America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced

[Cancel 2018. 3]

America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced

The "market" is not a tornado or an earthquake; it's not an outbreak of hostilities between two nations; it's not a nuclear accident or a tsunami. It's the crowd-sourcing of pessimism or optimism about our financial future by a lot of people whose individual judgments are strongly influenced by other people with a significant stake in shaping the future the way they want it to be.

The market does not control America. Americans control America.

Here's the score on the Standard & Poors credit rating that has made the markets bob up and down like a kids Duncan Yo-Yo.

...

this case, those people are primarily far right-wing politicians whom the moderates, the liberals and the progressives have permitted to frame the national economic issue as debt rather than revenues. And when the frame the problem, you control the answer.

No one really cares whose fault this is anymore other than politicians who want to be re-elected and I'm including my own '08 Presidential candidate in that. The people who need to take the conversation back and who should be framing the economic issue as one of jobs, not debt, are us.

That's us. We're in control. But as long as we allow ourselves to fight with one another over federal budget table-scraps (funding for the arts, Planned Parenthood and education) the people who control the meal - the financial industry and media on the right and the left - will continue to serve themselves heaping helpings while we deliver up to them the odd piece of filet mignon that falls from their crowded plates.

Business, too, has a stake in this. Not the businesses that make money on money but those that need consumers. General Motors, Wal-Mart, General Foods. They transport, clothe and feed the nation. And for the nation to purchase their goods, it must be employed. So this sunny Southern California morning, I'm asking as many people in positions powerful enough to change the national conversation to think long and hard about doing so.

http://news.yahoo.com/america-not-broke-only-congress-replaced-162834225.html

interesting take, though i do think america has a debt issue. increasing revenue should be an issue as well and it should not always be solely about taxes. cutting waste is a great start.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

author's side note on the S&P rating:

S&P wasn’t faulting the U.S. for patching the mortgage mess. S&P was reacting to the more systemic cause of America’s budget problems—which are momentous. This cause, S&P noted, is “political,” though “ideological” would be a better word. It springs from a fantasy of the Republican right that has been embraced by the U.S. Congress for fully a decade. This is the fantasy that governments can operate without revenue—more precisely, that a government presiding over an expanding economy as well as an aging population can operate without increases in revenue.

The fundamentals of the U.S. economy are better than they have been in 15 to 20 years. . . American households have pared their debt—significantly. Corporations are rolling in cash. Banks are profitable and far better capitalized. [E]ven our government looks better than those across the pond.

 

[Bonestorm]

interesting take, though i do think america has a debt issue. increasing revenue should be an issue as well and it should not always be solely about taxes. cutting waste is a great start.

America has a long-term debt issue that should be dealt with through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. America also has a short-term unemployment issue that should be dealt with through massive government borrowing and spending.

 

[Onceler]

America has a long-term debt issue that should be dealt with through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. America also has a short-term unemployment issue that should be dealt with through massive government borrowing and spending.

Pretty much this. People can't separate the 2, and they aren't able to see how much we're losing by not spending right now...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

America has a long-term debt issue that should be dealt with through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. America also has a short-term unemployment issue that should be dealt with through massive government borrowing and spending.

um...yeah...we tried that and it didn't work all that well. this administration couldn't even put over half a trillion dollars to work with shovel ready jobs. massive spending and borrowing are not the answer here. further, it is just a band-aid that won't solve the problem in the long run. this short term solution of massive borrowing will put us in worse terms in the long run.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced

The "market" is not a tornado or an earthquake; it's not an outbreak of hostilities between two nations; it's not a nuclear accident or a tsunami. It's the crowd-sourcing of pessimism or optimism about our financial future by a lot of people whose individual judgments are strongly influenced by other people with a significant stake in shaping the future the way they want it to be.

The market does not control America. Americans control America.

Here's the score on the Standard & Poors credit rating that has made the markets bob up and down like a kids Duncan Yo-Yo.

...

this case, those people are primarily far right-wing politicians whom the moderates, the liberals and the progressives have permitted to frame the national economic issue as debt rather than revenues. And when the frame the problem, you control the answer.

No one really cares whose fault this is anymore other than politicians who want to be re-elected and I'm including my own '08 Presidential candidate in that. The people who need to take the conversation back and who should be framing the economic issue as one of jobs, not debt, are us.

That's us. We're in control. But as long as we allow ourselves to fight with one another over federal budget table-scraps (funding for the arts, Planned Parenthood and education) the people who control the meal - the financial industry and media on the right and the left - will continue to serve themselves heaping helpings while we deliver up to them the odd piece of filet mignon that falls from their crowded plates.

Business, too, has a stake in this. Not the businesses that make money on money but those that need consumers. General Motors, Wal-Mart, General Foods. They transport, clothe and feed the nation. And for the nation to purchase their goods, it must be employed. So this sunny Southern California morning, I'm asking as many people in positions powerful enough to change the national conversation to think long and hard about doing so.

http://news.yahoo.com/america-not-broke-only-congress-replaced-162834225.html

interesting take, though i do think america has a debt issue. increasing revenue should be an issue as well and it should not always be solely about taxes. cutting waste is a great start.

First, you have to have some comprehension of what "trillion" means. It's a harmless looking little word, kind of sounds and looks like "billion" ..which looks and sounds a lot like "million" ...but this only leads pinheads to confusion, and a false sense of understanding. If each year, we had a Super Bowl for the Wealthy, and only allowed 100k billionaires to purchase a ticket for $1 million, to see the game... it would take 10 seasons to accumulate $1 trillion. Now, before you pinheads get all excited about the prospects of having such an event, keep in mind, there are only about 600 people in America, who are billionaires. Not sure how many worldwide, but it's nowhere close to the 100k you would need to fill the stadium. So this highly ridiculous analogy puts in to perspective, the enormity of a trillion dollars. It's a fucking lot of money, guys.

We are (this year) spending $1,600,000,000,000.00 O-V-E-R what we take in! Read that again, please... We're not spending $1.6 tril... we are spending that much MORE than what we are taking in! Just in one year! That's 16 years worth of Billionaire Superbowls. Coincidentally, that's also the average life of a pro football stadium.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

First, you have to have some comprehension of what "trillion" means. It's a harmless looking little word, kind of sounds and looks like "billion" ..which looks and sounds a lot like "million" ...but this only leads pinheads to confusion, and a false sense of understanding. If each year, we had a Super Bowl for the Wealthy, and only allowed 100k billionaires to purchase a ticket for $1 million, to see the game... it would take 10 seasons to accumulate $1 trillion. Now, before you pinheads get all excited about the prospects of having such an event, keep in mind, there are only about 600 people in America, who are billionaires. Not sure how many worldwide, but it's nowhere close to the 100k you would need to fill the stadium. So this highly ridiculous analogy puts in to perspective, the enormity of a trillion dollars. It's a fucking lot of money, guys.

We are (this year) spending $1,600,000,000,000.00 O-V-E-R what we take in! Read that again, please... We're not spending $1.6 tril... we are spending that much MORE than what we are taking in! Just in one year! That's 16 years worth of Billionaire Superbowls. Coincidentally, that's also the average life of a pro football stadium.

then what is your solution?

 

[Onceler]

um...yeah...we tried that and it didn't work all that well. this administration couldn't even put over half a trillion dollars to work with shovel ready jobs. massive spending and borrowing are not the answer here. further, it is just a band-aid that won't solve the problem in the long run. this short term solution of massive borrowing will put us in worse terms in the long run.

It's absurd to say it won't help in the long-run. People getting back to work, even temporarily, pumps money into the economy. This, in turn, helps all kinds of businesses, who in turn start hiring on a more permanent basis once they start seeing improvement.

It's such a basic principle, and it's amazing how many people don't get it. What isn't helping our economy in the long-run is continued unemployment & lack of confidence.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's absurd to say it won't help in the long-run. People getting back to work, even temporarily, pumps money into the economy. This, in turn, helps all kinds of businesses, who in turn start hiring on a more permanent basis once they start seeing improvement.

It's such a basic principle, and it's amazing how many people don't get it. What isn't helping our economy in the long-run is continued unemployment & lack of confidence.

oh really mr. genius of economics. what happens when the money is gone? by its very nature it is only a short term solution. even if obama had managed the over half trillion dollars and put people to work with shovel ready jobs, it would have been temporary to the jobs solution. long term solutions are about raising taxes on the very wealthy to prior levels, buffet is right, higher taxes has never stopped anyone from investing, cutting waste, cutting military spending now that we are supposedly on our way out of iraq and afghanistan.

bush pumped money in the economy with his tax rebates back in 2001 and that gave a short boost to the economy. there is more than one way to boost the economy and spending a trillion dollars just aint it. you and nigel seem to believe we can just spend whatever amount we want with no repercussions. that kind of thinking is outdated.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

then what is your solution?

The only reasonable and rational and REALISTIC solution here, is to cut spending. We are way beyond numbers we can hope to gain the revenue to cover. It's like sitting at the dinner table of some very expensive restaurant, where you have gotten the bill for your 1,000 member party, and it's far more money than anyone has, everyone is broke, and someone suggests you can maybe pawn your watch or sell a pint of blood... it's a laughable fraction of what you need. We can "talk" about raising revenues, if that's what everyone wants to do, but that's not going to be enough to fix the problem, or even make a reasonable dent in it. We have to tackle spending, and we have to objectively have an adult conversation about the role of government, and what we expect the government to provide. That's what Election 2012 is all about, in my opinion.

To substantially increase revenues, with ANY income tax plan, we have to spark and encourage economic growth and prosperity. Unless people are working and earning income, there isn't anything to tax. Unless consumers are buying, there isn't anything to tax... so it all hinges on economic growth and prosperity. The BEST way to encourage this, is by easing regulations, giving tax incentives (not increases) and allowing capitalism and free enterprise to do it's thing. But this is the polar opposite of what the left wants to do.... how do we 'compromise' on this? Back when Reagan was President, and Democrats held Congress, he worked with Tip O'Neil to formulate a tax plan which lowered everyone's tax rates, while broadening the base. More people pay taxes, but everyone pays less because of a lower rate. The result was nearly 30 years of largely uninterrupted economic prosperity.


The democrat meme about "revenues" is just plain wrongheaded, and the continued calls for cuts to military spending or corporate jet tax increases... is nothing but demagoguery. The entire military budget for this year, is less than 1/3 of the amount of deficit for the same year. We're just in two different worlds on this.. If we completely dismantled ALL of our military, it would pay for 4 months of Obama's DEBT! Does this mean we can't find ways to save money in the Department of Defense? Not at all! We can find ways to streamline and cut government from top to bottom, in fact, that's exactly what we're going to HAVE to do. Eventually.

 

[Onceler]

oh really mr. genius of economics. what happens when the money is gone? by its very nature it is only a short term solution. even if obama had managed the over half trillion dollars and put people to work with shovel ready jobs, it would have been temporary to the jobs solution. long term solutions are about raising taxes on the very wealthy to prior levels, buffet is right, higher taxes has never stopped anyone from investing, cutting waste, cutting military spending now that we are supposedly on our way out of iraq and afghanistan.

bush pumped money in the economy with his tax rebates back in 2001 and that gave a short boost to the economy. there is more than one way to boost the economy and spending a trillion dollars just aint it. you and nigel seem to believe we can just spend whatever amount we want with no repercussions. that kind of thinking is outdated.

I described what happens. You must have missed it: people spend money again, boosting business & allowing businesses to hire on a more permanent basis, further boosting spending & the overall economy.

That's what happens when the money is gone. Like I said - such a simple concept...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I described what happens. You must have missed it: people spend money again, boosting business & allowing businesses to hire on a more permanent basis, further boosting spending & the overall economy.

That's what happens when the money is gone. Like I said - such a simple concept...

again, not true and we can see that from the last stimulus. but you're the expert, you know so much more about economics. you must right.

 

[Onceler]

again, not true and we can see that from the last stimulus. but you're the expert, you know so much more about economics. you must right.

It is true, and in case you didn't notice, the economy has been adding jobs since the last stimulus, and the market has improved. The problem is that it wasn't enough; more is needed.

You really don't understand the economy. What you advocate is pennywise, pound-foolish. The market lost trillions over the past couple of weeks - much more than the stimulus cost.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It is true, and in case you didn't notice, the economy has been adding jobs since the last stimulus, and the market has improved. The problem is that it wasn't enough; more is needed.

You really don't understand the economy. What you advocate is pennywise, pound-foolish. The market lost trillions over the past couple of weeks - much more than the stimulus cost.

so the stimulus alone is responsible for these jobs? wow...just wow. you really are smart, you're right, i don't know a thing about the economy, you're always right onceler. and we can see that because you have never once admitted you're wrong for anything.

fact is, the stimulus did not work in the long run as you claim. that is total bullshit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

America has a long-term debt issue that should be dealt with through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. America also has a short-term unemployment issue that should be dealt with through massive government borrowing and spending.

that hasn't been working so far, so how's that supposed to help and how does it reconcile with the long term issue?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The only reasonable and rational and REALISTIC solution here, is to cut spending. We are way beyond numbers we can hope to gain the revenue to cover. It's like sitting at the dinner table of some very expensive restaurant, where you have gotten the bill for your 1,000 member party, and it's far more money than anyone has, everyone is broke, and someone suggests you can maybe pawn your watch or sell a pint of blood... it's a laughable fraction of what you need. We can "talk" about raising revenues, if that's what everyone wants to do, but that's not going to be enough to fix the problem, or even make a reasonable dent in it. We have to tackle spending, and we have to objectively have an adult conversation about the role of government, and what we expect the government to provide. That's what Election 2012 is all about, in my opinion.

To substantially increase revenues, with ANY income tax plan, we have to spark and encourage economic growth and prosperity. Unless people are working and earning income, there isn't anything to tax. Unless consumers are buying, there isn't anything to tax... so it all hinges on economic growth and prosperity. The BEST way to encourage this, is by easing regulations, giving tax incentives (not increases) and allowing capitalism and free enterprise to do it's thing. But this is the polar opposite of what the left wants to do.... how do we 'compromise' on this? Back when Reagan was President, and Democrats held Congress, he worked with Tip O'Neil to formulate a tax plan which lowered everyone's tax rates, while broadening the base. More people pay taxes, but everyone pays less because of a lower rate. The result was nearly 30 years of largely uninterrupted economic prosperity.


The democrat meme about "revenues" is just plain wrongheaded, and the continued calls for cuts to military spending or corporate jet tax increases... is nothing but demagoguery. The entire military budget for this year, is less than 1/3 of the amount of deficit for the same year. We're just in two different worlds on this.. If we completely dismantled ALL of our military, it would pay for 4 months of Obama's DEBT! Does this mean we can't find ways to save money in the Department of Defense? Not at all! We can find ways to streamline and cut government from top to bottom, in fact, that's exactly what we're going to HAVE to do. Eventually.

the loopholes along with tax breaks for corps and those who go overseas need to stop. tax rates in the 90's did not hinder economic growth. i agree we need to cut spending. wisely though. not just slash and burn spending. revenues are every bit as important as spending cuts. without revenues we would not enjoy many of the benefits the government provides.

 

[Onceler]

so the stimulus alone is responsible for these jobs? wow...just wow. you really are smart, you're right, i don't know a thing about the economy, you're always right onceler. and we can see that because you have never once admitted you're wrong for anything.

fact is, the stimulus did not work in the long run as you claim. that is total bullshit.

It's not directly responsible for all of the jobs. It is certainly responsible for some. Indirectly, it is responsible for stopping the bleeding in the market, which (later on, since jobs are a lagging indicator), improved the employment picture.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Pretty much this. People can't separate the 2, and they aren't able to see how much we're losing by not spending right now...

We are losing now BECAUSE of our government spending now. (that and the problems in Europe and China)

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's not directly responsible for all of the jobs. It is certainly responsible for some. Indirectly, it is responsible for stopping the bleeding in the market, which (later on, since jobs are a lagging indicator), improved the employment picture.

Wow. Just wow.

translation:

no, it did not help in the long run. but i'm smarter than everyone else.

 

[Onceler]

translation:

no, it did not help in the long run. but i'm smarter than everyone else.

That's a terrible translation. Did the conversation go over your head? It's so funny that you're always clamoring for "real debate."

I just described to you how it helped & can help in the long-term. I can't do anything about your ability to comprehend that; it's a sound economic theory, though. It's not just some fringe nonsense that I'm spouting off.