ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Economics The unemployment problem and the debt problem. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268580)

Direckshun 01-07-2013 08:04 AM

The unemployment problem and the debt problem.
 
We have a problem on both fronts right now, as stand right now.

Our economy improves, but at the rate it's progressing, the economy will not be below 6% until well into the 2020s.

Our debt situation saw a minute bit of improvement over the fiscal cliff bargain, but again, it was only minute. We stand with a trillion-dollar deficit and a national debt of 16T.

Both of these things cannot be addressed at the same time in any reasonable way. Policies that create jobs cost money, and likely increase the deficit. Fighting the deficit means you have to raise revenue and cut spending, both of which contract demand and hurt jobs.

So a determination needs to be made -- which of both of these should we embrace?

We could go the GOP path, which means no job stimulation in our policy and total deficit contraction, the austerity path Europe has embraced and most of the folks here on the board would prefer. It's also what the fiscal cliff would have done, and it's unanimous that would have plunged us into a second recession.

We could go with the current DNP/GOP compromise, which is a little, but not very much deficit reduction, and a little, but not very much stimulus. I can't see this being useful in anyway other than a second consecutive lost decade after the 00s.

The way I'd prefer is to grow now, and cut deficits later. I base this on a simple philosophy: that our unemployment situation is worse than the debt situation.

Right now, the United States can earnestly borrow money for less than nothing when you factor in inflation. Most of the world is struggling economically, and one of the very few places they believe is the most reliable to invest is in American bonds, which is why we can get them for next to nothing.

That allows us to invest in policies that will create jobs now, and cut deficits later. Provided that we're already on pace for what should be a pretty strong recovery in 2014, pairing that promise with Obama's American Jobs Act now would likely get us under 6% unemployment and surviving with an economy far healthier than virtually every Western ally, at which point we could embrace some strong deficit reduction like Simpson Bowles or something in between Boehner and Obama's final cliff offers.

The point is, a choice needs to be made, and the easiest option is also the one that would minimize suffering the most while pumping up the economy the most.

LiveSteam 01-07-2013 08:07 AM

I have e better idea
We could kill a couple million sheep & eat Gyro's everyday. Its a win win

Baaaaaa,baaaaaa,baaaaa,baaa

blaise 01-07-2013 08:08 AM

Spend whatever it takes to get unemployment under 6% so Obama fans can brag about it. That's what I say. Then Direckshun can finalize his, "Obama a Top 5 President Ever" thread.

petegz28 01-07-2013 08:12 AM

It's like a ****ing broken record....spend now, ask questions later

Chief Faithful 01-07-2013 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9291306)
Policies that create jobs cost money, and likely increase the deficit.

Anyone who believes this is part of the problem.

LiveSteam 01-07-2013 08:15 AM

This is better read by far. I enjoy reading about your compadre's Direckshun

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless

This quote has to be from you Dirk

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.” LMAO

Direckshun 01-07-2013 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful (Post 9291341)
Anyone who believes this is part of the problem.

Explain yourself.

LiveSteam 01-07-2013 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9291362)
Explain yourself.

payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.LMAO

JonesCrusher 01-07-2013 08:51 AM

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JLdA1ikkoEc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A Salt Weapon 01-07-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiveSteam (Post 9291374)
payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.LMAO

LMAO
Posted via Mobile Device

Chief Faithful 01-07-2013 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9291362)
Explain yourself.

Educate yourself.

What is needed is growth in the private sector and shrinkage of the government sector. Government does not need to spend money to reign in crippling Federal government bureaucracy, reform the tort system, fix the tax code and shift Obamacare to the States. The government cannot continue to consume an increasing share of our economic fuel, private capital, and think government spending shifted to it's own pet projects will some how grow the private economy.

Freedom in the private sector (market system) is what made our standard of living what it is today not Federal government spending. A little more privatizing and a little less centralizing would save money and cause this economy to soar to life increasing tax revenue. But, as Obama has clearly stated and repeated his policy is not about revenue it is about fairness, which is an anti-concept without meaning.

The fact you need this explained to you is a sign of the massive breakdown in our public education system.

petegz28 01-07-2013 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9291362)
Explain yourself.

:facepalm:

tiptap 01-07-2013 09:31 AM

Science made our standard of living. Economics just distributes.

DaveNull 01-07-2013 09:47 AM

I have a feeling that if you don't slow down with the constant barrage of posts, you may end up with an unemployment problem of your very own.

King_Chief_Fan 01-07-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun (Post 9291306)
We have a problem on both fronts right now, as stand right now.

Our economy improves, but at the rate it's progressing, the economy will not be below 6% until well into the 2020s.

Our debt situation saw a minute bit of improvement over the fiscal cliff bargain, but again, it was only minute. We stand with a trillion-dollar deficit and a national debt of 16T.

Both of these things cannot be addressed at the same time in any reasonable way. Policies that create jobs cost money, and likely increase the deficit. Fighting the deficit means you have to raise revenue and cut spending, both of which contract demand and hurt jobs.

So a determination needs to be made -- which of both of these should we embrace?

We could go the GOP path, which means no job stimulation in our policy and total deficit contraction, the austerity path Europe has embraced and most of the folks here on the board would prefer. It's also what the fiscal cliff would have done, and it's unanimous that would have plunged us into a second recession.

We could go with the current DNP/GOP compromise, which is a little, but not very much deficit reduction, and a little, but not very much stimulus. I can't see this being useful in anyway other than a second consecutive lost decade after the 00s.

The way I'd prefer is to grow now, and cut deficits later. I base this on a simple philosophy: that our unemployment situation is worse than the debt situation.

Right now, the United States can earnestly borrow money for less than nothing when you factor in inflation. Most of the world is struggling economically, and one of the very few places they believe is the most reliable to invest is in American bonds, which is why we can get them for next to nothing.

That allows us to invest in policies that will create jobs now, and cut deficits later. Provided that we're already on pace for what should be a pretty strong recovery in 2014, pairing that promise with Obama's American Jobs Act now would likely get us under 6% unemployment and surviving with an economy far healthier than virtually every Western ally, at which point we could embrace some strong deficit reduction like Simpson Bowles or something in between Boehner and Obama's final cliff offers.

The point is, a choice needs to be made, and the easiest option is also the one that would minimize suffering the most while pumping up the economy the most.

I vote for what ever gets you off your lazy ass and puts you to work


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.