After Hours

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Financial Armageddon - a rant

0 helpful
175 replies

by av .

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

THIS is pathetic - 18,000 US jobs added in June 2011. May 2011 job numbers were revised down from 54,000 jobs added to 25,000. Is this the best Obama and the Congress can do? I am truly stunned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43682716/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

US Companies are sitting on mountains of cash. Seems like a win-win situation for this country, why isn't it?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43499606/Firms_Have_Record_800_Billion_Of_Cash_But_Still_Won_t_Hire

This is the moment of truth in the US. We have $14 trillion in debt and will reach our debt ceiling as a country on August 2nd if Congress doesn't decide to raise it. We would default on our previous obligations as a country. THAT is unfathomable to me and unprecedented. Its embarassing that we should even be in this position. Caught with our financial pants down. In the meantime, back in Washington, Congress is still "debating" whether to raise the debt ceiling or not. Seems like a no-brainer to me. They're going to have to raise it eventually, why not do it now? Why the Cliffhanger? We're going to Hell here.

Congress has decided to use the issue of raising the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. Its a dangerous game of chicken that they're playing and they've created FUD in the process. Obama and the Congress have got to negotiate a compromise. Its going to be painful to all I think, but necessary. Isn't the writing on the wall?

AV

175 replies

by maxwell edison

Compromise on spending more money (that we don't have), or compromise on the amount of less money we will spend? If it's not the latter, it should be unacceptable.

Our national debt is RIGHT AT the total amount of our national GDP. No nation in the history of the world has EVER financially survived such a trend. We will be no different.

We've been kicking this financial disaster can down the road for so long, and the day of reckoning is nearly upon us.

It's time to take our medicine; it's time to face the consequences of our unwise past decisions and financial irresponsibility.

We simply CANNOT continue on the same path that is paved with debt. The debt should have NEVER been allowed to reach 14,000 billion dollars in the first place. To even consider accumulating even MORE debt is not only insanity, but economic suicide.

NO MORE compromise if it means MORE spending. That's the very thing that got us into this mess to begin with. Why would any sane person want to continue such a trend?

P.S. I've been warning people in these TR threads for ten years about this looming disaster. But only to be barraged with criticism and attacks by those leftist loonies who want to spend more money than we have.

by av .

There is no new spending, its all about debt we already owe. How depressing is that. We have to take our medicine, that really describes it.

AV

by maxwell edison

We don't need to [i]compromise[/i]. You're obsessed with that concept. Get over it - or ride it to our national doom.

Re: [i]There is no new spending, its all about debt we already owe.[/i]

And I see you've bought into their talking points.

That's the biggest bunch of crap ever spewed. Don't buy into it. You're being duped, AV.

by ansugisalas

countries have gone bankrupt before, it's not so much different from a market crash.
Unfortunate? Yes.
To be avoided? Certainly.
Fatal? Only for the non-viable countries.

by maxwell edison

We did it. It happened. Let's admit it and bite the bullet. Let's admit our mistake and call for a do-over. Let's write on the blackboard 100 times, [i]We will never accumulate this much debt again. We will never accumulate ....[/i]

Let's fix it. But let's fix it, not by accumulating MORE debt, but by fixing the mess we're already in - finding a way to have less debt. ANYTHING guaranteed and provable to be towards that end is acceptable to me and [i]on the table[/i].

by nicknielsen

Unfortunately, you may be right that we don't survive this one. We don't have the economic potential today we had 65 years ago; it's all been moved off-shore.

by jamesrl

Do you remember the Beatles "Taxman" where George, thats one for you, nineteen for me? That actually was representative of the 95% tax rate on the wealthiest 1% in Britain, which explains why many went to America.

Japan survived a major meltdown more recently. In the 1990s Japan had to borrow massively to stay afloat, and they are only now coming out of it. But they didn't implode.

by thechas

Compromise is not the biggest problem we have with the US Federal budget.

The big problem is that no one wants their Ox gored.

Every spending program and tax loophole has a constituency, along with a political champion and lobby group.

I have not read of any group or individual asking to have cuts made to the programs they benefit from or believe to be important.

Only when the majority of people in the US start asking for cuts in the programs they support will we ever get any significant cuts in Federal spending.

As I have stated before, I would advocate for increased spending on the programs I believe to be important. Therefore, I have to be willing to accept tax increases.

As a side note: Before we started having these political discussions, I used to vote no on nearly every local tax proposal that came to a public vote. You made me see the light Max. I now vote YES for nearly every tax proposal that shows up on the local ballets.

Chas

by jck

I could say you're going to die, and eventually it happens.

And, I didn't make poor decisions. I bought modest, spent wisely...and what did I get? Nothing. Why? Because I bought believing that modesty was the right thing to do.

Of course, it meant trusting that American business would do right and operate reasonably.

Of course, banks didn't...they rampaged and profiteered my house right into a worthless box on a .31 acre plot of dirt by over-saturating the market.

And what did that lead to? House oversupply. That, in turn, led to people bailing on their worthless homes and taxes not being paid.

That meant my government job was in jeopardy because I trusted other Americans to pay their taxes.

Lesson learned:

You can't trust American business or American taxpayers to do what's right.

I, therefore, predict that people are going to do wrong.

Come talk to me in 10 years. I guarantee I'll be right between now and then.

by maxwell edison

I can't recall a single instance where you posted something real, meaningful, and with substance. You post nothing but crap and B.S. - but I repeat myself. That's what I notice. And I also notice that this is the time you generally attack me, personally, because I dare to call you out for the total nonsense you post.

I really don't think you're capable of posting anything of real substance. You never have; why should one think you ever could?

by maxwell edison

...... this country gets back on the track originally intended. The progressive/socialist movement, which made inroads about 100 years ago, and started in earnest in the 1930s, or perhaps the 1960s, has absolutely ruined the best nation in the history of the world.

Why would I possibly want to [i]compromise[/i] with the very people who are digging my country's own grave?

With all due respect, AV - and you know I sincerely mean that - you need to get over your obsession with words like [i]compromise[/i]. That's what's caused the problem in the first place. And it damn sure won't provide the solution - unless, like I said, the progressives/socialists are the ones to [i]compromise[/i] for LESS of what they want.

by ansugisalas

I hear a lot of posturing and catchphrases. Actual content seems not thick on the ground.
On "either" 'side'.
When government debts have to be paid, revenues must be raised.
How do you do that, without increasing taxation?
Or otherwise "compromising" the Unique American Ideals of The Best Nation in the History of the Universe? Whatever that "best" means.

by maxwell edison

I didn't say [i]The Best Nation in the History of the Universe[/i].

I said the Best Nation in the History of the world.

Personally speaking, I haven't ventured out much further than Saturn. I really don't know what lies beyond - much less its history!

by maxwell edison

Only the private sector can [i]create jobs[/i]. Government DOES NOT create jobs. Get government out of the job creation business.

The business of business is business. The business of government is governing. When one tries to do the other's job is when we have problems.

by nicknielsen

[i]Government DOES NOT create jobs.[/i]

Government investment DOES create jobs. NASA, the internet, interstate transportation. Most of the jobs that were created in just those three areas [b]would not exist[/b] were it not for the government investments.

by santeewelding

The minute I hear the word I know who speaks and why.

The "job" as coveted commodity to be handed out or withheld comes not from enterprise looking for what used to be called, help. That voice is absent.

"Job" is the voice of featherbedders.

by ansugisalas

it's probably not like you don't have enough potholes to fill.
The poor spend more money than the rich, when seen in relation to dollars earned.

by jamesrl

There is a saying that I learned in economics 101 that a dollar spent by business will circulate more and create more wealth than a dollar spent by government, which comes out of a taxpayers pocket.

But I think we can all think of examples of where government built infrastructure has helped the overall economy. The interstate road system, the TVA projects and similar, all made business easier, and brought far more benefit than construction jobs.

That was the Canadian government's focus on stimulus - many public building projects which employed private contractors.

by charliespencer

I guess the military isn't a job. Why do congresspeople keep working to land those DoD contracts for their districts?

by av .

Nothing will be achieved without compromise and negotiation. Is stagnation better?

AV

by maxwell edison

[i]Compromising[/i] uniquely American ideals got us into this mess in the first place. You're blinded by your obsession with [i]compromise[/i]. YOUR [i]compromise[/i] has contributed more to this mess than my position of resting on the principles of economic freedom and liberty. [i]Compromise[/i] - or more accurately, capitulation - CAUSED THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!

Worth repeating: YOUR [i]compromise[/i] has contributed more to this mess than my position of resting on the principles of economic freedom and liberty.

Go ahead, AV. Challenge that assertion with something other than silly platitudes. Prove my assertion wrong - or at least make an attempt without relying on silly platitudes.

by av .

We have to come together to solve a very big problem and EVERYTHING is on the table.

AV

by nicknielsen

The only people the absolute free market truly benefits are those who have the money in the first place. This has been demonstrated more than once in American history.

by maxwell edison

Continuing down the same path IS NOT on the table. Continuing to spend more than we collect IS NOT on the table. Continuing self-destruction IS NOT on the table.

I really don't like the menu you bring to the table, AV. It's poisonous to our country.

P.S. And you DO realize, don't you, that Governor Christie agrees with me exponentially more than he agrees with you. But yet, you claim to like the guy and his policy positions? Why don't you publically challenge him the way you're challenging me? Not that I mind the challenge; I'm certainly up to it. But it goes to show your inconsistencies.

by maxwell edison

..... that you will ever concede a point I try to make. Your Pollyanna vision of [i]compromising[/i] to the conclusion of having blue grass and a green sky will prevent it. You're right, while reality and the facts be damned.

by maxwell edison

At what percent SHOULD corporations be taxed? Zero percent? One hundred percent? Somewhere in-between? Where? And why?

by john.a.wills

In my opinion there should be no corporate income tax: that's an indirect tax disguised as a direct one. But corporations should pay regular fees for the services received from government, like recognition and regulation of the different kinds of corporation, and they should pay for the health and other effects of the pollution they cause (the market gets them paid for the good they do). But I think only natural persons should pay actual taxes.

by ansugisalas

by using "the" I assume that you know of this other hand of which I speak.
"There's an elephant in the corner" -introduces the until now undiscovered elephant
"The elephant is in the corner" -describes the positioning of the commonly known elephant
Also, bear in mind that it's a token of the speaker's. It speaks to the assumptions of the speaker on what others know.
It's more complex than how I described, but that is the gist of it.

by santeewelding

To keep you on your toes.

These matters of which AV and Max speak come down to each and every one of us.

Better on your toes, I think, than painting.

by ansugisalas

not to think of that avalanche I see coming down on me from on high - there being no place to go to get out of it's way.
At least no place I can think of while thinking about the avalanche.

It comes down to each and every one of us.

by ansugisalas

To vote "no" unless there's a solid plan.
Sometimes swapping short term debts for longer term debts can be a necessary part of the plan...
But without a plan it's just peeing one's pants to stay warm.

by maxwell edison

Created more economic prosperity in the shortest amount of time than any other nation in the history of the world.

Became a true world power in the shortest time than any other nation in the world.

Became a leader in technology, science, innovation, and invention.

Was the trail-blazer in emphasizing and guaranteeing personal liberty and freedom.

Has a government truly created by the people, not a people coddled by a government.

I could go on.

by ansugisalas

South, that is. Lots of prosperity growth in just some fifty years.
Japan too grew fast, but hit a snag.
Mind that " the shortest ... than"-combination.
The other ones are subjective.
Of course, subjectively you're entitled. Don't worry about it, this is just a sidetrek.

by maxwell edison

Any corporate tax is always passed along to the consumer by way of higher prices. And if our corporate tax rate was zero percent, companies in other countries - including American companies who moved because of more favorable tax considerations - would flock to America, creating untold number of jobs, and providing a boost to our economy like nothing else could.

by nicknielsen

For one thing, corporate headquarters for most American companies with worldwide facilities haven't moved. GM is still in Detroit. Caterpillar is still in Peoria. GE is still in Schenectady. What has moved is the manufacturing plants and the R&D facilities.

For another thing, not taxing their profits gives global corporations [u]more[/u] incentive to leave their plants overseas. After all, they can make the same products and pay the workers less, increasing their untaxed profits.

I've been in favor of regulating market excesses for years, but I've also come around to believe that Ross Perot was partially right about the free trade agreements: it's primarily since the ratification of NAFTA that our economy has been shedding well-paying jobs.

by jamesrl

Then you'd be loosing jobs to Mexico and Canada. And some of that has happened, but Canada has also lost to the US. I don't see Mexico booming, some more manufacturing.

We don't have free trade with China, but that is where much of the manufacturing has gone.

by charliespencer

any tax rollback to business could be guaranteed to result in reduced retail prices for consumers. Otherwise businesses are just going to keep it as extra profits while the government raises consumer taxes to make up the loss, resulting in prices beyond the original ones when the 'middleman' paid taxes.

by ansugisalas

And what collaterals? Will the Dollar be allowed to find it's own value?
How will that affect other currencies?
How will that, in turn, affect other economies?
And how, in turn, the US, again?

The market has never really understood it's own circularity, has it?

by av .

That isn't an option. For years, thats what our government has done. Republicans refuse to work with Democrats. Neither side will give an inch, so nothing ever gets accomplished in Washington. Partisan politics has created a dysfunctional government that is nothing but political theater.

Why is compromise such a dirty word to you? Republicans want no new taxes. Democrats want no changes to entitlement programs. They can't both get everything they want. Sitting on the sidelines wallowing in the purity of their principles is not an option. Congress is now forced to act because of the dire situation our country is in. Its about time.

There are signs of hope in their current negotiations. Here is one possible compromise that is on the table that has something for both sides. Closing tax loopholes for corporations, but lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. That will prevent big companies like GE from paying no taxes at all and it will create tax revenue. Lowering the corporate tax rate is pro-business. I think thats a workable solution and its fair.

AV

by thechas

It does not matter how you look at it, no properly run company is going to hire anyone unless there is productive work for them to do.

Companies have piles of cash because they have been able to streamline operations and improve productivity.

But, they are not going to hire any new workers unless people start buying products and services in a sustained manner that requires companies to add staff.

The sad fact is that even if you took government spending down to zero, or doubled it you would not stimulate any sustainable economic growth.

Why?
The US economy really has only 4 sectors left that provide jobs in any quantity and of the pay required to build an economy.
Health Care
Construction
Finance
Government
I suppose you could add entertainment. But that is not a sustainable sector to count on.
Retail is left out on purpose. Retail just moves goods around and does not in and of itself grow an economy.

The economic recovery model has always relied upon small increases in personal spending driving growth in larger spending, leading to a growth economy.

Well, with all of the manufacturing that is outsourced, the initial increase in spending does not feed back into the US economy. It instead boosts the Asian economy. As the Asian and other foreign economies grow, the price of fossil fuel rises and the US economy dips again.

We've used up all the tricks of stock and housing booms to make short term gains in the economy. The ONLY way we are going to bring jobs back to the US is if EVERYONE stops buying foreign made products.

It will be a royal pain in the butt to even start a buy US movement as so many product categories are not made in the US anymore.

Start at the root. Don't buy imported produce or meat.

Next, start shopping local stores for cloths and other goods. They can respond much more quickly and switch to US made products if customers start demanding them.

Keep moving up the retail chain. Demand tools and appliances that have higher US content.

Then, comes the biggie. Change your lifestyle to reduce your fossil fuel consumption to less than 40% of what it is now.

Chas

by ansugisalas

At least where nations are involved.
One country devaluates, another follows suit, one country dumps corporate tax, another follows suit.
Call it what you wish.

by maxwell edison

One country competing against the tax rates of another country is war? You can call it a grapefruit for all I care. But I call it economic competition.

However, I will say this. I'm old enough to remember signs in front of gas stations that said, [i][b]GAS WAR[/i][/b] - meaning that the establishment was competing with the station down the street by offering their gasoline a penny or two cheaper - maybe as low as 0.25 per gallon! (Yes, 25 cents a gallon). It reached a whopping 40 cents when I started to buy it.

http://www.irememberjfk.com/mt/2007/07/gas_wars.php

I actually remember asking my mother when she was driving me somewhere what a [i]Gas War[/i] was. I must have been about 12 at the time. Wow, ANSU, you tweaked a childhood memory in me!

by av .

Why hire American if you can use cheap overseas labor? Plus, companies have the benefit of relaxed or non-existent labor laws in foreign countries. We wouldn't have such high unemployment if it wasn't for globalization.

http://economiccrisis.us/2011/04/big-firms-shift-hiring/

Don't forget about the Technology sector. Even though it has taken a huge hit in the 2000's because of offshoring, it is still a viable, high-paying field in this country as most smaller businesses do not offshore.

Undoubtedly, our economy relies on consumerism. Unfortunately, since the great recession, all you can see are small Mom and Pop businesses that once thrived disappearing because they can't compete with big box stores hawking cheap Chinese goods. Generally, the only small businesses that are still operational are those that can't be offshored or those that don't directly compete with the big box stores.

I've never understood why "Buy American" never caught on in this country. Personally, I always try to buy American, but its hard to find American made goods, especially clothing. I always buy American meat from my butcher. I know the meat comes from a farm in PA. It costs more, but I know what I'm getting. If I buy supermarket meat, I have no idea what country it came from. In season, I go to the local farm market for produce or grow my own.

I don't know how we're ever going to get back on track in this country. Maybe it is time for a new "Buy American" movement.

AV

by delbertpgh

S&P 500 firms have (I keep hearing) $2 trillion in cash on their books, and have been extremely profitable, but don't want to invest in the U.S. They consider other places less risky. Rich investors feel much the same: private equity firms are gathering up U.S. money and investing in Brazil, Morocco, France, but not here.

Part of it is that the financial mess is not yet over, and the huge debt overhang from housing is keeping banks and individuals from acting in what would otherwise be their profitable self interest. America's also an expensive place in which to invest; returns are better for globalized firms if they can buy labor at developing world costs and sell product to Americans at a first world price.

Plus, who knows what America's going to do next? The Republicans are hooked on this backward idea that we have to fix an economy that's going backward by cutting government spending, and are willing to drive the world's largest economy into default just for the pleasure of showing they can. Our Disappointment-in-Chief, Obama, never has made the case for, let alone fought for, an effective stimulus and a set of national policies that will pull us out of the current mess and set us on a path of renewed prosperity. Instead, he's busy trying to resurrect Republican moderation by promising unheard-of spending cuts and protecting as much of Bush's ineffective tax cuts as possible. Even if O gets what he's now asking for, it may be bad enough to drive the economy back to deeper recession.

My disappointment in Obama as a leader is surpassed only by my dismay at the Republicans, who've gone to fantasy camp on the economy.

by hal 9000

And I by no means claim to be an expert I believe that the problems started when the US Government realized that they couldn't win a Military Confrontation with the USSR and then proceeded on an Economic War with them.

This resulted in the USSR eventually being Outspent by the USA and the collapse of the USSR when it went broke quite a few years ago.

Since that Time the USA has continued to spend money like a Drunken Sailor on Shore Leave after a long Ocean tour and is now on the brink of Bankruptcy which it drove the USSR to about 20 or so years ago.

Perhaps the finial outcome of this will be that in the race of the 2 Superpowers the Remains of the Old USSR could eventually be the winner, though at the moment I'm not entirely sure what if anything that signifies other than maybe that type of Conflict was a complete failure.

Col

by maxwell edison

Re: [i]..... the USA has continued to spend money like a Drunken Sailor on Shore Leave after a long Ocean tour ....[/i]

Why do you want to insult drunken sailors? USA's spending is MUCH worse!

(Due credit to RR.)

by delbertpgh

The West didn't win the cold war by driving the Soviet Union into bankruptcy with the Reagan defense expansion. We did it because market economies are adaptible, changing things, while a communist economy run by a dictatorship is doomed to die on a mix of bureacracy, insider self-dealing, unneeded goods, high costs, and bad prices. The allure of communism is the idea that it can create a better economy, and liberate people from want, by producing a rational array of goods and eliminating wasteful competition and frivolous luxuries. The fact of communism is that it can only be maintained by crushing force and secrecy. The liberal capitalist system doesn't have much of the aura of "system", but it beats communism on all points, over time (provided the wealthy class doesn't progressively grind down the less wealthy... like in the 1920s... or in the 1990s.)

Command-oriented societies like the Soviet Union can deliver impressive amounts of goods, but only if the country is unified around a sense of national emergency. In that case, what they deliver is usually weapons, not consumer goods. When it comes to valuing individuals above the collective, communists think priorities have gotten cross-wired.

by santeewelding

Your presentments -- a tad clearer and tighter.

Get any clearer and tighter and you may see for yourself that your course is a dead-end, like your politics.

by ansugisalas

you usually leave me hanging with a non-reply. Are you saying I should keep the meter running? ;)

by nicknielsen

[i]ANYTHING guaranteed and provable to be towards that end is acceptable to me and on the table.[/i]

I'm with you there, but the ideologues on both sides aren't.

The one side thinks you can fix the problem and keep our nation alive by only cutting expenditures. So, to save America, we need to throw away the poorest and neediest Americans? Unacceptable.

The other side thinks you can fix the problem and keep our nation alive by only raising taxes. So, to save America, we need to make the rich as poor as everybody else? Also unacceptable.

Cut spending, raise taxes, and stop using the effing tax code for anything other than collecting taxes.

by charliespencer

We should start on:

Taxes collected for a specific purpose cannot be 'borrowed' for another.
Taxes collected for a specific purpose cannot be 'borrowed' for another.
Taxes collected for a specific purpose cannot be 'borrowed' for another.
.
.
.

by slayer_

What happens then? Is it possible for a country to go bankrupt? How do you liquidate assets in a country? Sell it to other countries?

Maybe China will buy the US, now that would be a change of world power, and possibly a new independence war, and a new USA.

by charliespencer

First, we're not looking at an immediate bankruptcy. We're facing the potential downgrading of our AAA+ credit rating. This will result in it making it more expensive to continue borrowing, but not automatic bankruptcy.

Second, I don't think the Chinese would 'buy' us; we're their biggest market, and it's in their interest that we continue spending dollars with them. The dollar will have to fall a very long way before the Chinese will stop wanting every single one they can get in trade.

by jamesrl

Countries don't go bankrupt per se, unlike private companies.

What happens is, they default on their loans, they can't pay the loans they agreed to pay. What happens then is that they often have to look for short term loans at higher interest rates and often with strict conditions on payment. Greece has been staring this in the face recently.

by av .

Not that we've ever really recovered, but it will be more expensive for everyone to borrow - consumers, businesses, etc.

We can't go down that road.

AV

by charliespencer

restricting legal rights to natural persons only, including free speech and its monetary equivalent, campaign donations?

by john.a.wills

are theft from the shareholders. If I as a shareholder want to support a particular candidate or party or proposition, I can do it out of my slightly increased dividends. If I disagree with the management on some issue, then my dividend is being reduced to work against my wishes.

But no, Palmetto, not only natural persons should be able to make campaign donations. I give to a PAC and freely allow the leaders of the PAC to distribute my contribution as they see fit: I trust them, otherwise I wouldn't donate. But I do not buy shares in a corporation because I trust the management's political nous.

by nicknielsen

If you can't vote for the candidate, you can't donate to the candidate. Three great benefits:
1. Eliminates corporate and PAC buy-offs of politicians.
2. Makes entry into the political arena more affordable, increasing the potential pool of candidates.
3. Focuses the politician on those who CAN donate to his election/re-election, i.e. the people who put him in office.

by av .

EVERYONE agrees there is a significant risk. They need to stop posturing and work together to negotiate the best deal for the American people. There is no walking away anymore. We're going off the cliff anchored by our debt. No kicking the can down the road. Solve the problem. Thats what they get paid to do and instead we get political theater.

I especially like #2 of your article. "Opposition to raising the debt limit is a partisan issue." It is so true. Its hard to take in a way because you realize how dishonest politics are. Obama, as a senator, didn't want to raise the debt limit under Bush and here he is doing the same thing as President. Granted, things were a little different in 2006.

AV

by jamesrl

Living in a country next door to you, your largest trading partner, our economies are very connected.

If no deal is reached, the impact will be felt around the world. If the credit rating on the US goes down, your interest rates will go up and so will ours, by the same amount. I just switched from a variable interest rate mortgage to a fixed, and I'm glad I did, because we could be in for a financial shock.

So we are watching, because we will be impacted. Its on our news every day. Our stock markets are jittery.

We are all hoping that a deal can be made. I honestly think that there need to be both spending cuts and tax increases.

Canada faced a similar, but less serious crisis in the 90s. About 10 % of the federal government workforce was slashed, transfers to the provinces were cut which impacted education and healthcare. It was tough medicine but we survived and our economy is stronger for it.

by ansugisalas

And will that mean the Police works for them?
And the armed forces? How much should Big Oil pay for a middle eastern adventure? How much for toppling a South American Government?

by john.a.wills

Corporations should pay for the police on the basis of the value of the property being protected, i.e. by usually local property taxes (formerly called the rates in Britain).

We all pay for the armed forces via personal income tax; corporations as such should derive no special benefit from them. In particular, they should not be able to topple governments.

The government of a free country is sometimes justified in toppling a dictatorship to install a democracy (U.S. in Iraq is a bad example, U.S. in Grenada is a good example), but that has nothing to do with changing a country's economic system: the people of the country in question can, after their imposed revolution, themselves decide whether they want corporatism, liberalism or socialism.

by ansugisalas

The stability afforded is one thing, but the strength of the armed forces also somewhat affects the safety of corporate assets on foreign ground.

I do like the idea of cutting personal rights and freedoms from corporate entities...

by ansugisalas

It was pure idiocy to rescue Greece, and more of the same to rescue Ireland.
One thing is outside economic forces, but pure wastefulness is not something the EU should rescue from.
Let fall what cannot stand.

by nicknielsen

The Irish didn't go the way of Iceland. It was very much in their best interest to do so.

Still is, I think.

by jck

Because they don't care. Companies just don't care anymore about people. Neither does government.

I was reading about a profile of 25 American companies, how "tax hikes" include them losing their loopholes that even small business doesn't get, and how most of them pay 0-12% net income tax on their profit.

by jck

You can't sell Max's fuel-gorging truck...or his hat.

He has a right to that hat and truck.

Want to save America?

A) require 40mpg city mileage by 2015 on all consumer vehicles. That reduce foreign oil dependence. That makes the US dollar stronger.

B) A 3% tariff on any processed or manufactured item coming into the United States. That money goes to pay for the infrastructure funding that American jobs' income taxes used to pay for.

C) All welfare recipients over 18 and under 63 are required to have a physical examination. If determined able to hold employment, they no longer get a free check every month. Individual welfare ends for those who are able to work.

D) No more "corporate investments" by the government. Corporate welfare ends too.

That would save you several trillion over the next decade alone.

by ansugisalas

I sort of gathered that it wasn't so.
Of course, if the government gives better rates on loans, it will compete with private and business loans for the Banks' money, so in that sense there will be an effect.
But there are other effects as well... if the state gets into trouble, it could mean a devaluation of the dollar. That in turn will help turn the trade rates around, making US exports more desireable, and cutting down on imports, it will also make the US debts change in value, depending on whether they're rated in dollars or foreign currency.

by jamesrl

In Canada, we eliminated corporate donations. Now only individuals can donate, and only to a certain amount. You can give to a national party, a local candidate(s) or both.

We do have lobby groups and they do spend money on advertising during campaigns, and don't have the same restrictions on advertising that candidates or parties do, but lobby groups can't fund candidates or parties.

by santeewelding

"The U.S. is now in serious danger of defaulting on our foreign loans, which explains why today, China showed up and broke the Statue of Liberty's kneecaps."

Jimmy Fallon, via The Patriot Post

by av .

Why should they hold the economy of the world hostage to their partisan games? I am totally disgusted at the political posturing by Republicans because 2012 is a Presidential election year. It really shows what their priorities are.

U.S. may lose top credit rating soon, Moody's says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43746142/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

McConnell warns GOP: Don't help re-elect Obama
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110711/US.Debt.Showdown/

Who can predict anymore what is going to happen in this global village? Its a good thing you went to a fixed mortgage. Good decision!

I agree that we need a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to solve our current problems. Everything should be focused on paying down debt.

Your government worked together to solve a crisis back in the '90s. Our government can't work together to solve anything.

AV

by santeewelding

"Government" (whatever you mean by that supercilious word) is incapable of sense. I trow that only you and I and others of natural personhood are.

When you say the word, AV, you and what follows are instantly dismissed, for my part.

by charliespencer

Statements like the one about not helping re-elect Obama remind me of the one my Senator DeMint trotted out early in the health care debate. DeMint declared, 'We can make this (health care) Obama's Waterloo', a statement he made before any bills had been introduced. Both statements tell me the speakers prioritize actions that aid the party's presidential aspirations ahead of the consequences to the country as a whole.

Now McConnell's talking about a 'fallback strategy' of authorizing the President periodically to raise the debt ceiling on his own without additional Congressional action. I see this as a move to assign full responsibility to the President for the debt ceiling, while allowing Congress to continue to dodge making needed changes on taxes or spending (and avoid the political heat and pressure those would bring).

Oh, and I also think a mix of spending cuts and tax increases is going to be necessary to get out of this hole. Both parties are responsible for us being in it, and they've spend decades digging it. I'll go on record as being willing to pay an additional 2% in federal income taxes IF that money is locked in for debt relief ONLY, and if elected and Congressionally approved federal officials take a matching pay cut.

by av .

I remember when Senator DeMint made that statement. For Michele Bachmann, "Lets Make Obama a one-term President" is a rallying cry to elect her for President. Demeaning President Obama doesn't make them look better. Quite the opposite, to me.

Whatever happened to statesmanship in our government? Respect for a sitting President. All I see is lots of drama and nothing getting done to solve the problems of the country. Obama will compromise, where are the Republicans? They won't put skin in the game because they're posturing for the presidential election. Its the old "read my lips, no new taxes" mantra. I totally agree that the Republicans are putting presidential aspirations first.

McConnell can fantasize that only Obama will be blamed for the debt crisis spectacle. Personally, I blame Obama the least. He exhibits the most statesmanship. The person I blame for creating the most animosity during the debt talks is Eric Cantor. Why is all the rancor necessary? Its time to do the responsible thing for the country and its investors and raise the debt limit, but our Congress instead concentrates on the next election. Thats not what they get paid to do.

I'm with you. If we can fix this debt, I'll kick in another 2% in federal income taxes, IF it is for debt relief only. Many Congressmen are millionaires. They don't feel our pain. Maybe we should have a Farm Aid or Nation Aid concert, get some big names to perform and we can pay off the national debt in just a couple of concerts. :^0

AV

by ansugisalas

the wealthiest pay a lower percentage than the not nearly as wealthy and the merely wealthy.
What was it again, around 19%?

by charliespencer

as I've said here many times. It also eliminates politicians conducting fund raising outside their district / state. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Nikki Haley, goober-smooching in NY while the SC legislature was overriding your vetoes. Boy, you really stood behind those and worked to make them stick.

by ansugisalas

That has more to do with international communications improving than anything. Twenty years ago long distance calls were audibly distorted, now they're not.