

[Guest Jules]

They didn't cut benefits. They stopped extending.

[KevinG]

They didn't cut benefits. They stopped extending.

 

Ah Jules, the master of the deflection and evasion.  It is a matter of semantics, cut off/stopped extending, whatever.  

 

The fact remains that there are not enough jobs.  So why stop the extension?  Is it the Rand Paul notion that it does a disservice to the unemployed and keeps them looking for a job.  Which BTW the study he cited actually says the opposite.  http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-rand-paul-20140107,0,6889404.story#axzz2q1EqmmXi    Plus as I have said before and shown with the latest job numbers THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS!

 

So (and because you have trouble known a rhetorical question from a pointed one) I am asking you directly.  What benefit do we get from stopping the extension for unemployment benefits? 

[John Smith]

My company is more profitable than ever, now when people leave we do not replace them. This is not uncommon. In my group of 5 people we have probably had enough work added to support 6.5 but we maintain our staffing as is.

 

Re: Christie if it turns out that the whole mess was done just to jab Dems that would not definitely enhance his position with the hard right. Not apologizing will help him too.

[Hixter]

The GWB closing was purely a result of someone in Christie's administration doing something wrong. 

I never claimed differently.

 

What is striking to me is that Hixter you have condemned Christies actions, but also decry the investigations as politically motivated.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but I'm not decrying the investigations -- I'm decrying another poster's response of 'B.S.' to my suggestion that the investigation could be politically motivated.

 

I would not be surprised if a Tea Party led campaign to roast his nuts exists too.

Is this where I yell, "Bullshit" because you threw out an "I wouldn't be surprised if ..."?

 

I was amazed at all the bad press this morning about the December jobs numbers. It's being treated like a disaster that the economy gained "only" 74K jobs last month..."the worst in 3 years." Economists were "expecting over 200K."

The labor participation rate dropped to a 35-year low and the number of Americans not seeking work jumped 535,000 to an all-time high of nearly 92 million. The numbers are terrible now matter how you slice 'em.

[Guest Jules]

What benefit do we get from stopping the extension for unemployment benefits? 

 

I don't know.  Extend to what end, though?  Maybe this is how many jobs there will be.  Why does the "help" have to come from unemployment benefits on the backs of the companies that once employed these people?

 

[KevinG]

Extend to what end, though?  

 

Until the economy improves enough where there are enough jobs.  

 

I don't know.  Extend to what end, though?  Maybe this is how many jobs there will be.  

 

Well if this is how many jobs there will be then we are truly screwed.

 

Why does the "help" have to come from unemployment benefits on the backs of the companies that once employed these people?

 

 

I am not saying it does.  But simply dropping unemployment insurance and offering no other means of support is not the way to do it.  Without the extension these people will become more of a burden on our society by going on welfare, or worse.    

 

Why is it that the scapegoats in this are the unemployed, who are seen as moochers in our society?  Why is it not the corporations whose profits are at an all time high, and whose effective tax rate is lowest in history?  Capitalism is nice, but when greed takes over it hurts the workers.  It hurts those looking for work.  Why do I have to be happy that I have a job?  Why isn't my employer happy to have me as a worker?  (all rhetorical BTW)

 

Our country needs jobs.  Right now 6.7% (and by all accounts a lot more) of our population is out of work.  If business can't or unwilling to create jobs, the US government needs to pick up the slack.  Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, we have things that need to be fixed, our country has the need for jobs.  But lets not do anything about that, for fear that our taxes will go up or we will deficit spend, oh the horror!  Let's just complain about how many people are unemployed, but hey as long as I got mine, it will be ok.   

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

Is this where I yell, "Bullshit" because you threw out an "I wouldn't be surprised if ..."?

 

You can if you want. No worries.

 

I was serious, though. One of the things that makes Christie a potentially formidable national contender is that both people on the far left and the far right dislike him. I don't really think he's a moderate Republican, but the disdain from the far left and far right makes him look like one. And moderates are, generally speaking, the only ones who get elected President.

[lost highway]

I don't get the benefits debate.  So we've been paying to help a large number of people in our country.  We've been doing it.  Allocating those resources has worked out.  Why the urgency from a common citizen to cut people off?  Do you really think you're personally going to save money by leaving a senior citizen with a shrunken grocery budget?

 

Many people's  federal taxes are still lower than they were in the 90's which was radically lower than everyone's were in the 60's and 70's.

[Hixter]

I don't get the benefits debate.  So we've been paying to help a large number of people in our country.  We've been doing it.  Allocating those resources has worked out.  Why the urgency from a common citizen to cut people off?  Do you really think you're personally going to save money by leaving a senior citizen with a shrunken grocery budget?

 

Many people's  federal taxes are still lower than they were in the 90's which was radically lower than everyone's were in the 60's and 70's.

Because the nation is in much worse shape than it was in the 60s, 70s and 90s.

 

The current unemployment rate is higher than it was in the 60s and 70s. The national debt was less than a trillion dollars at the end of the 70s (1/3 of GDP) and is now more than 17 trillion dollars (more than 100% of GDP.) Our leaders keep kicking the can down the road and one day the road will come to a dead end.

 

The United States will never recover the lost jobs and financial stability unless it starts making things again.

[Atticus]

The national debt was less than a trillion dollars at the end of the 70s (1/3 of GDP) and is now more than 17 trillion dollars (more than 100% of GDP.).

That is so fucking staggering and overwhelming.

[IRememberDBoon]

I thought it was around 65 percent of GDP and it was over 100 percent after WWII.
Just a few tweaks will take care of that easily.

Labor Participation is falling because all of the baby boomers are retiring. You didn't hear shit about the jobs numbers for the past six months because they were terrific. Im just happy things are getting a hell of a lot better.

[Hixter]

I thought it was around 65 percent of GDP and it was over 100 percent after WWII.

Just a few tweaks will take care of that easily

No, it's more than 100 percent and I'd love to hear more about the few tweaks that can easily take care of our crushing national debt.

[lost highway]

Because the nation is in much worse shape than it was in the 60s, 70s and 90s.

 

The current unemployment rate is higher than it was in the 60s and 70s. The national debt was less than a trillion dollars at the end of the 70s (1/3 of GDP) and is now more than 17 trillion dollars (more than 100% of GDP.) Our leaders keep kicking the can down the road and one day the road will come to a dead end.

 

The United States will never recover the lost jobs and financial stability unless it starts making things again.

 

So you're saying because the nation is in really bad shape we should cut off aid that we've been providing for its most at-risk citizens?

 

On a total other topic we owe our asses to foreign interests because of laissez faire economic policies.  No one wants to make things in the U.S. because our workers have a standard of living that is legally guaranteed.  Shareholders and CEO's gradually sold out U.S. manufacturing in the 20th century and it would take some protectionist policies, and some painful readjustment to get any of that back.

[uncool2pillow]

So you're saying because the nation is in really bad shape we should cut off aid that we've been providing for its most at-risk citizens?

 

On a total other topic we owe our asses to foreign interests because of laissez faire economic policies.  No one wants to make things in the U.S. because our workers have a standard of living that is legally guaranteed.  Shareholders and CEO's gradually sold out U.S. manufacturing in the 20th century and it would take some protectionist policies, and some painful readjustment to get any of that back.

I think we're stuck in an awful Catch-22.  Protectionism won't improve the economy, and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.  

 

To your first point, as a fiscal conservative who thinks the top has been able to slide too much for too long, I believe part of the solution is increasing taxes for the top wage earners AND those who make a living of capital gains.  Capital gains taxes being lower makes sense to encourage investment, but when your prime source of income is capital gains, then a good chunk of it should be taxed like everyone else's income. 

 

The Bush tax cuts made sense when he inherited the Clinton/Gingrich surplus.  They stopped making sense on September 11, 2001 and really stopped making sense in March, 2003.

[lost highway]

Interesting article that covers a number of issues that have come up on here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-parramore/the-deficit-nine-myths-we_b_553527.html

 

Other myths busted: Myth #1: The government should balance its books like a private household.
Reality: Our federal government is the issuer of the currency, which makes its budget fundamentally different than the average citizen's.

 

Myth #3: We are passing on debt to our grandchildren.
Reality: Payments on Treasury securities are a matter of data entry, not a financial burden.

 

Myth #4: What we don't tax we have to borrow from the likes of China for our children to pay back.
Reality: Paying our debt holders back consists of transferring funds between accounts.

 

 

 

Myth #2: Fixing Social Security and Medicare will require "tough choices."
Reality: Social Security and Medicare are not facing a financial crisis.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center suggests that nearly 80% of Americans don't trust the federal government. Unfortunately, we appear all-too-willing to trust the government when it tells us that Social Security and Medicare are heading for bankruptcy. Indeed, the same poll shows that fewer than half of us now hold a favorable opinion of the Social Security Administration (down 13% from a decade ago). No wonder. The drumbeat over the so-called "crisis" facing Social Security and Medicare has reached a fever pitch.

The government's message is clear: Both programs face significant trouble ahead, due primarily to the aging of our population. In order to deal with the looming problems, we will have to make "tough choices." Not everyone can have the money they were promised.

If you've been around a while, you've heard this all before. Remember the Greenspan Commission? This is the group that President Reagan appointed to "fix" Social Security in the early 1980s, the last time the system was on the brink of "collapse." Thanks to the "reforms" that were enacted in 1983, Americans are working longer (they raised the retirement age) and paying more (they accelerated increases in the payroll tax rate). And now we're being told it was all for nothing -- the system is broken again?

The truth is, the system was never broken in the first place, because the government's ability to pay benefits does not in any way depend on the balance in the Social Security or Medicare Trust Funds. Benefit checks come directly from the Treasury, and, as Alan Greenspan has admitted, "[A] government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency."

And so the question is not whether the government needs to make "tough choices" in order to keep these vital programs afloat. The question is, will politicians make the toughest choice of all and tell the American people the truth: Social Security and Medicare face no financial crisis now or in the future.

~Stephanie Kelton, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri

[uncool2pillow]

Fact: every dollar spent on interest on the national debt is a dollar we can't spend on other things or wipe off the budget altogether.

[LouieB]

But at least we are seeing the beginning of the end of Chris Christie's run for President.

 

LouieB

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Hmm, it actually seems our nation's finances are getting a little better:

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/01/13/us-runs-record-budget-surplus-december-treasury

 

 

 

The U.S. government ran a $53.2 billion surplus in December, signaling further improvement in the nation's finances.

The surplus was the largest since September and a record for the month of December, according to the Treasury Dept. report released Monday. It was boosted by nearly $40 billion in payments from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[KevinG]

Why is that the Right seems to agree that we have a deficit/debt problem (which by all accounts is going to send us into the a post apocalyptic wasteland in the very near future), but the only way to fix this problem is to cut programs and services.  Heaven forbid we think about raising taxes.

 

This is why the whole deficit/debt problem is a myth.  If it were actually a problem the Right would be serious about solving it, they are not.  They use it as a political football to scare people.  They just don't like what the government is spending its money on.  I don't think anyone was concerned about the debt during the Bush years.  

 

Nothing more then false outrage over the debt and should be soundly ignored, until the Right gets serious and actually suggests raising taxes.     

[John Smith]

Surplus? That calls for immediate tax cuts!!! It's our money and we know how to better handle it than the government!

[uncool2pillow]

Why is that the Right seems to agree that we have a deficit/debt problem (which by all accounts is going to send us into the a post apocalyptic wasteland in the very near future), but the only way to fix this problem is to cut programs and services.  Heaven forbid we think about raising taxes.

 

This is why the whole deficit/debt problem is a myth.  If it were actually a problem the Right would be serious about solving it, they are not.  They use it as a political football to scare people.  They just don't like what the government is spending its money on.  I don't think anyone was concerned about the debt during the Bush years.  

 

Nothing more then false outrage over the debt and should be soundly ignored, until the Right gets serious and actually suggests raising taxes.     

Did you read my post? I am a registered Republican and a fiscal conservative and for some tax increases. Granted, I'm in the minority, but there are others of us out there. We just get ignored because we are not too loud and not too interesting. That and we go against both the left and right wing's media narrative.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

- Dick Cheney

[KevinG]

Did you read my post? I am a registered Republican and a fiscal conservative and for some tax increases. Granted, I'm in the minority, but there are others of us out there. We just get ignored because we are not too loud and not too interesting. That and we go against both the left and right wing's media narrative.

 

I was speaking to the GOP establishment as a whole, not directly to you.  It is nice that you say you want to raise taxes, but when was the last time you voted for someone who said they were going to raise taxes?  Or supported someone who saw a balanced approach of tax revenue and spending cuts?  Or written to your elected representatives and tried to convince them that we should increase taxes as a way of solving out debt crisis? 

 

It is all lip service.  Until there is real change in the GOP establishment about increasing tax revenue to combat our debt why should I believe that they care?  Why should I believe it is a serious problem when the GOP is only offering half solutions?

 

Last I checked the only party that has actually decreased spending and is for raising tax revenue is the Democrats.  Maybe, if you are serious about the debt, you should think about which party you are registered with.