Latest posts for the thread "US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?"

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

The national debt topped $16 trillion on Tuesday, adding fuel to Republican's criticisms of President Obama's deficit spending just as the Democrats are kicking off their national convention.
Mitt Romney lamented "the enormous debt" being handed the nation's children, while House Speaker John Boehner called it a "sad reminder of President Obama's broken promise to cut the deficit in half."
But if you thought China's been doing most of the bankrolling, you might be surprised to learn who really holds our federal mortgage.
Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.
“It is true that China is the largest foreign owner of our debt,” said Josh Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a Virginia-based nonprofit that advocates getting the nation’s debt under control. “But the vast majority of our debt is held by us.”
“It is true that China is the largest foreign owner of our debt. But the vast majority of our debt is held by us.”

- Josh Gordon, Concord Coalition
Economists differ on when the National Debt actually crested the $16 trillion mark, with some saying it occurred on Friday and others saying it happens on Tuesday. But none doubt that the federal government's tab is immense and growing. Just under $5 trillion of the national debt is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund and federal pension systems. A little more than $11 trillion is owed to foreign and domestic investors and the Federal Reserve, which buys up treasuries in order to drag down interest rates through quantitative easing.
China has actually decreased its holdings of U.S. debt over the past year, dropping from $1.31 trillion in June 2011 to $1.16 trillion a year later, according to the Treasury Department. Japan holds nearly as much, at $1.12 trillion. Those countries are by far the biggest foreign holders, but dozens of other nations, including Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold trillions more.
Inside the U.S., private investors hold nearly $1 trillion in federal debt, while mutual funds, insurance companies and state and local governments hold nearly double that amount.
Yet China continues to be viewed as the poster child for financing our deficit spending, often demonized as if it is holding our debt over us. Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann joked during her failed campaign for the GOP presidential nomination that when it came to the debt, "Hu's your daddy," a reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.
President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, criticized President Bush for taking “out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents … so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back.”
But Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt. The nation owed $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, and has added another $5.4 trillion since – more than Bush piled up in two terms.
"Instead of working in a bipartisan way to fulfill his promise, the president went on a 'stimulus'-fueld spending binge," Boehner said. "This debt is a drain on our economy and a crushing burden on our kids and grandkids."
Romney accused Obama of leaving Americans "worse off than when he took office."
"But it's not just this generation that's paying the price," he said. "The next generation has been saddled with enormous debt because of President Obama's policies."
Romney also had been critical of China, even mentioning the debt owed to the Communist country in his acceptance speech last week
"Does the America we want borrow a trillion dollars from China?" Romney said at the Republican National Convention.
"There's a lot of China-bashing," said Burton Abrams, an economics professor at University of Delaware and author of "Wreckonomics: America's 10 Worst Economic Policies of the Last 100 Years."
"You wouldn't get mad at a bank that gave you a low-interest loan to buy a home," he added. "But politicians like to find an external enemy to rally the troops against, and China's an easy target."
Gordon has a theory for why China gets blamed for doing little more than investing in the U.S. and allowing us to stave off the day of financial reckoning.
“If you look 10 or 15 years back, they probably weren’t in the top five,” Gordon said. “Then you had this very large country whose economy suddenly grew a pace not normally seen, and that came just as we were going into a cycle of massive deficit spending.
“Honestly, if it had been Great Britain, instead of a country with a record of human rights violations and one that has not been a traditional ally of ours, you might not have heard as much about it.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/#ixzz25XI74kTf

IFirst off. I no longer care who's at fault for the debt so lets not bring up the bar graphs, party bashing and finger pointing. China owes 8% of our debt not including other countries. By this article (yes I know its Fox news but bite the bullet) If the US owns most of the debt that we self inflicted on ourselves could we as a nation bring it under control. Throw some idea's here how DakkaDakka can do it. I for one would seriously look at the US Postal Service. US Military. et etc etc.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Um... raise taxes on everyone?

*getting ready to leave, but I'll check later

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

1) You find places to cut spending across the board. Every area, no sacred cows.

2) You raise taxes. You cannot attack the problem from one side, while totally ignoring the other.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Did you not know that we were the majority holder of our own debt before now..? That's a really, really important consideration when discussing what government debt is and does.

By this article (yes I know its Fox news but bite the bullet) If the US owns most of the debt that we self inflicted on ourselves could we as a nation bring it under control.

The article doesn't bother to point out that most of Obamas debt increase is due to dramatically reduced tax intake due to the recession and the stimulus, which no party wouldn't have done. This is an important issue, but these sources really strongly taint perceptions.

Anyway, my opinion on reducing the debt! It's impossible without socializing our healthcare system and getting the reigns on military spending (the majority of which is healthcare). It all revolves around our abysmal healthcare system, fix that and everything else ceases being important.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

SilverMK2 — GMT

d-usa wrote:
2) You raise taxes. You cannot attack the problem from one side, while totally ignoring the other.

Or get those huge multinationals (and indeed pretty much every reasonably large company or wealthy individual) to pay the tax they actually owe, rather than dodging out of most of it... I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Google pays only something like 3% tax? Hell, the 60 odd UK billionaires pay less than 0.1% tax on their income...

So yeah, close down the loopholes and ensure that everyone pays what they should.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

azazel the cat — GMT

Jihadin wrote:First off. I no longer care who's at fault for the debt so lets not bring up the bar graphs, party bashing and finger pointing. China owes 8% of our debt not including other countries. By this article (yes I know its Fox news but bite the bullet) If the US owns most of the debt that we self inflicted on ourselves could we as a nation bring it under control. Throw some idea's here how DakkaDakka can do it. I for one would seriously look at the US Postal Service. US Military. et etc etc.

Well, the most obvious answer is to get rid of all the old people. I suppose some sort of Logan's Run -type of plan would be pretty efficient.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

instead of Hunger Games, the Replacement Knee Joint Games!

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Logan though basically upended the apple cart on that policy though.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

azazel the cat — GMT

Jihadin wrote:Logan though basically upended the apple cart on that policy though.

Okay, then how about Soylent Green?

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Is that a safe way for cannibalism? If I'm thinking of the correct movie. This the one with a small steak with lots of fat on it in the movie?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Surtur — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
instead of Hunger Games, the Replacement Knee Joint Games!

I foresee Frazzled being cited for illegal wiener dog usage to win games.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Destrado — GMT

I might be coming at this from the wrong angle, but isn't most of what's consumed in the USA, from USA brands, made in foreign countries?

I mean, instead of raising taxes on these companies you create incentives for them to keep relatively low taxes for them to pay, while creating employment and all that follows?

I'll admit it's a naive and (probably very) flawed way of seeing things, but I never understood how some of your companies could generate so much profit while only maintaining the core of it's business "home".

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

Government debt is not household debt. It doesn't have to be paid back, it will be inflated away. As long as interest rates are around or below inflation, profit.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

DemetriDominov — GMT

Nullify currency and join the International Soviet Socialists Republic of the Emperor!

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

DAaddict — GMT

Thus the simplistic fear if the tea partiers. If loaners refuse to ante up and buy at the current low rates, they will be forced to raise the interest bearing rate of the necessary loans.

To simplify say the current rate is 2% on 10 trillion. that means 200 billion just to pay off the interest owed. Now say that no one buys unless you raise it to 3%. Now you have to pay off 300 billion just to stay even. So if you have 500 billion in revenue and say 800 billion in spending, you are now going into debt 600 billion instead of 500 billion. So next year does the buyer demand a higher rate? This could be a real pain and could spiral out of control.

Now the goverment has the ability to print money to fix it all. However that could go south if the dollar devalues. So great your 500$ check now has to pay for 600$ of products to eat, clothe and drive yourself...

I am not an economist but this is the fear - real or not - of continuing to "go to the credit cards."

I am afraid that the overspending will not stop until it HAS to stop. I agree give us true universal healthcare, contain the spiralling cost of healthcare and a lot of the pressures go off.
Reducing the military expenses would also do alot to contain the costs.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

KingCracker — GMT

azazel the cat wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Logan though basically upended the apple cart on that policy though.

Okay, then how about Soylent Green?

Now that is a good movie. But that was mostly brought out from food shortage due to severe over population, not debt.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

So....turn people into money?

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

KingCracker — GMT

Soilent green is green, money is green. Hmm.....I think that could work

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Hhhmm and eat another human being wrapped like stick of gum.....

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Huffy — GMT

d-usa wrote:
1) You find places to cut spending across the board. Every area, no sacred cows.

2) You raise taxes. You cannot attack the problem from one side, while totally ignoring the other.

The only usefull post I've seen in regards to this issue....you need to do both, taxes are low as it is already....

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

d-usa wrote:
1) You find places to cut spending across the board. Every area, no sacred cows.

2) You raise taxes. You cannot attack the problem from one side, while totally ignoring the other.

^^^ this...

Dontcha remember when Obama debated McCain about cutting the size of government?

McCain was all gung-ho about across the board cuts or "freeze"...

Obama wanted to review each department and use a "scalpel" to cut cost... that was awesome... we need to do that.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

I see the US Postal Service being under the scapel first

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

I'm just going to leave this here and gingerly walk away...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Jihadin wrote:
I see the US Postal Service being under the scapel first

If you cut the postal service one hundred and twenty five times you would balance the budget. It's strange that you keep harping on .012% of the annual deficit as if it means anything at all. If you cut it over fifteen hundred times you could fix the national debt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I'm just going to leave this here and gingerly walk away...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html

Suddenly the reason you seem misinformed on virtually every topic that exists it made clear..

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:

Spoiler:

Jihadin wrote:
I see the US Postal Service being under the scapel first

If you cut the postal service one hundred and twenty five times you would balance the budget. It's strange that you keep harping on .012% of the annual deficit as if it means anything at all. If you cut it over fifteen hundred times you could fix the national debt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I'm just going to leave this here and gingerly walk away...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html

Suddenly the reason you seem misinformed on virtually every topic that exists it made clear..

And which one is misinformed? What part? All of it? Did you even read it?

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

whembly wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

Spoiler:

Jihadin wrote:
I see the US Postal Service being under the scapel first

If you cut the postal service one hundred and twenty five times you would balance the budget. It's strange that you keep harping on .012% of the annual deficit as if it means anything at all. If you cut it over fifteen hundred times you could fix the national debt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I'm just going to leave this here and gingerly walk away...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html

Suddenly the reason you seem misinformed on virtually every topic that exists it made clear..

And which one is misinformed? What part? All of it? Did you even read it?

Remember the big tax fight at the end of 2010, when Republicans simply wanted to keep the Bush tax rates in place? The Republican plan was scored as adding $544B to the 10-year deficit since those rates were scheduled to increase. Democrats, being so concerned about deficits suddenly, argued that that was too much. They wanted to let tax rates increase on higher incomes.
So here's how they all compromised: they kept all those tax rates in place and added yet more tax cuts to make the total bill $858B. The "compromise" was bigger deficits than either party originally proposed. Here were the tax cuts and credits added by Democrats. (By the way, a "credit" is considered a "tax cut" even if you had no taxes to cut and the government sent you a check.)

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html#ixzz25YixRXds

This is the biggest pile of partisan weasel wording I've seen in months. The entire link is like this. It takes broadly known facts and coats them in a thick glaze of republican talking points and assertions to re characterize the meaning of virtually every number and date given. It attributes things like a republican readiness to let the bush tax cut debate end without riders and numerous tie ins and expansions (like the keystone pipeline) and characterizes the entire debate as a democratic snafu leading to a widening budget gap.

This characterizes the exact way you consistently debate. If you also questioned my sources while quoting this thing it could be any post from the last few months.

(6) The changes did absolutely nothing to address the fact that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax in the developed world, which incentivizes U.S. businesses to move and hire overseas.

This is a fething gem given that the tax code gives significant incentives to hiring in the U.S. and a majority of largescale international companies based in the U.S. don't pay any taxes at all (googles famous 3%). It also ignores the fact that the corporate tax rate has stayed unchanged since Clinton had a surplus and the U.S. saw the lengthiest economic expansion it had in half a century at that time.

It's bs.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Um... okay.. .right!

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

whembly wrote:
Um... okay.. .right!

Oh look, casual dismissal of reality in favor of an editorial on some dudes partisan fanpage chock full of glaring factual and logical holes. Oh my, it's 10:49pm and I can't see the sun. Sure is normal in here.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um... okay.. .right!

Oh look, casual dismissal of reality in favor of an editorial on some dudes partisan fanpage chock full of glaring factual and logical holes. Oh my, it's 10:49pm and I can't see the sun. Sure is normal in here.

Funny dude...

Ready to blow a gasket then? How 'bout Huffington Post? (and not every corporate pays 3%).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/fact-of-the-day-1-corporate-tax_n_1711318.html

CNN is good right? (here they explain co. mitigate their liabilities)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

US News is legit right? (here they argue that territorial tax would help... whereas currently it's a "worldwide" tax system the United State)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Anything else bucko?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

How much in evil corporate taxes has GE paid over the last few years?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

d-usa wrote:
How much in evil corporate taxes has GE paid over the last few years?

Did they pay zero?

Aren't they headquarter'ed in Germany (or is that Seimens am I thinking?)...

Now wait...isn't this the CEO who campaigned for Obama (nah... lets not go there...).

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Wonder how much we owuld be able to saveif we made th US Post Office say M-F, no delievery on the week. FEDEX, UPS, and there's one other that more then make up the short fall.. Whats bad is I can't send military (personnel) weapons through the Post Office.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how much we owuld be able to saveif we made th US Post Office say M-F, no delievery on the week. FEDEX, UPS, and there's one other that more then make up the short fall.. Whats bad is I can't send military (personnel) weapons through the Post Office.

Some... but it's a drop of the bucket.

-How's this, why is the Dept of Education so large? Where does the $$$ go?
-Do we need to replace all F-18 with the JSF?
-How many carrier groups do we need (what have 6 right? 5 would be enough no?)
-Stop pissing around with healthcare... either deregulated or go single payor.
-What about foreign assistance? What are we getting out of this? (looking at Egypt)
-US has gak tonne of pristine land... sell some of them, I'm sure we'd get a pretty penny.
-close every single tax loop hole... then, a year later, everyone would feel the hit. Elect your party to tweak the code as desired (hopefully to a simpler system)

Thats all I have at the moment... I've ran into the Thunderdome with Shuma at another thread... so... I may not come back.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

whembly wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um... okay.. .right!

Oh look, casual dismissal of reality in favor of an editorial on some dudes partisan fanpage chock full of glaring factual and logical holes. Oh my, it's 10:49pm and I can't see the sun. Sure is normal in here.

Funny dude...

Ready to blow a gasket then? How 'bout Huffington Post? (and not every corporate pays 3%).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/fact-of-the-day-1-corporate-tax_n_1711318.html

CNN is good right? (here they explain co. mitigate their liabilities)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

US News is legit right? (here they argue that territorial tax would help... whereas currently it's a "worldwide" tax system the United State)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Anything else bucko?

Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies, according to analysis by the Treasury Department.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

You don't read what you post, do you? You also ignored the primary thrust of my argument. That being the fact that the rax rate hasn't mattered historically and that under high corporate taxes the U.S. saw high growth under both Bush and Clinton. That this entire thing is a ridiculous, poorly sourced, illogical, and whiny conservative boondoggle that swoons people who don't know anything about macro economics or economic history but which falls on it's face the moment anyone with training or experience bothers to look critically at it. Something which characterizes your arguments. Flash, lack of substance, links to poorly sourced partisan hit jobs or articles you didn't read, and then dismissal.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
How much in evil corporate taxes has GE paid over the last few years?

Did they pay zero?

Aren't they headquarter'ed in Germany (or is that Seimens am I thinking?)...

Now wait...isn't this the CEO who campaigned for Obama (nah... lets not go there...).

1) effectively paid zero taxes
2) founded and headquartered in the US.
3) $30,000+ to GOP, $20,000+ to Democrats; considers himself a Republican
4) Is an economic advisor to President Obama.

But guessing 1 out of 4 isn't so bad.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
whembly wrote:
Um... okay.. .right!

Oh look, casual dismissal of reality in favor of an editorial on some dudes partisan fanpage chock full of glaring factual and logical holes. Oh my, it's 10:49pm and I can't see the sun. Sure is normal in here.

Funny dude...

Ready to blow a gasket then? How 'bout Huffington Post? (and not every corporate pays 3%).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/fact-of-the-day-1-corporate-tax_n_1711318.html

CNN is good right? (here they explain co. mitigate their liabilities)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

US News is legit right? (here they argue that territorial tax would help... whereas currently it's a "worldwide" tax system the United State)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Anything else bucko?

Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies, according to analysis by the Treasury Department.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

You don't read what you post, do you? You also ignored the primary thrust of my argument. That being the fact that the rax rate hasn't mattered historically and that under high corporate taxes the U.S. saw high growth under both Bush and Clinton. That this entire thing is a ridiculous, poorly sourced, illogical, and whiny conservative boondoggle that swoons people who don't know anything about macro economics or economic history but which falls on it's face the moment anyone with training or experience bothers to look critically at it. Something which characterizes your arguments. Flash, lack of substance, links to poorly sourced partisan hit jobs or articles you didn't read, and then dismissal.

Yes I do read the post...

And yes I ignored the "primary thrust" of your argument as the fact that "high growth under both Bush and Clinton" as nothing to do with it...

The fact of the matter is, it's truly the highest tax rate in the world. Corporation would THEN have to lobby for favorable laws... higher CPA firms to mitigate their tax liabilities and take advantage of subsidies/grans that may not be necesary. Basically, in order for companies to do business here, they have to spend an enormous amount of energy to mitigate their overall corporate tax rate (in which this energy is still cheaper than the corporate tax itself). So, yeah, lowering the corporate tax rate (and even simplifing the tax code itself) would do wonders (and no, it wouldn't necessarily line the fat cat's purse).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
How much in evil corporate taxes has GE paid over the last few years?

Did they pay zero?

Aren't they headquarter'ed in Germany (or is that Seimens am I thinking?)...

Now wait...isn't this the CEO who campaigned for Obama (nah... lets not go there...).

1) effectively paid zero taxes
2) founded and headquartered in the US.
3) $30,000+ to GOP, $20,000+ to Democrats; considers himself a Republican
4) Is an economic advisor to President Obama.

But guessing 1 out of 4 isn't so bad.

Right... so pointing out that corporate tax rate is high is "bad", even though there's loophole out of the wazoo to mitigate this... We know this.... the way it's going, they can raise the corporate tax rate up to 60%, but the lobbying firms will push for more favorable laws to mitigate this... it's asinine... why not simplify it (and yes lower the tax rate) and close the looney loopholes?

Also, he's campaigning for Romney... why?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

Because he is still a Republican and the head of the 3rd largest business who has a responsibility to his share holders to keep GE's taxes low.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Because he is still a Republican and the head of the 3rd largest business who has a responsibility to his share holders to keep GE's taxes low.

I understand...

So what's the problem again?

I'm stuck between two heavyweights here...

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

Looking past the temporary effects of the poor economic times, the US right now has a structural deficit of about $500 billion a year (about $2.8 trillion in revenues, and about $3.3 trillion in expenditures). So to get back to just breaking even you've got to raise revenue or cut taxes by a combined total of $500 billion.

You can start by looking at the Bush tax cuts. They're worth about $200 billion a year, or for just the tax cuts on the rich about $100 billion a year. We'll go with the more practical option and just get rid of the tax cut for the rich, and save $100 billion.

Then you look at cuts, and you start with what any slightly impartial person can see as the biggest area of bloat - the military. Right now the US spends about $700 billion a year on their military. Now, you'd want to still maintain superiority over any possible rival, but right now you're so far past that it's ludicrous. You have 11 carrier strike groups when no other country in the world has one. So let's say you want to maintain superiority over your next rival, China, and treble their annual military budget. You can cut the defence budget by $285 billion a year and still treble China's military budget.

That leaves $115 billion still needing to be found. Both Obamacare and the Ryan budget identify about $70 billion per year in cost saving measures within Obamacare that don't reduce services delivered. The last $45 billion can be found by driving a 2% efficiency dividend through all non-military budgets.

Which is all pretty easy stuff. Only problem is that you actually have to get people to agree to the above, and what I listed up there is a lot of sacred cows. The other, and bigger problem, is that that'll only get you to breakeven right now, and after that you've got to deal with the demographic doomsday of medicare and social security once those baby boomers start retiring.

Testify wrote:
Government debt is not household debt. It doesn't have to be paid back, it will be inflated away. As long as interest rates are around or below inflation, profit.

The US passed the point of just 'inflating away' and outgrowing the debt in the early to mid 90s. They now need to run surplus budgets for an extended period to reduce the deficit to the point where they can just outgrow it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:
To simplify say the current rate is 2% on 10 trillion. that means 200 billion just to pay off the interest owed. Now say that no one buys unless you raise it to 3%. Now you have to pay off 300 billion just to stay even. So if you have 500 billion in revenue and say 800 billion in spending, you are now going into debt 600 billion instead of 500 billion. So next year does the buyer demand a higher rate? This could be a real pain and could spiral out of control.

Government bonds aren't sold on a variable rate. They're sold with a 10 year coupon price - so you buy a $100 government bond and receive $2 every year for ten years, then get your $100 back. That rate can't change for the length of the debt.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Okay sebster, get your weenie rear end to the states and run for office...

You make to much sense sometimes .

Automatically Appended Next Post:
edit: Also, this needs to be pointed out... the estimated debt was made worst by the economic downturn and both parties are complicit. What we really need is an honest conversation about this and I don't the Obama nor Romney is there yet...

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because he is still a Republican and the head of the 3rd largest business who has a responsibility to his share holders to keep GE's taxes low.

I understand...

So what's the problem again?

I'm stuck between two heavyweights here...

Well, I think to summarize:

1) You complained that the evil corporate tax rate is keeping business down and forcing them to move out of the country.
2) I mentioned GE as a business that manages to pay $0 in corporate taxes.
3) You tried to question that they are a German business and that the CEO might have contributed to Obama (although not sure why that has anything to do with the 3rd largest business paying $0 in taxes unless you are implying kickbacks).
4) I mentioned their US headquarters, that the CEO is a Republican and has donated more to Republicans than Democrats.
5) You then turned the argument from "evil corporate taxes are keeping business down" to "they have lots of fancy loopholes to exploit, so what's the problem?" and wondered why he campaigned for Romney.
6) I mentioned that his job as CEO is to do what is best for his shareholders, not his employees or his country.
7) You asked what the problem was.

I think that brings us up to date

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Ah... was thinking about something else... allow me to retort:

d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because he is still a Republican and the head of the 3rd largest business who has a responsibility to his share holders to keep GE's taxes low.

I understand...

So what's the problem again?

I'm stuck between two heavyweights here...

Well, I think to summarize:

1) You complained that the evil corporate tax rate is keeping business down and forcing them to move out of the country.

You're right, we've demonized this too much... it's more than the corporate tax rate. It's quite frankly the environment as a whole.

2) I mentioned GE as a business that manages to pay $0 in corporate taxes.

Yeah... that sucks.

3) You tried to question that they are a German business and that the CEO might have contributed to Obama (although not sure why that has anything to do with the 3rd largest business paying $0 in taxes unless you are implying kickbacks).

Not implying anything... I thought they were a German Co. that's all. The CEO and board members gave approximately 5x to Obama than McCain in '08. Now, last I've seen it's around 3x to Romney. My question here is... why the change of heart?

4) I mentioned their US headquarters, that the CEO is a Republican and has donated more to Republicans than Democrats.

Not in '08 as I mentioned above... but, yes, they're HQ is here, I stand corrected .

5) You then turned the argument from "evil corporate taxes are keeping business down" to "they have lots of fancy loopholes to exploit, so what's the problem?" and wondered why he campaigned for Romney

Yup... still confused.

6) I mentioned that his job as CEO is to do what is best for his shareholders, not his employees or his country.

Strictly speaking... yes, that's true. In reality, I'm sure they do *care* about their employees and their country.

7) You asked what the problem was.

Gotcha... we're caught up!

I think that brings us up to date

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

And yes I ignored the "primary thrust" of your argument as the fact that "high growth under both Bush and Clinton" as nothing to do with it...

The fact of the matter is, it's truly the highest tax rate in the world. Corporation would THEN have to lobby for favorable laws... higher CPA firms to mitigate their tax liabilities and take advantage of subsidies/grans that may not be necesary. Basically, in order for companies to do business here, they have to spend an enormous amount of energy to mitigate their overall corporate tax rate (in which this energy is still cheaper than the corporate tax itself). So, yeah, lowering the corporate tax rate (and even simplifing the tax code itself) would do wonders (and no, it wouldn't necessarily line the fat cat's purse).

The economic history matters considerably. The fact that you consistently claim that corporate tax rates are a cause of job flight, site articles that fallaciously claim such with incorrect facts, and don't acknowledge the fact that robust growth occurred under such rates for almost two decades (with most studies showing a lot of wasteful inefficiency in the private sector pre recession to boot) is telling of a prototypical conservative economic complex. Would lowering tax rates and closing loopholes aid in business profits and following that, hiring? Not really, not unless you lower them to the point where they break below the current effective paid rate of 31%. Hell, that would even eliminate a significant portion of tax workers, creating an immediate net loss in jobs for no logical gain until you start undercutting the current effective rate (at which point you start lowering government intake without the guarantee of job growth). The private sector is sitting on the most banked liquid capitol in the history of mankind right now. The most as a percentage of gdp in many decades. They have the money to expand, invest, hire, and sell. The tax rate has nothing to do with the slow recovery, nor will altering corporate taxes do anything to incentivise growth when the funds to invest aren't what is keeping the private sector stagnant.

This whole thing is a lazy conservative boondoggle with no supporting logic or facts. Constantly repeating yourself doesn't make it otherwise. What is keeping the Economy stagnant is a lack of demand. What is keeping demand stagnant is a lack of good paying work. What is creating a lack of good paying work is the outsourcing of labor to cheap foreign markets and (much more importantly) the creation of automated production and the computerization of the workplace. This is a systemic and long term problem that existed well before the recession. The bubble simply burst on the remaining markets that were keeping the American economies foolish sense of security intact.

No one wants to talk about the systemic issues because they can't be fixed through traditional means. People just want to be lazy and complain about the corporate tax rates.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Dude... all I'm saying it's part of the problem... damn, you like to pick one little thing... put words in my mouth... and go on that epic rant.

By the throne....

So, you just described there's a financial "gridlock" in that business are sitting on a gak-ton of liquidity...

Now why would they be doing that?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Dude... all I'm saying it's part of the problem... damn, you like to pick one little thing... put words in my mouth... and go on that epic rant.

No, it's not. You want it to be. You want it to be so bad I can see it burning, but it doesn't have gak to do with gak. If it meant anything at all, anything, than those companies would be using their massive liquid assets to expand, the only meaningful impact the tax rate has after all is in effecting the gross profits of a business (thus increasing or decreasing its liquid capitol). Businesses don't wait for a helping hand, they use what they have to expand. There would have to be no reason to invest at all for the corporate tax rate scapegoat to make sense, and that would basically counter the entirety of capitalist thought and theory built up over three centuries.

By the throne....

The constant republican scapegoating and clear corruption is getting to me, as is the lack of simple economic education in the conservative voterbase.

So, you just described there's a financial "gridlock" in that business are sitting on a gak-ton of liquidity...

Now why would they be doing that?

Because the largest economy on earth might explode next year, china has shown signs of an oncoming downturn, and because without growing demand there is no reason to invest in growing your services. The problems with the American economy aren't American problems, they're problems with globalized manufacturing, computerized automation, and the kind of false economies that global banking giants create. These are incredibly large, complex, and new issues. They aren't tax rates.

If the American economy has any sort of large scale systemic issue that it could actually fix through legislation it's the fact that its economy distributes wealth towards the owners of capitol during a time when human capitol is being de emphasized for automated capitol (machines, programmatic systems), thus pooling wealth towards the top and away from the bottom. The businesses are then incentivise to sell cheap and pay less to poorer people (while investing in more machines and automation) and for less skilled service work which in turn pushes the bottom down and the top up even further.

Mostly they won't invest because of a lack of demand though. That's the simple answer. The only answer.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

whembly wrote:
Aren't they headquarter'ed in Germany (or is that Seimens am I thinking?)...

GE is headquartered in Conneticut, where they've always been.

Siemens is a German company started by Germans in Germany, so of course its headquarted in Germany.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Okay sebster, get your weenie rear end to the states and run for office...

You make to much sense sometimes .

Does that mean you'll vote for me?

edit: Also, this needs to be pointed out... the estimated debt was made worst by the economic downturn and both parties are complicit. What we really need is an honest conversation about this and I don't the Obama nor Romney is there yet...

Absolutely, the heightened debt concerns are largely due to the high deficit right now, which is largely the product of the poor economic climate, and will pass as economy recovers without anyone doing anything. But that still leaves a real $500 billion odd in deficit spending, coupled with Medicare and Social Security demographic blips in the medium to long term.

And there won't be a real, sensible conversation in public about the deficit. There's too much political capital to be gained out of making stupid noises about all the budget. If there's to be any reform it'll be done behind closed doors.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
-How many carrier groups do we need (what have 6 right? 5 would be enough no?)

You have 11 carrier groups. Each one has more power in it than any other blue seas naval force in the world.

I think you could probably halve that number and still be doing alright.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

azazel the cat — GMT

KingCracker wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Logan though basically upended the apple cart on that policy though.

Okay, then how about Soylent Green?

Now that is a good movie. But that was mostly brought out from food shortage due to severe over population, not debt.

Old people cost the government money via social security.
Young people like steak.
Two birds with one stone.

whembly wrote:I'm just going to leave this here and gingerly walk away...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html

Just like someone whose dog dropped a gak on the neighbour's lawn.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Piston Honda — GMT

Legalize Pot and tax the hell out of it.

Legalize Prostitution and tax the hell out of it.

Lower the drinking Age to 16 and tax the hell out of booze.

All the cool kids in high school will get us out of debt. And all those lonely men can give us a surplus like no other era in American history has ever seen. Can even open up shops selling all 3 services between 7-11 and planned parenthood thus creating an additional economic boom in gas station condoms, over priced chips and abortions.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Aren't they headquarter'ed in Germany (or is that Seimens am I thinking?)...

GE is headquartered in Conneticut, where they've always been.

Siemens is a German company started by Germans in Germany, so of course its headquarted in Germany.

Gotcha!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Okay sebster, get your weenie rear end to the states and run for office...

You make to much sense sometimes .

Does that mean you'll vote for me?

Absolutely.

I'd even vote for Shuma (even tho he smacks me around ). At least the two of you are willing to have an honest conversation.

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm a perpetual gak-disturber... so, I'll back off.

edit: Also, this needs to be pointed out... the estimated debt was made worst by the economic downturn and both parties are complicit. What we really need is an honest conversation about this and I don't the Obama nor Romney is there yet...

Absolutely, the heightened debt concerns are largely due to the high deficit right now, which is largely the product of the poor economic climate, and will pass as economy recovers without anyone doing anything. But that still leaves a real $500 billion odd in deficit spending, coupled with Medicare and Social Security demographic blips in the medium to long term.

And there won't be a real, sensible conversation in public about the deficit. There's too much political capital to be gained out of making stupid noises about all the budget. If there's to be any reform it'll be done behind closed doors.

I think our economy needs to suffer a true collapse before any meaningful structural change to occur.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
-How many carrier groups do we need (what have 6 right? 5 would be enough no?)

You have 11 carrier groups. Each one has more power in it than any other blue seas naval force in the world.

I think you could probably halve that number and still be doing alright.

We need to decide... do we need to project this strength or not? If not, knock it down in size.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Melissia — GMT

Even if we cut our carrier group size in half, we'd still be able to project our strength greater than anyone else in the world by at least five times.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

LunaHound — GMT

Testify wrote:
Government debt is not household debt. It doesn't have to be paid back, it will be inflated away. As long as interest rates are around or below inflation, profit.

This ^ has been a common solution used by USA for ages and it's annoying for none US corporations to deal with it but, guess it beats going bankrupt, and they don't have to do much -_-........

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

LunaHound wrote:
Testify wrote:
Government debt is not household debt. It doesn't have to be paid back, it will be inflated away. As long as interest rates are around or below inflation, profit.

This ^ has been a common solution used by USA for ages and it's annoying for none US corporations to deal with it but, guess it beats going bankrupt, and they don't have to do much -_-........

If you think controlled and moderate inflation is bad ask Japan how deflation is helping their corporate sector. Slow inflation is good for most aspects of the economy because it creates incentive to invest.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

And having an economy with a totally stable and unmoving currency results in people having no reason to invest their savings since savings accounts are better. Without that investment corporate growth slows. Without inflation investment in durable goods, housing, bonds, and virtually any other form of "future proof" investment ceases to have a purpose. No economy sits in place without inflation and is better for it. It just doesn't happen. The growth of an economy without price inflation results in the growth in pay, thus the reduction of relative value of products to RBP, thus a resultant reduction in the relative value of work due to lessened relative value of product sold, and the resultant reduction of overall employment due to cuts made to maintain the status quo. Inflation is important, good, and necessary to a growing economy. It's why the chinese are forcing inflation, it's why the Japanese are begging for it. It's why recessions result in a reduction of inflation. Economic health and prosperity result in inflation.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

daedalus-templarius — GMT

Most of it we owe to ourselves.

THINK OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN! (or something)

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

daedalus-templarius — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

I hope you realize he is more than likely doing this to line his own pockets/help the bottom line than it is 'Obummer's' fault.

I didn't get a cost of living increase for like 3 years due to 'economic considerations' at my job.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Moderate inflation is good because those "loans" you took out become "cheaper".

Deflation is all sorts of bad as it makes existing debt more "expensive" to hang on to..

Remember... moderation is good.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

daedalus-templarius wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

I hope you realize he is more than likely doing this to line his own pockets/help the bottom line than it is 'Obummer's' fault.

I didn't get a cost of living increase for like 3 years due to 'economic considerations' at my job.

Shhhhh, I wanna blame Obama for stuff

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

D-USA I thought you work in VA. There's a freeze on that for awhile...quite awhile. Even the military haven't been updated the COLA in awhile

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

Yea, why do you think 1) you're going to get a cola; 2) a cola actually covers everything. Inflation supposedly is low now, but you wouldn't know it because oil and foodstuffs are not weighted in the inflation index.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

COLA is adjusted once a fiscal year.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

daedalus-templarius wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

I hope you realize he is more than likely doing this to line his own pockets/help the bottom line than it is 'Obummer's' fault.

I didn't get a cost of living increase for like 3 years due to 'economic considerations' at my job.

It's no ones fault. The American economy has recovered. Productivity, profits, and GDP are all beating pre recession numbers in a way that inflation doesn't account for. What is lagging is employment and that's a strong indicator that the private sector was inefficient before the downturn. There is a structural problem with employment in an economy that doesn't redistribute wealth away from capitol owners during an age where machines can do a majority of productive tasks. It's why educated and skilled labor markets like Germany are still booming, they aren't reliant on unskilled factory labor and have the education and training programs in place to re seat people alongside the tax codes and social net systems to ensure that consumer demand is still spurred by the population majority rather than the wealthy minority.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
Yep, moderate inflation is good. Deflation is very bad in a modern economy.

Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

Which is why cost-of-living adjustments are important. Too bad my boss has not given me one since 2009, thanks Obama .

Yea, why do you think 1) you're going to get a cola; 2) a cola actually covers everything. Inflation supposedly is low now, but you wouldn't know it because oil and foodstuffs are not weighted in the inflation index.

Which are being driven by speculation and which account for a fractional percentage of inflation in the economy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

Yes. I followed it with the words

"Profits are above pre recession levels"
"GDP is above pre recession levels"
"Productivity is above pre recession levels"

By the three most important metrics that you govern the health of a liquid economy it has recovered. The jobless recovery exists and it's structural for the reason I outlined in the following sentences. If you're going to troll me and pull one sentence out of context again for the fifth time this week just throw your computer out the window. You'll have proven you've lost the ability to communicate meaningfully with others.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

I remember that a bit back. The current skill sets does not match up with whats required. Article from Fox news in the business section.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

d-usa — GMT

Jihadin wrote:
D-USA I thought you work in VA. There's a freeze on that for awhile...quite awhile. Even the military haven't been updated the COLA in awhile

Since 2009 I think. Looks like it might just expire this year *crosses fingers*

I still got my scheduled step increases, but they pretty much just replaced what the COLA would have been.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Jihadin wrote:
I remember that a bit back. The current skill sets does not match up with whats required. Article from Fox news in the business section.

It goes beyond a skill gap, what's increasingly required isn't humans, it's machines. Entire accounting departments were replaced with a few people and Excell in the 90s, 500 man factory floors have been replaced with 10 men and food processing automation systems in bulk food plants, millions of post and delivery workers have been replaced by email in the 2000s. Millions of agri workers in the developed world are being replaced by automated farming systems this decade. In the next few decades mechanics will be replaced by electric cars, and auto production plants will further reduce their workforces in favor of full automation. It touches everything, eventually it'll just be direct service, programming, engineering, and design, not enough to run a traditional work to live economy off of. Technology isn't a friend to an employed economy.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

daedalus-templarius — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

Corporate profits are at a record high and the DOW is above 16,000. So its certainly recovered for them.

Oh, are you saying the economy hasn't recovered for the middle class? Well, you're probably right, since trickle down doesn't actually occur.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Hhhmmm COLA was adjusted on 2011 by 3.6.......who the feth got that adjustment lol

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
I remember that a bit back. The current skill sets does not match up with whats required. Article from Fox news in the business section.

It goes beyond a skill gap, what's increasingly required isn't humans, it's machines. Entire accounting departments were replaced with a few people and Excell in the 90s, 500 man factory floors have been replaced with 10 men and food processing automation systems in bulk food plants, millions of post and delivery workers have been replaced by email in the 2000s. Millions of agri workers in the developed world are being replaced by automated farming systems this decade. In the next few decades mechanics will be replaced by electric cars, and auto production plants will further reduce their workforces in favor of full automation. It touches everything, eventually it'll just be direct service, programming, engineering, and design, not enough to run a traditional work to live economy off of. Technology isn't a friend to an employed economy.

Hey Shuma... do you have any sources on this? Not doubting you as this actually make sense.

Maybe the crux of the problem is that the US workers aren't as nimble as they need to be in the changing work environment? Maybe less credentialing (colleges) and more emphasis on Tech Schools/Skilled trade?

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Not sure. I would dig up the article I read but dang thats like 8-9 months back. It wasn't refering to assembly line work either. The "put part A into slot b" sort of thing. It was more like into the technical aspect of it. Closest I can come up with is a military saying "Technicaly and tacticaly proficient"

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

whembly wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
I remember that a bit back. The current skill sets does not match up with whats required. Article from Fox news in the business section.

It goes beyond a skill gap, what's increasingly required isn't humans, it's machines. Entire accounting departments were replaced with a few people and Excell in the 90s, 500 man factory floors have been replaced with 10 men and food processing automation systems in bulk food plants, millions of post and delivery workers have been replaced by email in the 2000s. Millions of agri workers in the developed world are being replaced by automated farming systems this decade. In the next few decades mechanics will be replaced by electric cars, and auto production plants will further reduce their workforces in favor of full automation. It touches everything, eventually it'll just be direct service, programming, engineering, and design, not enough to run a traditional work to live economy off of. Technology isn't a friend to an employed economy.

Hey Shuma... do you have any sources on this? Not doubting you as this actually make sense.

Maybe the crux of the problem is that the US workers aren't as nimble as they need to be in the changing work environment? Maybe less credentialing (colleges) and more emphasis on Tech Schools/Skilled trade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment

It's a difficult issue to really pin down since it effects practically every sector of every economy on earth and it does it in many different and often subtle ways. Many of the previous claims of automation led unemployment were quite false, the cotton gin and Henry fords Assembly line did much to increase labor demand by decreasing the call for skilled productive work and creating many ancillary industries while providing good paying repetitious jobs that developed a middle class. The problem is that automation conceptually exists to replace humans and the rise of computerized business has begun moving the process of automation out of factories and into offices and the service sector (the sectors that traditionally absorbed those lost jobs.) The service sector also doesn't pay as well as textile manufacturing, skilled farm labor, mining, or any of the other process heavy jobs that have been replaced. This has led to the hollowing out of middle class pay seen over the last few decades.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

Thanks Shuma... good starting place for me to research...

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Jihadin wrote:
Not sure. I would dig up the article I read but dang thats like 8-9 months back. It wasn't refering to assembly line work either. The "put part A into slot b" sort of thing. It was more like into the technical aspect of it. Closest I can come up with is a military saying "Technicaly and tacticaly proficient"

Heres a working example.

I'm pretty sure this plant is capable of lights out manufacturing and requires very few, but highly skilled laborers to maintain. This is a task that would have had a fairly significant number of skilled laborers 10 years ago. You can also find numerous full line examples of automation in volkswagon plants or places like amazons warehouses.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

whembly wrote:
We need to decide... do we need to project this strength or not? If not, knock it down in size.

Even before you get to that question, you can put two carrier groups into anywhere other than Europe and achieve total air superiority. So you figure maybe you need to be able to do that in two places in the world at one time, so that's 4 carrier groups. Then you add a couple of other carrier groups for 'just in case', and that's still only 6 six carrier groups. By my maths, you could trim five carrier groups and still be assured of getting to achieve any military goals you need to achieve.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
We need to decide... do we need to project this strength or not? If not, knock it down in size.

Even before you get to that question, you can put two carrier groups into anywhere other than Europe and achieve total air superiority. So you figure maybe you need to be able to do that in two places in the world at one time, so that's 4 carrier groups. Then you add a couple of other carrier groups for 'just in case', and that's still only 6 six carrier groups. By my maths, you could trim five carrier groups and still be assured of getting to achieve any military goals you need to achieve.

And that's fine...

But, I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket... we're talking about trillions here... and number that is thrown around alot and I dont think there's enough appreciation as to how big that number is...

Heck.. a billion is a big number:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Honestly, I think taxes need to be raise (close loophole galore) and massive spending cuts need to be executed to get us "healthy" again...whatever that means.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

What about the transport ships. A vast majority of rolling stock is transported by Ro/Ro ships. Those are some prime targets

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Poppycock.
inflation sucks balls for those on fixed incomes, or incomes who don't keep pace with inflation, not to mention those who's assets consist of stock investments.
Translation: you want to hit the working class right in the shorts, hit the economy with inflation.

No, what you've mentioned above is just winner/loser shifts among different demographics. Inflation, deflation, whatever, you got those changes.

Which has feth all to do with the problem of deflation, and that is when falling prices leads to a drop in production, leading to reduced wages, leading to a drop in prices, and so on down we go in a deflationary spiral.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Melissia — GMT

It's about 32.1 billion per carrier (not carrier group) in 2004 dollars, from what I've read (which may not be accurate, it's just the first couple links I saw in my search).

This will add up over the years.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Jihadin — GMT

Much more with combat operations in support of OIF/OEF from the Med.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Yea, why do you think 1) you're going to get a cola; 2) a cola actually covers everything. Inflation supposedly is low now, but you wouldn't know it because oil and foodstuffs are not weighted in the inflation index.

That is completely and utterly wrong. It is, in fact, poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. A thing that is not true.

COLA is based on CPI Urban & Clerical Workers (CPI-W). It has eight major categories, listed below;

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Mannahnin — GMT

Was he talking about COLA there, or was him saying that oil and foodstuffs are not weighted in the inflation index talking more generally about inflation? I didn't quite follow.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment

It's a difficult issue to really pin down since it effects practically every sector of every economy on earth and it does it in many different and often subtle ways. Many of the previous claims of automation led unemployment were quite false, the cotton gin and Henry fords Assembly line did much to increase labor demand by decreasing the call for skilled productive work and creating many ancillary industries while providing good paying repetitious jobs that developed a middle class. The problem is that automation conceptually exists to replace humans and the rise of computerized business has begun moving the process of automation out of factories and into offices and the service sector (the sectors that traditionally absorbed those lost jobs.) The service sector also doesn't pay as well as textile manufacturing, skilled farm labor, mining, or any of the other process heavy jobs that have been replaced. This has led to the hollowing out of middle class pay seen over the last few decades.

I think the primary difference is that in the past freeing up of labour simply saw that labour move into a new area of the economy. So in the industrial revolution people driven from the farms found new jobs in the expanding industrial sector. Similarly, economic recovery in the 1980s was driven by the rapid expansion of microcomputers as a new industry.

That's kind of the nature of economics, there is a constant drive to increase profits by producing the same amount of stuff with less resources. And this is a great thing, because that's how you drive up productivity, and therefore pay people more money (long term, along with all sorts of complicating factors). The problem comes when existing economic sectors figure out how to do the job with less labour, and there's no new economic sectors for that labour to move into.

And that's kind of the problem right now. What new thing do we shift unemployed labour into?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
And that's fine...

But, I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket... we're talking about trillions here... and number that is thrown around alot and I dont think there's enough appreciation as to how big that number is...

Sure, it isn't the solution. But it represents a potentially massive saving that can be a major part of the solution. Like I posted above to reach breakeven right now you'd need to raise taxes, or cut spending to the tune of about $500 billion. You can find a lot of that money in the present US defence budget while still being far and away the biggest military on the planet.

Just cutting the Bush tax cut on the very rich, and keeping middle class part of the cut would bring in another $100 billion a year. Then you're most of the way there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
It's about 32.1 billion per carrier (not carrier group) in 2004 dollars, from what I've read (which may not be accurate, it's just the first couple links I saw in my search).

This will add up over the years.

Wow, that's a hell of a lot. Reducing the fleet to five carrier groups would actually represent about a third of the total saving needed to bring the budget back to parity.

The tax cut on the rich that the Democrats are trying to end and the Republicans are trying to keep, well you could let them keep their tax cut if they'd agree to drop three carrier groups.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Was he talking about COLA there, or was him saying that oil and foodstuffs are not weighted in the inflation index talking more generally about inflation? I didn't quite follow.

The Cost of Living Allowance is calculated through one specific inflation measure, CPI-W. CPI-W uses the categories I listed, which included food and fuel.

So if he was talking about COLA he was wrong. If he was talking about inflation generally he was wrong and talking nonsense, because inflation has no single measure, and outside of industry specific measures they include foodstuffs and fuel.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Melissia — GMT

Supposedly that number was from the navy website, although when the article linked to it, the site had changed and didn't include the quote they had (which I suppose makes sense given how old it apparently was).

sebster wrote:
What new thing do we shift unemployed labour into?

Just about the only field that is still hiring more is medical/pharmaceutical. We need more nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmacists, etc-- the support arm of the medical field as it were, rather than needing more doctors.

But who knows how long that'll last? Oddly enough, it might be best to try to encourage more employment in the entertainment industries, because creativity can't be outsourced as easily.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Just about the only field that is still hiring more is medical/pharmaceutical. We need more nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmacists, etc-- the support arm of the medical field as it were, rather than needing more doctors.

Thats one of the fastest growing fields, probably the single fastest growing field on the planet. It doesn't appear to be enough to stem the losses and from my point of observation I really don't think it can be large enough to absorb the losses. It's also sort of an artifact of our labor intensive and inefficient American health system, which I don't expect to last too many more decades.

Oddly enough, it might be best to try to encourage more employment in the entertainment industries, because creativity can't be outsourced as easily.

Tell that to the animation industry.

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

whembly — GMT

I think ya'll might like this:
http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2012/09/the-first-four-years-are-the-hardest/

Re:US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

whembly wrote:
I think ya'll might like this:
http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2012/09/the-first-four-years-are-the-hardest/

Not really, down homey fake economics by a pop star that pretends to be a populist everyman is something i got fed up with when Palin had cameras pointed at her. It also doesn't help that he's wrong in the primary thrust of his arguments, that technical educations are undervalued. They've become significantly more popular in the last decade and are likely as popular now than in any peak in their history. The skills gap is also not filled by 2 year schools or vocational high schooling since the most demanding industries are usually engineering, chemistry, or computer science. Not two year degrees.

I do appreciate the effort he's putting out there to connect people to trades though.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

TheHammer — GMT

What's great is that Mike Rowe's open letter could have been written by Karl Marx. He talks of alienation, expropriation, commodification, and a few other Marxist beliefs. Good on him!

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

daedalus-templarius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

Corporate profits are at a record high and the DOW is above 16,000. So its certainly recovered for them.

Oh, are you saying the economy hasn't recovered for the middle class? Well, you're probably right, since trickle down doesn't actually occur.

Real unemployement is at 10%. recovered my ass.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

Corporate profits are at a record high and the DOW is above 16,000. So its certainly recovered for them.

Oh, are you saying the economy hasn't recovered for the middle class? Well, you're probably right, since trickle down doesn't actually occur.

Real unemployement is at 10%. recovered my ass.

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment. If all those people went back to work at a family dollar making minimum wage the economy wouldn't really be any better off. If an economy doesn't have room to fit people despite functioning normally than something is structurally wrong with it.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Melissia — GMT

You mean if peoples' labor is productive in comparison to other options. Not just by itself.

Keep in mind the effects of globalization, both good and ill.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

And yet they are making more, profiting more, and the American economy is more productive now than it was pre recession when we had 5% unemployment. Also, how healthy was the economy a day before the recession started exactly? It had good unemployment numbers after all. All those people (who apparently weren't needed) had jobs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

So you agree then, that the American economy was healthy before the recession started? That all of the structural inefficiency, dangerous trading, and demand driven by false credit was good? It must be nice to think about economies in such simple terms. Jobs mean economies gettin' R' done and such. It's easy to see why conservatives keep leading us into recessions.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

GDP of 1.7% is not fully recovered. Your lack of simple math skills in the areas of economics is almost frightening.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
GDP of 1.7% is not fully recovered. Your lack of simple math skills in the areas of economics is almost frightening.

GDP was 13-14 trillion right before the recession, it's over 15 trillion now. Given the flat value of currency over the last few years and very low inflation rates it appears that productivity has risen. GDP increase per year is also 2.7%. You're off by a third and the 5% rise in the 3 years leading up to the recession were driven primarily by housing an debt bubbles (and thus were bad for the economy.)

Your imaginary economics are expected and no longer frightening.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
GDP of 1.7% is not fully recovered. Your lack of simple math skills in the areas of economics is almost frightening.

GDP was 13-14 trillion right before the recession, it's over 15 trillion now. Given the flat value of currency over the last few years and very low inflation rates it appears that productivity has risen. GDP increase per year is also 2.7%. You're off by a third and the 5% rise in the 3 years leading up to the recession were driven primarily by housing an debt bubbles (and thus were bad for the economy.)

Your imaginary economics are expected and no longer frightening.

-real unemployment at 10%
-housing still in the tank.
-GDP has never risen above 3% and is now 1.7%
-manufacturing down three months in a row.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
What the hell are you smoking?

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

daedalus-templarius — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait did you just say the economy has recovered????

Corporate profits are at a record high and the DOW is above 16,000. So its certainly recovered for them.

Oh, are you saying the economy hasn't recovered for the middle class? Well, you're probably right, since trickle down doesn't actually occur.

Real unemployement is at 10%. recovered my ass.

Oh I didn't realize we were talking about unemployment. I was talking about corporate profits and the DOW.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

The stock market is not the economy.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
GDP of 1.7% is not fully recovered. Your lack of simple math skills in the areas of economics is almost frightening.

GDP was 13-14 trillion right before the recession, it's over 15 trillion now. Given the flat value of currency over the last few years and very low inflation rates it appears that productivity has risen. GDP increase per year is also 2.7%. You're off by a third and the 5% rise in the 3 years leading up to the recession were driven primarily by housing an debt bubbles (and thus were bad for the economy.)

Your imaginary economics are expected and no longer frightening.

-real unemployment at 10%
-housing still in the tank.
-GDP has never risen above 3% and is now 1.7%
-manufacturing down three months in a row.

What the hell are you smoking?

GDP is above pre recession normal
Productivity is above pre recession normal
Corporate and business profits are above pre recession normal
Exports are above pre recession normal

It looks like the economy and peoples wellfare as a result of the economy aren't the same thing. Oh, weird, I've been arguing that for pages and pages. Years and years actually. What you want is a beneficial economy that uplifts the people within it. Interesting though that you consistently act like efforts to ensure that the economy functions in that way will destroy it.

Hope you enjoy that unemployment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
The stock market is not the economy.

Neither is employment.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

You're arguing employment is not part of the economy? Again, I want whatever it is you're smoking.

.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

daedalus-templarius — GMT

Frazzled wrote:The stock market is not the economy.

Frazzled wrote:You're arguing "the stock market" is not part of the economy? Again, I want whatever it is you're smoking.

.

You don't make sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:

How was the economy doing a day before the collapse Fraz? Good? It had good unemployment after all. GDP growth was good too. Was it healthy?

Oh wait, you have no interest in discussing this. You never have interest in discussing these things. You just set straw men on fire and then act dismissive. Why do you even enter these threads?

He is but the King of Trolls.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
You're arguing employment is not part of the economy? Again, I want whatever it is you're smoking.

.

How was the economy doing a day before the collapse Fraz? Good? It had good unemployment after all. GDP growth was good too. Was it healthy?

Oh wait, you have no interest in discussing this. You never have interest in discussing these things. You just set straw men on fire and then act dismissive. Why do you even enter these threads?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

And yet they are making more, profiting more, and the American economy is more productive now than it was pre recession when we had 5% unemployment. Also, how healthy was the economy a day before the recession started exactly? It had good unemployment numbers after all. All those people (who apparently weren't needed) had jobs.

It is generally accepted that this is because of the Keynesian economic stimulus of the president. There is a huge amount of public debt being rung up to pay for this "economic growth".
The economy will be *genuinely* healthy again once it is no longer dependant on government debt.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:

That's not "the economy" that's "employment". You can have a strong economy with high unemployment and you can have a terrible one with almost no unemployment.

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

And yet they are making more, profiting more, and the American economy is more productive now than it was pre recession when we had 5% unemployment. Also, how healthy was the economy a day before the recession started exactly? It had good unemployment numbers after all. All those people (who apparently weren't needed) had jobs.

It is generally accepted that this is because of the Keynesian economic stimulus of the president. There is a huge amount of public debt being rung up to pay for this "economic growth".
The economy will be *genuinely* healthy again once it is no longer dependant on government debt.

Would you consider the Chinese economy to not be genuinely healthy (thats kind of a trick question since no economy on earth is genuinely healthy, but whatever)? The infrastructure investment annually there accounts for a significant proportion of GDP. I do agree with you however that much of the current stagnation (and previous to that, the lack of a deeper recession) is due to the limited investment the government could muster. I don't however think that getting off of that dole will make the economy "healthy", nor will it really incentivise the private industry to invest the capitol it's sitting on. A functioning previously recognizable western consumer economy can't just ride stimulus like an export driven manufacturing eastern economy, but government stimulus isn't actively harming the recovery.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

Do you know what a Keynesian stimulus is? It's when the government spends money, that is raised through the bond markets, on investing in the economy during a downturn.

It's pretty obvious that a budget deficit of $901bn isn't sustainable. If the government were to cut spending/raise taxes to cut that to, say, $100bn, you'd almost definitely be back in recession. Hence, a stimulus.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Ahtman — GMT

Testify wrote:
Do you know what a Keynesian stimulus is?

That isn't nearly as naughty as it sounds like it should be.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Do you know what a Keynesian stimulus is? It's when the government spends money, that is raised through the bond markets, on investing in the economy during a downturn.

Yes. I am aware of things they teach kids in highschool.

It's pretty obvious that a budget deficit of $901bn isn't sustainable.

That has nothing to do with what I said and the stimulus isn't consistently refreshed, it's been coming off of it's peak for some time.

If the government were to cut spending/raise taxes to cut that to, say, $100bn, you'd almost definitely be back in recession. Hence, a stimulus.

Ahh, you're calling regular government operational spending stimulus. How hyperbolic and unhelpful.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Ahtman wrote:
Testify wrote:
Do you know what a Keynesian stimulus is?

That isn't nearly as naughty as it sounds like it should be.

Well that depends on the stimulus money is spent doesn't it.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
Do you know what a Keynesian stimulus is? It's when the government spends money, that is raised through the bond markets, on investing in the economy during a downturn.

Yes. I am aware of things they teach kids in highschool.

It's pretty obvious that a budget deficit of $901bn isn't sustainable.

That has nothing to do with what I said and the stimulus isn't consistently refreshed, it's been coming off of it's peak for some time.

If the government were to cut spending/raise taxes to cut that to, say, $100bn, you'd almost definitely be back in recession. Hence, a stimulus.

Ahh, you're calling regular government operational spending stimulus. How hyperbolic and unhelpful.

Stop finding reasons to disagree with me.

Normal government spending IS stimulus, to an extent. There is no scientific definition of the word, government spending in itself distributes wealth into the economy if it is financed with public debt.

Since you didn't bother to check into the facts before coming to your opinions (whatever they may be, apparently in general disagreement to anyone who is not you), here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019...
The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

So you have a "stimulus" until 2019, if you'll accept that definition.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Plus the $1.0T - $1.5T in annual spending deficits since then.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Stop finding reasons to disagree with me.

Normal government spending IS stimulus, to an extent. There is no scientific definition of the word, government spending in itself distributes wealth into the economy if it is financed with public debt.

And playing tag is still violent assault. It's hyperbolic and unhelpful to frame things for exaggerated effect like that.

Since you didn't bother to check into the facts before coming to your opinions (whatever they may be, apparently in general disagreement to anyone who is not you), here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

What in the hell are you talking about? When did I say that the stimulus wasn't "keynesian"? I'm in general disasgreement with you people because most of you are either lying or say things that don't make sense. If you're going to find fault with what I'm saying and throw out a persecution complex at least do it over something I actually said or did.

Just about the only thing I said about the stimulus was that it has past its peak. Your own wiki states that several times. Here it is in picture form. What are we arguing about?

So you have a "stimulus" until 2019, if you'll accept that definition.

Oh, hey. Here it is again.

Look at that, it's on the downswing. Just like what I said. Did I say it wasn't there? No. I said you were arguing disingenuous points and that the stimulus was past peak. You are and it is.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

So government spending of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, has no impact whatsoever on economic growth? Just to clear this up.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Testify wrote:
So government spending of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, has no impact whatsoever on economic growth? Just to clear this up.

Please, point out where I said that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/474383.page
Here's the link, go ahead. Find it.

What is with you all this week and pulling stuff out of context and going crazy all over it? Nothing I write is actually quoted, it's always people just inferring things that aren't even close to what I typed.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

dogma — GMT

Testify wrote:

Not really. If peoples' labour is productive, they will be employed. If it's not, they won't. A lot of businesses at the moment are pretty uncertain about the future and loathe to expend.

Which still doesn't indicate that employment and economic health are not the same thing. High employment contributes to a healthy economy, but it isn't the sole determinant of it.

And there's no guarantee that the ability to do productive labor will see you employed, as you not only have to find someone that finds your labor productive, but prove to them that it likely will be productive. This means not only having the right skills, but the ability to demonstrate them by way of circumstantial evidence to a degree which outstrips your competitors in what is an employer's market.

For example, 6-8 years ago the people working entry level in my company would have had BAs and little if any experience, now you either need an MA and 1-2 years experience or 5 years of experience. In fact, our interns generally need to have at least 3 years work experience to be considered for an unpaid position. Of course, this is all in industry experience, everything else is irrelevant.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

Thats a function of supply. If employment were at more historically normative levels entry level would again be back to BAs.

During the oil busts, the joke about your local McDonalds only hiring geology masters had a lot of truth to it.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

dogma — GMT

Frazzled wrote:

-housing still in the tank.

And that's where its going to stay until property ownership has been transferred away from people holding underwater mortgages.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Testify — GMT

ShumaGorath wrote:
Testify wrote:
So government spending of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, has no impact whatsoever on economic growth? Just to clear this up.

Please, point out where I said that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/474383.page
Here's the link, go ahead. Find it.

What is with you all this week and pulling stuff out of context and going crazy all over it? Nothing I write is actually quoted, it's always people just inferring things that aren't even close to what I typed.

This is because you disagree vehemently with everything that everyone says, while being very careful to not say anything meaningful at all. I'm done with you.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

ShumaGorath — GMT

Testify wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Testify wrote:
So government spending of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, has no impact whatsoever on economic growth? Just to clear this up.

Please, point out where I said that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/474383.page
Here's the link, go ahead. Find it.

What is with you all this week and pulling stuff out of context and going crazy all over it? Nothing I write is actually quoted, it's always people just inferring things that aren't even close to what I typed.

This is because you disagree vehemently with everything that everyone says, while being very careful to not say anything meaningful at all. I'm done with you.

Wat.

You came in, told me I said something I didn't say. I said I didn't say that. You then said I said it again and posted a wiki that is irrelevant to the discussion. I asked you to tell me where I said that and so you quit? Well I guess it's a relief that you're done with me. Being randomly bitten is annoying.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

dogma — GMT

Frazzled wrote:
Thats a function of supply. If employment were at more historically normative levels entry level would again be back to BAs.

This trend started well before unemployment rose during the recession. Supply is certainly a factor regarding the number of people holding BAs, but its also employers artificially inflating the education and experience requirements for certain positions. For example, what most of the MAs on our staff do is basic data entry that requires a brain and a high school education. They don't do analysis, they just follow coding guidelines that the higher ups pass down, which is basically what department students do for free (or a stipend) in the university system.

Granted, this is largely confined to my industry (Political analysis firms have seen huge dividends thanks to how contentious US politics have become, so they can afford to use a disproportionately educated staff as a marketing point.), but I've seen the trend elsewhere as well; especially in the financial sector.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Melissia — GMT

Or management in ANY sector.

Or... hell. Even freaking minimum wage jobs now say "x years experience required" these days, as I would know from my own search.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

Frazzled — GMT

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats a function of supply. If employment were at more historically normative levels entry level would again be back to BAs.

This trend started well before unemployment rose during the recession. Supply is certainly a factor regarding the number of people holding BAs, but its also employers artificially inflating the education and experience requirements for certain positions. For example, what most of the MAs on our staff do is basic data entry that requires a brain and a high school education. They don't do analysis, they just follow coding guidelines that the higher ups pass down, which is basically what department students do for free (or a stipend) in the university system.

Granted, this is largely confined to my industry (Political analysis firms have seen huge dividends thanks to how contentious US politics have become, so they can afford to use a disproportionately educated staff as a marketing point.), but I've seen the trend elsewhere as well; especially in the financial sector.

We have a masters degree guy doing compliance. Once the banking industry improves he's gone. previously we had an HBU grad for the position. She was seriously the most capable person I have ever, ever met. Crazily she was from North Korea, by way of Manchuria. great gal. I wish her well.

US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to?

sebster — GMT

Melissia wrote:
Just about the only field that is still hiring more is medical/pharmaceutical. We need more nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmacists, etc-- the support arm of the medical field as it were, rather than needing more doctors.

But who knows how long that'll last? Oddly enough, it might be best to try to encourage more employment in the entertainment industries, because creativity can't be outsourced as easily.

The problem with focusing on health is that it's largely inward looking - it serves the domestic population and isn't really much of an export industry. So it draws on existing economic health, rather than driving it. What's needed is some new industry that can employ people, and sell stuff elsewhere. When expansion is entirely inward looking, then it can only be funded on credit, such as the housing boom.

I have no idea what that new industry is going to be, or if what might be required, long term, is for wages in China and South East Asia generally to steadily expand as wages in the developed world are held static or maybe even decline.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
GDP of 1.7% is not fully recovered. Your lack of simple math skills in the areas of economics is almost frightening.

You're the guy who thought COLA didn't include food or fuel, so glass houses, stones and all that.