If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[markw]

rather than head in another direction without know where you are going, the rational action would be to apply the brakes and stop the car. even though your analogy has no correlation to your ability to rationalize, i do appreciate the admission that you havent got a clue.

As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

[dingus]

As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.

[markw]

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.

That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

[dingus]

That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...

[markw]

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...

Well,when it comes to behinds I guess you're the expert. You've shown me that your ignorance knows no bounds.

[noddin0ff]

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

+1 x 10,000. No wait, x 40,000.

[Feanor]

"In the long run we are all dead" ~ John Maynard Keynes

Before we worry too much about the debt we're leaving to our children, we & the kids need to survive 'till tomorrow. Austerity, such as we see in Greece, Spain, and the UK, is slowing those economies to a crawl. For one thing, slowing economies generate less government revenue, making it even harder to service debt. The Republican concept of deep spending cuts and no tax increases is austerity and will have the same effect in the USA.

Despite high debt, Britain, Japan, and the USA continued to enjoy low interest rates because their debts are denominated in their own currencies -- and creditors know they need never default. The Greek and Spanish situation is different and default is quite possible because their debt is in Euros, not their own sovereign currencies.

But also note that in the USA there is a statutory debt ceiling so that conceivably the USA might have to refuse to honor obligations even though it could. This law is completely ludicrous and there is practically no other country in the world that has such a law.

[markw]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

[noddin0ff]

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

I admit to struggling with the technical details but here's my take on where money comes from: The dollar stork.

Ok. no. The government gets money by printing it then loaning it out or paying for stuff with it and then collecting it back in taxes. Actually, they don't technically need to collect it back in taxes or even have to go through the effort of printing it. All they do is add a number. To paraphrase from Wiki, if the Fed wants to increase the supply of money it buys stuff (e.g. Treasury Bonds) from banks in exchange for dollars. In making this purchase, the Fed credits the banks 'reserve' account (ie. an account the bank has with the Fed). No money is transferred. It is simply a credit. A number is changed in the banks balance and BAM, PRESTO, SHAZAM money is created de novo. Hard to believe, isn't it.

Summary: Money is made by the Government from thin air to buy stuff the Gov't wants.

To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Ok. profit is a ridiculous concept to apply to the Gov't, it's just wrong-headed to think that way for reasons I've put forth already. However, yes, we use tax money to allocate resources for things we want. It is true that if we printed new money for everything that our hearts desire, then money would be worthless. We tax and therefor there is a cost associated with our allocation decisions. That's why we want to make good ones. However, if we need it, we can buy it with magic money. My opinion is we need to buy jobs.

I value government services. I vote for people who value the services I value. I pay taxes for those services. I don't want services cut for multiple reasons. The big one currently is because cutting government services results in people getting fired and those people happen to be doing things I care about like teaching, putting out fires, building roads, running our courts, maintaining the rule of law, preserving our natural resources, etc. etc. and other Gov't stuff.

I agree more tax money is needed. I think we have had irresponsible tax breaks, primarily favoring the very well off, that should be reversed and I think trickle-down economics is a crock of sh*t. But the problem right now is jobs. Not tax revenue.

Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

We let go at least 10% of our group this year due to lack of funds. I count myself fortunate to still have a job. I would work below my potential, absolutely. However, our sector tends to lag a few years behind the trends so I expect that more layoffs are coming and we'll be slower to recover them.

Beyond that I can't figure out what you point is. If the Gov't builds a road, private contractors build it. If Medicare pays doctor bills, private doctors see the patient. If a retiree spends his Social Security check it's likely going to pay private sector people for services. I don't count any of that as a subsidy. I see it as taxes performing public good and providing civil services. People pay people for stuff.

And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

I am concerned about my fellow Americans. That's why I believe we should be spending to keep them working, educated, healthy and safe. That's why I believe in social safety nets and universal health care.

Certainly I can see why you are angry here. You seem to be both anti union and anti business. And, I don't see how Obama is responsible for GM's corporate decisions. Or how Obama is responsible for workers exercising their right to unionize. Or how Obama is responsible for people wanting to come to the US for a better life. I wasn't a fan of either the auto or the financial bailout on principle, but when compared to the collapse of a large portion of the US auto industry or the world banking system it was the right choice. With perfect hindsight it could've been done better, but that's hindsight for you.