Deficit Deal will Kill Jobs

beardo

Well-Known Member
I also always hear about ridiculous card swiping fees. At my old job, a small business, my employer paid the credit card company more in swiping fees than they payed me each month... My old employer always talked about how they needed a new guy for some paperwork/accounting but couldn't really afford it and the first thing that came to mind was "those god damn credit card companies! Always gouging me!"...
Couldn't businesses choose not to accept credit cards?
Cant consumers choose not to use credit cards?
You were not gouged you chose to buy a service.
 

txhazard

Well-Known Member
Government produces...red tape. i.e. Anti wealth, which is like antimatter in that when it touches wealth they both disappear in a fury.
Government does not create jobs really, all it can honestly do is create an environment in which new jobs can be created. It is failing at this in a very much epic way.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
How do you guys feel about this? From Time:

The estimate is only for $2 trillion, the deal is likely to be $4 trillion... So 2 million jobs can quite easily be lost/not created in the next few years as a direct result of a budget deal.

This is nothing really new, I've been arguing that government cuts will cost jobs - not create them - the entire time on these boards (see the numerous anti-Austerity threads). But the magnitude - 2 million jobs... This is truly a fucking joke... So much for Republicans running on creating jobs...

Meanwhile, the NYTimes reports that deficit hawk Republicans who ran on cutting spending and of whom supported a ban on earmarks during this congress - are actively, and discretely, advocating for spending projects normally considered as "pork":

I just quoted a couple passages that stuck out to me, there are more than two dozen examples - many of which found in the NYTimes article... So much for cutting spending...

Another thing about these projects that Republicans are after... Normal people call these projects "Stimulus" - which Republicans swear doesn't work - but for some reason these projects are worth it? Mental gymnastics! It's appalling, really.
Realize that the bridge that crosses the St Croix River in Stillwater scores a lot worse than the 35W bridge (the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis). There is actually signs that say "Cross at your own risk" posted, lol. If this could be done privately, I would advocate the government not doing it, however it is government property and thus can only be handled by one entity. Sell it to a private company, let them build tolls, and cut taxes!
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I'd advocate for debt restructuring and other forms of assistance to alleviate this issue combined with regulations designed to keep banks from lending to people who can't afford them (I'm looking at you, housing bubble)..

there are only two ways to get rid of debt, well actually 3, with one being death. One way is by paying it off, debt can only be paid off with savings. The other way of getting rid of debt is by defaulting and going bankrupt. So there you have it, restructuring only kicks the can down the road and ultimately makes the amount you have to pay back even larger. It doesn't get rid of it, it just makes the pain go away for a little while, only to have it come back worse. Its like Greece, sure the second restructuring has helped that little country stay afloat, but wait until next year when they just finally default and leave the EU, it WILL happen.

Gold would automatically make banks careful to lend to the right people who would pay them back. When a bank loses cash it loses profit, but when a bank loses gold it loses capital.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
[/B][/B]
there are only two ways to get rid of debt, well actually 3, with one being death. One way is by paying it off, debt can only be paid off with savings. The other way of getting rid of debt is by defaulting and going bankrupt. So there you have it, restructuring only kicks the can down the road and ultimately makes the amount you have to pay back even larger. It doesn't get rid of it, it just makes the pain go away for a little while, only to have it come back worse. Its like Greece, sure the second restructuring has helped that little country stay afloat, but wait until next year when they just finally default and leave the EU, it WILL happen.

Gold would automatically make banks careful to lend to the right people who would pay them back. When a bank loses cash it loses profit, but when a bank loses gold it loses capital.
What about the one were trying now- were spending so much the debt we owe will be less because of currency devaluation. The number of the debt remains but the value of what is given as opposed to what is owed will change. We will still pay out pensions and social security in the amounts we had agreed on-but their will not be cost of living increases and their will not be interest paid on the savings to keep pace with inflation-so we we pay off the debt with money that has lost it's purchasing power. If your intrest earned doesn't keep pace with inflation you have lost- if you put in 100 and get out 110 you have still lost if you can eat less today with your 110 than you could have with your original 100- So we borrow spend print and lend-and once the people are unemployed broke and hungry we will vote as they tell us-en mass
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
What about the one were trying now- were spending so much the debt we owe will be less because of currency devaluation. We will still pay out pensions and social security in the amounts we had agreed on-but their will not be cost of living increases and their will not be interest paid on the savings to keep pace with inflation-so we we pay off the debt with money that has lost it's purchasing power- So we borrow spend print and lend-and once the people are unemployed broke and hungry we will vote as they tell us-en mass
Oh, thats not paying off or restructuring debt, thats called balls to wall gimme gimme mo money mo money mo money mo problems!!

[video=youtube;twkh0YiInPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twkh0YiInPM[/video]
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
Oh, thats not paying off or restructuring debt, thats called balls to wall gimme gimme mo money mo money mo money mo problems!!

[video=youtube;twkh0YiInPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twkh0YiInPM[/video]
Weren't those guys just guests at the White house? Or was that J-Z and Beyoncee again? I know i'm preatching to the choir here, It just seems like bizarro world turn on the news and the feds are srming mexican gangs - I guess it's been fucked up since before my time but I think we are obligated to at least say things are way fucked up.
 

DrFever

New Member
No one KNOWS for certain. The Bureau of Labor Stats estimates from a carefully designed multi-part national survey that just short of 10% of the 153 million folks in the IUS workforce are "unemployed". That means one thing - seeking work but not paid to work this week.


There are another 150 million US residents not working, but they are outside the workforce: retirees, children, inmates, active military, disabled, housewives, and former workers not seeking employment.
The percent unemployed refers to the percent of workers unemployed, and does not include children and others not considered a part of the work force.

 

DrFever

New Member
No recession in modern times has left so many people out of work for so long as the one that continues to plague us. Among the nearly 14 million Americans officially counted as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost one-third have been out of work for a year or more. That number doesn't even count everyone, says Lauren Appelbaum, research director for the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. About a million and a half people would take a job if they could find one, but instead have gone back to school, or are caring for ailing relatives, or are doing something else while waiting for the job market to improve. Then there are more than 800,000 who are so discouraged that they have given up looking and are burning through their savings, bunking with relatives, or scraping by in what economists call the "informal economy." Appelbaum says even if the economy picks up, returning all these people to the workforce will be a monumental task. "The first people to be hired are going to be those who have not been out that long," she told me.
Meanwhile, researchers are charting the financial, psychological, and physical effects of long-term unemployment, and not surprisingly the news is bad. In testimony before Congress, Till von Wachter, associate professor of economics at Columbia, presented a grim picture of long-term unemployment damaging health and even shortening lives. And when people finally return to the workplace, he noted, their earning power can be reduced by as much as 20 percent for the next two decades. The scourge afflicts an entire family, too: Long-term unemployment can echo through the next generation, resulting in lower educational attainment and earnings by the children of the unemployed. For that matter, it can mean there are fewer members of the next generation. Appelbaum says some research shows that bad economic prospects can mean people delay starting families, or have fewer children.
OK, the recession is depressing. But here at DoubleX, we're looking for good news. We want your stories of finding work after being unemployed for a year or more. We want to hear how you—young, middle-aged, or old—beat the odds, threw off the stigma, and got back into the workforce. This includes not only those of you who were unemployed because you had lost a job, but recent graduates who finally found that first job, and stay-at-home mothers who became breadwinners. Did you get new training that resulted in a job? Did you fashion yourself as a "consultant" so that you didn't have to explain an eyebrow-raising gap in your employment record? Did you become a volunteer and make yourself so valuable they started paying you? Did you use social networking to connect yourself to people who knew of a job opening? Did you pack everything in your car and drive someplace with better job opportunities?
 

mame

Well-Known Member
Krugman's new column:
The Lesser Depression

These are interesting times — and I mean that in the worst way. Right now we’re looking at not one but two looming crises, either of which could produce a global disaster. In the United States, right-wing fanatics in Congress may block a necessary rise in the debt ceiling, potentially wreaking havoc in world financial markets. Meanwhile, if the plan just agreed to by European heads of state fails to calm markets, we could see falling dominoes all across southern Europe — which would also wreak havoc in world financial markets.

We can only hope that the politicians huddled in Washington and Brussels succeed in averting these threats. But here’s the thing: Even if we manage to avoid immediate catastrophe, the deals being struck on both sides of the Atlantic are almost guaranteed to make the broader economic slump worse.

In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended.

Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed.

The great housing bubble of the last decade, which was both an American and a European phenomenon, was accompanied by a huge rise in household debt. When the bubble burst, home construction plunged, and so did consumer spending as debt-burdened families cut back.
Everything might still have been O.K. if other major economic players had stepped up their spending, filling the gap left by the housing plunge and the consumer pullback. But nobody did. In particular, cash-rich corporations see no reason to invest that cash in the face of weak consumer demand.

Nor did governments do much to help. Some governments — those of weaker nations in Europe, and state and local governments here — were actually forced to slash spending in the face of falling revenues. And the modest efforts of stronger governments — including, yes, the Obama stimulus plan — were, at best, barely enough to offset this forced austerity.

So we have depressed economies. What are policy makers proposing to do about it? Less than nothing.

The disappearance of unemployment from elite policy discourse and its replacement by deficit panic has been truly remarkable. It’s not a response to public opinion. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 53 percent of the public named the economy and jobs as the most important problem we face, while only 7 percent named the deficit. Nor is it a response to market pressure. Interest rates on U.S. debt remain near historic lows.

Yet the conversations in Washington and Brussels are all about spending cuts (and maybe tax increases, I mean revisions). That’s obviously true about the various proposals being floated to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis here. But it’s equally true in Europe.

On Thursday, the “heads of state or government of the euro area and the E.U. institutions” — that mouthful tells you, all by itself, how messy European governance has become — issued their big statement. It wasn’t reassuring.

For one thing, it’s hard to believe that the Rube Goldberg financial engineering the statement proposes can really resolve the Greek crisis, let alone the wider European crisis.

But, even if it does, then what? The statement calls for sharp deficit reductions “in all countries except those under a programme” to take place “by 2013 at the latest.” Since those countries “under a programme” are being forced into drastic fiscal austerity, this amounts to a plan to have all of Europe slash spending at the same time. And there is nothing in the European data suggesting that the private sector will be ready to take up the slack in less than two years.

For those who know their 1930s history, this is all too familiar. If either of the current debt negotiations fails, we could be about to replay 1931, the global banking collapse that made the Great Depression great. But, if the negotiations succeed, we will be set to replay the great mistake of 1937: the premature turn to fiscal contraction that derailed economic recovery and ensured that the Depression would last until World War II finally provided the boost the economy needed.

Did I mention that the European Central Bank — although not, thankfully, the Federal Reserve — seems determined to make things even worse by raising interest rates?

There’s an old quotation, attributed to various people, that always comes to mind when I look at public policy: “You do not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed.” Now that lack of wisdom is on full display, as policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic bungle the response to economic trauma, ignoring all the lessons of history. And the Lesser Depression goes on.
 

jeff f

New Member
Krugman's new column:
krugman is so full of shit he stinks.

this whole thing was basically brought on by, hold onto your horses, GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

government is the one that MADE banks give money to people who couldnt afford to pay it back. government is the one who is broke. governments are the ones falling apart from an unsustainable debt load.

yet you socialists think government spending even more money is gonna pull us out. you are absolutely nuts.

douchbag says the depression got worse after govt spending was cut back in 37? so the first 7 years of spending didnt fix it? 7 years of paying people not to work didnt work? wow, there is a surprise.

mame, i think you clowns are seriously deranged.
 

jeff f

New Member
Krugman's new column:
so how does krugman explain why the bond raters are telling us that our bonds are going to be worth a lot less if we dont get spending under control?

is he saying that moody's doesnt know what they are talking about? who does krugman think is gonna lend us the money to spend more when our credit ratings are in the toilet?

your central planners have been wrong. the stimulus infinity program has been a huge bust that didnt do what the central planners told us it was going to do.

there have been no spending cuts by govt central planners, none. yet, we are to believe that if the govt is cut down to size, somehow that is going to make things worse? certainly throwing money at the problem for the last several years hasnt worked, so lets throw more? is that the thinking?

absurd.

its like me maxing out my credit card and visa calls and says, "we are going to increase your credit limit so you can get out of debt". complete insanity
 

jordan293

Well-Known Member
they're only raising taxes for ridiculously rich people the republicans always try to leave that out there not there to help the economy there there to put as much money in they're pockets as they can god I hate capitalism
How do you guys feel about this? From Time:

The estimate is only for $2 trillion, the deal is likely to be $4 trillion... So 2 million jobs can quite easily be lost/not created in the next few years as a direct result of a budget deal.

This is nothing really new, I've been arguing that government cuts will cost jobs - not create them - the entire time on these boards (see the numerous anti-Austerity threads). But the magnitude - 2 million jobs... This is truly a fucking joke... So much for Republicans running on creating jobs...

Meanwhile, the NYTimes reports that deficit hawk Republicans who ran on cutting spending and of whom supported a ban on earmarks during this congress - are actively, and discretely, advocating for spending projects normally considered as "pork":

I just quoted a couple passages that stuck out to me, there are more than two dozen examples - many of which found in the NYTimes article... So much for cutting spending...

Another thing about these projects that Republicans are after... Normal people call these projects "Stimulus" - which Republicans swear doesn't work - but for some reason these projects are worth it? Mental gymnastics! It's appalling, really.
 

jordan293

Well-Known Member
...he says while sitting on his computer, in air conditioning, trying to make more money to better his family and buy nicer shit....

yes, capitalism sucks.
I'm only 18 asshole I dont even work I just see the rat race from the outside looking in if u kno wat I mean
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
You are 18 and don't work? How do you survive? I have worked since I was eight, earlier if you want to count chores and stuff but I've been working real jobs since eight. Did you used to have a job? or do you plan on getting one? are you disabled?
 

jordan293

Well-Known Member
no, what you hate is the successful capitalist. what you're feeling is called envy, an emotion i don't doubt you are quite familiar with.
no I hate capitalism because it gives rich people power like lobbyist for laws being passed how bush passed all those tax cuts for big businesses and wealthy people cuz he's in the fuckin oil company!!! he's not there to help America he's there to make the most money that he can
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
You are 18 and don't work? How do you survive? I have worked since I was eight, earlier if you want to count chores and stuff but I've been working real jobs since eight. Did you used to have a job? or do you plan on getting one? are you disabled?
ya I still live with my parents and I go to college
Your parents must be great people, you should take care of them when they get old-Don't send them to a crappy home, change their diapers yourself or make sure you marry a good woman and have her do it, it's the least you can do.
 
Top