The party of no-

[nathanm]

What are you saying, the government already has factored in my income tax before I have even earned my income?

No, I'm saying you (and we all) have services provisioned in our name, goods purchased in our name, and salaries paid in our name that we do not pay for. Thus, there is a transfer of wealth from creditor nations to our personal balance sheets. Yeah, you didn't ask for government subsidized health care, but I didn't ask for an intricate network of roads in far flung parts of Tulsa or a giant military. We all get to pay for a bunch of stuff we don't want to pay for. That's part of living in a society with other people. You don't always get exactly what you want.

You're married, so surely you understand that concept.

Also, I don't know exactly what the vegetable was trying to say, but money that you earn is indeed your money, at least as much as anything is ever yours. The problem is that there is this other money that is being spent for you, above and beyond what you remit to the government each year. You get benefits that you don't pay for, thus the wealth transfer. You can see it when it's welfare for poor people, why not when it's welfare for the not-poor? You have said in the past that you pay your own way, but you don't. None of us do. The Chinese pay for it, the Germans pay for it, the Vietnamese pay for it. (Thanks, Tricky Dick!) The best part is that they do it willingly. Their willingness does not change the nature of what is happening, though.

Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I work because I enjoy what I do. If I didn't like my line of work, I'd try and find another way to be useful. Sitting around all day with nothing to do is really quite boring.

[guido911]

Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I work because I enjoy what I do. If I didn't like my line of work, I'd try and find another way to be useful. Sitting around all day with nothing to do is really quite boring.

IMO, there is nothing more rewarding than helping someone who needs it but cannot find anyone to help. That's why I keep on going. BTW, the law business is very good. In the words of Lt. Aldo Raine, my "business is a boomin'".

[eDuece]

I always liked Galbraith's definition of supply side economics, the "trickle down" effect and the theory that the rich need tax breaks so they can create jobs. It went something like, "if you just stuff enough oats into the horses their will always be enough left behind on the road for the sparrows"

[guido911]

I always liked Galbraith's definition of supply side economics, the "trickle down" effect and the theory that the rich need tax breaks so they can create jobs. It went something like, "if you just stuff enough oats into the horses their will always be enough left behind on the road for the sparrows"

Funny. Welcome aboard.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And I know all here can understand this - and do understand - but ambiguate intentionally.


The part that is NOT your money is the part that is the difference between what is paid for by receipts of the government and the amount that is 'borrowed' to support the deficit.  It is that extra "3%" that the Bush tax cuts accounted for, taking us on a $500 billion swing from surplus to deficit.  THAT is the difference that is NOT "your money".  Totaling about $13 trillion now.  But everyone already knew that.

[Gaspar]

And I know all here can understand this - and do understand - but ambiguate intentionally.


The part that is NOT your money is the part that is the difference between what is paid for by receipts of the government and the amount that is 'borrowed' to support the deficit.  It is that extra "3%" that the Bush tax cuts accounted for, taking us on a $500 billion swing from surplus to deficit.  THAT is the difference that is NOT "your money".  Totaling about $13 trillion now.  But everyone already knew that.

Latest news from the AP: Compromise. . .2 more years of Bush tax structure, and another year of unemployment benefits.

Really better pass some spending cuts now!
WASHINGTON (AP) - An outline of a bipartisan economic package is emerging that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax rates for all taxpayers, while extending jobless benefits for millions of Americans.

Differences remained over details, including White House demands for middle- and low-income tax credits. But Republicans and Democrats appeared to come together Sunday, raising the possibility of a deal in Congress by the end of the week.
Some Democrats continued to object to extending current tax rates for high earners.

But without action, lawmakers face the prospect of delivering a tax hike to all taxpayers at the end of the year, when the current rates expire and revert to higher pre-2001 and 2003 levels.

Negotiations between the Obama administration and a bipartisan group of lawmakers centered on a two-year extension of current rates.
At the same time, a jump in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent is putting pressure on Republicans to accede to President Barack Obama's demand that Congress extend unemployment insurance for a year. GOP congressional leaders had opposed an extension of benefits without cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

"I think most folks believe the recipe would include at least an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed and an extension of all of the tax rates for all Americans for some period of time," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's Republican negotiator in the talks.

"Without unemployment benefits being extended, personally, this is a nonstarter," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

Republicans have insisted that any extension of jobless aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. The White House opposes that, saying such cuts are economically damaging during a weak recovery.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Republicans would probably cede that point to the Democrats.

Looks like the "Party of No" is willing to work with this President, however it's his own party that's putting up the fight.

[Conan71]

More unsustainable spending.  It's hardly fiscally conservative to agree to extending a massive spending program (extended U/E benefits) without an increase in revenue (continuing the Bush tax cuts).

Neither extending U/E benefits nor a 3% tax increase on income over $250K is going to make a huge dent in the economy.  What happens a year down the road when we still are at 9.5% U/E though?  At what point do we have to say we've done all we can to help these displaced workers and pull the safety net out?  How many more times will we raise the debt ceiling over the next two years to pay for continued deficit spending?

Now we can see if more of a recovery will happen.  If it doesn't happen, raise the tax rate, call trickle-down BS and move on.

[we vs us]

Looks like the "Party of No" is willing to work with this President, however it's his own party that's putting up the fight.

That's a very narrow definition of "working with," but I'll give it to you. 

We've come to a sad pass when congressional Democrats have a legitimate beef with how poorly the Whitehouse has done negotiating a settlement to both issues.

[we vs us]

At what point do we have to say we've done all we can to help these displaced workers and pull the safety net out?  How many more times will we raise the debt ceiling over the next two years to pay for continued deficit spending?

That's a modest proposal.  The question is, will we be ready for the longer term effects of that sort of permanent unemployment?  Much higher crime rates, much worse public health, a more divided and generally poorer society. 

I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice.  There simply aren't enough jobs to go around.  The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants.  This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession. 

Linking the tax cuts with an unemployment extension was supremely ironic, but enlightening at least in that it clarified whose side the Republicans are on:  they'll essentially hold the entire congress hostage until the richest folks in the country are guaranteed their tax cut, while they'll fight tooth and nail to shut off unemployment to millions of people. 

What's sad is that this situation should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone in government, and right now it's almost permanent background noise.

[Conan71]

That's a modest proposal.  The question is, will we be ready for the longer term effects of that sort of permanent unemployment?  Much higher crime rates, much worse public health, a more divided and generally poorer society.  

I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice.  There simply aren't enough jobs to go around.  The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants.  This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession.  

Linking the tax cuts with an unemployment extension was supremely ironic, but enlightening at least in that it clarified whose side the Republicans are on:  they'll essentially hold the entire congress hostage until the richest folks in the country are guaranteed their tax cut, while they'll fight tooth and nail to shut off unemployment to millions of people.  

What's sad is that this situation should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone in government, and right now it's almost permanent background noise.

You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not.  It was a tax cut when it was enacted.  It's continuing the current tax rate that resulted from that which is at stake.  I'm pretty ambivalent about letting this expire, but it's something the GOP thinks they must do to appease those who elected them.  Thus far the lowered rates have not resulted in creating enough jobs to start making a dent in U/E, apparently.  It's kind of hard to track how many jobs have been saved as a result of maintaining the current rate.  I don't really believe in such mental gymnastics to start with.  I notice the admin finally dropped that practice after they finally realized how hokey that concept was.

Well, I guess we will get to see if maintaining the lower tax rates will create demand for more workers and bring more of these people off the dole.  If it doesn't, the GOP has some 'splainin' to do about trickle-down economics.  Economic theory is just that: theory.  

Right now, it's an employers market.  Companies have their pick of talent right now and for the most part, the best, most resourceful, and most productive are currently employed.  I'm sure there are some good ones sitting on the side line who could be employed if they were forced to cast a wider net and look in different career areas than they would have considered before (not necessarily for less pay) or look for work in a different geographic zone.  That's how it was done before the Federal gov't started allowing people to ride U/E benefits for a couple of years.

I grapple with the idea of saying: "sorry no more U/E" to someone in an area with 15% U/E where the chances of finding a job is truly bleak.  Yet, keeping them as a subject on the Government dole isn't always the most compassionate solution either.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336078/Post-recession-unemployment-scariest-job-chart-worst-WW2.html

[Gaspar]

That's  

I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice.  There simply aren't enough jobs to go around.  The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants.  This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession. 

That's a fair assessment to some extent.  I still know people "holding out for a management position."  The employers I know who are looking for people are being very picky.  I know the HR person in one local company that has 80 positions open but is not advertising because last time she did they got thousands of applicants, many of which were interested in interviews only to preserve their unemployment benefits.  Each position cost them hundreds of hours. So now they are currently only using word-of-mouth, recruiting practices, and their internal HR people. 

You can look at the paper today and see hundreds of ads that now only advertise a contact email through the Tulsa World, or the online tools that keep the business name confidential.   There are plenty of very qualified people out there who have now dumbed down their resume's in an attempt to get more play, but are reluctant to accept positions that don't offer the same salary or benefits they were accustomed to.  They are convinced they can ride the buss until their limo pulls up.

[we vs us]

You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not.  It was a tax cut when it was enacted.  It's continuing the current tax rate that resulted from that which is at stake.  I'm pretty ambivalent about letting this expire, but it's something the GOP thinks they must do to appease those who elected them.  Thus far the lowered rates have not resulted in creating enough jobs to start making a dent in U/E, apparently.  It's kind of hard to track how many jobs have been saved as a result of maintaining the current rate.  I don't really believe in such mental gymnastics to start with.  I notice the admin finally dropped that practice after they finally realized how hokey that concept was.

Well, I guess we will get to see if maintaining the lower tax rates will create demand for more workers and bring more of these people off the dole.  If it doesn't, the GOP has some 'splainin' to do about trickle-down economics.  Economic theory is just that: theory.  

Right now, it's an employers market.  Companies have their pick of talent right now and for the most part, the best, most resourceful, and most productive are currently employed.  I'm sure there are some good ones sitting on the side line who could be employed if they were forced to cast a wider net and look in different career areas than they would have considered before (not necessarily for less pay) or look for work in a different geographic zone.  That's how it was done before the Federal gov't started allowing people to ride U/E benefits for a couple of years.

I grapple with the idea of saying: "sorry no more U/E" to someone in an area with 15% U/E where the chances of finding a job is truly bleak.  Yet, keeping them as a subject on the Government dole isn't always the most compassionate solution either.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336078/Post-recession-unemployment-scariest-job-chart-worst-WW2.html

I understand the moral hazard argument for UI, but that has to exist in a place where UI benefits are cushier than the benefits of employment.  And that's simply not the case.  Maximum UI benefits in OK total something like $22,360 a year, which is above the poverty level for a family of four by $340.00 (benefits are also taxable, btw, and that's a maximum allowance, not a rate that everyone gets).  Anything more than an entry level burger-flipping job will be competitive or better.   

If the country is in a situation where unemployment eases within a year or less, UI is a great thing for the middle class; it gives people the support to bridge times of employment without forcing them into such economic distress that they lose their insurance, their savings, their house, their vehicle -- all the markers of the middle class.  If unemployment continues on without that support -- either the lack of jobs is extended (like now) or UI benefits are dropped -- you'll see people drop out of the middle class and into poverty. A place from which it's far more difficult to rise out of and back into the prior social strata. 

So:  all of this is to say, it's in our society's best interest to pay this out as long as possible to keep our middle class folks bridged into the next employment surge.  Of course, time is still a killer, and the people who've been out of work for a year or so have lost valuable experience, education, and job skills.  Anecdotal:  in our sales office, we're down one of our junior members.  It's still an important slot, and we're starting to see the lack of that position show up in our revenue.  We've been without it for a couple of months now, and while it's been posted and we've received a lot of resumes, my direct boss has limited his search to 1) people who had prior hotel sales experience or 2) people who are currently employed in hotel sales and can be stolen away.  So he's not looking at hiring, say, a laid off sales coordinator from HSBC who might have "sales" experience but not in hotels.  Even though this is a junior position we're hiring for, he's much more interested in hiring a person who is currently hired and can be stolen, probably for more money than someone who might be unemployed and have similar skills but not exact matches and be hired for relatively cheap. 

This has been an emblematic example for me as to what the structurally unemployed are facing out there. Not just a job market with not enough open slots, but a job market where, even if the slots were open, you're not a valued enough worker to fill them.

[we vs us]

I know the HR person in one local company that has 80 positions open but is not advertising because last time she did they got thousands of applicants, many of which were interested in interviews only to preserve their unemployment benefits. 

Wow.  That's astounding cynicism, verging on misanthropy.  You're telling me that even applicants for open positions are really just looking to stay on the cheapo federal dole? 

You really must hate your fellow Americans.  Or should I say, "all those disgusting Welfare Queens."     

[Gaspar]

Wow.  That's astounding cynicism, verging on misanthropy.  You're telling me that even applicants for open positions are really just looking to stay on the cheapo federal dole? 

You really must hate your fellow Americans.  Or should I say, "all those disgusting Welfare Queens."     

No, I'm just sharing what she told me. 

[nathanm]

You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not.  It was a tax cut when it was enacted.  

It depends on how you look at it. From where I sit, it's another tax cut. Why? Because the law that was passed under Bush was a temporary tax cut and now we're extending it. The only reason I care in the least about what tax rate anybody pays is that increased income inequality is making our financial system much less stable, and the stability of our financial system is precisely the thing that makes us the economic powerhouse we are.

Personally, I think all the austerity talk is BS. I was wrong when I called Cheney an idiot for saying deficits don't matter, because I couldn't at the time think of a situation in which that was the case. (unimaginative, I guess)

As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden. This is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.

Right now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it. Unless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)