danivon wrote:At least the US jobs figures were better than expected. Government jobs down (was the stimulus winding down already) and private jobs up. These are before the budget/limit deal, though.

From the AP:

The unemployment rate fell from 9.2 percent in June partly because some unemployed workers stopped looking for work. That means they are no longer counted as unemployed.

As a result, the number of unemployed people fell to 13.9 million, down from 14.1 million. Still, that's nearly double the total before the recession.

The participation rate, which measures the percentage of people working or searching for jobs, fell to 63.9 percent, the lowest in 27 years.

117K jobs won't get it done.

And, there is a serious chance, as you indicated, of a Double-Dip recession.

Here's something that could be done--structure some kind of tax holiday to bring home the $1T-2T that is stashed overseas. It would have to include incentives to hire. Furthermore, I think if Obamacare were repealed, Dodd-Frank was heavily modified, and the EPA and NLRB had their leashes tightened, we would see a real recovery.

Then again, that would be like Obama admitting everything he has done is wrong--and everything he believes is bad for the economy.

Thanks Doc Fate, I am trying to figure that darn thing out, wanted the quotes to look specific but I can't figure the thing out.
I will get it to work for the next quote and I am sure Rick will be firing back soon. Thanks again.

DEFIANT wrote:Thanks Doc Fate, I am trying to figure that darn thing out, wanted the quotes to look specific but I can't figure the thing out.
I will get it to work for the next quote and I am sure Rick will be firing back soon. Thanks again.

Another hint: to experiment, use the "preview" button instead of the "submit" button. That way you can see what your post will look like before you post it. Also, if you just start typing in a window, you won't see all the cool buttons. You have to type something, then hit "preview."

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, Defiant, I've given up trying to get Ricky to use the quote button, but it's quite nice. It brings up all of the post you're trying to quote. If you look at the format, it shows you how to get someone's name attached to the quote--bracket, "quote", equal sign, the persons name in quotations, close bracket. To end the quote, it's just bracket, forward slash, "quote", close bracket.

got it, you would think years of SQL programming I could figure this out.

DEFIANT wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, Defiant, I've given up trying to get Ricky to use the quote button, but it's quite nice. It brings up all of the post you're trying to quote. If you look at the format, it shows you how to get someone's name attached to the quote--bracket, "quote", equal sign, the persons name in quotations, close bracket. To end the quote, it's just bracket, forward slash, "quote", close bracket.

got it, you would think years of SQL programming I could figure this out.

Well, in all the years he's been here, Ricky's never put it together . . . so, well done!

defiant

Ricky, forgot one, Germany.

Did I? Or you don't read well?

This is the important point D. You seem to think its impossible to offer social service within the confines of gfood economic management. And the fact is, no. You can. BEsides Canada and Sweden, you could add Germany Denmark and Norway to the list. SIngapore as well.

You guys can bluster all you want about the differences between sociaist nations that have managed to manage their finances, and the US. The point remains that each provides benefits to its citizens far beyond the skimpy US social benefits. And they do this whilst managing their economies, and their fiscal order better. Germany, case in point, is very diffrent than the US. It has maintained its manufacturing sector with the assistance of government intervention and through a collaborative effort between labour and management. There is little labour unrest and productivity is high. CEO and executive compensation pay is a quarter of the US... They absorbed the sick East German economy through the nineties whilst doing this.
If you want to learn lessons from the Germans D, you might start with its approach to executive pay, the collaborative nature of its management structure, and its politcal system which leads to compromise and action on that compromise.
More importantly you might also consider that its health care is 9% of total GDP and yet every german has access to health care without debilitating cost. Thats 8 GDP percentage points less than the US health care system makes up in the US economy and yet 100% coverage and greater efficacy.
And, they do this whilst largely balancing the books and supporting the spend thrifts in other EU countries...And did you consider their rates of taxation?
I think its appropriate that you and Steve look to the US military expenditure as an excuse for US economic woes. As if the military industrial complex hasn't wowed Washington politicians for years about the economic beenfits of their industrial sector.
An interesting thought. If you considered the US military a seperate country it would represent the largest socialist nation in the world. (Zakkaria) Cradle to grave medical benefits. Early and lavish retirement benefits. Free housing. And its a source of tremendous inefficiency. Billions in cash lost in Iraq. (Actual stacks of cash, gone) Cost plus contracts that encourage waste and lack of competition in supplier bidding... You want to start with waste? And you note that Sweden doesn't spend a lot on its military? Maybe you've hit on something? Sweden spends 1.2% of its gdp on defence. The US 4.7%. The US spends 17% on health care and sweden 9%.
Is the socialist nation managing its financial resources better as a nation?

rickyp wrote:You guys can bluster all you want about the differences between sociaist nations that have managed to manage their finances, and the US. The point remains that each provides benefits to its citizens far beyond the skimpy US social benefits. And they do this whilst managing their economies, and their fiscal order better.

Why do you insist on equating pineapples and battleships? Some of those countries have no military at all. Some of them are sinking worse than we are--Italy, Spain, Greece, off the top of my head. So, please, just stop with all of the "socialism works" nonsense.

Germany, case in point, is very diffrent than the US. It has maintained its manufacturing sector with the assistance of government intervention and through a collaborative effort between labour and management. There is little labour unrest and productivity is high. CEO and executive compensation pay is a quarter of the US... They absorbed the sick East German economy through the nineties whilst doing this.

And, have had 65+ years of the benefit of Uncle Sam watching their back.

The US is unlike any other country. Get over it. No one else is doing or is expected to do what we do.

If you want to learn lessons from the Germans D, you might start with its approach to executive pay, the collaborative nature of its management structure, and its politcal system which leads to compromise and action on that compromise.

A key lesson: handing national defense over to another country. Is Canada ready to step up and protect the US so we can slash our defense budget?

More importantly you might also consider that its health care is 9% of total GDP and yet every german has access to health care without debilitating cost. Thats 8 GDP percentage points less than the US health care system makes up in the US economy and yet 100% coverage and greater efficacy.

Repetition alert! That is, officially, your 5000th post on the glories of socialized medicine. You still haven't convinced Obama or the American people.

I think its appropriate that you and Steve look to the US military expenditure as an excuse for US economic woes.

It's not an "excuse," but it does differentiate us from many countries you want to compare us with.

Cradle to grave medical benefits. Early and lavish retirement benefits.

Lavish?



You're funny! 50% at 20 years and all you have to do is dodge bullets, mortar fire, and maybe tanks and airplanes for a living? Sweet!

There are all manner of reasons why one might not see 20 years anyway, but look at the numbers and tell me how "lavish" it is. It's not like they retire at 40 and move to Beverly Hills.

Sweden spends 1.2% of its gdp on defence. The US 4.7%

I'd have to say Sweden isn't getting much for her money. In any event, I'm all for removing our troops from a lot of places. However, you are a fool if you think we can simply slash defense and there will be no difference in the world. The world is never without some nation wanting "more." Never in its history has it known a more benign (not perfect, but not bent on ruling the world) great power than the US.

Anyway, feel free to prattle on about the benefits of socialism. You are so convincing.

rickyp wrote: Did I? Or you don't read well?

Don't get snide or I can return the favor in spades, it meant I missed one, I wanted to respond to your Germany in the socialist gameset.

rickyp wrote:You guys can bluster all you want about the differences between sociaist nations that have managed to manage their finances, and the US. The point remains that each provides benefits to its citizens far beyond the skimpy US social benefits. And they do this whilst managing their economies, and their fiscal order better.

Skimpy US social benefits, really? This nation as you put it spends at least 17%(I think it is more) on entitlements(and in dollars that's huge) while 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes and some actual get money back. We have the best medical care in the world, barred none. I never see American's going to other countries for Medical procedures, but I sure do see them here.

rickyp wrote: Germany, case in point, is very diffrent than the US. It has maintained its manufacturing sector with the assistance of government intervention and through a collaborative effort between labour and management. There is little labour unrest and productivity is high. CEO and executive compensation pay is a quarter of the US... They absorbed the sick East German economy through the nineties whilst doing this.

Here is where you have a point. The US needs to step in a fair up the imports a little. There is no way we can compete with 2 dollars a day for pay in China, increased import tax has to happen. If it leads to a trade war so bit, we are 1/3 of China's income, they would be severly hurt as well. CEO pay is irrelevent, if you think someone is making too much, then start a business and compete against them. The gov't only needs to make it fair so you have to chance to compete and that means reducing regulations so you can get in the game and anit-trust laws are on the books to help.
Germany is a financial stronghold, they are pulling the rest of the unproductive super socialist countries like Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, either directly or indirectly. I am wondering just how much longer they are going to support the lazy countries before saying, enough!

rickyp wrote:If you want to learn lessons from the Germans D, you might start with its approach to executive pay, the collaborative nature of its management structure, and its politcal system which leads to compromise and action on that compromise.

Yea, Yea, our version of unions, they had their time here, no doubt but they have become what they fought against, greed corporations. If the Fed enforces fair competition the salaries would be dictated by that and wouldn't be so great if the competition is fair, who is the big compeititor to GE? More companies more fairer the share and the consumer wins. Special interest groups in the USA need to be outlawed in my opinion, no good comes from them.

rickyp wrote:More importantly you might also consider that its health care is 9% of total GDP and yet every german has access to health care without debilitating cost. Thats 8 GDP percentage points less than the US health care system makes up in the US economy and yet 100% coverage and greater efficacy.

This is a very narrow view of health care, go to the ER, your are never turned down. My brother in law is a doctor and what he says the biggest problem with his business is Medicare, because they dictate to him what they will pay and it is usually much less than the cost. So what happens those of us on insurance pay more because he has to raise the rates. Get the gov't out of it, they are the cause of the problems. Do you know how much illegal aliens cost our health care system that Germany doesn't have, at least no where the same rate we do. The vast majority of new drugs come from US pharmaceutical companies. Those have huge initial costs.

rickyp wrote:I think its appropriate that you and Steve look to the US military expenditure as an excuse for US economic woes. As if the military industrial complex hasn't wowed Washington politicians for years about the economic beenfits of their industrial sector.

Military has been cut in half since 1990 and I know most of you liberals want to weaken the military to the point of us being defenseless, that's terrible considering when one of your lazy socialist countries gets into trouble we are the first one they look to for defense, extremely hypocritical.

rickyp wrote:An interesting thought. If you considered the US military a seperate country it would represent the largest socialist nation in the world. (Zakkaria) Cradle to grave medical benefits. Early and lavish retirement benefits. Free housing. And its a source of tremendous inefficiency. Billions in cash lost in Iraq. (Actual stacks of cash, gone) Cost plus contracts that encourage waste and lack of competition in supplier bidding... You want to start with waste? And you note that Sweden doesn't spend a lot on its military? Maybe you've hit on something? Sweden spends 1.2% of its gdp on defence. The US 4.7%. The US spends 17% on health care and sweden 9%.
Is the socialist nation managing its financial resources better as a nation?

This is an extremely ridiculous point. you damn straight we give housing to their famalies. They put their lives on the line for us and even your so beloved soicalist countries. any nation interested in taking over Sweden sure aren't going to be worried about their military strength, it just a joke, but they do worry about ours. If you think otherwise you are pretty damn >>>>>>>>.
And to ever bring up the point of the military being inefficient, but you don't mention our big three entitlement programs and the super waste generated in that pile of crap just tells me you are lost to reality and you have absolutely no clue.

I didn't say the figures were great, just better than expected, with 117,000 new jobs instead of the anticipates 85,000.

Not that it seems to have provided much respite from the globall market turmoil.

steve

Some of those countries have no military at all

.
really? Which ones?
And Steve, I'm not prattling on about the benefits of socailism
As obtuse as you usually are, you've missed the point.
You claim that entitlements (Medicare and SS) are crippling. And that the debt can only be controlled if those entitlements Must be cut in order to balance the books.
Yet, here these countries are that enjoy lavish entitlements compared to the US and yet they achieve fiscal balance.
The point i started out making was that social entitlements have next to nothing to do with fiscal balance. Countries that have chosen more socialist paths have managed to do so without crashing. Some, like Greece and Spain and Italy haven't done as well with their management... So I'm not arguing that socailism is any magic bullet for fiscal management either...
What i'm saying is that fiscal management is a seperate issue entirely from the decisions a government or country make about what level of service they want to provide . Its a seperate matter from deciding what to spend on defence too.
Fiscal management is about having the wisdom to understand that there is a bill to be paid for the services required. That whatever choices are made the govenment and the people have to understand that there must be a commensurate level of taxation that covers the expense. One comes with the other.
Its been 30 years since the US has consistently managed to do that, and over that time there has been a disconnect between deficits, taxation and responsibility. You want to blame Democrats and their spending. Fine.Although it hasn't been Democrats in charge in the White House when those deficits are created. And you want to blame the defence budget .
Well, Steve, those are decision made since 1980 which are quite clear. Reagan submitted budgets to Congress that were actually bigger deficits then Congress offered... So deficits and the thinking behind them, aren't a left or right thing in your country. Or anywhere else. Its the mind set that says "we don't have to pay for this...the kids will".
Thats a radacal departure from what conservatives of the 50's 60s and 70s thought and acted like in the US. Its a radical departure from Democrats in the 50s 60s and 70s too. They all acted like they understood that services and entitlements had to be paid for ...
And there really isn't any excuse for this Steve. In the US or Greece or Spain or Ireland or anywhere... But you can point to the actual period that lead to this mindset in the US....it was the election of sunny Ron and his administration.

By the way, 20 years in the military with a pension? What other industries offer that kind of deal? Certainly not miners or loggers who work in very dangerous jobs, and mostly don't get pensions... I get it that soldiers should be rewarded... But it is exactly what it is, a socialist organization where those who enter do indeed get cradle to grave care. Paid for by taxpayers. Well actually not paid for really is it? Are you willing to raise the taxes actually required to support your military in the manner to which they've become accustomed>?

doctor fate wrote:You're funny! 50% at 20 years and all you have to do is dodge bullets, mortar fire, and maybe tanks and airplanes for a living? Sweet!
There are all manner of reasons why one might not see 20 years anyway, but look at the numbers and tell me how "lavish" it is. It's not like they retire at 40 and move to Beverly Hills.

I don't get it, it is ok to pay someone on welfare for doing nothing in society what so ever, but lets pick on the guys who put their lives on the line for ours and theirs safety. How messed up is that.

Being one of those guys who get this benefit for 20 years of military service, I must speak up.

Think about what the service member has to go through:
Deployments for a year or longer
Stress of combat
Stress of not knowing if/when you will be called to leave
Back pain for the rest of my life
Seeing buddies die
Loneliness
Divorce rates
A two year old child mad at you when you return home because you were gone "on purpose"
Pay scales that are needless to say, a might bit low.

We serve because we choose to. The government pays us to do a job, and we do it out of love of country. Compare that to a welfare recipient. What do they do? I have suggested having the welfare recipient work for the money. Danivon, RickyP and Freeman all lambasted me saying it would take time from their "search" for a paying job, or it would take them away from their kids.

Ridiculous!?! No, just sad.

Would I be willing to increase taxes to pay the military retirees? No. I would take the money from those who choose not to work.

rickyp wrote:steve

Some of those countries have no military at all

.
really? Which ones?

Based on raw numbers, Sweden. Did you read how many they have--after 90 days?

And Steve, I'm not prattling on about the benefits of socailism
As obtuse as you usually are, you've missed the point.
You claim that entitlements (Medicare and SS) are crippling.

I'm not "claiming" anything. The fact is we do have unfunded liabilities. Have you been in a cave?

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

That story is on the low side of what I've seen.

And that the debt can only be controlled if those entitlements Must be cut in order to balance the books.

It's a bit ridiculous that Bill Gates will have all the same benefits as someone who worked at Wal-Mart for 35 years, isn't it? I also think we need to take changes in longevity into account. With some slight changes, changes that most of us would not notice, we can save these programs and help solve our debt problem at the same time.

Yet, here these countries are that enjoy lavish entitlements compared to the US and yet they achieve fiscal balance.

Some do, some don't. However, whatever other countries do, however they live, their model is not going to help us--as we are nearly at 100% Debt/GDP. At some point, we need to stop or we will be Greece, Italy, et al.

Fiscal management is about having the wisdom to understand that there is a bill to be paid for the services required. That whatever choices are made the govenment and the people have to understand that there must be a commensurate level of taxation that covers the expense. One comes with the other.

Well then, the wise old head running the USA, former CEO of . . . hey what was his company? Anyway, the smartest man ever born, President Barack Obama, instantly pushed for an increase in taxes to help rectify the situation, didn't he? I mean, he had a bullet-proof 60 Senate votes and the House for a year, right? Even after that, he had Snowe and other RINO's, so surely he raised taxes, right?

Its been 30 years since the US has consistently managed to do that, and over that time there has been a disconnect between deficits, taxation and responsibility. You want to blame Democrats and their spending.

Nope, I blame them for creating entitlements that we have no ability to pay for. I also blame them for failing to be able to see anything, other than defense, that can be cut from government.

Btw, yes, I know: Bush and Medicare Part D. Compared to Social Security and Medicare, that is peanuts. I'm not saying it was right. I am saying it's minor compared to the other two.

But it is exactly what it is, a socialist organization where those who enter do indeed get cradle to grave care.

It's not "cradle to grave" anyway: no newborn is in the military.

Beyond that, comparing our servicemen to ne'er-do-wells who sit around smoking hash in Holland is just dumb.

bbauska wrote:Danivon, RickyP and Freeman all lambasted me saying it would take time from their "search" for a paying job, or it would take them away from their kids.

Pshaw! For 'lambasted' read 'disagreed with', and that is not the reason I gave.

rickyp wrote:By the way, 20 years in the military with a pension? What other industries offer that kind of deal?

Teachers, Politicians, Fire just about all public union workers, did you really have to look that hard?