(and why we must do something immediately)

This isn’t funny, folks.  It isn’t  something that can be held at political ransom so those with a point to prove can make their point.  It costs money to run a country.  You have to bring in enough money to pay for running the country.  This is simple math. 

The ‘job producers’ (very wealthy)aren’t producing the jobs so let’s let them pay their fair share.  Revenues must be raised and spending must be sliced.   Until we can get the house in order, the debt ceiling needs to be raised.

The Senate now plans a vote at 1 pm on Sunday. 

28 Thoughts to “Debt Ceiling: a simple explanation”

  1. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    You’re missing WHY the job producers aren’t producing the jobs.

  2. @slow, that’s why there are blog spaces. Feel free to give your opinion why the ‘job producers’ aren’t producing jobs for a decade.

  3. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Oh, and it costs more money to run a country poorly than it does to run a country well. The problem now is that the “country” is doing things it was NEVER meant to do. That costs too much money and there is no value added for all that money wasted. There’s one reason behind the “tea party”, whatever that is anymore.

  4. BSinVA

    @ Slow: American capitalism is focused on profits. When a “producer” has a choice between automating a function or creating a job with a decent wage, that capitalist will evaluate the effect of the decision on the profit of the enterprise. If automation increases profit over the decision to hire a new employee, then automation will and should win (if you agree with unfettered and unregulated capitalism). If a producer were able to lower wages and or benefits of employees, the same decision elements apply…if lowering wages increases profit, then the wages will be lowered.

    With that in mind, you didn’t answer Moon’s question to you…why aren’t producers creating jobs?

  5. Many of the very wealthy are not those who go out and start companies. Many are those who make excessively huge salaries from companies already in existence.

    The fix is easy ….create a tax credit for those who create jobs. This job creator excuse I have been hearing is just pure bull snort. I still don’t see why anyone is protecting the very wealthy other than a big dose of Kool aid…or maybe that should be KooK aid.

  6. Kelly3406

    Producers are not creating jobs due to uncertainty in the economy, which is sputtering. There has to be increasing demand for its goods and services in order for a company to take the risk to expand and hire. With consumer confidence at a low point and costs expected to rise due to Obamacare and higher expected taxes, there is no incentive for producers to take any risk. It is better for them to sit back, keep some cash on hand, and be ready to respond to any further negative developments in the economy.

    1. Perhaps we should examine why companies hire. They aren’t just doing charity work when they hire. They hire to have someone help increase their productivity. It makes no sense that any company just put productivity on hold, so it must be another reason.

      People aren’t spending money because of foreclosures, unemployment, and all the normal reasons that arise during an recession. The Great Depression lasted over a decade. The Great Recession will take time to right itself also. Money needs to be spent to jump start the economy.

      The earthquake in Japan put somewhat of a damper on things because so many parts and manufacturing components were affected. The camera I wanted shot up $400 bucks and they were scarce as hens’ teeth for a while. Even apple was effected to some degree. New Balance is the only major athletic shoe still manufactured in the United States. What’s wrong with us?

      I have been giving it my best shot lately….spending that is.

  7. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    BSinVA :
    @ Slow: American capitalism is focused on profits. When a “producer” has a choice between automating a function or creating a job with a decent wage, that capitalist will evaluate the effect of the decision on the profit of the enterprise. If automation increases profit over the decision to hire a new employee, then automation will and should win (if you agree with unfettered and unregulated capitalism). If a producer were able to lower wages and or benefits of employees, the same decision elements apply…if lowering wages increases profit, then the wages will be lowered.
    With that in mind, you didn’t answer Moon’s question to you…why aren’t producers creating jobs?

    Where to start. First paragraph has nothing to do with closing question…you know that, right? I don’t know that automation is the problem, but rather cheaper labor elsewhere (it’s a race to the bottom). America still innovates well, but we are quickly missing the train on mastering the next generation of jobs. Siemens said it best when it said America is not producing the talent capable of filling the next generation of job openings. That leaves us fighting with third world nations (and China) for low-wage jobs. I even think green jobs are a form of next-gen jobs (if done correctly)…Germany is proving that point as we speak.

    Anyway, none of this goes to why companies aren’t hiring. Yes, it’s uncertainty, but the notion that it’s uncertainty over the debt ceiling is, of course, preposterous. Even the barely sentient beings can see that the policies of the Obama administration (Health Care Reform, Outrageous Spending on completely silly projects, the NLRB going after Boeing, the Car Company bailouts) equal uncertainty. Mark my words, business won’t start growing again in any serious way until Obama is out of office, and then maybe not even then considering the damage he’s done to our economy.

  8. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Moon-howler :
    The fix is easy ….create a tax credit for those who create jobs. This job creator excuse I have been hearing is just pure bull snort. I still don’t see why anyone is protecting the very wealthy other than a big dose of Kool aid…or maybe that should be KooK aid.

    Here….this is why the economy is on life support and unemployment is just going to get worse.

  9. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    The earthquake in Japan…good lord. Might as well just blame the Bush administration. You’d be just as close to truthful.

  10. Kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    Perhaps we should examine why companies hire. They aren’t just doing charity work when they hire. They hire to have someone help increase their productivity. It makes no sense that any company just put productivity on hold, so it must be another reason.

    Companies hire not to increase productivity, but to increase profits. If a company is not convinced that hiring another employee will lead to greater sales and enhanced profits, then it usually will not hire anyone. When there are no prospects for new contracts/additional orders, then a company cannot risk taking on new employees. It will make do with its current employees (or perhaps even downsize to cut costs) until the business environment improves.

    1. @Kelly, with increased productivity, come profits. Don’t nitpick. In order to stay competitive a company must be productive.

      Point….companies don’t stay stagnant as a general rule.

  11. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    And by the way….who’s protecting the rich? Guess who pays all the taxes already! Hint: it isn’t about 47% of the people in this country. They can vote, but have no skin in the game.

    1. @Slowpoke, you need to differeniate what taxes you mean. I assume you mean federal income tax. I believe that figure is now back down to 40%. I have no problem restructuring to tax code to be more inclusive. I just don’t want to be paying at a higher rate than the wealthy.

      I ask the same question–why is anyone middle class protecting the rich. More Kook aid.

  12. Elena

    Since when did the wealthy become the job producers. Aren’t small businesses the engine of America?

  13. Raymond Beverage

    The earthquake in Japan put somewhat of a damper on things because so many parts and manufacturing components were affected. The camera I wanted shot up $400 bucks and they were scarce as hens’ teeth for a while. Even apple was effected to some degree. New Balance is the only major athletic shoe still manufactured in the United States. What’s wrong with us?

    Actually, Moon, the earthquake did benefit in a short-term many small companies. They got orders to produce parts for the various Japanese car models. My sis-in-law up in Bradford PA got increased shifts as her company shifted back to a higher production run 7 days a week. Also, it has given some larger companies pause to think about bringing back their exported work.

    1. @Raymond, I suppose it all depends on who you work for whether there was a windfall profit attached to the earthquake.

  14. Kelly3406

    @Elena

    Personal and business income is sometimes intertwined for small, unincorporated entrepreneurs. A business owner with a couple of contracts and maybe three or four employees can easily meet income requirements for the “wealthy” tax brackets, even if he can barely make ends meet. So the point is that small businesses can often be classified as “wealthy,” regardless of whether he is really wealthy or not.

  15. Cargosquid

    Here’s a reason:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/steve-wynn-rant-on-obama.html

    From former Obama supporter and current Senator Reid donor, Steve Wynn of Wynn resorts:

    One key Wynn passage:

    I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.

    Wynn said he could very quickly create 10,000 new jobs himself and with the multiplier effect help create another 20,000 hires in Las Vegas. But like many other business people in both parties he’s holding back under the current Democratic Obama administration.

    I’m afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what’s going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing’s going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress…

    I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime…

    Those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, “Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.” Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.

    The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or holding too much money. We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody’s afraid of the government, and there’s no need to soft peddling it, it’s the truth.

    Furthermore, you keep talking about taxing those “millionaires” to pay for things….how does the gov’t separate the millionaire employees from the small businesses? Income tax rates are based upon income levels, not type of job. I know that you want to sock it to the rich because you think its unfair that they pay only 35% on their top dollar and that the top 5% earners only pay 95% of the taxes…..so how much should they pay? 36% 46% 90% of that earnings?

    Of course, we could confiscate the total wealth of all these rich people and still not pay down the deficit, much less the debt…but that doesn’t matter. Its only fair.

    1. Steve Wynn’s wife is really the democrat. Who gives a crap what Steve Wynn thinks. He is probably sleeping on the couch after mouth flashing.

      Its hard to tell what is Cargo and what is Steve ‘not a Democrat’ Wynn. Furthermore, it is very easy to determine individual income vs corporate income vs any other kind of income. Write the tax code to differentiate. I do that all the time on different types of income on my own piddling middle class tax form. It isn’t rocket science.

      I don’t want to sock it to the rich necessarily. I want the wealthy to pay their fair share. I don’t want them juggling their various incomes and write off so that they are in less of a tax bracket than I am. Once again, you have put words in my mouth. Stop doing that.

      I have been clear about what I think is fair. Raising the bracket 1% would help. I have no problem with other tightening of loopholes. Since you are so hell bent on misquoting me, Cargo, is this where I disclose that I have a very close relative who probably wouldn’t think much of his earnings being taxed at 90%. So lets not act like I am pulling straw out of my hair and have never talked to a ‘rich’ person.

  16. BSinVA

    Ben Stein opined that the Republicans (lower taxes to spur the economy) are 100% correct and the Democrats (increase government spending to spur the economy) are 100% correct. There are no real data that says either one is wrong and that both have the same chance of working but that they can’t be both right at the same time. Business cannot expand until the country elects one path or the other. The indecision caused by political gamesmanship is hindering the recovery. Everyone knows that our tax system is a Gordian knot that needs to be untied or split open. A fair and simple system of taxing is in everyones’ best interest and neither party should object. I still personally favor a National sales tax. If rich folks do not want to pay taxes then they can buy small cars like the rest of us and invest the rest of their cash . If the revenues do not meet the country’s expenditures then raise the sales tax.

  17. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Well, it seems a deal (that doesn’t fix anything) has been struck. I’m glad for that, but now comes the downgrade on top of an economy that’s barely breathing. And on top of it, my damn downstairs A/C unit froze up. Poopie.

  18. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Moderation. I used the bad word A/C.

  19. Kelly3406

    @MH. I am not nitpicking at all. If a company increases productivity so that its output is greater than expected orders/demand, then it may still have to reduce capacity and perhaps lay off workers.

    Increased productivity means that a company can produce a “widget” at a lower cost, but if no one is willing to buy the product (even at a lower cost), then it does not translate into profit. Increased productivity is not synonymous with profit in a bad economy.

    1. We are arguing semantics, Kelly. I will let you have it since ‘profits’ is important. You understood what I meant though. My husband was a salesman most of his career that started off in the oil business and ended with office automation sales. He did a stint lobbying for one of the solar energy complexes which was selling a concept. I suppose I was thinking of his career when I said productivity because it was a more inclusive word.

  20. Dan Cooper

    BSinVA :@ Slow: American capitalism is focused on profits. When a “producer” has a choice between automating a function or creating a job with a decent wage, that capitalist will evaluate the effect of the decision on the profit of the enterprise. If automation increases profit over the decision to hire a new employee, then automation will and should win (if you agree with unfettered and unregulated capitalism). If a producer were able to lower wages and or benefits of employees, the same decision elements apply…if lowering wages increases profit, then the wages will be lowered.
    With that in mind, you didn’t answer Moon’s question to you…why aren’t producers creating jobs?

    Wow! I just had a MAJOR Déjà vu!

    Does BS sound anything like this, is it just me or doesn is this not the same argument (seconds 30 something and on…). Those F’ing ATM’s!, Dey took ur jooorbs (from south park, look it up. you will laugh): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-75KJkJiVRo&feature=related

  21. Starryflights

    Posted at 11:52 PM ET, 07/31/2011
    A deal that found the lowest-common denominator
    By Ezra Klein

    Behind the deal is a creative way out of the impasse that’s held up the negotiations: how do you get “balanced approach” if Republicans refused to consider revenues? The solution that both sides seem to have settled on is to substitute defense cuts where taxes would otherwise have gone.

    In the initial $900 billion in cuts, almost half will come from “security spending” (which includes defense, homeland security, veteran’s benefits, the State Department, etc). Defense is the big money there, and, according to the White House’s fact sheet, it will take a full $350 billion in cuts on its own. But the real hit comes in stage two: if the second round of deficit reduction isn’t signed into law, the “trigger” that will make automatic spending cuts absolutely savages defense spending.

    Let’s stop there and talk about the trigger, as it’s arguably the most important part of the deal. In his remarks on Friday, President Obama said he would support a trigger if it was done in “a smart and balanced way.” The implication was that it had to include tax increases as well as spending cuts, as a trigger with just spending cuts wouldn’t force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in this deal does not include tax increases.

    What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn’t pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn’t say “security spending.” The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-deal-that-found-the-lowest-common-denominator/2011/07/11/gIQAde9TmI_blog.html

    Looks like the Pentagon will be looking at some very steep cuts over the next decade. That is good.

  22. Cargosquid

    Here’s an idea game. How would you cut the military budget.

    We have 287 ships afloat, including 12 carrier groups.
    We have very expensive aircraft.
    We have troops fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere.
    We have troops based in Europe, Japan, and Korea.
    We police the seas and the rest of world – PAX Americana.
    We have treaty obligations, including mutual defense treaties across the globe.
    China is pushing in the Pacific. Pakistan is spreading nukes. Piracy is growing, Iran is threatening nuclear war and spreading terrorism. Militant Islam is causing trouble across the globe. China and Russia are modernizing their forces.

    So…how do we make these military budget cuts? What do we cut?

Comments are closed.