Mitch McConnell is a f***ing Tool

[denner]

Quote from Ricter:

Spending is not out of control, it's relatively large because our social safety net, such as it is, is carrying a larger than normal load, and because revenues are sharply down. When new jobs start multiplying, that spending will shrink at the same time that revenue starts growing, and the deficit will look a lot more manageable. That's not to say that in the long run the deficit won't need direct management, but it is to say that in the short run, spending cuts should not be considered the only response to the crisis. I think big cuts would have the opposite effect on our prospects for new job creation, for example we're already seeing the hemorrhaging of government jobs "propping" up the unemployment rate . I've said this before, stimulus spending, still necessary, must start going to the component of the economy that will spend it, not to that component which merely hoards it. I don't think we should merely cut checks for families, I have my doubts about that. I think we need a WPA type solution.

Now I have better understanding of the perch that you sit atop of...The key phrase "When new jobs start multiplying..." That is DOA. If anything the US, through all of its shenanigans in the past several years, has ensured that jobs are screaming out of here. They aren't coming back, not soon, maybe not ever. We lived thru several sucessive credit bubbles, which grossly exagerrated the number of jobs to begin with (i.e. we had entire industries running on bubble-nomics that were "one off's", not structural.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the growth in public sector employment and benefits was a stop gap measure towards masking the hemorraging of private sector employment. Now that the private sector is either relocating (out of the country OR out of the most indebted states), there is a NEW structural imbalance that will not just "work itself out" as you seem to imply in your response.

In response to some other points you've made, I look at it in an entirely different light. Wage and labor arbitrage are the game and these are the exact ingredients that put Western nations at a massive disadvantage and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why would I open up shop here and deal with massive regulations and an extremely high cost of labor if I can do it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost?

 

[Max E.]

Quote from BSAM:

Actually, Obama reworked withholding taxes, beginning in January 2011, which takes more money out of a poor person's pay check. This fact has been overlooked by the vast majority. Obama's trying to help poor people??--Bullshit!

My post was about the Bush tax cuts which Gabfly was saying favoured the rich over the poor, it had nothing to do with Obama.

Btw, its not like it matters if Obamas plan is to withhold more money from the bottom since the bottom 50% dont pay anything in taxes anyways, they will get it all backl at the end of the year. 2 times zero, is still zero.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from BSAM:

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...Ricci, for comedy...You da man!!!

What's so funny? If spending rises, ceteris paribus, the deficit grows. Same result if revenue falls. But if both spending rises and revenue falls, the deficit balloons. It takes two to tango, focusing on spending alone is ridiculous. We need to create jobs, and since the money supply is a non-problem, that leaves demand.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from denner:

Now I have better understanding of the perch that you sit atop of...The key phrase "When new jobs start multiplying..." That is DOA. If anything the US, through all of its shenanigans in the past several years, has ensured that jobs are screaming out of here. They aren't coming back, not soon, maybe not ever. We lived thru several sucessive credit bubbles, which grossly exagerrated the number of jobs to begin with (i.e. we had entire industries running on bubble-nomics that were "one off's", not structural.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the growth in public sector employment and benefits was a stop gap measure towards masking the hemorraging of private sector employment. Now that the private sector is either relocating (out of the country OR out of the most indebted states), there is a NEW structural imbalance that will not just "work itself out" as you seem to imply in your response.

In response to some other points you've made, I look at it in an entirely different light. Wage and labor arbitrage are the game and these are the exact ingredients that put Western nations at a massive disadvantage and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why would I open up shop here and deal with massive regulations and an extremely high cost of labor if I can do it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost?

I agree with almost everything you've written (I don't in fact believe this will "work itself out")... which is why I'm a commie.

 

[denner]

Quote from Ricter:

What's so funny? If spending rises, ceteris paribus, the deficit grows. Same result if revenue falls. But if both spending rises and revenue falls, the deficit balloons. It takes two to tango, focusing on spending alone is ridiculous. We need to create jobs, and since the money supply is a non-problem, that leaves demand.

We're onto QE3 and yet we ain't "creatin jobs". When we are at QE9 we'll still hear this familiar chorus. Just another round of QE will do da trick.

It's structural, get over it already. There is far more than just stimulus money needed to turn this ship around. It's far bigger than that.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from denner:

We're onto QE3 and yet ...

We are? Ok, if we are, where's the money going? Is the consumer getting it, even indirectly?

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

...And btw that whole notion that the tax cuts were primarily for the rich is another lie...

If that were the case, then the rich Right (and their gaggle of wannabes) would not feel that Obama wishes to enact "class warfare" by bringing taxes back to the levels they were when Clinton was in office. If, as you claim, the Bush tax cuts did not favor the rich, then the rich should not feel discriminated against and singled out by going back to the way it was before Bush. You know, the budget surplus days.

 

[Max E.]

Bingo! Very well said!

Quote from denner:

Now I have better understanding of the perch that you sit atop of...The key phrase "When new jobs start multiplying..." That is DOA. If anything the US, through all of its shenanigans in the past several years, has ensured that jobs are screaming out of here. They aren't coming back, not soon, maybe not ever. We lived thru several sucessive credit bubbles, which grossly exagerrated the number of jobs to begin with (i.e. we had entire industries running on bubble-nomics that were "one off's", not structural.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the growth in public sector employment and benefits was a stop gap measure towards masking the hemorraging of private sector employment. Now that the private sector is either relocating (out of the country OR out of the most indebted states), there is a NEW structural imbalance that will not just "work itself out" as you seem to imply in your response.

In response to some other points you've made, I look at it in an entirely different light. Wage and labor arbitrage are the game and these are the exact ingredients that put Western nations at a massive disadvantage and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why would I open up shop here and deal with massive regulations and an extremely high cost of labor if I can do it elsewhere for a fraction of the cost?

 

[BSAM]

Before we all get too carried away, it should be noted that the Republicans favor the rich.

So do the Democrats.

The Republicans just a little more so.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Gabfly1:

If that were the case, then the rich Right (and their gaggle of wannabes) would not feel that Obama wishes to enact "class warfare" by bringing taxes back to the levels they were when Clinton was in office. If the Bush tax cuts did not favor the rich, then the rich should not feel discriminated against and singled out by going back to the way it was before Bush. You know, the budget surplus days.

The only ones he wants to bring back are the ones on the rich, he already made the ones on everyone else permanent, try again.