Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

@georgeob1,

Oh, yeah. Asking someone to show actual causation to prove their point, instead of simply asserting causation, is absolutely ridiculous.

You're so full of ****, George. You just assert whatever you want, and when challenged, respond with pompous bs about how things are unprovable. It is unconvincing to any reader.

I assert that it is not a fact, that rising levels of gov't debt necessarily lead to lower job levels or job creation. We can see many instances over the last 4 decades in which debt increased, but unemployment decreased. How do you explain this, if your assertions are true?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, Your ability to put all economies into one basket is an amazing feat! All economies are a mixture of socialism and capitalism; there's nothing else! With this mix in all economies, some are stronger and some weaker. That's because different variables impact each economy in different ways.

Some of it has to do with natural resources, while others depend on innovation and world demand for its goods and services.

Our country has been a leader in most of these areas we now call the high tech industry. Without the foundation for providing our children with a good education, we will continue to lose ground to those countries that emphasize good education, science and math, and creativity. We're now losing that edge to other countries.

Cut more cost? At what cost for the future of this country?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You failed to address why Obama would need to be concerned at all since, according to HS, not raising the debt limit has no consequences for the country.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Earlier Cyclo wrote,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Odd that you would write this, seeing as government debt has nothing to do with employment levels at all; and addressing deficits and debt certainly doesn't add jobs.

Now he writes,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I assert that it is not a fact, that rising levels of gov't debt necessarily lead to lower job levels or job creation. We can see many instances over the last 4 decades in which debt increased, but unemployment decreased. How do you explain this, if your assertions are true?

The second assertion is now a very narrow and highly qualified (and because it leaves out any reference to the relative level of public debt, quite meaningless) imitation of the first. Evidently Cyclo has abandoned his requirement for "causation" - at least as it may apply to himself - as in

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you want to prove your point, show evidence of causation instead of assertion of causation.

He stumbles over his own bombast.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You failed to address why Obama would need to be concerned at all since, according to HS, not raising the debt limit has no consequences for the country.

I think the answer to your supposed dilemma is that High Seas and Obama don't see things the same way. Surprise !

0 Replies

Somebody requested proof of causation.

Well, you obviously can't handle the proof! ... You obviously choose to ignore the proof!

The coming depression is a manchild caused disaster... the manchild is Barack Hussein Obama.

None of you that voted for and support this assclown ever asked for proof that he was qualified for the job.
The liberal media never offered proof that this assclown was qualified for the job.

Now we have a litany of Obama's policy failures that prove he and his polices are causing Obamageddon...
you choose to ignore all of this.

Shame on you.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's never time to cut spending CI; our government is not able.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

MAP!!!!!!!!

Where the hell have you been?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

That's a truism for the past, but our government must change. We must cut expenses on defense, social security, Medicare, and medical. These are the biggest expenditures, and not sustainable no matter how well our economy is performing.

It's irresponsible for five percent of the world population to support the largest military on this planet. Security must be a shared responsibility with the world community. I've already explained about why and where the other social programs needs to be adjusted to save cost.

The solutions are not rocket science, but we have elected to our governments folks who don't understand fiduciary responsibility. We continue to vote them into office.

1 Reply

@JPB,

For the most part, ignoring everything political as it's just too f'ing depressing and it's almost impossible to have a decent conversation about it with anyone, anywhere. Moved to Chicago about a year ago and have been focused on my personal happiness and dealing with some family medical issues.

Haven't decided if I'm ready to get back into political discussion again yet, but am testing some waters.

Hope you are doing well.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's a truism for the past, but our government must change. We must cut expenses on defense, social security, Medicare, and medical. These are the biggest expenditures, and not sustainable no matter how well our economy is performing.

Which is what I think the Republicans were trying to do when they held the debt ceiling 'hostage'. But I think I just heard you say that 'now is not the time for cutting expenses.'

Well, CI, there will ALWAYS be a reason to 'not cut expenses.' ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS.

I say now was/is as good a time as any. Besides, the cuts are tiny and basically mean nothing.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Pelosi and Reid call the shots in this pathetic Administration.

If only! (The Pelosi part would make me even happier than the Reid part.)

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Ha! I suppose this is as good a test pond as any.

Welcome back. It's good to see you. I went looking for you a few times.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Hi, Map. It is good to see you here again. You may well be disappointed at the decline in the level of civility on A2K. But there are some folks here who do our best.
As I recall. you and I are on different ends of a spectrum and JPB is somewhat in the middle but we get along well.
Welcome back.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

You may see them as "tiny" cuts, but they also mean loss of jobs for thousands of people at a time when jobs is the major concern. Cutting government jobs also means cutting private jobs, because there will be less demand for the goods and services they provide. Can you imagine any community where a good percentage of jobs are government jobs? That will definitely reflect on other jobs when government jobs gets cut.

Our economy is now very fragile - barely showing a positive GDP growth. Cutting more government jobs will result in the loss of that positive growth. You can bank on it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You may see them as "tiny" cuts, but they also mean loss of jobs for thousands of people at a time when jobs is the major concern. Cutting government jobs also means cutting private jobs, because there will be less demand for the goods and services they provide. Can you imagine any community where a good percentage of jobs are government jobs? That will definitely reflect on other jobs when government jobs gets cut.

Then perhaps we should raise the tax rates to around 60% and double the size of government. By your arithmetic everyone would be richer. We could even raise taxes to 100% and increase the size of .... no that wouldn't work either. What a crock !

As Ronald Reagan famously said "Government isn't the solution: it is the problem." The current administration has wiped out thousands of jobs in the petroleum, energy, and export trade industries by its misguided policies in support of environmenatlists and labor unions, who themselves are dedicated to wiping out everyone's jobs but their own. The administration is currently trying to wipe out one of our key export industries by choosing to "punish" the Boeing company for daring to build (at its own expense) a factory for the production of modern aircraft in a state that doesn't allow compulsory unionism - and doing so at the critical moment in Boeing's struggle with Airbus for domination in its industry. Is that a jobs-enhancing strategy?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Since we can both agree that increasing taxes to 100% won't work.
I assume we can both agree that putting taxes at 0% won't work as well.

Now we only need to find a decent middle ground.
Taxation at about 20-22% of GDP seems to work just fine. How will that work for you?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, Your response is extreme! 60% taxation? You know as well as everybody else that our country has difficulty with "any tax increase."

It was determined a few years ago that a flat federal 17% tax rate for everybody would be sufficient for our country's well-being and welfare. It's only a matter of our government living within its means; cut defense.

If all had a "living wage," everybody would be paying into the coffers to support all levels of government needs.

Cutting spending that results in cutting jobs is the wrong direction for this country.

Quotes from past presidents are nice, but Reagan didn't live in this economic and political environment. Nothing remains static, and past ideas that may have applied to one period doesn't necessarily apply to the future.

1 Reply

@parados,

Cool. Use 0 % and 100 % on a graph and connect them with a curve bowing to the right. Plot revenue collected on the horizontal axis. If the curve is symetrical, you will notice that about the same revenue is collected at the 10% rate as the 90% rate. Not knowing the shape of the curve, it only illustrates a concept, but it is an important one. If the economy is doing poorly, we might just pick the lower rate that produces the same actual revenue.

You've heard the name of the curve before, of course.

1 Reply

@parados,

I believe the Federal Government has grown too large and intrusive. It has wrongfully abused its taxation and apprpriations powers to extend its reach and control well beyond the enumerated powers in our constitution through various "incentive" and "policy" programs in fields as diverse as education, health, transportation and energy policy. Its size and reach need to be curtailed significantly. I would like to see significant reductions in the cost and regulatory power of the Energy, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Education and Interior Departments. Dysfunctional or no-longer-needed elements in the State and Defense Departments should be cut back as well (State's USAID is a good example).

After that we can talk about the appropriate level of taxation - something well below 20% of GDP.

1 Reply

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know