Raising the US debt ceiling

[blueblood]

Yah but you used it as a response to my post where I said due to inflation that is true of all presidents save Clinton.

Politifact only used the numbers and didn't mention inflation. They must have assumed it was a wash because the costs that they were spending the borrowed money on were affected by inflation too. I was responding to AW asking for numbers, posted numbers then straightened out my goof. I don't know why politifact didn't bring in inflation because it most likely would have been made a note of in the article.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's a very important distinction. The CPP is managed by a board, and is virtually untouchable. Public pensions...not so much.

Yes it's important in itself. But whether it means anything in regards to this thread topic, no, not so much.

Shady is promoting the idea that the US should follow the Cretien/ Martin model, but it was not based solely on cuts and tax increases. There were other sources of money. That's an important distinction! And those other sources in the financial overhaul that Martin made, might not even have a parallel in the US. As with downloading health care to the provinces. That's an important distinction!

[pinko]

Two years after the start of the recession, there still are 4.7 workers for every ONE job available. Meanwhile, corporations sit on trillions of dollars. Rather than putting some of that cash to use to create jobs, CEOs are enjoying massive pay hikes. In 2010, Standard & Poor’s 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation — a 23 percent increase in one year.

But rather than discuss what’s really key to America’s economy — creating jobs — Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are derailing the country with their ideological games designed to give their corporate backers even more money — in the form of massive tax breaks for millionaires.

Earlier this week, participants in a Jobs Crisis panel we held here, noted that many in Washington continue to push deregulation and tax cuts as the way out of the economic hole the country is in, without acknowledging the role that those policies played in creating the current economic conditions. Instead, the best way to get the nation’s job engine running again is through investments that can create jobs and increase demand such as infrastructure, education and training, aid to states, fair trade policies, long-term unemployment insurance and more.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/the-new-american-economy-win-the-lottery-get-a-job.html#ixzz1SRpHSA7d

[bush_cheney2004]

Two years after the start of the recession, there still are 4.7 workers for every ONE job available. Meanwhile, corporations sit on trillions of dollars.

That's why the CEO's get more compensation.....not to make more jobs when demand is down and uncertainty is up.

But rather than discuss what’s really key to America’s economy — creating jobs — Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are derailing the country with their ideological games designed to give their corporate backers even more money — in the form of massive tax breaks for millionaires.

Many of those jobs are never coming back......and shouldn't come back. Corporate "backers" give money to Democrats too, but you already knew that.

[pinko]

That's why the CEO's get more compensation.....not to make more jobs when demand is down and uncertainty is up.

Many of those jobs are never coming back......and shouldn't come back. Corporate "backers" give money to Democrats too, but you already knew that.

Which jobs are you referring to?

Are you suggesting that a no job growth economy is beneficial to America?

Do you not believe in the social contract?

[Sir Bandelot]

That's why the CEO's get more compensation.....not to make more jobs when demand is down and uncertainty is up.

Seems to me demand is down and uncertainty is up, BECAUSE so many people have no jobs. But solving this is not the CEO's problem, as long as they've got their trillions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which jobs are you referring to?

The jobs that are gone...forever.

Are you suggesting that a no job growth economy is beneficial to America?

No, I'm suggesting that you are waiting for something that has changed and will not be back.

Do you not believe in the social contract?

No....I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either.

[Shady]

You do undertand that much of this has to do with a) two wars, and B ) a global recession. It isn't as if another president would have deficits that were much, if any, smaller.

Complete nonsense. The wars have little to do with the current deficit. And the recession has been made worse by Obama's anti-business policies and runaway spending. So yes, a different president would have smaller deficits.

[Shady]

What's this so-called social contract about? How many of us have signed it. I know I haven't.

[pinko]

The jobs that are gone...forever.

No, I'm suggesting that you are waiting for something that has changed and will not be back.

No....I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either.

You seem to prefer circular argument. You have suggested jobs are gone forever yet appear unable to describe the nature of these jobs.

Edited July 18, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

What's this so-called social contract about? How many of us have signed it. I know I haven't.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

[punked]

Complete nonsense. The wars have little to do with the current deficit. And the recession has been made worse by Obama's anti-business policies and runaway spending. So yes, a different president would have smaller deficits.

You are crazy you actually think if they cut spending to 20% of GDP while only taking in 15% revenues to GDP they can balance the budget. It is like conservatives have never ever looked at a spread sheet.

[Shady]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

I see. So it's a theory, and not actually any type of contract or law. Ok.

[bush_cheney2004]

You seem to prefer circular argument. You have suggested jobs are gone forever yet appear unable to describe the nature of these jobs.

The jobs that are gone....many are not "coming back". You are living in the past.

[Shady]

You are crazy you actually think if they cut spending to 20% of GDP while only taking in 15% revenues to GDP they can balance the budget. It is like conservatives have never ever looked at a spread sheet.

Never said anything about balancing the budget right away. Even the lie you told about cut, cap and balance wouldn't take effect for at least 5 - 7 years. Heck, even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget for several years. Enough with your false choices about balancing the budget right away. Nobody has suggested that. Other than you.

[punked]

Never said anything about balancing the budget right away. Even the lie you told about cut, cap and balance wouldn't take effect for at least 5 - 7 years. Heck, even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget for several years. Enough with your false choices about balancing the budget right away. Nobody has suggested that. Other than you.

Cut Cap and Balance says that they will CAP spending at 20% of GDP however because the GOP says they "Would never even accept a revenue increase of one dollar" how to expect to pay for 20% spending with only 15% revenues? I know conservative math never works out for the positive but usually you guys at least lie about it. You are not even trying this time.

[Guest American Woman]

Complete nonsense. The wars have little to do with the current deficit. And the recession has been made worse by Obama's anti-business policies and runaway spending. So yes, a different president would have smaller deficits.

Of course the wars have a lot to doe with the current deficit. As for your claim re: "a different president," it's pure partisan speculation on your part.

[pinko]

The jobs that are gone....many are not "coming back". You are living in the past.

Just because you are unable to define the nature of the jobs lost does not mean I am living in the past. Perhaps the jobs you refuse to talk about are those good paying manufacturing jobs sent to third world economies.

Edited July 18, 2011 by pinko

[Shady]

Cut Cap and Balance says that they will CAP spending at 20% of GDP however because the GOP says they "Would never even accept a revenue increase of one dollar" how to expect to pay for 20% spending with only 15% revenues? I know conservative math never works out for the positive but usually you guys at least lie about it. You are not even trying this time.

You grow revenues. You produce an economy that actually creates jobs, and more tax payers. That actually produces strong economic growth. In other words, you need to have a new administration that knows something about doing it.

[Shady]

Of course the wars have a lot to doe with the current deficit.

Not much. You could eliminate the war spending all together, and the deficit would still be over one trillion dollars. That's a fact.

[punked]

You grow revenues. You produce an economy that actually creates jobs, and more tax payers. That actually produces strong economic growth. In other words, you need to have a new administration that knows something about doing it.

Yah you grow revenues? When was the last time in the last 50 years revenues were at 20% Shady? Tell me please ok? It happened only once. BTW it wasn't achieved by tax cuts BTW!

Edited July 18, 2011 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Just because you are unable to define the nature of the jobs lost does not mean I am living in the past. Perhaps the jobs you refuse to talk about are those good paying manufacturing jobs sent to third world economies.

You mean like the ones sent to Canada and Mexico?

I don't think you understand that corporations have learned to do more with less labor. This is called productivity, something that lags in Canada. Perhaps you are relying on that "social contract"?

Edited July 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

Just because you are unable to define the nature of the jobs lost does not mean I am living in the past. Perhaps the jobs you refuse to talk about are those good paying manufacturing jobs sent to third world economies.

linomen, typesetters and other jobs that were once skilled and high paying merely 20 years ago are gone.

You will be hard pressed to find a cooper too

[pinko]

linomen, typesetters and other jobs that were once skilled and high paying merely 20 years ago are gone.

You will be hard pressed to find a cooper too

That has much more to do with technological change than the outsourcing of jobs offshore.

[pinko]

You mean like the ones sent to Canada and Mexico?

Reading doesn't appear to be one of your stronger skills.