Where is the US economy headed?

To build on ci's point to okie:

As a matter of fact, there is no Marxist group in the USA, period - so to even ask a question like that is to build a "strawman". In fact, to debunk one of the strongest arguments the entire conservative movement makes is to claim Obama is Socialist - there is only one Socialist in the entire government, and Bernie Sanders stands square toed in his own defense. I will not attempt to speak for him, I am inadaquate. The entire USA stands just barely left of center extending to the hard right (lots of Fascist righties) - very, very few socialists in America at all, statistically zero. But, NeoCons can't even begin to understand this.

All in their attempts to divert attention from themselves is keep throwing lies and innuendos about Obama and his appointments. It works with people like okie, because he doesn't have any brain to think for himself nor research what is fact or are outright lies.

That's the reason why when he's asked for evidence, none is forthcoming. He has to use FOX News (his only source).

GW Bush's Great Recession.
Death panels.
Government takeover of health care.
Gays in the military. (It'll get other soldiers killed) First hero of the Iraq war was a gay marine who saved his fellow soldier.
GW Bush's tax cuts that didn't create jobs as promised.
Instead, it was the worst job creation since the Great Depression.
They still want to extend GW Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Why? Because that's a transfer of wealth from them to the poor. All while our national debt grows, and interest on the debt grows as tax revenue shrinks - that GW Bush is responsible for.
The Tea Party now wants to cut expenses, but they don't tell us what they're going to cut. They want to waste time reading the Constitution to give them breathing room and another diversion from the problems facing this country.
Speaker Boehner cries during the swearing in ceremony, and he uses his own huge gavel to show he has something big.
All show.

What will they produce from now on?

You, of course, mean all the Republican left overs and retreads, right?

Your dense answer demonstrates that Bill is right: you have no idea what a strawman is.

I typed the letter F into the block following a student's name. In other words, acting as scribe, I gave her the grade she earned.

Before I continue with her response, let me inform you that, at the beginning of the semester, I provide students with a syllabus (available as a hard copy and as a document on the class website that they may download or view at their convenience) and rubric (a set of standards by which student work is appraised) based on a scale of 0 - 100 by which each essay is graded.

The girl never earned a score higher than 53 for any work submitted. She also plagiarized the single essay that would have scored in the low 80s.

She attacked me with a strawman. Here is the wiki definition of a strawman: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have seen posters here define strawman to suit their own purposes. I suspect it is out of stupidity and/or hurt feelings.

However, you use the strawman-style of argument frequently. I suspect that, like the student described above, you neither read well nor reason well.

Here, okie attacks Bill with a strawman: a sarcastic remark aimed at Bill's education. Ironic, because okie's first sentence, written in a state of high dudgeon, is verbal spitting in Bill's face for accusing okie of using a strawman.

Bill wrote that the reading of the Constitution by Congress is propaganda.

It is. Propaganda of a smug sort, an act of desperation on the part of a party whose offerings include Ron Paul's bid to return to the gold standard (listen to what an Englishman had to say this morning on NPR about that) and the vote to repeal the health care reform bill (called Obamacare but, in reality, Romneycare) which breaks their own rule of the hour about saving money.

How did okie respond?

Left wingers hate that the constitution limits government.

Returning to the purpose of this thread, I would like to post a piece from yesterday's NYT on why small businesses fail. Two of the ten points are simply restatements of each other and the tone is excessively smug. However, the article itself says something about the tendency the economy has turned on since the mid-60s.

JAY GOLTZ, On Wednesday January 5, 2011, 2:05 pm EST
One of the least understood aspects of entrepreneurship is why small businesses fail, and there's a simple reason for the confusion: Most of the evidence comes from the entrepreneurs themselves.

I have had a close-up view of numerous business failures -- including a few start-ups of my own. And from my observation, the reasons for failure cited by the owners are frequently off-point, which kind of makes sense when you think about it. If the owners really knew what they were doing wrong, they might have been able to fix the problem. Often, it's simply a matter of denial or of not knowing what you don't know.

In many cases, the customers -- or, I should say, ex-customers -- have a better understanding than the owners of what wasn't working. The usual suspects that the owners tend to blame are the bank, the government, or the idiot partner. Rarely does the owner's finger point at the owner. Of course, there are cases where something out of the owner's control has gone terribly wrong, but I have found those instances to be in the minority. What follows -- based on my own experiences and observations -- are my top 10 reasons small businesses fail. The list is not pretty, it is not simple, and it does not contain any of those usual suspects (although they might come in at Nos. 11, 12 and 13).

1. The math just doesn't work. There is not enough demand for the product or service at a price that will produce a profit for the company. This, for example, would include a start-up trying to compete against Best Buy and its economies of scale.

2. Owners who cannot get out of their own way. They may be stubborn, risk adverse, conflict adverse -- meaning they need to be liked by everyone (even employees and vendors who can't do their jobs). They may be perfectionist, greedy, self-righteous, paranoid, indignant, or insecure. You get the idea. Sometimes, you can even tell these owners the problem, and they will recognize that you are right -- but continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

3. Out-of-control growth. This one might be the saddest of all reasons for failure -- a successful business that is ruined by over-expansion. This would include moving into markets that are not as profitable, experiencing growing pains that damage the business, or borrowing too much money in an attempt to keep growth at a particular rate. Sometimes less is more.

4. Poor accounting. You cannot be in control of a business if you don't know what is going on. With bad numbers, or no numbers, a company is flying blind, and it happens all of the time. Why? For one thing, it is a common -- and disastrous -- misconception that an outside accounting firm hired primarily to do the taxes will keep watch over the business. In reality, that is the job of the chief financial officer, one of the many hats an entrepreneur has to wear until a real one is hired.

5. Lack of a cash cushion. If we have learned anything from this recession (I know it's "over" but my customers don't seem to have gotten the memo), it's that business is cyclical and that bad things can and will happen over time -- the loss of an important customer or critical employee, the arrival of a new competitor, the filing of a lawsuit. These things can all stress the finances of a company. If that company is already out of cash (and borrowing potential), it may not be able to recover.

6. Operational mediocrity. I have never met a business owner who described his or her operation as mediocre. But we can't all be above average. Repeat and referral business is critical for most businesses, as is some degree of marketing (depending on the business).

7. Operational inefficiencies. Paying too much for rent, labor, and materials. Now more than ever, the lean companies are at an advantage. Not having the tenacity or stomach to negotiate terms that are reflective of today's economy may leave a company uncompetitive.

8. Dysfunctional management. Lack of focus, vision, planning, standards and everything else that goes into good management. Throw fighting partners or unhappy relatives into the mix, and you have a disaster.

9. The lack of a succession plan. We're talking nepotism, power struggles, significant players being replaced by people who are in over their heads -- all reasons many family businesses do not make it to the next generation.

10. A declining market. Book stores, music stores, printing businesses and many others are dealing with changes in technology, consumer demand, and competition from huge companies with more buying power and advertising dollars.

In life, you may have forgiving friends and relatives, but entrepreneurship is rarely forgiving. Eventually, everything shows up in the soup. If people don't like the soup, employees stop working for you, and customers stop doing business with you. And that is why businesses fail.

Jay Goltz owns five small businesses in Chicago.

The left failed to honor their oath to protect The Constitution of these United States.

From the Associated Press, via yahoo:

WASHINGTON – The number of poor people in the U.S. is millions higher than previously known, with 1 in 6 Americans — many of them 65 and older — struggling in poverty due to rising medical care and other costs, according to preliminary census figures released Wednesday.

At the same time, government aid programs such as tax credits and food stamps kept many people out of poverty, helping to ensure the poverty rate did not balloon even higher during the recession in 2009, President Barack Obama's first year in office.

Under a new revised census formula, overall poverty in 2009 stood at 15.7 percent, or 47.8 million people. That's compared to the official 2009 rate of 14.3 percent, or 43.6 million, that was reported by the Census Bureau last September.

Across all demographic groups, Americans 65 and older sustained the largest increases in poverty under the revised formula — nearly doubling to 16.1 percent. As a whole, working-age adults 18-64 also saw increases in poverty, as well as whites and Hispanics. Children, blacks and unmarried couples were less likely to be considered poor under the new measure.

Due to new adjustments for geographical variations in costs of living, people residing in the suburbs, the Northeast and West were the regions mostly likely to have poor people — nearly 1 in 5 in the West.

The new measure will not replace the official poverty rate but will be published alongside the traditional figure this fall as a "supplement" for federal agencies and state governments to determine anti-poverty policies. Economists have long criticized the official poverty measure as inadequate because it only includes pretax cash income and does not account for medical, transportation and work expenses.

"Under the new measure, we can clearly see the effects of our government policies," said Kathleen Short, a Census Bureau research economist who calculated the revised poverty numbers. "When you're accounting for in-kind benefits and tax credits, you're bringing many people in extreme poverty off the very bottom."

The official measure is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet and does not factor in other living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government aid when calculating income, which surged higher in 2009 during the recession.

Short's analysis, published Wednesday as part of a series of census working papers on poverty, shows that out-of-pocket medical expenses had a significant impact in affecting the number of poor — without those costs, poverty would have dropped from 15.7 percent to 12.4 percent.

The effect was seen most notably among older Americans. Under the official poverty rate, about 8.9 percent lived in poverty, mostly because they benefit from Social Security cash payments. But when taking into account out-of-pocket medical expenses and other factors, that number rises to 16.1 percent.

The numbers cited for 2009 are preliminary, but census officials say they offer a good representative look at the state of U.S. poverty and where the numbers are headed when new 2010 figures are released this fall.

Among the findings:
_Transportation, commuting and child care costs weigh on working-age Americans. The official poverty rate for those ages 18 to 64 is currently 12.9 percent, the highest since 1960s levels that launched the war on poverty. Under the revised formula, working-age poverty increases even higher, to 14.8 percent.

_Without the earned income tax credit, the poverty rate under the revised formula would jump from 15.7 percent to 17.7 percent. The absence of food stamps separately would increase the poverty rate to 17.2 percent.

_Taking into account millions of uninsured people in the U.S. had little effect in increasing poverty, mostly because those without insurance tend to forgo medical care rather than find ways to pay for it. Those with government-sponsored insurance generally saw decreases in poverty under the new formula, while those with employer-provided coverage saw increases. Still overall poverty for those with public insurance vs. employer insurance was higher, 31.1 percent compared to 7.2 percent.

_Under the revised formula, the West had the most people in poverty at 19.2 percent. It was followed by the South (16.1 percent), the Northeast (14.3 percent) and the Midwest (12.5 percent).

The supplemental figures could take on added significance at a time when many in the government point to an overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as the best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt. With the potential to add more older Americans to the ranks of the poor, the numbers may underscore a need for continued — if not expanded — old-age benefits as a government safety net.

Obamacare has forced health care costs to rise... just another good reason to repel Obamacare.

Now H2O--that doesn't mean anything.

Wanna bet they vote to increase it?

They will - Boehner is on record saying that they will end up voting to increase it.

Cycloptichorn

Strike 1!

The need to raise the debt ceiling is built in to spending legislation allready enacted by the Congress. (It, of course gives the lie to the "paygo" fiction that the esteemed former Speaker of the House declared was her "mantra".) Thus Boehner's statement is merely a candid acknowledgment of reality. However the new initiatives to curtail new spending authorizations may become a meaningful step in reducing the need for some further debt ceiling authorizations. However, even if the growth of our public debt as a % of our real GDP is stopped, debt will continue to grow as the GDP grows (or as our currency is further debased).

I thought the primary message of the GOP was to cut spending to meet revenue. What they are doing is increasing the national debt - as always. What's the change? Only the rhetoric?

ci - I miss Timberlandko, back when one could have a real debate about the issues. May not of agreed with him very often, but he was at least real.......

Right. Politics as usual. Just make sure you blame the other party for forcing your hand.

Republican-Hood: Steal from the Workers; Pander to the Rich
by Leo W. Gerard, Jan 5, 2011



Robin Hood, the guy who robbed the rich and gave to the poor, wore a short frock and tights. From the get-go, the guy serving the disadvantaged while sporting gay attire would fail the entrance exam required to become a card-carrying Republican.

The GOP is, after all, the anti-gay marriage, anti-repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell crew. More than that, Republicans are anti-working class. Their recent policies and activities show them clobbering the middle class while kissing the wealthy’s, well, you know.

Consider health insurance reform and tax cuts for the rich.

The GOP spent the entire fall election cycle yammering about the federal deficit. The world as we know it was coming to an end because of the deficit, they contended loudly and repeatedly.


Then, immediately after Election Day, Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts for the rich. They added more than $36 billion to that supposedly cataclysmic federal deficit in 2011 so they could pad the pockets of the nation’s millionaires.

To secure that bonus for millionaires, Republicans held hostage extension of unemployment compensation, which, during this grave recession, sustains the nation’s workers who are out of jobs and, all too often, also out of foreclosed-on homes. The deal comes down to this: The average millionaire will be $100,000 richer as a result in 2011. The average worker will get $15,236 in unemployment benefits if jobless the entire year of 2011.

Republicans insisted on giving the rich $84,764 a year more than the poor.

Repealing health insurance reform, as the GOP has said it hopes to do before month’s end, would have the same result—increasing that supposedly cataclysmic federal deficit while slamming the poor and middle class.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Affordable Care Act will decrease the federal deficit by $140 billion over 10 years. That’s what the GOP wants to repeal—a deficit reduction measure. Republicans want to add $140 billion to the debt.

Most injured by repeal would be the nation’s poor and middle class. That’s because rescinding the law would once again allow insurers to deny health care to children with pre-existing conditions. It would mean the elderly would once again pay more for preventative care and prescriptions. It would permit insurers to once again withdraw coverage from people when they get sick. It would mean insurers could kick out young adults who are now covered under their parents’ plans until age 26. It would permit insurers to re-impose “lifetime maximums,” so they could cancel the coverage of people with costly illnesses. It would permit insurers to once again pocket for profit and “administrative expenses” an unlimited percentage of premiums paid by workers and employers. It would mean small businesses would lose tax breaks that will help them pay for health insurance for workers.

The GOP intends to deny tens of millions of uninsured Americans the hope that soon they’ll be able to afford coverage.

Republicans want to, as they put it, “undo” the health insurance benefits that the Affordable Care Act provides to Americans. And they’re offering nothing in return, nothing to help the uninsured, nothing to help the untold millions cheated by insurance corporations, nothing to require premiums to be spent on health care.

That’s the way Republican-hood rolls, protecting the wealthy, pummeling the poor. The rich, in the case of health insurance, are CEOs earning millions while increasing rates in double digits during a recession. The Los Angeles Times reported in August, for example, that the top executives of the nation’s five largest for-profit health insurers pulled down $200 million in compensation in 2009. The poor, in this case, are policy holders who the insurers charged rate increases as high as 39 percent.

House Republicans would exempt their canceling of health insurance reform from their own rule that new legislation be paid for. So they wouldn’t have to find an additional $14 billion when they attempt to fulfill their campaign pledge to slash $100 billion from domestic programs—that would be from the programs most needed by the nation’s workers—those that help pay for education and transportation, for example. Because these domestic programs are such a small part of the budget, securing $100 billion from them would cost each department some 20 percent of its funds this year. That means painful reductions to areas like law enforcement and medical research. This is accompanied by Republican demands for cuts to many workers’ only retirement plan—Social Security.

In the meantime, the main concern of most Americans, as it was in the grueling days of Robin Hood, is jobs. Not the deficit. The GOP offers no plan to increase jobs for formerly working people, to end the suffering of tens of millions of Americans. Republican-hood is, instead, focused on pampering those who don’t need it.